April 28, 2007

Forty miles of bad road (and a question)

That's my commute (the road, not the question, though one might reasonably ask why I put up with it).

Well, actually, my commute is more like forty-some miles of halfway decent (by CalTrans standards) road plugged up by stop-and-go traffic during the week. Not too bad today, though, so I stayed on the freeway instead of taking the backroad I usually take.

Anyway, after being so mean to my young friend Cullen in that last post, I thought I'd link to this. That happens to be the very last song on a CD collection I picked up a few weeks back, and it was the one playing when I pulled into the garage on my bike a little bit ago.

No, I didn't bike to work. I got home a couple of hours ago, sucked down a brewski and a late lunch, then went for a bike ride. This particular CD (one of four in the set) also has "Because They're Young" (no online video I can find, alas). Another CD in that set has "Rebel Rouser" which, as everyone who matters knows, is the greatest Rock 'n Roll instrumental of all time (BTW, look at that strange chick grabbing her head at the beginning of the clip - I suspect she went on to great drug problems in the 60s). This makes at least five copies of "Rebel Rouser" I have on various CDs. Oh yeah, before I forget, here's another Duane Eddy [genuFleck - sorry, that was my joke from the last post] video, with a song I had never heard before, and here's another (this song I've heard before, but not by Eddy). You can never go wrong with Duane Eddy.

And now a question for you audiophiles out there. In the last few years, I've picked up a few assorted collections of music, mostly collections of old R&R but a little bit of other stuff thrown in. Most have turned out to be collections not of the original release versions I remember, but alternate versions by the same artist (sometimes live, sometimes alternate studio takes or mixes). This particular set has mostly alternate studio versions, a couple or three live, and a very few (I think) original release versions. Another set I picked up a while back has newer versions (30-40 years later) by the same artists, except for the dead people.

So my question for you audiophiles: Is this a new fad of releasing different takes/renditions of the old songs, or is it just another weird-ass, funny coincidence that I happened on these? Could be coincidence, I suppose, I don't buy a lot of music, but still...

Posted by Ken S at April 28, 2007 04:28 PM | TrackBack (0) | Category: Rock 'n' Roll Trivia
Comments

It has a lot to do with what rights the company releasing the compilation can get their hands on. A lot of these compilations and "best of" discs are being released by off labels. Not wanting to pay the premium price for the original studio cut, they'll pay lesser prices for outtakes or live versions.

I don't think this is a new thing, many of the "Best of the '60s" and "Best of the '70s" compilations out there feature a lot of these off cuts.

Posted by: Cullen at April 28, 2007 07:35 PM

Hmm. That makes sense. I don't remember the off cuts before just a few years ago but it may just be that I haven't paid much attention (and that I just don't buy much).

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at April 28, 2007 08:59 PM

Deep Purple released a 25th Anniversary Edition of Machine Head a few years ago. It has two versions of every song, including two versions of an unreleased song. The outtakes of Smoke on the Water and Highway Star are pretty cool. I've used the Highway Star outtake a few times on my mixed CDs. I kinda like it OK like this.

If I get an outtake on a CD where I expected the other, I'd probably be pretty mad about it. If it's a live version, alternate version, or by far the worst, the shortened 45 version, it should be noted on the packaging. Unfortunately, the twits who put these compilations together probably don't even know what sacrilege they're committing.

Posted by: Rob at April 29, 2007 09:18 AM

It's nothing new. Cheap-ass companies have done this for years, where they don't want to pay for the "real" cut. As Rob said, many of them neglect to mention that it's not the "original" version (the one people remember). The album may boast "By The Original Artist!" but that means it could be some crummy studio take where he coughed in the middle of it or something.

If higher-end companies have started doing it now (without labeling the off-cuts as such), then that's a real shame.

I mean - when I buy an album from a company I've never heard of, I know I'm kinda taking my chances. But if it's the "original" label of the artist and they're not labeling the things as "alternative cuts" (or whatever), then shame on them.

("Alternative cuts" makes me think of lunchmeat made out of parts of the cow you really, really don't want to know you're eating....)

Posted by: ricki at April 29, 2007 11:17 AM