If That's What You Wanted - Chuck Jackson - Unissued

[Ian Dewhirst]

An unissued Chuck Jackson cover of Frankie Beverly and The Butlers "If That's What You Wanted"?

I'm listening to it now and it uses the same backing track as F.B. However, as far as I know, there was never an instrumental available which leads me to think that someone got hold of the instrumental track and cut a session with Chuck. Could this have been when Neil Rushton licensed it maybe? He never mentioned that he had a Chuck Jackson version knocking around though........

Anyone know the story here?

Ian D

[Jaco]

An unissued Chuck Jackson cover of Frankie Beverly and The Butlers "If That's What You Wanted"?

I'm listening to it now and it uses the same backing track as F.B. However, as far as I know, there was never an instrumental available which leads me to think that someone got hold of the instrumental track and cut a session with Chuck. Could this have been when Neil Rushton licensed it maybe? He never mentioned that he had a Chuck Jackson version knocking around though........

Anyone know the story here?

Ian D

Thought that this was just a doctored version with somebody using some software to change the vocals. Sure this has been discussed before. Could be wrong though.

[Ian Dewhirst]

Thought that this was just a doctored version with somebody using some software to change the vocals. Sure this has been discussed before. Could be wrong though.

Well it's been doctored so well that none of Frankie Beverley's vocals are on it but the Background Vocals and full instrumental backing are all on there but with a completely different vocal on top which does sound remarkably like Chuck Jackson. So unless there's any software out there that can strip a lead vocal and leave everything else on there they must have had access to the original 2" master. And access to Chuck Jackson as well of course LOL....

That's what makes me think that this could be a session from the late 70's around the time of the Inferno re-issues of Frank Beverly. Chuck Jackson would have been in between contracts and the masters would have been accessed for the UK release?

But I'm intrigued. Frankie's version edges it for me because how can you beat one of the greatest records ever made? But this version's pretty f*ckin' rockin' too.........

Ian D

[Ady Croasdell]

It begs the question where did you get it from Ian? As you were Neil's partner in the 70s (allegedly:lol:) I'd have thought you might have known if Neil did a session with Chuck.

[Benji]

So unless there's any software out there that can strip a lead vocal and leave everything else

Ian D

Infact there is such a software, you can alter vocals, backing, slow down speed up whatever. If you know how to handle it you can gain some excellent results

There's a whole CD of doctored "alt takes" been doing the rounds for quite a few years now. Some sound brill, some ok and some of these 'alt takes' are awful..

Edited April 10, 2010 by Benji

[Ian Dewhirst]

It begs the question where did you get it from Ian? As you were Neil's partner in the 70s (allegedly:lol:) I'd have thought you might have known if Neil did a session with Chuck.

Well, I'm going the usual pile of CD's working out stuff for Sunday's radio show and it's come from one of my regular guys up North who always stumbles into stuff. I get around 6 cd's a month off him and there's always interesting stuff on there. I'll ask him and see if he can shed any light on it.

Neil and I were partners around '75-'76 before we both went on to do other stuff. I think Neil did Inferno in the late 70's so we weren't working together by then. He told me about the Moulton mix on the Carstairs which I never knew about until then but I can't recall him mentioning any Chuck Jackson sessions at the time.

Hence the reason why I'm curious. Have you heard it? I'd like verify if it's definitely Chuck Jackson. I'll thwack you an MP3 over......

Ian D

[Ian Dewhirst]

Infact there is such a software, you can alter vocals, backing, slow down speed up whatever. If you know how to handle it you can gain some excellent results

There's a whole CD of doctored "alt takes" been doing the rounds for quite a few years now. Some sound brill, some ok and some of these 'alt takes' are awful..

Yeah I know but I can usually tell as there's generally a 'ghost' of the original vocal that still bleeds through - you can usually hear traces of the original vocal on most of the doctored Motown tracks as an example. But all I can hear on this is the full backing track and BV's from the original but a completely different lead vocal presumably by Chuck Jackson.

I don't see how it could be doctored really. I mean Chuck would still have had to perform the song wouldn't he?

Ian D

[Benji]

Ian,

haven't heard your Chuck Jackson take but the CD I got starts with a doctored IFTWYW credited to Chuck Jackson so I assume we're talking about the same version.

Can post the track list of my CD if wanted?

[Ady Croasdell]

Sorry kids, defo not Chuck (which is a great shame) and it does sound like it's been doctored the vocal sounds slowed down or at least transposed.

[Ian Dewhirst]

Sorry kids, defo not Chuck (which is a great shame) and it does sound like it's been doctored the vocal sounds slowed down or at least transposed.

But it's not Franky is it? There's nuances in it that suggest that it's not doctored as the vocalist has a slightly different style to Franky. Let's put it this way, if it has been doctored then it's one of the most convincing ones I've ever heard.

