Ernie Andrews Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) What was the final price on this? tia Derek link Please tell me Im wrong! The ice release was released some time after the mercury release. If thats the case then its a reissue and why would anyone want to pay silly money for it! I think there is 2 years between the 2 releases Correct me if Im wrong Edited June 16, 2005 by Ernie Andrews
Guest Jamie Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Please tell me Im wrong! The ice release was released some time after the mercury release. If thats the case then its a reissue and why would anyone want to pay silly money for it! I think there is 2 years between the 2 releases Correct me if Im wrong link You're wrong Steve There was a thread a while ago. Jist is it should have been released on ICE first, but there was 'legal stuff' with Eddy Grant and Mercury released it in 77. When the wrangling was sorted, ICE finally released it in 78. ICE is the rarer copy, ask Mr Trout Jamie
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 You're wrong Steve There was a thread a while ago. Jist is it should have been released on ICE first, but there was 'legal stuff' with Eddy Grant and Mercury released it in 77. When the wrangling was sorted, ICE finally released it in 78. ICE is the rarer copy, ask Mr Trout Jamie link Neither issue is rare at all Derek
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Anyway does anyone know what the mercury issue auctioned on manship's site that finished yesterday went for? Derek
Guest Jamie Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Neither issue is rare at all Derek link One of your pet hates this, isn't it Derek Jamie
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 One of your pet hates this, isn't it Derek Jamie link Not so much the record but the attempt to make out it's rare, it really isn't. Indemand no doubt but rare no. Derek
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Neither issue is rare at all Derek link Neither issue is any good either IMVHO
Ernie Andrews Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 You're wrong Steve There was a thread a while ago. Jist is it should have been released on ICE first, but there was 'legal stuff' with Eddy Grant and Mercury released it in 77. When the wrangling was sorted, ICE finally released it in 78. ICE is the rarer copy, ask Mr Trout Jamie link So even though I was ayear out if it has had 2 releases which was the reissue?
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 So even though I was ayear out if it has had 2 releases which was the reissue? link Well the Mercury issue did come out first so i'd say it was even though the Ice issue was supposed to come out first. Derek
Pete S Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I don't think the Ice label even started up until 1979
Ernie Andrews Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Well the Mercury issue did come out first so i'd say it was even though the Ice issue was supposed to come out first. Derek link So the question is- If it has had 2 uk releases is the second a reissue? Please answer! Therefore on this occasion why (Whichever it is ) is going for silly money? And if I find the birdy song on a ebony uk label which was part of RCA and it was released after its main release does that mean its a reissue even though it is rare and if it was popular is that the reason to say it is worth #500 quid. This rarity issue and demand issue is now becoming a joke because it depends on some bloody idiot who decided he had more money than sense! :angry:
Pete S Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I don't think the Ice label even started up until 1979 link I beg your pardon, it was indeed 1977, at least that's when their first ALBUM came out.
Guest alison Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 So the question is- If it has had 2 uk releases is the second a reissue? Please answer! Therefore on this occasion why (Whichever it is ) is going for silly money? And if I find the birdy song on a ebony uk label which was part of RCA and it was released after its main release does that mean its a reissue even though it is rare and if it was popular is that the reason to say it is worth #500 quid. This rarity issue and demand issue is now becoming a joke because it depends on some bloody idiot who decided he had more money than sense! :angry: link Its generally much harder on Ice. Must be rarer than on Mercury???
Guest Tony Darkin Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Its generally much harder on Ice. Must be rarer than on Mercury??? link Derek It went for £150 Tony Darkin
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 F**K what label is harder, the record is wonderful................. ps....Ice is harder.............
pikeys dog Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 One of those records you either love or hate. Personally detest it. Bid £15 on one on eBay to sell on, finally went for £130+ Insane. They should have stuck to Reggae.
Bigsoulman Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 One of those records you either love or hate. Personally detest it. Bid £15 on one on eBay to sell on, finally went for £130+ Insane. They should have stuck to Reggae. link Defo one of the worst records on the scene, sounds like some drunk at a karaoke night, bloody awful!
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Defo one of the worst records on the scene, sounds like some drunk at a karaoke night, bloody awful! link Anybody with sound file thingy?,sick of hearing bout`this would be nice to know what the fuss is about......
Guest Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Defo one of the worst records on the scene, sounds like some drunk at a karaoke night, bloody awful! link Once again.....the subjectivity of music raises it's ugly head......your not right and neither is Pikey........in my opinion.......but in yours ......you are 100% correct. why oh why do we constantly have to preach on topics about records we "loathe", it's so negative that it brings the subject matter to a meaningless.....yeah--- no debate. FOR GODS SAKE SAY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE IN THE DEBATE.....ie what reasons (ie. in depth what you don't like about the record).......(Like a school teacher here)....the vocal, the rhythm, the percussion etc............
pikeys dog Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Once again.....the subjectivity of music raises it's ugly head......your not right and neither is Pikey........in my opinion.......but in yours ......you are 100% correct. why oh why do we constantly have to preach on topics about records we "loathe", it's so negative that it brings the subject matter to a meaningless.....yeah--- no debate. FOR GODS SAKE SAY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE IN THE DEBATE.....ie what reasons (ie. in depth what you don't like about the record).......(Like a school teacher here)....the vocal, the rhythm, the percussion etc............ link His vocals are weak. The lyrics are dire. The backing is wishy washy in the extreme. It's a bag-o-shite and a perfect example of 'Emporers New Clothes' Constructive enough?
Guest Jamie Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 I don't think it deserves that kind of vitriol. It's catchy, it's simple - can't understand what all the fuss is about Jamie
Simon T Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) Anybody with sound file thingy?,sick of hearing bout`this would be nice to know what the fuss is about...... link Edited June 17, 2005 by Simon T
Supercorsa Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) I think it's excellent. Unfortunately for me I can't spend £50 on a record let alone £150, so the chances of me getting a copy are somewhat remote. I've only heard it played out once, I don't go out often enough to be sick of it. I've recently been playing it on the computer (Soul Club) and my mate who thinks all my records are shite (or rip-offs of something else), actually likes it. Edited June 17, 2005 by Supercorsa
soulmac Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Defo one of the worst records on the scene, sounds like some drunk at a karaoke night, bloody awful! link Better than The Futures though Lenny soulmac
Bigsoulman Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 Once again.....the subjectivity of music raises it's ugly head......your not right and neither is Pikey........in my opinion.......but in yours ......you are 100% correct. why oh why do we constantly have to preach on topics about records we "loathe", it's so negative that it brings the subject matter to a meaningless.....yeah--- no debate. FOR GODS SAKE SAY SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE IN THE DEBATE.....ie what reasons (ie. in depth what you don't like about the record).......(Like a school teacher here)....the vocal, the rhythm, the percussion etc............ link YES SIR!, now lets start with the vocals, awful, the arrangement, awful, the group, awful, the label, awful, the hype, bloody unbelievable :angry: hope thats cleared up any misunderstanding on this record.
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!