Is Covering Up A Soul Dj Kind Of Thing?

[jocko]

 

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.

 

So bootlegs are okay as long as they credit artists? Really?

[jocko]

 

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!!!

 

I did articulate it, you chose to ignore it as irrelevant. Its not no matter how much you tell yourself that.

[Mr Outsider]

 

 

So bootlegs are okay as long as they credit artists? Really?

If you can identify the point where I make that argument, I'll give you a cream egg. 

[jocko]

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.

Your hands must be cut to shreds with all those straws surely, I said nothing of the kind about any wrong way, and you know it. I included many examples of how people pay respect, lots of them all "guilty" of using cover ups. What I said, just one last time, is I firmly believe the ultimate respect is to pay them, all artists like to be paid for their work, its an accreditation of someone's appreciation of their artistic merit and the only way they can continue to produce their art. There are lots of ways artists are paid for their art, but except for the very fortunate few its the only way for them to continue. So lots of good reviews will warm their hearts, lots of fans appreciating them will warm their hearts, you playing their records to 10 of your mates telling them how exclusive that record is, how great it is, and repeating their names 50 times over like some Karmic mantra, will do nothing for them. Trust me. It’s a fact.

However, we digress and I am falling into your trap here, that is not relevant and has nothing, nada, nichts to do with cover ups and Northern soul. So lets move on.

 

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.

Okay didn't see this earlier, but starting to get a picture. So if you aren't on any scene, who are you discovering the records for? And why are you trying to keep details back while you find some more? Okay, let me guess, you discover them, feed it out via mediums like this, get the interest of people on a scene that you aren't on, and then sell them for much more than you paid for them. All the time screaming the artists name so you pay respect while getting paid. Lots. And using a scene and the artist for personal profit. So back to my original point your only interest is in making second hand 45's easier to find. Glad we got there in the end.

Yes, I totally understand why you don't like cover ups.

And I am biting my tongue about the potential insults based on above of an ex funk DJ bitter after being bullied by Keb and Trouble, while been left djing to 8 people. After all this isn't Fryers forum, and we do stand by our morals on here don't we!

Edited April 11, 2014 by jocko

[jocko]

 

If you can identify the point where I make that argument, I'll give you a cream egg.

 

My misreading of that article, sure if you read it again you will see why, however now having read your earlier stuiff, I see I was mistaken. The bigger picture is much funnier than that.

I am on a diet anyway, but maybe next time.

[Mr Outsider]

Your hands must be cut to shreds with all those straws surely, I said nothing of the kind about any wrong way, and you know it. I included many examples of how people pay respect, lots of them all "guilty" of using cover ups. What I said, just one last time, is I firmly believe the ultimate respect is to pay them, all artists like to be paid for their work, its an accreditation of someone's appreciation of their artistic merit and the only way they can continue to produce their art. 

 

 

A couple of people were saying that accrediting artists is a basic way of paying very fundamental respect to them when you use their work for your own gain. You then brought up your keen CD habit as an example of a more valuable way of paying respects. Perhaps it is, but I'm not interested in comparing different levels of 'respect', nor establishing the 'ultimate respect' and moreover it was never the argument here. Is it disrespectful to use someone else's work to boost your own profile and line your own pocket, and not acknowledge them because not acknowledging them promotes your notoriety and profile further? In my opinion, yes, it is disrespectful. Whilst I'm accused of clutching straws, I've yet to encounter anything resembling a convincing compelling argument which explains why this simple trick is not disrespectful to the author. 

 

 

 

Okay didn't see this earlier, but starting to get a picture. So if you aren't on any scene, who are you discovering the records for? And why are you trying to keep details back while you find some more? Okay, let me guess, you discover them, feed it out via mediums like this, get the interest of people on a scene that you aren't on, and then sell them for much more than you paid for them. All the time screaming the artists name so you pay respect while getting paid. Lots. And using a scene and the artist for personal profit. So back to my original point your only interest is in making second hand 45's easier to find. Glad we got there in the end.

Yes, I totally understand why you don't like cover ups.

