Morality & Legality

[Billy Freemantle]

Just been reading the discussion about the moral & legal implications of 'pressings' with great interest. It seems to me that so long as no deception involved this is just a bit of fun. It's got more to do with owning a fake Rolex than is has with faking penicillin.

But what about covering up a record? Take for example Richard Searling's pretending that Little Ann was really Rose Valentine for 20 years. If he had declared 'What Should I Do?' as being by Little Ann wouldn't a demand for the real record have been created that would have encouraged the record company to release it? This would have given the singer a real stab at some money in her life-time.

[Chalky]

Just been reading the discussion about the moral & legal implications of 'pressings' with great interest. It seems to me that so long as no deception involved this is just a bit of fun. It's got more to do with owning a fake Rolex than is has with faking penicillin.

But what about covering up a record? Take for example Richard Searling's pretending that Little Ann was really Rose Valentine for 20 years. If he had declared 'What Should I Do?' as being by Little Ann wouldn't  a demand for the real record have been created that would  have encouraged the record company to release it? This would have given the singer a real stab at some money in her life-time.

link

Did Searling know it wa by Little Ann and a Dave Hamilton Production as studio discs don't always give this info. It wasn't until Gilly and Tats were at Dave Hamiltons that it was discovered who it actually was.

But what record company is going to take the chance on releasing a record that either failed the first time round or didn't even make release to a very limited market. They aren't really interested in selling a few hundred copies of any given disc......they want a hit record and most certainly aren't interested in vinyl.

I would dare bet that if a record company was to release say 500 copies of any given record, once cost for pressing and admin taken out there would be little or nothing left for the artist.

[Guest Dan]

Interesting point Billy but you can't really equate ripping off the world's biggest watchmaker with (to use the example from the other thread) ripping off the surviving half of Eddie and Ernie. Ady Croasdell could have produced the Kent CD without paying Ernie but he chose not to.

What would have been the right approach: finding Ernie and giving him the dough that's rightfully his or whacking it out and thinking bollocks to him? I just can't see that as 'a bit of fun'...am I coming across as a bit of a sourpuss, to quote Alan Partridge?

Chalky is probably right re artists not seeing much profit from 500 discs (though if they sold for £20 each that is £10k or about $18000 US and if they were on, say, 25% of that it would not be an insubstantial sum to some of them). More than that, I think it's just a question of principle.

Re Little Ann, that's thought-provoking but may be a logical leap too far if you use it as an argument against cover-ups. I've always hated c/ups personally but I understand the reasons, or at least the arguments, for them.

[Chalky]

Chalky is probably right re artists not seeing much profit from 500 discs (though if they sold for £20 each that is £10k or about $18000 US and if they were on, say, 25% of that it would not be an insubstantial sum to some of them). More than that, I think it's just a question of principle.

I don't know the ins and outs of the industry but I doubt very much that any artist would be on more than 5%. More than likely a couple % for an unknown with extra for writing and producing if they were involved there.

I would like to see the industry breakdown for sales of 500 discs bringing in $18.000. Pressing discs, distribution, promotion, admin etc and see just what is left, not a lot I bet

Pretty sure I read that some of the Motown stars were on a percent or two and then Motown deducted money for touring costs, choreography etc leaving them with f*** all virtually.

I do agree with the principal part and maybe recognition would come into it for some, legal recognition that is and not recognition at the hands of bootleggers.

[Geordiejohnson]

Now then Dan

Alan Partridge I like him.......... dont get me going now,

Ha ha

Geeooooordie

[Guest Dan]

Have you got a battery for an Ericsson?

[Tubbs]

Be interesting to hear if the guys who say bootlegging is part of the scene and thats just the way it is. If they had made a record and somebody had bootlegged it whether they'd still say ah well thats the way it goes.

[Chalky]

Be interesting to hear if the guys who say bootlegging is part of the scene and thats just the way it is. If they had made a record and somebody had bootlegged it  whether they'd still say ah well thats the way it goes.

link

It's not just this scene...it's every music, film and art scene. You can get virtually anything you want if you know where to look, music, films, software....how many sat at their PC's are using 100% licenced software.

[Guest Dan]

I don't know the ins and outs of the industry but I doubt very much that any artist would be on more than 5%.  More than likely a couple % for an unknown with extra for writing and producing if they were involved there.

