Back To Mono vs. Rhino's One Kiss Can Lead to Another box

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is it more a case of one complimenting the other or does one triumph all over the other??

― Phil Dokes (sunny), Thursday, 8 December 2005 20:54 (nineteen years ago)

I prefer the latter.

― not really (nabisco), Thursday, 8 December 2005 20:57 (nineteen years ago)

both prrrrrrrretty damn fine, but the latter's finer by quite a margin

― ZR (teenagequiet), Thursday, 8 December 2005 20:58 (nineteen years ago)

I knew the duplicated thread would get cut and kill my wonderful joke, but I didn't think I'd be so sad about it. :(

In all honesty: a few highlights from Back to Mono get more out of me than most of One Kiss, but overall One Kiss seems way, way better.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

OTM

― ZR (teenagequiet), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

"One Kiss Can Lead To Another" is a better listening experience, but anyone who's heard that and then not also heard the best Spector productions is clearly missing out. But truth be told, I think that a 2CD comp of the very best Spector would do (not that I don't love the sprawling glory of the actual box set, but a *lot* on there is definitley b-rate, tho usually charmingly so.

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

everybody otm

― Billy Pilgrim (Billy Pilgrim), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:46 (nineteen years ago)

We are running out of money to be on, we will have to refinance ILX.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:50 (nineteen years ago)

E-Loan to thread!
* The low rates you deserve
* No hidden loan costs
* Trusted, personal service
* Lending's strictest privacy policy
"The people at E-LOAN are fantastic, I really appreciated the very professional personal service that I received from beginning to end. It will be no problem 'bragging up' my E-LOAN experience, you guys are great" – Edward R.

― Billy Pilgrim (Billy Pilgrim), Thursday, 8 December 2005 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

why is Back To Mono priced so high? it's just three CDs and it's always well over $60 new. I've only got old taped copies of it and have always wanted to get the real deal, but the high cost has always stopped me. is the book all that lavish? i can't remember now...

― Tyler Wilcox (tylerw), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:05 (nineteen years ago)

back to mono, because it's definitive.

one kiss can lead to another is perfectly nice and all -- maybe even great -- but the same basic ground is covered better on rpm records' six-volume dream babes series.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:07 (nineteen years ago)

You've got my attention, I'm going to search them out. Are they hard to find?

― Billy Pilgrim (Billy Pilgrim), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

rpm is a UK label but they're pretty easy to find in the US and not expensive; i think they might have re-distributed them in the US very recently. tower records in nyc, for example, stocks 'em all. there's probably 10 or 15 percent crossover with the rhino box. they're curated by bob stanley of saint etienne. the first four volumes especially are all killer.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:27 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks! I may be getting off the 6 a couple stops early tonite...

― Billy Pilgrim (Billy Pilgrim), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:29 (nineteen years ago)

"why is Back To Mono priced so high? it's just three CDs and it's always well over $60 new"

its four CDs including the Christmas album - I got mine used for less than $50 and the only thing I regret is that I lost the "Back to Mono" button that came with it.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:30 (nineteen years ago)

i have volumes 2 and 5 of dream babes. 2 is patchy but has at least half a dozen great songs (esp the cilla black one). vol 5 is amazing, the caravelles song became an instant favourite

― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:34 (nineteen years ago)

Tyler - I believe it has to do with ABKCO records owning the rights to the music...they love to charge top dollar for things that they know people can't get anywhere else. They're notorious for it. Like Spector's Christmas album, for example; it still costs $17-20 at Borders (last time I saw it, a month ago or so), whereas you'll see other Christmas albums on the shelf for about $10. Yeah, it's probably better than "A Hilary Duff Christmas" or whatever else is there, but the prices are still pretty high nonetheless.

― musically (musically), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:36 (nineteen years ago)

one kiss can lead to another is perfectly nice and all -- maybe even great -- but the same basic ground is covered better on rpm records' six-volume dream babes series.

i said this on another thread and got yelled at. :-(

― thor heyerdahl (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:44 (nineteen years ago)

you're safe here with us!

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:47 (nineteen years ago)

ah yes, i forgot about the xmas album...still, it seems kinda steep, right? i was just at borders and they wanted 74.99 for it! those abkco bastards!

― Tyler Wilcox (tylerw), Thursday, 8 December 2005 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

Tyler - I believe it has to do with ABKCO records owning the rights to the music...they love to charge top dollar for things that they know people can't get anywhere else

Cf., outlandlshly overpriced Rolling Stones back-catalogue.

― Myke Weiskopf (Myke Weiskopf), Thursday, 8 December 2005 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

...allofmp3dotcommunism

― Billy Pilgrim (Billy Pilgrim), Thursday, 8 December 2005 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

thor, where's the other thread on this?

― Phil Dokes (sunny), Friday, 9 December 2005 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

"I believe it has to do with ABKCO records owning the rights to the music...they love to charge top dollar for things that they know people can't get anywhere else

Cf., outlandlshly overpriced Rolling Stones back-catalogue. "

Allen Klein is the fucking devil.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 December 2005 00:24 (nineteen years ago)

re: allen klein--it's funny, in the new Sam Cooke bio by Peter Guralnick, Klein gets a rather positive rendering. from what i know of his dealings with the stones, beatles, et al, he does come across as quite devilish. but Guralnick seems to see him as misunderstood...still, dude, lower the prices! you'd probably sell more CDs that way. to me, anyway.

― Tyler Wilcox (tylerw), Friday, 9 December 2005 02:18 (nineteen years ago)

haha peter guralnick = also only man on earth who sees colonel tom parker as misunderstood fellow who only wanted to help elvis!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 9 December 2005 05:18 (nineteen years ago)

JD, specific evidence?

― whatever (boglogger), Friday, 9 December 2005 09:28 (nineteen years ago)

That's not at all what I took from the Elvis bios by Guralnick. I don't think *anyone* in Presley's inner circle comes off too well in those (well, maybe Vernon, in a "well meaning schmuck" kind of way.)

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Friday, 9 December 2005 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

I thought dream babes was exclusively british stuff... not that much cross over! (note: this is me talking myself into buying yet another girl group comp)

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 9 December 2005 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

I thought Klein was generally regarded as a real prick, but also a tough businessman who just wanted the best deal for his clients, ala Peter Grant/Led Zeppelin. Am I wrong about this? (Curious)

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Friday, 9 December 2005 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

I got a similar impression to JD about Guralnick's take on Colonel Tom. I think there was some quote from Jimmie Dale Gilmore, of all people, about how helpful it was for him to talk to the Colonel at the beginning of his career.

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

well that's not what *i* got from the guralnick books, but i did get the impression that that's how guralnick felt about the colonel - i think he says something about there being "no villains" in this story. it's a refreshing attitude, but the problem is that parker pretty much is the villain of the story, and the evidence guralnick piles up against him is so damning you wonder why he refuses to realize the obvious.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 10 December 2005 01:08 (nineteen years ago)

The only positive spin I've ever seen on Parker comes from an obit in a german "Rolling Stone" where the writer basically says "well, if the colonel hadn't been such a total manipulative control freak, who knows how much sooner Elvis would have gone 'round the bend?" Reading the Guralnick books, and seeing how mind-blowing and sudden it all was for Elvis pretty much from the get-go, I can kind of sorta almost buy that.

But yeah, you're probably right about Guralnick's position. The "no villains" line is sorta funny because by the end, at least to me, they're pretty much all villains - Parker just stands out because his villainy had a much more direct effect on the product that Elvis has left behind, musically.

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Saturday, 10 December 2005 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.