Guest Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Just listened to Tim Ashibende on Soulguy radio doing a Wigan special, he played a Jamie recording "Hey Girl" by Peter Hamilton Generation (new to me), i was horrified to hear this as the backing track to IL's record, i remember congratulating him on getting the 60's sound and he was proud to say how he managed to get it without all the usual synthesised drums and instruments characteristic of his recordings, i had not been a fan of his until that time and this track put my faith in him !, that is totally destroyed now, this is a complete rip-off of a pure 60's recording that he claims to be his own making.
Pete S Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Just listened to Tim Ashibende on Soulguy radio doing a Wigan special, he played a Jamie recording "Hey Girl" by Peter Hamilton Generation (new to me), i was horrified to hear this as the backing track to IL's record, i remember congratulating him on getting the 60's sound and he was proud to say how he managed to get it without all the usual synthesised drums and instruments characteristic of his recordings, i had not been a fan of his until that time and this track put my faith in him !, that is totally destroyed now, this is a complete rip-off of a pure 60's recording that he claims to be his own making. He never claimed to have done it himself at all, it took one listen to know what the original source was, he just took the Hey Girl instrumental, chooped it up, put it back into a different order and made a new track out of an old one. Genius.
Benji Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 He never claimed to have done it himself at all, it took one listen to know what the original source was, he just took the Hey Girl instrumental, chooped it up, put it back into a different order and made a new track out of an old one. Genius. With all the time, work and money IL put into it I wish he would have chosen a different singer, she's awful.
Sebastian Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 This is what Ian Levine wrote about the tune in a late 2001 "rarest of the rare" article in Togetherness Magazine. 4 - VENICIA WILSON - THIS TIME I'M LOVING YOU - TOP-TOP - 1-007 This is my biggest floorfiller of the moment, and the record I paid the most for in my whole life. Probably white I'd guess, but almost up to Sandi Sheldon standard for pure Northern Soul, this is the kind of discovery people thought we'd never ever turn up again, and yet, larger than life, here it is. It's basically a female version of an awful pop record on Jamie by Peter Hamilton called "Hey Girl". The lyrics are similar but different in places, the backing track is similar but different in places, and whereas the gimmick on the Peter Hamilton version is that it keeps jumping up a key, doing it four times through the song, this one doesn't, and only modulates once after the big instrumental in the middle. It's got the kitchen sink thrown in... huge strings, big brass, and the most stomping sixties beatsince Nancy Sinatra made "These Boots Are Made For Walking". So while not truly an actual soul record, in fact the song is a bit like "Downtown", it's easily the BIGGEST Wigan Casino stomper that NEVER was. Despite that I love it to bits. It reigns supreme, and everyone wants it, even dyed-in-the-wool old Pete Smith. 1
Guest Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 He never claimed to have done it himself at all, it took one listen to know what the original source was, he just took the Hey Girl instrumental, chooped it up, put it back into a different order and made a new track out of an old one. Genius. In agreement with you Pete - He made a good record out of a bad one ........ Malc Burton
Guest Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) this is a complete rip-off of a pure 60's recording that he claims to be his own making. I want this lie retracting. As Sebastian proved above, I never claimed anything of the sort. It was done as an experiment back in 2000. But neither is it just any one pure 1960s recording - it's an amalgamation of all sorts of things and samples and different bits, making an end product so complex that it would tie a musicologist in knots. If you play Venicia Wilson side by side with the Jamie record, you will see it's enormously different. It's in a different key, at a different speed, with an entirely different structure. It's like playing Frank Popp's "Breakaway" and claiming the entire record is the Soul Communicators - it's simply not. Your entire post displays an embarrassing lack of knowledge of recording and song structure. Plus I neevr claimed there weren't elements of one used in the other, but it most certainly is not the same, and the drums are not the same either. Thee are elements of The Four Vandals which are also used in Venicia Wilson. Why don't you try thinking first before spewing forth falsehoods. Edited January 4, 2009 by Ian Levine
Guest Matt Male Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 In agreement with you Pete - He made a good record out of a bad one ........ Malc Burton A bad one out of a bad one more like. Quite an achievement They are both shocking rubbish. I like the bits with the elephants trumpeting half way through though.
Pete S Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 A bad one out of a bad one more like. Quite an achievement They are both shocking rubbish. I like the bits with the elephants trumpeting half way through though. I like both of them, in fact I love both of them, I'm constantly getting outbid on the Peter Hamilton 45 and the Venecia Wilson record will always be a part of my small collection, it's one of the best records ever made.
