Is Covering Up A Soul Dj Kind Of Thing?

[Diddy Morgan]

What a load of pretentious crap. The records are covered up to allow the Dj to build a following for the record and to create a buzz so that people will turn up to hear records that they can't hear anywhere else. The whole scene was built on rare records. It would have lasted about two years if all the records had been readily available. These records were made by people hoping to make it big, they failed and that is that. A few Dollars thirty or forty years later would hardly change the lives of the artists would it? 

not against covers , theyve been around since i began attending, its merely an observation , if you take frank wilson as an example ,covered as eddie foster , booted illegally on an imitation in label sold thousands then motown release it cos it was their own and sold thousands more,so in effect the cover helped with the bootleg and legal release 

[Guest Bearsy]

Long Iive the C/U     Personally i don't do C/U but I don't care that people do as it keeps it interesting for me and hopefully gives some records more deck time instead of every Tom Dick and Arry getting a copy and battering it to death then 6 months later its old hat.  

Those that don't like C/U get over yourselves I bet you was that spoilt little child that sneaked a look at your Xmas pressies cos you couldn't wait until Xmas day or that child that rolled around the floor in tesco shouting kicking and screaming because mummy wouldn't let you have another pack of milk buttons 

[Steve G]

not against covers , theyve been around since i began attending, its merely an observation , if you take frank wilson as an example ,covered as eddie foster , booted illegally on an imitation in label sold thousands then motown release it cos it was their own and sold thousands more,so in effect the cover helped with the bootleg and legal release 

 

diddy, that was nearly 40 years ago now. Not really comparable with toDAY.

[Mal C]

I know what you mean about the atittude thing, house people are generally want to share the knowledge. I was thinking about going to legends in Warrington at the start of 1990, the height of the madness you might say I asked two guys from Blackburn what the rarest tune was, the both said in unison, 'loverock'. Think I heard it for one of the first times at the end of the night. You might call it a house cover up, what they meant was what is now know as the 'source- You got the love'. John truelove issued in late 89 I think  on an ep with other early bootleg mash ups, just dj's putting acca's over known tracks. You just could'nt get hold of that tune at the time, it was selling for £100 i Manchester In fact I once went into eastern block and they had, 'Frankie knuckles your  love' and the candi statton 12 with the accapella on it next to one and other on the shelf, with a sign saying 'do it yourself loverock' I've tried it its bleedin impossible!      

Think we discussed 'Loverock / You got the Love' some time ago, first heard that round a mate of mines, Martin Redmond, he got stuff cause he ran the Sindrome nights at Shelleyes. Christ he's got some records.

 

On the subject of Mash up type things, I used to do a 'bedroom' one with David Bowie - Diamond Dogs and Tyrell Corporation - The Bottle, dont think I could replicate it now. One I remember standing out was from one of the Flying lot, maybe Dean thatcher with Blue Monday and Move Your Body, people used to 'lose their mind!" to that.. laughs

 

all good fun

 

M

Edited April 10, 2014 by Mal C

[Guest eulalie]

I believe in giving credit and recognition to the person it is due to out of respect for that person's work. It's not really just a matter of the artist being ripped off financially, it's also denying them of their rightful recognition.  I don't think time is a factor in this either as there's no time limit attached to a recording - it is the work of the person who sang or performed on that record and will remain so for the rest of time that the recording, in whatever format, is in existence. Yes they were paid the agreed upon price for that piece of work, but most probably on the condition their name was attached to it and could be identified with it.  If it was my piece of work being passed off under another name I would be pretty pissed off.  If it was the work of a loved one, who has since passed on, I would be absolutely livid out of disrespect to their art and memory, not because I thought I would be missing out on some monetary reward.  Just because the artist or family are unlikely to frequent events to be within earshot of this still doesn't make the practise ok in my view.  Integrity is about doing the right thing even when no one directly concerned is watching/listening. 

 

Covering up only the obscure artists somehow only makes it worse in my eyes.  Imagine growing up with the hopes and dreams of making it, putting all your effort into it, but for reasons you had no control over (including living in an grossly unequal society, being judged by the colour of your skin etc), the record didn't sell at the time of release, you were dropped and had to start over and make ends meet in a different job and move on with your life. That's it, dreams dashed.  Then imagine the joy you or your family would feel finding out a group of people were going mad over that particular record 20-50 years later across an ocean (there's a higher chance of finding these artists today than ever before). That your work wasn't for nothing after all, someone else gets it! That must be the most rewarding thing about being a musician I can think of. Being denied the possibility of that experience, however slim it may be, because the artist's name has been obscured is an injustice to them and their family.

 

From time to time I've noticed that some DJs are keen to sort out who played what and where first and who broke which record onto which scene.  So, due recognition for effort appears to be important in some respects then?  I personally have a lot more respect and appreciation for DJs who don't cover up records to create a 'buzz', or for one-upmanship with other DJs. Putting bootleggers off the scent is a different matter of course and while I have sympathies in that respect, I still don't think I'm able reconcile it with the true talent going unrecognized.

 

I also believe in giving full credit to the DJs (many of who I considered talented in their own field) who spend time, effort and money to discover these rare records and share them with all of us.  I hope it’s clear that I'm not having a go at DJs in general or doing down their efforts as there wouldn’t be a scene and this music to enjoy without them. I just don't like the practise of cover ups. 

 

Anyway, as I say these are just my beliefs according to my own values. Everyone has their own set of values and I guess at the end of the day it's up to the individual to decide. Just thought I'd chuck my two penneth worth into the discussion.

 

Edited April 10, 2014 by eulalie

[Daved]

I agree. It's the artsist that has the talent, not the DJ. Consequently, they deserve recognition.

[Guest eulalie]

I think both parties - the artist and the DJ playing the track - can be credited with talent, just for different reasons that's all. I wouldn't deny anyone deserved recognition as I don't think it's an either or case.

[Daved]

That's probably a more diplomatic way of putting it. Perhaps I shuold've typed that the artists deserve more recognition.

[Mr Outsider]

If I'm fortunate enough to discover a good record that for whatever reason appears to be "unknown", I may keep it quiet for a bit while I try and find other copies etc, but the idea of publicly claiming some kind of ownership of the music via a cover up (which is exactly what a cover up equates to) would never occur to me. Not only would it seem monumentally arrogant, it would also strike me as tantamount to artistic theft. Stumbling across someone else's work doesn't make you any kind of artist, it just means you found someone else's work. If you intend to share that with people, it's obnoxious to withdraw the credit and mis-direct it to yourself. Sounds like some Christopher Columbus business to me. 

 

The worst kind of example of this that I've seen remains Keb and Shadow's Deep Funk bootleg comp on BBE which didn't reveal the artist's names on the sleeve so that the records could remain the secret treasure of the compilers. Then there was the self-parody of the likes of James Trouble posting up top 10 lists with bullshit credits, each one followed by (C/U) in brackets. Jeebuz. 

[pow wow mik]

I agree. It's the artsist that has the talent, not the DJ. Consequently, they deserve recognition.

