I don't pay enough attention to alternate takes...

[Shawn]

As I sit here this evening listening to No Room For Squares, the alternate take of the title track comes on and Mobley's solo almost scared me. That got me to thinking that over the years I've really never spent any serious time listening to alternates on CD reissues or box sets for that matter. I'll usually play them a couple times but invariably end up listening to the master takes most of the time.

So I'm thinking about going through my entire collection and listening to only alternate takes. Because I have a feeling it will be an enlightening experience...and because I'm bored as hell.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Shawn

[Cali]

As I sit here this evening listening to No Room For Squares, the alternate take of the title track comes on and Mobley's solo almost scared me. That got me to thinking that over the years I've really never spent any serious time listening to alternates on CD reissues or box sets for that matter. I'll usually play them a couple times but invariably end up listening to the master takes most of the time.

So I'm thinking about going through my entire collection and listening to only alternate takes. Because I have a feeling it will be an enlightening experience...and because I'm bored as hell.

Be sure to check out the alternate take of THE GIGOLO!

[A Lark Ascending]

Generally ignore them. Listening to a/ts has always struck me as being more about study than entertainment. Listening to more or less the same track again with minor variations has never really appealed - though I'm sure there are pleasures to be had there. I think your approach of just listening to the a/ts might be much more enjoyable.

There are usually reasons why they are a/ts.

Though I do like the a/t of Flamenco Sketches on KofB.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

The alternate takes from Unity can scare the shit outta you!

[papsrus]

It seems that in many cases it's just a matter of one take being more polished than another. Tighter.

But that's not universally the case. Solos can change. Emphasis changes. Or the differences might be more pronounced -- the rhythm section jumping into double time during a section in one take and not another, for instance.

I also think it depends on the tune. If you really love a song, you may be keenly aware of the differences. Or you may just want to hear as many versions as there are for the fun of it.

Edited May 23, 2010 by papsrus

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

YOURE tellin ME..........i just discovered theres an alt take on STOP N LISTEN......i had for 10 yrs the JRVG which follows the orig lp running order and i now have a 1st pressing mono....but i saw the rvg edition cd today, picked it up just for kicks to relish how i have the real deal, and BAM bonus cut ,oh wait is this thread about alt takes, no this is a bonus cut: they cant take that away from me

[A Lark Ascending]

I do like extra tracks of different tunes not on the original...even though there are also reasons why they were not originally issued (not always about the quality of the music - things that went out on singles, things left off for lack of space etc).

I also own more versions of Larks Tongues in Aspic Part II than any sane person should possess. So I fall for the hook in other ways!

Edited May 23, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Big Wheel]

The alternate takes from Unity can scare the shit outta you!

Wait, wha?? Are we talking about the Larry Young record or something else?

[jeffcrom]

There are usually reasons why they are a/ts.

Yes, but those reasons aren't always clear-cut, and they don't always have to do with the obvious superiority of the take finally chosen as master. Charlie Parker's are my favorite alternate takes; they are plenty of examples of takes on which Bird played a stunning solo, but Miles (or someone else) didn't have the head together yet. There are other Bird recordings where his solo was so good (and very different) on multiple takes that it must have been extremely difficult to choose a take for issue.

And sometimes the master take isn't chosen for musical reasons at all. Think about Idle Moments - after the title tune ran to almost 15 minutes, they had to go back and record shorter versions of some of the already-finished tunes in order to get them to fit. The RVG edition has the 13-minute version of "Django" that was originally chosen to be the master.

There are plenty of alternate takes that are less than enthralling, but the best ones are as worth hearing as anything else.

Edited May 23, 2010 by jeffcrom

[A Lark Ascending]

There are usually reasons why they are a/ts.

There are plenty of alternate takes that are less than enthralling, but the best ones are as worth hearing as anything else.

I'm sure your right.

Let's just say that for the casual listener* the waters of good, genuinely alternative takes are somewhat muddied by the record companies strategy of hooking in sales by putting out anything and everything - some are worse than others (calling Verve!).

There's probably a very worthwhile thread there - alternative takes that offer something different, interesting or striking.

*term used in a positive sense

Edited May 23, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[jazzbo]

Yes, he's talking about the Larry Young lp. There were additional takes circulated among collectors.

I don't really have a checkbox to select. I don't ignore or adore alternate takes, I don't usually pay too much attention to them unless it's an album I really enjoy. Usually I just play a disc all the way through, and listen to what's on it. If the alternate version is significantly different (much longer, much shorter, etc.) I might pay closer atttention.

[Shawn]

As quite a few have mentioned, I think you naturally tend to pay more attention to alternates of albums/songs that you really love. Going through a collection and listening to only the alternates sounds like a fun experiment, a little "alternate universe" trip.

I added a "none of the above" selection to the poll.

[Dan Gould]

How about "I like 'em but don't love 'em"?