Guest Matt Male Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I like both of them, in fact I love both of them, I'm constantly getting outbid on the Peter Hamilton 45 and the Venecia Wilson record will always be a part of my small collection, it's one of the best records ever made. I knew you liked them Pete, i was waiting for you to say something. Just don't like either at all, matter of personal taste i suppose and nothing to do with IL either, since i love Wrong Side of Town.
Pete S Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I knew you liked them Pete, i was waiting for you to say something. Just don't like either at all, matter of personal taste i suppose and nothing to do with IL either, since i love Wrong Side of Town. I don't like Wrong Side Of Town so that equals it out
Guest Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I knew you liked them Pete, i was waiting for you to say something. Just don't like either at all, matter of personal taste i suppose and nothing to do with IL either, since i love Wrong Side of Town. I like both.....
Soul Shrews Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 He never claimed to have done it himself at all, it took one listen to know what the original source was, he just took the Hey Girl instrumental, chooped it up, put it back into a different order and made a new track out of an old one. Genius. This is what Ian Levine wrote about the tune in a late 2001 "rarest of the rare" article in Togetherness Magazine. 4 - VENICIA WILSON - THIS TIME I'M LOVING YOU - TOP-TOP - 1-007 This is my biggest floorfiller of the moment, and the record I paid the most for in my whole life. Probably white I'd guess, but almost up to Sandi Sheldon standard for pure Northern Soul, this is the kind of discovery people thought we'd never ever turn up again, and yet, larger than life, here it is. Sorry I'm totally lost here now ..................................... is it a "60s discovery" or an Ian Levine production ? And can we have a listen please Cheers Paul
De-to Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 heres the youtube link hope its the one, https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gM7o4X67NwI
Pete S Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Sorry I'm totally lost here now ..................................... is it a "60s discovery" or an Ian Levine production ? And can we have a listen please Cheers Paul The original must be from about 1965 and it was chopped up and reinvented by Ian in 2000 using mainly the 60's original backing track
De-to Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 The original must be from about 1965 and it was chopped up and reinvented by Ian in 2000 using mainly the 60's original backing trackid also like to hear the original version some kind soul sourcer post it up,please,
Tabs Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Already in Refosoul. id also like to hear the original version some kind soul sourcer post it up,please,
De-to Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Already in Refosoul.tabs,i must be losing the plot coz i cant find the binking thing,
Soul Shrews Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 The original must be from about 1965 and it was chopped up and reinvented by Ian in 2000 using mainly the 60's original backing track Thanks Pete Still don't understand the "Togetherness" quote tho Cheers Paul
Guest bazrico Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I like both..... so do i if it floats your boat then fine whether 60ts 70 80 90 2000 0r even 2100 let the music play
Benji Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Thanks Pete Still don't understand the "Togetherness" quote tho Cheers Paul When IL did the "Togetherness" article he tried to pass off Venicia Wilson as an authentic 60s recording, hence quotes like "the record I paid the most for in my whole life."
Guest bazrico Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 When IL did the "Togetherness" article he tried to pass off Venicia Wilson as an authentic 60s recording, hence quotes like "the record I paid the most for in my whole life." the four vandals wrong side of town was passed off authentic 60ts recording as well however still a good record
Soul Shrews Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 heres the youtube link hope its the one, https://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gM7o4X67NwI Thanks de-to Cheers Paul
Guest Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) When IL did the "Togetherness" article he tried to pass off Venicia Wilson as an authentic 60s recording, hence quotes like "the record I paid the most for in my whole life." Yes, well if I'd said "I knocked this one together last year", I don't think it would have had quite the same effect, do you ???? Anyway, it was nine years ago. Bit pointless quibbling about it now. Edited January 4, 2009 by Ian Levine
Guest Paul Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 At the risk of being struck by lightning, I think it's a great track. And I can understand why Ian marketed it the way he did. He wanted unbiased reactions. It's odd that it's okay to like something until you find out about its origins. It's a good job hip-hop, rap and R&B fans don't have the same attitude every time they realise their favourite new track uses elements of an old track... "Oh I really liked the new Kanye West track until I realised it uses a loop from an old Phillip Mitchell track. I guess I'll have to put it in the bin now." Just enjoy it. Best regards, Paul
