What Now My Love: Stereo LP versions

[venturaguy49]

I'll address two issues from two separate features, which will be somewhat like either crosstalk, or perhaps Cert' Mints: two, two, two topics in one
On the issue of those various wnml version, there's also the possibility that Herb just couldn't completely settle of which to use, as records are things that most artists would redo before they hit the market, and in the case of a band like the Beatles, things would be altered appreciably, and noticeable whenever one aquired an 'import', so that one version of "And I Love Her" will feature a dual-voiced Paul, and in others a triple track...and then there's the legandary "Sgt. Peppers" with not only minor to moderate differences, but tracks such as "She's Leaving Home" would be a different key for the mono issue, compared to stereo, and so and so forth. The Fab Four lead
the way in modifying album tracks, so it's not all that irrational that an
artist such as Herb Alpert would indulge his desire to present a differing version here and there...after all, the guy began introducing such changes
with the two 'obligatos' of "Crawfish" on his debut disk, so anyone that's comfy with notably altering their music on their first album, by the time that they're on their sixth, most likely would delight in totally buggering it...ala Beatles, with two distinctly separate albums...and then somewhere, there is a far differnt version of "Great Manolete" (single version) and an version of "Mexican Corn" with an overdubbed piano in bass clef playin over the bass viol, so this seems to be something that Alpert enjoyed doing.

Now onto my 'other' topic, which I'll postpone for the moment, so that
I may post this 'fore this dumb thing crashed, cuz we don't have 'save draft' available here.

Warm Wishes,
sleepy_from_seattle

So I'll use this self-reply to delve into my next heart-stopping fun-filled topic: the long-awaited c.d. re-issues (can I come up with another hyphenated duo of words, as I've racked-up a virtual string of 'em so far...wooweee duz that hookah have an effect, but meanwhile, back at re-issuez.
I suppose that, for as much as most of us will eagerly await treasured faves on c.d., it show-stopper will be those rarities. and a chance to enjoy some quality performances that failed
to make their way to the final stage of pressing, but none-the-less (three hyphens, there
should prove an opportunity to dig some 'also-ranz'...in the rarities division, what I'd love to hear again, is a single that was issued as 'Herbie Alpert' and not the more familiar 'Dore' A.
The first and last time that I'd heard it, what struck me was that it didn't sound even remotely like Herb. After all, his vocal on "Mame" had already been issued, so I knew what his singing voice was
like, and this Herbie A. for all practical matter, only shared the name, but sonically, one would never guess it to be the T.J.B.'s leader doing a pop vocal...actually, it wasn't that impressive, or maybe I would've bought the thing, which now I wish that I had...good ole 20/20 hindsight again.
Also, during that evening at the same store, I auditioned an appreciably varied "Great Manolete"
ala the single, which I'm assuming •will• be incl. on this proposed c.d...but that early vocal is one that I'd love to hear again, and prob'ly be as unimpressed with it a second time as back then.
Funny it is, though, for a guy that couldn't achieve any success with vocals at the beginning, that
fate would have it that his only #1 hit during the '60s was with a vocal, and some decade later, his only #1 instrumental was "Rise", and part of that popularity was the bizarre fact that the 12" single was (in Europe) played at 331/3, rather than 45 r.p.m., which musta sounded awfully weird, and awfully AWFULL, but it was a hit, nonetheless (kept hyphens outta that one:-O <----surprised!
So, anywhey, with that I'll make like a banana and split, and drop by and ? out the other various topics. Maybe there'll be a recording of the Brass's '64 Crescendo date, maybe done ala the notorious Beatles Star Club with the sound virtually washed-out, but at least a sampling of what it consisted of, and maybe an early version of material that made subsequent albums, along with some live renditions of selections that otherwise may not have been used in concert.

Warm Wishes,
sleepy_from_seattle who's also bombed_on_my_caboose_in_ventura
from that hookah...hey, this is a quick one 'for I'm outta here, but me learned recently
that Ford Motors was considering naming their automotive disaster (Edsel) the Ventura.
As they say, praise the Lord for small, or mebbe not so small faves that Henry F.
DIDN'T curse our fair So. Malifornia coastal city with such association...lol cuz Jesse of
Minn. did that for us...oh, and the reason that Edsel was such a bomb was that factory
workers didin't appreciate being taken from their familiar line making one auto
(let's say Mercury), and switched to a Ford to make Edsel, so their way of showing their
displeasur was by sabataging Edsel...thought that you'd enjoy that exciting bit of F.Y.I.
and now I'll disappear faster than

 

[Ed Bishop]

Okay, dumb question time, gang:

How can you tell the difference between the two pressings? As we know, A&M Alpert is very common, so I could have both versions and not even know it? Any matrix numbers, label typography, etc., that would tell me one from the other?

 

[Harry]

Biggest clue is the audio on "Plucky." It's either got the very prominent bump'n'grind middle or it doesn't.

Harry
NP: radio at work

 

[Rudy]

I'd have to find both of my LPs and post the matrix numbers. It certainly can't be based on the album jacket, I've found, especially since any dealer or individual could have swapped that thing in the 35+ years since it was released.