Maybe, but you end up with the sort of paradox then that is: if it wasn't for the untalented collector / dj, the talented artist wouldn't even be known or heard at all, they'd be in landfill. So what recognition then?

it's been said already, but I can't see what difference it would make to artist x if a few 100 people dancing to her record in England knew who the artist credited on the record was or if they didn't, for up to a few years untill it gets uncovered.

the artist wouldn't know would they? So if it's just an abstract principle then surely the fact that the record is being enjoyed, appreciated and danced to is a pretty good tribute, credit or not. Better than anything the rest of the world had offered the artist in the years since they cut the record.

Edited April 10, 2014 by pow wow mik

[pow wow mik]

If I'm fortunate enough to discover a good record that for whatever reason appears to be "unknown", I may keep it quiet for a bit while I try and find other copies etc, but the idea of publicly claiming some kind of ownership of the music via a cover up (which is exactly what a cover up equates to) would never occur to me. Not only would it seem monumentally arrogant, it would also strike me as tantamount to artistic theft. Stumbling across someone else's work doesn't make you any kind of artist, it just means you found someone else's work. If you intend to share that with people, it's obnoxious to withdraw the credit and mis-direct it to yourself. Sounds like some Christopher Columbus business to me. 

 

The worst kind of example of this that I've seen remains Keb and Shadow's Deep Funk bootleg comp on BBE which didn't reveal the artist's names on the sleeve so that the records could remain the secret treasure of the compilers. Then there was the self-parody of the likes of James Trouble posting up top 10 lists with bullshit credits, each one followed by (C/U) in brackets. Jeebuz.

neither the bbe comp or trouble's set lists are examples of djs covering up records though, most people who cover up haven't done anything like either of those things. It seems like it's just your own sensibility that is offended here, not any wider ethic. Some people might think putting your own name, as a 'compiler', on a compilation LP in bigger writing than the featured artists is fairly arrogant, or that djing in the first place is something of a conceit, especially flying around the world to do so.

the fault with the bbe comp is that they were making money without paying the artists, the fault with troubles top 10 is that it's meaningless. It's hard to see that if neither offence had occurred, what, from the artists' perspective, would be at all different.

I never used to cover anything up and the only people this seemed to help was other djs and record dealers.

[Guest eulalie]

Maybe, but you end up with the sort of paradox then that is: if it wasn't for the untalented collector / dj, the talented artist wouldn't even be known or heard at all, they'd be in landfill. So what recognition then?

it's been said already, but I can't see what difference it would make to artist x if a few 100 people dancing to her record in England knew who the artist credited on the record was or if they didn't, for up to a few years untill it gets uncovered.

the artist wouldn't know would they? So if it's just an abstract principle then surely the fact that the record is being enjoyed, appreciated and danced to is a pretty good tribute, credit or not. Better than anything the rest of the world had offered the artist in the years since they cut the record.

 

In the first scenerio they don't get personal recognition either way, so I guess the option with the least deception would probably be deemed more ethical, so landfill or more likely just left in a basement a bit longer until a DJ/collector who will give them credit comes along and gives them exposure - that is a possible alternative to either landfill or cover up that some DJs decide to take.

One of the people hearing the record and knowing the identity of the artist may do a bit of digging and get in touch to show appreciation (nice to know your work means something to someone) or invite them to perform at an event (slim, but possible). The artists are mostly in the twilight of their years so could die if they wait a few more years before it's uncovered and never find out that it was a 'hit' albeit in a small circle.  

Searching for Sugarman kind of hit home what happens when somebody start looking for a lost artist and that was pre-internet as it is now. It didn't transform his life, but the experience may have added to it and enhanced it a bit.

Edited April 10, 2014 by eulalie

[Guest john s]

To be fair, most of the tracks on "Keb and Shadow's Deep Funk bootleg comp" weren't exactly unknown to funk collectors, and the hiding of the artist names was more pisstake and UBB homage than anything else. 

 

Though the non-licensing and non-payment of royalties are obviously a very different matter.

[pow wow mik]

Ok, so your case against is that one of the covered-up artists, if the name was known, might get contacted, at best to license the track, or otherwise to be told that people appreciated their work, and that this possibility, however unlikely, cant be delayed a few years at most because the artist is aging.

Yes, I can see how that is ideal, but it is not like the dj is giving nothing to compensate for their appropriation ; for a start, he found the record, recognised the quality and invested the time and money and secondly it is competitive dj culture that sustains the second hand record market, makes it well worthwhile for people to save old vinyl and ensures that vinyl finds a way to the market.

A few beardy crate diggers scrounging around for $1 bargains wouldn't have achieved that. The gap between soul bowl etc buying up warehouses full of 45s for the northern soul market and the next wave of collectors who might have bought them was decades, do you think that none would have been lost in that time? a thriving dj / club scene demanded those records, and covering up was a part of that scene.

I just dont think the effects of covering up records are dramatic enough to warrant such opposition to it. Any down side is surely balanced by the contribution djs and collectors have made to music awareness and culture.

for example : in retrospect, what was more important : jamaican sound system culture, which was based on competition, or a u.s. jazz artist getting credit - only amongst members of that jamaican scene - for a record, something which he would most likely not even have known about. The scene didnt give anything to the artist at that time, true, but neither did it take anything away.

what about private collectors who buy unknown rarities, tell no one, play them no one, just hoard them in a vault. Surely this is worse as it has no net benefit other than the preservation of the artifact, yet you dont seem to say anything about that practise. Should these types be compelled to dj!?

The fact is, you buy a second hand record, you can do what you want with it, speed it up, slow it down, sell it, cover it up, smash it up. Surely chosing to play it in clubs for people to dance to is pretty positive choice for all, if a few quirks have developed to keep that culture going, then I'd have thought that they would be tolerable.

t

Edited April 10, 2014 by pow wow mik

[Mr Outsider]

neither the bbe comp or trouble's set lists are examples of djs covering up records though, most people who cover up haven't done anything like either of those things. It seems like it's just your own sensibility that is offended here, not any wider ethic. Some people might think putting your own name, as a 'compiler', on a compilation LP in bigger writing than the featured artists is fairly arrogant, or that djing in the first place is something of a conceit, especially flying around the world to do so.

the fault with the bbe comp is that they were making money without paying the artists, the fault with troubles top 10 is that it's meaningless. It's hard to see that if neither offence had occurred, what, from the artists' perspective, would be at all different.

I never used to cover anything up and the only people this seemed to help was other djs and record dealers.

 

Neither the BBE comp or Trouble's set lists are examples of DJ's covering up records? Aren't they? What are they then? 

 

"Some people might think putting your own name, as a 'compiler', on a compilation LP in bigger writing than the featured artists is fairly arrogant, "

 

Haha, yes, it definitely might appear that way and it's not something I've ever been comfortable about. I was persuaded by a few people to put my name on comps etc as it helps with DJ bookings - look at others who have done similar - or in the case of the aforementioned comp, put their own name on the cover and none of the artists names ANYWHERE!

Not accurate to say it's bigger though, it's equal to and in some cases smaller than the other artists names and is the size it is simply so it fits into the space, trust me, I'm the designer - I had to keep making it bigger than I wanted it to be so it would fit into the circle I'd drawn!! 

 

"djing in the first place is something of a conceit, especially flying around the world to do so."

 

Don't really follow that, nor why DJing in other cities or countries is more conceited than doing it in your own city or country. If people think any given DJ is more important than they are and look up to them then that's their own lookout. Playing records publicly isn't by definition a conceited thing to do. Unless you're conceited about it.  