I would like to see the industry breakdown for sales of 500 discs bringing in $18.000.  Pressing discs, distribution, promotion, admin etc and see just what is left, not a lot I bet 

Pretty sure I read that some of the Motown stars were on a percent or two and then Motown deducted money for touring costs, choreography etc leaving them with f*** all virtually.

I do agree with the principal part and maybe recognition would come into it for some, legal recognition that is and not recognition at the hands of bootleggers.

link

Yeah Chalky, take your point - up to a point.

Certainly with major label acts the artists would be on small percentages.

But what about the small labels, with far fewer artists and writers - and what about those labels owned by the artists and writers and created purely as a vehicle to issue their own stuff? These are often (obviously) rare and valuable now and do get bootlegged. The artists and writers in these cases would have been on much higher percentages (perhaps as much as 100%).

To give an example: I do go on (and on and on and on) a bit about Soul Bros Inc because I love Pyramid to bits. This recording and pressing was paid for entirely by the band and issued on their own label. They were due 100% of the money it made. I think I'm right in saying that track has been booted three times: once on vinyl, with the Phrenetics Band Michigan Move on the back, and twice on CD (The Northern Soul of LA and The Stafford Story). I'd love to hear different but George Brown said he had absolutely no idea of this, he had never been consulted and he had never been paid a penny for the use of the track.

Now that is just a case I happen to know about; how many more are out there?

The $18000 figure was plucked out of the air (as you have cunningly spotted!) but is based on the sort of money paid for good boots on ebay; you really only have to take off pressing and maybe mastering costs as distribution is easy fgiven the nature of the soul scene...you're not trying to ship it to 500 Virgin Megastores are you?)

However, irrespective of the figures involved, like you say, it's mainly a principle thing (though while you and I might consider the monies involved to be paltry it's by no means certain that the artists and writers themselves, often in rather straitened circumstances, would!).

[Geordiejohnson]

Chalky your Right its in every walk of life I posted that in otehr threads

So Tubbs you tell me what is your strategy for being the avenger of organised crime, because in many instances thats what it is,

And in my good old days working in the entertainment/club game I saw things that would make your toes curl....frightening too.

Its not right, its not fair, its bloody down right annoying but just do your part and dont buy any of it. coz like it or lump it it aint going away.

Geeoooordie

[Guest]

In regards to the "Little Ann" cover up, i have an old tape recording of Richard Searlings Radio Hallam show (circa 81/82) with the aforementioned track on, Richards version was definately a faster recording (perhaps a couple of Pitch's?)

Does anyone know if this was how it was cut on his acetate or did Richard actually pitch it faster?

[Chalky]

I think I'm right in saying that track has been booted three times: once on vinyl, with the Phrenetics Band Michigan Move on the back, and twice on CD (The Northern Soul of LA and The Stafford Story).

Booted on vinyl yes but can you say for certain that licensing wasn't obtained for the two cd releases?

[Guest Dan]

It's not just this scene...it's every music, film and art scene.  You can get virtually anything you want if you know where to look, music, films, software....how many sat at their PC's are using 100% licenced software.

link

But ultimately what all of this does (or will do) is concentrate power and creativity in the hands of a few mega-rich corporations, isn't it? Those who can afford to protect their interests will seek ways of doing so, insofar as they can, and those who can't will suffer. It's happening already - forget soul, the indy music scene has all but died out, the charts are just a homogenous pile of crap etc etc. Not that I really give a toss about all that - I just don't like the bootlegging of soul records!

[Guest Dan]

Booted on vinyl yes but can you say for certain that licensing wasn't obtained for the two cd releases?

link

As I said in my post above, George Brown didn't know anything about the CDs (the fact that one of them was called The Northern Soul of L.A. when SBI were from Houston is pretty indicative), didn't know the record was popular over here and had never received a red cent for its use in any format.

[Chalky]

In regards to the "Little Ann" cover up, i have an old tape recording of Richard Searlings Radio Hallam show (circa 81/82) with the aforementioned track on, Richards version was definately a faster recording (perhaps a couple of Pitch's?)

