Butlers with Frankie Beverly On Rouser

[Chalky]

I thought Fairmount was first and the edited for the Rouser release? The Rouser copy uses the Fairmount number.

[Dave Pinch]

you are correct chalks. why would anyone think differently

[Arthur Fenn]

I found a test pressing of this in the early 90s for $3 in the Baltimore/Washington area. Not a big lover of said 45 i part traded with same against Patrinell Staten with Soul Sam, interestingly Rob Thomas later told me that it was a Rouser copy, guess i'll never know now .

[Soulman]

I thought Fairmount was first and the edited for the Rouser release? The Rouser copy uses the Fairmount number.

As per reply to Andy, I have some of the information somewhere but need to listen to the tapes again. I'm sure Frank (Howard) ... ooohh no, titter ye not, Howard is his real name, said that the Fairmount release had not been widely (within the region) distributed and the Rouser release would do better. Obviously that's not the case taking into the rarity of the two, unless someone knows different. Luckily I'm on holiday next week and that may give me time to go trawling in the loft and find said tape.

Steve

[Soulman]

I found a test pressing of this in the early 90s for $3 in the Baltimore/Washington area. Not a big lover of said 45 i part traded with same against Patrinell Staten with Soul Sam, interestingly Rob Thomas later told me that it was a Rouser copy, guess i'll never know now .

Oh Arthur.... how could you

[Chalky]

As per reply to Andy, I have some of the information somewhere but need to listen to the tapes again. I'm sure Frank (Howard) ... ooohh no, titter ye not, Howard is his real name, said that the Fairmount release had not been widely (within the region) distributed and the Rouser release would do better. Obviously that's not the case taking into the rarity of the two, unless someone knows different. Luckily I'm on holiday next week and that may give me time to go trawling in the loft and find said tape.

Steve

Be good to listen to the interview or a transcribe Steve. Same for all the interviews you have.

[Soulman]

Bloody hell Chalky, now that would be a mission. Transferring to PC and posting up, finding the damn things in the first place. Choosing which was best...Herb Ward having no interest in the music industry and just wanting to be a trucker, Val Simpson just being a Diva and wanting to talk about work with Nick rather than going further back into the Motown years, Jesse Davis and his foray into movie soundtracks, Barbara McNair (never printed), Linda Griner with much previously un-heard material for a book... where do I start. Maybe if someone with time and energy on here would like to do it for me I can supply the tapes. Now there's a task for someone. Over to you guys

[Chalky]

Steve, transferring to a PC is easy but send me a couple to start with, I will get them digitised and online. Can look into rest once underway.

[Soulman]

PM me your address Chalky and I'll get a couple off. They are literally on cassette tape recorded on a portable tape recorder on speaker phone. I'll have a look over the next week and see what or who I can find that make interesting listening / reading for SS members

Steve

[Chalky]

PM me your address Chalky and I'll get a couple off. They are literally on cassette tape recorded on a portable tape recorder on speaker phone. I'll have a look over the next week and see what or who I can find that make interesting listening / reading for SS members

Steve

sent. I still have a tape player, not long ago bought a second for transferring tapes and all set up at side of computer

[Soulstrutter]

Hey Steve & Chalky ... just found this great thread whilst doing some research ... did you 2 progress this further?  If not, I'm sure there's a few us us with time on our hands now to help!  Shame to leave them collecting dust!

Edited November 28, 2020 by Soulstrutter

[Chalky]

9 minutes ago, Soulstrutter said:

Hey Steve & Chalky ... just found this great thread whilst doing some research ... did you 2 progress this further?  If not, I'm sure there's a few us us with time on our hands now to help!  Shame to leave them collecting dust!

No Steve never got round to sending the tapes.  I have the time still too convert them if Steve is still interested.

[BazFromThePast]

I'm not a regular visitor to this site, but when I do, I enjoy reading the banter and very impressed at the level and depth of knowledge that the members have. I only discovered this fascinating thread last week, it goes back some time and it's still open!

After much debate about which recording came first and what are the differences, or are they in fact the same. I thought I'd try and help as I'm fortunate to own a copy of both records. Therefore, last week I recorded both records one after another, I then played them both at the same time, switching the sound from one to another, to determine whether one's faster or differs in any way up to the sax break.