 

"the fault with the bbe comp is that they were making money without paying the artists"

 

That was the fault of BBE as a company. As a completely separate issue, for Keb and Shadow's part I thought it was utterly disrespectful not to credit the artists and brazenly egotistical to omit these credits whilst representing their own names to the full. 

 

Trouble's top 10 was completely meaningless as a list, literally useless as information of any kind, but it exposed very clearly the sheer egotism which undeniably lies at the heart of SOME if perhaps not all instances of cover-ups. 

 

"I never used to cover anything up and the only people this seemed to help was other djs and record dealers."

 

Well, sure. But you probably also didn't cover anything up because you thought it was a bit of a dickish thing to do. Am I right?

 

For me, I can only look it and think that I don't own the music and I don't own the rights to DJ it. It's precisely conceited to think otherwise, surely? Who cares if someone else plays it or a record dealer makes a few extra quid off it, through your exposure. Well, you might care on a personal level, but only on a purely self-regarding level? Exposing and popularizing - 'discovering' even - an existing piece of artwork doesn't come with a license to dictate who consumes or enjoys it, nor control the future economics of it. 

 

Apologies for all the quotes and random font sizes, not sure how to quote individual sentences properly... 

 

[Mr Outsider]

Maybe, but you end up with the sort of paradox then that is: if it wasn't for the untalented collector / dj, the talented artist wouldn't even be known or heard at all, they'd be in landfill. So what recognition then?

it's been said already, but I can't see what difference it would make to artist x if a few 100 people dancing to her record in England knew who the artist credited on the record was or if they didn't, for up to a few years untill it gets uncovered.

the artist wouldn't know would they? So if it's just an abstract principle then surely the fact that the record is being enjoyed, appreciated and danced to is a pretty good tribute, credit or not. Better than anything the rest of the world had offered the artist in the years since they cut the record.

Is it? By your own example, 'they wouldn't know', so it really isn't an offering or tribute of any kind whatsoever. Whereas if the artist was afforded the dignity of having their name revealed to the few 100 people who have come to enjoy their record, they stand a much greater chance of eventually becoming aware of it, and hence realizing that some people do finally appreciate it. As opposed to their name being kept a secret from their would-be fans in order to preserve the exclusivity of a DJ's set and prop up his ego - and continued DJ bookings presumably. 

 

In any case, saying 'they wouldn't know' so it makes no difference isn't a very compelling argument. Certainly isn't a moral one. 

[Mr Outsider]

I also think the example of Jamaican sound system culture is so far removed by time, geography and technology, from the modern day, as to be really rather irrelevant to the debate. I would say the same for the 70s hip hop scene, and 70s / 80s Northern scene even. The world has changed so much since then, there isn't really such a thing as a small, community or scene driven by the same kind of localized competition. Most DJs of all kinds are on the internet. It's one thing to hide the title of a record from your mates or a rival local DJ, it's quite another to go on the internet and lie about the names of records to virtual strangers all over the world. 

[Guest eulalie]

but it is not like the dj is giving nothing to compensate for their appropriation ; for a start, he found the record, recognised the quality and invested the time and money and secondly it is competitive dj culture that sustains the second hand record market, makes it well worthwhile for people to save old vinyl and ensures that vinyl finds a way to the market.

I completely agree with all of that and I am grateful and appreciative of all the work done to save these records and to create the scene.  I show my appreciation by paying money on the door of events to listen to result of this collecting. I’m not doing down the scenes or DJs in general at all.  I understand it is a competitive culture, but at the same time some DJs seem to do ok in that respect without resorting to covering up the names of the artists. For instance those that share the full listings with as wide an audience as possible, posting playlists, putting up mixes online.  Doesn’t crediting the full details of some rare records also increase the chances of the small number of copies being found and maybe the artist’s back catalogue and saved in that way too?

 

what about private collectors who buy unknown rarities, tell no one, play them no one, just hoard them in a vault. Surely this is worse as it has no net benefit other than the preservation of the artifact, yet you dont seem to say anything about that practise. Should these types be compelled to dj!?

It depends on what each individual has planned for them I guess to be able to say it has no net benefit.  If they see themselves as the temporary custodians of art (like a painting) and pass it on to say a cultural archive or it is to be copied to an electronic format and the music preserved for future generations then I would say it has some benefit. If they simply hoard and then it’s discarded then I agree that would be even worse, but it still wouldn’t make cover ups ok in my view. Illegal bootlegs are far worse, outright theft, but that still doesn't make me agree with cover ups

 

I just dont think the effects of covering up records are dramatic enough to warrant such opposition to it. Any down side is surely balanced by the contribution djs and collectors have made to music awareness and culture.

That’s one take on the subject and it may be valid for you. Would it sit easy with you if the work of a parent, grandparent, or spouse was being passed off under someone else’s name in attempt to provide exclusivity and status to someone?  That’s where it doesn’t sit comfortably with me and that’s the main basis of my argument.  

 

The fact is, you buy a second hand record, you can do what you want with it, speed it up, slow it down, sell it, cover it up, smash it up. Surely chosing to play it in clubs for people to dance to is pretty positive choice for all, if a few quirks have developed to keep that culture going, then I'd have thought that they would be tolerable.

Yes at the end of the day you can do what you like with it, I’m not denying that. Playing it covered up for people to dance to is a choice.  The positive choice for me would to play it and credit the artist too, then everyone’s a winner and it doesn’t leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Labeat]

Too much about DJ'S ego's and in denial of artist's deserved recognition/potential royalty payments.

 

Thats alright Brian but the quite a lot of artists were maybe either one hit wonders then gone into total obscurity or quite a few have passed away.

Any rep's of them would have to be on the ball.... would it be worth the chase?

[Labeat]

I totally condone covering tunes up, it keeps us on our toes, that guessing game trying to figure out who it may be.

I don't know of a single DJ that would not cover a new "find", like a previous post said.... they become over played/popular in no time,

is this what opponents want.... everything out in the open?

[pow wow mik]

The harm done by cover-ups seems to be so trivial - seems to boil down to intangibles such as 'respect' and 'dignity' which are impossible to quantify - the potential benefits that the practise denies the artists so minimal, that it doesn't seem to be worth arguing about.

to talk about a dj, without whom the record mightn't be known at all, playing a record that they love to a room of people who also might love it and accuse this scenario of somehow being disrespectful to the artist is just bizarre.

it is about the only place where the artist is respected and appreciated, how captious to abstract this one feature from a whole culture that overwhelmingly has saved 10000s of records and bought them to wider awareness.

I'll leave you to get tangled in your own 'moral' arguments but be aware that your reasoning in this case would also lead to this :

i find a record that is an unknown one-off, I quite like it but it has a 3/4 waltz bit in the middle that makes it unsuitable for me to dj with. Should I have to play it? Sell it to a more waltz-friendly dj? Isn't it arrogant to hide it from the world? Am I compelled to put it on youtube? Who am I to have that responsibility to decide if it deserves exposure or not, some sort of caesar!?

see? It's an infinite maze of decreasing moral details. Sometimes you have to stick to pragmatics. Most important is the enjoyment of the music, if that has evolved with cover-ups somehow, then let it be. The total gain is good, better, probably even then a few artists dying marginally happier or richer - something only a few people seem to be patronising enough to quantify anyway.