Does anyone know if this was how it was cut on his acetate or did Richard actually pitch it faster?

link

I've recordings here of the acetate that Gilly got off Dave Hamilton. On the flip there is a take of the instrumental. The instrumental starts off and after 30 seconds or so it stops and the band strike up again but this time it is quicker with some backing from Little Ann towards the end "When he's not around, What should I do, should I put him down" etc The vocal on the other side is the slower one that Ady put out on cd.

Dave Hamilton did make a comment to Gilly and Tats on the Searling cut when they played it off a tape saying that it was too fast and originally recorded slower (sleeve notes of Dave Hamilton Detroit Dancers).

[Mike]

I've recordings here of the acetate that Gilly got off Dave Hamilton.  On the flip there is a take of the instrumental.  The instrumental starts off and after 30 seconds or so it stops and the band strike up again but this time it is quicker with some backing from Little Ann towards the end "When he's not around, What should I do, should I put him down" etc  The vocal on the other side is the slower one that Ady put out on cd. 

Dave Hamilton did make a comment to Gilly and Tats on the Searling cut when they played it off a tape saying that it was too fast and originally recorded slower (sleeve notes of Dave Hamilton Detroit Dancers).

link

theres a few alt versions knocking around isnt there

got one somewhere -backing vocals or something being diff

[Chalky]

theres a few alt versions knocking around isnt there

got one somewhere -backing  vocals or something being diff

link

The cd release is I'm sure the acetate version. If Ady is reading maybe he can confirm. Will ring Gilly later if I remember

[Guest Adam G]

Cover ups in my humble opinion are nothing more but ego trips for Djs .I dont care how hard or how much the poor DJ took to track down a rare track if its rare why cover it up?.Its like somebody saying "Ive found this great book its fantastic very rare Ill let you read it but Ive made up a ficticious Author and publisher just in case some one else can find it."

[Billy Freemantle]

Re Little Ann, that's thought-provoking but may be a logical leap too far if you use it as an argument against cover-ups. I've always hated c/ups personally but I understand the reasons, or at least the arguments, for them.

link

Perhaps Little Ann wasn't a particularly good example in view of the fact that it was an acetate which as Chalky has usefully reminded us probably did not show the performer. But what if it had? And what of all those cover-ups where the identity of the artist is known?

How much hard dosh the performer would gain if their involvement was revealed is not really the point, I feel. We will never really know that and it is not really our perogative to decide how much or how little money the artist ought to be interested in receiving. That's a decision that they ought to be allowed to make for themselves I would have thought. I wonder how much money The Formations would have made if 'At the Top of The Stairs' had been covered up?

And what about the rights of artists to be appreciated for, and identified by, the unique sound that they have created. I mean if you were Sammy Campbell how would you feel about a deception which encouraged soul music to believe that you had recorded 'Just You And I?' as great as this record may or not be?

Finally, what exactly are the so-called arguments for covering up a record? To keep it safe from boot-leggers? ( In whose interests?) Or to preserve its exclusivity? (In whose interests?)

Edited November 14, 2004 by Billy Freemantle

[Tubbs]

Chalky your Right its in every walk of life I posted that in otehr threads

So Tubbs you tell me what is your strategy for being the avenger of organised crime, because in many instances thats what it is,

And in my good old days working in the entertainment/club game I saw things that would make your toes curl....frightening too.

Its not right, its not fair, its bloody down right annoying but just do your part and dont buy any of it. coz like it or lump it it aint going away.

Geeoooordie

link

I don't buy them there are plenty of originals out there that are cheaper than some boots, so i don't bother. It would go away if everybody stopped buying the fucking things. If you want a boot put it on fucking cd. People are being ripped off by bootlegs passing as originals ie Oxford Knights.

[Pete S]

In regards to the "Little Ann" cover up, i have an old tape recording of Richard Searlings Radio Hallam show (circa 81/82) with the aforementioned track on, Richards version was definately a faster recording (perhaps a couple of Pitch's?)

Does anyone know if this was how it was cut on his acetate or did Richard actually pitch it faster?

link

It's a totally different version to the one that came out on the cd - a better one to be honest. Theres also an instrumental version which I don't think came out.

[Guest Dan]

Finally, what exactly are the so-called arguments for covering up a record? To keep it safe from boot-leggers? ( In whose interests?) Or to preserve  its exclusivity? (In whose interests?)

link

Like I say, I've always hated c/ups too Billy but I suppose there are several categories of them, some worse than others.

