Acoustic Sounds
Lyra

Lotti Golden

Motor-Cycle

Music

Sound

Lotti Golden—Motor-Cycle

Label: Atlantic/High Moon Records

Produced By: Bob Crewe

Engineered By: Angel Sandoval (Tony May-one track)

Mixed By: Joe Venneri

Mastered By: Dan Hersch at D2 Mastering

Lacquers Cut By: A. Nonymous

In 1969 Lotti Golden's "Motor-Cycle" Sped By Too Fast—Now’s the Time to Catch Up

an uncategorizable record too grand in ambition for any record store bin gets reissued

Like Song Cycle, Van Dyke Parks' ambitious 1967 debut, Lotti Golden's 1969 debut Motor-Cycle flopped when first released, but over the years both have gained cult followings and now finally Golden's gets a well-deserved reissue courtesy High Moon Records.

The comparison may seem bizarre to anyone familiar with both (the "cycle" in both album titles has nothing to do with it), but as record biz tragi-stories they are surprisingly similar, though Parks went into the studio already a veteran of session work and Golden went charging in green. Parks had producer Lenny Waronker, son of Liberty Records founder Sy Waronker and Golden had Bob Crewe, who by then had amassed a hit maker track record as songwriter/producer with The Four Seasons, The Walker Brothers and many others.

Using modernized versions of "old school" Americana musical forms—ragtime, bluegrass, and studio invented ones hatched from then new multitrack track tape recorders and engineer Bruce Botnick's boundless creativity—including a wild deconstruction of Donovan's "Colors"—Parks's album chronicled, among other things, his Southern roots and the mid to late '60's Los Angeles scene, plus an unforgettable anti-Vietnam war sound effects/gospel pastiche. It was and is an album not fit for any record store bin and a flop that Warner Brothers only released because when Jack Holzman heard it he told hesitant Warner execs, if they passed he'd release it. Jimmy Fink, a rock critic at the time for Rolling Stone declared Song Cycle "the worst rock record ever made", though of course it wasn't a rock record.

If you've not heard this album—and I hadn't heard it or heard of it until it arrived and I put it on my turntable, you won't believe your ears. Golden is a supercharged original soul-singer who by age of 19 had absorbed the vocal and rhythmic essences of everyone from Otis Redding to Aretha Franklin to Martha Reeves, to Carla and Irma Thomas—you'll hear what you hear when you hear— to invent her own sound. And yes, you'll hear Laura Nyro too, but the relationship there is more in the rhythms and song writing than the voice, which is far more brute force.

Lottie Golden's is a New York City story set mainly in the late '60s East Village— a wild time and place filled with hippies, druggies, flower children and lost suburban drop-outs. Brooklyn born, ambitious, multi-talented, and academically gifted, while still in High School she hit the Brill Building to shop her songs and quickly got signed to Bob Crewe's publishing arm as a staff songwriter. Her powerful, funky voice led to demo and background singer work.

By the time she graduated High School in 1967 (with honors) she'd already traveled up and down the East Coast singing with bands and done some acting, all the while and for years earlier writing songs and chronicling her experiences. Post graduation she exited the East Village scene and spent the summer in a rural North Carolina Summer Stock theater. Upon her return to attend Brooklyn College and continue her staff songwriting gig, a chance elevator encounter with Crewe turned her world around. She was singing and he liked what he heard.

Jump cut to this album recorded a year after the elevator encounter. Ertegun and Wexler at Atlantic also liked what they heard listening to partially produced tunes and signed on.

Why and how this album was orphaned and abandoned by Atlantic and why it failed—the whole story—is brilliantly told in great and appropriate detail with photos and printed ephemera in the attractively-produced and well-annotated 32 page booklet with additional essay by Richard Hell and David Toop (perhaps known to some readers as the author of the ambient/techno music book "Ocean of Sound").