I'm sure there's worse cases of arrogance or immorality to get worked up about - maybe start with the bootleg guy - everyone knows who he is but no one says shit.

Edited April 11, 2014 by pow wow mik

[Guest eulalie]

The harm done by cover-ups seems to be so trivial - seems to boil down to intangibles such as 'respect' and 'dignity' which are impossible to quantify - the potential benefits that the practise denies the artists so minimal, that it doesn't seem to be worth arguing about.

to talk about a dj, without whom the record mightn't be known at all, playing a record that they love to a room of people who also might love it and accuse this scenario of somehow being disrespectful to the artist is just bizarre.

 

Yes of course! I mean what did the civil rights movement ever achieve calling for intangibles such as respect and dignity? So trivial when you put it like that.

 

it is about the only place where the artist is respected and appreciated, how captious to abstract this one feature from a whole culture that overwhelmingly has saved 10000s of records and bought them to wider awareness.

 

There are events in existence that put these relatively unknown artists on stage. I’ve personally seen about 20 artists of varying degrees of renown over the last year. They have DJs playing records too.

 

I'll leave you to get tangled in your own 'moral' arguments but be aware that your reasoning in this case would also lead to this :

i find a record that is an unknown one-off, I quite like it but it has a 3/4 waltz bit in the middle that makes it unsuitable for me to dj with. Should I have to play it? Sell it to a more waltz-friendly dj? Isn't it arrogant to hide it from the world? Am I compelled to put it on youtube? Who am I to have that responsibility to decide if it deserves exposure or not, some sort of caesar!?

 

 

You’re not compelled to do anything with it per se, but I would very much appreciate it that if you played it to an audience not to cover up the artist name.

 

see? It's an infinite maze of decreasing moral details. Sometimes you have to stick to pragmatics. Most important is the enjoyment of the music, if that has evolved with cover-ups somehow, then let it be. The total gain is good, better, probably even then a few artists dying marginally happier or richer - something only a few people seem to be patronising enough to quantify anyway.

I'm sure there's worse cases of arrogance or immorality to get worked up about - maybe start with the bootleg guy - everyone knows who he is but no one says shit.

 

I don’t find morality that much of a maze to be completely honest. Do unto others as you would be done by is what I generally live by.  I don’t want my work passed off under another’s name nor do I want that for a member of my family so I would never do that with someone else's work

 

I don't agree with the bootleg guy either - is it that actor guy? I would call him a thief outright.  Think I just have done.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Guest Bearsy]

Let's not forget that most artists got a fee only and the rights and royalties would only be paid to the writers/producers etc etc who once the record had flopped locally they dumped it as no money was to be made and moved onto the next one.  Some artists don't even know that some of the records they sang had even been put to vinyl. So the intrigue of a c/u to me can only heighten the buzz and attention to said single.   

 

99.99% of the time it's not the artists or producers that re-release a said popular tune its bootleggers that have nothing to do with the production in the first place and they flood the market for their own personal gain.  They are the ones hurting the scene not the cover up djs that in one way are protecting a play of thiers not just from other djs but also from bootleggers.   

 

Its harmless in the great scheme of things really but adds a little mystique and excitement to what is fast becoming a stagnant scene through lack of new discoveries.  Still plenty out there not known so the odd c/u IMHO can only be a good thing.  

[Labeat]

Nice post Pow Wow, bet you didn't go to a secondary modern like me I think the un-cover folk will outweigh the cover-up clan,

it's a debate that can never be amicably resolved

[Guest]

That is correct Dave. The practice dates back to the 1950s, Jamaican DJs were scratcing out titles and artists names on 78 rpm records and in some cases giving them cover up titles so as to keep the tunes exclusive to their sound system.

 

so thats why when i find any ska or reggae records the labels are uselly knackerd the sods   

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Wow, cracking thread. I don't know where to start.

 

I really do see both sides of the discussion. I guess the cover up generates intrigue, curiosity and puts the track on a pedestal and maybe in the long run some notoriety for the producers, writers, group/performer, studio, label etc, and indeed the DJ. Then, a licence deal takes place, a legitimate release and some success for the track that will now appear on the odd compilation getting the group out of retirement and performing over here in the UK at weekenders. On the other hand, it does seems an odd way to respect the music.

 

Can you imagine if you were in a pub and wanted a bottle of 'Marlow Rebellion Blonde' to drink, but found out afterwards the landlord had covered up another beer with that name because he had found a smaller brewery on the other side of town that he felt needed a hand with their marketing and thought you might enjoy it better! Or next time you go to the cinema to see a film, it isn't the one you thought you had paid for, the cinema manager claiming you will like the covered up movie he is showing better than the one you expected.

 

Can somebody clarify what happened with Lenny Gamble then? How does that equate into all this? 

 

Is this about morals and respect or dare I say it...just human nature? I have learnt to accept it, but it really is odd behaviour, not half as bad as dancing on The One Show though!

 

Got to dash, writing a new song which will blow your socks off if it gets a chance to be heard. Ask me if I would like it covered up and an eventual record deal because of it.....making me millions.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Carl Dixon

[Swifty]

Wow, cracking thread. I don't know where to start.

 

I really do see both sides of the discussion. I guess the cover up generates intrigue, curiosity and puts the track on a pedestal and maybe in the long run some notoriety for the producers, writers, group/performer, studio, label etc, and indeed the DJ. Then, a licence deal takes place, a legitimate release and some success for the track that will now appear on the odd compilation getting the group out of retirement and performing over here in the UK at weekenders. On the other hand, it does seems an odd way to respect the music.

 

Can you imagine if you were in a pub and wanted a bottle of 'Marlow Rebellion Blonde' to drink, but found out afterwards the landlord had covered up another beer with that name because he had found a smaller brewery on the other side of town that he felt needed a hand with their marketing and thought you might enjoy it better! Or next time you go to the cinema to see a film, it isn't the one you thought you had paid for, the cinema manager claiming you will like the covered up movie he is showing better than the one you expected.

 

Can somebody clarify what happened with Lenny Gamble then? How does that equate into all this? 

 

Is this about morals and respect or dare I say it...just human nature? I have learnt to accept it, but it really is odd behaviour, not half as bad as dancing on The One Show though!

 

Got to dash, writing a new song which will blow your socks off if it gets a chance to be heard. Ask me if I would like it covered up and an eventual record deal because of it.....making me millions.

Some info here Carl

 

https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=28441.5;wap2

Edited April 11, 2014 by SWIFTY

[TOAD]

Nobody is getting the Jamaican point of the cover up and blank.the sound systems were playing to big audiences not a few hundred once a week like northern

[Mr Outsider]

The harm done by cover-ups seems to be so trivial - seems to boil down to intangibles such as 'respect' and 'dignity' which are impossible to quantify - the potential benefits that the practise denies the artists so minimal, that it doesn't seem to be worth arguing about.

to talk about a dj, without whom the record mightn't be known at all, playing a record that they love to a room of people who also might love it and accuse this scenario of somehow being disrespectful to the artist is just bizarre.

it is about the only place where the artist is respected and appreciated, how captious to abstract this one feature from a whole culture that overwhelmingly has saved 10000s of records and bought them to wider awareness.

