Pete S Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) Very poor. I'm only going to leave this up for an hour then I'm deleting it ok. deleted Edited March 14, 2006 by Pete-S Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest hammy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 INteresting. A lot more crossover-y than the released take. However - the flip to the actual release is a bit more in that vein, if a bit slower than this. Cheers for sharing. Hammy Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 INteresting. A lot more crossover-y than the released take. However - the flip to the actual release is a bit more in that vein, if a bit slower than this. Cheers for sharing. Hammy Yeah I thought this was a very very strange take because it bears such little resemblence to the original, and sounds a couple of years later too. It gets better, but I don't want whoever owns the acetate to have a fit so I only put a minute on. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest rachel Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Yep, interesting one Pete, like the organ (ooh err ) and the rawer vocal - thanks for that Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Simon T Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Yeah I thought this was a very very strange take because it bears such little resemblence to the original, and sounds a couple of years later too. It gets better, but I don't want whoever owns the acetate to have a fit so I only put a minute on. It's an earlier studio take by John Bowie, which when you play it, the singing and sparse backing sounds a touch too slow. The last time I saw it Rob Thomas had just bought back from the US so god knows where it is now he as 'retired'. There's probably a recent cut of it from when I cleaned and speeded up the original for him a couple of years ago. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gasher Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 yeah thanks pete..Been out all night and missed it..post it up for me again please smiffy Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 It's an earlier studio take by John Bowie, which when you play it, the singing and sparse backing sounds a touch too slow. The last time I saw it Rob Thomas had just bought back from the US so god knows where it is now he as 'retired'. There's probably a recent cut of it from when I cleaned and speeded up the original for him a couple of years ago. Yes Andy sent it me, but he says he's lost the cleaned up version! Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) yeah thanks pete..Been out all night and missed it..post it up for me again please smiffy Just for you then... Edited March 15, 2006 by Pete-S Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Guest Dan Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 that's great that pete, thanks for posting it up. better than the proper one at first hearing, and i love that to bits Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Gasher Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 I love you Peteeee cheers mate...NICE ONE Better version IMO Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Sanquine Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Loved it, just brilliant. Agree best version IMO. Karen. Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Pete S Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 It beats me how anyone can like this version, it's utter CRAP Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Sanquine Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 This version has a deeper and more soulful beat, not such a tinny sound as the other version. Organ and drum's sound brilliant and love how it build's up toward's the end of track. His voice has more depth to it and thank god those awful backing singer's are absent. Can understand some not being keen, but to describe as Crap. Karen Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Simon T Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Yes Andy sent it me, but he says he's lost the cleaned up version! Pete Here's a snippet of it cleaned up and at the right speed. Vocal's UK don't you think? Link to comment Social source share More sharing options...
Tony Smith Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Wasn't this off the 4-track acetate that was on ebay a couple of years back? 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!