The mono version has no bump and grind in "Plucky". One way might be to see if that last track looks wider on vinyl. I'll report back when I find the numbers.

 

[bob knack]

I'm wondering...Were the WNML CD's of the 80's all the same? Mine has the stripper & no trombone mixes.

 

[Rudy]

Yes, the CDs were all the same. Seems they standardized on that version for these reissues. I'd be curious to see if any copies were pressed on the white/silver A&M label, and what version those might be.

 

[thetijuanataxi]

I had a silver/white label LP from the 70s and an SP3265 pressing from the 80s and both had the bump/grind PLUCKY and t-boneless BRASILIA. Also the 8 track version I had was the same way. All of the ochre label pressings I've ever had through the years had the no bump/grind PLUCKY and the BRASILIA with the much appreciated trombone fills at the beginning. Hope this helps.

David,
Hoping the new reissue of WNML has the trombone fills......

 

[venturaguy49]

I have it! The answer to the mysterious wnml version is that Space Aliens must have interferred...y'know, like the 4 or 5 magicians up there in the sky
(of Beatles' lore) turned this ordinary record into a Magical Mystery Album

Warm Wishes,
sleepy_from_seattle, who sez "if you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, the baffle 'em with your b.s."...L8ER

 

[TonyCurrie]

All of this prompted me to take WNML off the shelf yesterday and give it a closer listen. Now as you know I have a radio studio and our turntable/cartridge/monitoring arrangement is probably about as good as it gets. What struck me immediately was the poor quality of the audio. Very noticeable hiss, several bits of distortion.... I had a listen to SOTB next and it was even worse.

Now these were of course British PYE pressings, and would have been mastered from tapes that were probably two or even three generations down. And PYE was never renowned for its pressing quality (hold the LP up to the light and if it's dark red you've got yourself a genuine PYE).

Even so, the recordings were pretty ropey. I put on MIDNIGHT SUN for ten minutes, and the bright sparkle of that really shone out in comparison.

When I first got WNML I played it on a Dansette (I think this was just a UK brand but it was the bog standard record player everyone had - cheap and cheerful but quality it wasn't) and I was more than happy with the sound.

It leads me to appreciate the scale of the problem Randy and herb will be having when it comes to remastering. I've been very lucky (so far) in that the dozen or so reissues that I've compiled/produced for various labels have all been sourced from pretty good masters.

Aware that I've rambled ever so slightly off topic, I come back to say that I really don't like the bump and grind version of Plucky. I grew up with the other one and that's the right one as far as my old ears are concerned. So when the reissue comes, please may we have both versions? Thank you Messrs Badazz & Alpert.

(It would and probably will take a separate thread to discuss the quality of foreign TJB pressings. In my experience, Australian ones are damned good.)

 

[venturaguy49]

What can be said for vinyl, is although it's capable of quality, and that playback equip is also equally capable of a far higher level of performance, on the average (this is from an American perspective) the audio gear that that we've had available in the 'States' during my teen years was a disgrace!
I wasn't that a higher caliber of stuff hadn't existed, but the prob. was that it was prohibitively expensive...imagine paying ($400.00 '68 American dollars-and double that number for pounds- for a 40 watt amplituner with just the basics from Harmon Kardon or Pioneer et al, and you've a notion of how ridiculously costly they were.
Like a king's ransom. With the advent of (modest by today's standards)
Morse Electrophonic and such, at least audio didn't suffer the commonplace probs such as poor conductivity of cartridges(major source of distortion)
or 'clipping', which is just awful. Sure, there were outfits such as Magnavox what put out quality, but more often than not, we selected lo-fi from department stores, which wa chic to do in the '60s...and we suffered for it. So I can appreciate our present technoadvantages for haven put up with the worst <bleeping> garbage. Yet, to fully appreciate what vinyl in it's full glory has to offer, then one virtually must aquire audiophile disks.
or have access to imports that are made properly.

One thing about the '60s is that records were made better then, even though the playback equipment stunk to high heaven, disks were pressed with enough material and with NEW vinyl. Now, as recyling enthusiast, ordinarilly I would just LOVE a recycled disk, but prob is that the label (paper and glue) becomes included into the recycled disk, resulting in anomalies that wouldn't be otherwise. Back then we had a superb disk manufacturer known as Longines(yes, a watchmaker, too) Symphonette Society, which was renown
for the best vinyl, but just as with audiophile disks of any time, selection was painfully limited...anyway, the jist of what I'm saying is that for one reason or another, vinyl never has achieved it's potential, and with the advent of digital audio, popularized by c.d., it's lost even more of it's former glory.
Trouble is that more folk, and especially me, just cannot afford a $1K tuntable, w/a $ <any exorbitant price> tonearm, and then plunk out even more for the sort of cartridge/stylus that's required, so for a pittance in comparison, a c.d. player can provide ALL of the above, and it's disks, provided that they're manufactured properly, and taken care of in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, with last indefinitely. Forget that c.d rot issue, as that applies mostly to Phillip's disks, mishandles disks, and a weird fungus in Belize...apart from those considerations, c.d.s will treat us as well as we treat them I'll close this for now, and leave with a question: ages ago, we were advised not to play stereo with mono styli, and then along came stereo that was playable through a single-shanked stylus (introduced in late '60s. Since then, I've unwittingly used the old kind of stereo disks on this sort of stylus, and can't seem to notice the awfull damage that was supposed to be, but maybe if I purchase on of those old twin styli that orginal stereo's used, perhaps that damage may be more apparent, but for now, so far all seems well.

