|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 15, 2021 9:31:12 GMT -5
I hate the time change. It's anachronistic. I wish the powers that be would just pick one and leave it. Preferably this one we now have as I enjoy it not getting dark at 5pm half the year. I agree. And I much prefer this time. I have no use for extra daylight in the morning. I prefer not going home after work to a dark evening.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 15, 2021 9:36:47 GMT -5
Y'all need to move to Arizona. We don't mess with that stupid Daylight Savings Time here.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 15, 2021 9:38:49 GMT -5
Y'all need to move to Arizona. We don't mess with that stupid Daylight Savings Time here. I prefer DST to standard time. And it would take a high six figure salary to get me to move to Arizona. I hate hot weather.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 15, 2021 9:40:26 GMT -5
Stay way from the tambourine or maracas. They are deceptively harder than you might think. Must readjust my appreciation of Davy Jones' contribution to the Monkees.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 15, 2021 9:49:54 GMT -5
Yep, I'll pass on the hot weather. I once had a layover in Arizona for just a couple hours, and you could feel the heat trying to seep in through the cracks. That's some aggressive heat.
And yep, don't need more daylight in the morning. If the farmers need the sun, just...get up when the sun does.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 15, 2021 10:44:39 GMT -5
I like changing the clocks.
I also want to dump the DH and banish fruit-flavored beer.
And no, you can't have your damn wiffleball back.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 15, 2021 14:17:47 GMT -5
I like changing the clocks. I also want to dump the DH and banish fruit-flavored beer. And no, you can't have your damn wiffleball back. OK, I can't figure it out. What does dump the DH mean?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 15, 2021 14:21:11 GMT -5
I like changing the clocks. I also want to dump the DH and banish fruit-flavored beer. And no, you can't have your damn wiffleball back. OK, I can't figure it out. What does dump the DH mean? Baseball. Get rid of the Designated Hitter. I'm so old school, I forget that there are some among us born since Astroturf first appeared.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 16, 2021 14:06:12 GMT -5
As a bit of a yank-o-phile music geek, I like to pick up original U.S. pressings of vintage albums by American acts wherever I can. Anyway, today I was giving my first pressing copy of the Association's 1968 album Birthday a spin (which I bought in Athens, Georgia when I was there in 2019) and I noticed that there was a Sears, Roebuck price sticker on the inner sleeve. Price is $3:69...does that sound like the sort of price this album would've been back in 1968? I'm just wondering if this sticker was peeled from the front of the album and put on the inner sleeve by whoever bought my copy of this album from new in 1968? I hope so...I love little 60s artefacts like that.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 16, 2021 14:21:39 GMT -5
As a bit of a yank-o-phile music geek, I like to pick up original U.S. pressings of vintage albums by American acts wherever I can. Anyway, today I was giving my first pressing copy of the Association's 1968 album Birthday a spin (which I bought in Athens, Georgia when I was there in 2019) and I noticed that there was a Sears, Roebuck price sticker on the inner sleeve. Price is $3:69...does that sound like the sort of price this album would've been back in 1968? I'm just wondering if this sticker was peeled from the front of the album and put on the inner sleeve by whoever bought my copy of this album from new in 1968? I hope so...I love little 60s artefacts like this. Yeah, $3.69 sounds about right. Unless it's in mono. Then it would have been cheaper. Here in the States, I remember buying albums for about $2.99. Singles ranged from 49 to 69 cents at chain stores. The Beatles (the White Album) cost anywhere between $6.99 and $8.99, IIRC, depending on the store.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 16, 2021 14:42:21 GMT -5
As a bit of a yank-o-phile music geek, I like to pick up original U.S. pressings of vintage albums by American acts wherever I can. Anyway, today I was giving my first pressing copy of the Association's 1968 album Birthday a spin (which I bought in Athens, Georgia when I was there in 2019) and I noticed that there was a Sears, Roebuck price sticker on the inner sleeve. Price is $3:69...does that sound like the sort of price this album would've been back in 1968? I'm just wondering if this sticker was peeled from the front of the album and put on the inner sleeve by whoever bought my copy of this album from new in 1968? I hope so...I love little 60s artefacts like this. Yeah, $3.69 sounds about right. Unless it's in mono. Then it would have been cheaper. Here in the States, I remember buying albums for about $2.99. Singles ranged from 49 to 69 cents at chain stores. The Beatles (the White Album) cost anywhere between $6.99 and $8.99, IIRC, depending on the store. No, it's a stereo pressing, so it sounds as if this was indeed the price sticker from new at Sears. Cool. That's quite a difference in price for the White Album. I know that sometimes when 60s artists put out double albums they also released them as two separate discs as well -- like Donovan's 1967 double album A Gift From A Flower To A Garden was also issued as the separate LPs Wear Your Love Like Heaven and For Little Ones. I guess the Beatles were big enough that they knew fans would spring for a double album in spite of the price. To be fair, even $8.99 for the incredible music on the White Album is a steal!
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 16, 2021 15:18:48 GMT -5
Yes, that was most definitely a double album. I never saw it split into two. And, yeah, even $8.99 would have been a deal for it: The Beatles? 30 songs? (And those songs?) When a new record might have cost up to $3.99? It was an event, trust me.
Double albums were really rare. Blonde on Blonde was a double album (Maybe 1966 or'67?), but heck, even movie soundtracks and Broadway shows were just one album.
A couple of years later, Woodstock came out as a three-record set! That was another big moment. I forget what that cost, but it was another one we played to death.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 16, 2021 15:34:11 GMT -5
Yes, that was most definitely a double album. I never saw it split into two. And, yeah, even $8.99 would have been a deal for it: The Beatles? 30 songs? (And those songs?) When a new record might have cost up to $3.99? It was an event, trust me. Double albums were really rare. Blonde on Blonde was a double album (Maybe 1966 or'67?), but heck, even movie soundtracks and Broadway shows were just one album. A couple of years later, Woodstock came out as a three-record set! That was another big moment. I forget what that cost, but it was another one we played to death. June '66. Double albums seemed to become more prevalent in the 70s. The Allman Brothers put out a number. And Bitches Brew...mmmmm...Miles Davis.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 16, 2021 15:36:53 GMT -5
Defer to the guys who lived through it over any conflicts, but about three bucks jibes with stories my dad tells of spending his lunch money on rock and roll records while his mother worried over his eternal soul.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 16, 2021 15:39:18 GMT -5
Yes, that was most definitely a double album. I never saw it split into two. And, yeah, even $8.99 would have been a deal for it: The Beatles? 30 songs? (And those songs?) When a new record might have cost up to $3.99? It was an event, trust me. Double albums were really rare. Blonde on Blonde was a double album (Maybe 1966 or'67?), but heck, even movie soundtracks and Broadway shows were just one album. A couple of years later, Woodstock came out as a three-record set! That was another big moment. I forget what that cost, but it was another one we played to death. June '66. Double albums seemed to become more prevalent in the 70s. The Allman Brothers put out a number. And Bitches Brew...mmmmm...Miles Davis. Thanks, slam. I thought it was around then. '67 may have been when I was taking it out of the library for repeated listenings. Yeah, double albums were a risk, but like anything else, once the consumer gets accustomed to them...
|
|