Guest Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) At the risk of being struck by lightning, I think it's a great track. And I can understand why Ian marketed it the way he did. He wanted unbiased reactions. It's odd that it's okay to like something until you find out about its origins. It's a good job hip-hop, rap and R&B fans don't have the same attitude every time they realise their favourite new track uses elements of an old track... "Oh I really liked the new Kanye West track until I realised it uses a loop from an old Phillip Mitchell track. I guess I'll have to put it in the bin now." Just enjoy it. Best regards, Paul The best and fairest and most cuttingly accurate post EVER MADE on Soul Source. Says it all - nothing more I can add. Apart from commenting that this post shows up the hypocrisy of the original poster. Edited January 5, 2009 by Ian Levine
Guest Soulfood33 Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 The best and fairest and most cuttingly accurate post EVER MADE on Soul Source. Says it all - nothing more I can add. Apart from commenting that this post shows up the hypocrisy of the original poster. Here's another accurate quote. You lied about The Four Vandals, You lied about the Jeanne and The Vallamonts and you lied about David Rhodes on Chi-City. All of which you tried to pass-off as originals and others too. Marketing ploy will be your excuse in 2009. but 10 years ago very nice, honest hard-working collectors trusted you and lost huge amounts of money on worthless 45s you said were original finds. Good people like Mike Holdsworth, Alan Pollard and many others decent guys don't deserve to be ripped of with Four Vandals 45s rubbed on carpets with fag burns on the flipside and auctioned on e-bay. And listen to bulshit of the only known copy was broke on a bus from the Mecca or some other fantasy to made up for he con. Then you have the balls to follow it up with Viencia Wilson bullshit. Pretty disgraceful behaviour in my opinion and i'm amazed Mike Holdsworth didn't didn't follow it through with fraud proceedings.. perhaps you can show these people a little respect and say sorry to those who invested money on your word of authenticity...which of course waas a lie!
Sebastian Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 I neevr claimed there weren't elements of one used in the other, Just out of interest, who is credited as the songwriter(s) on the Venicia Wilson track? Are the original songwriters Howard Bogess and Fred Bauer recieving any royalty payments for your restructured version?
Benji Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Think you guys just opened Pandora's box I'll get me soft drinks and popcorn...
Guest Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Here's another accurate quote. You lied about The Four Vandals, You lied about the Jeanne and The Vallamonts and you lied about David Rhodes on Chi-City. All of which you tried to pass-off as originals and others too. Marketing ploy will be your excuse in 2009. but 10 years ago very nice, honest hard-working collectors trusted you and lost huge amounts of money on worthless 45s you said were original finds. Good people like Mike Holdsworth, Alan Pollard and many others decent guys don't deserve to be ripped of with Four Vandals 45s rubbed on carpets with fag burns on the flipside and auctioned on e-bay. And listen to bulshit of the only known copy was broke on a bus from the Mecca or some other fantasy to made up for he con. Then you have the balls to follow it up with Viencia Wilson bullshit. Pretty disgraceful behaviour in my opinion and i'm amazed Mike Holdsworth didn't didn't follow it through with fraud proceedings.. perhaps you can show these people a little respect and say sorry to those who invested money on your word of authenticity...which of course waas a lie! I've never heard of Mike Holdsworth. I never sold one copy of the Four Vandals. I cannot be responsible for anyone who did, including Butch, if they didn't get them off me. All I did was give a few copies away initially. The David Rhodes was totally authentic, there were only ever 100 copies, and it was the only legitimate issue of a 1974 authentic Chicago recording. Nothing in your post phases me - you're the quintessential reason why I have been forced in the past to invent interesting sub-plots - cos you'd have never even listened if the records had said "Produced by Ian Levine" on them, so you and your like created the situation in the first place, and the greed of others caused them to make profits of over a thousand per cent on records they bought cheap.
Pete S Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 I've never heard of Mike Holdsworth. Mick bought the copy that Phil Dick asked me to sell for him on Ebay, and yes, it did have carpet rubbings and fag burns on it, I thought it was legit at the time but anyway I did put it on Ebay with a disclaimer saying it was being sold for someone else and I would supply all of the sellers details if there were any problems. I think it was the first copy ever to be offered for sale. It was about 2 months later that the truth came out. Trust me to get stuck in the middle.
