Sitting In The Park - Billy Stewart Or Georgie Fame

[Pete S]

That is completely different for example, to TIMEBOX'S version of 'Girl dont make me wait' which is simply a UK pop group and their producer trying to hit some cash off of the back of a great US Black record which was almost guranteed never to hit mainstream eardrums in the UK at the time of release.

This is another bizarre statement, you're BLAMING a group and their producer for more or less stealing when the fact that there are 3 UK cover versions of this record would suggest that the songs publishers were trying their best to land it with any UK group and get it in the charts.

[Guest]

Well it might have helped if they'd actually released the original in this country!

Bingo! Those records often did not get released abroad because there were no budgets ascribed to promote them, no radio play guaranteed and therefore it was deemed that a local or r/b hit was the best they could hope for. This is exactly how and why shrewd Pop Producers scoured the US R/B charts to find great records that they could then replicate, safe in the knowledge that the original would not even be heard by the vast majority of people. Or at least not until they had enjoyed a hit themselves with somebody elses original. This ocurred time and time and time again. The Pop Producers knew damned well that US Soul budgets often did not extend to overseas release. Which of course is also why when the supply of Soul nuggets that did get UK release was exhausted, the Northern Scene had to turn to US imports for fresh material.

Edited July 29, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest]

This is another bizarre statement, you're BLAMING a group and their producer for more or less stealing when the fact that there are 3 UK cover versions of this record would suggest that the songs publishers were trying their best to land it with any UK group and get it in the charts.

Staggering. Absolutely staggering. I keep thinking this is dying a death and then another wildly outlandish statement wings its way and I am forced to clarify another point.

1. QUOTE: 'More or less stealing'. There are no mentions of theft or deliberately illegal practises in any of the posts I have offered. I have merely described the way in which it was very easy (For a certain period of time) for 50s and 60's Pop Producers to cherry pick Black Records from the US r/b scene and to enjoy commercial success with White groups, selling pop versions to white dominated markets. They were able to do this with ease, being that a lot of Black records had no post-production promotional budgets, very limited radio play and most certainly, little chance of overseas release. Or even if they did get a overseas release, the aforementioned aspects often guranteed the originals would be relegated to obscurity or cult status. How you are not prepared to generally acknowlege this, is beyond me.

2. PUBLISHING: Of course anybody holding the publishing rights to a song would be pleased when a cheque arrived. Publishing Companies or individuals holding rights to songs earned/earn a percentage of profits. Nobody is going to throw money in the dustbin are they, especially given the struggling economic status of the vast majority of Black Artists back then. That is not the point. The point is, that those artists and THEIR PUBLISHERS for years had to pray and rely on White covers to generate any substantial level of profit from the pop markets. If there is only one way to earn a buck, humans have to take it, it does not mean that they would not prefer a change....

3. THE GROUPS/ARTISTS: The Black originals, acts/artists had to stand back and watch other people cover their songs, time and time again, before they achieved mass acclaim. Of course Publishers would want as much return on a song as they could garner. Do you still really think that the Artists and composers would not have preferred to have enjoyed these hits themselves? Or at the very least to have enjoyed promotional aspects and radio exposure that matched the cover versions? Do you think that all these Black Americans were standing around in studios, singing their hearts and soul's out, simply because all they wanted was a pretty boy White Pop group to come along and copy their song? Do you not believe these artists craved a fair playing field? Do you not believe that they too yearned for public admiration and acknowledgement of their talent?

About five years ago, I met an old Black Doo-wap Singer in New York. He told me that the most annoying thing about the era was the way in which many Americans still did not realise how many black records had been covered. It was not about money anymore for this guy. He said that it was about pride and acknowledgement for the guys who had invented the genre. It was a most illuminating conversation in Greenwich Village and touched upon the White American/Italian/Latino input etc. But it was very clear to me what mattered and it was more than money. To imagine that the Soul Artists did not share similar feelings would be ridiculous.

Edited July 29, 2009 by chorleysoul

[soulperson]

that sandwich looks nice, whats in it ?

what a funny comment.nearly choked as i was eating one at the time & it didnt look as good either

[Pete S]

Staggering. Absolutely staggering. I keep thinking this is dying a death and then another wildly outlandish statement wings its way and I am forced to clarify another point.

"TIMEBOX'S version of 'Girl dont make me wait' which is simply a UK pop group and their producer trying to hit some cash off of the back of a great US Black record"

I've never read so much sanctimonious twaddle in my entire life as the stuff that you come out with.

Keep up the good work.

[Guest isis]

While being a fan of Billy Stewart, I do prefer the Georgie Fame version of SITP. Another case in point, I much prefer Kiki Dees version of "I Dig You Baby" to anyone elses...yet I'm not a big fan of either. Its just how they put the song across, they seem to "get it" more somehow.

[Guest]

"TIMEBOX'S version of 'Girl dont make me wait' which is simply a UK pop group and their producer trying to hit some cash off of the back of a great US Black record"

I've never read so much sanctimonious twaddle in my entire life as the stuff that you come out with.

