Joni Mitchell and Blood on the Tracks

[skeith]

Since I just finished this Yaffe book, besides the Larry Kart interview reference - here's another interesting tidbit, to me at least.

In the book, Joni is described as being friends with Dylan and that he played her an early unreleased version of Blood On the Tracks which she thought was awesome.   The released version, according to Joni, was different and vastly inferior.

Any opinions?

 

(I guess some of those earlier versions are on the now officially released Bootleg Series?)

 

 

[medjuck]

I agree with Joni.  There were several songs re-cut and most are at least slightly inferior.

[jazzbo]

From Wikipedia:

Dylan commenced recording the album in New York City in September 1974. In December, shortly before Columbia was due to release the record, Dylan abruptly re-recorded much of the material in a studio in Minneapolis. The final album contains five tracks from New York and five from Minneapolis.

And

Dylan commenced recording at A & R Recording Studios in New York City on September 16, 1974. Bernstein has stated "the theme of returning ran through the sessions", so "it made a lot of sense to do it at A&R" A & R Studios was the former Columbia Records "Studio A", where Dylan had recorded six albums in the 1960s. The musicians quickly realized that Dylan was taking a "spontaneous" approach to recording.The session engineer, Phil Ramone, later said that Dylan transitioned from one song to another as if they were part of a medley. Ramone noted:

Sometimes he will have several bars, and in the next version, he will change his mind about how many bars there should be in between a verse. Or eliminate a verse. Or add a chorus when you don't expect.

Eric Weissberg and his band, Deliverance, originally recruited as session men, were rejected after two days of recording because they could not keep up with Dylan's pace. Dylan retained bassist Tony Brown from the band, and soon added organist Paul Griffin (who had also worked on Highway 61 Revisited) and steel guitarist Buddy Cage. After ten days and four sessions  with the current lineup, Dylan had finished recording and mixing, and, by November, had cut a test pressing on the album. Columbia began to prepare to release the album before Christmas. 

Dylan played the test pressing for his brother, David Zimmerman, who persuaded Dylan the album would not sell because the overall sound was too stark. Robert Christgau also heard the early version of the album and called it "a sellout to the memory of Dylan's pre-electric period"  At his brother's urging, Dylan agreed to re-record five of the album's songs in Sound 80 in Minneapolis, with backing musicians recruited by David. The new takes were accomplished in two days at the end of December 1974. Blood on the Tracks was released into stores on January 20, 1975

 

Personally I think the album as it is released is a masterpiece. I've heard a few of the tracks not released and they are great too, but I've lived with and deeply enjoyed the released version so long that that IS the album for me. I expect in the next few years we'll see a Bootleg Series volume dedicated to these.

Edited January 10, 2018 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

I'm not a hardcore "Dylan" fan, and although I understand the rapturous reception of this album (especially in chronological context), I've never really been grabbed in the gut by it. Something about the "sheen"...sheeny Dylan is not really for me. Mileages vary widely on that though, obviously.

[jlhoots]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

I'm not a hardcore "Dylan" fan, and although I understand the rapturous reception of this album (especially in chronological context), I've never really been grabbed in the gut by it. Something about the "sheen"...sheeny Dylan is not really for me. Mileages vary widely on that though, obviously.

sheeny - WTF!!

[danasgoodstuff]

My memory from have a/b-ed the different versions many years ago is that I thought 4/5 were at least arguably better (on a track by track basis, not thinking about overall effect on album-as-a-whole), but the one track was obviously way worse, YMMV and mine might by now too.  And, IIRC, it was Bob himself who made the difference(s) not so much the band, except as they inspired different approaches from Bob.

Edited January 11, 2018 by danasgoodstuff

[JSngry]

20 hours ago, jlhoots said:

sheeny - WTF!!

yeah, it seems all reverby and shit.

Keep in mind that I only own it on cassette, so maybe it's a ferric oxide thing. But...didn't care for the sound of the record, that's all.

 

[jlhoots]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

yeah, it seems all reverby and shit.

Keep in mind that I only own it on cassette, so maybe it's a ferric oxide thing. But...didn't care for the sound of the record, that's all.

 

O.K. - some might be offended by the term. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it is about Dylan. Maybe I'm being over sensitive.

Sheeny, a jeering nickname for ‘Jew’ arose in 19th-century London.