 

By your rationale then, any benefits that the artist might enjoy from their song being rediscovered would be trivial, thus also not worth arguing about and not really worth worrying about. i.e. any personal benefits or feelings of appreciation that an artist might conceivably have via the exposure of his name etc are not important enough to outweigh the importance of a DJ on a small scene in the North of England feeling that their set is exclusive. Personally I don't think 'respect' and 'dignity' are abstract or trivial in this sense, they are fundamental to my life-long enthusiasm for the music. I suppose if someone's enthusiasm and passion is more fixated on the specific scene in which they experience the music then they might value the cover-up as more important than affording an artist the simple and basic dignity of accreditation, but I've never looked at it that way personally.   

 

I'll leave you to get tangled in your own 'moral' arguments but be aware that your reasoning in this case would also lead to this :

i find a record that is an unknown one-off, I quite like it but it has a 3/4 waltz bit in the middle that makes it unsuitable for me to dj with. Should I have to play it? Sell it to a more waltz-friendly dj? Isn't it arrogant to hide it from the world? Am I compelled to put it on youtube? Who am I to have that responsibility to decide if it deserves exposure or not, some sort of caesar!?

 

I don't see how my reasoning leads there at all. I'm simply saying, if you are going to broadcast a piece of art, credit the author. Not saying that anyone has a duty to broadcast all works of art!

 

Sometimes you have to stick to pragmatics. Most important is the enjoyment of the music, if that has evolved with cover-ups somehow, then let it be. The total gain is good, better, probably even then a few artists dying marginally happier or richer - something only a few people seem to be patronising enough to quantify anyway.

 

Cover-ups and enjoyment of the music are not mutually exclusive. It's quite possible for someone to do as you yourself did - give exposure to a number of songs on a given scene whilst also not specifically obscuring the artist's identities. If you had covered some of these up, what tangible benefit would there have been to your audience, the artist or anyone else? You complained earlier your regret that other DJs had played the music and dealers had made a few extra ££s. Aside from that being the way of the world, it also shows that the cover up really only serves the ego of the DJ doing the covering up. 

 

I'm sure there's worse cases of arrogance or immorality to get worked up about - maybe start with the bootleg guy - everyone knows who he is but no one says shit. 

Of course there are and your example qualifies on that front, but that isn't the topic in hand! The bootleg debate, without the Cook report expose perhaps, happens on here about once a week. Haven't seen this one before, though I'm sure it isn't the first time all the same. 

[KevH]

Wow, cracking thread. I don't know where to start.

 

I really do see both sides of the discussion. I guess the cover up generates intrigue, curiosity and puts the track on a pedestal and maybe in the long run some notoriety for the producers, writers, group/performer, studio, label etc, and indeed the DJ. Then, a licence deal takes place, a legitimate release and some success for the track that will now appear on the odd compilation getting the group out of retirement and performing over here in the UK at weekenders. On the other hand, it does seems an odd way to respect the music.

 

Can you imagine if you were in a pub and wanted a bottle of 'Marlow Rebellion Blonde' to drink, but found out afterwards the landlord had covered up another beer with that name because he had found a smaller brewery on the other side of town that he felt needed a hand with their marketing and thought you might enjoy it better! Or next time you go to the cinema to see a film, it isn't the one you thought you had paid for, the cinema manager claiming you will like the covered up movie he is showing better than the one you expected.

 

Can somebody clarify what happened with Lenny Gamble then? How does that equate into all this? 

 

Is this about morals and respect or dare I say it...just human nature? I have learnt to accept it, but it really is odd behaviour, not half as bad as dancing on The One Show though!

 

Got to dash, writing a new song which will blow your socks off if it gets a chance to be heard. Ask me if I would like it covered up and an eventual record deal because of it.....making me millions.

 

Hi Carl,now you are entering into the realms of "fake goods",clothes,films,even food and over the counter antibiotics.!! etc.Nothing's sacred.

Most c/u's on the NS scene don't last for long.There's always someone who's in the know.Its done for exclusivity,and not forgetting - fun.!

I wonder if Paul Anka went off on one when he found out that "Can't help loving you" was covered up.??? Maybe someone ought to ask him.

These c/u's aren't fake.They are the real deal. 

[Guest Bearsy]

Wow, cracking thread. I don't know where to start.

 

I really do see both sides of the discussion. I guess the cover up generates intrigue, curiosity and puts the track on a pedestal and maybe in the long run some notoriety for the producers, writers, group/performer, studio, label etc, and indeed the DJ. Then, a licence deal takes place, a legitimate release and some success for the track that will now appear on the odd compilation getting the group out of retirement and performing over here in the UK at weekenders. On the other hand, it does seems an odd way to respect the music.

 

Can you imagine if you were in a pub and wanted a bottle of 'Marlow Rebellion Blonde' to drink, but found out afterwards the landlord had covered up another beer with that name because he had found a smaller brewery on the other side of town that he felt needed a hand with their marketing and thought you might enjoy it better! Or next time you go to the cinema to see a film, it isn't the one you thought you had paid for, the cinema manager claiming you will like the covered up movie he is showing better than the one you expected.

 

Can somebody clarify what happened with Lenny Gamble then? How does that equate into all this? 

 

Is this about morals and respect or dare I say it...just human nature? I have learnt to accept it, but it really is odd behaviour, not half as bad as dancing on The One Show though!

 

Got to dash, writing a new song which will blow your socks off if it gets a chance to be heard. Ask me if I would like it covered up and an eventual record deal because of it.....making me millions.

But if you asked for a bottle of Marlow rebellion blonde then you knew what it was already.  If it was covered up as something else so to keep it from being sold in other pubs because it was the best plonk in town and it created more customers for you then surely that's not a bad thing for a little while until it was exposed.    If the other pubs found out what it was then they would all sell it and your customers then wouldn't have to come to yours to drink it.  So it pays to cover up sometime does it not 

[Labeat]

Hi Mr Outsider.

Fair points you make mostly with the exception of one.... cover-ups are not just the DJ's ego, theres a hard core of Soul people

who wish for the cover-up to remain just that, limited play and exposure mean a lot to them, myself included.... Less is best, surely!

[Mark S]

Cover ups are a bit of fun that all adds to the myistque , as far as the wider world is concerned that record could have lain in a crate for the rest of eternity and never have been heard at all .

 It all comes out in the wash eventualy so no harm done

[KevH]

Hi Carl,now you are entering into the realms of "fake goods",clothes,films,even food and over the counter antibiotics.!! etc.Nothing's sacred.

Most c/u's on the NS scene don't last for long.There's always someone who's in the know.Its done for exclusivity,and not forgetting - fun.!

I wonder if Paul Anka went off on one when he found out that "Can't help loving you" was covered up.??? Maybe someone ought to ask him.

These c/u's aren't fake.They are the real deal. 

 

Staying on the Paul Anka record,if it had been played as Paul Anka,most of the 17/18 year olds in Wigan wouldn't have given it time.He was an artist our parents listened to.!! By covering it up,it probably had more effect because suddenly the realisation was that ANY artist could make that "sound"...and so increased the crate digging,trawling. No artist,b-side or genre was safe.!! 

[jocko]

This is just another argument that proves there are lots of people on the Northern Soul scene that don't have the first clue about the Northern Soul scene.Monty Python would have a field day with this.