Motor-Cycle is a "concept album" but unlike the essentially tune-less Song Cycle, Motor-Cycle is a tune-filled suite saturated with character studies of the people Golden met along her journey from high schooler to young womanhood. It's filled with tales of wild drug parties, death, betrayal, street hustles and varied sexuality in which Golden is more often a chronicler of other people's tsuris than her own, though the album begins with the autobiographical "Motor-Cycle Michael", ("Michael let me ride his motorcycle") which upon first play I confess I thought was a metaphorical sex song, but upon reflection no, it's a motorcycle song (unless I'm being naive).

Crew goes all-out in the wildly varied arrangements primed with horns, guitars, percussion, keyboards and background chics delivering funk, gospel Broadway bravado, Stax-Volt, pre "Go-Go" and Motown among other styles—all appropriate for the varied in depth stories Golden lives you through— like Side Two's opener— a song about her friend Silky's bi-sexual betrayal set in North Carolina brought to New York. The surprises, musical and lyrical, just keep coming. The funk of "Get Together (With Yourself)" accompanied by an inspirational "clean up your act" message will have you uncontrollably moving and grooving as will the "I found faith" gospel finale.

Perhaps you'll come away from first listen thinking "How did I miss this for more than fifty years? And how did this record not become a sensation when first release?" Well, for one thing, it takes a lot of luck and for another, it didn't fit in a Sam Goody or Tower Record slot. The other reasons are found in the outstanding annotation.

Happy to include this "hype sticker":

"This recently-unearthed recording sets the stage for High Moon’s deluxe reissue of her landmark debut album, Motor-Cycle, arriving Friday, March 28 on CD and vinyl LP.  Motor-Cycle includes lavish, 32-page LP and 48-page CD books with extensive liner notes detailing the astonishing story of how the teenage Lotti Golden came to make an album as singular and audacious as Motor-Cycle. With exclusive essays by Richard Hell and David Toop, and a wealth of archival photos, including more than 30 never-before-seen photographs by pioneering rock photographer, Baron Wolman. Along with the original album track listing, the Motor-Cycle CD includes the rarely heard Atlantic single “Sock It To Me Baby/It’s Your Thing” b/w “Annabelle With Bells (Home Made Girl).

You can pre-order the album here

The Sound

After first play I said to myself "This is unlike any late '60s record production I'm familiar with". It sounded dynamically and especially spatially flattened, sanitized, brightened, bass-stifled, certainly admirably clarified, but sterile—harmonic structure diminished. Like a bad modern CD. And this is not because it was cut from a digital file. Many records sourced from analog tape transferred to digital can sound very good.

But I didn't want to report that until I could hear an original so I found and bought one. Here's what the Audacity files look like of "Get Together (With Yourself)"

Original pressing on top, reissue below (as if I had to tell you):

That's what Dan Hersch at d2 Mastering did to it and don't ask me why he did that. It's hack work, amateur hour and inexcusable—he's been at this job for decades. Unless the High Moon Records people requested it. And why would they? But if they did, we need to talk!

The original, though not a "sonic spectacular", has wonderful dynamic contrasts, has on most tracks deep, well-textured bass on a three-dimensional soundstage. You can hear the musicians playing in a studio layered in space. It breathes, it lives. It's got color and warmth but it's not muffled or soft. Maybe Hersch or the producers felt they needed to bring the production into the modern world for modern ears, but I think that's a mistake IMO. Just when you feel like you want to turn it up and party you have to turn it down to avoid ear-bleed. The joy has been drained.

Sorry to have to report that. Still, I believe the music and presentation deserve your $27.00 if just for the fine album jacket reproduction and especially the assembled with great care booklet. You can still enjoy the music until this is re-cut from tape or from a high resolution file that's not had the life and joy squashed from it.

Music Specifications

Catalog No: HMRLP-04

Pressing Plant: Memphis Record Pressing

SPARS Code: ADA

Speed/RPM: 33 1/3

Weight: 140 grams

Size: 12"

Channels: Stereo

Source: squashed digital file

Presentation: Single LP

Comments

  • 2025-03-08 02:24:18 AM

    Todd wrote:

    That’s really too bad regarding the sonics.

