I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone....

[Davelee]

....the live version from July 2nd, 1955, The Hayride. This is the only known live version of the song. I was round a friends house yesterday and he has the MRS "Elvis Live In The 50s - The Complete Concert Recordings" (i don't have this as i have all the live tracks elsewhere) and i was just flicking through the booklet and at the back of the book has the tracking listing for the 3 CDs, i noticed that for live cut of "I'm Left" it states: "Only parts of this track were recorded. During restoration and to complete the track, the studio version was inserted to fill the missing segment".

My question is: why was only part of the song recorded? or why did they record part of it? I don't understand! It doesn't make logical sense to me - is it saying that someone switched the tape off and switched it on again during the performance? or is there another reason, i can't think of anything else. Perhaps someone else could fill me in on the answers.

[G-Hubb]

Tape ran out - change tape - start recording again. ?

[Davelee]

Tape ran out - change tape - start recording again. ?

Hmmmm...aren't these things usually prepared before the days broadcasting?

[colonel snow]

The complete version excists; in the middle section it is destroyed and that's the reason an insert was taken from another source.

colonel snow

[Davelee]

The complete version excists; in the middle section it is destroyed and that's the reason an insert was taken from another source.

colonel snow

Ok, Thanks. That explains it. So the info about only part of it was recorded is wrong!

[colonel snow]

The original source is an acetate; a part can't be played.
Here's the original acatate version without the unplayable part.


http://www88.zippyshare.com/v/2zoBmeal/file.html


colonel snow

[drjohncarpenter]

....the live version from July 2nd, 1955, The Hayride. This is the only known live version of the song. I was round a friends house yesterday and he has the MRS "Elvis Live In The 50s - The Complete Concert Recordings" (i don't have this as i have all the live tracks elsewhere) and i was just flicking through the booklet and at the back of the book has the tracking listing for the 3 CDs, i noticed that for live cut of "I'm Left" it states: "Only parts of this track were recorded. During restoration and to complete the track, the studio version was inserted to fill the missing segment".

My question is: why was only part of the song recorded? or why did they record part of it? I don't understand! It doesn't make logical sense to me - is it saying that someone switched the tape off and switched it on again during the performance? or is there another reason, i can't think of anything else. Perhaps someone else could fill me in on the answers.

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does.... . Bye for now .

[drjohncarpenter]

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does....

Has nothing to do with my post, or this topic, but that's how you roll around here, derailing topics whenever possible.

You have fun with your gray market products, with their pretty (borrowed) photos and re-engineered (borrowed) sources.

[Tony C]

Hi there!! .

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does.... . Bye for now .

Perhaps you would like to explain this comment fully. Bye for good (sorry, just wishful thinking).

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does.... . Bye for now .

Perhaps you would like to explain this comment fully. Bye for good (sorry, just wishful thinking).

Yeah, look carefully, outtakes from FTD stolen by this bootlegger... . Bye for now .

snowbirdrevisited2.jpg

Has nothing to do with my post, or this topic, but that's how you roll around here, derailing topics whenever possible. You have fun with your gray market products, with their pretty (borrowed) photos and re-engineered (borrowed) sources.

P.S: Doc no need to be rude & attacking me, but that´s what you do when your lovely Gravel Road Music is mentioned.... .

[drjohncarpenter]

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does....

Perhaps you would like to explain this comment fully. Bye for good (sorry, just wishful thinking).

Yeah, look carefully, outtakes from FTD stolen by ...

More derailing of the topic, thanks.

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

As noted, the original acetate was damaged, the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Like the guy at Gravel Road label does....

Perhaps you would like to explain this comment fully. Bye for good (sorry, just wishful thinking).

Yeah, look carefully, outtakes from FTD stolen by this bootlegger...

More derailing of the topic, thanks.

Not derailing, just facts! . Bye for now .

[drjohncarpenter]

Yeah, look carefully, outtakes from FTD stolen by this bootlegger...

More derailing of the topic, thanks.

Not derailing ...

You are the only one who thinks so. To the rest of us, you're derailing the topic, as usual. Thanks.

[Mike Windgren]

Hi there!! .

Yeah, look carefully, outtakes from FTD stolen by this bootlegger...

More derailing of the topic, thanks.

Not derailing, just facts! . Bye for now .

You are the only one who thinks so. To the rest of us, you're derailing the topic, as usual. Thanks.

Who is the rest of us? . Bye for now .

[MikeFromHolland]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

[Davelee]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevent to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

[poormadpeter2]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevent to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

It is not stealing if it is legal - and it is legal. Do you (or the Doc) have a problem with a public domain edition of a novel? or a film? Now, you can either approve of the Public Domain laws or not, but it is not stealing when something is free to use by law anyway. That's why it is called being in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. In other words, it belongs to the public - a far cry from the audio on many a bootleg that I'm sure is in the Doc's collection, that he seemingly has no problem with.

Meanwhile, I'm not quite sure why the Doc is referring to "borrowed" photos when photo acknowledgements are given on page 170 of the "booklet". This includes Getty Images, I might add, which are hardly available for borrowing (if only)! Of course, much of the material from newspapers featured in the booklet are in the public domain in the States anyway, and so therefore are in the public domain in the UK as well. Anyone can use them. I'm sure the Doc has no objection to such public domain memorabilia being reproduced in Sony or FTD products or booklets.

