Little Ann - Favourite Version?

[Billy Freemantle]

Which of these 3 do you prefer? I'll go witht he earlkier Kent releae. I understand that the Richard Searling play what nota diffrent version after all.But it does sound different so as a piece of music does stand on its own I would have thought.

Little Ann What Should I Do.mp3

Little Ann Searling Version.mp3

Little Ann New Kent Alternate Versionre1.mp3

Edited February 15, 2006 by ShaneH

[Pete S]

Sorry tries to upload the 'old' Kent release, the Richard Searling play and the new Kent version. Couldn't do it because of space. Will reduce the files and try again later.

Well that last one is the file I sent up yesterday...the same recording...Ady says it's the same as the first version. The first version sends shivers...

Edited February 15, 2006 by Pete-S

[Billy Freemantle]

Well that last one is the file I sent up yesterday...the same recording...Ady says it's the same as the first version. The first version sends shivers...

Sorry for not acknowledging your upload ,Pete. As you rightly say, the Searling play was from you.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Billy Freemantle

[Billy Freemantle]

In case anyone is confused, there were only 2 files up there when Pete S replied. Therefore the 'last one' he refers to is the Searling 'version' and not the new Kent version.

[pikeys dog]

1st one by a mile.

[Guest andycambs]

Listerned to them all several times and got to be honest, I can't choose a favourite, they're all outstanding.

Andy

[Craig W]

Number 1 version for me . Anything Little Ann did was awesome and she posessed one of the greatest female soul voices.There are a couple of absolutley amazing tracks by her on Dave Hamiltons Detroit Dancers Cd ., the one, Deep Shadows is a real gut wrencher the other Lean lanky daddy is a great uptemo effort .

I can put a couple of soundclips up if anyones interested

[Ady Croasdell]

Thanks Billy but this highlights the problem with sound files, they sound poor. I can hardly tell the difference between 1 & 3 they both sound speeded up. In reality they are very different alternatives. The Searling sound file is just a very bad quality variation on the first Kent release, it's not a different piece of music just an inferior copy that is sometimes speeded up or not as in the vesion on show here.

It's like playng a record at 45 and then at 48 and saying it's a different piece. I challenge anyone to seriously compare the Searling acetate and the original Kent version by playing a few seconds of each n turn all the way through and say there is anything different in the recording apart from varied speed, different EQ (bass, treble etc) and editing.

[Simon T]

Thanks Billy but this highlights the problem with sound files, they sound poor. I can hardly tell the difference between 1 & 3 they both sound speeded up. In reality they are very different alternatives. The Searling sound file is just a very bad quality variation on the first Kent release, it's not a different piece of music just an inferior copy that is sometimes speeded up or not as in the vesion on show here.

It's like playng a record at 45 and then at 48 and saying it's a different piece. I challenge anyone to seriously compare the Searling acetate and the original Kent version by playing a few seconds of each n turn all the way through and say there is anything different in the recording apart from varied speed, different EQ (bass, treble etc) and editing.

\\\good, I'm of the hook then

Edited February 16, 2006 by Simon T

[Pete S]

Sorry for not acknowledging your upload ,Pete. As you rightly say, the Searling play was from you.

Wasn't bothered about that mate, just wondering what the point was

[Pete S]

Thanks Billy but this highlights the problem with sound files, they sound poor. I can hardly tell the difference between 1 & 3 they both sound speeded up. In reality they are very different alternatives. The Searling sound file is just a very bad quality variation on the first Kent release, it's not a different piece of music just an inferior copy that is sometimes speeded up or not as in the vesion on show here.

It's like playng a record at 45 and then at 48 and saying it's a different piece. I challenge anyone to seriously compare the Searling acetate and the original Kent version by playing a few seconds of each n turn all the way through and say there is anything different in the recording apart from varied speed, different EQ (bass, treble etc) and editing.

Ady at the risk of yet more ridicule, I'd say the reason the first one sounds great and to my ears preferable to the CD version on Kent is because it's not so polished and cleaned up so therefore it sounds rawer. It's like when you hear a lot of these tracks on CD, they sound a little TOO good. So I overdub them with a tape of scratches and surface noise to make them sound poor again

[Ady Croasdell]

That's fine Pete, we'll have to produce an aural "Neanderthal" series for the likes of yourself who prefer crackle, hiss and awful EQs. Perhaps it's just nostalgia for the first Goldmine series when a lot of the records were dubbed off centre and you could hear the needle on the sip mat.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you're beng objective about the recordigs. I just wanted to point out that Searling's acetate was made from the master tapes that we bought and have re-issued. It's not a different recording.

