Talk:Don't Let's Start (Early Mix)

Challenging this move to early mix -- the bass and drum parts are similar to the final song but they aren't the same. theyre both playing distinctly different/less complicated parts compared to the final. it's probably most noticeable in the bridge; different drum sounds (handclaps, no open hihat) and a bass part that the final song lacks. i cant hear any shared elements between this recording and the final song, even though they sound so similar. not sure what the page should be called, but it probably shouldnt go back to 'wfmu demo.' '1986 demo' might work though i dont love the assumption. --Batwho (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (EDT)

This one's a tough call. Initially when titling I was not entirely sure if an "Early Mix" title would be appropriate given how each instrument carries a different sound, but man.. it's way too similar to the finished album version to be classified as a demo in my eyes, especially since the drums and bass seem to be mostly arranged the same, if not for those missing parts. Any other differences you could recognise? I haven't been able to find that missing bass part you mentioned yet. − Mrsomebodyelse (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (EDT)

alright here are the differences i can hear. theyre subtle, so bear with me as i go a little granular: the bass is playing the same melodies, but there are a few flourishes that prove its a different performance. listen to the verses, long sustained notes vs a little more rhythmic in the final (its subtle). there's also a couple different notes, specifically in the "precious little girl" bit. sounds maybe like a different bass sound too, compare the intros. the extra bass part i mentioned is in the bridge ("i dont want to live in this world"). the bass totally drops out for that whole section in the final song, but in this it keeps playing.

the difference in the drums is harder to spot. in this recording there are claps at the end of each musical phrase in the intro/choruses. again compare the intros, that's where it's most clear. also in the outro - claps instead of snares. and through the whole song there are no open hi-hats, most noticeable in the "d world destruction" part.

far as i can tell, the keyboard, guitars and vocals are all different from the final too. 'early mix' is a real specific label and i just dont think it applies. similarity isnt enough, by definition it must have the same tracks to be an alternate mix. and i dont think there are any same tracks. i dont see why it cant be a called a demo, keeps it simple and accurate. i think some good equivalents are the demos of Puppet Head, The Day and Nothings Gonna Change My Clothes. they have each parts that are similar or even identical to their final versions, but i dont think anyone would call them alt mixes. --Batwho (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2024 (EDT)

I'm having a hard time hearing differences arrangement wise apart from the pieces later removed for the album. For reference I've chucked this version into FL Studio, put it at its correct speed and used EQ to make it easier to hear the bass notes and drums. And stuff like the claps and the open hi-hats featured in the final album version could just be building off the original track, like how there's handclaps in 32 Footsteps, but they're missing in the 1985 Mix.

I'm not fully comfortable with the idea of this version being a demo, given that I believe this could come from the song's construction in the final Dubway sessions, as well how some of these differences could be the cause of the tape itself, but you're definitely right that a mix should have some element of noticeable similarity in sound and the recording is just too muffled to make out anything that's the same apart from the way the bass and drums have been arranged for now (and I definitely could be wrong about my belief it's from Dubway!) If we're going to be moving this to a demo title, I'm proposing (Dubway Demo) or (Studio Demo). − Mrsomebodyelse (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2024 (EDT)

if you wanna double check me, mvsep.com is a solid stem isolating site. im pretty sure about the differences though. but even if the drums and bass were identical i think it'd be misleading to call it a mix, since all the other tracks are different. early mix really is a specific label. i think this recording is quite literally a demo - its a demonstration of the song's final arrangement. it's like a prototype.

i think the dubway assumption is a stretch. im pretty sure the band only spent a few weeks at dubway for their first album, around september/october between signing their bar/none deal and releasing the album. we know the final song was recorded there, but since nothing carries over between this and that, it seems unlikely that this version was too. more likely recorded at PASS or JF's rehearsal space. but there isn't a real way to tell, and it feels unnecessary to speculate at all since there isn't a way to confirm it. --Batwho (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2024 (EDT)

Then to be honest I really don't know what else you could title it. You could call it (Dial-A-Song) because the Toole Show stuff was on DAS master tapes but even then it's not fully confirmed. We can only go off of assumptions and either a Studio title or a DAS title seems like the closest if this is going to become a demo page. Maybe (PASS Demo)?? Just seems even more convoluted going that route because again, there's not much about this recording that goes anywhere apart from it sounding similar to the version on the final album. − Mrsomebodyelse (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2024 (EDT)

I don't like titling demos based off assumptions. I would say (1986 Demo) or (Demo 2). TitanicFog (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2024 (EDT)

yeah i cant think of any descriptor for this that wouldnt be total speculation. '1986 demo' feels like an unnecessary assumption, it could easily be from 1985. 'PASS demo' is an assumption as well, and 'dial-a-song' doesnt really mean anything. i think 'demo 2' is a fine suggestion. its boring but its simple and easily understood. --Batwho (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2024 (EDT)