HAs anyone got the standard 7" of the 1983 version of Endlessly?

The one on discogs.com has the time on the label as 3.35 which would seem to be a lot shorter than the 'standard' version, ie. pic disc and gatefold 7" which are 4.18, and LP version about the same 4.17.

43 seconds chopped off for the 7"?

Thanks for any help .. (it worries me this kind of thing...)

So that's how you occupy your waking hours ;D

I am not aware there is a different version, but it really wouldn't surprise me. There seem to be innumerable edits etc of various singles.

Do let us know what you find out - keeping on top of it all is hard work!
Especially if there is an edit of the B-side...??

Yes, I've got a copy of that - I'll check and post accordingly...

I've got to say that the times quoted on labels (and sleeves) aren't always reliable - but a discrepancy of 43 seconds would be quite extreme. Oddly enough, a copy of the 'stand-alone' seven inch single is quite a bit more difficult to find than the gatefold / double-single version.



I'm really pleased that's it's not just you and me that spends our time doing this sort of thing...

Rob

Yes indeed.
While you're at it, do check the B-side and the other tracks on the gatefold.
You just never know...

Thanks for the input guys .. I knew I wouldn't be the only one who cares about these things!

Anyway, in the meantime I have gained further evidence* that indeed the 'single' 7" issue does in fact state a running time of 3.35 making it quite a bit shorter than the gatefold 7" which obviously different again from the extended 12" version (and indeed all the other versions).

*my evidence being that I discovered I actually had a copy tucked away in the cupboard...I thought I had the gatefold ("memory can be so selective")
Surprised to learn it's "rarer" than the gatefold and at least it solved the timing mystery even though sadly I have no means of listening to it to see how it's shortened..


Anway the reason I needed the info is that I'm creating and/or updating John Foxx songs/singles/albums wikipedia pages. Amazingly there was no page for "Underpass" or "No-One Driving" so I've done those from scratch as also My Face/Europe/Endlessly and compilation albums Assembly/Modern Art/Glimmer/Metatroni (Metadelic under construction)
I'm trying to make them as complete as possible..all in my spare time you understand...

"switch the scene, sun is rising.."


PS still not getting e-mail notifications from the forum even though I'm ticking the right boxes (I think)

Yours, endlessly....

Official versions of Endlessly are now as follows:

1982 single (VS 513)
Endlessly (3.51) - same version on pic disc / "Modern Art" / Golden Section (2008) as "single version"

1983 single (VS 543)
7" (single disc)
Endlessly (3.35)

7" (double disc/gatefold)
Endlessly (4.18)
-also on "Assembly"

12"
Endlessly (7.40)
(not available on CD/digital)

plus:

"live" Omnidelic Exotour version with L Gordon
Endlessly (8.12)

Endlessly (extended mix) (6.03)
included on The Golden Section re-issue (2008) previously unreleased

Endlessly (Sparkle mix) (?.??)
appears on the Metadelic compilation album (2013)


..anymore for anymore?

I always thought that the 1983 release of Endlessly was edited down from the album version. In the past I've had the odd moan that whenever there has been a compilation released or a reissue of The Golden Section it's always the 1982 single version that's included.I've been wanting the 1983 single edit on cd for as long as I can remember. I always assumed that the version on Assembly was the album version. I can't remember the timing of the album version so I will have to go back and check when I'm home later.

I can't think of any more off-hand...

It's funny that you're doing this for Endlessly - as one of the reasons the Discography is taking me so long to push into shape is that I'm in the middle of doing exactly the same for all of the different versions of all of the different tracks.

Rob

I think you have missed the Golden Section album version (same as the gatefold single...)

It's great that you are doing this, and including us all in it. Rob and I do all the work we do in our spare time too, and it's really encouraging to be both appreciated and supported.

What fascinates me is that all these different versions of everything are never bl**dy NAMED as such.

We are (and in fact have been since the beginning of time!) working on a full and definitive INDEX of all John's songs and versions thereof, which links to a DISCOGRAPHY etc...
A nagging 'challenge' is the way to title certain versions or releases that are NOT the same as each other but have NO SUFFIX or INFO IN BRACKETS to differentiate them.

This 'single edit' of 1983's Endlessly is a good example. It was never released with the words (single edit) in brackets, so should they be added to the title in an index situation?
If so, how do we differentiate between our own addition of suffixes for cataloguing purposes and those 'officially' presented in the track title...?
Square brackers? Italics??