[Pete S]

the sip mat.

.

Shurley shome mishtake?

I just find a lot of cd recordings a bit sterile thats all. Like going to football and having to sit down. Or something.

[Guest Trevski]

Number 1 version for me . Anything Little Ann did was awesome and she posessed one of the greatest female soul voices.There are a couple of absolutley amazing tracks by her on Dave Hamiltons Detroit Dancers Cd ., the one, Deep Shadows is a real gut wrencher the other Lean lanky daddy is a great uptemo effort .

I can put a couple of soundclips up if anyones interested

Deep shadows is absolutely awsome!! Gilly put it on a tape for me, many years ago, before he discovered the identity of Little Ann. Also the "He won't stay" track, by unknown artist, thats in the sounds section. Cannot praise Gilly enough for his taste in tunes, legend!!!

[Craig W]

Have put Deep shadows and Lean lanky daddy in the sounds section in choice cuts

[asboannie]

Which of these 3 do you prefer? I'll go witht he earlkier Kent releae. I understand that the Richard Searling play what nota diffrent version after all.But it does sound different so as a piece of music does stand on its own I would have thought.

Definitely no 1

Edited February 16, 2006 by asboannie

[John Elias]

Got the Dave Hamilton cd when it first hit Mr Minshall's stand,absolutely awesome,plus so much info on artists etc....Nice one Ady..........little ann,what a babe.

[Billy Freemantle]

Wasn't bothered about that mate, just wondering what the point was

[/quote

Well, the point obviously was to get the different 'versions' together to compare and contrast them. We now authoritatatively know of course that what has often been spoken of as Richard Searlings version is not a diffrent version at all. But I would go with you on being able to appreciate them differently from an aural perspective. It's a bit like two indentical pieces of furniture. One stays pristine: the other gets some wear and tear and develops, in the eyes of some, a patina giving it it superior beauty.

[Billy Freemantle]

That's fine Pete, we'll have to produce an aural "Neanderthal" series for the likes of yourself who prefer crackle, hiss and awful EQs. Perhaps it's just nostalgia for the first Goldmine series when a lot of the records were dubbed off centre and you could hear the needle on the sip mat.

I understand what you're saying but I don't think you're beng objective about the recordigs. I just wanted to point out that Searling's acetate was made from the master tapes that we bought and have re-issued. It's not a different recording.

It really is true how the sound of some NS reissues is just so bad it's beyond belief. There was series of LPs in the 80s called Northern Soul story or something and they went 1, 2, 3 etc. The recordng of the acetate of Tyrone Davis "Running a Losing Race" was virtually unlistenable. Personally, I prefer as crisp as you can get. I'd rather hear the vocalists sibilants than crackle. In fact I'd say that one of the beautiful things about Maxine Brown's vocal delivery are her breathy aspirants. In other words, the way she puffs on her ps. Without a good recording such pleasures are lost.

[Chalky]

Thanks Billy but this highlights the problem with sound files, they sound poor. I can hardly tell the difference between 1 & 3 they both sound speeded up. In reality they are very different alternatives. The Searling sound file is just a very bad quality variation on the first Kent release, it's not a different piece of music just an inferior copy that is sometimes speeded up or not as in the vesion on show here.

I've Gilly's version here and sure it's slightly slower

[Billy Freemantle]

Number 1 version for me . Anything Little Ann did was awesome and she posessed one of the greatest female soul voices.There are a couple of absolutley amazing tracks by her on Dave Hamiltons Detroit Dancers Cd ., the one, Deep Shadows is a real gut wrencher the other Lean lanky daddy is a great uptemo effort .

I can put a couple of soundclips up if anyones interested

Just had a listen to Deep Shadows. What a superb record. Lonely, lonely, lonely is the night...

[Ady Croasdell]

I've Gilly's version here and sure it's slightly slower

Quite possibly, some of dave's tape machines were a bit knackered by the 90s. We copied it on a good machine so that's how they recorded it. All we try and do is reproduce the way the recording was made as clearly and as well balanced as possible. It's slightly subjective of course but our engineers try to get as much musical information off the original recording as possible and filter out hiss, crackle feedback etc.