The Hypocrisy Of Northern Soul?

[Jim G]

Here's the thing. I have loved the music and the scene for 37 years, been to most of the great venues and loved every minute of it.

But, there is a strange hyprocisy (or irony?) to the whole scene. We all have our favourite singers, record, label etc. Some people have made good livings from the scene. But what about the artists who recorded the music, how have they benefitted? Yes, there has been many compilation albums, live acts etc. who received royalties but, in reality, they are the few. Indeed the purist Northern Collector wouldn't been see dead with a legal re-issue in their collection and quite happily pay £thousands in some cases for elusive originals. And therein, lies the rub. Are we really soul fans, or fans because we have what no-one else gets, or can afford to buy, that has no benefit to the artist. Just look at the 'In Your Box' section, full of where I have founfd this for X and sold it for Y stories, none of whom benefit the original artist.

Take Frank Wilson. £15,000 11 years ago. He didn't see a penny. It gets released by motown. How many snubbed thier nose at it afterwards becasue it had been 'released'.

Alos, cover ups have never benefitted an artist. Perhaps The Construction (Del Capris) is the best example. Grapevine released it under it's cover up artists name rather than reveal the true artist. Is that really being supportive of the artist? How many DJ's hate the identity of records being known?

So, it is a philisohical question, are we hypocites?

Personally. I think we all are to a degree (not a criticism, it just is what it is), but you know, so are art collectors. Artworks that change hands for millions today, where worthless when the artist was alive. So maybe Northern Soul is a form of art?

I don't wish to offend anyone, it is just food for thought as they say.

Merry xmas!

[kathdj]

Well I have got lots of vinyl that I bought in the 60's . . . . . and lots of CDs (shock horror) because I chose to spend my cash on paying my mortgage and helping my daughter through uni. I wanted to listen to the music not 'own' it. So if I'm DJing and people would rather not listen to a great tune because it's not on plastic then perhaps they would care to leave the room. Or if they're bothered, I'll hold up the original scratchy 7" so they can look at it while I play the CD.

Yes I still buy vinyl but it's not an obsession.

It's a bit like cars . . . you could buy an aston martin . . . or you could just buy a car, go on the bus or by bike. Which makes you the better person?

(The answer is none of them, by the way!)

[Dave Rimmer]

I agree with most of what you say, but the converse side of it is, without the Northern scene, none of the artists would have benefitted anyway from the reissues and live performances that they have benefitted from over the last twenty years.

Certainly I have seen many more live acts because of the Northern scene than I would have if it didn't exist, so those artists all benefitted. I've bought hundreds of CDs, so the artists benefitted from those (assuming the company paid what was owed, and assuming of course that the artists actually still own any of the track, bearing in mind that many of the records that were made were sold at the time as one offs to less than reputable record company owners)

So, whilst I happily pay lots of money for a single which doesn't benefit the artist at all, I also like to think that without people like me, a lot of artists would be unrecognised and unknown. I know that the artists I've spoken to are a lot more impressed with the recognition they receive now, in this country, than the cash they received when their records were made !

[Soulsmith]

No scene is pefect. Northern Soul is far from it.

If you are go looking for problems/issues that is what you will find.

[Guest Bearsy]

I agree with most of what you say, but the converse side of it is, without the Northern scene, none of the artists would have benefitted anyway from the reissues and live performances that they have benefitted from over the last twenty years.

Certainly I have seen many more live acts because of the Northern scene than I would have if it didn't exist, so those artists all benefitted. I've bought hundreds of CDs, so the artists benefitted from those (assuming the company paid what was owed, and assuming of course that the artists actually still own any of the track, bearing in mind that many of the records that were made were sold at the time as one offs to less than reputable record company owners)

So, whilst I happily pay lots of money for a single which doesn't benefit the artist at all, I also like to think that without people like me, a lot of artists would be unrecognised and unknown. I know that the artists I've spoken to are a lot more impressed with the recognition they receive now, in this country, than the cash they received when their records were made !

nicely put Dave

[Jim G]

As I said 'it is a philisophical question'

I love the whole scene, warts and all (most of it has always been great!)

Edited December 14, 2007 by jim g

[Zed1]

It's a bit like cars . .

Perfect Analogy!...

People buy Classic 60's/70's cars because they are 'different' or an alternative to the boring Euroboxes of today, these old cars were not that well made or produced, but had a 'Soul' which you perhaps can't find in the average Beemer or Mundano of today.

Also these cars now fetch tens of £K's more than they did when new but non of this money now goes to the original manufacturer, indeed many are no longer with us!!........ sadly, and just for good measure after spending all this money on their 60's classic they then proceed to stick it in a heated garage and never use it!!!........

Any of the above sound familier??...

I keep my Vinyl in the garage....... next to my MG!!...

Edited December 14, 2007 by Teapot

[kathdj]

. . . .actually do wish I had put the Austin Healey Sprite in a heated garage in 1978. Oh the hypocrisy of northern cars!!

[Guest Simon]

There's no exscuses not to play original vinyl imo, you can't blame the prices because you can still buy thousands of brilliant records on original vinyl for less than a price of a CD.

The only people who use this argument are those that are too lazy to get out there & hunt for the things or take the time to learn the knowledge of the scene, i refuse to be brought down to this level, if you think it's ok to play CD's i've got news for you, get out there hunting & go & earn your stripes!

Simon

[Peter99]

Hypocrisy? Perhaps a little maybe.

I think this is far out weighed by the passion that people have for the music and those mainly unsung and unrecognised artists that have brought us the music we love. Most of whom would have lived their lives and passed away without any recognition for their work. There's a genuine love of these people - I would say affection, but I believe it goes way beyond that, and the music they have brought us. I feel privelidged to be a tiny part of this music scene - and a certain affinity with many of these people. I know the majority of NS people share this. It's not a one sided love affair either - just look at the many artists who have been tracked down in the states over the years. Many had no idea of the passion that existed for their music - many had been forced out of the industry due to little or no success. I don't know of many of these artists who have been unhappy at discovering just how much we value their often small, but not insignificant, contribution.

I may have missed the point - but I like many others have enjoyed the special relationship I feel that I have had with these unsung heroes. It has brought me much pleasure over the years - and I know that is shared by a great number of the artists too.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Peter99

[Barry]

You can't run down 30 years in realtime and say that an object, just as it sells down the line for 15k or whatever, should benefit the artist - at the end of the day, shouldn't your argument be aimed at the label getting the money, they were the ones that put their cash on the table - the lad singing was paid for opening his gob?