 

Quite a lot of sheer presumption there, I really can't be bothered to respond to your imaginations about my motivations and character, anything on a personal level isn't relevant and just seems to once again obscure quite a simple point - is it disrespectful or not? Well, is it? Or not? 

 

 

 

And I am biting my tongue about the potential insults based on above of an ex funk DJ bitter after being bullied by Keb and Trouble, while been left djing to 8 people. After all this isn't Fryers forum, and we do stand by our morals on here don't we! 

 

See above, don't know what you're on about, neither do you. 

[Winsford Soul]

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.

Carl. Send me the new record when it's pressed and I will come out of DJ retirement and play it as a cover up then when we get enough interest we will slowly let a few copies leak out at £5000 a pop, split the profits 50/50 sorted 

 

Steve

[jocko]

 

Quite a lot of sheer presumption there, I really can't be bothered to respond to your imaginations about my motivations and character, anything on a personal level isn't relevant and just seems to once again obscure quite a simple point - is it disrespectful or not? Well, is it? Or not?

 

No its not disrespectful, in todays market its likely to create a bigger buzz about a record being played and therefore more likely to get the artist exposure and a rerelease, for people on the Northern scene it will ensure far more people being ultimately aware of it and the artist. So ultimately its very respectful. For people not on the Northern scene its completely irrelevant.

I answered my questions, why won't you answer yours? in addition is it not relevant to understand how do you "discover" records, isn't it very arrogant to assume credit for discovering an artists hard work?

We can go on.

[Mr Outsider]

 

 

No its not disrespectful, in todays market its likely to create a bigger buzz about a record being played and therefore more likely to get the artist exposure and a rerelease, for people on the Northern scene it will ensure far more people being ultimately aware of it and the artist. So ultimately its very respectful. For people not on the Northern scene its completely irrelevant.

 

 

I personally think that is incredibly strange logic, and on a very basic level I would question the motivation for those DJs and dealers indulging in cover ups, since it surely isn't with the end goal of seeing a reissue and the associated exposure for the artist, but this is your standpoint and as it clearly differs from my own, so we can only but agree to disagree really. 

 

 

 

I answered my questions, why won't you answer yours? in addition is it not relevant to understand how do you "discover" records, isn't it very arrogant to assume credit for discovering an artists hard work?

 

I said it wasn't relevant because you seemed to be trying to make the matter more personal, whilst not actually knowing anything about me in person, which wasn't an avenue I wanted to go down. I don't know what you mean by assuming credit for discovering an artist's hard work. I sometimes make compilations and my name is credited as the compiler, for whatever that's worth. I don't think I've ever claimed to 'discover' anything. It's another term which has always struck me as having an egotistical baggage which hasn't sat right. My hero's aren't DJs or diggers or compilers, they're the artists, and it's always been that way, right or wrong. I'll give credit to people who work hard and find new sounds, but I think the act of covering them up once they do so is quite transparently ego driven, and as such leaves a sour taste. For me. We diggers, collectors, compilers and DJs do not own the music, and the people who do own it - artistically - deserve the perhaps trivial but surely respectful and proper gesture of being acknowledged accurately while we profit or benefit from their work in our various ways. 

[charliew]

 

 

 

See above, don't know what you're on about, neither do you. 

 

PMSL

[Labeat]

Can i ask what a "Marlow Rebellion Blonde" is please.... is it a real ale?.... Uuuurrgh

[Guest Bearsy]

Can i ask what a "Marlow Rebellion Blonde" is please.... is it a real ale?.... Uuuurrgh

Its a cover up its really just lambrini 

[Back Street Blue]

To say that the practice of covering up records on the NS scene is in someway immoral in that it is disrespectful to or deprives the artist/writer/record company of revenue or recognition is naive at best.

 

The records were damp squibs and have been written off along with any proprietory interest in them.

 

The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive.

 

The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene".

 

With that ownership comes the right for the DJ to play the records out......and without any compulsion to announce the name of the song, artist or label to anyone.

 

If the owner of the disc decides to misinform those who want to know its true identity, that's up to him. You might think he's being naughty.......but the scene has always been a bit naughty.......that's part of the attraction.......even to the "brain dead" fans of the classics of which I am a member.