Sutty Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 The David Rhodes was totally authentic, there were only ever 100 copies, and it was the only legitimate issue of a 1974 authentic Chicago recording. Wasn't the situation on this one a bit different to the others, which were your productions. At the time you were passing off David Rhodes as an authentic 1974 press that you found a box of in Danny Leake's basement I think it was, when you in fact pressed them up knowing full well that they were not authentic 1974 pressings at all. I can understand how you would maybe make up a story about one of your own productions, as you say some quarters would probably look down on the record before they heard it - but in the case of David Rhodes, it did appear that this was a blatant attempt to make money by deception as it had no association with your productions. I'm not concerned over the politics or that it was actually yourself involved, but what was the reasoning behind this move other than deception and profit? i'm not here to beat you up, it's just I don't think you've ever stated why you made such a move, and I know that it got a lot of people's backs up - they were initially being trickled out and selling for £100/£150 a time, until the hoax was figured out/revealed. cheers Sutty
Guest Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Wasn't the situation on this one a bit different to the others, which were your productions. At the time you were passing off David Rhodes as an authentic 1974 press that you found a box of in Danny Leake's basement I think it was, when you in fact pressed them up knowing full well that they were not authentic 1974 pressings at all. I can understand how you would maybe make up a story about one of your own productions, as you say some quarters would probably look down on the record before they heard it - but in the case of David Rhodes, it did appear that this was a blatant attempt to make money by deception as it had no association with your productions. I'm not concerned over the politics or that it was actually yourself involved, but what was the reasoning behind this move other than deception and profit? i'm not here to beat you up, it's just I don't think you've ever stated why you made such a move, and I know that it got a lot of people's backs up - they were initially being trickled out and selling for £100/£150 a time, until the hoax was figured out/revealed. cheers Sutty It was done under Danny Leake's instructions, and you try to find a copy now.
Guest Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Mick bought the copy that Phil Dick asked me to sell for him on Ebay, and yes, it did have carpet rubbings and fag burns on it, I thought it was legit at the time but anyway I did put it on Ebay with a disclaimer saying it was being sold for someone else and I would supply all of the sellers details if there were any problems. I think it was the first copy ever to be offered for sale. It was about 2 months later that the truth came out. Trust me to get stuck in the middle. All of this, as you know, was done without my knowledge or consent. I had no clue it was going on at the time.
Pete S Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 All of this, as you know, was done without my knowledge or consent. I had no clue it was going on at the time. Which is why I said Phil Dick and not Ian Levine - and I'm sure Phil will confirm this if needs be.
Steve G Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) At the time you were passing off David Rhodes as an authentic 1974 press that you found a box of in Danny Leake's basement I think it was, when you in fact pressed them up knowing full well that they were not authentic 1974 pressings at all. I can understand how you would maybe make up a story about one of your own productions, as you say some quarters would probably look down on the record before they heard it - but in the case of David Rhodes, it did appear that this was a blatant attempt to make money by deception as it had no association with your productions. I'm not concerned over the politics or that it was actually yourself involved, but what was the reasoning behind this move other than deception and profit? i'm not here to beat you up, it's just I don't think you've ever stated why you made such a move, and I know that it got a lot of people's backs up - they were initially being trickled out and selling for £100/£150 a time, until the hoax was figured out/revealed. cheers Sutty Absolutely correct Paul. Pressed up at Damont in Hayes a few years ago. In the 70s David Rhodes only existed on Pye or Tomorrow acetate. Which is a shame as I think it is the best of those productions of that era along with 24 hours a day and is a very good record. Was this "found in Danny Leake's basement" story one of yours Ian or did someone else say that? And whilst you might not have sold copies I do seem to recall someone who bore more than a striking resemblance to you trading a copy to a lad from Tewsksbury in exchange for a £120 O'Keh original at a Wembley record fair a few years ago? I am being very very very tolerant here but I am not going to sit back and watch while history is re-written for the sake of convenience and embarrasment. Stop the bullsh*t please! Edited January 5, 2009 by Steve G
Wiganer1 Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Absolutely correct Paul. Pressed up at Damont in Hayes a few years ago. In the 70s David Rhodes only existed on Pye or Tomorrow acetate. Which is a shame as I think it is the best of those productions along with 24 hours a day and is a very good record. Was this "found in Danny Leake's basement" story one of yours Ian or did someone else say that? And whilst you might not have sold copies I do seem to recall someone who bore more than a striking resemblance to you trading a copy to a lad in Tewsksbury in exchange for a £120 O'Keh original at a Wembley record fair a few years ago? I am being very very very tolerant here but I am not going to sit back and watch while history is re-written for the sake of convenience and embarrasment. Stop the bullsh*t please! === very happy with my copy of hung up - best £30 ive ever paid....