I feel a lot of these posts re 'Artists' getting some come back are quoted out of good feeling and not how people actually live their record buying life.

Never bought a ten bob pressing?

[Chalky]

Whats the buying of (in the vast majority of cases) failed and second hand records got to do with royalties? If some are that concerned about royalites maybe everytime they purchase a record they should donate 4 or 5% of what they paid to the artist if they can be traced or to the artist benevolent fund or whatever it is the recording industry has. I wonder how many would do this

As for cover ups. How many time are we gonna argue this one? If the DJ had gone to the trouble to seek out these records in the first place then I doubt they would get heard and even when they are uncovered (they don't stay covered for ever) I doubrt it will benifit the artist at all as more often than not these days they the record is very obscure. Besides the DJ hwo made the effort to find these records is entitled IMHO to a bit of exclusivity whilst everyone else (if it's good enough) works out what it is and finds a copy.

There are ways to try and do your bit if you are that concerned, buy the cds that companys like Kent etc produce, don't support the bootleggers and support the artists when they make a visit over here.

you will find that most of the hypocrites are those that do the preaching!!!

[Sunnysoul]

This "morality" issue - about the original artists getting paid their dues - has been an ongoing source of debate throughout the history of the northern soul scene. But really, it's such a non-issue.

If we could all suddenly wave a magic wand , no doubt we would put millions instantly into the pockets of our soul heroes (after ouselves), but in the real world this is just not possible and such a suggestion is nothing more than an innocent, naive, idealistic whim on our part ...

The rare soul scene has done more for the people and the artists who brought us so much pleasure than most other scenes and cultures of any kind in recent history that I can think off.

The northern scene has nothing to apologise for ... to anyone.

Edited December 15, 2007 by sunnysoul

[Dave Thorley]

Over the years the links between the european soul scene and the artists in the U.S. have grown ever stronger, to a point where many of the collectors/dealers here can call artists in the U.S. friends. This has seen alot of the money paid for rare records going straight into the hands of the people that made the records. With the addition of re-licencing of tracks for CD's, this flow of funds has infact increased.

Nothing is ever perfect, but in the main, I think this scene has a better set of values than most.

In conversation with many artists in the U.S., they will tell you that they love the support that the european soul scene has shown them, at a time when most of the U.S. couldn't give a damn about them and the music that they have made.

Last night I was inconversation with a well known Detroit producer/artists and several people in the U.K. The people here have growing concerns about his health and lack of mental stimulous, so collectivly are planning to send him money to start a project to bring some un-released tracks he has out. But in reality this is more about showing him that we care and creating a project to keep him active, if the tracks eventually come out then that will be a bonus.

Yes the scene being dancefloor driven and supply and demand feed has driven up record values far beyond their material value, but this in a strange way has also benifited the artists in the U.S., fueling a demand that has lasted for more than 30 years and longer than any other music scene I can think of.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Dave Thorley

[Barry]

Three very valid responses.

Agreed?

[Guest James Trouble]

Artists are like the builders of houses, unless they produced, owned the label etc themself. If the price of a house is many, many times what the original house was worth when it was built, do we feel sorry for the builders who built a house 20 or 30 years ago and donate some of the price that the house is sold for today to the original builder? Of course not.

Like Dave said, some of the artists are really nice people, and appreciate the fact that people all over the world still love their music. But some fo the artists are a right bunch of cants. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but I can can think of a few examples, most recently that Eilijah Cole wally who has been tryingto rip off the scene for over a year now. If you want to support him, go and buy his unreleased 70s thing, which is better than Gold Of My Life IMO. But the guys a right cant. I know tow or three artists I've spoken to /emailed who are not nice people.

But then you hear of artists who have been robbed by people like Dante Carfagne who go around the states pretending to be the artists friend, promising them European tours but they will need that box of 50 mint record they have in their loft as 'promotional material'. Of course, he goes on to rip off collectors as well as the original artists.

And then there are the genuinly nice people, like James Bell. Who's a diamond. He offered me a 16 Corners many years ago which I turned down because I knew I wouldn't give him what was market value at the time. But would I ever think of donating money to him for copies of his records I have bought and sold over the years? Of course not.

I did an interview with James Bell, must have been 7 or 8 years ago now which gives an interesting perspective on things, as this romantic idea of a poor, oppressed black person from the ghetto who was ripped off by rich white people who owned record labels is not always the case, here's an extract from it that some on this thread might find relevent, especially the part about the cover ups:

>JT: So tell me Mr. Bell, what do you think of all these compilation records that are out?

>JB: I have not thought about it. It depends on the people who buy the album. Normally you get one or two songs on them that you night like.

>Malcom Cato: What if you came over to play in England, and you saw a compilation, that had sixteen corners on it, and you had not given your permission?

>JB: Without my permission, I would not like it at all.

>MC: But what about the exposure that it could give you?

>JB: No one has a right the right to take, borrow or steal something that belongs to another person. Under any circumstances.

>Gerald: What if you walk down the street, and you find something, say an old record. But you can not find who it belongs to?

>JB: It is not yours, and it would have some kind of identification on it.

>JT: But what about a record, say Egg Roll, which is a very famous record over here. Keb Darge found it, but is is on a dub plate from Virtue studios, but we do not know yet who the band is. Should that be put on a compilation?

>MC: Also in a way, if these compilations had not been put out maybe we would not have come out looking for you in Indianapolis. You know? Lets get the music spread.

>JB: Like I said, there is always a way. But if all possible ways have been explored of finding the person, then you have the right to use what you have found. What ever identifying marks are on that record, you go as far as you possibly can. After you have exhorsted every possible way, then it is yours.

>JT: So if you do not have the resources to find these people, should the record not be put out?

>JB: For me, it should not be put out.

>Malcom Cato: What about if say, your sixteen corners which is very rare. There are like a couple of copies in good enough condition to play out. What if the DJ who had one of these copies covers it up. Covers the label so that no one else can see who the band is. To keep it as a secret, so it is unique to that DJ.

>JB: If it is his record he can do what he wants with it.

>JT: But if sixteen corners had been covered up, then no one would have known about you, and it would not have been a big hit again.

