Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Andy Kempster

EMANUEL LASKEY 1ST OR 2ND MIX

Recommended Posts

No doubt this has been done to death on here but I have managed to completely confuse myself referring to JM's book on whether this is the 1st or 2nd mix, it was originally bought as the first mix but I now have my doubts

 

not sure thpics below are as clear as they could be

Any help with confirming would be appreciated

 

all the best, Andy

 

 

WP_20150913_003.jpg

WP_20150913_002.jpg

WP_20150913_001.jpg

WP_20150913_004.jpg

Edited by Andy Kempster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What one could/should refer to the first mix is the the one with the matrix that is un-scrathed on the 'don't lead me on' side. This mix is definitely missing something. There's no bass ! Some say one (or more) channel is/are missing. They must have amended that and repress it with a proper mix with bass and horns... with the original matrix scratched out. IMHO the better one to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first mix demo is on WHITE LABEL.  The first mix compared to the second is the first mix has crossed out MATRIX numbers with a new MATRIX scratched in at trail off.  Here is a photo of the correct demo label.  The value of this has been undetermined due to the 2nd with the original MATRIX has been sold for $350.00 U.S.  I have been told to try to determine the number of copies in collections to try and determine a value.  Thus so far I have set it at roughly $90.00 U.S.  Hope this helps.

$_57.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bill Spellings said:

  The first mix compared to the second is the first mix has crossed out MATRIX numbers with a new MATRIX scratched in at trail off. 

This is confusing, as it is the exact opposite to what tlscapital says in an earlier post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 28 novembre 2017 at 20:27, solidsoul said:

This is confusing, as it is the exact opposite to what tlscapital says in an earlier post!

 

On 13 septembre 2015 at 15:44, Andy Kempster said:

Lovely, thanks

Definitely the second press then

cheers, Andy

OK, finally comparison in view and sound. View; LEFT scan of matrix of the FIRST press with channels missing then RiGHT matrix of SECOND press.

2147318303_Capturedcran2018-06-0708_36_21.thumb.png.7bc8b7e97e7d6d1d701dce05e6c915c5.png

Both with the 'Nashville' mastering and the 'ARP' pressing plant machine stamp (in different places) but with the hand scratched in 'ZTSC' initial catalogue number on the RIGHT strike through with the new attributed catalogue number scratched in as this SECOND press release is actually a new TAKE that requires a new take catalogue number !

My theory is that the sound engineer forgot/lost one or more channel (bass, baritone...) during the recording session on the first take. And if even Emanuel Laskey voice sounds less crisp/sharp on this second take ,this is how it sounds when one cuts the bass; highs sounds different, louder and upfront.

Hear the sound recordings lift of them both records done at the same time one after the other and at the very same volume. First take is the FIRST/LEFT release then at 2:50 the SECOND/RIGHT one !

don't lead me on 3.mp3

Hope this settles this quest once and for all.

 

 

Edited by tlscapital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment now!

Comments are members only

Sign Up

Join Soul Source - Free & easy!

Sign up now!

Sign in

Sign in here.

Sign in now!

Adverts



×