 

This pretentious notion that the practice is somehow cheating the folk who were interested in its ownership four generations ago is just naive. 

[Labeat]

Its a cover up its really just lambrini 

 

Hey, well done with the Fabulous Apollos, you showed good determination to get it

[Labeat]

To say that the practice of covering up records on the NS scene is in someway immoral in that it is disrespectful to or deprives the artist/writer/record company of revenue or recognition is naive at best.

 

The records were damp squibs and have been written off along with any proprietory interest in them.

 

The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive.

 

The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene".

 

With that ownership comes the right for the DJ to play the records out......and without any compulsion to announce the name of the song, artist or label to anyone.

 

If the owner of the disc decides to misinform those who want to know its true identity, that's up to him. You might think he's being naughty.......but the scene has always been a bit naughty.......that's part of the attraction.......even to the "brain dead" fans of the classics of which I am a member.

 

This pretentious notion that the practice is somehow cheating the folk who were interested in its ownership four generations ago is just naive. 

 

Excellent quote sir, excellent

[Guest eulalie]

Reading the thread I have picked up a couple of new points that I didn't necessarily fully appreciate before and you've given me some food for thought.

So, from what I can gather, covering up a record is likley to create a bigger buzz and hype for a potential reissue release and increases the chances of credit and money going to the artist.  

But that's not the hard and fast rule for the trajectory for every c/u, or is it?  The likelihood of the artist profiting AND receiving credit via this route is dependent on A) the record actually being uncovered in the first place (someone mentioned previously I think the v rare ones remain covered) B) the time frame within which they are uncovered and C) whether the hype guarantees an increase in sales above what it would have sold purely on its own merit and presumably at an earlier release date than if it hadn't been covered up.

 

The ends may or may not justify the means for every artist. Great for those artists who do eventually profit, if they're still around to reap the rewards, too bad for the artists who fall through the cracks and get zilch and no recognition to boot hey? It would be good to have a ratio of the beneficiaries to suckers for comparison.

 

If it were my work and I was given an option in what happened to it, I think I'd still want full transparency rather than take the risk of a c/u paying off longer term. Always nice to have the option though.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Labeat]

 

Reading the thread I have picked up a couple of new points that I didn't necessarily fully appreciate before and you've given me some food for thought.

So, from what I can gather, covering up a record is likley to create a bigger buzz and hype for a potential reissue release and increases the chances of credit and money going to the artist.  

But that's not the hard and fast rule for the trajectory for every c/u, or is it?  The likelihood of the artist profiting AND receiving credit via this route is dependent on A) the record actually being uncovered in the first place (someone mentioned previously I think the v rare ones remain covered) B) the time frame within which they are uncovered and C) whether the hype guarantees an increase in sales above what it would have sold purely on its own merit and presumably at an earlier release date than if it hadn't been covered up.

 

The ends may or may not justify the means for every artist. Great for those artists who do eventually profit, if they're still around to reap the rewards, too bad for the artists who fall through the cracks and get zilch and no recognition to boot hey? It would be good to have a ratio of the beneficiaries to suckers for comparison.

 

If it were my work and I was given an option in what happened to it, I think I'd still want full transparency rather than take the risk of a c/u paying off longer term. Always nice to have the option though.

 

 

Hi Eulalie. "If they are still around to reap the rewards".... good luck to them if they still are, surely no-one can begrudge them some sort of (late) reward,

small problem being who has the task of finding these (retired) artists, would you seek them out? Freddie Soul may well be fitting tyres in some back street of Detroit

[KevH]

One thing that's not been mentioned is,that at the time of some releases (destined to be c/u's),the artist in some cases was  being ripped off by his producers/writers label owners - you name it,artists fell foul of them.

Along comes NS,and these forgotten records finally get played,some 40 years later.Loved ,cherished by a soul scene,these records/cu's belonged to us - even for a brief moment.Played with reverence,coupled with an anti establisment* kick up the arse attitude, that cannot be copied by the general pop industry.

* - one of the reason many got into the soul scene in the first place.

Cover up's are on the wane,its mainly done now for "Fun"...folks in room testing out each others knowledge,whilst enjoying obscure tracks.