Unfortunately, my ears aren't good enough to spot any tiny differences. It's obvious that the sax break is longer on the Fairmont copy (approx. 12.5 seconds against Rouser's 6 seconds) and that the Rouser copy uses the Fairmont number on the label and in the dead wax. Which suggests that Cameo Parkways Fairmont label came first. (For completeness the Fairmont copy is BellSound stamped).

It's been previously noted by Chalky that the Rouser recording has a faster start, which it does sound like when listening to the two together. Therefore, within iMovie, I separated the sound files and compared them, and the Rouser copy reaches the sax break a full 3.5 seconds before the Fairmont recording. This would point to the Rouser copy being either a completely different recording, or the track was sped up for the new press.

Looking at the peaks and troughs of the sound file, they are similar, but not the same, which could point to a different recording, or maybe just the difference in the quality of the pressing plant of the two. I have no idea how to reliably differentiate the two. 

To add, the Fairmont copy is 2:43 long and the Rouser copy 2:33 long. That's 10 seconds different, which accounts for the 6.5 second difference in the sax break plus the 3.5sec difference that the Rouser copy takes to get to the break. It may be a new recording or that the original recording on Fairmont was sped up a tiny bit and the sax break cut down on Rouser to reduce the overall length of the record, to shoe horn it nearer to a two and a half minutes long record, maybe thinking that could appeal better to the radio stations at the time and therefore lead to more plays and sales. Maybe Steve's tapes would help on this, if Chalky can get his hands on them.

I have mixed feelings, I prefer the Rousers' speed, but miss the preferred longer sax break on Fairmont.

I hope this all helps in some way. Also, if it would help, or you are interested, I could put the recording of the two on the decks together and provide a link here, for you to do your own comparison. Please just let me know.

[Dobber]

6 hours ago, BazFromThePast said:

I'm not a regular visitor to this site, but when I do, I enjoy reading the banter and very impressed at the level and depth of knowledge that the members have. I only discovered this fascinating thread last week, it goes back some time and it's still open!

After much debate about which recording came first and what are the differences, or are they in fact the same. I thought I'd try and help as I'm fortunate to own a copy of both records. Therefore, last week I recorded both records one after another, I then played them both at the same time, switching the sound from one to another, to determine whether one's faster or differs in any way up to the sax break.

Unfortunately, my ears aren't good enough to spot any tiny differences. It's obvious that the sax break is longer on the Fairmont copy (approx. 12.5 seconds against Rouser's 6 seconds) and that the Rouser copy uses the Fairmont number on the label and in the dead wax. Which suggests that Cameo Parkways Fairmont label came first. (For completeness the Fairmont copy is BellSound stamped).

It's been previously noted by Chalky that the Rouser recording has a faster start, which it does sound like when listening to the two together. Therefore, within iMovie, I separated the sound files and compared them, and the Rouser copy reaches the sax break a full 3.5 seconds before the Fairmont recording. This would point to the Rouser copy being either a completely different recording, or the track was sped up for the new press.

Looking at the peaks and troughs of the sound file, they are similar, but not the same, which could point to a different recording, or maybe just the difference in the quality of the pressing plant of the two. I have no idea how to reliably differentiate the two. 

To add, the Fairmont copy is 2:43 long and the Rouser copy 2:33 long. That's 10 seconds different, which accounts for the 6.5 second difference in the sax break plus the 3.5sec difference that the Rouser copy takes to get to the break. It may be a new recording or that the original recording on Fairmont was sped up a tiny bit and the sax break cut down on Rouser to reduce the overall length of the record, to shoe horn it nearer to a two and a half minutes long record, maybe thinking that could appeal better to the radio stations at the time and therefore lead to more plays and sales. Maybe Steve's tapes would help on this, if Chalky can get his hands on them.

I have mixed feelings, I prefer the Rousers' speed, but miss the preferred longer sax break on Fairmont.

I hope this all helps in some way. Also, if it would help, or you are interested, I could put the recording of the two on the decks together and provide a link here, for you to do your own comparison. Please just let me know.

