I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

I was just browsing John M's auctions, and once again I spotted Vanessa Kendrick's mediocre rendition of "90% Of Me Is You" being described in such a way, when it is surely obvious to anyone who has cleaned their ears recently that it doesn't even come within slapping distance of Gwen McCrae's peerless original - if only because Gwen is one of the greatest and most soulful singers of the past three decades, and Vanessa Kendrick sounds like some producer's girlfriend, making a record just so he can get his jollies after the session.

Before anyone starts in with a "this is just another pop at Manship" diatribe, let me say here and now that it's meant to be no such thing. I respect John greatly - as do I my friend Richard Searling, who also famously once described the Kendrick cut as "THE version" - and they both have a right to their opinions, but so do I and, folks, it just ain't right to pronounce something - anything! - as better just because it's rarer, and the fact that you could buy ten to a dozen copies of Gwen's 45 for the same price as one V. Kendrick doesn't dowgrade the former to the status of an inferior piece of work. Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

PS: A couple of other examples where "THE version" is patently and markedly inferior to the cheaper version:

"What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)" - No alternate version will ever beat Jr. Walker's - period - certainly not the second rate sub-pop of the Electrifying Cashmeres

"Stubborn Heart" - Would anyone really take Ernest Mosley over the Sheppards, and if so why on Earth would they...

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

Bell Boys – I don’t want to lose you

Blue Sharks - These things

Warren Shatz – Soon everything

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

I was just browsing John M's auctions, and once again I spotted Vanessa Kendrick's mediocre rendition of "90% Of Me Is You" being described in such a way, when it is surely obvious to anyone who has cleaned their ears recently that it doesn't even come within slapping distance of Gwen McCrae's peerless original - if only because Gwen is one of the greatest and most soulful singers of the past three decades, and Vanessa Kendrick sounds like some producer's girlfriend, making a record just so he can get his jollies after the session.

Before anyone starts in with a "this is just another pop at Manship" diatribe, let me say here and now that it's meant to be no such thing. I respect John greatly - as do I my friend Richard Searling, who also famously once described the Kendrick cut as "THE version" - and they both have a right to their opinions, but so do I and, folks, it just ain't right to pronounce something - anything! - as better just because it's rarer, and the fact that you could buy ten to a dozen copies of Gwen's 45 for the same price as one V. Kendrick doesn't dowgrade the former to the status of an inferior piece of work. Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

PS: A couple of other examples where "THE version" is patently and markedly inferior to the cheaper version:

"What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)" - No alternate version will ever beat Jr. Walker's - period - certainly not the second rate sub-pop of the Electrifying Cashmeres

"Stubborn Heart" - Would anyone really take Ernest Mosley over the Sheppards, and if so why on Earth would they...

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

Right on!

As I remember the Vanessa Kendrick version is missing the oh so essential "what can I do" backing bits that make the Gwen McCrae such a perfect record.

As for Junior Walker, I have always considered every cover, and there are a few, to be pointless. Motherlode's version has a bit of charm, and is a lot more expensive than Junior's..

The one that really does my head in, is of course any version of the Spinners "ill be around". However, the expensieve, but not at all rare, Doug Parkinson and the Silver Bullit Band, takes the biscuit. Completely awful.

Regards Alan

I have argued with many a London / two step collector over the years as to the merits of the VK 45 - very sought after by them, as they do like a version !! But I think most agree which is the better of the two

Kenny G made sure I can't listen to ANY version of 'What Does It Take', without cringing - The Bay Brothers is not much better IMO

Girf

Prefer Donald Albert's version of The Hardest Part' to the expensive Curtis Anderson version

Edited May 26, 200618 yr by Simon T

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

Eddy Jacobs Exchange / Can't seem to get you out of my mind

Cheryl Gray

donald albert-hardest part(runaway

Prefer Donald Albert's version of The Hardest Part' to the expensive Curtis Anderson version

Actually I think that I do too, on reflection - but I prefer Smokey Robinson's "Tell Me Tomorrow" to both of them (same songwriters, more or less the same backing track) and that's cheaper still!