Question.  Do you buy 2nd hand furniture,antique furniture.Do you buy 2nd hand books.Do you buy used items from Ebay.How about 2nd hand retro clothes.? What about records from Ebay,or your friends.?

If so how do you live with yourself.

[Guest eulalie]

Hi Eulalie. "If they are still around to reap the rewards".... good luck to them if they still are, surely no-one can begrudge them some sort of (late) reward,

small problem being who has the task of finding these (retired) artists, would you seek them out? Freddie Soul may well be fitting tyres in some back street of Detroit

 

My post was sort of referencing the info I read on page 2 about the Kent releases and the discussion there.

I am aware of a few 'DJ detectives' in the US who spend a good deal of effort seeking out retired artists too.

[Guest eulalie]

Question.  Do you buy 2nd hand furniture,antique furniture.Do you buy 2nd hand books.Do you buy used items from Ebay.How about 2nd hand retro clothes.? What about records from Ebay,or your friends.?

If so how do you live with yourself.

 

 

I buy plenty of second hand books, but funnily enough always remember to credit the authors whenever I'm talking about them or quoting from them. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[KevH]

I buy plenty of second hand books, but funnily enough always remember to credit the authors whenever I'm talking about them or quoting from them. 

 

Does any of your payment for said books go into the hands of the author.? He can't pay his/her bills on thankyou's.

[Mr Outsider]

To say that the practice of covering up records on the NS scene is in someway immoral in that it is disrespectful to or deprives the artist/writer/record company of revenue or recognition is naive at best.

 

The records were damp squibs and have been written off along with any proprietory interest in them.

 

The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive.

 

The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene".

 

With that ownership comes the right for the DJ to play the records out......and without any compulsion to announce the name of the song, artist or label to anyone.

 

If the owner of the disc decides to misinform those who want to know its true identity, that's up to him. You might think he's being naughty.......but the scene has always been a bit naughty.......that's part of the attraction.......even to the "brain dead" fans of the classics of which I am a member.

 

This pretentious notion that the practice is somehow cheating the folk who were interested in its ownership four generations ago is just naive. 

 

There are plenty of artists, and their descendants, still around. What do you mean by "The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive."? This is inaccurate. Mostly all records considered to be Northern Soul are protected by copyright laws. This isn't a wishy washy, unenforceable ideal, in the first place it's actually the law. 

 

"The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene"."

 

This is the crux of my disagreement I think. Misplaced sense of ownership and an appropriation of someone else's work based upon that. The scene owns nothing. It is just borrowing and using stuff that it's found. Nothing wrong with borrowing and using stuff but it's not the same as creating or owning it. 

 

Is it pretentious and naive to think that the creators of art ought to be credited? I don't think it is. I think it's more than pretentious to assume the ownership of some art because you happened to come across a replica copy of it. 

 

How would you feel if you created something you believed in, it flopped, you forgot about it, then found out 40 years on that a whole new audience for it had emerged, except that nobody would tell anyone that you made it because a DJ thought his own name and rep as a discoverer of an 'unknown' record by someone else was more important? 

Edited April 11, 2014 by Mr_Outsider

[Quinvy]

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

 

Why are you still arguing? This post says it all, well done Mik, nail on head, next topic please.

[Mr Outsider]

Does any of your payment for said books go into the hands of the author.? He can't pay his/her bills on thankyou's.

 

That's not the point at all. He/she can't pay their bills with thankyou's but I'm sure he/she appreciates them a whole lot more than fuckyou's. 

[Guest eulalie]

Does any of your payment for said books go into the hands of the author.? He can't pay his/her bills on thankyou's.

No, the authors I read are usually dead, but I still don't deny them their recognition.

 

I don't know if you read my previous posts, but the main points I outlined earlier and why I don't happen to agree with the practise of cover ups are a page or 2 back.  

 

The basis of my argument was asking myself how I would feel if my work or the work of a loved one was attributed to someone else by a DJ for purposes of exclusivity, status, hype or 'fun'? My answer is that I would not like it and so therefore I would not do this to anybody else's work on that basis.