 

Cover Ups are an integral essential, fun and correct part of the Northern scene, no argument is possible. If you don't like it F8**k over to the classical music scene or something similar. It might regenerate a scene that seems to be dying on its ass due to being "cleansed"!

 

And before I get the respect, artists etc etc argument. i spend £000's a year I would say on music where the artist or the right person gets paid, between buying new music and as many legit compilations that come out as I can. Do all these arguing against cover ups do the same, or are you just trying to make the world of djing easier for yourself!

 

Carl don't answer this, as you are obviously arguing from a different angle, although in all honesty still nothing to do with the Northern scene.

Edited April 11, 2014 by jocko

[Mr Outsider]

Jocko, I for one would never claim to be "on the scene", so you've no need to advise me to get off it. I'm just debating a single issue, there's no wider agenda to infiltrate or cleanse the scene of its traditions. On the one hand I understand why cover-up's are carried out by certain individuals within that context but on a personal level I can't relate to the practice and don't think the arguments for hold up to much scrutiny. The strongest arguments to emerge so far to mitigate for withdrawing credit to an artist are, variously, that 'it's only for a while', 'they don't know anyway' and now 'I buy loads of CD's so that balances it out'. Thing is, all of these arguments seem to be formed from an admission that the practice isn't really defensible in the long term or in the wider spectrum, hence the attempts to mitigate. 

[Guest eulalie]

Maybe I should point out I'm not a DJ or a collector, just a paying punter and a music fan.  I wouldn't regard myself as part of the soul scene either - I attend a handful of NS events per year, either to meet up with mates or to see an artist perform. I don't claim to know the full in and outs of the scene. I was only contributing to the discussion to offer a different perspective, particularly on the points of morals or ethics as these had been discussed up thread I felt I had something to say.  Feel free to disregard my opinion, but just to note I'm not being deliberately provocative here for the sake of it, I stand by argument.  

 

I would genuinely like to know how everybody else would feel if their work or that of a loved one was attributed to someone else be it for reasons of exclusivity, status or even fun?

 

Perhaps you would be ok with that like in a dog eat dog, f*uck you buddy strategy as some sections of society (eg. some elements of Wall st traders) seem to thrive on.  If you live your life by those values good luck to you, but don't be offended if I don't agree with your values and I'm relieved not to be related to you.

 

If it was my work being covered up, I would probably kick up a stick, throw a few insults around and do a bit of public shaming.  If it was the work of a loved one being covered up, I would most likely be baying for blood!

 

A large part of why I love this music is because it is honest and heartfelt and I feel it speaks the truth to me. I just think it appropriate to be respectful and honest back to those that gave it to us in the first place, which of is course what happens by and large in the vast majority of cases, I ain't disputing that at all, I just wish it was like this for all cases.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[jocko]

Jocko, I for one would never claim to be "on the scene", so you've no need to advise me to get off it. I'm just debating a single issue, there's no wider agenda to infiltrate or cleanse the scene of its traditions. On the one hand I understand why cover-up's are carried out by certain individuals within that context but on a personal level I can't relate to the practice and don't think the arguments for hold up to much scrutiny. The strongest arguments to emerge so far to mitigate for withdrawing credit to an artist are, variously, that 'it's only for a while', 'they don't know anyway' and now 'I buy loads of CD's so that balances it out'. Thing is, all of these arguments seem to be formed from an admission that the practice isn't really defensible in the long term or in the wider spectrum, hence the attempts to mitigate. 

 

So if you are not on the scene why are you bothered by practises on it? In reality its got f**k all to do with you, and your argument and respect etc just doesn't stand up when talking about the second hand 45 market, which is what covers up are only connected with. To misquote the phrase no artists were hurt in the practice, this has  never been more appropriate. It will occasionaly lead to a reissue as in Kent, so the only argument is actually positive.

 

My comment about buying music is not balancing it up, quite the opposite, its saying I pay respect where it should be paid, and do not in way connect that with any second hand vinyl I buy. Its relevance is lots of people bump their gums about respect but actually buy no music where the artist or the right person gets paid, as they only buy second hand vinyl, so in reality their argument is to make second hand vinyl more available to them, nothing to do with respect to the artist at all.

 

There is nothing to defend or mitigate. It just is. Being off the scene means you will never get it, so why try. What difference does it make to you? And don't quote the moral stuff, thats just hypocritical nonsense when talking about the second hand vinyl market, unless you pay a % of everything you sell buy to the right person. Really? Lets not go down that blind alley.

[jocko]

Maybe I should point out I'm not a DJ or a collector, just a paying punter and a music fan.  I wouldn't regard myself as part of the soul scene either - I attend a handful of NS events per year, either to meet up with mates or to see an artist perform. I don't claim to know the full in and outs of the scene. I was only contributing to the discussion to offer a different perspective, particularly on the points of morals or ethics as these had been discussed up thread I felt I had something to say.  Feel free to disregard my opinion, but just to note I'm not being deliberately provocative here for the sake of it, I stand by argument.  

 

I would genuinely like to know how everybody else would feel if their work or that of a loved one was attributed to someone else be it for reasons of exclusivity, status or even fun?

 

Perhaps you would be ok with that like in a dog eat dog, f*uck you buddy strategy as some sections of society (eg. some elements of Wall st traders) seem to thrive on.  If you live your life by those values good luck to you, but don't be offended if I don't agree with your values and I'm relieved not to be related to you.

 

If it was my work being covered up, I would probably kick up a stick, throw a few insults around and do a bit of public shaming.  If it was the work of a loved one being covered up, I would most likely be baying for blood!

 

A large part of why I love this music is because it is honest and heartfelt and I feel it speaks the truth to me. I just think it appropriate to be respectful and honest back to those that gave it to us in the first place, which of is course what happens by and large in the vast majority of cases, I ain't disputing that at all, I just wish it was like this for all cases.

 

There you go, bringing the moral thing in again. I explain above why its unconnected. Comparing a second hand vinyl practice with the production of a piece of new art is just so misguided, it just misses the point completely.

 

And comparing lots of people on the Northern scene to Wall St Traders in morals, really, you have well and truly pushed me off any high ground I often get accused off, you have obviously been taking in by the Bullingdon boys on the political threads, they arent typical honest!

 

This argument has been done a number of times, it doesnt change, and without being rude, you just don't get it. As I say most people I know pay all respect to artists they can by buying books, CD's, creating magazines, writing websites supporting pish weekenders because they have live acts on. What more can be done? That has not bearing on what they do with second hand 45's that have been lying in some darkened warehouse for 45 years. I am pretty sure I know what artists would prefer and the fact some idiots give artists hope by saying they are massive in UK, meaning being played once a week in a darkened hall, isnt showing respect, its generally trying to get second hand vinyl, cheap!

 

 Again without being rude, if you don't get why they aren't connected, you never will. It just is.

Edited April 11, 2014 by jocko

[Mr Outsider]

So if you are not on the scene why are you bothered by practises on it? In reality its got f**k all to do with you, and your argument and respect etc just doesn't stand up when talking about the second hand 45 market, which is what covers up are only connected with. To misquote the phrase no artists were hurt in the practice, this has  never been more appropriate. It will occasionaly lead to a reissue as in Kent, so the only argument is actually positive.