Keep up the good work.

Ok. If that is the level you wish to resort to, so be it. I'm still waiting for a line of lucid clarification as regards your assessment of what those records represent! How you find fault with the simple fact outlined above - as a Soul fan, too - is quite remarkable.

[Pete S]

Ok. If that is the level you wish to resort to, so be it. I'm still waiting for a line of lucid clarification as regards your assessment of what those records represent! How you find fault with the simple fact outlined above - as a Soul fan, too - is quite remarkable.

Is it really.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Bingo! Those records often did not get released abroad because there were no budgets ascribed to promote them, no radio play guaranteed and therefore it was deemed that a local or r/b hit was the best they could hope for. This is exactly how and why shrewd Pop Producers scoured the US R/B charts to find great records that they could then replicate, safe in the knowledge that the original would not even be heard by the vast majority of people. Or at least not until they had enjoyed a hit themselves with somebody elses original. This ocurred time and time and time again. The Pop Producers knew damned well that US Soul budgets often did not extend to overseas release. Which of course is also why when the supply of Soul nuggets that did get UK release was exhausted, the Northern Scene had to turn to US imports for fresh material.

Actually the main reason that Bunny's Sigler's "Girl Don't Make Me wait" did not get a UK release was that Cameo-Parkway's distribution deal with Pye was on the verge of expiry, and not about to be renewed as C-P was itself on the verge of bankruptcy. You can't point accusatory fingers at Timebox or anyone else for that. Although I've no doubt that you will...

I'm sure you'll find some way to read another tedious conspiracy theory into that, but I can assure you there isn't one. Like a lot of records, it just didn't come out here because it didn't. End of story.

[SteveM]

I have merely described the way in which it was very easy (For a certain period of time) for 50s and 60's Pop Producers to cherry pick Black Records from the US r/b scene and to enjoy commercial success with White groups, selling pop versions to white dominated markets. They were able to do this with ease, being that a lot of Black records had no post-production promotional budgets, very limited radio play and most certainly, little chance of overseas release. Or even if they did get a overseas release, the aforementioned aspects often guranteed the originals would be relegated to obscurity or cult status. How you are not prepared to generally acknowlege this, is beyond me.

Isn't this what actually happened? Surely theres no argument about this ? Is there ?

[Pete S]

I'm sure you'll find some way to read another tedious conspiracy theory into that, but I can assure you there isn't one. Like a lot of records, it just didn't come out here because it didn't. End of story.

Which is exactly what I said too.

Besides that, the production team and songwriters behind most of Bunny Sigler's records were white guys, not hard workin kept down black guys.

[Pete S]

I have merely described the way in which it was very easy (For a certain period of time) for 50s and 60's Pop Producers to cherry pick Black Records from the US r/b scene and to enjoy commercial success with White groups, selling pop versions to white dominated markets. They were able to do this with ease, being that a lot of Black records had no post-production promotional budgets, very limited radio play and most certainly, little chance of overseas release. Or even if they did get a overseas release, the aforementioned aspects often guranteed the originals would be relegated to obscurity or cult status. How you are not prepared to generally acknowlege this, is beyond me.

Isn't this what actually happened? Surely theres no argument about this ? Is there ?

I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing with his selection of the Timebox record as a good example of this when the original wasn't even released in the Uk so could never have been a) a hit or stolen by those pesky white people

[Guest]

Actually the main reason that Bunny's Sigler's "Girl Don't Make Me wait" did not get a UK release was that Cameo-Parkway's distribution deal with Pye was on the verge of expiry, and not about to be renewed as C-P was itself on the verge of bankruptcy. You can't point accusatory fingers at Timebox or anyone else for that. Although I've no doubt that you will...

I'm sure you'll find some way to read another tedious conspiracy theory into that, but I can assure you there isn't one. Like a lot of records, it just didn't come out here because it didn't. End of story.

I am not writing about conspiracy theorys. Tony, the way you present all this sounds as if there was an absolutely equal playing field, that white Producers never systematically copied black records, that the whole thing was a garden of roses and in every single example you can find a justification to show that there was never any exploitation or under resourcing of black artsists that led to white groups cashing in on their material. Perhaps you think that I dont know anything about distribution deals and the history of American Soul via UK distribution? Yes, Cameo Parkway was on the verge of going bust and it does not get it's deal renewed by Pye and what happens? Oh, surprise, surprise, along comes a UK Pop Producer and covers the record, knowing full well that the original will not be getting released in England because of the business problems surrounding the record companies...

You have actually just painted a perfect picture of the situations which allowed this practise to continue unabated for so long. Ask yourself this...

Cameo Parkway did not go bust, Pye release it, it gets picked up on Radio, it becomes a top 5 uk pop hit....Would TIMEBOX'S Producer still have been in a rush to cover it along with the other versions? Would he bollocks! Whatever the mechanical circumstances of each individual record is not the point, besides, as you have illustrated perfectly, it was usually inevitably business problems or shortage of resources that ensured the lack of releases anyway. That is what worked perfectly for Pop producers who could then sit back and cherry pick class records that could be replicated, safe in the knowledge that the original would not be competing for sales.