[jostber]

If there is many alternate songs or songs not originally on the album, I prefer to have them on a separate CD so I can listen to the original album as it was released.

[BeBop]

For me the difference between a good and a great musician is the ability to make something meaningful of two, three, four takes of a song. Bird could, certainly. It's called creativity. It's the essence of improvised music.

Sure, some takes are technical glitches.

[Swinging Swede]

It's worth keeping in mind that it's not always clear what's an alternate take and what's a master take.

A case in point is Charlie Parker on Dial. One take may have been chosen as master take during the session (usually but not always the last take), then Ross Russell would issue a different take on the 78.

It was not uncommon that different takes would appear on 78s, 10" LPs and 12" LPs.

In earlier days (I'm thinking of primarily the 1920s), it was also not uncommon that several different acceptable takes would be recorded and two or even three of them would be used on the same catalogue number. There was nothing indicating on the copy which take you would get; it all depended on which pressing you happened to pick up. For example, Lester Young's "Tickle Toe" was based on a Bix Beiderbecke solo, but a different take, where Bix doesn't play that line, was also released, and if Young had happened to buy a pressing with that take instead, what would then have happened?

It's usually easier when you reach the 12" LP era, but not always, because sometimes different takes were used on the mono and stereo releases.

In all these cases, which take are you going to go for, if you have a master take only philosophy?

Sometimes there may also be substantial differences between takes, like changes in the arrangement, tempo, solo order, solo instrument and vocal or instrumental. The takes may also have been recorded on different sessions, with different musicians. Sometimes the term "alternate version" is used rather than "alternate take" in these cases.

[Christiern]

As you listen to alternate takes, bear two things in mind:

1. They were originally rejected by the artist or producer, usually for good reason.

2. The artists who worked for scale (which is most of them, including leaders) did not get paid for alternate takes.

[JSngry]

I thought they got paid for a four hour session, no matter how many takes.

Edited May 23, 2010 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

One session to produce 15 minutes (or 4 sides in 78/singles days). If more music results, payment was to be paid for another session or overtime. It was common practice to allow use of alternates when metal parts wore out, hence 78s with different takes.

[JSngry]

So if you had a four hour session in 1957 that resulted in a 30 minute LP, you had to pay for two four hour sessions sessions even though you only had one?

That doesn't sound right, does it?

[Chuck Nessa]

Those were the union rules.

[Christiern]

One session was measured as either 15 minutes of usable sound or 3 hours of studio time. Anything beyond that called for another session. Most jazz albums were reported as two sessions, even if they went over. The musicians knew this, but most just wanted to see a good album out there. So, if there was 30 minutes of issue-worthy music and the album featured 40 to 45 minutes (as many of them did), chances are that the artists only received money for the 30 minutes. Then, when alternates were issued as "bonus tracks" on CD, the rip off was compounded.

Quite apart from the monetary short-changing, many artists did not really want the public to hear their slip-ups or uninspired work, so there is also an ethical consideration to be weighed.

Right, Chuck?

[Matthew]

Call me shallow but I never listen to alternate takes, thank heaven for the ability to program the cd player. I think adding alt. takes is a scam to get people to buy a new version of a cd.

[Shrdlu]

I've enjoyed countless alternate takes, for many years, beginning with Bird. I think they are usually very valuable and enjoyable in the case of superbly creative artists such as Parker.

Very often, they are not inferior to the originally issued versions, and include solos by some that are better, or at least as good. Most alternates that I have heard include no mistakes. Even if there is a breakdown, it's nice to hear the track if there are some good solos.

I wouldn't want to be without such alternates as the Parker Dials. As a quick example, the first take of "Out of Nowhere" is superb from start to finish. It was only rejected because it went on too long (this being the 78 era). They shortened it by not having a piano solo on the two other takes; pianist Duke Jordan plays a delightful solo on take A that I would not like to be without.

I'd never thought of the payment to the musicians, but is that really worth worrying about in the case of sessions that took place decades ago? Besides, weren't the sidemen just paid to play at the session, regardless of the number of complete takes? Various books, such as the one about the making of "A Love Supreme", state that there was a fixed session fee for a sideman, (about $100 at that time), with payment for overtime where a session went beyond the planned length.

[Chuck Nessa]

One session was measured as either 15 minutes of usable sound or 3 hours of studio time. Anything beyond that called for another session. Most jazz albums were reported as two sessions, even if they went over. The musicians knew this, but most just wanted to see a good album out there. So, if there was 30 minutes of issue-worthy music and the album featured 40 to 45 minutes (as many of them did), chances are that the artists only received money for the 30 minutes. Then, when alternates were issued as "bonus tracks" on CD, the rip off was compounded.

Quite apart from the monetary short-changing, many artists did not really want the public to hear their slip-ups or uninspired work, so there is also an ethical consideration to be weighed.

Right, Chuck?

Correct.