 

My comment about buying music is not balancing it up, quite the opposite, its saying I pay respect where it should be paid, and do not in way connect that with any second hand vinyl I buy. Its relevance is lots of people bump their gums about respect but actually buy no music where the artist or the right person gets paid, as they only buy second hand vinyl, so in reality their argument is to make second hand vinyl more available to them, nothing to do with respect to the artist at all.

 

There is nothing to defend or mitigate. It just is. Being off the scene means you will never get it, so why try. What difference does it make to you? And don't quote the moral stuff, thats just hypocritical nonsense when talking about the second hand vinyl market, unless you pay a % of everything you sell buy to the right person. Really? Lets not go down that blind alley.

 

I've never been on any scene, but have at times gotten up close and personal with a few via my one and only shared interest with scenes in general - music. Maybe it has got f*%& all to do with me. So do a lot of things, doesn't stop me from forming opinions about them. As with anything, if you feel I'm misinformed or just plain wrong, you are quite entitled to use your insider position and knowledge to show why. But just saying 'you're not on the scene, you'll never understand, f*&% off etc', is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, isn't it?

 

How will a cover-up sometimes lead to a Kent reissue? Is a cover-up more likely to lead to a Kent reissue than a non-cover-up? Seems highly improbable. So I fail to see the benefit to the artist there, sorry. 

 

You say you pay respect where it should be paid, but this is entirely on the terms you've decided. According to you, respect should be paid via royalty receipts on licensed CDs;, that is the only correct and proper way to administer respect to artists. Pardon me, but I think it's more simple than that. I shall just repeat my belief that if you are engaging in the use and broadcast of other people's work for your own financial gain and notoriety, basic and accurate accreditation is the most fundamental gesture of respect there is. It's the same in any other mode of broadcast or publication - if you use or even quote or reference someone's work, you credit them. At this stage, royalties on CDs and the second hand record market don't come into my thinking at all. 

[Mark S]

B*llocks all this ethics and crap anyone would think a cover up is forever it always gets found out thats all part of the fun FFS get lives

Edited February 7, 2015 by pikeys dog
swearing - workplace filters

[jocko]

 

I've never been on any scene, but have at times gotten up close and personal with a few via my one and only shared interest with scenes in general - music. Maybe it has got f*%& all to do with me. So do a lot of things, doesn't stop me from forming opinions about them. As with anything, if you feel I'm misinformed or just plain wrong, you are quite entitled to use your insider position and knowledge to show why. But just saying 'you're not on the scene, you'll never understand, f*&% off etc', is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, isn't it?

Of course you can form opinions, I am just trying to help you form a correct one. And no, its not a cop out, its a bit like most football fans on the terraces every week thinking they can manage the team for the manager but not seeing the guys train ever day or the dynamics of the group, a perfectly normal enjoyable occurence that I am very guilty of, doesnt make them any less misguided than you trying to direct a scene you have no involvement in or don't understand. Just as an outsider looking in these days I dispair at people trying to fix something that isn't broken, especially when they have no interest in it. You can see how I am confused by the argument surely.

 

How will a cover-up sometimes lead to a Kent reissue? Is a cover-up more likely to lead to a Kent reissue than a non-cover-up? Seems highly improbable. So I fail to see the benefit to the artist there, sorry.

Surely the most important point here is it makes it likely, not whether it is more or less likely. Thats a moot point to the artist, they will glady take both I suspect. But if you really don't understand how a record getting plays on the Northern scene can lead to a reissue in todays market you really don't understand do you. Drop Ady Croasdel a line and sure he can help you get an informed opinion on that one (He works for Kent and is a DJ, massive moral paradox for him, but he seems to cope).

 

You say you pay respect where it should be paid, but this is entirely on the terms you've decided. According to you, respect should be paid via royalty receipts on licensed CDs;, that is the only correct and proper way to administer respect to artists. Pardon me, but I think it's more simple than that. I shall just repeat my belief that if you are engaging in the use and broadcast of other people's work for your own financial gain and notoriety, basic and accurate accreditation is the most fundamental gesture of respect there is. It's the same in any other mode of broadcast or publication - if you use or even quote or reference someone's work, you credit them. At this stage, royalties on CDs and the second hand record market don't come into my thinking at all.

 

No, its on the artists terms, I buy what they have produced and what is legally available. Out of interest do you? And no I haven't said that is only way, read above. But I bet its the way the artists like best. The fact you seem to think a pat on the back from you is all they want seems to suggest your view of your moral compass may be more important than the artists desire. Lets ask them, do you want money or just respect? What do you think they will answer.

When you break it down, your argument is technically flawed, practically flawed, and actually morally flawed. I assume you are also concentrating your crusade on the pubs, clubs and shops that play new music unlicensed? Or is it only old Soul 45's you want to preserve? I am am genuinely now baffled by your motives.

Edited April 11, 2014 by jocko

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Staying on the Paul Anka record,if it had been played as Paul Anka,most of the 17/18 year olds in Wigan wouldn't have given it time.He was an artist our parents listened to.!! By covering it up,it probably had more effect because suddenly the realisation was that ANY artist could make that "sound"...and so increased the crate digging,trawling. No artist,b-side or genre was safe.!! 

Yep, I can see that. I sort of appreciate how something with a misdirection can gather momentum. But.....if it ticks the boxes for dancing, does it really matter who the artist is? I think it boils down to that moment in time when a reputation for playing quality discoveries was paramount and keeping others from knowing its true origin added to its mystery. So for me, I can accept it is part of the strange world of northern soul. I also see the fun side of it, keeping everyone guessing and intentionally leading them in the wrong direction. And think of all the hundreds of songs that have become popular over the years because of this phenomena. 

 

Thanks for the Lenny Gamble info. And I once released a demo version of a track I wrote/produced called 'Suddenly there's you' under the moniker of 'The Trenton Independents' circa 2007. I did not want to name it as me, per se..but I had recently been to Philly and New York and changed trains at Trenton, so thought it a fitting name. So, not a cover up as such, but I wanted the illusion the track was something I guess, it really wasn't! Am I guilty? The track is on my 55motown youtube if you want to hear it, and it became a cut I did in Detroit in 2008 because the demo actually got air play on a UK soul programme. So, that romance or notion actually works in one respect.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Carl Dixon

[Guest eulalie]

There you go, bringing the moral thing in again. I explain above why its unconnected. Comparing a second hand vinyl practice with the production of a piece of new art is just so misguided, it just misses the point completely.

 

And comparing lots of people on the Northern scene to Wall St Traders in morals, really, you have well and truly pushed me off any high ground I often get accused off, you have obviously been taking in by the Bullingdon boys on the political threads, they arent typical honest!

 

This argument has been done a number of times, it doesnt change, and without being rude, you just don't get it. As I say most people I know pay all respect to artists they can by buying books, CD's, creating magazines, writing websites supporting pish weekenders because they have live acts on. What more can be done? That has not bearing on what they do with second hand 45's that have been lying in some darkened warehouse for 45 years. I am pretty sure I know what artists would prefer and the fact some idiots give artists hope by saying they are massive in UK, meaning being played once a week in a darkened hall, isnt showing respect, its generally trying to get second hand vinyl, cheap!

 

 Again without being rude, if you don't get why they aren't connected, you never will. It just is.