TONE

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

Tone,

I've had this conversation a few times, but to my ears I have always prefered Vanessa's version. You're wrong about the backing track being the same. It is precisely because of the backing track that I like VK's version better. It is much slinkier and sexier, with a real lowdown dirty grooving bass line that would grace any sound system, and wicked strings that give the tune real tension and atmosphere. I agree that Gwen's vocals are better but in this instance I prefer the overall feel of this record despite weaker vocals. Just my opinion.

Jordi

like them both

i agree that gwens vocals seem to hit the point a little more than vans

but im a hip hop boy and the only way large professor and main source could sample

90% for "just hanging out" on there breaking atoms lp is by ripping it from the original and first recording, which is vanessa's.

cant believe that the vanessa one commands such a high price tag

yeah i got it and its nice but not that nice!

i was brought up on gwens version until a mate had the vanessa...damn i thought.

but the backing isnt as upfront as gwens.

Here`s a couple of tunes in which i consider the rarer version as inferior

Love won`t wear off-Universal Joint . Not as good as JR Bailey

I`ll do anything -Lee Mcdonald (although there are other good tracks on the LP) . Ecstacy,Passion and Pain,s version is vocally in a different league.

Mark Houghton

I also think that, it depends on what you heard first. Whatever people reply with, it will generate a lot of controversy.

IMO

Bobby Cutchins - I Did It Again, preferred to Jessie Henderson

Rove - Go by What you tell Me, preferred to Ron Keith

General Johnson - Don't Walk Away - Surfside to Arista

Mel & Tim - It May not be what you want, preferred to Bobby Sheen

Mel & Tim - Those Little things that count, preferred to John Edwards (I seem to be a bigger Mel & Tim fan than I thought)

Howard Gyton - I watched you slowly slip away, Lou Coutney

Natural 4 - I thought You Were Mine, My preference is for the Boola Boola version rather than the ABC, but I don't know which one is the more expensive

Bettye Swan - Make Me Yours against any other version recorded

John

How about Leon Haywood - Consider The Source - for listening I think the 20th Century side kicks the Capitol version's teeth in

And Dionne Warwick's version of I Can't Wait Until I See My Baby's Face is at the very top of a big tree of great (and some rarer) versions - IMO of course

And I like Aretha's - Oh No Not My Baby

Girf

Agree on all points Tony.

Gwen's version is a far better Soul record... but since theVK version is much rarer, something else takes over in the mind of the 'collector'.

It's a form of 'Sex Appeal' that anyone other than a rare soul 'collector' or 'DJ' wouldn't recognise!

It's also one of the problems in the UK Soul scene, these days, and an endemic part of the Northern scene.

I remember hearing the Bay Bros "What Does It Take" played out some years ago, and just thinking....But Why?

I mean... if you want to play a 'version' the Buddy Miles 45 is far superior (though none can touch Junior)

Same thing happened when I first heard the Spyders "I Can Take Care Of Myself" and the Bellboys "I Don't Wanna Lose You".

And much as I LOVE Otis Clay.. I used to cringe at his take on "Turn Back The Hands Of Time, equally so with Mack Simmons "Turning Point" whilst Tyrone (at No 1 in the US R&B charts) would never have got a look in over here!

It's the 'Sex Appeal' that does it.

Provides variety I guess, but yes, those with 'ears' can tell which version is 'best' just by listening... rather than referring to the price guides.

Sean Hampsey

And much as I LOVE Otis Clay.. I used to cringe at his take on "Turn Back The Hands Of Time,

Jee, I thought for one minute you were gonna diss Yazz

And much as I LOVE Otis Clay.. I used to cringe at his take on "Turn Back The Hands Of Time,

Jee, I thought for one minute you were gonna diss Yazz

Superb Simon.... as ever!

Time for bed... with smile well and truly on!

Sean

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

I was just browsing John M's auctions, and once again I spotted Vanessa Kendrick's mediocre rendition of "90% Of Me Is You" being described in such a way, when it is surely obvious to anyone who has cleaned their ears recently that it doesn't even come within slapping distance of Gwen McCrae's peerless original - if only because Gwen is one of the greatest and most soulful singers of the past three decades, and Vanessa Kendrick sounds like some producer's girlfriend, making a record just so he can get his jollies after the session.

