Different versions

[Whitefang]

Of songs I mean.

And I don't mean "covers" done either verbatim or with some changes, but different versions of songs by the original artist(s).  One example....

PENNY LANE(The Beatles):  On both my old vinyl and my CD reissue the song ends with a sustained note. Either by a piano or some other device.  But I've heard a version in which it ends with a seven note coda played by Dave Mason and his piccolo trumpet. 

Where did this version come from and why not available on any medium?  And why does it exist to begin with?     Another one...

GET BACK(The Beatles):  both my old vinyl of LET IT BE and my CD issue of LET IT BE NAKED have the same version. Almost.  My old vinyl has the part where john says all that about saying thank you for all the boys, "And I hope we passed the audition. " But it's not on the "Naked" reissue.   Why?

From a Buick 6(Bob Dylan):  This song appears not only as the "B" side of POSITIVELY 4TH STREET, but on the HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED LP(on which "4th Street" doesn't appear)  I've had that LP since it came out.  Well, as soon as I could get out to buy it.  And a few years later was introduced to a guy who would become a bandmate in the fall of '67.  Upon entering his house and following him down the basement, his Mom(which surprised me) was listening to that LP on a portable they had on a counter coming out of the laundry room.  And that surprise went further when finding out that she too, was a Dylan fan.  But at the time, "Buick 6" was the track that was playing, and the way it sounded(instrumentation, tempo, etc.) was so different than how it sounded on MY album I couldn't figure out what was going on.  We couldn't figure out if it was an earlier version on an earlier pressing or a later one as we both couldn't recall the day and month of our purchases.  So I wonder about that too.   And...

SWEET EMOTION( Aerosmith): For some reason my ex bought a copy of the LP Aerosmith's "GREATEST HITS"  despite our already having TOYS IN THE ATTIC and the earlier  GET YOUR WINGS.  But I noticed something disturbingly different about the version of "Sweet Emotion" on the "Greatest Hits" LP.  It started out with the group singing the refrain, "Sweet Emotion" over and over again.  Gone was the bass solo work and other effects on the "Toys" LP.    And ended with that over and over refrain fading out and minus the Perry solo!  again, WHY??

Anyone notice other stuff like this about other tunes?

Whitefang

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

When mono was the flavor of the day The Beatles albums were mixed for mono and stereo LP's. The Beatles stuck around for the mono mixes and didn't really care about the stereo one and Geoff Emerick and maybe Sir. G. Martin would take care of the stereo ones. Then of course later stereo was the flavor of the day as more people had stereo systems. The last Beatles album to be done in mono and stereo was The Beatles  (aka The White Album). If you have ever heard them side by side there are differences. 

Also remember Let It Be was up in the air as to what it was going to be, a live show, a book, and album ect. They made the doc, and recorded songs, and then moved on the make Abbey Road, and let Let It Be . . . Be. But the title track was slated for a single. Then it came out, and then Phil (Nut Job Wall Of Mush) Spector was handed the tapes of Let It Be  behind Paul's back by John and George.

Some groups put out alternate versions of one song on a Greatest Hits album, so hard core fans will want the new version.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Sgt. Pepper

[Larsongs]

As with most recording Artist’s they record many Takes.. It has become popular to use various Takes.. They’re even using home Tapes of them while they were forming their songs & play them on Sirius… 

[Sgt. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Larsongs said:

As with most recording Artist’s they record many Takes.. It has become popular to use various Takes.. They’re even using home Tapes of them while they were forming their songs & play them on Sirius… 

On the 2018 Remix of The Beatles - The Beatles, if you bought the CD or LP with the Esher Demos (done at George's house after India) its almost every song off The White album the lads did as demo's.

[nhwildbill]

Sometimes a song is re-edited for a single (45 RPM) release.

A lot of times these versions end up on Greatest Hit compilations just for variety.

The Beatles Red & Blue Compilations had many of these on them.

[Rabs]

Hmm, well I guess it can be for many reasons.. Sometimes the artist wants to update a track as maybe they feel that the "album" version didnt quit match up to their vision of the end result..   Jimmy Page seems to do it when new sound technology comes out and likes to take advantage of the new tech. I think Led Zeps remasters is a really good album in its own right. I guess theres always just the record company and or artist cashing in... And maybe adding new stuff in is a way for them to feel like its a worthwhile release.

Like theres a new remix of Animals on the way.  And from this track I really want to listen to it, Theres all sorts of things going on that either were to low the mix to hear or are actually new bits been added in.

 

Did you ever hear The Beatles Love?  I really enjoy that album.. It mixes the songs together so theres no gaps between songs  and has some different mixes. Very interesting.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Remember there are 2 different things: remastering and remixing. Remastering means to go back change nothing to the master tapes except just push all the faders up. Remixing means going back to the masters and change stuff in the mix we did or didn’t hear.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Sgt. Pepper

[brad1]

Many songs have many versions for many different reasons.  Nothing new.

[Sgt. Pepper]

21 minutes ago, brad1 said:

Many songs have many versions for many different reasons.  Nothing new.