Logic is on my side.

The sheer volume of US Soul originals covered by British Artists, clearly indicates that there simply must have been systematic studying of the US R/B scene, in order to highlight records which could be utilised for the pop market. On the whole, the losers in all this were the Black artists who cut the often superior original versions of the records. They lost out in performance royalties, public acclaim and in a sense of collective acknowledgement of Soul Musics quality. If there had not been an obvious quality ratio apparent, the Pop Producers would not have siezed upon this material to such a degree. How you can argue against this premise defies logic.

Edited July 30, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Pete S]

I am not writing about conspiracy theorys. Tony, the way you present all this sounds as if there was an absolutely equal playing field, that white Producers bever systematically copied black records, that the whole thing was a garden of roses and in every single example you can find a justification to show that there was never any exploitation or under resourcing of black artsists that led to white groups cashing in on their material. Perhaps you think that I dont know anything about distribution deals and the history of American Soul via UK distribution? Yes, Cameo Parkway was on the verge of going bust and it does not get it's deal renewed by Pye and what happens? Oh, surprise, surprise, along comes a UK Pop Producer and covers the record, knowing full well that the original will not be getting released in England because of the business problems surrounding the record companies...

You have actually just painted a perfect picture of the situations which allowed this practise to continue unabated for so long. Ask yourself this...

Cameo Parkway did not go bust, Pye release it, it gets picked up on Radio, it becomes a top 5 uk pop hit....Would TIMEBOX'S Producer still have been in a rush to cover it along with the other versions? Would he bollocks! Whatever the mechanical circumstances of each individual record is not the point, besides, as you have illustrated perfectly, it was usually inevitably business problems or shortage of resources that ensured the lack of releases anyway. That is what worked perfectly for Pop producers who could then sit back and cherry pick class records that could be replicated, safe in the knowledge that the original would not be competing for sales.

Logic is on my side.

The sheer volume of US Soul originals covered by British Artists, clearly indicates that there simply must have been systematic studying of the US R/B scene, in order to highlight records which could be utilised for the pop market. On the whole, the losers in all this were the Black artists who cut the often superior original versions of the records. They lost out in performance royalties, public acclaim and in a sense of collective acknowledgement of Soul Musics quality. If there had not been an obvious quality ratio apparent, the Pop Producers would not have siezed upon this material to such a degree. How you can argue against this premise defies logic.

It came out in France - was it a hit there?

Where you there at the time working in the industry, seeing as you appear to know everything about the history of music, more than someone who's actually been working in the industry for God knows how many years and was literally able to get a yes or no answer to a question from Lieber & Stoller themselves?

"Black artists who cut the often superior original versions of the records"

ah so it's not always superior now, it's often superior. Like Georgie Fame and the Moody Blues, which brings us right back to where we started.

[SteveM]

I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing with his selection of the Timebox record as a good example of this when the original wasn't even released in the Uk so could never have been a) a hit or stolen by those pesky white people

Wasn't directed at you Pete, or anybody else. Just a general question.

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

I am not writing about conspiracy theorys. Tony, the way you present all this sounds as if there was an absolutely equal playing field, that white Producers never systematically copied black records, that the whole thing was a garden of roses and in every single example you can find a justification to show that there was never any exploitation or under resourcing of black artsists that led to white groups cashing in on their material. Perhaps you think that I dont know anything about distribution deals and the history of American Soul via UK distribution? Yes, Cameo Parkway was on the verge of going bust and it does not get it's deal renewed by Pye and what happens? Oh, surprise, surprise, along comes a UK Pop Producer and covers the record, knowing full well that the original will not be getting released in England because of the business problems surrounding the record companies...

You have actually just painted a perfect picture of the situations which allowed this practise to continue unabated for so long. Ask yourself this...

Cameo Parkway did not go bust, Pye release it, it gets picked up on Radio, it becomes a top 5 uk pop hit....Would TIMEBOX'S Producer still have been in a rush to cover it along with the other versions? Would he bollocks! Whatever the mechanical circumstances of each individual record is not the point, besides, as you have illustrated perfectly, it was usually inevitably business problems or shortage of resources that ensured the lack of releases anyway. That is what worked perfectly for Pop producers who could then sit back and cherry pick class records that could be replicated, safe in the knowledge that the original would not be competing for sales.

Logic is on my side.

The sheer volume of US Soul originals covered by British Artists, clearly indicates that there simply must have been systematic studying of the US R/B scene, in order to highlight records which could be utilised for the pop market. On the whole, the losers in all this were the Black artists who cut the often superior original versions of the records. They lost out in performance royalties, public acclaim and in a sense of collective acknowledgement of Soul Musics quality. If there had not been an obvious quality ratio apparent, the Pop Producers would not have siezed upon this material to such a degree. How you can argue against this premise defies logic.

You use the word "logic" quite a bit, for someone whose posts consistently circumnavigate all known forms of it...