[Davelee]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevent to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

It is not stealing if it is legal - and it is legal. Do you (or the Doc) have a problem with a public domain edition of a novel? or a film? Now, you can either approve of the Public Domain laws or not, but it is not stealing when something is free to use by law anyway. That's why it is called being in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. In other words, it belongs to the public - a far cry from the audio on many a bootleg that I'm sure is in the Doc's collection, that he seemingly has no problem with.

Meanwhile, I'm not quite sure why the Doc is referring to "borrowed" photos when photo acknowledgements are given on page 170 of the "booklet". This includes Getty Images, I might add, which are hardly available for borrowing (if only)! Of course, much of the material from newspapers featured in the booklet are in the public domain in the States anyway, and so therefore are in the public domain in the UK as well. Anyone can use them. I'm sure the Doc has no objection to such public domain memorabilia being reproduced in Sony or FTD products or booklets.

Didn't take you long to spot an opportunity for an academic arguement, its your only talent - arguement spotter.

Carry on so we can all have a good laugh, well from ones that understand!

[drjohncarpenter]

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevant to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

Exactly. My reply was completely on the topic. I agree that some should read with care, so they don't look foolish.

[egilj]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevent to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

It is not stealing if it is legal - and it is legal. Do you (or the Doc) have a problem with a public domain edition of a novel? or a film? Now, you can either approve of the Public Domain laws or not, but it is not stealing when something is free to use by law anyway. That's why it is called being in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. In other words, it belongs to the public - a far cry from the audio on many a bootleg that I'm sure is in the Doc's collection, that he seemingly has no problem with.

Meanwhile, I'm not quite sure why the Doc is referring to "borrowed" photos when photo acknowledgements are given on page 170 of the "booklet". This includes Getty Images, I might add, which are hardly available for borrowing (if only)! Of course, much of the material from newspapers featured in the booklet are in the public domain in the States anyway, and so therefore are in the public domain in the UK as well. Anyone can use them. I'm sure the Doc has no objection to such public domain memorabilia being reproduced in Sony or FTD products or booklets.

Didn't take you long to spot an opportunity for an academic arguement

I don't think you have to be an intellectual to grasp this post. But again it's quite plain that you show no appreciation for knowledge or common sense whatsoever.

[Davelee]

.

Who is the rest of us?

Good question. I'm not part of "the rest". According to me the first attempt of derailing started here:

(..) This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



1973:
..


.

It is not derailing the topic or irrelevent to it. The MRS release clearly states inaccurate information and the correct information was supplied by Colonel Snow in response to my topic, so the Doc comments its one of the reasons he doesn't by "gray market" releases and stealing other peoples sources. Try and read more carefully in future. Thanks.

It is not stealing if it is legal - and it is legal. Do you (or the Doc) have a problem with a public domain edition of a novel? or a film? Now, you can either approve of the Public Domain laws or not, but it is not stealing when something is free to use by law anyway. That's why it is called being in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. In other words, it belongs to the public - a far cry from the audio on many a bootleg that I'm sure is in the Doc's collection, that he seemingly has no problem with.

Meanwhile, I'm not quite sure why the Doc is referring to "borrowed" photos when photo acknowledgements are given on page 170 of the "booklet". This includes Getty Images, I might add, which are hardly available for borrowing (if only)! Of course, much of the material from newspapers featured in the booklet are in the public domain in the States anyway, and so therefore are in the public domain in the UK as well. Anyone can use them. I'm sure the Doc has no objection to such public domain memorabilia being reproduced in Sony or FTD products or booklets.

Didn't take you long to spot an opportunity for an academic arguement

I don't think you have to be an intellectual to grasp this post. But again it's quite plain that you show no appreciation for knowledge or common sense whatsoever.

Yeah, whatever.....

[MikeFromHolland]

.

For those who don't understand their own language.

....the live version from July 2nd, 1955, The Hayride. This is the only known live version of the song. I was round a friends house yesterday and he has the MRS "Elvis Live In The 50s - The Complete Concert Recordings" (i don't have this as i have all the live tracks elsewhere) and i was just flicking through the booklet and at the back of the book has the tracking listing for the 3 CDs, i noticed that for live cut of "I'm Left" it states: "Only parts of this track were recorded. During restoration and to complete the track, the studio version was inserted to fill the missing segment".

My question is: why was only part of the song recorded? or why did they record part of it? I don't understand! It doesn't make logical sense to me - is it saying that someone switched the tape off and switched it on again during the performance? or is there another reason, i can't think of anything else. Perhaps someone else could fill me in on the answers.

As noted, the original acetate was damaged.

Irrelevant:

the liner notes misleading. The so-called "repair" is almost unlistenable. This is why I avoid gray market releases, too many amateur engineers using "borrowed" sources.

.

[drjohncarpenter]

For those who don't understand their own language.

You can be as rude as you wish, you are still mistaken, only now twice-over.

My post was on topic, the derailing of it clear, and the person who created this discussion already agreed with both of these observations.

Thanks.