Very detailed info baz,I know your good at spotting the tiny differences in records! I would propose it’s simply a faster recording,simply because I’ve recorded in recording studios many times in bands,and based on the fact we’re talking the 60’s analogue,to record the song again would not produce the same sound no matter how hard you try,the individual musicians wouldn’t even care about being exact in phrasing etc...this is before you get to the mixing,the mixing involves adding reverb etc to every individual instrument inc each part of the drum kit! In fact the easiest thing to do as a band would simply to play faster or slower! In which case you may aswell just speed up the original master tape and or chop out out what you don’t want! Plus the sax break on the rouser has definitely been chopped manually cos it sounds a bit rough to be honest! To my ears the the songs sound exact in the phrasing of the band and the singers!

[BazFromThePast]

That’s a good point Dobber.  I hope you are well pal, it’s been too long. 
The sound file is similar enough to substantiate what you say too. I did say I thought it was either/or.
I’ve just listened again and you can also hear Frankie’s quiet shout just into the start of the sax break and it’s the same on both. That’s too much of a coincidence for them to be different recordings.
So the original recording sped up with a rough cut of the Sax break sounds about right.  
It would be good if Steve’s tapes could explain the rationale.

Take care Dobber.

 

[Dobber]

Also are the B sides exactly the same? Cos I’m sure by the quality of the song they had equally as much faith in that song too! 
 

im very well baz,hope you are too mate!

[Blackpoolsoul]

On 17/03/2012 at 16:24, Dave Pinch said:

you are correct chalks. why would anyone think differently

What year was the Fairmount ?

[The Yank]

2 hours ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

What year was the Fairmount ?

      "Because Of My Heart" was recorded in November, 1966 so- it might have been released late '66 but I believe 1967 is more likely.

 

[Blackpoolsoul]

3 minutes ago, The Yank said:

      "Because Of My Heart" was recorded in November, 1966 so- it might have been released late '66 but I believe 1967 is more likely.

 

All the databases have it is 1967, but something is bugging me that it is 1966, will dig some more

[Tagtag]

It's a bit strange that Discogs has the demo as 1966 and the issue as 1967

[Blackpoolsoul]

2 minutes ago, Tagtag said:

It's a bit strange that Discogs has the demo as 1966 and the issue as 1967

It may be that the demo was late 1966 and the issue early 1967 ?

 

[Blackpoolsoul]

On the Rouser who was / is QT production ?

[Tagtag]

Quakertown

[Blackpoolsoul]

2 minutes ago, Tagtag said:

Quakertown

As in this possible connection ?

30 minutes ago, The Yank said:

      "Because Of My Heart" was recorded in November, 1966 so- it might have been released late '66 but I believe 1967 is more likely.

 

Got it, can't make out the month !!!

[Robbk]

29 minutes ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

It may be that the demo was late 1966 and the issue early 1967 ?

 

Very, very likely.  I remember seeing the Fairmount DJ issue in 1966.  It is likely that the store stocker didn't get to stores until at least January 1967.  Half or more of December is dead time (when nothing happens).  But, I've also seen LOTS of records that were already out to distributors, and possibly to some stores, when the so-called official release date ended up being "assigned" or first recorded on paper as a later date.

[Chalky]

20 minutes ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

As in this possible connection ?

Got it, can't make out the month !!!

Looks like a six, definitely not 11 (Nov.)

The connection is the production company behind the recordings, not relation to the labels as far as I know.  

Edited March 9, 2022 by Chalky

[Blackpoolsoul]

12 minutes ago, Chalky said:

Looks like a six, definitely not 11 (Nov.)

The connection is the production company behind the recordings, not relation to the labels as far as I know.  

Rouser label is similar type as Tuffy though ? Publishing is same

Edited March 9, 2022 by Blackpoolsoul

[Chalky]

11 minutes ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

Rouser label is similar type as Tuffy though ? Publishing is same

Rouser is out of Washington though, the others are Philly, Publishing won't or shouldn't change because it is reissued

[The Yank]

The Quaker Town label was based in Philly- I doubt if there is any connection to Rouser.

