Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

New Morning Acetates

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Jesse Jones

unread,
Oct 25, 2003, 4:23:39 PM10/25/03
to
Where is there any information on this set? I downloaded it from
abmsd, and it is really great, but where does it come from? When were
these tracks recorded, and who put this package together?

NNW...@aol.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2003, 6:03:16 PM10/25/03
to
Jesse Jones <jessecjo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

With a brief listen, it sounds like a misleadingly named mish-mash of
released tracks and some previously booted outs.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Oleg "Itz_Furrball" Heifetz

unread,
Oct 25, 2003, 11:04:05 PM10/25/03
to

Jesse Jones

unread,
Oct 26, 2003, 5:51:15 AM10/26/03
to
Interesting. The copy I downloaded via bit torrent from a link
obtained at Dylantree -

http://www.sharingthegroove.org/msgboard/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18188

only has 19 tracks, and does not include the bonus live tracks.

Bill

unread,
Oct 26, 2003, 2:15:29 PM10/26/03
to
It's one of those inexplicably popular discs of recycled material
that's generated a feeding frenzy at Dylanpool. There are at least
two different versions of it floating around, with different
tracklists. None of the material is new or unfamiliar.

What it apparently doesn't include is any material from the
actual "New Morning" acetates. As I recall, there's one acetate
that's actually surfaced -- an "If Not For You" single -- plus an
early version of the album, with a radically different tracklist,
mixed and sequenced by Al Kooper, that's known to have existed but
hasn't come into circulation.

This set has _nothing_, repeat, _nothing_ to do with the Kooper
version; it's missing 3 of the 4 songs dropped for the official
release (and none of whatever variant mixes/alternate takes, if any of
the songs that were officially released). There's no sign that the
"If Not For You" acetate was used, either.

Instead, somebody's apparently taken the (mostly unsatisfactory)
mixes from the CD release, run them through a sound editor, added a
few tracks that struck his fancy, and slapped a misleading title on
the result. (From the descriptions I've seen, the disc doesn't even
include the slightly extended opening track found on the first wave of
the LPs.)

There's also a thoroughly wrongheaded account of the disc out
there, written, I think, by the guy who added the live tracks and
resequenced the first version, which insists that the last "Self
Portrait" sessions were entirely distinct from the recording of "New
Morning." That's just plain wrong. As Krogsgaard reported, Dylan
went into the studio in March 1970 _both_ to complete work on "Self
Portrait" and to begin work on an album of new material. After basic
tracks were cut for the songs intended for "Self Portrait," those
recordings were sent to Nashville for overdubbing. The new songs were
kept in New York for further work. At least some of the new songs
were intended for "Scratch," a Broadway musical with book by Archibald
MacLeish and songs by Dylan, based on "The Devil And Daniel Webster."

After the Broadway project fell apart, and "Scratch" was
scratched, Dylan incorporated many or all of the new songs into "New
Morning." It's interesting to note that the "Scratch" songs were
apparently excluded from the album Kooper put together; and even more
interesting to recognize that "Went To See The Gypsy" was among them
-- suggesting that the original "gypsy" wasn't the King, but a certain
prince.

[Whether "New Morning" and "Scratch" were ever two different
projects is omething of an open question; the LP Kooper prepared,
mixing covers, new originals, and "Tomorrow Is A Long Time," might
have been intended as a stopgap while "Scratch" was delayed, including
only those of Dylan's new songs which weren't suitable (or at least
had been rejected) for the Broadway project.]

Bill C.


Jesse Jones <jessecjo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<fZAmb.2406$X22....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

Bob Meyer

unread,
Oct 26, 2003, 2:34:50 PM10/26/03
to
In article <b431cfee.03102...@posting.google.com>,
monic...@yahoo.com (Bill) wrote:

> Instead, somebody's apparently taken the (mostly unsatisfactory)
> mixes from the CD release, run them through a sound editor,

I had a feeling this might be what these are. Who ever did it did a good
job. They actually do sound better than the CD or Vinyl.

--
Bob Meyer
bobm...@mac.com

0 new messages