I don't need glasses to see that you have absolutely no grounding whatsoever in the record business to support your "logic", you're just offering opinions clouded by a mixture of woeful inaccuracy and a desire to paint all 1960s "UK Pop Producers" as the spawn of the devil, hell bent on ripping off black music and musicians at every possible opportunity.

I'm not seeing anything in any of your posts that can't be completely dismissed with a little bit of honest, unbiased research.

Frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and I'm bored with reading your nonsense, so I hope that you will not mind if I don't dignify any more of your postings with a response.

Goodbye, as far as this thread goes...

[SteveM]

You use the word "logic" quite a bit, for someone whose posts consistently circumnavigate all known forms of it...

I don't need glasses to see that you have absolutely no grounding whatsoever in the record business to support your "logic", you're just offering opinions clouded by a mixture of woeful inaccuracy and a desire to paint all 1960s "UK Pop Producers" as the spawn of the devil, hell bent on ripping off black music and musicians at every possible opportunity.

I'm not seeing anything in any of your posts that can't be completely dismissed with a little bit of honest, unbiased research.

Frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and I'm bored with reading your nonsense, so I hope that you will not mind if I don't dignify any more of your postings with a response.

Goodbye, as far as this thread goes...

As Harry Hill would say : FIGHT !!!!!

[Guest]

Which is exactly what I said too.

Besides that, the production team and songwriters behind most of Bunny Sigler's records were white guys, not hard workin kept down black guys.

I most certainly do not like dealing in semantics when it comes to a debate. What I have been talking about is a general trend that was pre-dominant amongst 50s and 60s Pop Producers until social change and industry evolvement combined to relegate this practise to the past.

However, on this occasion I will indulge myself in the tactics you and TONY ROUNCE have applied throughout this discussion....

I think if you check the composing credits, you will find that 'Girl dont let me wait' was written by a certain Mr Huff of Philadelphia....

[Guest]

You use the word "logic" quite a bit, for someone whose posts consistently circumnavigate all known forms of it...

I don't need glasses to see that you have absolutely no grounding whatsoever in the record business to support your "logic", you're just offering opinions clouded by a mixture of woeful inaccuracy and a desire to paint all 1960s "UK Pop Producers" as the spawn of the devil, hell bent on ripping off black music and musicians at every possible opportunity.

I'm not seeing anything in any of your posts that can't be completely dismissed with a little bit of honest, unbiased research.

Frankly, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and I'm bored with reading your nonsense, so I hope that you will not mind if I don't dignify any more of your postings with a response.

Goodbye, as far as this thread goes...

Noted, I will make my final response to yours when I have time this afternoon. (Minus the personal insults).

[Guest]

It came out in France - was it a hit there?

Where you there at the time working in the industry, seeing as you appear to know everything about the history of music, more than someone who's actually been working in the industry for God knows how many years and was literally able to get a yes or no answer to a question from Lieber & Stoller themselves?

"Black artists who cut the often superior original versions of the records"

ah so it's not always superior now, it's often superior. Like Georgie Fame and the Moody Blues, which brings us right back to where we started.

Again, a perfect example of the semantics you have applied throughout this debate, whilst completely failing to respond to or debate a continual stream of points I have outlined to you.

[Guest johnm]

as I said in post #2 I prefer Billy Stewart's version, other people have differnt opinions...

let's start a poll....

[macca]

What an engaging debate. It's a pity we have to be so dismissive of each other though. Didn't white boy Darryl Hall have a crack at said toon?

[Pete S]

I most certainly do not like dealing in semantics when it comes to a debate. What I have been talking about is a general trend that was pre-dominant amongst 50s and 60s Pop Producers until social change and industry evolvement combined to relegate this practise to the past.

However, on this occasion I will indulge myself in the tactics you and TONY ROUNCE have applied throughout this discussion....

I think if you check the composing credits, you will find that 'Girl dont let me wait' was written by a certain Mr Huff of Philadelphia....

LIke you, I am able to read names on record labels so I know who wrote Girl Don't Make me Wait thanks very much, except I also know who arranged and conducted and produced it.

[Pete S]

Again, a perfect example of the semantics you have applied throughout this debate, whilst completely failing to respond to or debate a continual stream of points I have outlined to you.

I replied to you, it came out in France, was it a hit there or was it stopped from being a hit by white cover versions?

You dodge every question anyone asks you, and whenever you're proved wrong you pretend the question was never asked in the first place and it's never mentioned again.

Tony has run rings round you in every aspect of this debate, yes it's fine to be able to use big words and put them in the correct order but when it's just the vaccuous reverse racism that you apply to everything, the whole debate has been a complete waste of time.

You might be able to fool some of the people here but you can't fool all of them.

Therefore, like Mr Rounce, I'm out too.

[Pete S]

What an engaging debate. It's a pity we have to be so dismissive of each other though. Didn't white boy Darryl Hall have a crack at said toon?

Yes it's on a Hall & Oates cd, lost tracks or something like that.

[Guest johnm]

Yes it's on a Hall & Oates cd, lost tracks or something like that.

anyone got a clip of Darryl Hall version?

