Weingarden Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Are all copies of this kind of muffled and bad-sounding? Or just mine? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Mal C Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Boot or Original? M Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Modernsoulsucks Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The originals are "muffled" Mal. Dont know nowt about recording techniques etc but just sounds really top heavy base. That's half the appeal though. ROD Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The 70's lookalike is a better sound reproduction. The one with the SS before the number. The original has UV before the number. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ian Dewhirst Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The originals are uniformly awful. One of the worst mastered records I've ever heard. It's a miracle it made any impact at the time and it made me very careful how I programmed it back in the day. However, I recently heard a properly mastered 'clean' version and boy what a difference that makes. Now it's a proper record. If we've have had the 'clean' version back then it would've been one of the biggest records ever without a doubt. If any record should be reissued with proper mastering, then it's this one! Ian D Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Weingarden Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 Thanks for the replies. I think it's a great song. How does one get one's hands on this "clean" version? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ian Dewhirst Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Thanks for the replies. I think it's a great song. How does one get one's hands on this "clean" version? I found it by accident on You Tube and couldn't believe the clarity. I was sending some links to a friend who does a radio show in Texas, so I sent the Malibus and a couple of other things. I'll go through my CD's tonight and see if I can locate the remastered version..... Ian D 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Jerry Hipkiss Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 IIRC the recording on the Kent LP reissue in the late 80's wasn't bad - don't know if some basic EQ'ing was done at the time? But yes, the original is one of those where ii have to drop the bass levels whenever I play it out anywhere! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Modernsoulsucks Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Wusses ! ROD 3 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
MrsWoodsrules Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Soundtrack to my youth this one, along with Johnny Bragg, first records I ever danced to (publicly), Co-op hall & Bell Hall Warrington. Ahhh, I was a mere pup, but the music still resonates as strongly as ever, like certain smells from certain places, it never goes away. Aid. 2 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
siddernee Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 original copies on sureshot are really really bassy Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ian Dewhirst Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 IIRC the recording on the Kent LP reissue in the late 80's wasn't bad - don't know if some basic EQ'ing was done at the time? But yes, the original is one of those where ii have to drop the bass levels whenever I play it out anywhere! A totally professional reply Jerry, as one would expect. If anyone can imagine the terrible standards of most sound equipment in the early to mid 1970's and then listen to the mix on the original 45, then you'll know exactly what we're talking about here. There was not only bass distortion, a ridiculously low sound level and a loud surface hiss throughout, but the record was also badly pressed into the bargain. The sound systems back then were also hideously bad, so a badly pressed and badly mixed record on a bad sound system, sounded like a welcome to audio hell. The Malibus, great record though it is, got seriously hampered by the inferiority of the pressing. I had to programme it following maybe a low-fi album track or a similarly bad pressing or even a record with severe styrene burn. Against something like that you might have half a chance that "Gee Baby" would actually sound good! I've just got home and I'm preoccupied with other stuff, but sometime over the weekend I'll find the best release of this hopefully. I'm presuming that I have the crystal clear You Tube version somewhere in my library. In fact, when I was checking the You Tube versions earlier, I couldn't help noticing a difference in the label scans that were used in the clips. The clips show two different labels, that both appear to be originals to my eyes. Maybe one of 'em was a bang on re-issue with extra info on the label, but, if so, that'd be news to me. I'll try and dig 'em out and post 'em. Maybe two different original pressings? One of which was the one that we found originally and the other, the properly mastered and eq'd pressing which came out too late for anyone to notice? Who knows? I'm not aware of any Sure Shot boots but maybe there were......? Ian D Dammit, why am I giving myself more work.........? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
The Tempest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve L Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Who knows? I'm not aware of any Sure Shot boots but maybe there were......? Ian D The one with (I love you) in lower case are boots aren't they? 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ian Dewhirst Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 The one with (I love you) in lower case are boots aren't they? Maybe. If it was booted or re-issued it's likely to have been remastered and would probably be a better pressing as well....... Ian D Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 The one with (I love you) in lower case are boots aren't they? Yes they are. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Here`s scans of the Orig and the so called boot,both have different info on them the boot say`s a div of ABC/Dunhill time 1.50,the Orig does not have that info and timed at 1.55...... Orig Boot Dave f...... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Here`s scans of the Orig and the so called boot,both have different info on them the boot say`s a div of ABC/Dunhill time 1.50,the Orig does not have that info and timed at 1.55...... Orig Boot Dave f...... 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Not sure why it posted twice,if any of the Mods want to delete one please do. and this,cheers. Dave f... Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Steve L Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 The bootleg sure is a nice looking one Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Northern Soul Uk Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 So, just got a 2nd release copy of this and the sound quality is excellent. I take it that it must have been remastered. It has been mentioned in an earlier post on this thread as being a 'So called boot', so is it a boot or is it an official repress maybe due to the sound quality? In my experience of remixing, to remaster a track properly, you would need the actual separate parts of the track to be able to boost or lower the offending properties. Could this have been the case or was it just a matter of re-recording the track with less bass, which would be hard to do if as said above the original recording record was muffled? Does anyone know who Booted/Reissued it? and whether they had access to the original masters? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Roburt Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 POST #18 ......... the Orig and the so called boot, both have different info on them the boot say`s a div of ABC/Dunhill Duke Records was not sold to ABC-Dunhill until May 73, so it seems strange that a 6 year old non-hit 45 would have been legally repressed by ABC in the US a long time after it had first escaped. Could possibly have been a special repress done to meet UK demand though ... OR ELSE .... a definite bootleg. 