1). Those which reflect real effort, real knowledge and real contacts (even real dosh?) on the part of the DJ, who then seeks to protect his investment, be it financial, time, expertise or whatever by covering the 45 up.

When I was a regular nighter-goer I found these just about acceptable because:

i) I didn't want to hear every record played at every venue and uncovering a given sound would rapidly have allowed too many DJs to pick it up (so that was in my interests)

ii) I wanted new sounds to be found and pushed and this was going to happen less if a DJ's hard work went unrewarded because the disc was 'nicked' for want of a better word (so that was also in my interests)

2). The Guy Hennigan-type sounds with ludiocrously OTT names.

I found these just about acceptable because they were funny.

3). The rest - wannabes 'covering-up' records that were either already known or were too poor to justify the practice. Just a load of big-headed crap, I felt, and quite a lot of c/ups fell into this category.

[Billy Freemantle]

Dan: so none of these reasons were exactly (to borrow a non-soul phrase from the late Ian Dury) reasons to be cheerful, on the part of the artists, as far as coverups are concerned.

Are the deejays not "protecting their investment" at the expense of the reputation and potential earning of those without whom there would be no 'scene' at all? I refer of course to the artists who were championed so well by yourself on the 'pressings' thread.

[Guest Dan]

Dan: so none of these reasons were exactly (to borrow a non-soul phrase from the late Ian Dury) reasons to be cheerful, on the part of the  artists, as far as coverups are concerned.

Are the deejays not "protecting their investment" at the expense of the reputation and potential earning of those without whom there would be no 'scene' at all? I refer of course to the artists who were championed so well by yourself on the 'pressings' thread.

link

Yeah, understand your point Billy but as I said before when you first raised this issue I think - personally, IMO - that's just too much of a logical leap to make.

The point about not booting records is that if you DO boot them you are DEFINITELY depriving the copyright holder.

Not covering up records because you are POTENTIALLY depriving copyright holders of a POSSIBLE benefit if someone wants to legally reissue a sound at some unknown point in the future doesn't quite have the same ring, to me anyway.

There's a legal doctrine which deals with whether or not A can sue B for being deprived by the actions of B of a CHANCE to earn something (as opposed to being deprived of ACTUALLY earning something) and I think it says you can't (don't hold me to this - I learned this a long time ago and someone will probably come on and prove me wrong!).

But I do agree that, in a reputation-based, abstract 'isn't-it-a-pity-that-the-'proper'-artist-hasn't-had-the-recognition-they-deserve' sort of way, c/ups are a bad thing and, like I say, I'm no fan of c/ups at all...though in a spirit of spanner-throwing (into works) I must say there's always been a romance attached to cover-ups and they are part of the scene. Though you could perhaps say the same about bootlegs....

oh dear

[Guest Dan]

As I said in my post above, George Brown didn't know anything about the CDs (the fact that one of them was called The Northern Soul of L.A. when SBI were from Houston is pretty indicative), didn't know the record was popular over here and had never received a red cent for its use in any format.

link

To be fair to the people involved, I think they're on this forum so I would be happy to be proved wrong (and happy to redirect any royalties to George if they want, too).

[Mike]

Dan: so none of these reasons were exactly (to borrow a non-soul phrase from the late Ian Dury) reasons to be cheerful, on the part of the  artists, as far as coverups are concerned.

Are the deejays not "protecting their investment" at the expense of the reputation and potential earning of those without whom there would be no 'scene' at all? I refer of course to the artists who were championed so well by yourself on the 'pressings' thread.

link

wasnt one of main reasons "cover ups/secret sounds" came into place being to stop bootleggers getting hands on tracks ??

[Billy Freemantle]

wasnt one of main reasons "cover ups/secret sounds" came into place being to stop bootleggers getting hands on tracks ?? 

link

Yes, that's true. But was the motivation to protect the exclusivity of the record for the "discoverer" or the performing rights of the artist?

Then again of course deejays are performers, too. But they have not entered into any formalised, or even mutually understood, reciprocal agreed relationship with the creator of the art that they are recreating by spinning. Given that, we can only assume that the coverup is to protect the record from bootleggers in their interests rather than those of the artist.