Tomangoes Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Well I never knew this record was manufactured in this way. Just goes to show you spend 20 years away from the scene, and hey presto some folks are still trying to find the formula for Northern Soul. Not a bad job though aside from the aftershock. It must be one of the better attempts by Mr Levine to 'create' a worthy record however it came to be. Ed
Epic Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Threads like this amuse me - many ways of looking at this - think what really angers people is the thought they have been "had". All of a sudden the record becomes less desirable because of its "history" "You can fool some of the people........................................"
Guest Scarborosoul Posted January 5, 2009 Posted January 5, 2009 Well well well curiouser and couriouser??? I refer to my posts in the IL thread about being victimised. The truth will eventually out. Rick
Guest bazrico Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Well I never knew this record was manufactured in this way. Just goes to show you spend 20 years away from the scene, and hey presto some folks are still trying to find the formula for Northern Soul. Not a bad job though aside from the aftershock. It must be one of the better attempts by Mr Levine to 'create' a worthy record however it came to be. Ed i agree not a bad record shame about the truth not being told at the time
Steve G Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 i agree not a bad record shame about the truth not being told at the time Back on Venecia Wilson - it's actually a pleasant enough pop record. At the time I likened it to "Downtown" and that's not a put down at all. When I first heard it at the Rocket I was talking to Eddie Hubbard and his wife, and we all heard "programmed strings" in it so not everyone was fooled by the mystique and bravado......but then again you got to know a bit about music to detect that.
Tricky Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 I knew a Pye Acetate exixted because i remember Mick Godfrey with it once at Rock City but i never knew it was on Levines Tomorrow pre release label?
Steve G Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 I knew a Pye Acetate exixted because i remember Mick Godfrey with it once at Rock City but i never knew it was on Levines Tomorrow pre release label? I am not 100% sure it was on Tomorrow. It was on one of those labels as an acetate, and it was def on Pye as Sam has also had it through his hands at some point, but hey Ian can tell us for sure.
Guest in town Mikey Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 This is what Ian Levine wrote about the tune in a late 2001 "rarest of the rare" article in Togetherness Magazine. 4 - VENICIA WILSON - THIS TIME I'M LOVING YOU - TOP-TOP - 1-007 This is my biggest floorfiller of the moment, and the record I paid the most for in my whole life. I want this lie retracting. Why don't you try thinking first before spewing forth falsehoods. So can we have this lie retracted please? BTW one of my fave tunes at the Rocket allnighters. I knew of the furore surrounding it and the 4 vandals, but whereas I thought the 4 vandals was awful, I really liked the VW track and danced every time Ian played it.
Winnie :-) Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 So can we have this lie retracted please? BTW one of my fave tunes at the Rocket allnighters. I knew of the furore surrounding it and the 4 vandals, but whereas I thought the 4 vandals was awful, I really liked the VW track and danced every time Ian played it. ============ Other way round for me :-) First heard 4 vandals at Luton, sure Ian said it was the first time he'd played it, remember being told very shortly afterwards it wasn't all that it was being made out to be, didn't phase me, and would still dance to it now :-)
Ernie Andrews Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 === very happy with my copy of hung up - best £30 ive ever paid.... Mark your happy paying £30 for anything HAHA Must admit didnt know only 100 were pressed - Christ that makes it nearly as rare as Lester Tipton Can just imagine this going for £300 to £400 in a couple of years
Guest bazrico Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 Back on Venecia Wilson - it's actually a pleasant enough pop record. At the time I likened it to "Downtown" and that's not a put down at all. When I first heard it at the Rocket I was talking to Eddie Hubbard and his wife, and we all heard "programmed strings" in it so not everyone was fooled by the mystique and bravado......but then again you got to know a bit about music to detect that. thats your your opinion i have not not a clue what programmed strings is all about i might be an young lad from the wheel days but my ears are fine, eye sight not so good
Guest Posted January 6, 2009 Posted January 6, 2009 So can we have this lie retracted please? It's only a half lie, because Ady Pierce charged me £450 for my copy of The Four Vandals, which was genuinely the most I had ever paid for a record in my entire life, having a fixed rule of no more than £400 for any one record.
Recommended Posts
Get involved with Soul Source
Add your comments now
Join Soul Source
A free & easy soul music affair!
Join Soul Source now!Log in to Soul Source
Jump right back in!
Log in now!