If someone can pm an e-mail addy I'll send it so someone can post it up in Refosoul (I have troubles with Refo and no time to sort it out LOL)....

I'm gonna blag that album of instrumentals you just put out too!

Ian D

[Ian Dewhirst]

Well I've listened to it a few times now and it could be some studio jiggery-pokery. They may have slowed down Frankie's voice and then re-compressed it 'cos it sounds an octave lower than Frankie and thus sounds like a different singer. Very convincing though.

I still can't figure out why anyone would want to dick around with the original though, which was surely good enough?

Ian D

[Glenssoulsounds]

Well it's been doctored so well that none of Frankie Beverley's vocals are on it but the Background Vocals and full instrumental backing are all on there but with a completely different vocal on top which does sound remarkably like Chuck Jackson. So unless there's any software out there that can strip a lead vocal and leave everything else on there they must have had access to the original 2" master. And access to Chuck Jackson as well of course LOL....

That's what makes me think that this could be a session from the late 70's around the time of the Inferno re-issues of Frank Beverly. Chuck Jackson would have been in between contracts and the masters would have been accessed for the UK release?

But I'm intrigued. Frankie's version edges it for me because how can you beat one of the greatest records ever made? But this version's pretty f*ckin' rockin' too.........

Ian D

HI , JUST TO NAIL THIS "CHUCK JACKSON" CUT OF "FRANKIE BEVERLY" I DID THIS ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO ...ALONG WITH THE 20 ODD TRACK "ALT CUTZ" HOPE THIS HELPS?..GLEN.

[Ian Dewhirst]

HI , JUST TO NAIL THIS "CHUCK JACKSON" CUT OF "FRANKIE BEVERLY" I DID THIS ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO ...ALONG WITH THE 20 ODD TRACK "ALT CUTZ" HOPE THIS HELPS?..GLEN.

LOL, I might have known it was you Glen. See - I knew there was a Rushton connection somewhere!

Lovely design and layout on Neil's book by the way.......

Coffee table in my house at the moment!

Ian D

[Glenssoulsounds]

On 4/10/2010 at 16:54, Ian Dewhirst said:

LOL, I might have known it was you Glen. See - I knew there was a Rushton connection somewhere!

 

HI IAN , NO RUSHTON CONNECTION ....HONEST !....CHEERS MATEY ....GLEN

[Simon M]

Dropping a Dooberry . It must be in the Urban Dictionary by now

[Pete S]

Regular readers will remember when I posted the first of these alternate versions (it wasn't 10 years ago Glen, the software hadn't been invented) and I posted three tracks up I think and said "you watch, in a few years these will be passed off as legit", I did them as a joke using "the amazing slow downer" software, within weeks there were tons going around, including a 'female' version of Right Track

[Guest]

Regular readers will remember when I posted the first of these alternate versions (it wasn't 10 years ago Glen, the software hadn't been invented) and I posted three tracks up I think and said "you watch, in a few years these will be passed off as legit", I did them as a joke using "the amazing slow downer" software, within weeks there were tons going around, including a 'female' version of Right Track

If I recall Pete , is there not a " version " of " A Love Reputation " as well ?

Malc Burton

[Guest]

On 4/10/2010 at 16:54, Ian Dewhirst said:

LOL, I might have known it was you Glen. See - I knew there was a Rushton connection somewhere!

 

My Mrs gave me a copy for my birthday and it's been essential bog time study since February, think I've just about memerised the whole book now!

[Guest stevejan]

But it's not Franky is it? There's nuances in it that suggest that it's not doctored as the vocalist has a slightly different style to Franky. Let's put it this way, if it has been doctored then it's one of the most convincing ones I've ever heard.

If someone can pm an e-mail addy I'll send it so someone can post it up in Refosoul (I have troubles with Refo and no time to sort it out LOL)....

I'm gonna blag that album of instrumentals you just put out too!

Ian D

definitely doctored track...I've had this cd for a number of years and was talking to guy who is knowlageable about these things....laughed and said 'how could anybody be taken in by this?'.....er me at first.....intresting though, some of trhe tracks as I remember

[Samson]

Is someone going to post the "If that's what you wanted" track? Curious to hear it for myself.

[Samson]

Thanks Simon.

Sounds like it's pitched down a bit. Are the vocals just pitched down too or are they altered or overdubbed?

[Guest turntableterra]

If I recall Pete , is there not a " version " of " A Love Reputation " as well ?

Malc Burton

great version cumin` home and lonely for you too. but for originality the chuck jackson is probably the best on the cd, well done glen, summer of 2003 i think. keeps me entertaned in the ozzie sun

[Chalky]

There is a dj program, Virtual DJ I think it is called, as well as a set of virtual twin decks for djing this program will alter the pitch, key etc doing what has been done to frankie beverley at the click of a mouse. Pit the program on Ellie's Pc a while back and she had sussed the program in about 10 minutes, she was soon altering tracks on her PC.

