Innuendo. Vinyl.

If 99% of the listeners were happy to have a standard 50 minute vinyl album, and 1% wanted to buy the audiophile version on two vinyl albums, it's the perfect analogy for CD/SACD.

Just how common were these audiophile version back in the day?

Is it something that would be regularily available from major artists, was it a phase when all record companies tried to push a "new format", or was it just an idea that was tried a few times?

Sorry, I made a mistake: the Creedence album that was released in two versions wasn't the 1980 "The Concert", but the 1973 "Live in Europe". I can't find any concrete numbers on the sales of the respective versions, but the double LP version was pressed in a large number of different countries and went through several pressings, and nowadays (so 40 years after the original release) it is pretty much as common as the single LP version, implying that the sales were probably similar as well.

I found a little tidbit that might shed more light on the whole subject of LP length: it isn't just a matter of sound quality, but also of damaging your records! In 1975, Todd Rundgren released one of the longest single LPs ever, "Initiation", which runs for 67:34 (!). Sound quality is pretty horrendous, but it also included a Technical Note on the inner sleeve about this: "Due to the amount of music on this disc (over one hour), two points must be emphasized. Firstly, if your needle is worn or damaged, it will ruin the disc immediately. Secondly, if the sound does seem not loud enough on your system, try re-recording the music onto tape"

In the '70s, there were many, many people who used older record players, often mono record players, with coarser needles than later types. They would have good use for shorter LPs (or single LPs split out over two records), because those LPs would be much less likely to stick, and also much less likely to wear very quickly.

So... Perhaps longer discs were a bigger problem back in the 70's, but the problem diminished somewhat as the equipment got better?

The only problem I've really noticed about the longer records is that worn out records tend to skip a lot more. I suppose it's no wonder when the grooves are shallower, and the same scratch would create bigger problems.


I suppose even as early as 1992 vinyls were seen more or less as a collector's item instead of something that would be listened to regularily.

and what is the current vinyl-cutting equip modeled on?
with very little mass-production of vinyl taking place - would suggest new equipment is
based on older "obsolete" tech

I doubt very much that many vinyls were considered collector's items. I think my view of them at the time when I was fifteen in 1992 was the same view most people are started to view them as and that was pointless. Audio cassette tapes made more sense and then c.d.s did as they were becoming more popular. That's still the case in some ways.

Edit please. Sorry.

[QUOTE] [b]the dude 1366 wrote:[/b]

As a lover of vinyl I can tell you that the Innuendo vinyl sucks! The cuts are unbelievably bad. Even the reissues did not fix it. The could have spread the album over 2 records. They chose to go cheap. And in this case, original CD's (not remasters) are more dynamic. The best sounding version of Innuendo is 1st Dutch pressing on CD. Find it and turn it up. [/QUOTE]

I have the 1st Dutch pressing on CD for sale. If someone is interested send me an email at: berotirecords@gmail.com

I hear there are some Innuendo CDs out there that have the vinyl edits on them.

Is that true? Anyone know for sure?

I think I heard once that some Brazilian or Argentinian copies of the CD included the vinyl edits?

What were the differences? Can anyone post them to YouTube for comparison?

The main tracks affected are Bijou which cuts out almost all the guitarwork, and the Hitman which is shortened by over a minute, cutting out some instrumental sections. I just listened to it and it's quite a good edit, I didn't miss anything obvious. Was never one of my favorite tracks anyway :-D

Days Of Our Lives misses the intro and immediately starts with Freddie's "Sometimes...". The other tracks are very minor edits, early fade-outs etc.

Slightly Mad: 4:23 vs 4:08
Can't Live: 4:34 vs 4:06
Don't Try: 3:40 vs 3:34
All God's: 4:22 vs 3:56
TATDOOL: 4:15 vs 3:56
Hitman: 4:57 vs 3:44
Bijou: 3:37 vs 1:20
TSMGO: 4:38 vs 4:28

The main tracks affected are Bijou which cuts out almost all the guitarwork, and the Hitman which is shortened by over a minute, cutting out some instrumental sections. I just listened to it and it's quite a good edit, I didn't miss anything obvious. Was never one of my favorite tracks anyway :-D

Days Of Our Lives misses the intro and immediately starts with Freddie's "Sometimes...". The other tracks are very minor edits, early fade-outs etc.

Slightly Mad: 4:23 vs 4:08
Can't Live: 4:34 vs 4:06
Don't Try: 3:40 vs 3:34
All God's: 4:22 vs 3:56
TATDOOL: 4:15 vs 3:56
Hitman: 4:57 vs 3:44
Bijou: 3:37 vs 1:20
TSMGO: 4:38 vs 4:28

Sorry to post on a year old thread, but I just bought a used copy of this LP and was unaware of the cuts until I was playing the album. The cut on bijou was jarring as it remove my favourite part of the song. The Hitman cut was great because I got less hitman-- they could have removed that song and left everything else in tact and I would be happy!

[QUOTE] [b]Pim Derks wrote:[/b]

Slightly Mad: 4:23 vs 4:08
Can't Live: 4:34 vs 4:06
Don't Try: 3:40 vs 3:34
All God's: 4:22 vs 3:56
TATDOOL: 4:15 vs 3:56
Hitman: 4:57 vs 3:44
Bijou: 3:37 vs 1:20
TSMGO: 4:38 vs 4:28[/QUOTE]

And to think they could've avoided all that by just omitting Delilah...

I will take Delilah over Hitman anyday. Either way, you are correct-- leave the filler on the floor.