Thread over, move along, nothing to see here, post a pic of Bozo The Clown aka Bono and lets be done.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Sgt. Pepper

[brad1]

Heck, the Dead have hundreds, maybe thousands,  of versions of most of their songs.

Listen to "Friend of the Devil" on the Dead Set live album. It sounds nothing like the oringial version on American Beauty.  Almost a competely different song.

[merciful-evans]

Gimme Some Lovin - Spencer Davis Group.

 

[Murph]

The Beatles were a weird oddity in that they were so damned rich from DAY ONE of the first release they could afford to practice at Abbey Road. So tape was running all of the time. There are dozens and dozens of different takes of nearly all of their songs. Most bands practiced at somebody's house or a practice studio.

My first album project was written and practiced in a double wide in rural Kentucky back in the late 90's. For months. When we went to the studio, we were ready to hit "record".

The acoustic duo cd I did with Owen was practiced up at my cabin in the woods with no electricity. True acoustic.

And, it was common to have an "album" version and a "single" version of songs in the 70's.

[gearbasher]

"Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits has two versions. I'm guessing  it was  due to Political Correctness (which is BS in my eyes).

[brad1]

1 hour ago, ghost_of_fl said:

From the guy who started a thread to say he read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.   Now that's something new.  🤡

Steely Dan released an alternative version of "FM (no static at all)" where there is a sax solo at the end instead of a guitar solo.  

 

I started the thread becasue I was interested in what good books others here were reading.

You misinterpret posts all the time here. You think someone is trying to slight you, when all they are doing is pointing something out. I was not trying to be mean at all. Just saying that almost every song ever recorded has a different version.  I was confused at how you did not know this.

You, on the other hand, were deliberately trying to be mean. Which you do to members here all the time. 

I won't return the favor. 

[Whitefang]

Lemme defuse those last couple of posts.

To address some of the responses:

21 hours ago, nhwildbill said:

Sometimes a song is re-edited for a single (45 RPM) release.

A lot of times these versions end up on Greatest Hit compilations just for variety.

 

I wasn't referring to songs edited for AM singles play.  I knew most were done to adhere to that dumb old "three minute rule".  Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" and Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" are good examples of that.  But too, a group's or artist's status gets them past that.  Like there was no "edited for AM" versions of Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" or The Beatles' "Hey Jude".   But instead was alluding to why there were different versions of a song on different pressings of an LP(Like Dylan's "Buick 6"  on one pressing of "Highway 61" and a different version on other pressings).  And I would have preferred the version of "Penny Lane" (with the seven note coda I described up there) to be on my CD of "Magical Mystery Tour" and not buried among all those obscure tracks on "Anthology 2".  

15 hours ago, brad1 said:

 

Listen to "Friend of the Devil" on the Dead Set live album. It sounds nothing like the oringial version on American Beauty.  Almost a competely different song.

Usually live performances of earlier studio recorded songs are expected to sound considerably different than a song recorded a decade earlier.    Note the difference in The Allman Brothers' "Whipping Post" done live to the original studio version.  Not really what my concern was here.

8 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

Gimme Some Lovin - Spencer Davis Group.

 

Interesting.  I've never heard a different version than the one I'm familiar with.  Wouldn't mind hearing the difference.

22 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

When mono was the flavor of the day The Beatles albums were mixed for mono and stereo LP's. The Beatles stuck around for the mono mixes and didn't really care about the stereo one and Geoff Emerick and maybe Sir. G. Martin would take care of the stereo ones. Then of course later stereo was the flavor of the day as more people had stereo systems. The last Beatles album to be done in mono and stereo was The Beatles  (aka The White Album). If you have ever heard them side by side there are differences. 

Also remember Let It Be was up in the air as to what it was going to be, a live show, a book, and album ect. They made the doc, and recorded songs, and then moved on the make Abbey Road, and let Let It Be . . . Be. But the title track was slated for a single. Then it came out, and then Phil (Nut Job Wall Of Mush) Spector was handed the tapes of Let It Be  behind Paul's back by John and George.

Some groups put out alternate versions of one song on a Greatest Hits album, so hard core fans will want the new version.

Yeah, I recall those days when LPs had both the Mono and Stereo versions available.  Labels were slick in charging just a bit more for the stereo versions.  But in some cases hearing both versions of some albums there was no discernible difference in the overall songs.  Not like anything was added or removed from any track.  But in the case of what I put in bold....

I sincerely doubt any hardcore fans of Aerosmith would want and prefer the "Greatest Hits" version of "Sweet Emotion" I described up there to the OG.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another would be the difference between the single version of Edgar Winter's "Free Ride" from the LP version, which at only a few seconds longer is the better of the two.  Why the difference I don't know.  Not sure if the single came first or what.

Whitefang

[Sgt. Pepper]

4 hours ago, Murph said:

The Beatles were a weird oddity in that they were so damned rich from DAY ONE of the first release they could afford to practice at Abbey Road.

That's the biggest load of s-hit I've ever heard. 

March 22, 1963 the album Please Please Me is released.

March 23, 1963 (I guess this would be day two), The Beatles are not yet millionaires and do not have Carte Blanch at then EMI Studio. It wasn't named Abbey Road till 1976. 