  • 2025-03-08 03:59:26 AM

    Dave wrote:

    Saw a Miles Showell interview from Sound on Sound. Described as if it's just "policy," he brickwalls songs headed for digital distribution. No one questioned him on that. At some point, people with good ears WILL give up, when the paying producer tells them to ruin something in order to "improve it for listening on earbuds." I can't believe this still happens in 2025, but here we are.

    Whomever approved the reissue is unqualified for the role. We always hear how it's too expensive to cut from tape. But guess what? It forces the team to slow down and affords a far better chance of them getting it right, without making assumptions.

    My speculation is that because they used a digital file, they didn't take 4 minutes out of their life to create a version that preserved the dynamic range, thinking "all digital is the same," whether it's streaming or a CD or an LP cut from digital. People in the biz stopped thinking after Livin' La Vida Loca. We lost those Loudness Wars.

    Thanks, Michael, for investigating the original LP.

    • 2025-03-09 02:44:09 PM

      Malachi Lui wrote:

      i've said many times about how i don't like getting LPs cut from bricked files (sometimes the results can be okay, but mostly not), and how vinyl has different sonic expectations and technical requirements that must be skillfully balanced for optimal results.

      however, modern digital also has those same expectations, which in a way have turned into 'requirements'. of course the default for many mastering engineers is to put a limiter on a master intended for digital formats. and i must emphasize: just because a limiter is applied and some peaks hit the ceiling, doesn't mean it's totally brickwalled or unlistenable. i've heard albums mastered as bricks that sound great, and i've heard albums with dynamic headroom that sound like shit. depending on the song and the mix, sometimes you can crank up the limiter and not really lose anything. it's all whether or not the mastering engineer tastefully applies a limiter--or if they're solely using it for loudness 'goals', how they work around the 'loss' from the limiter with EQ, saturation, imaging tools etc.

      streaming services have a 'loudness normalization/optimization' setting that most naive consumers leave on so they don't have to change the volume all the time (especially when it comes to playlists). those normalization standards are around -14 LUFS. something that's louder than that gets turned down, something quieter gets brought up.

      with that in mind, most now aim for levels a bit louder than -14 LUFS (depends on the sonic content of the song, how it fits into the surrounding project, etc). we're past the days of most things being totally bricked to the point of blatant distortion, but there is a (quite reasonable) standard that's now been established and thus expected. yes, a few records are still egregiously loud and have nasty artifacts. but those are thankfully the exception rather than the rule.

      all of that said, old records do NOT need to be slammed against the limiter like this, and the waveform michael posted of this reissue is... a flat brick in the louder sections of the song. it's idiotic to do that for an obscure album from the late 60s, especially when the vinyl reissue is the main product here, and it's ill-advised to cut something like that onto a vinyl release. loud digital onto lacquer or copper only means a quieter cut, since the cutter head would blow up if anyone tried to cut full scale digital mastered at such loud, compressed levels.

      • 2025-03-09 04:16:14 PM

        Dave McNair wrote:

        Malachi is mostly correct here - as mastering engineer who masters for digital and also cuts lacquers, I want to add a few things. He is totally correct that with the right experience and tools, I can make a tune very loud without obvious negative artifacts. in fact I've done experiments by uploading to youtube, I can report that something skillfully mastered to -9 LUFS can sound as good as the same t hing done to -14, so why not go loud for the majority of listeners that don not have volume normalization on? The only real reason is that it won't sound as good to cut from that loud file. It's sometimes EASIER to cut from a loud file intended for streaming. The cutter head doesn't really care, it's always about the high freq content, not how loud or limited the file is. Be that as it may, I primarily cur my own clients so I have the option to render a non-limited file set for cutting - which I always do. Records can sound phenomenally good cut from digital if the files are not crushed and well pre-mastered. In fact lots of little things can be done to the file to aid in getting a great cut - dipping an area of low-mid at JUST the location of the event so as not to get excessive depth modulation in spots - as opposed to putting an elliptical filter on the whole thing because of 3 or 4 isolated hard panned events. That being said of course if a tape exists I'd rather cut directly from that - provided the mix is well done. If the mix needs lots of help, I'd rather pre-master from the tape, use my analog eq's and whatnot, then carefully do manipulation digitally to prep for cutting. Things are seldom as black and white as we assume.