Warm Wishes,
soon _to_be_sleeping_from_seattle

 

[bob knack]

I only recently heard the bump and grind Plucky.

It sounds to me that there is something missing...like trumpets. Could it be that Herb intended to finish that section, never got to it, and then took it out altogether?

He already had a bump and grind in Freckles and maybe thought one was enough.

 

[Captain Bacardi]

It sounds to me that there is something missing...like trumpets. Could it be that Herb intended to finish that section, never got to it, and then took it out altogether?

To me it sounds as if the trumpet was recorded, but then slowed to half-speed and added to the track. I wish I had this version on vinyl so I could speed it up to see if it is a trumpet.


Capt. Bacardi

 

[Ed Bishop]

If anyone has Herb's number, ring 'em up...we gotta get this mystery solved!

Or, just as cool, get him in here....

 

[venturaguy49]

although I can agree with the Capt. on his theory of a half-speed trpt, me thinks that it's a secret message that may be revealed if we play it backwards...maybe what you'll hear is "number nine of cranberry sauce cuz herb's the walrus"...or something like that Seriously, I'm under the impression that this notorious mix was one that Herb took home to mix
(being that it's stereo) and may've been unsure of using the bump y grind
Plucky, given, as has previously been said, that Freckles also used that effect, so maybe this version plain and simply was an version that wasn't intended to go out, but nonetheless did. Also, Herb may not have recalled the sequencing, or for that matter just what selections were used, and opon realizing that there'd be two bump y grinds on the same side, may've been put into a quandry, similar to what John Lennon encountered when he discovered preferring the first half of the first take of Strawberry Field Forever
and the second half of the two following take, as they recorded it (SFF) twice.
Well, what Herb and gang coulda done was taken a page from Sgt. Peppers
Session, and used one half of Freckles, and sequed that into the latter half of Plucky, or vice versa, to have bump y grind in between and/or at the end.
Excuse my faceciousness, but I'm prone to joking...I'm one of those folk that eventually just •has• to find the humor and irony in a topic

Warm Wishes,
sleepy_from_seattle who sez "one thing's that me hopes that the new version of wnml has echo, the t-bone back in brasilia, and a video
of some gal dancing real naughty to a bump y grind version of plucky, but please incl. that as a bonus track, cuz I just love that album to sound 'normal'

 

[Brasil_Nut]

I may have posted this before, but it seems that all of our versions (reel-to-reel, 8-track, Lp, etc.) had the bump & grind on "Plucky". As a matter of fact, I was surprised to discover a used copy a while back which didn't have the familiar (to me) bump & grind. That said, I wonder if the 'bump & grind' inclusion could have been regional? In other words, maybe it depended on where the album was pressed and distributed? Mine, of course, came from good old California.

Jon

 

[venturaguy49]

and yet, I rather enjoy it...it does emphasize what the tile is all about: it took some moxie for an instrumental combo that had gained such acceptance to issue such an oddball arrangement. As I'm from Malifornia
(lol, that's-of course-California, the version that's been standard stereo has been the 'echo, with straight version of Plucky(no strip-tease) and t-bone on Brasilia. As a matter of fact, save for the last item, in it's t-boneless version on Greatest Hits 2, 'till the c.d. of it came out, I naturally assumed that there were only two (mono and stereo) issues of this neat album...really, I just love it's festive style, with nearly all the tracks uptempo...but I really wouldn't have imagined that there were two separate stereo mixes. Sure, from the start, the c.d, sans the echo, and the trumpet placed as forward as it is, was different, but then again, I hadn't listened the album in quite some time, and so I just attributed it to high resolution, but throughout it, all of the tracks share that quality. It sounds live, and in fact, a whole lot more as the Brass sounded in concert, than the echoed standard version, which brings me to a point that I've intended before to make, and that's the T.J.B. became a live act with Going Places, and perhaps there was the consideration to issue an album that sounded more live that previous records.
As for Plucky, a non bump y grind version was the flipside of either Work Song or Flamingo (both of which were on the charts at the same time, and so I bought both together, and if memory serves me, So What's New? was the B side to the other. And of course, S.R.O. was an obvious reference to the Brass' successful live shows, so I would imagine that WNNL may have been planned (as I'd suggested before) to sound live, but then was scrapped, and completed with reverb, as Herb and crew realized that the echoed version naturally sounded better. One things for absolute certain, the dry and echoles WMNL (title song) does sound like my memories of hearing the Brass at the Hollywood Bowl back in '67, and at that time, the one thing that stuck me, was just how different they sounded on stage, compared to their studio works, and furtherly, they used far different arrangements than the albums, so that T.J.B. in concert was 'Greatest Hits Live' by any means.
With that I'll take off for now.

Warm Wishes,
sleepy_from_seattle