[Pete S]

anyone got a clip of Darryl Hall version?

Here you go John

https://new.music.yahoo.com/hall-oates/tracks/girl-dont-make-me-wait--175825575

[Guest]

I replied to you, it came out in France, was it a hit there or was it stopped from being a hit by white cover versions?

You dodge every question anyone asks you, and whenever you're proved wrong you pretend the question was never asked in the first place and it's never mentioned again.

Tony has run rings round you in every aspect of this debate, yes it's fine to be able to use big words and put them in the correct order but when it's just the vaccuous reverse racism that you apply to everything, the whole debate has been a complete waste of time.

You might be able to fool some of the people here but you can't fool all of them.

Therefore, like Mr Rounce, I'm out too.

I am not talking about that single issue, ie TIMEBOX, although because you insist on it, I am now going to discuss that group and their records. As for TONY running rings around me, I appreciate your absolute admiration for him and respect him too, but a serious analysis of what he actually contributed to this debate does not concurr with your conclusion and certainly does not match the tone of the various PMs I have recieved on the subject, which of course will remain private. As for me dodging every question people ask me, again you look a little silly with that observation. It is plainly clear that I have attempted to respond to more questions and strands of this debate than either of you. It has been notable the way you avoid socio-cultural questions and issues.

The refusal on behalf of you and TONY to examine this question any deeper than from within the narrow barometers of your own preferences of a cover or an original is dissapointing. But if therefore 'like Mr Rounce, you are out too', I won't have to bother for too much longer, I can post my conclusions and maybe enjoy a night out with my Mrs! By the way, there is nothing wrong with applying descriptive grammar and vocabulary to a debate, it enriches it. I will also point out that the concept of 'reverse racism' that you have mentioned actually revolves around the perspectives of a minority grouping mirroring the racist attitudes of the pre-dominant majority within any society etc. Which means that I think you have got a little mixed up with your assessment of my points, to say the least.

Please do not start attempting to lecture me on the subject of racism. I have studied it seriously for 30 years. It is now clearly apparent to me that within the confines of this debate, there is a defined reluctance on behalf of certain parties to acknowlege the existence of racial factors within this subject matter.

As to why, remains an interesting point.

[Pete S]

I am not talking about that single issue, ie TIMEBOX, although because you insist on it, I am now going to discuss that group and their records. As for TONY running rings around me, I appreciate your absolute admiration for him and respect him too, but a serious analysis of what he actually contributed to this debate does not concurr with your conclusion and certainly does not match the tone of the various PMs I have recieved on the subject, which of course will remain private. As for me dodging every question people ask me, again you look a little silly with that observation. It is plainly clear that I have attempted to respond to more questions and strands of this debate than either of you. It has been notable the way you avoid socio-cultural questions and issues.

The refusal on behalf of you and TONY to examine this question any deeper than from within the narrow barometers of your own preferences of a cover or an original is dissapointing. But if therefore 'like Mr Rounce, you are out too', I won't have to bother for too much longer, I can post my conclusions and maybe enjoy a night out with my Mrs! By the way, there is nothing wrong with applying descriptive grammar and vocabulary to a debate, it enriches it. I will also point out that the concept of 'reverse racism' that you have mentioned actually revolves around the perspectives of a minority grouping mirroring the racist attitudes of the pre-dominant majority within any society etc. Which means that I think you have got a little mixed up with your assessment of my points, to say the least.

Please do not start attempting to lecture me on the subject of racism. I have studied it seriously for 30 years. It is now clearly apparent to me that within the confines of this debate, there is a defined reluctance on behalf of certain parties to acknowlege the existence of racial factors within this subject matter.

As to why, remains an interesting point.

Do you talk like this down the pub?

Do you drink alone?

[Guest]

I have merely described the way in which it was very easy (For a certain period of time) for 50s and 60's Pop Producers to cherry pick Black Records from the US r/b scene and to enjoy commercial success with White groups, selling pop versions to white dominated markets. They were able to do this with ease, being that a lot of Black records had no post-production promotional budgets, very limited radio play and most certainly, little chance of overseas release. Or even if they did get a overseas release, the aforementioned aspects often guranteed the originals would be relegated to obscurity or cult status. How you are not prepared to generally acknowlege this, is beyond me.

Isn't this what actually happened? Surely theres no argument about this ? Is there ?

Thank you Steve, of course it was what happened but mysteriously, there seems to be a reluctance on behalf of a few people in acknowledging it.

[Guest]

Do you talk like this down the pub?

Do you drink alone?

Yes and no, depends on the company and no I never go to pubs alone!

[Pete S]

I appreciate your absolute admiration for him and respect him too, but a serious analysis of what he actually contributed to this debate does not concurr with your conclusion and certainly does not match the tone of the various PMs I have recieved on the subject, which of course will remain private.

The reason that I slavishly follow Tony's posts are simply because I know that on nearly every one, I'm going to learn something from them about music that I didn't know previously. Therefore he gets my respect.

I also get PM's. Lots. Usually a dozen a day. None of them say they agree with anything you say. Didn't cross my mind to mention that until you revealed you have a fan.