>JB: No I do not think that is wrong. What I believe is that you will get what is coming to you in life. If it meant for you to get more money then you will get it. I made plenty money off of Sixteen Corners when it first came out. I was satisfied. I was completely satisfied, you know. This what is happening now is a plus. Funky Sixteen Corners, has already done for me, what I wanted it to do. I was satisfied. After you are satisfied, anything else is just added onto that satisfaction. Like if I buy my wife a fur coat, she is very happy with the fur coat. It has been her life's dream. Now she has her fur coat, I mean the next year I may buy her a fur hat. She likes it, that is an added plus to her fur coat. I am alot different to other people, okay. I do not depend on other people to satisfy me. I am my own worse critic. Once I satisfy myself everything is fine. I was completely satisfied with funky sixteen corners. Completely. Myself personally, and that is all I want out of life. Is to be satisfied with me.

>MC: I would say though that you were lucky that Keb found your record though.

>JB: Yeah, but that is a plus! I am even more satisfied. However it will never reach the level of satisfaction that I obtained from creating it in the first place. Nothing will happen now that will make me more pleased with myself.

>JT: I find it interesting that you made alot of money. Because alot of people over here seem to think that all the artists back then were these poor hard done by, oppressed black people. Unable to make it in the white music industry.

>JB: This view point is my view point, because I do not seek my satisfaction from the outside. I seek it from within. If I create something , but firstly I want you to know that I have never been poor. I have never been rich, but never poor. Okay, so me creating Funky Sixteen Corners was not an avenue to getting paid, it was an avenue for me to express myself. And once that has happened, I am happy.

>JT: I find it surprising that the record was bigger back then than it is now. You have said you had commercial success, how many copies were pressed, because it is now so rare to find?

>JB: Because things are alot different in the United States than they are here in London. You say Funky Sixteen Corners is rare, but so are turn tables, and those middles to go in a seven inch. You can not buy those any more in the States. No one keeps old records. They throw them away, apart from collectors.

>JT: Can you remember how many copies of Sixteen Corners you pressed up?

>JB: A little over three thousand. Three orders of 1000 copies each. And then there was still the demand from the whole saler. And he called me and he needed some more. That I am sure of. Any after that I can not remember, it has been 31 years now! Popping Popcorn I did 1000 and a few more over that, but then Rojam did a load more that I did not know about. That is what the 3 diamonds on Sixteen Corners was about. COs you see, if you get me once that is you problem, but if you get me twice that is my problem. You understand?

>JT: Yeah, and overall that is a lot of copies.

>JB: See, the thing is WTLC, the radio station they rated their records every week. As to what was number one, down to 40 I think. The Funky Sixteen Corners was being played, and Popping Popcorn, against tunes like James Brown, Dyke and the Blazers, Wilson Picket, at the same time. Popping Popcorn made number one, locally. Locally it made number one, but it was up against the national competition. The listeners ordered it so much, it sold more records than what James Brown, Wilson Picket and all that sold. And trying to get chosen made number 7 and Sixteen Corners number 2.

>JT: Did you sell your records nation wide?

>JB: No.

>JT: Why, when you were achieving such local success?

>JB: First of all, there were no major labels in the Indianapolis area. Second thing is lack of knowledge. We did not know how to get a record distributed at the time. And we were playing all the time you know. We did not get out and go to say Chess Records, Atlantic trying to publish our product.

Edited December 15, 2007 by James Trouble

[Guest Matt Male]

Interesting thread. I think i understand what Jim is getting at. In lots of cases soul music becomes objectified in the form of the 45 and the rarity of the label and the issue becomes more important than the music and the skill of the artist. This is true for those of us who collect labels, or particular artists i reckon. I've 'bought blind' many times a particular label or artist with no idea what the 45 sounds like. I've got a fair idea because i've heard similar, but this is definately a case of the little circle of plastic being bought rather than the recording.

I'm 100% originals only but i can see that the search and playing of originals lends more significance to the object (the 45) rather than the sound. If it was recording quality and sound alone we'd all be playing CDs surely?

As for artists losing out, Dave was spot on, most of these artists would have vanished into obscurity if there was no rare soul scene after recording their one or two tracks in some cases but as it is their music lives on for thousands of us. The money aside that's the greatest testement to their skill. Chalky is also right, once a product is made and sold it ceases to be the property of the producer, otherwise we'd all be paying royalties to the builders of the houses that we own and i'd be getting royalties for all the Jaguars i helped build in the 1980s

[Steve G]

Many of the artists never got paid when they recorded the records, others got paid a notional fee for cutting a track but nothing from the sales. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but it really is time we stopped looking at this with rose tinted glasses - the music biz has always had more than it's fair share of opportunists and rip off merchants. I've met some great guys - like George Jackson for example who didn't himself have many of the sides he recorded....but also many nasty people or hustlers. Another lovely guy was Emmanuel Lasky who was living in poverty in Detroit - he'd missed out on getting paid time and time again, but his records sell for money but at the end of the day, that's life I am afraid. I know labels like Kent and Grapevine pay royalties and that obviously helps, but to suggest that we should be guilty for paying large sums for rare records and not passing something onto the artist is a hopelessly naive view.

[Sunnysoul]

Artists are like the builders of houses, unless they produced, owned the label etc themself. If the price of a house is many, many times what the original house was worth when it was built, do we feel sorry for the builders who built a house 20 or 30 years ago and donate some of the price that the house is sold for today to the original builder? Of course not.

Like Dave said, some of the artists are really nice people, and appreciate the fact that people all over the world still love their music. But some fo the artists are a right bunch of cants. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble here, but I can can think of a few examples, most recently that Eilijah Cole wally who has been tryingto rip off the scene for over a year now. If you want to support him, go and buy his unreleased 70s thing, which is better than Gold Of My Life IMO. But the guys a right cant. I know tow or three artists I've spoken to /emailed who are not nice people.

But then you hear of artists who have been robbed by people like Dante Carfagne who go around the states pretending to be the artists friend, promising them European tours but they will need that box of 50 mint record they have in their loft as 'promotional material'. Of course, he goes on to rip off collectors as well as the original artists.

And then there are the genuinly nice people, like James Bell. Who's a diamond. He offered me a 16 Corners many years ago which I turned down because I knew I wouldn't give him what was market value at the time. But would I ever think of donating money to him for copies of his records I have bought and sold over the years? Of course not.