Edited November 14, 2004 by Billy Freemantle

[Simon T]

It's a totally different version to the one that came out on the cd - a better one to be honest.

[Chalky]

Got a copy of Searlings on tape and sure it's not as fast as that. Maybe he just speeded it up when playing it out? Will have a look for it and try and post it tonight.

[Ady Croasdell]

Wow loads of stuff to reply to on this.

Little Ann

There were about 5 different vocals including a double tracked one but all were recorded at the same speed, either Richard speeded it up or Dave did when he cut the acetate, the former is the most likely. I can get instrumentals from any of the takes, I'll stick the besy on the very tardy DH Vol 3.

Royalties

Ann got some pretty decent cheques from Ace/Kent over her latter life and her estate will continue to get them once we can find them again.

Dan's obviously right about Pyramid, you can only draw one conclusion; though I can guess what the defence is (and it will be bollocks) as I write!

Cover-ups

I only ever did it as a fun thing in the 80s to give me a few months head start on other DJs and make it an established 100 Club spin. People usually guessed right in about 5 nano-seconds, but a few made them work harder.

With bootleggers around with such low morals and unlimited greed I can understand why people still do it. However I think they should eventually uncover them, hopefully once the owner has been tracked down and a legitimate deal been done with a worthy record company for re-issue. This would only enhance the records value and they should have hoovered up any easily available copies by then for themselves so they have got a decent reward for discovering the thing.

[Guest]

Got a copy of Searlings on tape and sure it's not as fast as that.  Maybe he just speeded it up when playing it out?  Will have a look for it and try and post it tonight.

link

I believe Richard S got the his acetate from John Anderson, who speeded it up

when cutting it.

He also did this with something else but I can't remember what it was. Same time tho' end of Wigan, Clifton Hall era

[Pete S]

However I think they should eventually uncover them, hopefully once the owner has been tracked down and a legitimate deal been done with a worthy record company for re-issue. This would only enhance the records value and they should have hoovered up any easily available copies by then for themselves so they have got a decent reward for discovering the thing.

link

Trouble is, what happens when they come head to head with an immovable object like ABKCO in the case of Cameo Parkway, still no official CD release from their catalogue and doesn't look libe being one so I suppose that's why someone came up with the CamPark cd's.

[Little-stevie]

Just been reading the discussion about the moral & legal implications of 'pressings' with great interest. It seems to me that so long as no deception involved this is just a bit of fun. It's got more to do with owning a fake Rolex than is has with faking penicillin.

But what about covering up a record? Take for example Richard Searling's pretending that Little Ann was really Rose Valentine for 20 years. If he had declared 'What Should I Do?' as being by Little Ann wouldn't  a demand for the real record have been created that would  have encouraged the record company to release it? This would have given the singer a real stab at some money in her life-time.

link

ow

Just got an email from Pete Fowler about Eddie Parker on ebay..4052484342..Is it a real one,he dont think so...Any thoughts...

[Pete S]

It's the bootleg!

[Guest]

As I said in my post above, George Brown didn't know anything about the CDs (the fact that one of them was called The Northern Soul of L.A. when SBI were from Houston is pretty indicative), didn't know the record was popular over here and had never received a red cent for its use in any format.

link

Were'nt these released on Goldmine ? Surely they're a reputable company aren't they ? Woulda thought Kev would of been able to clear this one up pretty sharpish?

[Little-stevie]

ow

Just got an email from Pete Fowler about Eddie Parker on ebay..4052484342..Is it a real one,he dont think so...Any thoughts...

link

Thanks Pete,i will leave that alone...Are there a few boots of this knocking around..

[Pete S]

Thanks Pete,i will leave that alone...Are there a few boots of this knocking around..

link

It's quite rare now but still worth no more than £15....I emailed the seller and told him by the way

[Mark Bicknell]

What's a bootleg...lol

Mark Bicknell.

[Guest]

Were'nt these released on Goldmine ? Surely they're a reputable company aren't they ? Woulda thought Kev would of been able to clear this one up pretty sharpish?

link

Dave,

I cannot comment too much on Goldmine as I have a confidentiality agreement in place. I worked with them for 14 years.