        • 2025-03-12 12:57:09 AM

          Malachi Lui wrote:

          dave, thanks for replying with further clarification on this stuff, i always enjoy learning more! and yes, something skillfully mastered to -9 LUFS or whatever can sound just as good as the same thing mastered at a lower level, depending on how it's mixed and what the master is trying to achieve. some mixes are less friendly with the limiters than others - and of course, the right limiter setting and EQ goes a long way.

          thanks for clarifying that the cutter head is more sensitive about high frequency content than loudness. and yes, i'm totally fine with records properly cut from digital when it's a good cutting engineer and the files are well-prepared. really, it's just about having a good cutting engineer, as i've heard albums with multiple cuts almost certainly all from the same CD-ready files, yet one of those cuts sounded significantly better than the others. yet all too often, i've heard the loud streaming files dumped to vinyl sounding worse than what they started as.

          love your point about tape. no point in the limitations of all-analog if a problematic tape can be drastically fixed with precise digital tools.

  • 2025-03-08 02:14:32 PM

    Georges wrote:

    The CD has two extra songs (the rude 'S..k it' uhey how can you make a kid sing that?!), costs almost half the price of vinyl (bundle offer with the famous 7", but not even 180g, what a joke!). And the booklet has 16 more pages. + the sound is bad. Who are they kidding?! Thanks Michael (I allow myself this familiarity, I am a fan of your writings, you should be published in a so-called 'normal' world). Another victim of the loudness war, too bad. Missed opportunity (once more) ! Maybe it's because of the article TA published about them that they think they can do whatever they want. Even the latest D. Gilmour has more drive.

    • 2025-03-08 04:42:10 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Well she sang it because she wrote it! I'm not concerned that it's not 180g. It might be what MRP says is 180 but 140 sounds better to some...the full sized booklet is really nice and I'm glad I have it. I don't think $27 is unfair...had the sound been good it would be well worth it... I think this label just needs a sonic wake up call. I hope I gave it to them.

      • 2025-03-08 11:57:31 PM

        Come on wrote:

        Yes, better they wake up. In case such companies and engineers know what sonic crap they produce, they don’t deserve much recognition. If this knowledge is lacking (bad enough), hopefully the wake up call helps.

  • 2025-03-08 03:58:40 PM

    Mark Cherrington wrote:

    Like you, Michael, I somehow missed this when it came out, and hearing it now, I can't imagine how. I think your comparison with Song Cycle is perfect. The record has so many stylistic twists and turns, even within each song, it really reminds me of that. Definitely a lot of Laura Nyro in there, but it's not mere imitation: she backs up the comparison with songwriting that is at least on par with Nyro, and that's really saying something. I'm listening to it now on Apple Music, which fine for hearing what the music sounds like, but it's flat and muffled and makes the recording sound awful. I'm going to find the original, for sure. This is a record I'd like to really spend some time with. Thanks for turning us on to it!

    By the way, you wouldn't remember this, but I was doing studio drumming at Wayne Wadham's Studio B in Boston when you were there doing comedy bits for WBCN in the 70s. Brilliant stuff! Those were the glory days in Boston. Wayne was always the master of creative business practices. I remember at one point he wanted some tympani on a song, but he couldn't afford to rent a pair, so he figured out the part he wanted, went to one of the city's music stores, asked to try out their tympani, and, with his portable Nagra hidden in his pocket, he played the necessary parts.

    • 2025-03-08 04:43:06 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Those were great times! I miss them and the people but I'm also glad to still be going all these years later!

  • 2025-03-11 10:40:59 PM

    Buzz wrote:

    Really dig this album after a stream. Ordered and original. Not too expensive. Looking forward to breaking it out for a proper lesson. Great music, thanks for highlighting this! Never had heard of it