[Pete S]

Dammit I said I was going to stay away from this topic

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Me too. But in a show of solidarity with your unwavering sensibility I'm coming back on to support you for just this one post.

And now I'm going to power down, make a cuppa, watch "The Bill" and reflect on the fact that I need to throw all my pop records out because they are collectively the product of an evil, 50 year conspiracy to stifle the creative growth of Black American Music.

My life is in ruins. Oh calamity...

Edited July 30, 2009 by TONY ROUNCE

[Garethx]

Fair enough, each to their own. Personally I just think 'Sweet thing' by the SPINNERS is an out and out Detroit classic, great tune, PHILLIP WYNNE one of the great soul voices and a top class production. The SPINNERS backing vocals were superb too. GEORGIE'S to me is a good version but not as soulful.

Philippe Wynne wasn't even in The Spinners when "Sweet Thing" was recorded. You talk about facts and research yet can't even get that right.

Edited July 30, 2009 by garethx

[Guest]

Philippe Wynne wasn't even in The Spinners when "Sweet Thing" was recorded. You talk about facts and research yet can't even get that right.

In the same tone as TONY above....

Oh dear, bollocks I made a mistake and you are right he was not, but still a fantastic record and I think it pisses over GEORGIE FAME'S version. By a mile. Of course, if this mistake means all my observations are now relegated to the bin of complete and utter disregard , then I'll have to cry myself to sleep with a large Jack Daniels but I am sure I will wake up refershed and not too broken hearted...

Congratulations - but this is all getting too spiteful now, it really is boys...

[Guest]

The reason that I slavishly follow Tony's posts are simply because I know that on nearly every one, I'm going to learn something from them about music that I didn't know previously. Therefore he gets my respect.

I also get PM's. Lots. Usually a dozen a day. None of them say they agree with anything you say. Didn't cross my mind to mention that until you revealed you have a fan.

Unreal. Never follow anyone or anything slavishly and whilst there is nothing wrong with respect, nobody is infallible Pete, not TONY, not anybody.

[Pete S]

In the same tone as TONY above....

Oh dear, bollocks I made a mistake and you are right he was not, but still a fantastic record and I think it pisses over GEORGIE FAME'S version. By a mile. Of course, if this mistake means all my observations are now relegated to the bin of complete and utter disregard , then I'll have to cry myself to sleep with a large Jack Daniels but I am sure I will wake up refershed and not too broken hearted...

Congratulations - but this is all getting too spiteful now, it really is boys...

Now we agree on something. Nothing can ever come close to the Spinners version of Sweet Thing.

[Pete S]

Unreal. Never follow anyone or anything slavishly and whilst there is nothing wrong with respect, nobody is infallible Pete, not TONY, not anybody.

No, he is - he told me.

[Guest]

Me too. But in a show of solidarity with your unwavering sensibility I'm coming back on to support you for just this one post.

And now I'm going to power down, make a cuppa, watch "The Bill" and reflect on the fact that I need to throw all my pop records out because they are collectively the product of an evil, 50 year conspiracy to stifle the creative growth of Black American Music.

My life is in ruins. Oh calamity...

OK, they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and they are right.

But when I say this will be my last post on the subject, I mean it and I will not come back slapping somebody else on the back and deliberately trying to mock another individuals perspective, without fully outlining my position.

Firstly, as for TIMEBOX....In fact, they only entered the debate by means of MIKE adding their avatar when I submitted the article without an image to accompany it. So it was actually added by somebody else who may just have thought there is a shade of relevance in their image. Personally, I thought it was quite an astute choice but I did not bring them in until that point. I still stand 100 per cent by all the points I have made but I will say you are needlessly dramatising them and distorting the balance of my observations so I will clarify as to why, before I f*** off and leave you to your 'Powering down'.

I am not saying that the Pop Producers in the US and the UK sat around with White hoods on, deliberately trying to lead a race war against Black Americans and I object strongly to the childish way in which you have purported such a ridiculous suggestion. Having said that, for all your supposed knowledge, you are seriously conning yourself if you do not believe that Pop Producers, firstly in the US, did not deliberately take advantage of the social/political climate and obtain commercial success by shamelessly and constantly releasing White covers of Black records. Covers (often inferior) which they knew would steal airplay, limelight and crucially SALES from Black originals. That is reality TONY. If you want to hide behind your 'record business' knowledge and post anything that undermines the essential truth of that statement, then I question your perspective very seriously.

Within race legislation in this country there are two distinct areas of consideration.

A)Behaviour or propoganda deemed to be DELIBERATELY based in encouraging racist attitudes or promotion of said attitudes i.e DIRECT RACISM or DIRECT RACIST practises etc...

Behaviour deemed to be INDELIBERATELY based in encouraging racist attitudes or promotion of said attitudes etc....