[Sjclement]

HI , JUST TO NAIL THIS "CHUCK JACKSON" CUT OF "FRANKIE BEVERLY" I DID THIS ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO ...ALONG WITH THE 20 ODD TRACK "ALT CUTZ" HOPE THIS HELPS?..GLEN.

House for Sale Harold Melvin the break up of a civil partnership:lol:

[Guest Paul]

Regular readers will remember when I posted the first of these alternate versions (it wasn't 10 years ago Glen, the software hadn't been invented) and I posted three tracks up I think and said "you watch, in a few years these will be passed off as legit", I did them as a joke using "the amazing slow downer" software, within weeks there were tons going around, including a 'female' version of Right Track

Just to clear up a few points...

Long before stand-alone pitch shift programmes and plug-ins there was software (and hardware) which enabled you to increase or decrease the pitch and / or tempo of tracks - sometimes with options to retain the original key or the original tempo / duration (if required).

I've been doing this with software such as Sound Forge by Sonic Foundry (now Sony Media) for 14 years or so.

With most pro digital audio platforms you can shift (transpose) tracks by percentage, ratio, duration, BPM or semitones. For example, if you preserve the original tempo but shift five semitones down you will alter the key from F to C.

Shifting the pitch on a finished track (rather than on an individual voice) will obviously alter the whole track and usually results in a flanging effect with echo, especially on the bass, and some noticeable changes in the overall EQ. The results are usually noticeable.

The real benefit of these tools, in my opinion, is to retain the original key when altering the tempo of a track by a few beats per minute.

But, again, you could use pro DJ hardware to do this for many years. Back in the mid 1990s I had some pro Denon CD players which had a "key restore" option on the pitch shift. Obviously you couldn't do the same with vinyl until about 1998 when the Pioneer DJM 600 series mixer had the world's first key detect / change facility for all channels - including analogue vinyl of course.

I hope this helps.

[Pete S]

Just to clear up a few points...

Long before stand-alone pitch shift programmes and plug-ins there was software (and hardware) which enabled you to increase or decrease the pitch and / or tempo of tracks - sometimes with options to retain the original key or the original tempo / duration (if required).

I've been doing this with software such as Sound Forge by Sonic Foundry (now Sony Media) for 14 years or so.

With most pro digital audio platforms you can shift (transpose) tracks by percentage, ratio, duration, BPM or semitones. For example, if you preserve the original tempo but shift five semitones down you will alter the key from F to C.

Shifting the pitch on a finished track (rather than on an individual voice) will obviously alter the whole track and usually results in a flanging effect with echo, especially on the bass, and some noticeable changes in the overall EQ. The results are usually noticeable.

The real benefit of these tools, in my opinion, is to retain the original key when altering the tempo of a track by a few beats per minute.

But, again, you could use pro DJ hardware to do this for many years. Back in the mid 1990s I had some pro Denon CD players which had a "key restore" option on the pitch shift. Obviously you couldn't do the same with vinyl until about 1998 when the Pioneer DJM 600 series mixer had the world's first key detect / change facility for all channels - including analogue vinyl of course.

I hope this helps.

Yes you are of course a technical whizz Paul but the point I was making was that the first ones to circulate were the ones I posted on here - no, maybe the right track thing was first. But none of your pitch changed version of Mickey Moonshine ever circulated as far as I know

[Guest Paul]

Yes you are of course a technical whizz Paul but the point I was making was that the first ones to circulate were the ones I posted on here - no, maybe the right track thing was first. But none of your pitch changed version of Mickey Moonshine ever circulated as far as I know

I'm no whizz, Pete, I just thought the info might be useful.

And I've no doubt you circulated the first repitched northern soul tracks becuase I can remember them on here.

By the way, I tried that ASD software that you used quite a few years ago but I wasn't happy with the options (it seemed random rather than precise semitones etc). Has it improved much since then and, if so, is it worth buying?

One more thing... when I say the results of tempo or pitch shifting can sometimes be poor, there have been loads of pop records speeded up or slowed down (without any way of restoring the key) and we all loved them and didn't notice (or care) that they were off-key. Some of the Fats Domino 45s, for example, were repitched.

And because of tape stretching and oxide shedding problems, a lot of reels run slow so we're sometimes hearing things at slightly slower speeds than they were recorded. Sometimes the whole track is slow or sometimes there is a gradual decrease in tempo throughout the track. But at the end of the day it isn't always obvious (to most of us anyway) and it doesn't always detract from the music.

Look at how many DJs play vinyl at +4 or +8 in clubs. The whole world is a bit off-key!

[Pete S]

By the way, I tried that ASD software that you used quite a few years ago but I wasn't happy with the options (it seemed random rather than precise semitones etc). Has it improved much since then and, if so, is it worth buying?

Buying? Downloading maybe..