Apply this logic to albums like 'Impossible' and you'll see some of the fiddly bits that upset any logical process we try to come up with.

But then such is the wonder and continually exciting challenge of trying to categorise or classify John Foxx.

Anyone have a successful, lasting technique for nailing jelly to a tree..?

The versions of Endlessly which appear on The Golden Section and Assembly both clock in at 4:18.

Rob

I've gotta be honest, but I've never really liked the look of italics (or emboldened text) - especially on a web-page. Perhaps notes in square brackets is the answer.

Also, the running times which are (sometimes) quoted aren't always that accurate. Moreover, the running time (as indicated when a CD is read) is also not a true reflection as to a tracks length - as it'll depend on how much space is left at either end of the track, and that will change according to how it was mastered.



But that's also what makes it so much fun - there's a real sense of achievement when new items get discovered and included in the mix, as it all means that putting a definitive overview on-line is getting closer to becoming a reality.



Or for juggling soot, or herding buttered cats...

Rob

Ok yes, I forgot to mention the TGS version which is the same as the "single" 7".

Wiki have a thing about including running times so that's how I came across this 'discrepancy' as it were. I thought having two singles with the same name in two different years was complicated enough!

Perhaps one way to distinguish versions which are not 'labelled' as such is with the catalogue number. Wiki are hot on those too, and not without reason!

"voice behind me says "Go on!".."

What's on the back of this? presumably Dance With ME?
Is that the same mix / version as the gatefold double single release?

Yes, the 'standard' (stand-alone) seven inch version of Endlessly has Dance With Me on the B'side.

Rob

I bought the Endlessly 7" double pack on it's release in '83. For some reason I always thought the version with this release was slightly shorter than the album version. Hence moaning in the past that the '83 7" edit was not available on cd.I (stupidly) got rid of most of my vinyl years ago so I can't confirm this. I guess my memory must be playing tricks!

Yes confirmed, both with identical timings, although on the double 7" it's actually the "D" side!


I've just noticed that the 12" has a longer version of A Kind of Wave on the B side... 5.00 mins as opposed to 3.39 on the gatefold "C" side version ..
What happened to this long version?

"when she turns round she's someone else.."

Here's the 12" version of Endlessly (unavailable on CD/digital)

It's track ten on the second disc of Metadelic.

Rob

My next question then is...

HOW is this different? 40-odd seconds is a lot to cut of the end. Perhaps there is a verse missing, or a shorter intro...

This has happened before in other singles.
Has anyone got the means to actaully PLAY the single-disc 7-inch version?

And then of course, it remains unavailable on CD...

ah Ok .. hadn't spotted the "12" versions" section .. presumably there is also the 7.40 version of Endlessly (track 8?)..

I'm tempted to get the old gramophone out such for the sake of playing this.

but wait! Here's the video which lasts approx 3 and half mins ... hurrah!
http://youtu.be/rlLZ5inMcFk?t=15m29s

Somewhere I've got that version already digitised - I'll dig it out and post a definitive answer.



Of course...

Rob

Never trust label type. Always digitize your records and check the timing in your wave editor!

I blogged about this phenomenon several years ago here:
http://postpunkmonk.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/cd-a-week-project-9/

Super glad to see that it wasn't forgotten when the time came to compile "Metadelic!"

I'm wondering about What Kind Of Girl... there isn't an extended version of that as far as I know.

Does an edited version exist on one of the singles...?

The version of What Kind Of Girl which appeared on the twelve inch version of Stars On Fire is different (as opposed to extended) to the one which appeared on the In Mysterious Ways album. The seven inch version is the same as the twelve inch version.

Rob

I only came on here this evening to see if there's a Brighton meeting place / watering hole arranged for Friday!

It's now half-past midnight and you've got me at it too!

I've just got my FoxxVoxBox of singles out to check times on record deck and came across my German single disc edition (with promo insert) of Endlessly b/w Your Dress. Label info on this release also gives running time as 4:18. Cat No. is 105 748

The answer to the what's missing from the 3:35 version is... one "aaaahhhh" segment and the "When she walks out, she's illuminous" ending.

The 4:18 version has a full 5 "aaaahhhh's" followed by the "When she walks out..." bit whereas the 3:35 version begins to fade at the beginning of "aaaahhhh" number 4.

Can I go to bed now?

Aaaaaargh!