The reason I define this is simple. By the time the 60s came round and UK Producers were picking their next US Cover version for whatever spotty group they had in the studio, from Stockport, Southport, Tunbridge Wells or wherever - the practise of covering other people's 'failed' or under resourced originals was a common tradition within the record industry. It was a tradition inherited originally from America itself and the roots of it can be traced all the way back to the days when Black Music was referred to openly as 'Race Music'. These are not 'opinions' Tony, these are historic facts. Again, I clarify, I am not saying that these Producers sat there DELIBERATELY CONSPIRING against the welfare of Black Americans and it is a cheap insult for you to imply so, but the facts are very simple. The indeliberate result of the Pop 'system' at that time was neglect and economic failure of countless Black records, many of which became targeted by Pop Producers who recognised the strength of the material and transposed it into hits, or near hits (!!) for White pop groups/artists. This system or 'formula' worked well for Pop Producers both in the US and the UK for many years. It worked in the main to the detriment of the original artsists particularly the performers - many of whom did not write the songs - and had no share in composing or publishing royalties. When a White Group had a hit with a Black cover, the original Artist may have delievered a blinding and inspiring vocal or musical performance but he/she got nothing unless he co-wrote or produced the material and how many Soul acts did that in those days TONY?????

As for TIMEBOX, they are a perfect example of the syndrome I have described. TIM HARDIN, THE SPINNERS, CARL TJADER, THE YOUNG RASCALS, THE FOUR SEASONS, BUNNY SIEGLER, their Producer MICHAEL ALDRED spent three years desperately trying to hit some paydirt off of the back of American records and when none of them broke through big time, their releases of their own material died a death and they broke up. Come on Tony, even a cursory examintaion of the musical tastes of the members individually, shows quite clearly that during their time in the group they were being formulated. ALDRED could not get that elusive big hit, try as he did with cover after cover after cover versions of BOTH BLACK AND 'BLUE EYED' AMERICAN r/b records. It is an 'on the nail' example of how Pop Producers tracked down catchy or memorable American records and foisted British cover versions onto the public. THEIR MOTIVES?

Lets go right back to the beginning of this TONY...What did you say about all records and all record companies? What was it they were all supposedly looking for when they released records?

You said it was all about money on every record. Which means those Producers had to be cherry picking those records because they hoped or believed they might make money from them - you cant have the cherries and the tree, my friend - and the truth is simple.

Those Producers, on the whole, did not give a flying f*** if they had a big hit and made a few grand and yet nobody ever even realised there was a black original record behind them. Contrary to your belief, I have had considerable experience in my life with Record Producers, some of them very successful ones who've sold millions of records and with whom I've shared Company Directorships, so your glasses are not working very well on that one are they? As people, they can be amongst some of the most ruthless buggers you could ever encounter. Behind the glamour of the 'record business' as you refer to it, lies a sordid reality wherein dog eats dog and people will rip each other off a small fortune without even blinking.

When you are 'Out on the floor', it is 'What's in the grooves that counts'. That's fantasy land, a precious place for us all and one where Music takes us to gain relief from the rest of the shit we encounter in our lives. In the real world, what went on in the real lives of countless R/B and Soul artists from the 50s and 60s was pretty shitty. That their efforts have been so honourably lauded and aknowledged in years since that time, is a credit to UK Soul fans. What the people who saw their talent neglected and sidelined do not deserve, is smug distortion and blurring of the truth by people who should know a hell of a lot better.

Topic closed for me. I wish you well with the current ARETHA FRANKLIN album you are working on. It was great to see 'One Step Ahead' being celebrated by Sean and yourself in another thread. Wonderful, spine tingling record, one of my fave 60s tunes. Keep up the splendid work.

All the best.

Edited July 30, 2009 by chorleysoul

[Guest john s]

Can I just say at this point what a fantastic band Timebox were?

Not a massive fan once they mutated into Patto, though.

[Guest mel brat]

Apparently a Soul fan can't say they prefer to listen to SOUL rather than god-awful pop cover versions in some quarters without being sneered at as being a member of the "Soul Police"... (whatever that is!)

Sign me up, and pass the rubber bullets!

Billy Stewart (and Bessie Banks) Rule OK! - but I prefer Elton John's original of "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" over Walter Jackson's cover...

Edited July 31, 2009 by mel brat

[macca]

Post duplicated.

Edited July 31, 2009 by macca

[macca]

Anyone remember the series broadcast around 1994 called 'Dancing In The Street - 40 Years of Rock & Roll'?

In it we can see Chuck Berry, Little Richard & Bo Diddley gathered round a table, musing on the impact

of Elvis Presley. To say they were bitter would be an understatement. Little Richard was, unsurprisingly, the most vocal.

Berry & Diddley couldn't get a word in, but when they did manage to, it was very revealing.

I have it on video. Might be a good idea to transfer it and stick some of it on Youtube so we can muse as well.

There's nothing wrong with a good muse once in a while.

[Pete S]

Apparently a Soul fan can't say they prefer to listen to SOUL rather than god-awful pop cover versions in some quarters without being sneered at as being a member of the "Soul Police"... (whatever that is!)

Sign me up, and pass the rubber bullets!