I did an interview with James Bell, must have been 7 or 8 years ago now which gives an interesting perspective on things, as this romantic idea of a poor, oppressed black person from the ghetto who was ripped off by rich white people who owned record labels is not always the case, here's an extract from it that some on this thread might find relevent, especially the part about the cover ups:

>JT: So tell me Mr. Bell, what do you think of all these compilation records that are out?

>JB: I have not thought about it. It depends on the people who buy the album. Normally you get one or two songs on them that you night like.

>Malcom Cato: What if you came over to play in England, and you saw a compilation, that had sixteen corners on it, and you had not given your permission?

>JB: Without my permission, I would not like it at all.

>MC: But what about the exposure that it could give you?

>JB: No one has a right the right to take, borrow or steal something that belongs to another person. Under any circumstances.

>Gerald: What if you walk down the street, and you find something, say an old record. But you can not find who it belongs to?

>JB: It is not yours, and it would have some kind of identification on it.

>JT: But what about a record, say Egg Roll, which is a very famous record over here. Keb Darge found it, but is is on a dub plate from Virtue studios, but we do not know yet who the band is. Should that be put on a compilation?

>MC: Also in a way, if these compilations had not been put out maybe we would not have come out looking for you in Indianapolis. You know? Lets get the music spread.

>JB: Like I said, there is always a way. But if all possible ways have been explored of finding the person, then you have the right to use what you have found. What ever identifying marks are on that record, you go as far as you possibly can. After you have exhorsted every possible way, then it is yours.

>JT: So if you do not have the resources to find these people, should the record not be put out?

>JB: For me, it should not be put out.

>Malcom Cato: What about if say, your sixteen corners which is very rare. There are like a couple of copies in good enough condition to play out. What if the DJ who had one of these copies covers it up. Covers the label so that no one else can see who the band is. To keep it as a secret, so it is unique to that DJ.

>JB: If it is his record he can do what he wants with it.

>JT: But if sixteen corners had been covered up, then no one would have known about you, and it would not have been a big hit again.

>JB: No I do not think that is wrong. What I believe is that you will get what is coming to you in life. If it meant for you to get more money then you will get it. I made plenty money off of Sixteen Corners when it first came out. I was satisfied. I was completely satisfied, you know. This what is happening now is a plus. Funky Sixteen Corners, has already done for me, what I wanted it to do. I was satisfied. After you are satisfied, anything else is just added onto that satisfaction. Like if I buy my wife a fur coat, she is very happy with the fur coat. It has been her life's dream. Now she has her fur coat, I mean the next year I may buy her a fur hat. She likes it, that is an added plus to her fur coat. I am alot different to other people, okay. I do not depend on other people to satisfy me. I am my own worse critic. Once I satisfy myself everything is fine. I was completely satisfied with funky sixteen corners. Completely. Myself personally, and that is all I want out of life. Is to be satisfied with me.

>MC: I would say though that you were lucky that Keb found your record though.

>JB: Yeah, but that is a plus! I am even more satisfied. However it will never reach the level of satisfaction that I obtained from creating it in the first place. Nothing will happen now that will make me more pleased with myself.

>JT: I find it interesting that you made alot of money. Because alot of people over here seem to think that all the artists back then were these poor hard done by, oppressed black people. Unable to make it in the white music industry.

>JB: This view point is my view point, because I do not seek my satisfaction from the outside. I seek it from within. If I create something , but firstly I want you to know that I have never been poor. I have never been rich, but never poor. Okay, so me creating Funky Sixteen Corners was not an avenue to getting paid, it was an avenue for me to express myself. And once that has happened, I am happy.

>JT: I find it surprising that the record was bigger back then than it is now. You have said you had commercial success, how many copies were pressed, because it is now so rare to find?

>JB: Because things are alot different in the United States than they are here in London. You say Funky Sixteen Corners is rare, but so are turn tables, and those middles to go in a seven inch. You can not buy those any more in the States. No one keeps old records. They throw them away, apart from collectors.

>JT: Can you remember how many copies of Sixteen Corners you pressed up?

>JB: A little over three thousand. Three orders of 1000 copies each. And then there was still the demand from the whole saler. And he called me and he needed some more. That I am sure of. Any after that I can not remember, it has been 31 years now! Popping Popcorn I did 1000 and a few more over that, but then Rojam did a load more that I did not know about. That is what the 3 diamonds on Sixteen Corners was about. COs you see, if you get me once that is you problem, but if you get me twice that is my problem. You understand?

>JT: Yeah, and overall that is a lot of copies.

>JB: See, the thing is WTLC, the radio station they rated their records every week. As to what was number one, down to 40 I think. The Funky Sixteen Corners was being played, and Popping Popcorn, against tunes like James Brown, Dyke and the Blazers, Wilson Picket, at the same time. Popping Popcorn made number one, locally. Locally it made number one, but it was up against the national competition. The listeners ordered it so much, it sold more records than what James Brown, Wilson Picket and all that sold. And trying to get chosen made number 7 and Sixteen Corners number 2.

>JT: Did you sell your records nation wide?

>JB: No.

>JT: Why, when you were achieving such local success?

>JB: First of all, there were no major labels in the Indianapolis area. Second thing is lack of knowledge. We did not know how to get a record distributed at the time. And we were playing all the time you know. We did not get out and go to say Chess Records, Atlantic trying to publish our product.

The greatest soul singer who ever lived , David Ruffin , was a nasty piece of work by all accounts , but his recorded legacy - his music and art - is no less powerful or valid or pleasurable because of that.

And James Trouble is correct, let's stop this brow beating about the artists being rewarded for records that never sold a jot.

By all means we should all do what we can , and those like Ady and Kent Records should be applauded for their efforts.

But one has always had the feeling that all those people who constantly moan about a few others who have made a little profit out of the soul scene and its artists is just an excuse for their own jealousy and regret that they were neither resourceful nor smart enough to achieve what those others did. Which is why the Levines, Roberts , Manships , Winstanleys and others are constantly demonised by certain sections of the soul scene.

When all is said and done, the reality is that no more than a handful of people in the 40 years of the scene have ever made even a little money out of it all.

