logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
uberpsycho  
#1 Posted : 27 September 2013 14:51:11(UTC)
uberpsycho

Rank: Member of the Village

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/08/2012(UTC)
Posts: 53
Location: NYC

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 63 time(s) in 54 post(s)
Ok, just a quick question that maybe someone with a better know-how can help me with.

So I really dig the 1963 '95 Arthur Baker remix, it's actually one of the few remixes I care to listen to, but the thing is it doesn't sound like a typical remix, it sounds more like a re-recording not unlike Blue Monday '88 or Temptation '87 with the new instrumentation and new vocals.

So does anyone know how this track came about? Did New Order record a special session for this song? Thanks for any info.
Join our World and play our game...
thanks 1 user thanked uberpsycho for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
Sponsor
NotAMod  
#2 Posted : 27 September 2013 16:15:01(UTC)
NotAMod

Rank: Moderator

Groups: Moderators, Administrators, Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 653
Location: London, UK

Thanks: 176 times
Was thanked: 1040 time(s) in 655 post(s)
Well, the legend goes that when the band recorded True Faith and 1963 with producer Stephen Hague in 1987 in order to have a shot at "breaking" the American charts it was a close run thing between which song would end up as the A side as the band felt both songs were of the same calibre. Rob Gretton allegedly wanted to put both tracks out on the same release rather than saving one for another single in order to give fans a decent b-side and thus value for money; the legendary FAC 183 appeared shortly afterwards.

Fast forward seven years, Factory's toast and London Records are preparing a nice few cash-in releases to celebrate acquiring the Joy Division and New Order catalogues. One of the compilations as we all know was (The Best Of) which spawned two singles: a "cleaned up" version of True Faith dubbed "-94" and a number of new versions of 1963 or "Nineteen63" as it was duly titled. So in the end, 1963 finally got its day in the sun as an A-side with both a cleaned up (-94) version of the original Hague mix and a spruced up Arthur Baker (-95) remix with a brand new approach to the song.

Another legend from around the same time concerns "Let's Go" where Bernard and Arthur Baker were on holiday together and rediscovered the instrumental the band recorded back in the day I.e. the demo-ish Salvation! version and possibly the "Waiting For So Long" vocal demo from the mid-80s. They subsequently went into the studio, pulled apart existing multi-tracks with Bernard recording brand new vocals and a guitar track. It was allegedly a Sumner/Baker only project and I don't think the rest of the band were even involved due to their estrangement post-Reading 93. The new "Let's Go (Nothing For Me)" took pride of place as track 1 on the US Qwest pressing of (The Best Of) but was relegated to the limited edition CD single of the newly remixed "Nineteen63" in the UK. Even then two mixes of the new "Let's Go" exist with one having a clean ending (US) and the other fading out (UK).

So I would surmise it's highly likely Bernard recorded the new acoustic guitar track for the Arthur Baker remix of 1963 at the same time they both decided to complete the new "Let's Go (Nothing For Me)" project. The rest of "1963-95" as far as I'm aware was derived from the original 1987 multi-tracks; notably the significantly louder Hooky bass which I'm sure we all agree enhances the remix. Baker obviously thought it was a decent opportunity to raise the faders on his contribution and let us hear the riffs.

Hope this helps.

Edited by user 27 September 2013 16:23:24(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked NotAMod for this useful post.
uberpsycho on 29/09/2013(UTC), ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
Andy  
#3 Posted : 27 September 2013 17:27:25(UTC)
Andy

Rank: Dead Soul

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 2,125
Man
Location: Seaside, California

Thanks: 1436 times
Was thanked: 3073 time(s) in 2144 post(s)
It's likely that Baker cohort Mark Plati played the guitar on the '95 remix.
thanks 1 user thanked Andy for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
NotAMod  
#4 Posted : 27 September 2013 17:56:38(UTC)
NotAMod

Rank: Moderator

Groups: Moderators, Administrators, Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 653
Location: London, UK

Thanks: 176 times
Was thanked: 1040 time(s) in 655 post(s)
Andy wrote:
It's likely that Baker cohort Mark Plati played the guitar on the '95 remix.


He is listed as the engineer on the sleeve so it's definitely a possibility.

However I've given both a (nostalgic) listen this evening and the guitar during the instrumental break of "Let's Go (Nothing For Me)" and the intro of the Baker Remix of 1963 sound remarkably similar. It's got that acoustic-ey Technique chorus'd guitar strum about it.
thanks 1 user thanked NotAMod for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
indiearchivist  
#5 Posted : 28 September 2013 06:27:50(UTC)
indiearchivist

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 26

Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 26 post(s)
NotAMod wrote:

The rest of "1963-95" as far as I'm aware was derived from the original 1987 multi-tracks; notably the significantly louder Hooky bass which I'm sure we all agree enhances the remix. Baker obviously thought it was a decent opportunity to raise the faders on his contribution and let us hear the riffs.