[JSngry]

Oh jesus, no! So sorry if that was what came to mind...I guess it would have been better stated as sheen-y, as in having something like a sheen to it, strictly a production reference. That is a pretty common usage of "sheen", and that was what I had in mind. I'd have thought that "sheeny" was something Irish in derivation...shows you how much I know....

I'm not a fan of slang-y ethnic designations (even the "positive" ones), or of 19th-century London for that matter (yes, great literature, but jesus, look at the legacy of human carnage, not just physically but mentally, my wife kinda digs all that castle and lords and lady revisionist tv shit, but I tell her, please baby please, think about what REALLY happened), so forgive me for not being aware of that quite unintentional use of that particular word.

I can't apologize for unintended interpretation, but I can and do express deepest regrets at any discomfort caused. I mean, I'll crack on people about a lot of shit, but I don't do ethnic, I don't do gender, and I try not to do economic too much...too many easy/lazy presumptions when it goes there. Not a fan.

Let me put it this way - in this case, yeah, maybe you were over-sensitive, but you were not wrong to be. You can never be wrong to be concerned, and it's never wrong to seek clarification and/or to inform

[medjuck]

I got bored really quickly with the released version of "Rosemary...etc"  because of the monotonous rhythm section.  I loved the record but could barely play it because of this.  The originally chosen take seems much better to me.  The other changes don't bother me as much though IIRC  the original "If You See Her Say Hello" has different, better lyrics. 

 

I once got a bootleg called "Blood on the Tapes" with several out takes including all the originally chosen ones.   From it I've made my own version of the originally intended release.  I've always expected an official "Bootleg" with material from BOTT and Desire.  Maybe even Street Legal. 

[mjzee]

I was never a fan of BOTT.  Too melodramatic, over-emotional and self-pitying.  Agreed about the monotonous rhythm section.  I also read (somewhere; at this point, who knows?) that his voice was sped up a little, which probably adds to the aura of unreality.  I had also read that the tracks that were rejected/rerecorded were because Dylan's lyrics were originally too raw and identifiably against Sara.

In lieu of BOTT, I'd much rather listen to Planet Waves, which was/is very underrated.

[Eric]

Not much of a Dylan fan but I love BOTT.  And Bootleg No. 8 (go figure).  I get the love and all for him, but these are the only two that stuck with me.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Eric

[JSngry]

10 hours ago, mjzee said:

I was never a fan of BOTT.  Too melodramatic, over-emotional and self-pitying.  Agreed about the monotonous rhythm section.  I also read (somewhere; at this point, who knows?) that his voice was sped up a little, which probably adds to the aura of unreality.  I had also read that the tracks that were rejected/rerecorded were because Dylan's lyrics were originally too raw and identifiably against Sara.

In lieu of BOTT, I'd much rather listen to Planet Waves, which was/is very underrated.

Sped-up vocals, if true, another contributor to the "sheen" effect I get from the record, sped-up vocals and a lot of reverb..

Planet Waves, yeah, I like that one a lot, actually. I once tried to get an R&B band I played with to cover "Going, Going, Gone" as a "soul lament" of sorts. They toyed with the idea but ultimately decided that it would be too big an ask of their audience. But that would have been a thing to do, imo, the way it keeps landing on the minor vi chord, James Carr could have done that one.

[mjzee]

Re: sped-up vocals:

1) "The half-speed master release is unique and different to all the other releases of this album. The recording runs approximately 2% slower than all the other pressings and has slightly longer track times. Dylan actually sped up the original album by two percent in the mastering. The vinyl "half-speed master" evidently used the pre-sped up tape, which is why it sounds so different." From: https://www.discogs.com/Bob-Dylan-Blood-On-The-Tracks/release/2233061

2) Discussion on the Hoffman boards: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/blood-on-the-tracks-mofi-reissue-is-this-the-correct-speed.366291/

3) Discussion on Expecting Rain boards: http://www.expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42949

4) and: http://expectingrain.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=87324

[JSngry]

I've mentioned it before, but back in the late-60s, there were AM Top 40 stations that would set their turntable to run faster than 45 RPM so they could, I don't know, play more songs AND sell more commercial time?

[paul secor]

Lew Chudd who owned Imperial Records supposedly had Fats Domino's records speeded up to make them more commercial. Seemed to work for him and for Fats.