[Ronniesoul]

Another connection between Tuffy, Quaker, Fairmount is Pecle pub/music looking this up in 45cat found this link to Faye Simmons and the connection to Philly soul etc.

http://www.45cat.com/record/nc353733us

In addition The Yank/Blackpool soul suggested that from the date stamped on the DJ copy that it was recorded in Nov 1966 and that the issue was released early 1967. Looking at 45cat this would seem likely:

F-1016 :Lonnie Youngblood Nov 1966

F-1017:Frankie Beverly and Butlers 1967 but month not mentioned

F-1018 Gene Waiters 1967 as above

F1019 Daddy Kae and Yvonne Feb 1967.

So that places Frankie Beverly F-1017 release to Jan 1967.

[Chalky]

12 minutes ago, ronniesoul said:

Another connection between Tuffy, Quaker, Fairmount is Pecle pub/music looking this up in 45cat found this link to Faye Simmons and the connection to Philly soul etc.

http://www.45cat.com/record/nc353733us

In addition The Yank/Blackpool soul suggested that from the date stamped on the DJ copy that it was recorded in Nov 1966 and that the issue was released early 1967. Looking at 45cat this would seem likely:

F-1016 :Lonnie Youngblood Nov 1966

F-1017:Frankie Beverly and Butlers 1967 but month not mentioned

F-1018 Gene Waiters 1967 as above

F1019 Daddy Kae and Yvonne Feb 1967.

So that places Frankie Beverly F-1017 release to Jan 1967.

The address for Pecle is 1834 West Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, the same as Quaker Town.  LT as stated in the 45 cats comments going by the numbering changed to Quakertown after this solitary release.  Liberty Bell as stated also at the same address and shares the same numbering system.

Frankie Beverley had some connection with Quakertown/Pecle (Butlers on Liberty Bell as well as the publishing on WTFIW) but Fairmount probably had no connection other than recording Beverley and his group.

 

[The Yank]

The Quaker Town label was owned by Philly deejay Leon "Cannonball" Fisher.

[Blackpoolsoul]

6 hours ago, Chalky said:

The address for Pecle is 1834 West Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, the same as Quaker Town.  LT as stated in the 45 cats comments going by the numbering changed to Quakertown after this solitary release.  Liberty Bell as stated also at the same address and shares the same numbering system.

Frankie Beverley had some connection with Quakertown/Pecle (Butlers on Liberty Bell as well as the publishing on WTFIW) but Fairmount probably had no connection other than recording Beverley and his group.

 

Frankie owned 49% of Pecle Publishing and Productions in 1975

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XSQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&lpg=PT3&dq=Pecle+Publishing+and+Productions+philadelphia&source=bl&ots=Z4QA73velX&sig=ACfU3U2U2f6pGywR_8R5J8fdFL8AQJ082w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO-JfC6br2AhUGa8AKHaDWBHkQ6AF6BAgdEAM#v=onepage&q=Pecle Publishing and Productions philadelphia&f=false

[Robbk]

7 hours ago, Chalky said:

The address for Pecle is 1834 West Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, the same as Quaker Town.  LT as stated in the 45 cats comments going by the numbering changed to Quakertown after this solitary release.  Liberty Bell as stated also at the same address and shares the same numbering system.

Frankie Beverley had some connection with Quakertown/Pecle (Butlers on Liberty Bell as well as the publishing on WTFIW) but Fairmount probably had no connection other than recording Beverley and his group.

 

Fairmount was a fully-owned subsidiary of Cameo-Parkway.  They must have heard "Because of My Heart", and liked it enough to sign Frankie and The Butlers to an artist contract, rather than just leasing their Quakertown Productions' previous master (as they re-recorded it, or, at least replaced tracks and remixed it.  In fact, I think I remember seeing a blurb in one of the trade papers announcing that Cameo-Parkway signed The Butlers, and that they were assigned to their Fairmount Records subsidiary label.