OK, so the one of Metadelic is - as I thought - 'just' the regular version from the seven and twelve inch singles

We need to differentiate this in the discography etc as a 'single version' .

Or something. Meh...

I remember posting on this subject some time ago. I remember the B-side version of What Kind Of Girl having a different start to the album version. I was informed that the beginning was edited and so began differently.

You just can't help yourself, can you, Pete!

I still want to know the full story about the Slow Motion 7-inch single version of Hiroshima Mon Amour (from the Slow Motion [single disc] 7-inch single of March 1981). It's not just an edited (shortened) version of the Ha!-Ha!-Ha! album track, it's actually a slightly different mix as well and includes a different piece of C.C.'s saxophone track ... in fact, I know he did two takes, so I'm wondering if this additional piece is from the second (unused) take, or is an additional part of the first take that was edited-out of the album version?

If anyone can answer this one, then you really are a true pedantic twat and sincerest congratulations will be in order.

Hi Rodney. I can't answer your query but would love to know the answer. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who's head is full of questions that in the scheme of things don't really matter to anyone but us.

Cheers, Andy ... yes, agreed, some of us are more inclined towards these mysterious details that no-one else would generally be bothered with!

In fact, it may actually be the album version of Hiroshima Mon Amour that includes the edit of C.C.'s saxophone track ... there could possibly be an edit at 3':19". So, perhaps the 7-inch single edit/version (approximately 4':40" in length) contains the full version of C.C.'s first take?

Pete, we 'discussed' this at length on the Ultravox Forum several years ago, but unfortunately the 'Search' function doesn't appear to be working on the site and I no longer have a copy of the 7-inch single edit/version of the track.

Inevitably, there are a number of things like this which are peppered throughout John's catalogue. The intention when I created the new look Metamatic Website was for there to be the flexibility for things like this to be explored in detail as and when pages get added and expanded. The problem is that - despite every best intention - Martin and I can't be everywhere at once - and our priority at the moment has got to be with the Archive and Discography sections. Once those sections are on-line and we've been able to flesh-out the accompanying pages, then we can start trying to resolve some of these other points.

Rob

Shouldn't you be working at work about now, Rob? I should be in bed!

Surely this particular example is chasing something of a ghost? We'd have to question the people involved in mixing the original tracks and then quiz them about this very specific detail of the saxophone track(s) ... who's honestly going to remember something like that - John? Billy? Warren? Chris? Steve Lillywhite?

So, no, certainly not something worth pursuing (at the moment, anyway).

I wasn't thinking of doing it now...



I completely agree - but unfortunately there are always going to be instances where something (like this, or similar) which has been overlooked for over thirty years will suddenly become the most important thing in the whole wide world ever to some people - and a question which simply must be answered.

In reality, it's very unlikely that anyone who was involved with these recordings would remember why certain decisions were made all those years ago. After all, how many people here could remember the reasons behind a specific decision they made during the course of their day-job some thirty years after the event?

Rob

Interesting point, but artists and writers think differently and have a relationship with every piece they create.

I know it's never going to happen, but I bet John would have a reason why everything sounds the way it does on the original 30-year old tracks, even if not the edits and versions.

I know I would. When I look back through the maps I made and leaflets published etc from my first job (85-94) I can still justify the design decisions that were made. Wrongly, in many cases, but I'd still know the reason behind things.

Just catching up on this thread (still not getting emails) and thanks for your inputs on Endlessly chaps...and the new intriguing HMA 7" version.

I have a copy of that too, but still no record player.

Mysterious ways....

Oh, yes, Endlessly ... what this thread was actually about before I hijacked it with Hiroshima Mon Amour conspiracy theories ...

I concur that the 1983 double 7-inch gatefold single (of Endlessly) does appear to have been more obtainable than the single 7-inch release, as the former was readily available here in New Zealand and my copy was certainly bought here, brand new (probably excess stock sent out to the 'arse end of the world' ... where did it get in the UK singles chart again ... 66?).

Having now read back through this thread more carefully, I must apologise for the inadvertent torture, Rob. I had no idea that you didn't really like italicised text ... and you think you know someone, eh?

I've always endeavoured to present track titles in italics with subtitles in parentheses, with an unofficial subtitle detailed within single quote marks within the parentheses, thus: Endlessly ('7" single edit') 3:35, as opposed to an official subtitle such as Enter The Angel (Extended Mix) 5:54, although this is often compromised due to artistic presentation within the layout and packaging. But, certainly, it can be difficult with some edits, mixes and versions not being labelled as such (particularly with releases in different countries) and with track playing times also listed incorrectly, as it can certainly lead you on the proverbial "wild goose chase" (I've now got a headache, myself).