Similarly with the high prices being paid for records. If someone has worked and achieved wealth in life and they want to pay 1000 pounds for a record that otherwise sells for only 200 pounds, then good luck to them ! It's not silly at all ! It's their hard earned cash and they can do what they want with it ! And good luck to them . They certainly don't owe a moral responsibility to other financially struggling collectors to keep prices down !!!!!

Edited December 15, 2007 by sunnysoul

[Steve G]

Which is why the Levines, Roberts , Manships , Winstanleys and others are constantly demonised by certain sections of the soul scene.

Just want to pull you up on this one point - I have nothing against people making money - just don't rate the way certain people do it. But the four people you have listed are very different. Ian is Ian and has views on the future of the scene that I strongly disagree with - though I can hold a conversation with him. Roberts and Manship are succesful businessmen - good luck to them, they've worked hard ploughing their furrow - especially John. Obviously Kev Roberts is a controversial figure - and to be blunt I don't really know him. Russ meanwhile is a former "top DJ" who is well past his sell by date and who has traded off of his WIgan status for far too long.

And Yes David Ruffin was a nasty piece of work - rumours over his treatment of Tammi Terrell continue to crop up from time to time and as they say there's no smoke without fire.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Steve G

[FrankM]

Take Frank Wilson. £15,000 11 years ago. He didn't see a penny.

Frank Wilson was a Jobete songwriter and a Motown producer. I don't think he's skint and I'm sure he took more money home from Motown than most of their non song writing artists. As for taking money from Kenny Burrell I understand Frank offered hiim a larger sum of money for his single.

[Guest ZA9]

Here's the thing. I have loved the music and the scene for 37 years, been to most of the great venues and loved every minute of it.

But, there is a strange hyprocisy (or irony?) to the whole scene. We all have our favourite singers, record, label etc. Some people have made good livings from the scene. But what about the artists who recorded the music, how have they benefitted? Yes, there has been many compilation albums, live acts etc. who received royalties but, in reality, they are the few. Indeed the purist Northern Collector wouldn't been see dead with a legal re-issue in their collection and quite happily pay £thousands in some cases for elusive originals. And therein, lies the rub. Are we really soul fans, or fans because we have what no-one else gets, or can afford to buy, that has no benefit to the artist. Just look at the 'In Your Box' section, full of where I have founfd this for X and sold it for Y stories, none of whom benefit the original artist.

Take Frank Wilson. £15,000 11 years ago. He didn't see a penny. It gets released by motown. How many snubbed thier nose at it afterwards becasue it had been 'released'.

Alos, cover ups have never benefitted an artist. Perhaps The Construction (Del Capris) is the best example. Grapevine released it under it's cover up artists name rather than reveal the true artist. Is that really being supportive of the artist? How many DJ's hate the identity of records being known?

So, it is a philisohical question, are we hypocites?

Personally. I think we all are to a degree (not a criticism, it just is what it is), but you know, so are art collectors. Artworks that change hands for millions today, where worthless when the artist was alive. So maybe Northern Soul is a form of art?

I don't wish to offend anyone, it is just food for thought as they say.

Merry xmas!

You're absolutely right! That's one of the primary reasons that the Rhythm and Blues Foundation was begun in the U.S.; to help down and out R and B and Soul artists who have never seen the royalties due to them. Many are living on welfare (on the dole), some are elderly and ill and having a difficult time taking care of themselves. And that's the more well known artists; imagine what it might be like for Northern Soul artists, many of whom were "one hit wonders" and didn't achieve the fame they sought during their youth at the beginning of their careers, because they couldn't compete with the artists at Motown or Stax and other, bigger labels. There should be a way to get royalties to these artists, especially the ones who can't perform live anymore (age, ill health, can't get to the various soul weekenders because the costs of flying to the U.K. are too prohibitive for them, etc.). Suggestions, anyone?

[Guest Netspeaky]

The artists who recorded just one or two tracks, could have gone on to big and better things in his/her life, for all we know, it may have just been something they did as a kid for a bit of fun and wasn't a career for them in the first place. I know plenty of artists who just work weekends doing the clubs because they enjoy DOING it, and they sell their recorded material, but they class it as a hobby not a job.

[Spacehopper]

lots of good points and the northern scene is no more hypocritcal than any other...it reminds me of back in the late 80s while djing reggae in norwich trying to get people into the real deal and all they asked for was ub40..it was the time of the labour of love lp of covers.....i knew that the original artists got sod all at the time of recording and thought the same was probably true now....much later i found out that a lot of their careers had restarted since that lp and the later trojan reissues of those trax ub40 covered and are now better off than theyve ever been with concerts world wide not just in the uk and all most all were thankful to ub40 for that.....ok ub40s versions were still s*** but people did start lookin to the originals as i had done when i heard two tone etc years earlier

as far as originals /reissues...i play both depending on the gig...i cant afford some of the top 500 on original but at a scooter rally for xample they wanna here it and dont give a s*** what format its on.....if i do a soul gig i can play all originals...a lot of semi knowns which are not worth as much but still great dancers.....and what if there wasnt bootlegs/re issues back in the 70s/80s when we were not so wealthy and no internet and dealers everywhere...would the scene had grown ??....or kept going im not so sure...before the days of downloading and cds bootlegs were all that was available for some...those have either got out of the scene or have replaced them with originals as a lot who buy boots now will hopefully do in years to come

[Steve G]

You're absolutely right! That's one of the primary reasons that the Rhythm and Blues Foundation was begun in the U.S.;

Are these the guys that were emailing Tim Brown asking for money? - I seem to recall reading about it in Manifesto a few months ago

I understand the ethical side of it - artist in poverty has given great pleasure to a generation of people in far off lands etc....but the whole area is fraught with problems. If a singer got paid $40 for laying down a track, they got paid, end of. They can't come back now just because that side attracts large money and say, "Oi I only got paid $40, I am ill, in poverty and I want some more". What about writers, producers etc? Who is the writer anyway? Very often I've come across disputes over who actually wrote a song and whether "their name" was allowed to appear on the credits. What about groups, who get's paid, the one "cheeky enough" to enroll in R&F F? What about the others?

All these folks would have either been paid, or not paid at the time they made their music - and that's where the redress takes place, not in the resale market decades later.

Thing is the US record industry has always been corrupt and this just seems like another way or re-addressing something that's fundamentally broken and that the US itself won't deal with, and it always has been that way.

[Citizen P]

I See,

and how much did Van Gogh earn when he painted " Sunflowers"?,

how much does it go for now?