 

How would you feel about your work or that of your loved one being covered up?

 

That's maybe where we differ that's all.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Guest Bearsy]

I'm going to find a record no one knows and I'm going to cover it up and I don't care what anyone thinks I'm not telling you ner ner ner ner fooking ner 

[KevH]

No, the authors I read are usually dead, but I still don't deny them their recognition.

 

I don't know if you read my previous posts, but the main points I outlined earlier and why I don't happen to agree with the practise of cover ups are a page or 2 back.  

 

The basis of my argument was asking myself how I would feel if my work or the work of a loved one was attributed to someone else by a DJ for purposes of exclusivity, status, hype or 'fun'? My answer is that I would not like it and so therefore I would not do this to anybody else's work on that basis.

 

How would you feel about your work or that of your loved one being covered up?

 

That's maybe where we differ that's all.

 

In my previous post,i also said that c/u's nowadays don't stay that way for long.So,recognition is given eventually.As with many authors the recording artists are no longer around.

As for the personal angle,many relatives don't know of their loved ones recording career's.Its only through exposure via soul scene's here and abroad they are being re-united with the history of the artists.

The work being attributed to someone else.? - cover up's aren't churned out on an industrial scale,in fact the opposite.The re-discovery of tracks, and resurrecting of career's,exposure to new ears and fans,far out weighs the harm done by cover up's.

[KevH]

That's not the point at all. He/she can't pay their bills with thankyou's but I'm sure he/she appreciates them a whole lot more than fuckyou's. 

 

The point is that the author gets nothing.In your argument that's the same as the c/u artists from the 60's.The book is purchased from a 2nd hand shop,read at home then filed on a book shelf.

Whereas a c/u will be played ,hopefully, to a few hundred people over its course,give pleasure as it was intended,before being uncovered. 

[KevH]

I'm going to find a record no one knows and I'm going to cover it up and I don't care what anyone thinks I'm not telling you ner ner ner ner fooking ner 

 

I've got it.

[Mr Outsider]

The book example, which someone else made, it's an interesting one to pursue. 

Let's say I was a poetry enthusiast and regularly attended poetry recital groups. Rummaging around in my local 2nd hand book store, I uncovered a book of poetry which I didn't think my fellow group members would be aware of. Feverishly excited with my new 'discovery' I vow to myself to keep the title of the book and the identity of the author secret for as long as possible, whilst regularly reciting verses from this impressive yet obscure publication to appreciative audiences. I might even tell the group members that I wasn't going to reveal the details of my remarkable find, lest they all go and find a copy of the book with which they could potentially use to recite the verses themselves. After all, why should they benefit from my 'discovery' and share the adulation and praise that I deserve for having found the book in my local 2nd hand book store? And as for the original writer, who cares? Me reading out his poetry to a group of true poetry lovers, whilst refusing to tell people his name, that's probably the best thing that's ever happened to him, even though he doesn't actually know it's happening and maybe never will so long as I can keep his identity a secret. In any case, it's early 40 years old. He's probably dead or else working in a pig farm somewhere in Norfolk or whatever. And after 40 years, all those pretentious ideas of authorship and rights and all that go out the window, they turn to dust, everyone knows that. I found the poetry book, so by rights, I pretty much own the poetry now, and I intend to use it to make poetry fans everywhere love me and pay me money to recite it. 

[Labeat]

My post was sort of referencing the info I read on page 2 about the Kent releases and the discussion there.

I am aware of a few 'DJ detectives' in the US who spend a good deal of effort seeking out retired artists too.

 

 

My post was sort of referencing the info I read on page 2 about the Kent releases and the discussion there.

I am aware of a few 'DJ detectives' in the US who spend a good deal of effort seeking out retired artists too.

 

The majority of retired artists? well your on a hiding to nothing there, i do not envisage any of them getting a "Golden handshake", just a pittance i reckon!

[Guest eulalie]

In my previous post,i also said that c/u's nowadays don't stay that way for long.So,recognition is given eventually.As with many authors the recording artists are no longer around.

As for the personal angle,many relatives don't know of their loved ones recording career's.Its only through exposure via soul scene's here and abroad they are being re-united with the history of the artists.