Before anyone starts in with a "this is just another pop at Manship" diatribe, let me say here and now that it's meant to be no such thing. I respect John greatly - as do I my friend Richard Searling, who also famously once described the Kendrick cut as "THE version" - and they both have a right to their opinions, but so do I and, folks, it just ain't right to pronounce something - anything! - as better just because it's rarer, and the fact that you could buy ten to a dozen copies of Gwen's 45 for the same price as one V. Kendrick doesn't dowgrade the former to the status of an inferior piece of work. Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

PS: A couple of other examples where "THE version" is patently and markedly inferior to the cheaper version:

"What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)" - No alternate version will ever beat Jr. Walker's - period - certainly not the second rate sub-pop of the Electrifying Cashmeres

"Stubborn Heart" - Would anyone really take Ernest Mosley over the Sheppards, and if so why on Earth would they...

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

On the vocal front Gwen is far stronger, but if you like the helpless girl thing then Vanessa sounds convincingly unsure of herself on her songs - and that's the way Reid / Clarke wanted her to sound. I actually prefer Kandrick even though she's no powerhouse in the vocal department. As jordi says it's an earthier arrangement. And that's not taking anything away from Gwen, who'se great as well.

Ernest Mosely - miles better than the Shepperds - really surprised me on this one. The Shepperds a poor substitute.

Junior Walker - I agree entirely. Bay Brothers etc. pap.

Eddie Jacobs Exchange - f***ing great record. The production has so much going on in it, played over a decent system it'll leave most people gasping. And a great B side too.

As jordi says it's an earthier arrangement.

Sorry, Steve (and Jordi) - I've just been upstairs, and played both versions back to back. The backing tracks are absolutely identical in every way, (save for the missing backing vocals, which are so integral to Gwen's version). It's not even a different mix or anything, so how can the arrangement be in any way 'earthier'? All I'm hearing in this particular 'soundclash' is a truly great singer stomping all over an extremely mediocre one, guys.

Gwen is musically priceless, I was probably overcharged at a quid for the Glades 45 20 odd years ago...

TONE

PS: And before anyone says "Why don't you sell it then?", Glades is a label I collect and I probably only bought "90%" for a number filler in the first place - which is all it will ever be, as far as I'm concerned....

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

I was just browsing John M's auctions, and once again I spotted Vanessa Kendrick's mediocre rendition of "90% Of Me Is You" being described in such a way, when it is surely obvious to anyone who has cleaned their ears recently that it doesn't even come within slapping distance of Gwen McCrae's peerless original - if only because Gwen is one of the greatest and most soulful singers of the past three decades, and Vanessa Kendrick sounds like some producer's girlfriend, making a record just so he can get his jollies after the session.

Before anyone starts in with a "this is just another pop at Manship" diatribe, let me say here and now that it's meant to be no such thing. I respect John greatly - as do I my friend Richard Searling, who also famously once described the Kendrick cut as "THE version" - and they both have a right to their opinions, but so do I and, folks, it just ain't right to pronounce something - anything! - as better just because it's rarer, and the fact that you could buy ten to a dozen copies of Gwen's 45 for the same price as one V. Kendrick doesn't dowgrade the former to the status of an inferior piece of work. Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

PS: A couple of other examples where "THE version" is patently and markedly inferior to the cheaper version:

"What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)" - No alternate version will ever beat Jr. Walker's - period - certainly not the second rate sub-pop of the Electrifying Cashmeres

"Stubborn Heart" - Would anyone really take Ernest Mosley over the Sheppards, and if so why on Earth would they...

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

Call me a philastine but I prefer the Tom Jones version of "It's Not Unusual" compared to the Impressions.

Phil.

I prefer the Tom Jones version of "It's Not Unusual" compared to the Impressions.

Phil.

Whereas I much prefer the Dells!

Sean Hampsey

Whereas I much prefer the Dells!

Sean Hampsey

...me, I personally go for Big Youth and the Heptones' cut. Seriously, though, INU is a pretty hard song not to like, in any version including Tom's....