And who owes him the money?

Tony

[macca]

great thread, the james bell interview is very revealing. he does speak from a personal angle though, stressing that he himself wasn't poor. plenty of others, no dount, were, & the US, in the early 60's, wasn't exactly the land of milk & honey if you were black, I don't think any of us would deny that.

speaking of david ruffin, I think his brother jimmy was a bit of a kant too, don't you?

his disparaging remarks of the NS scene shouldn't have gone unchallended in TSWONS. cretin.

a lot of these artists were only as good as the enormous creative machine behind them, churning out stuff for them to record.

that's what separates the wheat from the chaff in my book. read marvin gaye & stevie wonder. frank sinatra & elvis presley were great interpreters but they neither wrote nor composed a jot.

Edited December 17, 2007 by macca

[macca]

I See,

and how much did Van Gogh earn when he painted " Sunflowers"?,

how much does it go for now?

And who owes him the money?

Tony

collecting rare works of art is one thing, but re-releasing recorded material is another,

being subject to intellectual property laws etc; don't think the analogy holds water.

[Jim G]

I started this thread as I believe to be a reaonabe question to ask. And stated it is a Philosophical Question, which is true, as there is almost no answer.

It is great to see so many different inputs so far and I have this discussion with felow NS fans and the dicussion goes on for hours!

One small point, the Frank Wilson example was used to illustrate a point, but for me, cover ups have always sat uncomfortably. If a record went uncovered for years (as some have), it denies the artist the oportunity to reap the rewards sometimes. If it was never covered up and officially re-issued at the peak of its popularity then the artist at least stood a chance of getting something. Dean Parrish got a decent royalty when 'I'm On My Way' hit the UK charts.

No doubt I will have this discussion again over xmas with fellow fans!

[Chalky]

One small point, the Frank Wilson example was used to illustrate a point, but for me, cover ups have always sat uncomfortably. If a record went uncovered for years (as some have), it denies the artist the oportunity to reap the rewards sometimes. If it was never covered up and officially re-issued at the peak of its popularity then the artist at least stood a chance of getting something. Dean Parrish got a decent royalty when 'I'm On My Way' hit the UK charts.

No doubt I will have this discussion again over xmas with fellow fans!

These days it rarely takes long for a record to get uncovered or known by other DJ's or collectors even if not uncovered. If it remains covered up for years it really is a rarity and the artist wouldn't benefit at all anyway. There's been plenty of cover ups that have come from the artist in the past

[Guest]

Whilst sitting here reading all these post's i am listening to my favourite compilation of songs I put together from over 100 CD's and thousands of MP3 I have aquired over time. Now I know that a lot of people on the scene like owning, listening and dancing to original 45s and hate the thought of DJs using Cds instead of Vinyl but as others have stated the cost of doing this can become silly . I for one love dancing to N/Soul music and really don't mind in how or with what it is played.

I think there was a thread not so long ago about bringing new young blood onto the scene to help keep it going when we are all on zimmer frames, well can you imagine being a newbie to the scene on your first soul night you get talking to a group of veterens and proudly tell them that you have bought some great N/Soul Cds to start your collection only for them to turn round and say to be a true soulie you have to buy vinyl .

I have been to a few soul nights where the first say 30-40 through the door gets a free CD I will bet that no one has ever refused one saying they would much prefer Vinyl.

When driving in your car, out jogging or at the gym do you refuse to listen to your favourite music because its on a disc or an MP3 on an ipod me thinks not .

If playing and owning vinyl is the be all and end all for you then great thats your choice, but please don't make it out that your not a true soulie if you have Cds instead of 45s.

On the theme of the singers getting royaltys this would only happen if they actually wrote the song, can you remember that 80s group Tight Fit they sang The Lion Sleeps Tonight it made its writer a millionare the actual singers got paid £200 each, thats the way the music buisness is unless you have a few hits you ain't going to make much dosh!

[macca]

The Lion Sleeps Tonight hides yet another white man screws black man story. The song was written in South Africa in 1939, with the author being given a one off payment & no royalties, surprise, surprise. Along comes the great musicologist Alan Lomax who 'picks the song up' on one of his field recording jaunts in Africa. The song is then flown back to the States & given to the blacklisted Commie group The Weavers. The lead singer of the Weavers, the now venerated, spoken of in hushed tones Pete Seeger, records his version of it & registers it under the name Campbell, the collective song-writing pseudonym for the Weavers. What a right on group there were!!

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight

Edited December 17, 2007 by macca

[Tomangoes]

Just watch the Temptations or the Funk Brothers movies if you want to see RIP OFF in action.

Northern Soul has given more credibility and real revenue to many artists who would have remained unknown without the 'so called chin strokers' who searched them out.

When you saw the look on the faces of some of the artists who 'got re-discovered' and told of their popularity in Europe, its plain to see overall they got something back.

Artists like Edwin Starr, RIP, were/are hero worshipped here compared to what they got out of the US.

My only wish is that more artists could have got to know about their fame. I think most would have guessed that when one of their records did'nt chart they would be mad to give up the day job and never expected to get rich.

Ed

[Steve G]

One small point, the Frank Wilson example was used to illustrate a point, but for me, cover ups have always sat uncomfortably. If a record went uncovered for years (as some have), it denies the artist the oportunity to reap the rewards sometimes. If it was never covered up and officially re-issued at the peak of its popularity then the artist at least stood a chance of getting something. Dean Parrish got a decent royalty when 'I'm On My Way' hit the UK charts.

No doubt I will have this discussion again over xmas with fellow fans!

Hi Jim

most artists don't have stock on their old records, they're long gone. I am struggling to think of a single artist that has suffered from "lost fame / sales etc" as a result of their work being covered ups in the last 10 years? As for Dean Parrish, nothing like that would hit the charts these days....I could see it happening in 1975, not now.

[Pete S]

The Lion Sleeps Tonight hides yet another white man screws black man story. The song was written in South Africa in 1939, with the author being given a one off payment & no royalties, surprise, surprise. Along comes the great musicologist Alan Lomax who 'picks the song up' on one of his field recording jaunts in Africa. The song is then flown back to the States & given to the blacklisted Commie group The Weavers. The lead singer of the Weavers, the now venerated, spoken of in hushed tones Pete Seeger. He records his version of it & registers it under the name Campbell, the collective song-writing pseudonym for the Weavers. What a right on group there were!!

