9 replies · 471 views
...The Rich Costey Edit of WFTSC on the first 7" and the Band Mix of WFTSC on the second 7" - they are both absolutely identical - I cannot discern any difference at all. Is this another record company fuck up (i.e. mis-pressing) or some sort of post-modern joke a la the notorious "Ruined In A Day (Not 'Arf!)" Sly'n'Robbie Digipak edition....?
Can some one enlighten us. I need some answers. 
So I take it all you jammy kunz are happy with having two identical versions spread across 2 formats then?
Have I missed out on summat here?
i just posted on the 3X7" mixes thread.there is a difference.it`s in the instrumenatl break in the last half of the song.Rich Costey keeps the guitar bit in after the keyboards.and there is another slight difference.cant remember what it is though
Well that sounds like a load of crap to me, what's the point of that if the changes are so subtle one can hardly notice it even on three listens.?
Johnny wrote: yep.it is a bit silly i agree.
Silly? It's a London rip-off mate. You wouldn't have got that with Fucktory...
The 'Band Mix' of WFTSC is a direct edit of the album version - same levels, effects and mix, just edited down. It's probably edited straight from the final, 2 track master of the album version - just listen to that horrible, mid-word edit just before the 1st chorus, where a little bit of the first verse is removed, and the line "she is lost forever more" becomes "she is lost forever shore", which makes no sense. A well-dodgy edit.
I'm assuming after the 'Band Mix' was edited, they handed the multi-track parts to Rich Costley for a bit more post-production (and a better edit of verse 1, where you actually here the last word of the verse properly) and a beefier mix to create his radio edit. A much better version.
I get the impression that the Band Mix was knocked up quickly, then someone decided it needed a better edit. Then the decision was made to bring out three seven inches and they needed an extra version of the title track, so the 'band mix' filled the slot. They'd've been better off just putting the regular album version on there, as it's not a great deal longer!
Andy
Chris Nash wrote:
Johnny wrote: yep.it is a bit silly i agree.
Silly? It's a London rip-off mate. You wouldn't have got that with Fucktory...
Nothing lasts forever.
Johnny wrote:
Chris Nash wrote:
Johnny wrote: yep.it is a bit silly i agree.
Silly? It's a London rip-off mate. You wouldn't have got that with Fucktory...
Nothing lasts forever.
Aye, thats what Echo and the bunneymen said
Chris Nash wrote:
Johnny wrote: yep.it is a bit silly i agree.
Silly? It's a London rip-off mate. You wouldn't have got that with Fucktory...
Well quite frankly Chris,I quite offended by your Avatar! Lude,crude and..oh fcuk it I'm touching cloth!!
