[ -- Just one of those '60s things. Buddah apparently licensed the masters and didn't know finished takes from alternates. The LP definitely came out commercially. Everybody who hears it for the first time has the same reaction... "weird. Is this a druggie LP or what?" -- MC]

[ -- Tony Hatch was the producer for Petula Clark. You may know that Pet Clark had a version of "You're The One" before the Vogues did it. The reason I mentioned that LP in issue #11 (1989! What a memory!) is that the song "Music" on that album was used for the theme song for CBS-FM in the 1960s, although they rarely announced what it was. -- MC]

[ -- Okay here's something definitive. The side that plays on a CD is the NON-LABEL side, so that's the one to protect from dirt, grease, and scratches. As for gouges, a gouge through the plastic covering on either side may allow the aluminum to oxidize, and eventually may result in the destruction of the CD.... As for the Red Bird/Blue Cat CD, it's definitely an "A" disc that everyone should have. It will be reviewed in issue #46, which for all those waiting for it, is not out yet. -- MC]

[ "Reelin' and Rockin'" was also stereo [see DC5 discography in Both Sides Now Stereo Newsletter #6]. The later version of "Everybody Knows" was apparently a UK hit. MC]

[ -- Good points. What's one of the biggest reasons for mono reissues these days at the expense of stereo? They're "safe," and people can't gripe about any change of what they (in retrospect, years later) think about that ever-nebulous "intent." Whose intent? The artist's? (Don't make me laugh.) The songwriter? Producer? It gets down to whoever was in charge of putting the record together that particular day. If they had a bad day, there are those who will fight to the death that any mistakes made were the purposeful "intent" of whoever, and should never be changed. But rather than argue about "intent," many reissue producers are just taking the "safe" way out.

Personally, I find radically different stereo versions of songs I've heard thousands of times to be a bit disconcerting. I like them about as much as I do alternate takes, which means they can be fun to listen to, but unless they sound pretty reasonably like the originals, they get mentally filed in a category with alternate takes.

As for the negativism, it's well known that one negative comment takes about ten positive ones to offset. I have done a lot of writing and other creative things in my 50+ years, and I can say that it's really discouraging when people totally ignore the 95% of a project that's great just to dwell on a 5% that doesn't meet their flavor of perfection... and therefore they call the whole effort worthless. This is especially galling if the constraints under which a product was produced are ignored.

I have talked to many of the oldies reissue producers about this very subject, and every last one of them agrees. It's not that they want "all praise" for their work; they can have honest discussions about why things are the way they are and what limitations they faced in doing the project without getting bent out of shape at all. It's the criticism that says, "You had everything you needed to do the **perfect** job, and through your laziness or incompetence you put out a slipshod product that's worthless" that really sticks in the craw. This is the type of criticism that takes the focus off what's been done or not done, and makes it a personal attack on the person who did the work. Honest, fair, criticism will be fine, but cheap shots aren't appreciated by anyone.

My comments above are about collectors' attitudes in general, and not specifically about Bob Fink's earlier comment. I can only surmise that in Bob's case, the sound was different enough that he chooses to hold out for the more perfect version rather than "an alien mix," and that one song tainted the entire CD to his ears. That's okay. I suppose that means you'll be returning your copy of the Red Bird CD, then, Bob? :-) -- MC]

[ Retirement sounds fine, but I don't like selling shoes... MC]

[ -- I probably won't be adding real time chat to the board soon, if ever, unfortunately. -- MC]

[ Hi, Joe. Good to see you still looking in from time to time. MC]

[ The Tiny Hill song is a piece of history, referred to in the opening lines of "Hot Rod Lincloln" that we all know and love. MC]

[ -- Bob Irwin of Sundazed did the 5th Dimension package if memory serves, and is doing some other things for Arista. You may want to ask him at the Sundazed web site (www.sundazed.com). -- MC]

[ -- I asked Donn Fileti about that a few months ago, and his note to me said that Relic's distributor went out of business in mid-1997, killing the availability of their CDs through the "normal" channels. They are still in business, though, as of a few weeks ago. You might want to write to them at PO Box 572, Hackensack, NJ 07602 to inqure about recent releases. -- MC]

[ -- "Someday" is NOT on EMI 8272, The Bobby Vee Singles Album.... In 1996, when Varese put out the three volumes of Bubblegum Classics, they also put out two various artist CDs of similar material, called Soulful Pop [Varese VSD-5718] and Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes: The Voice of Tony Burrows [Varese VSD-5725]. It sounds like either these are the CDs Varese is referring to on their web page (more likely), or they're getting set to reissue them with new titles (less likely). In any case, the track lineups and stereo content for these two CDs appeared in the October, 1996 issue of the Both Sides Now Stereo Newsletter (Issue #41). -- MC]

[ -- Hmmm. Good way to get shot, if I remember correctly.... In this case, being "from a tape" doesn't mean much. The song originally came out on Snap Records, as everyone knows, and when Roulette picked it up for reissue, they used a tape of a single as their "master tape." It is therefore theoretically possible that a CD version can be from the Roulette master tape and still have vinyl as the ultimate source. To my knowledge, there is no session tape or Snap 45 master tape in existence, which is what you'd have to have to have a real "tape source." -- MC]

[ -- Offhand, I seem to remember Duke Ellington or some bandleader of the time. As for the "process," It's far simpler than one thinks. Back in the days of 78s, they recorded a performance direct to disc, since they didn't have tape. This disc was then the "master" for making records. If the master disc wore out, as it might on a popular record, it was either make a new lousy master from the worn out disc, or re-record the song.

Back even before 1900, the record companies found a way to overcome this problem: record many "master discs" simultaneously during the performance so that when one wore out, they would have another ready to go. This was accomplished by setting up several disc recorders at the session. One was used as a master, the others stored away, and the records were pressed and sent on their merry way.

MUCH more recently, somebody was listening to two copies of an old 78 and noticed that the recording session was the same, but that the prominence of certain instruments made it sound like the recordings were done from different positions in the recording studio (obviously this was a case where a second "master disc" had been used), and decided to synch the two versions up. As you can imagine, it sounded very much like stereo, not that anyone had planned it that way or anything... -- MC]