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Northern Soul Uk Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) yes Roburt I did see post 18, it just seems that it was a lot of trouble to go to remastering it, making the label look so clean and lifelike and adding the 'Div of ABC Dunhill', when whoever Booted it if it is a boot, could have just done a straight copy of the original and the label and probably made as much money? There are not many Boots that I have seen that look and sound better than the original. Reminds me somewhat of the 'Coasters - Crazy baby' repress. I and many thought for years that it was a boot and it turned out to be a ligit 'Atco/Atlantic' repress. Edited March 20, 2015 by Northern Soul UK Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Thinksmart Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I found it by accident on You Tube and couldn't believe the clarity. I was sending some links to a friend who does a radio show in Texas, so I sent the Malibus and a couple of other things. I'll go through my CD's tonight and see if I can locate the remastered version..... Ian D It is on 'Soul of Wigan Casino' CD from Goldmine. I collect all northern/modern soul or related CD releases and cannot see it on any other recent CDs in my database of tracks I have. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Louise Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 How's about flippin' it over for the equally excellent "What's This Coming" ? Dave 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Dave Rimmer Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 It is on 'Soul of Wigan Casino' CD from Goldmine. I collect all northern/modern soul or related CD releases and cannot see it on any other recent CDs in my database of tracks I have. It's also on a CD called 'Casino' released on Soul World, and the Kent LP 'Brainstormers' Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Frankie Crocker Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Are there original issues of Gee Baby? I've only come across promotion copies. Pat Brady has an 'issue' up for auction but it is described as a DJ copy and it appears to be the re-issue/bootleg with the lower case text. Now more confused... 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Ian Dewhirst Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 POST #18 ......... the Orig and the so called boot, both have different info on them the boot say`s a div of ABC/Dunhill Duke Records was not sold to ABC-Dunhill until May 73, so it seems strange that a 6 year old non-hit 45 would have been legally repressed by ABC in the US a long time after it had first escaped. Could possibly have been a special repress done to meet UK demand though ... OR ELSE .... a definite bootleg. Looks like a legitimate custom-repress to me. If it was a bootleg they'd more than likely do a straight copy of the original label whereas the far superior sound quality, superior mastering and extra information on the second label indicate that this was indeed a legitimate re-press. This is one of those rare cases where I'd go for a re-press rather than an original. I had one of the first originals and the horrible quality always put me off playing it back then. Different kettle of fish on the re-press. Helluva record but ONLY on the re-press! It's what's in the grooves that counts! Ian D 2 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gilly Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Too much bottom end don't help nothing brill record tho Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Northern Soul Uk Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 My feelings too Ian. No need to go to all that trouble to do a boot, it's likely to sell anyway if it's an in demander. 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Roburt Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Looks like a legitimate custom-repress to me. If it was a bootleg they'd more than likely do a straight copy of the original label whereas the far superior sound quality, superior mastering and extra information on the second label indicate that this was indeed a legitimate re-press. Ian D I'd go with this (an official repress) option as well. I believe that when Duke - Peacock was sold to ABC-Dunhill, in addition to all the rights, ABC also got all their master tapes. No doubt the master tape for the Malibus tracks were still in decent condition and included tracks of much higher quality than had actually made it onto the original version of the 45. It seems that ABC also got the master tapes to all the old unreleased recordings the Houston outfit had in their vaults. But these were probably all dumped when some 'smart' ABC exec decided to throw out the tapes of all the companies unissued stuff to 'free up' storage room space. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Tlscapital Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Are there original issues of Gee Baby? I've only come across promotion copies. Pat Brady has an 'issue' up for auction but it is described as a DJ copy and it appears to be the re-issue/bootleg with the lower case text. Now more confused... I have a stocker first release like this one and they seem to be scarcer/rarer than the demos. 2 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Paul R Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Can I ask a silly question? Well I will. Is the pronunciation Maliboos as in people from the resort of Malibu, or Malibuss as in the number 37 to Hindley Green? By the way, I have it on the Soul Of Wigan CD and it appears to be a pretty clear recording. Paul Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Tlscapital Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Looks like a legitimate custom-repress to me. If it was a bootleg they'd more than likely do a straight copy of the original label whereas the far superior sound quality, superior mastering and extra information on the second label indicate that this was indeed a legitimate re-press. This is one of those rare cases where I'd go for a re-press rather than an original. I had one of the first originals and the horrible quality always put me off playing it back then. Different kettle of fish on the re-press. Helluva record but ONLY on the re-press! It's what's in the grooves that counts! Ian D I could believe that it is a legit re-issue done in 1973 when Don's labels were sold to ABC/Dunhill and it was remastered to make it "sellable". It does have all the characteristics of those late/last independent Duke and Back Beat 45s. What is odd about it is that all the other Duke/Back Beat issued under the ABC deal were all pressed at the ABC's pressing plants. Not this one ! How come then ? I doubt they were pressed for the beach scene (if/maybe for the 'what's this coming' side then) since I've never seen one of those issues popping out from the States. But in the UK yes. So it was made for the UK market and freshly imported to the UK. But where's the connection with Don Robey and the northern soul ? Knowing that Don died in 1975, did those copies surface before ? And now even if it sounds "cleaner" and "better balanced", I always heard and loved that "bouncing" bass that makes half of the tune on it's own IMHO. Listening just now to the "cleaned" cuts on YouTube I find it misses that big half. Voila ! 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Labeat Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Can I ask a silly question? Well I will. Is the pronunciation Maliboos as in people from the resort of Malibu, or Malibuss as in the number 37 to Hindley Green? By the way, I have it on the Soul Of Wigan CD and it appears to be a pretty clear recording. Paul Think of Betty Boo 1 Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!