What I can say is, Goldmine popularised a reissue cd market that Kent first started, by which(imo) Grapevine will leap frog them both.

Goldmine released some absolute cracking cd's.

[Chalky]

I believe Richard S got the his acetate from John Anderson, who speeded it up

when cutting it.

He also did this with something else but I can't remember what it was. Same time tho' end of Wigan, Clifton Hall era

link

F*** knows which tape it is on in the house. Know for definate it's in the lorry but got to play through the tapes to find it Once I find it I will post it but its definately slower than the one posted earlier.

[Guest]

What's a bootleg...lol

Mark Bicknell.

link

Mark,

Are you feeling better? Neil J said you were coming to Fleetwood.

[Guest Kolla]

Mr Roberts - If I had a quid for everytime you mention Fleetwood in a non-related thread I'd be as rich as you

But as we're now on the subject - A review / playlists / photos of the weekender by anyone who attended would be welcome.

Right back to Morality & Legality and pressings ....

[Ady Croasdell]

I cannot comment too much on Goldmine as I have a confidentiality agreement in place. I worked with them for 14 years. Bexter

How convenient; Dan, let George know that his dues can't be paid because of an arrangement between the people who forgot to license from him.

[Guest]

Mr Roberts - If I had a quid for everytime you mention Fleetwood in a non-related thread I'd be as rich as you     

But as we're now on the subject - A review / playlists / photos of the weekender by anyone who attended would be welcome. 

Right back to Morality & Legality and pressings ....

link

100 club, New Century Kolla come on girlfriend

Just redressing the balance in my usual 'overly promoters way'

And as for you, I see Alison, Nikki Golding and no Kolla. Don't get swayed honeybunch, come and enjoy some real terrific nights out up North.

Hey....just like Sylvia Croasdell who joined us at the weekend.

You are on the guest list--don't dissapoint me.

[Guest]

I cannot comment too much on Goldmine as I have a confidentiality agreement in place. I worked with them for 14 years. Bexter

How convenient; Dan, let George know that his dues can't be paid because of an arrangement between the people who forgot to license from him.

link

Ady,

Not convenient at all. Regular business practice for directors who have been together for a long time.

I now concentrate on using our marketing skills to sell more Kent, Grapevine and Goldmine....all of which have a massive part to play.

There will always be a variety of artists, producers who are unhappy with a UK label. Even Ace have to take flak from disgruntled(generally unjustified agreed) from these guys at times, remember we are in the people business.

And for the record, I don't think Goldmine is your main rival in the Northern Soul arena anymore.

[Guest Stuart T]

Ady,

      Not convenient at all. Regular business practice for directors who have been together for a long time.

link

It would be usual to require that proprietary or commercially sensitive information be subject to a confidentiality requirement. However, I would be surprised if Goldmine could sustain an argument that whether or not they have paid legally due royalties on past product was either proprietary or commercially sensitive. That kind of information is usually only supressed if the subject of legal proceedings.

[Guest Dan]

It would be usual to require that proprietary or commercially sensitive information be subject to a confidentiality requirement.  However, I would be surprised if Goldmine could sustain an argument that whether or not they have paid legally due royalties on past product was either proprietary or commercially sensitive.  That kind of information is usually only supressed if the subject of legal proceedings.

link

Agreed Stuart. Not regular business practice to keep this sort of thing confidential at all. I've always understood that confidentiality agreements usually surround matters such as clients, contracts and future business in which the departing director may wish to have ongoing interests in but which the remaining directors wish to protect? Can't see how that applies here, Kev.

[Guest]

It would be usual to require that proprietary or commercially sensitive information be subject to a confidentiality requirement.  However, I would be surprised if Goldmine could sustain an argument that whether or not they have paid legally due royalties on past product was either proprietary or commercially sensitive.  That kind of information is usually only supressed if the subject of legal proceedings.

link

Or likely to cause legal proceedings if brought into the open. ?

[Ady Croasdell]

Anyone hear that pin drop?

[Mark Bicknell]

Yes Kev, Sorry am really poorly, thanks for the tickets really sorry i missed the acts and you wearing a Welsh hat with a leak in your hand...now i hope someone got that photograph.

oh and again .........what's a bootleg...........please someone tell me....lol

Regards - Mark Bicknell.