The work being attributed to someone else.? - cover up's aren't churned out on an industrial scale,in fact the opposite.The re-discovery of tracks, and resurrecting of career's,exposure to new ears and fans,far out weighs the harm done by cover up's.

 

Recognition is given in all cases of c/u - is that fact universal across the NS scene?  Somebody earlier I think stated that some remained covered for a very long time. 

The principle of my argument remains the same whether it is one artist covered up or 100s.

 

I asked you how you would personally feel if it was you or your family? Not if the covered up artist's relatives were aware or not.  I've seen myself on youtube clips where the artist has been correctly credited and comments below from family members thanking the DJ for posting up their relatives work, presumably having google searched with the artist's correct name.  I think that's wonderful that a grandkid for instance can do a quick search and be exposed to the work of their grandparent.  Must be a great feeling to be able to do that and rewarding for the DJ too no doubt to get a bit of info about the artist's life.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Mr Outsider]

The point is that the author gets nothing.In your argument that's the same as the c/u artists from the 60's.The book is purchased from a 2nd hand shop,read at home then filed on a book shelf.

Whereas a c/u will be played ,hopefully, to a few hundred people over its course,give pleasure as it was intended,before being uncovered. 

 

It's not even the same argument. If you buy a 2nd hand book and read it and shelve it, fine, that's what most people do. No problem. If you are a professional book reciter - if such a thing exists! - and start reciting the book in public and using it to make money, credit the author. Not naming the author, or else making up a phony name so as to promote your continued exclusivity over the book seems egotistical, and surely a bit disrespectful to the author. Do you see? 

[Back Street Blue]

There are plenty of artists, and their descendants, still around. What do you mean by "The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive."? This is inaccurate. Mostly all records considered to be Northern Soul are protected by copyright laws. This isn't a wishy washy, unenforceable ideal, in the first place it's actually the law. 

 

"The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene"."

 

This is the crux of my disagreement I think. Misplaced sense of ownership and an appropriation of someone else's work based upon that. The scene owns nothing. It is just borrowing and using stuff that it's found. Nothing wrong with borrowing and using stuff but it's not the same as creating or owning it. 

 

Is it pretentious and naive to think that the creators of art ought to be credited? I don't think it is. I think it's more than pretentious to assume the ownership of some art because you happened to come across a replica copy of it. 

 

How would you feel if you created something you believed in, it flopped, you forgot about it, then found out 40 years on that a whole new audience for it had emerged, except that nobody would tell anyone that you made it because a DJ thought his own name and rep as a discoverer of an 'unknown' record by someone else was more important? 

 

I've spent all my working life in the practice of the law of succession, tracing, recovering and distributing assets to the descendants of their legal owners.

 

The owner of a copy of a record which was intended for mass consumption but which failed to reach its effective market, and in some cases failed to get released at all, can play it in public and the owner of the copy of that record is under no obligation to announce the name of the song, artist or label.

 

The fact of the matter is that the artists were not equipped with sufficient protection of any future rights should the record emerge  subsequently at the time of their recording those records. 

 

In practice the idea that it would be viable to enforce intellectual property rights given the value achieved by the DJ in covering up records of that nature is preposterous.

 

But you keep banging on if you like mate........I'm off to cover up the blemishes on my bum. 

Edited April 11, 2014 by back street blue

[sir cumference]

I've got it.

Tell us wot it is-go on!

[TOAD]

Plenty of records released with false credits, wrong artist etc here in the UK

[Mr Outsider]

I've spent all my working life in the practice of the law of succession, tracing, recovering and distributing assets to the descendants of their legal owners.

 

The owner of a copy of a record which was intended for mass consumption but which failed to reach its effective market, and in some cases failed to get released at all, can be played in public and the owner of the copy of that record is under no obligation to announce the name of the song, artist or label.

 

The fact of the matter is that the artists were not equipped with sufficient protection of any future rights should the record emerge  subsequently at the time of their recording those records. 

 

In practice the idea that it would be viable to enforce intellectual property rights given the value achieved by the DJ in covering up records of that nature is preposterous.