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight

I don't think Lomax ever went to Africa.

[Peter99]

Just watch the Temptations or the Funk Brothers movies if you want to see RIP OFF in action.

Northern Soul has given more credibility and real revenue to many artists who would have remained unknown without the 'so called chin strokers' who searched them out.

When you saw the look on the faces of some of the artists who 'got re-discovered' and told of their popularity in Europe, its plain to see overall they got something back.

Artists like Edwin Starr, RIP, were/are hero worshipped here compared to what they got out of the US.

My only wish is that more artists could have got to know about their fame. I think most would have guessed that when one of their records did'nt chart they would be mad to give up the day job and never expected to get rich.

Ed

Very succintly put Ed. I agree entirely.

[macca]

I don't think Lomax ever went to Africa.

He certainly came to spain, which is a stone's throw. :-)

I'll have a white demo of this if you've got one in yer loft.

https://www.popsike.com/php/detaildata.php?...nr=160074911431

Edited December 17, 2007 by macca

[Jim G]

Hi Jim

most artists don't have stock on their old records, they're long gone. I am struggling to think of a single artist that has suffered from "lost fame / sales etc" as a result of their work being covered ups in the last 10 years? As for Dean Parrish, nothing like that would hit the charts these days....I could see it happening in 1975, not now.

I agree it is less relevent now. But in its' heyday...? Willie Hutch (c/u Richard Temple), is just one of many examples. But lets not make the dialogue one dimensional. How many soul fans didn't buy official releases cos they wanted the rare demo (Including me!). we could have helped artists even more then, maybe.

How many DJ's pay royalties on the records they play (like radio stations?)

Like I said, philisophical, cos we can all be geniuses with hindsight (including me)

[Tabs]

I don't think Lomax ever went to Africa.

Same here.

I know he made it to the Caribbean.

I thought he relied on others to provide the sounds from around the globe.

Can anyone confirm.

Cheers

[Guest Bearsy]

The Lion Sleeps Tonight hides yet another white man screws black man story. The song was written in South Africa in 1939, with the author being given a one off payment & no royalties, surprise, surprise. Along comes the great musicologist Alan Lomax who 'picks the song up' on one of his field recording jaunts in Africa. The song is then flown back to the States & given to the blacklisted Commie group The Weavers. The lead singer of the Weavers, the now venerated, spoken of in hushed tones Pete Seeger, records his version of it & registers it under the name Campbell, the collective song-writing pseudonym for the Weavers. What a right on group there were!!

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight

the lead singer of tight fit was born and bred in Gillingham apparently

[Tabs]

the lead singer of tight fit was born and bred in Gillingham apparently

Explains why it was so crap then.

[FrankM]

The Lion Sleeps Tonight hides yet another white man screws black man story. The song was written in South Africa in 1939, with the author being given a one off payment & no royalties, surprise, surprise. Along comes the great musicologist Alan Lomax who 'picks the song up' on one of his field recording jaunts in Africa. The song is then flown back to the States & given to the blacklisted Commie group The Weavers. The lead singer of the Weavers, the now venerated, spoken of in hushed tones Pete Seeger, records his version of it & registers it under the name Campbell, the collective song-writing pseudonym for the Weavers. What a right on group there were!!

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight

thank you Senator Joe McCarthy for naming everybody bar the black guy who wrote the song , Solomon Linda. One off payments were not uncommon and as the article you directed us to indicates the Weavers' publisher registered the song and credited The Weavers as arrangers. Like Alan Price registered himself as the arranger of the "Traditional" song The House of the Rising Sun and Paul Simon lifting Martin Carthy's arrangement of Angie and if you have the album you'll see the sole credit as Trad Ar. Simon.

You also missed out the names of the other songwriters who lifted the tune then again George Weiss, Luigi Creatore, and Hugo Peretti, may be connected to an Italian American cultural society so I understand your reticence.

as the article states

In July 2004 the song became the subject of a lawsuit between the family of its writer Solomon Linda and Disney. The suit claimed that Disney owed $1.6 million in royalties for the use of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" in the film and stage production of The Lion King. Meanwhile, publisher of The Weavers' "Wimoweh", TRO/Folkways, began to pay $3000 annually to Linda's heirs.

In February 2006 Linda's heirs reached a legal settlement for an undisclosed amount with Abilene Music, who held the worldwide rights and had licensed the song to Disney. This settlement applies to worldwide rights, not just South African, since 1987.

[FrankM]

How many DJ's pay royalties on the records they play (like radio stations?)

Only the ones who own the clubs they play in.

[Guest ZA9]

I started this thread as I believe to be a reaonabe question to ask. And stated it is a Philosophical Question, which is true, as there is almost no answer.

It is great to see so many different inputs so far and I have this discussion with felow NS fans and the dicussion goes on for hours!

One small point, the Frank Wilson example was used to illustrate a point, but for me, cover ups have always sat uncomfortably. If a record went uncovered for years (as some have), it denies the artist the oportunity to reap the rewards sometimes. If it was never covered up and officially re-issued at the peak of its popularity then the artist at least stood a chance of getting something. Dean Parrish got a decent royalty when 'I'm On My Way' hit the UK charts.

No doubt I will have this discussion again over xmas with fellow fans!

Thanks for starting this thread, though; it's raised a lot of important issues, relative to the artists who've become the "unsung heroes" of Northern Soul, and whether, if, or how they should be compensated, albeit late in life, for their work.

Sure, they were paid once for singing, and if they had been paid a fair price back in the day, that should be it. But they were ripped off even then, by unscrupulous labels (even Motown did that; see the documentary "Standing In The Shadows of Motown" about the Funk Brothers band which backed nearly all of the Motown singers on those hit records). Even if you argue that the artists were young and just kind of made a record on a lark, never really trying to become famous or intending to make singing a career, they should have gotten better treatment than they did. At least they shouldn't be homeless or poor, as some are. And whether all of them are nice people or not (i.e. David Ruffin and maybe James Bell in the "not" category), is beside the point; they should still get fair compensation, and not be somewhere starving, or drugged out or alcoholic.

