---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Stoddard, Kamal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Nowadays it seems people don't think as much about whether a
track needs an edit (or what
>kind of editing) as much as they think about how many people will
buy the edit (theo
>excluded...but you knew that right?). Is this code outdated? Is
it now acceptable to chop
>an otherwise kicking track for the sake of having done an edit?
Do you all feel most of the
>edits out now (theo excluded, I will not respect dissenting
opinions) are done from a need
>or intention to make them groove into the cosmos or just to have
done it? Just something
>I've been thinking about. Cause coming up, you would get fronted
on for doing the wrong
>kind of edit to the wrong kind of song. Dunno...
theo is definitely different in respect to his edits. he basically
"theo-izes" a track when he edits it up. like he said in one of
his interviews, the early sound signature and kdj jams are
basically disco edits anyway. kenny's "shouldve known" edit on
that private collection record took that sh*t into orbit, i LOVE
that so much.
but aside from them, im really not sure what other people are up
to. that krivit edit of "one thing" by amerie was so unnecessary
to me. all he did was extend it a bit and add organ parts that
just didnt add anything to the track. i didnt pick up that recent
roy ayers and eddie kendricks edit 12" because i felt the edits
were too boring and were just trying too hard. i did get that mike
clark edit 12", i thought he did a pretty nice job on those cuts.
he allowed the song to breathe on some of the cuts, and looped up
bits of the others.
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