Cheers ...

No problems Rodney, and some interesting points about cataloguing and discographing have been raised.

I really wish we could get a proper official discography going, especially as far as the singles are concerned. Alex has already done an excellent job with the albums on Quiet City, and has included a singles page too, although there is so much more detail to go into as my attempted Endlessly (my italics) wikipedia page has proven.

I'm a bit miffed (read: p*ssed off) with Wikipedia as they have such strict rules about what can and what can't be published. e.g. they refused my page on "He's A Liquid" as it didn't meet the rules of having enough "notability" .. pah! Whilst I agree that rules have to be made and kept to, this can only mean that only stuff which is already "notable" will be published. Name any David Bowie track though and it's on there .. Is "I'm Deranged" a notable song?
I don't think so.

... and congratulations on your good in-depth work on Wikipedia. It's certainly easier for others to contribute to the pages once they're set-up by those who have manoeuvred through all of the Wikipedia 'high-jumps' and 'hoops' that are constantly popping-up in front of you.

I must admit, I've contributed quite a bit to various Wikipedia pages myself, but only when I think I know more than the original author or subsequent contributors!

The "proper official discography" will be available on this very site once young Rob Harris gives up his day (paying) job and becomes a full-time volunteer employee of the Foxx Metacorporation Inc. ... either that or when he qualifies for the retirement pension ... which ever comes first.


Oh, and I assume that the version of Endlessly included on the Metadelic compilation is either the 'psychedelic' 1982 single version or The Golden Section 4':18" version (rather than the more obscure 3':35" 7-inch single edit)?

The "proper official discography" is coming. That's exactly why we are putting ourselves through this nightmarish headache process!!

It will be about as extensive as it's possible to get.
At least while we still have hair left!!

And as Rob said earlier, we will be hoping that all the efforts and research by members of this forum can go into helping us out so that metamatic.com is the definitive resource for all the detailed and specific information.

Info on the forum so far is really helpful - thanks everyone -and we are keen to get things summarised, collated and into the public arena as soon as we can.

Like you said though, it's the 'Quirks' that have made a logical framework challenging to come up with - we don't know what we don't know!!
We are trying to build the site map in such a way that 'new' formats / versions etc can be added without too much hassle.

You can bet your a*se that it will be the things we miss that people notice... and so we need a resource in place so that comments and info can be fed in seamlessly.

And it would all be so much easier if John didn't keep gigging and recording new material!

Endlessly, even ;D

The version of Endlessly on Metadelic (disc one) is indeed the 1982 versh, clocking in at 3:51 .


..and for the record not everything John Foxx on wiki is by moi, but I'm sure you know how to work out what is and what isn't (User-id.: Metamatica)

I was reading your Wiki entry for Europe After the Rain this morning guv - Good Work Fella!

I can't imagine what scale/horrors/labyrinths Rob, Martin and your good self are putting yourselves through - good luck with it though.

BTW - I notice the Art of Noise mix of Enter the Angel isn't mentioned on there - why's that? I like those chunky AoN drums and the way they stretched Foxx's vocal over Anne Dudley's 'HEY!' on the casette single is amazing - 22 minutes in length! Blimey.

It's all great!

I've seen that cover version before but didn't know the backstory, so thanks for that.
I don't actually like it at all, but that's by the by

Except that Metadelic is 2013, not 2008

The Discography has never been a straightforward project - I had a crack at it on the 'old-style' Metamatic Website - but I was never 100% happy with the results.

As has been said previously, one of the reasons for the re-design was so that it would be easier for visitors to locate things - and that was why an A-Z was created. But even this has been difficult to keep up-to-date. Lose concentration just for a moment, and you'll find that John has released another half-a-dozen items, all of which need to be included. On one hand it's incredible that so much is happening, but on the other it can also seem like a constant game of 'catch-up'. Hey, but better that than silence...

A number of the issues which have made this process so time-consuming have already been highlighted... the numerous versions, the inconsistent titling and the varying track-times have all contributed to making this a long and windy road. There was also the need for us to create and agree on a folder / directory structure that was not only logical, but was also (as far as these things ever can be) 'future-proof' moving foward.

Anyhow... despite all of that, the Discography is really shaping up nicely and should soon be able to go-live. The work done there will also help with the Archive section.