TONE

Whereas I much prefer the Dells!

Sean Hampsey

What, even over this version ??

unusual.mp3

What, even over this version ??

Definately Darren.

Never could stand Marvin G singing standards!

But Marvin Junior... that's another story!

Sean

Natural Four boola boola version better than ABC? sorry but can't have that.the ABC version leaves the slower Boola Boola version behind in my humble opinion but hey that's what i love about this music(everybody is entitled to their own opinion).

Regards Soulster22

I also think that, it depends on what you heard first. Whatever people reply with, it will generate a lot of controversy.

IMO

Bobby Cutchins - I Did It Again, preferred to Jessie Henderson

Rove - Go by What you tell Me, preferred to Ron Keith

General Johnson - Don't Walk Away - Surfside to Arista

Mel & Tim - It May not be what you want, preferred to Bobby Sheen

Mel & Tim - Those Little things that count, preferred to John Edwards (I seem to be a bigger Mel & Tim fan than I thought)

Howard Gyton - I watched you slowly slip away, Lou Coutney

Natural 4 - I thought You Were Mine, My preference is for the Boola Boola version rather than the ABC, but I don't know which one is the more expensive

Bettye Swan - Make Me Yours against any other version recorded

John

I don't know how other Sourcers feel about this, but it really gets my goat when I see rare records described as "The Best Version" just because they're rare.

I was just browsing John M's auctions, and once again I spotted Vanessa Kendrick's mediocre rendition of "90% Of Me Is You" being described in such a way, when it is surely obvious to anyone who has cleaned their ears recently that it doesn't even come within slapping distance of Gwen McCrae's peerless original - if only because Gwen is one of the greatest and most soulful singers of the past three decades, and Vanessa Kendrick sounds like some producer's girlfriend, making a record just so he can get his jollies after the session.

Before anyone starts in with a "this is just another pop at Manship" diatribe, let me say here and now that it's meant to be no such thing. I respect John greatly - as do I my friend Richard Searling, who also famously once described the Kendrick cut as "THE version" - and they both have a right to their opinions, but so do I and, folks, it just ain't right to pronounce something - anything! - as better just because it's rarer, and the fact that you could buy ten to a dozen copies of Gwen's 45 for the same price as one V. Kendrick doesn't dowgrade the former to the status of an inferior piece of work. Especially as you get a better singer on the same backing track when you buy Gwen...

This is by no means the only example of the best version of a song being dismissed as a lesser item just because you don't need to remortgage the house to buy a copy. I'd be interested to find out who else gets the hump over this ongoing "it's rarer so it must be better" scanario - with this, or with any other record...

TONE

PS: A couple of other examples where "THE version" is patently and markedly inferior to the cheaper version:

"What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)" - No alternate version will ever beat Jr. Walker's - period - certainly not the second rate sub-pop of the Electrifying Cashmeres

"Stubborn Heart" - Would anyone really take Ernest Mosley over the Sheppards, and if so why on Earth would they...

Let's see who out there can add to this list!

Tony, one hundred correct (100%) (not just 90% !!!) on all fronts !!!

And Patrice Holloway's cheapie absolutely KILLS AND COOKS Sam Nesbit's "Black Mother Goose" !!!

And as much as I rate Phillip Mitchell's massive talent, Mel & Tim's LP version of "Free For All" is way ahead of Price Phillip's !!! In my very humble opinion of course.

Barret Strong "Money",much better by the Flying Lizards than the Beatles.

i much prefer virgil henry, i,ll be true over the cookie woodson thingy anyday

Natural Four boola boola version better than ABC? sorry but can't have that.the ABC version leaves the slower Boola Boola version behind in my humble opinion but hey that's what i love about this music(everybody is entitled to their own opinion).

Regards Soulster22

Hmm... A difficult one. I've got the ABC version and think it's great.

Having said that - If I didn't own either I'd buy the Boola Boola version.

I think they got it right the first time and there's just a little bit less cohesion on the ABC version as a result of the increase in tempo, especially with the harmonies etc.

It's a close run thing, however. Ten years ago I favoured the ABC version.

I wouldn't say no to a free copy of either!