 

First off, just to be clear I didn't compare people on the NS scene with Wall St traders.  I have more respect for the people who make up NS than that.  

I gave a hypothetical answer to my question (How would you feel if your own work was covered up?) saying if that if someone doesn't mind their work being covered up, this is one possible perspective they may look at it from. There may be other perspectives granted, but that was just one example I could think of at the time.

 

You are right I don't get why morals don't enter into this arena as I believe they enter into almost every single interaction in a person's life once you reach an age where you can reason and accept the consequence of your actions. The moral argument was raised back on the first page by another poster, round about post 31 and a discussion stemmed from there.  I just joined in and added my opinion to the conversation.

 

I have repeatedly made clear that I am appreciative of the scene and the people putting this music out there and acknowledge the artists are treated with respect in the vast majority of cases.  I'm not having a go at the scene as a whole, there's just one tiny element of it that I don't happen to agree with.

 

I don't think you're being rude by the way.  You are putting forward your opinion as am I. We just don't seem to agree and perhaps never will.  That's still ok

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Dean Rudland]

If I'm fortunate enough to discover a good record that for whatever reason appears to be "unknown", I may keep it quiet for a bit while I try and find other copies etc, but the idea of publicly claiming some kind of ownership of the music via a cover up (which is exactly what a cover up equates to) would never occur to me. Not only would it seem monumentally arrogant, it would also strike me as tantamount to artistic theft. Stumbling across someone else's work doesn't make you any kind of artist, it just means you found someone else's work. If you intend to share that with people, it's obnoxious to withdraw the credit and mis-direct it to yourself. Sounds like some Christopher Columbus business to me. 

 

The worst kind of example of this that I've seen remains Keb and Shadow's Deep Funk bootleg comp on BBE which didn't reveal the artist's names on the sleeve so that the records could remain the secret treasure of the compilers. Then there was the self-parody of the likes of James Trouble posting up top 10 lists with bullshit credits, each one followed by (C/U) in brackets. Jeebuz. 

The reason for those was because those comps were bootlegs.

Exclusivity had gone as soon as they released the comps.

[Dean Rudland]

 

How will a cover-up sometimes lead to a Kent reissue? Is a cover-up more likely to lead to a Kent reissue than a non-cover-up? Seems highly improbable. So I fail to see the benefit to the artist there, sorry. 

 

As one of the staff at Kent I thought I'd but in here.

If a record is covered up, it is one of the ways of marketing that record, building it up, making it in the world of the scene 'a hit'. The time for which it is covered up will be relatively small within its total history. When it is uncovered there will be inherent demand for that tune, it will be an attractive item to reissue.

As a record company, we want to release good records, as a business we would prefer there to be a demand for them. A good, well worked cover up can create that demand.

[Mr Outsider]

 

Of course you can form opinions, I am just trying to help you form a correct one. And no, its not a cop out, its a bit like most football fans on the terraces every week thinking they can manage the team for the manager but not seeing the guys train ever day or the dynamics of the group, a perfectly normal enjoyable occurence that I am very guilty of, doesnt make them any less misguided than you trying to direct a scene you have no involvement in or don't understand. Just as an outsider looking in these days I dispair at people trying to fix something that isn't broken, especially when they have no interest in it. You can see how I am confused by the argument surely.

 

 I'm not trying to direct anything, merely stating a personal opinion on a practice which, by the way, was not invented by nor is exclusively exercised by the Northern scene. My own status as a self professed outsider from that specific circle doesn't preclude me from understanding what is a very simple and more widely practiced phenomenon. 

 

 

 

Surely the most important point here is it makes it likely, not whether it is more or less likely. Thats a moot point to the artist, they will glady take both I suspect. But if you really don't understand how a record getting plays on the Northern scene can lead to a reissue in todays market you really don't understand do you. Drop Ady Croasdel a line and sure he can help you get an informed opinion on that one (He works for Kent and is a DJ, massive moral paradox for him, but he seems to cope).

 

 

Eh? You said that a cover-up may eventually lead to a reissue and that makes it worthwhile. But as you seem to have just admitted, the covering up itself has literally no bearing on the eventuality of the reissue, it would have been just as likely to have been reissued if it hadn't been covered up (perhaps more so, since attempting to license a record via incorrect credits would present quite a few problems). This offers no qualification or support for the practice of covering up the record and is a total irrelevance. 

 

 

 

No, its on the artists terms, I buy what they have produced and what is legally available. Out of interest do you? And no I haven't said that is only way, read above. But I bet its the way the artists like best. The fact you seem to think a pat on the back from you is all they want seems to suggest your view of your moral compass may be more important than the artists desire. Lets ask them, do you want money or just respect? What do you think they will answer.

 

No, you say it's the 'right way' to pay respects. Presumably, accrediting artists for their work is the 'wrong way', or if not, why bring up the example of buying CD's. I don't understand the relevance. You can play someone's record, acknowledge the person who authored it, buy CD's, book artists for 'pish' weekenders, the lot. It's not an either / or scenario, nor a case of a 'right' and 'wrong' way to pay respect. Trying to elevate one mode of respect in order to preserve a tradition of clear disrespect which honours only the careers of certain DJ's and pockets of certain dealers and the traditions of a small scene is something I find a bit confusing, if I'm honest. 

 

 

 

When you break it down, your argument is technically flawed, practically flawed, and actually morally flawed. I assume you are also concentrating your crusade on the pubs, clubs and shops that play new music unlicensed? Or is it only old Soul 45's you want to preserve? I am am genuinely now baffled by your motives. 

 

Is it? As I said above, it's the universally held standard when it comes to broadcasting or using other people's work in any public medium - the very minimum thing you do is credit the author. 

 

I'm not on any kind of crusade at all, and have no specific plan for Soul 45s. Just stating an opinion.

[Guest Bearsy]

You only got to look at the hot boxers why a cover up is important now and then. They hear it they buy it they flog it to death it gets booted they sell it they move on to the next one Hey that's the scene why change it 

[Mr Outsider]

The reason for those was because those comps were bootlegs.

Exclusivity had gone as soon as they released the comps.

 

Don't agree Dean. BBE released several bootlegs, this was the only one that was released without credits on the sleeve. The reason for this was explained by Keb as being down to Shadow's desire to keep the 45s somewhat secretive. Perhaps, as John said, it was also as a tribute to the UBB boots of the 80s (haven't heard that elsewhere). Then again, even they credited the songwriters on the sleeves, if not the artists themselves. 

[Mr Outsider]

As one of the staff at Kent I thought I'd but in here.

If a record is covered up, it is one of the ways of marketing that record, building it up, making it in the world of the scene 'a hit'. The time for which it is covered up will be relatively small within its total history. When it is uncovered there will be inherent demand for that tune, it will be an attractive item to reissue.

As a record company, we want to release good records, as a business we would prefer there to be a demand for them. A good, well worked cover up can create that demand.

 

That's a fair point, and one which I had privately considered myself, hoping nobody would articulate! But, in the scheme of things, how many Kent reissues have emerged directly because of a record being covered up, and if the record was good enough, wouldn't it be worthy of a reissue anyway? In any case, I'm 100% sure that an eventual reissue is the absolute farthest thing from the mind of the person who does the initial covering-up!!!