Unfortunately, all of the accompanying content / detail can't be put on-line in one hit - pages will have to evolve over time. Also, and despite our very best efforts (and numerous iterations where we've both reviewed and re-reviewed pages again and again) some mistakes (typos, inconsistencies, etc) will still have somehow managed to creep in. So, if you spot any (and you will) then please just drop us an E-Mail and we'll endeavour to get them sorted.

We're also very aware that the site needs some imagery - and that's (slowly) being addressed as well. The vast majority of the Discography will be very familiar - but we're also intending to include some very obscure and previously unseen items as well - foreign pressings, labels, acetates, promos and even (in some instances) the original studio tape boxes. The over-riding intention here is for this site to be as extensive, informative, exhaustive and definitive as possible.

Rob

John and his prolific work rate does cause headache for us part-time web administrators!

I'm already two or three releases behind on the Quiet City discography, and that's without making all the planned corrections/additions to the various pages. Unfortunately, with this being a 'fan project' it keeps slipping further down my online priorities due to my other activities. Although in the very least I like to keep the news page updated with the most important info.

Yes, square brackets is the common way to show an editorial inclusion, whereas ordinary round brackets (parentheses) are used if the suffix was on the original record sleeve.

By the way chaps - I am currently enjoying the various Metadelic tracks, and of course was intrigued as to the provenance of all these different Endlessly versions - came here to find out more and of course, you're already got it all in hand lol (Endlessly is almost as bad a Japan's bloody Life in Tokyo!!

Can I attempt to summarise then, now that we're on page 5 of the thread? (I'm rounding timing to the nearest 10 seconds cos otherwise we get confused by inter-track silence etc)

In 1982, Endlessly came out as a one-off single. This version is 3'50" and has a much clumpier drum pattern that all subsequent versions.

In 1983, John re-worked Endlessly. It is the same recording as '82, but drums have been replaced by a much more 'rockin' style, and there's other production touches like an arpeggiator fluttering around.
There were actually only *three* edits of this version released at the time: an edit of 4'20" was used on the gatefold double single and on The Golden Section album......a lobotomied edit of 3'35" was on the single disc 7" (this is NOT currently available in digital format).... and a 7'40" extended edit was used on the 12" single (the latter is newly available on Metadelic).


Subsequently there have been two further extended edits dredged out of the vaults.
There's an "extended remix" of 6'00" which appears as a bonus track on the Golden Section 2CD reissue. This one has a much more pared down drum part (sounds like an acoustic drum kit, without all the electro drum samples slapped on)
And now, on Metadelic we get the 6'30" Sparkle Mix - this mix is very much in the same vein as the "extended remix", with mainly just the acoustic drums.

It's funny how they had to do these extended mixes back in 1983 - since they're working on tape, you can't just cut-and-paste wav files on your computer, so basically they record the song (4 minutes -ish) and then the track pares down and then they tack on a whole extended reprise of another 3 or 4 mins on the end.

So far, the only live version of Endlessly to be released is one of John & Louis Gordon rehearsing it in 1997 (Subterranean Omnidelic Exotour). It's rather "HiNRG"

That looks about right feline. As soon as wikipedia get round to approving my Wiki page all will be made public!

This is the draft ,..don't know if it's visible to all, butlet me know if there are any glaring errors. Can't upload pictures of sleeves yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Endlessly_(song)

Don't forget the change in producer which differentiates the 1982 and 1983 versions, and which is fairly fundamental to the sound.


Musicians: am I right in saying that the 1982 has no proper 'bass' to speak of?

Yeah, although it's the same multi-recording - what Zeus "B" Held appears to have mostly done is dubbed on a "rollicking" new Simmonds-tastic drum track, sequenced bass and arpeggiator squirrelism.

And yeah, the 1982 original doesn't really have a dedicated bass instrument - for most of the track, John's just making use of the fact that his clumpy-bumpy drum-machine-loop has bucketloads of bottom end (Prince's "Kiss" did a similar thing a year or two later) plus he has a acoustic rhythm guitar chugging away behind everything - and then later on, of course, there's the cello-style melodic riff which goes down pretty bassy too ... so all in all I think it's a sensible production decision on John's part not to have some extra boring bland bass synth puttering along under all that. It would only clutter things.

bigger version here: https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1013485_4215740692054_1711598116_n.jpg

I never realised that the 1983 Endlessly is the same multitrack as the 1982 one; I always thought it was completely rerecorded. John's vocals seem a lot clearer and strident on the 1983 version(s); are they rerecorded or has Zeus B Held simply mixed them higher and added a touch of compression? And I always thought the 1983 version was faster, though this might be an illusion due to the driving Simmons-tastic drums.