 

But you keep banging on if you like mate........I'm off to cover up the blemishes on my bum. 

 

The extent to which it is enforceable - and I assure you, it is enforceable in many cases, perhaps not for individuals so much but certainly where it comes to a large number of masters which are now owned by major labels - isn't the point. You seem to be arguing that since nobody can really enforce the laws of ownership etc, that it's free for anyone to do with it how they please. At least I think that's what you're arguing. It might be true that poor individuals have little power to enforce proper accreditation and royalty payments, but in my mind at least that doesn't give anyone carte blanche to exploit their works however they wish for their own rewards. Maybe practically, yes, but ethically it's a different matter. 

 

The issue isn't enforcing laws anyway, that's yet another blind alley thrown up to muddy the waters of what is really a simple thing. Which is acknowledging the author of a work from which you are seeking to exploit for notoriety and / or income. 

[Guest eulalie]

The majority of retired artists? well your on a hiding to nothing there, i do not envisage any of them getting a "Golden handshake", just a pittance i reckon!

 

Sorry I don't really understand what you're asking there? Majority?

 

If it was about the detective DJs seeking out artists, their intention is to put them on the stage to perform in front of an appreciative audience.  Have you heard of Dig Deeper or Ponderosa Stomp?

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[pow wow mik]

[KevH]

The book example, which someone else made, it's an interesting one to pursue.

Let's say I was a poetry enthusiast and regularly attended poetry recital groups. Rummaging around in my local 2nd hand book store, I uncovered a book of poetry which I didn't think my fellow group members would be aware of. Feverishly excited with my new 'discovery' I vow to myself to keep the title of the book and the identity of the author secret for as long as possible, whilst regularly reciting verses from this impressive yet obscure publication to appreciative audiences. I might even tell the group members that I wasn't going to reveal the details of my remarkable find, lest they all go and find a copy of the book with which they could potentially use to recite the verses themselves. After all, why should they benefit from my 'discovery' and share the adulation and praise that I deserve for having found the book in my local 2nd hand book store? And as for the original writer, who cares? Me reading out his poetry to a group of true poetry lovers, whilst refusing to tell people his name, that's probably the best thing that's ever happened to him, even though he doesn't actually know it's happening and maybe never will so long as I can keep his identity a secret. In any case, it's early 40 years old. He's probably dead or else working in a pig farm somewhere in Norfolk or whatever. And after 40 years, all those pretentious ideas of authorship and rights and all that go out the window, they turn to dust, everyone knows that. I found the poetry book, so by rights, I pretty much own the poetry now, and I intend to use it to make poetry fans everywhere love me and pay me money to recite it.

[Back Street Blue]

The extent to which it is enforceable - and I assure you, it is enforceable in many cases, perhaps not for individuals so much but certainly where it comes to a large number of masters which are now owned by major labels - isn't the point. You seem to be arguing that since nobody can really enforce the laws of ownership etc, that it's free for anyone to do with it how they please. At least I think that's what you're arguing. It might be true that poor individuals have little power to enforce proper accreditation and royalty payments, but in my mind at least that doesn't give anyone carte blanche to exploit their works however they wish for their own rewards. Maybe practically, yes, but ethically it's a different matter. 

 

The issue isn't enforcing laws anyway, that's yet another blind alley thrown up to muddy the waters of what is really a simple thing. Which is acknowledging the author of a work from which you are seeking to exploit for notoriety and / or income. 

 

 Enforceable on the scale of the cases in question?..........nah.

 

As to the rest of your verbage.....the problem is that I am not "arguing" anything......merely discussing the extended question posed in the original post.

 

If you want an argument you'll have to quote someone else.

Edited April 11, 2014 by back street blue

[KevH]

Do people do that.? One word that keeps cropping up is recognition. Giving recognition when quoting from books . How and when do you do this ? Would you do it for instance when talking wit friends or on the internet. Although a nice thing to do , there's no legal obligation to do so. Unless you are trying to pass off something as your creation, you may find yourself in trouble . Which Ns djs who play c/ u's are not trying to do.

[KevH]

Sorry I don't really understand what you're asking there? Majority?

