James Taylor - GH

What's the deal with the Warner's CD issue of this. Was it "silently" (or not so silently) re-done at some point? I seem to remember ICE mentioning this ages ago.

The reason I ask - is that I saw two used copies tonight. Both with the same exterior packaging, catalog number, etc... BUT...one had the old 80's disclaimer...you know..."original analog recordings, blemishes, higher resolution, blah blah blah"...what a friend of mine used to affectionately call the "bullsh*t CD apology". One also had the UPC stamp on the back, the other didn't.

Am I imagining this? Was it re-done? Differences?

 

David,

Sorry, I can't tell you about the JT disc, but just had to say I love your friend's quote!

 

Well, after searching around in the old ICE pile, I was able to answer this one myself.

It turns out that "Sweet Baby James", not GH, was the one "silently upgraded". In a CD Watchdog letter (June, 1990), a listener wrote in complaining that he felt the CD was one of the "hissiest around". He wanted to know why the respective cuts on the import "Classic Songs" were "cleaner and brighter sounding". Lee Herschberg, who mastered "Classic Songs", then replied that the SBJ tape was immediately "upgraded" (not sure what that exactly means... lower gen. tape OR simply a tweaked tape?) after he received this complaint.

He then went on to say that after the re-do, the new version now sounded "every bit as good as "Classic Songs"... at least 50 percent better".

So there you have it. The new tape was sent out to the plant in May/June 1990. I've never heard either version of the "Sweet Baby James" CD, and I would be interested in hearing any comments from anyone who *has* heard both (or knows how to visually distinguish the two).

 

But, I did read somewhere that the GH WAS silently remastered, hence the removal of the little disclaimer. I owned both, the old and newer CD. I can tell a difference.