For all that, time has not been kind to the 1983 versions; the drums and digital synths now sound horrendously dated whereas the 1982 version just sounds kind of timeless; no-one (not even John) has done anything like it since!

Hmm, ok, that's fair enough. Personally though I've always preferred the 1983 version - the sitar might be my bugbear on the 1982 version. Also I heard 1982 later which I'm sure contributes to my preference.

Well for me it's the 'original' 82 version every time, along with the extended remix of that via The Golden Section 2 x CD release (Track 16)

It won't surprise anyone to say how much I love John's more psychedelic, left-field and overlooked 'other' music

For me it's the 1983 versh beacause YOU CAN 80s DAD-DANCE TO IT! .. which was the whole point of re-recording right? ..getting it in -line with contemporary acts such as Wham!, Kajagoogoo and ... Bananarama!

I prefer the '83 version. Sure it has dated but I think the '82 version has as well. The drum machine doesn't sound good to me on the '82 version. Too simple. I think real drums on both versions would have worked better. I would like to see John Foxx & The Maths have a go at this live.

The '82 extended version has real drums...

Of course. I forgot about that version. To me,it does sound better for them.

Someone on the Ultravox website forum was talking about the 6'22" version of Endlessly 1982. It's a shame this version hasn't been released onto CD as of yet. But since Rob hasn't heard of it before perhaps the tape got lost somehow?

I have heard it... and this is what I said on the Ultravox site...

**

The Megamix compilation album (302 293-370 [Vinyl] / 502 293-372 [Cassette]) lists the track as being 7'40" on the sleeve. This is undoubtedly a reference to the standard extended mix as featured on the UK Twelve Inch Single. It's been a while since I actually listened to the Megamix album itself - so I would have to familiarise myself with it again. However, I can confirm that the label does indeed list the track as being 6'22" - but it also says that the track was published in 1983 and was produced by Zeus B. Held, which would've been more in-keeping with the UK Twelve Inch Single.

**

I now want to listen to the track again and compare it against the versions which have been released onto CD to see where the differences (if any) are.

Rob

It's a totally unique version. The first half is the 1982 7" version but when the 7" version fades out, this one kind of starts again. I first thought it was simply a cut and paste job but there are definitely parts in there which are different from the first half of the track.
I have digitised my vinyl version so let me know when you want it to verify.

So, the 'first half' of the track is effectively nothing more than the original single version from 1982?



Ah, but are they different to the parts which have been subsequently released elsewhere?



Why is it a shame? From what you've said, it's effectively the original single version with some other bits added on after a fade-out. It sounds to me that the other extended versions of Endlessly which have been released (on The Golden Section and Metadelic) are far more coherent.



I should also be getting my copy of the Megamix album digitised - but until then I'd certainly appreciate hearing your copy.

I may be jumping the gun here, but it sounds like this version was ditched simply because it's first half did nothing other than repeat the original single version.

Rob

That's correct


Absolutely


Well, we're talking about 3 extra minutes here.


Coming up. I'll send you a wetransfer link.


Well, I never found the different versions of Endlessly 1983 to be that that different from eachother, just different timings. Yet, most of them have been re-released on compilations so why not this one?

Got that thanks - listening to it even as I type...



This really isn't that different either - there's a very abrupt join (on the version you've just sent me) at around the 3'48" mark, and the fade-out is very swift.

The only thing I can suggest at this point is that I go and review this in conjunction with the other mixes of Endlessly to try and get a definitive answer.

Rob

Well finally my Endlessly wiki-page was Orwellianly removed and erased from history . .and only Big Brother knows why.

So I suppose if anyone wants full info on this release they'll have to look it up here!

Really? WTF is that all about??

Bad news - sorry to hear. Thanks for all your hard work and research

Wikipedia, Schmikipedia...

Lacking evidence from reliable sources?

Ha! ha! ha! W*nkipedia is not the place for original research then.
Still, all good for metamatic.com as we develop this site to be the source of all reliable Evidence.

Bonkers.

Fortunately you have a backup of the whole thing on your hard drive so not all of your hard work's gone to waste.
Unless...