Their 1st number one hit in the US was not till February 1, 1964.

Late 1963 the mania of Beatlemania began.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Sgt. Pepper

[Rabs]

15 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

That's the biggest load of s-hit I've ever heard. You think right after the album Please Please Me came out, Bam their millionaires? Your out of your mind.

Yes, I am sure I heard that in their original contract Paul and John were getting 1% of royalties each and Gorge and Ringo were getting 1% between them  😮 

[Sgt. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Rabs said:

Yes, I am sure I heard that in their original contract Paul and John were getting 1% of royalties each and Gorge and Ringo were getting 1% between them  😮 

There are a number of ways a musician can make money and The Beatles didn’t really profit from any of them as much as they could have.

The first is music sales. And while the Beatles totally dominated music sales for several years, they weren’t getting a great deal from their label or management. They originally received one penny for each record sold (not one each, one between them). So while their music was marching off the shelves, they were earning .25% of a penny each. This was renegotiated by Allen Klein in 1969 but for most of their career, others were earning more from their music than they were. It’s worth remembering that when the Beatles signed up with EMI they had been rejected by the only other record label who would even give them a chance to play. They were desperate for a record deal but couldn’t afford to be choosy at all.

Modern musicians make a fortune from touring. A promoter agrees to pay a band like The Rolling Stones millions of dollars to perform 12 shows in their country and the Stones sign up, leaving the promoter to try and sell as many tickets at the highest possible prices, usually by booking huge venues. But touring wasn’t as lucrative in the Beatles day because stadiums weren’t used for Rock and Roll shows (until they played Shea Stadium). When big bands come to Melbourne Australia (for example) they play the Melbourne Cricket Ground which can seat over 80,000 as a concert venue and with tickets going for close to $100, it’s possible to make well over half a million dollars for one night’s show. When the Beatles played Melbourne they performed for three nights at Festival Hall, the largest venue available but still only capable of seating a few thousand. They played six shows over three nights to a total of 45,000 people, which means there wasn't’ a huge amount of cash to go around. And of course The Beatles only toured for the first half of their short career and stopped playing concerts in the second half. The also didn’t earn as much as they could have because Epstein negotiated contracts long in advance, which means he made several long term bookings before the Beatles popularity meant promoters could ask more per ticket and Brian could demand a higher price. Their tour of Australia occurred when Beatlemania was at it’s height but was booked before they were huge which meant the contracts were signed for less money (Apparently George’s first words to the Aussie promoter were “you got us for the cheaper rate didn’t you?”)

Merchandise is a big money spinner for a popular brand but manger Brian Epstein has often admitted that he did badly by the band when it came to merchandising rights. He grossly underestimated the demand for the Beatles faces on a variety of tat and while people were making huge sums from Beatle wigs and other nonsense, the band themselves were making next to nothing.

Songwriting rights are a common way for musicians to make money and John and Paul as writers did earn money from their compositions. But they were ripped off here as well as they formed a company which they only owned 49% of between them. Publisher **** James and his partner owned 51%. They did see some money from their song rights but not as much as they could have.

The Beatles had other incomes streams as well (their three movie deal for example) but they raised their money in traditional ways and those ways were not as lucrative as you might think. And they were taxed heavily by the UK tax laws, which prompted George to write Taxman as an angry response. It should also be noted that they were terrible businessmen and their notorious Apple Corp lost them a massive amount of cash with no return.

They did okay for themselves of course but I’ve heard it said (but can’t confirm) that all four made more money in their first year as ex-Beatles than they did in their years as Beatles because they had so much control over their input and finances.

Now back on track. Listen to the 2018 Remix of The Beatles - The Beatles. It's different and I like it better than the original. Giles brought a lot of stuff up in the mix that was buried. He also did a great job on Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road and Let It Be. Abbey Road being the least different. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Sgt. Pepper

[gdecantoo]

Two shows, two versions. I had to attend the G rated version!

[Sgt. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, gdecant1 said:

Two shows, two versions. I had to attend the G rated version!

And for all you 16 year old's:

"Kick out the Jams boys and girls". Then on to the classic riff.

[Murph]

2 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

That's the biggest load of s-hit I've ever heard. 

Man, you've lived a sheltered life.

I wasn't even trying with that one...

[Murph]

All I was saying is I don't know of any other band that sat around "jamming" and goofing off in a high dollar studio as much as the Beatles, leaving us with hours and hours and hours and hours of different takes, un-tuned guitars and drivel. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[brad1]

5 hours ago, ghost_of_fl said:

I did not start this thread, I just responded.   Nah, I think you were just out to pee in someone else's Cheerios as you so often do.  

What does you not starting the thread have to do with anything?

And there you go putting me down again. 

I hope it makes you feel good! 

[Pinch]

4 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

And for all you 16 year old's:

"Kick out the Jams boys and girls". Then on to the classic riff.

Brothers and sisters, wasn't it? 

[Sgt. Pepper]

6 hours ago, Pinch said:

Brothers and sisters, wasn't it? 

That works for the 16 and under crowd.