LIttle Richard "LONG TALL SALLY" with or without reverb? What is correct?

I just listened to the track on the recent CD box set Directly From My Heart: The Best of the Specialty & Vee-Jay Years, then the vinyl set Mono Box: The Complete Specialty and Vee-Jay Albums, as well as the Deluxe 50th Anniversary Here's Little Richard 2xCD set. These all came out in the last five years...

Of these three only Directly from My Heart has the dry mix! The other two are somewhere between 'bone dry' and the second example Steve gave, not drenched in reverb but with a smidgen of it, definitely noticeable once you've heard the dry mix. Paul Blakemore is the credited mastering engineer on the CDs, George Horn for the vinyl

 

I have the original 45. I'll have to check and see what it is.

 

I have the second mix, the one with the reverb. So I gave the dry mix a listen and heard the difference right away. So I purchased an mp3 of the dry mix from 7Digital
and put that into my music library to replace the incorrect version. Steve, thanks for filling us in on this.

 

I love that.
The best Beatles album and to me sounding the very finest it could.

 

My computer speakers are very revealing and detailed,


https://www.psbspeakers.com/product/alpha-p5-bookshelf-speaker/

 

But IS it the correct version? Or is it a variation? Have we heard a dry 78 yet?

 

I'm with you - that's the version I'm used to, and the reverb really doesn't sound that obtrusive to my ears. YMMV

 

hey, that's a pretty good tune.

 

Got a good beat and you can dance to it. I give it an 85

 

This UK compilation is DIRT CHEAP from Ace
and is the one to get
Very dry - Little Richard - 22 Classic Cuts

 

Other posters have raised the interesting question of when/if this was originally released, but regardless of that, this version isn't completely "correct" either. It's not terrible, but there's some mild fake stereo processing present, which seems to include a bit of added (stereo) reverb. Probably most noticeable after "Sally" at 1:36, but present throughout. Certainly much less added reverb than the other version, but present nevertheless. Presumably the MFSL SACD doesn't have that added processing?

Is it possible the original releases actually had reverb added, and later re-cuts mistakenly used the raw session tape instead of the master with added reverb?

 

That's a very decent use of reverb. I like it. Although the re-found dry version sounds nice, too.

 

Very interesting find! Though I also do prefer the "dry version". I often accepted such excessive reverb attributing it to be a thing of the 50, that somehow survived via Dexter morphing it on The Beatles' US releases, but ... (I know this falls short and is a generalisation, there's also Spector etc, but he made it his thing and I never really liked his sound ... only Brian Wilson's interpretation of it ...)

BTW, did you notice ...

Published on Aug 10, 2017
Little Richard - Long Tall Sally [78 RPM Record]

CategoryMusic
Suggested by UMG
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Take 9 And Speech)

 

Forum rules require that this be posted here...

 

To me the drums are stronger without the reverb.

 

I could live with either one, probably. The amount of reverb is not excessive, to my ears (I'll refrain from redundant Capitol Beatles comments.) But the dry* version is obviously as the producer intended; if I ever shop for a Little Richard best-of, that's the one I'll look for.


*It's not bone-dry -- I hear the room, even on my phone.

 

What makes you say the dry version is as the producer intended, seeing as the original 78 had the reverb? It could be that the dry version was issued by mistake.

 

That is so interesting to hear the 78 with a reverb mix. I had just always assumed the original (found on most late 50's/early 60's Specialty cuts) was reverb-less and somewhere along the line, to make it sound more "modern," reverb and treble boost was added using the mono reverb-less master, essentially making it a "work part." I have a Hoodoo re-issue CD (taking advantage of the public domain status of his releases) and the MSFL. I love the MSFL...the Hoodoo is grating over time. HOWEVER, that reverb 78 sounds pretty cool...like it has an old tube driven reverb chamber added to it.

 

so, if the original 78 has the reverb....

Is this something that an old mastering cutter could have added? Maybe taking the original 'dry' tape and not liking the played back sound he got when he cut it originally? I can't say I know much about mastering or mixing, but could this have been done after the song was recorded and mixed at Matassa's?

I know EQ and compression are tweaks that can be done while cutting a lacquer, but can reverb be added while cutting?

 

Well, honestly I don't know for sure. (I shouldn't have said 'obviously'.) The fact that the 78 has reverb, but the early 45 doesn't, complicates the picture. Could it be, that in those days reverb was added at the cutting stage? And that decision makers often added it based upon a whim? ... or was the 'dry' 45 a mistake, maybe the 'wrong' mix was sent? ...

I'd love to know more about cutting facilities, both vintage and modern -- were (are?) 'post-production' items like echo chambers, plate reverbs etc. a common item in such places??

There's something rather Wild West about the record business in those days ...

 

Here's my hypothesis.

I'll bet the dry mix is the one that Richard and Matassa recorded and mixed way back when.

I'll bet that the reverb version was done by some producer or mastering engineer when it was being cut. They didn't like the dry version's playback on its speakers and tweaked it to sound 'better' on their system and studio monitors (think of all that Tom Dowd stuff with Cream).

They made a copy tape of the reverb drenched version and marked that as an EQ'd Leveled Tape or whatever. That became the new master (think of that stuff with the Doors). Most everybody after used that marked tape for cutting and CD releases.

At some point in time, some mastering engineer went in the the archives because they didn't want to use the EQ'd Leveled Tape and get back to the true original master (think of all the stuff Steve Hoffman talks about finding in the vaults). They find the original dry mix in the vaults and use that for some recent CD or vinyl reissues. Other versions use the reverb version because they are just supplied that by the company and aren't bothered to grab a true master tape.

The 45 is different.. because a different engineer cut it vs the 78 and it sounded fine to them. They didn't mess with the reverb. Later reissues used the EQ'd or whatever tape.

My conclusion... the dry mix is the original. The reverb mix is because of a cutting engineer or producer's decision upon release.

 

Ah, but that doesn't take into account the New Orleans studio and the LA Specialty mastering. The same studio was on Imperial and a bunch of other labels. Most had reverb.

 

Now you threw a monkey wrench into my logic. Hmm..

 

I can't say for sure but its possible that the tape was sent to Bump(or Lew Chudd or any other label) dry, expecting them to apply reverb to match their labels sound. If so it would be as said, a flat transfer. That would be what Specialty got and it was up to them to lay on the honk.
The question is not what did Matassa and Richard want, its what did Specialty release.