Title: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: JRauch on February 26, 2006, 05:03:31 AM I´m talking about the 66'-version, btw. It ends so suddenly. When I heard it at the radio I always assumed that it was some kind of edit done by the radio-people, so that they could start the next song faster. I was really surprised when I found out that it was actually the way Brian recorded it.
Is there any story to this? Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Rocker on February 26, 2006, 05:48:06 AM I guess Brian just wanted it that way....
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Andreas on February 26, 2006, 06:42:29 AM The version on the DCC Gold Endless Summer CD is a few seconds longer.In other words, the finished mix does go on a bit longer than the familiar single version.
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Bicyclerider on February 26, 2006, 06:47:01 AM Wasn't the song long for a single in the 60's? Maybe someone thought lopping off a few seconds of the tag might help shorten the song and make it more suitable for airplay?
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Mitchell on February 26, 2006, 08:36:39 AM Yeah, it's 3:39 as it is, which is very long for a mid-60s single. Funnily enough, Heroes and Villains is the exact same length!
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Bubba Ho-Tep on February 26, 2006, 08:55:54 AM I always figured it faded out fast before the other instrumentation dropped in. They let it run out a little longer on BWPS.
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Reverend Joshua Sloane on February 26, 2006, 10:46:01 AM I thought he was going for that familiar feeling of the song flying off into a whole other universe. Tomorrow Never Knows by dem Beeowls acheived a similar effect at the end of that song.
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: JRauch on February 27, 2006, 02:14:39 AM "They let it run out a little longer on BWPS."
Thank God they did! That extended fade-out is one of my favourite parts of the whole record. It could go on forever, imo. Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Roger Ryan on February 27, 2006, 12:50:08 PM Yeah, I've always been of the impression that Brian was already a little wary of the song's length preventing it from significant airplay, so made sure the fade happened quick. The single mix of "Fun, Fun, Fun" had a fairly quick fade out ending as well (as opposed to the longer LP version fade). I always wanted the GV fade to go on longer and would often crossfade the ending to the tracking session material for that purpose.
Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Third Coast on February 28, 2006, 06:11:12 PM I think the fadeout is short because of all the reasons mentioned here, but also perhaps because the fadeout marked the beginning of what had been a completely different section -- the part with a symphonic feeling that was first heard in the "Best Summers of Our Lives" radio special in '76 -- and if it hadn't stopped about right there, it would have launched into yet another direction. So he stopped the single at 3:35.
And because it sounded right that way, too. Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Aegir on March 01, 2006, 01:54:18 AM I didn't notice it until this thread.
Now I can't escape it. Title: Re: GV-fadeout: Why is it so short? Post by: Reverend Joshua Sloane on March 01, 2006, 12:23:25 PM I didn't notice it until this thread. Now I can't escape it. Sometimes it actually bothers me. I feel that if the crop had been done a little less harsh then I could thoroughly enjoy the fade. It just cuts, ZIP, right out of the song. |