This is a question perhaps best aimed at Hooky, but is the bass really from 1987? It sounds nothing like the 6 string decoration played at the end of the song in the original version (and in live versions from 1987 and 1989). It sounds like brand new 6 string bass lines, although some of them are clearly looped (the same can be said about the "Let's Go" bass line in the new version). Did Hook go into the studio in '94 to record the parts? And/or did Baker piece the whole thing together from various takes/songs? In which case it is a tremendous effort. Or worse, is it an impersonator (Plati or somebody else)? I can't see Hook allowing that happen, though. Isn't it more likely that he insisted to re-record the bass parts when the song was finally chosen as the next single?
thanks 1 user thanked indiearchivist for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
uberpsycho  
#6 Posted : 29 September 2013 14:13:02(UTC)
uberpsycho

Rank: Member of the Village

Groups: Registered
Joined: 17/08/2012(UTC)
Posts: 53
Location: NYC

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 63 time(s) in 54 post(s)
Thanks a lot NotaMod. That does seem quite likely.
Join our World and play our game...
thanks 1 user thanked uberpsycho for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#7 Posted : 03 October 2013 08:26:58(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Guilty Partner

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,998
Location: Rome

Thanks: 61 times
Was thanked: 2410 time(s) in 2004 post(s)
Thanks to the Mod for a charateristically full and interesting post. I always thought the inclusion of 'Nothing For Me' on the US 'Best Of' was essentially a marketing ploy, like 'Hellbent' on 'Total': tecnically not worthy of a hits compilation but intriguing.
For once, a mix (Arthur Baker's 1963) sounds stronger than the original thanks to Hooky's inimitable bass. It's interesting that the late 80s are sometimes considered the band's greatest period, but it was also a period of relatively little Hooky. But this argument's been done to death.

Edited by user 03 October 2013 08:29:13(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
markreed  
#8 Posted : 10 October 2013 06:59:41(UTC)
markreed

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: Somewhere, GB

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 353 time(s) in 229 post(s)
I think I read somewhere that it was Sumner and Baker, with Barney re-recording vocals for True Faith, 1963, Round & Round, Bizarre Love Triangle, as well as adding new keyboards/guitar on 1963 and TF-94. Huge chunks of 1963-95 sound like someone has tried to re-create Hookys bass sound and reused bass outtakes from the original recordings. For me, the band weren't talking at that point except at occasional band meetings, and there was no case of anyone but Sumner being involved in the remixes. UIf I'm totally wrong, someone please enlighten me!
thanks 1 user thanked markreed for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
NotAMod  
#9 Posted : 10 October 2013 10:37:00(UTC)
NotAMod

Rank: Moderator

Groups: Moderators, Administrators, Registered
Joined: 24/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 653
Location: London, UK

Thanks: 176 times
Was thanked: 1040 time(s) in 655 post(s)
I think the vocals on True Faith-94, 1963-94, Bizarre Love Triangle-94 and Round & Round-94 were merely "cleaned up" rather than re-recorded. BLT-94 had been around since 1988 on the "Married To The Mob" OST albeit in a slightly different form while R&R-94 is basically the 7" version from 1989. He definitely re-recorded at least one vocal around that period though: Blue Monday for the 1995 reissue.

I guess who did the additional guitar on 1963 will remain a bit of a mystery but my money's on Sumner as he had obviously done new guitar for Let's Go (Nothing For Me) probably around the same time.

Edited by user 10 October 2013 10:39:21(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked NotAMod for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse  
#10 Posted : 11 October 2013 06:06:19(UTC)
Michael Monkhouse

Rank: Guilty Partner

Groups: Registered
Joined: 03/06/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,998
Location: Rome

Thanks: 61 times
Was thanked: 2410 time(s) in 2004 post(s)
Yeah, Hague hardly broke new ground with the please-buy-the-best-Of 94 mixes. Almost identical to the originals: the TF/63 single, his R and R 7" mix, the Married to the Mob OST BLT... Intigued that they used some of the Sunkist ad in the Brain mix of BM.

thanks 1 user thanked Michael Monkhouse for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
indiearchivist  
#11 Posted : 11 October 2013 09:37:13(UTC)
indiearchivist

Rank: Young Offender

Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 26

Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 26 post(s)
1963-94 has a completely new vocal (or possibly an un-used vocal take from 87 but I don't think so, since it is much cleaner and better recorded)... listen to the "Johnny came back/with another wife" line which has a different melody, and the "special occasion nineteen sixty three" which has a different rhythm to it.

The same vocal was re-used for the 95 Baker version. I'm still intrigued by the Hooky bass on that one! I'm not convinced that it's "outtakes" - it just sounds too different from the 87 version.
thanks 1 user thanked indiearchivist for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
markreed  
#12 Posted : 11 October 2013 11:01:57(UTC)
markreed

Rank: Member of the Republic

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2012(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: Somewhere, GB

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 353 time(s) in 229 post(s)
I'm fairly sure the BLT-94 mix has different vocals ; one version has a unheard Barney "La La La" at the end, and the vocals seem clearer and softer, similar to his 1989 onward singing style when he took listens and learnt how to breathe between lines. I also noticed that the 7" remix of the 1986 track has Hooky bass on, and the 1986 12" remix has absolutely no Hooky bass at all. It only took me 27 years to notice that when I was mucking about with the tracks in MixPad on the train home after work one day. http://www.mixcloud.com/...gle-full-length-re-edit/
thanks 1 user thanked markreed for this useful post.
ROCKET MICK on 25/10/2013(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.1 | YAF © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.551 seconds.