As far as why Quakertown didn't release it originally on one of their labels, but, instead leased it to D.C.'s Rouser Records, must be because they thought this cut would become a hit, and they didn't have enough cash at that time, to press up all the records they thought they might need, and maybe they were offered a bigger cut in their split of sales revenue than any Philadelphia label with whom they had tried to make a deal on it.  Rouser certainly didn't have a large network of national distribution like Cameo-Parkway, who ended up distributing it nationally.  I suppose Rouser had, at least,  a little better East Coast (regional) distribution than Quakertown/Liberty Bell. 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Robbk

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, Robbk said:

Fairmount was a fully-owned subsidiary of Cameo-Parkway.  They must have heard "Because of My Heart", and liked it enough to sign Frankie and The Butlers to an artist contract, rather than just leasing their Quakertown Productions' previous master (as they re-recorded it, or, at least replaced tracks and remixed it.  In fact, I think I remember seeing a blurb in one of the trade papers announcing that Cameo-Parkway signed The Butlers, and that they were assigned to their Fairmount Records subsidiary label.

As far as why Quakertown didn't release it originally on one of their labels, but, instead leased it to D.C.'s Rouser Records, must be because they thought this cut would become a hit, and they didn't have enough cash at that time, to press up all the records they thought they might need, and maybe they were offered a bigger cut in their split of sales revenue than any Philadelphia label with whom they had tried to make a deal on it.  Rouser certainly didn't have a large network of national distribution like Cameo-Parkway, who ended up distributing it nationally.  I suppose Rouser had, at least,  a little better East Coast (regional) distribution than Quakertown/Liberty Bell. 

 

Rouser was after Fairmount, they did the edit/remix, just cut parts out.  It even uses the Fairmount number.

[Tai-pan]

4 hours ago, Robbk said:

Fairmount was a fully-owned subsidiary of Cameo-Parkway.  They must have heard "Because of My Heart", and liked it enough to sign Frankie and The Butlers to an artist contract, rather than just leasing their Quakertown Productions' previous master (as they re-recorded it, or, at least replaced tracks and remixed it.  In fact, I think I remember seeing a blurb in one of the trade papers announcing that Cameo-Parkway signed The Butlers, and that they were assigned to their Fairmount Records subsidiary label.

As far as why Quakertown didn't release it originally on one of their labels, but, instead leased it to D.C.'s Rouser Records, must be because they thought this cut would become a hit, and they didn't have enough cash at that time, to press up all the records they thought they might need, and maybe they were offered a bigger cut in their split of sales revenue than any Philadelphia label with whom they had tried to make a deal on it.  Rouser certainly didn't have a large network of national distribution like Cameo-Parkway, who ended up distributing it nationally.  I suppose Rouser had, at least,  a little better East Coast (regional) distribution than Quakertown/Liberty Bell. 

 

The twists and turns of labels and releases is truly fascinating, never fails to amaze me how some tracks see releases on obscure foreign labels, without a sniff of a release in the US. Back to Quakertown, there was definitely a buoyant  emergent scene happening in the DC, Virginia and the Carolinas around that time, which was a little faster and bouncy in tempo. Anyone know how the other Rouser releases tie in?

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Tai-pan

[Chalky]

10 minutes ago, Tai-pan said:

The twists and turns of labels and releases is truly fascinating, never fails to amaze me how some tracks see releases on obscure foreign labels, without a sniff of a release in the US. Back to Quakertown, there was definitely a buoyant  emergent scene happening in the DC, Virginia and the Carolinas around that time, which was a little faster and bouncy in tempo. Anyone know how the other Rouser releases tie in?

 

Both Frankie Beverley and The El Corals on Rouser are both reissues or another go at hitting the charts?  Both are edited takes of their original Fairmount and Tiny releases. How they came to be placed with Tommy Rouse and his label I don't know????

[Solidsoul]

Well, who would of thought that Fairmount was before Rouser!!

Big label before little label!

I suppose it's obvious when you compare both label numbers!

Reminds me of the yellow label Pameline with the Palmer release number in the runout deadwax!

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by D9 Ktf

[Simon T]

3 hours ago, Chalky said:

Rouser was after Fairmount, they did the edit/remix, just cut parts out.  It even uses the Fairmount number.

The Rouser release was in  1971

Edited March 10, 2022 by Simon T
spellchecker smarter than me

[Blackpoolsoul]

1 hour ago, D9 Ktf said:

Well, who would of thought that Fairmount was before Rouser!!