Billy Stewart (and Bessie Banks) Rule OK! - but I prefer Elton John's original of "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" over Walter Jackson's cover...

I don't think anyone's used the Soul Police expression on this thread.

The two original records in question are not god-awful pop cover versions, you only have to open your ears and listen to hear that...and take off the blinkers as well.

If you've read all of the thread then you should know why the poster is being 'sneered at' (which he isn't, he's being challenged) and it's not because of his preference for SOUL, it's because of his pompous rhetoric and look-at-me-I-should-be-writing-for-a-living style of posts.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Pete S

[Guest]

I don't think anyone's used the Soul Police exp​ression on this thread.

The two original records in question are not god-awful pop cover versions, you only have to open your ears and listen to hear that...and take off the blinkers as well.

If you've read all of the thread then you should know why the poster is being 'sneered at' (which he isn't, he's being challenged) and it's not because of his preference for SOUL, it's because of his pompous rhetoric and look-at-me-I-should-be-writing-for-a-living style of posts.

Ok. I've had enough of your bollocks. If you think you can intimidate me, think again pal. I said I would not post again on this subject and I won't. I don't think there is any point being we simply hold two completely different perspectives, which is fair enough. However, I will address your attitude which stinks. If all you can do is hurl insults then how come you have not closed this thread which is what you claimed you were going to do? You don't even know me and you make assumptions based on what? Your own self-concieved position in the scheme of things? Why? Because you don't like it when somebody stands their ground with an opposing position. Actually, I don't have to 'want' to write professionally, I have done many times within Newspapers, Film Production, Independent Documentaries, music soundtracks and movies. Some people have high profiles, others prefer a low key role but I can assurre you that I am highly experienced in those fields and I do not have to come on here to try and boost my sense of self worth.

I have tried to discuss these topics rationally and if the use of proper sentences and certain words offends you, then so be it.

To sum up - 'Its not because of his preference for SOUL, it's because of his pompous rhetoric and look-at-me-I-should-be-writing-for-a-living style of posts'.

If that is not a perfect example of an individual reacting spitefully because he does not like somebody else's writing style, I don't know what is. What the hell should my writing style have to do with it? I thought we were debating a serious subject, not taking pops at people because they may use longer words than we do? Since when was extending vocabulary a crime?

So at least it's out in the open now - It's nothing to do with his preference for SOUL.

Yeah mate, I did kind of pick up on that....

[Pete S]

Ok. I've had enough of your bollocks. If you think you can intimidate me, think again pal.

What do you mean, 'trying to intimidate you', I've done nothing of the sort, I'm just carrying on the debate and replying to someone else and explaining why this has been going on for so long.

You need to do something about that paranoia.

Intimidation, oh come on. If you really think that you'd better report me to the moderators.

[Guest]

What do you mean, 'trying to intimidate you', I've done nothing of the sort, I'm just carrying on the debate and replying to someone else and explaining why this has been going on for so long.

You need to do something about that paranoia.

Intimidation, oh come on. If you really think that you'd better report me to the moderators.

I dont need to report you to anybody. I mean your repeated insults will not deter me from maintaining my position, but more importantly my right to post in whatever writing style I like. There is no paranoia going on here either. After telling me you thought the thread should close, I agreed if you let me post my last thoughts on the subject which I did. Then you do not close the thread and come back with the insulting post I have just commented on. Now in doing so, you are saying you are 'carrying on the debate'....

No you are not, you are not making a single reference to any point I have raised. You are merely using a communication to somebody else in order to insult my writing style and to also laughably claim I am using this forum as some form of literary career platform! lol

Somebody else has opened a thread carrying the title of my article. TONY has already posted in it, even though he too was supposedly finished with this topic. I have responded and if you wish to carry on a wider debate regarding this subject, I am more than happy to do so in that thread. I will keep to my word here though and not post any further contribution regarding topic matter in this thread.

Now, are we going to call it a day here with the personal stuff and get back to debating issues?

[Guest MBarrett]

Guys - doubtless there was discrimination and exploitation going on in many quarters but don't forget the love and respect felt by many white, British artists towards their black, American counterparts.

Think of the Beatles taking Mary Wells onto their British tour in 1964

Think of the awe in Paul McCartney's voice when he ever talked about Motown in interviews

Think of them sending limousines to the airport to pick up the Stax artists on their first tour in 1967

Think of Eric Burdon and Chris Farlowe rocking with Otis on the Ready Steady Go special

Think of all that Dusty Springfield did to promote the music over here

Could go on and on . . . . . . . . . .

I accept that often when we heard covers we did not know their provenance as regards writers, producers or original artists.

But taking where the world is today I think the British artists of the 1960's (and definitely include Georgie Fame in that) did at least as much good as harm.

MB

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Somebody else has opened a thread carrying the title of my article. TONY has already posted in it, even though he too was supposedly finished with this topic.

I have finished with THIS topic (i.e. Georgie Fame, Moody Blues and their superiority over the American originals).

I may not be finished with the other topic. And my posting in that other thread was both in answer to a question and the right answer to that question.

What's Al Jolson got to do with anything in this thread?