In the States, there are laws that say whatever CDs or records are played on the radio, the artist is supposed to get some sort of percentage just for the airplay. If the CD or record is sold in a store, the artist is supposed to get a percentage of the sale; back in the days of vinyl 45s it was so many pennies per record sold (in U.S. currency; I don't know the equivalent in British currency). But most of the time the artists didn't know that; they had no attorneys, and often had unscrupulous managers who didn't advise them about the contracts they were signing. So the agents/business managers/ record labels were making more money from the records than they deserved, as opposed to the artists who did the singing! Moreover, if the artist also wrote his or her own material as well as performed it, he or she was entitled to writers' royalties. If they owned their own publishing rights, they were also protected by music publishing unions BMI and ASCAP.

But these protections didn't always help the artists because they didn't know their rights. When the Rhythm and Blues Foundation was begun in the States, they took record labels to court and were successful in recovering artists' royalties. A notable case was that of singer Ruth Brown (RIP, who originated the role of "Motormouth Maybelle" in the nonmusical version of the movie "Hairspray"). Ruth was a precursor to Aretha Franklin at Atlantic Records, when it was a new R & B label in the '50s. She sold so many records and made so much money for Atlantic that the label was nicknamed "The House that Ruth Built". Did she get anything out of it? Nope. When the Rhythm and Blues Foundation took up her case, she was cleaning houses for a living. Not by choice, I might add.

So Soulies don't have to feel guilty about buying rare soul 45s and 33s or whatever, but as a concrete act of support for our heroes, make a contribution, even a small one, to the Rhythm and Blues Foundation so they can help other artists get some money out of their work before they die. And given the fact that many Northern Soul heroes are in their late 60s and early 70s, they may not be around for long; one hopes they would, but look who's already passed: Edwin Starr, Little Ann, Ray Pollard, to name a few. The Rhythm and Blues Foundation has a web site, and it can be located it by a "Google-ing" search. I know that Northern Soul has helped, indeed rescued, a lot of artists and even revived their careers, but not everybody can make the trip to England, and not all the artists know how revered they are in your country. This would be one way of showing them how much you care. Thanks.

[Steve G]

So Soulies don't have to feel guilty about buying rare soul 45s and 33s or whatever, but as a concrete act of support for our heroes, make a contribution, even a small one, to the Rhythm and Blues Foundation so they can help other artists get some money out of their work before they die. And given the fact that many Northern Soul heroes are in their late 60s and early 70s, they may not be around for long; one hopes they would, but look who's already passed: Edwin Starr, Little Ann, Ray Pollard, to name a few. The Rhythm and Blues Foundation has a web site, and it can be located it by a "Google-ing" search. I know that Northern Soul has helped, indeed rescued, a lot of artists and even revived their careers, but not everybody can make the trip to England, and not all the artists know how revered they are in your country. This would be one way of showing them how much you care. Thanks.

OK fair enough if people want to make a donation. But I thought these dudes were emailing people who'd bought records off of ebay etc, asking for money. If I have read that wrong, then fine, I'd be delighted. I think everyone who knows anything about the music biz knows it has always attracted shall we say the "entrepreneurial spiv type" who is big on promises, but when it comes to paying "their" artists, short on greenbacks.

[Ged Parker]

I'm amazed it took so many posts on this thread before the subject of royalties for playing records ijn public came up. Paying artists on the second hand sale is a stupid concept, paying PRS and PPL fees is not. I'll be told I'm a hypocrite by someone who pays these fees not by anyone else thank you very much.

[Manfromsoul45s]

Theres a lot to consider when selling a record now then.

Ebay Fees

Paypal Fees

Royalty fees!!!

what next re run fees...

If we all recieved the financial recognition for everything we did we would all be millionaires..

well some anyway..

I think trying to make the soul scene sound like it has a consience is too little too late..

toooo deep.

[macca]

thank you Senator Joe McCarthy for naming everybody bar the black guy who wrote the song , Solomon Linda. One off payments were not uncommon and as the article you directed us to indicates the Weavers' publisher registered the song and credited The Weavers as arrangers. Like Alan Price registered himself as the arranger of the "Traditional" song The House of the Rising Sun and Paul Simon lifting Martin Carthy's arrangement of Angie and if you have the album you'll see the sole credit as Trad Ar. Simon.

You also missed out the names of the other songwriters who lifted the tune then again George Weiss, Luigi Creatore, and Hugo Peretti, may be connected to an Italian American cultural society so I understand your reticence.

as the article states

Senator Joe! Never been called that before. :-)

Not a commie hater, though there are others on here that just might qualify for that title. I didn't put all the information in the post, it was meant as a mere pointer to the link in question, which is why it said 'read more'. You speak of Alan Price, he got HOTRS from Bob Dylan, who'd got it from Dave Van Ronk, who'd probably got it from Clarence Ashley, Woody Guthrie or Leadbelly - all part of the folk process, no? I think Solomon Linda did get ripped off initially, though justice seems to have been done in more recent times, whta with out of court settlements & belated royalties etc;

M

Edited December 18, 2007 by macca

[Guest TONY ROUNCE]

Neither John Lomax, Sr., nor his son Alan did any field recording in Africa. They do deserve our undying respect for finding blues artists of the calibre of Muddy Waters, Bukka White and Leadbelly - to name just a few. John, sr., was not above adding his name to a song or two, but then again so were lots of far less scrupulous R & B record men in the 1940s and 1950s. But to my knowledge, Lomax never put his name on a song instead of the actual writer.

The story of "Mbube"/"Wimoweh" is fascinating and the film "The Lion's Trail" - which details Solomon Linda's family's successful attempts to claw back at least some royalties for the song - makes for a compelling watch.

Let's please not pillory Pete Seeger, a man of exemplary principle and a man whose own career was often stalled by the fact that he always stood up for what he believed in. It's my understanding that he truly believed "Mbube" was traditional. The people who really earned mercilessly and immorally off the tune were Hugo and Luigi, and George David Weiss. The latter genuinely believes t this day that it was his verse for "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" that made the song a 'hit' and that he deserved to earn all his royalties for it. Not that he would have been short of a few bob without them - he's co-written loads of 60s classics, from "Can't Help Falling In Love" to "Stay With Me (Baby)"...

The original "Mbube" is an incredible listening experience, BTW. It's available on a great CD called "Township Jazz and Jive" on Nascente, along with a lot of other great 40s and 50s sides from black South African artists.

[Guest]

the lead singer of tight fit was born and bred in Gillingham apparently

Born and inbred surely?

Derek