Big label before little label!

I suppose it's obvious when you compare both label numbers!

Reminds me of the yellow label Pameline with the Palmer release number in the runout deadwax!

 

A big label indeed with some artists that little or nothing has been said about

[Dave Pinch]

9 hours ago, Robbk said:

Fairmount was a fully-owned subsidiary of Cameo-Parkway.  They must have heard "Because of My Heart", and liked it enough to sign Frankie and The Butlers to an artist contract, rather than just leasing their Quakertown Productions' previous master (as they re-recorded it, or, at least replaced tracks and remixed it.  In fact, I think I remember seeing a blurb in one of the trade papers announcing that Cameo-Parkway signed The Butlers, and that they were assigned to their Fairmount Records subsidiary label.

As far as why Quakertown didn't release it originally on one of their labels, but, instead leased it to D.C.'s Rouser Records, must be because they thought this cut would become a hit, and they didn't have enough cash at that time, to press up all the records they thought they might need, and maybe they were offered a bigger cut in their split of sales revenue than any Philadelphia label with whom they had tried to make a deal on it.  Rouser certainly didn't have a large network of national distribution like Cameo-Parkway, who ended up distributing it nationally.  I suppose Rouser had, at least,  a little better East Coast (regional) distribution than Quakertown/Liberty Bell. 

 

it was franks 2nd 45 on fairmount too after she kissed me in august 1966 on F 1012

[Robbk]

9 hours ago, Chalky said:

Rouser was after Fairmount, they did the edit/remix, just cut parts out.  It even uses the Fairmount number.

Thanks for informing me of that.  So, maybe Rouser re-recorded it for The Beach Scene???  I don't know when that started.  In any case, maybe Frankie and his current management thought they could get good sales with it being reissued.

[Chalky]

3 hours ago, Robbk said:

Thanks for informing me of that.  So, maybe Rouser re-recorded it for The Beach Scene???  I don't know when that started.  In any case, maybe Frankie and his current management thought they could get good sales with it being reissued.

I don't think Rouser re-recorded it or used another take rather just chop bits out of the Fairmount take. I'll have to listen again to refresh the grey matter.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Chalky

[The Yank]

11 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I don't think Rouser recorded it or used another take rather just chop bits out of the Fairmount take. I'll have to listen again to refresh the grey matter.

   To me, it sounds like the same take but sped up and with an edit near the end of the song.

  Judge for yourself- 

 

[Chalky]

1 minute ago, The Yank said:

   To me, it sounds like the same take but sped up and with an edit near the end of the song.

  Judge for yourself- 

 

I think it is the same take, just edited 

[Weingarden]

Pull the cotton out of your ears, guys! I have never seen ANYONE mention the most obvious difference between the Fairmount and Rouser releases. Fairmount: HANDCLAPS! Rouser: none.

[Weingarden]

And to my ears (though I've heard the Rouser out only once or twice and on YouTube), the Fairmount is superior in every way.

[Dave Pinch]

6 hours ago, Weingarden said:

And to my ears (though I've heard the Rouser out only once or twice and on YouTube), the Fairmount is superior in every way.

and the sax break edited down of course matt

[Tai-pan]

10 hours ago, Weingarden said:

Pull the cotton out of your ears, guys! I have never seen ANYONE mention the most obvious difference between the Fairmount and Rouser releases. Fairmount: HANDCLAPS! Rouser: none.

Many years ago, would have been around 1980, I had a Fairmount for some time. cost around £35 at Wigan. Few months later I bought the Rouser copy from Johnathan W at a Notts Palais all-dayer. I remember the Rouser copy  being distinctly different in its fidelity and mix, claps and breaks are a give away. For me the Fairmount had a brighter, looser sound whilst the Rouser was a tad more polished. 

I personally think this may be the same take, with a different mix.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Tai-pan

[Chalky]

10 hours ago, Weingarden said:

Pull the cotton out of your ears, guys! I have never seen ANYONE mention the most obvious difference between the Fairmount and Rouser releases. Fairmount: HANDCLAPS! Rouser: none.

Yep handclaps on the Fairmount plus the edited sax break on the Rouser and the Rouser take seems to be pitched up