If it was about the detective DJs seeking out artists, their intention is to put them on the stage to perform in front of an appreciative audience. Have you heard of Dig Deeper or Ponderosa Stomp?

[Mr Outsider]

Is keeping the identity of 75 year old cuddly Morgan Freeman's secret really an important part of the music?,Would these chaps recognize this importance and defer to it, and to those who are guarding their identities for the continued good of their music? I think it all seems a bit far-fetched and besides the point. Digging up 4 or 5 decade old black American records via aged Northern English record dealers and ebay and then championing yourself for it is functioning in quite a different realm to the then contemporary early 60s sound system scene in Kingston or nascent Hip Hop culture of 1970s South Bronx. 

 

All this is purely subjective and anecdotal anyway. I have heard DJ's talk about cover ups. I can't really remember hearing any musicians preaching the 'importance' of having their identities obscured by self-promoting DJs. 

[KevH]

Yes heard of dig deeper. Nothing wrong with putting artists on stage.

[Guest eulalie]

You dont find morality a maze? You mustn't be giving it enough thought ;-)
Try this then : 
Do you know the thornton sisters on cuppy? Hypothetically, if it was an unknown newie, would you object to that being covered up?
all sound system cultures enjoy a symbiosis with musicians. Ska, house, hip hop artists got covered up by their contemporary djs, issued white labels. They understood that the culture was an important part of music. It's only nowadays, with the detachment of time, with the security blanket of the internet, and now that the artists are a safe, cuddly bunch of morgan freemans, that the sort of saps who care about this stuff jump on board ;-) 
I've released records, god knows what happened to them. If some c*nt in Peru is playing one of my groovy trip hop 12s covered up as Ugly Bald Prick and the knobhead, I couldn't really give a f*ck, I'd be glad someobe's enjoying it!

 

 

My objection to the practise of covering up the artist and not crediting the true talent behind it is based on the principle that, in my eyes at least, is not dependent on the era or time. Just because they did it back in the day, still doesn't qualify against my argument do unto others as you would be done by - I wouldn't like it done to me, therefore I wouldn't do it to someone else.  I get the impression a few artists wouldn't appreciate it either, so perhaps the best way to find out is ask the Thorton sisters or their next of kin and see if it bothers them. If it doesn't, go for your life.

 

You seem to have different take on your own work (you never know someone out there might play it and credit it in 20 years or so and post it on youtube or whatever exists then - won't that be a nice surprise!) and that's where we differ in that respect. I take it you also wouldn't mind if it was the work of your parent, grandparent or partner. In that case, carry on with whatever practise sits comfortably with you as I said, what feels like ages ago now, we've all got to live by our own values. I'm just expressing mine here and explaining why I don't necessarily agree.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[pow wow mik]

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.

so let me understand - it is ok for me to own an unknown record and never tell anybody about it or play it anybody but it isn't alright for me to play it in clubs and put it on youtube for strangers all over the world to enjoy, but with a false name?

are you for real?

[Guest eulalie]

Yes heard of dig deeper. Nothing wrong with putting artists on stage.

 

Are you talking to me?  I didn't say there was anything wrong with that.  I was explaining to someone else I think that there are people seeking out retired artists and giving them due recognition. I have nothing but total respect and admiration for their event.

 

But I think this kind of getting away from the point now.  I just keep asking the same question that at least one person, Mik, has bothered to answer above. Kudos to him for that.

Edited April 11, 2014 by eulalie

[Labeat]

Sorry I don't really understand what you're asking there? Majority?

 

If it was about the detective DJs seeking out artists, their intention is to put them on the stage to perform in front of an appreciative audience.  Have you heard of Dig Deeper or Ponderosa Stomp?

 

Wasn't asking you anything eulalie, i was quoting. Majority = mostly.... dj detective work to seek out past performers, cor, what a task!

Sorry, never heard of DD or P Stomp

[Guest eulalie]

Wasn't asking you anything eulalie, i was quoting. Majority = mostly.... dj detective work to seek out past performers, cor, what a task!

Sorry, never heard of DD or P Stomp

 

Ah ok, yeah still not sure what you're quoting though.