I'm loving reading the FW auction thread like most on here I guess. Can't help but get caught up in the building excitement.

Fascinating posts showing loads of knowledge that makes my jaw drop with admiration sometimes.

However, I didn't wish to hijack the thread with this question.

I do not hold a strong view either way but in the past there have been strong views about artistes and royalties by many on here.

So here goes:

Should Mr Wilson (who is still with us is he not) receive anything fiancially for the sale of the record, especially if it does reach a stratospheric price?

Should he receive anything at all?

Did he receive anything the last time a copy sold for a lot of money?

It's possible this record could make some serious money so I'm curious as to what people think when some have argued, maybe quite rightfully, about artistes not being forgotten financially when their work is being sold.

What's your view?

KTF.

Drew.

Edited February 6, 200916 yr by Drew3

  Drew3 said:

I'm loving reading the FW auction thread like most on here I guess. Can't help but get caught up in the building excitement.

Fascinating posts showing loads of knowledge that makes my jaw drop with admiration sometimes.

However, I didn't wish to hijack the thread with this question.

I do not hold a strong view either way but in the past there have been strong views about artistes and royalties by many on here.

So here goes:

Should Mr Wilson (who is still with us is he not) receive anything fiancially for the sale of the record, especially if it does reach a stratospheric price?

Should he receive anything at all?

Did he receive anything the last time a copy sold for a lot of money?

It's possible this record could make some serious money so I'm curious as to what people think when some have argued, maybe quite rightfully, about artistes not being forgotten financially when their work is being sold.

What's your view?

KTF.

Drew.

my opinion only

the 'royalties' and 'hard done by artists' comments are generally used as an argument when it suits certain individuals to hopefully bring some sort of credibility to their side of an argument. this record is in effect no different than a bootleg imho - it is an illigally obtained copy as i understand it and people have made lots of money from its sale. what makes the 'hard done by artist' argument any different for this record?

for those who always argue for the rights of the artists to recieve something for their efforts ought be answering 'YES' to your question Drew.

batton down the hatches and watch for fallout

  Drew3 said:

I'm loving reading the FW auction thread like most on here I guess. Can't help but get caught up in the building excitement.

Fascinating posts showing loads of knowledge that makes my jaw drop with admiration sometimes.

However, I didn't wish to hijack the thread with this question.

I do not hold a strong view either way but in the past there have been strong views about artistes and royalties by many on here.

So here goes:

Should Mr Wilson (who is still with us is he not) receive anything fiancially for the sale of the record, especially if it does reach a stratospheric price?

Should he receive anything at all?

Did he receive anything the last time a copy sold for a lot of money?

It's possible this record could make some serious money so I'm curious as to what people think when some have argued, maybe quite rightfully, about artistes not being forgotten financially when their work is being sold.

What's your view?

KTF.

Drew.

No. Promos and TP's are generally royalty free anyway as they're primarily used for promotional/marketing use to promote the record. In the U.S. in the 60's that could be as many as 1-20k depending on the policies of the company and the contract.

Most times the artist will receive an advance against any potential future royalties. By the time the record company has recouped the advance, recording costs and other expenses there's often not much left for the artist unless they have a huge hit (and even that can be neglible). In the 60's artist royalties could have been as low 2-5%, so most artists never actually managed to recoup the advance.

Artists would not normally be expected to make anything from the resale of promo record or even a low-selling issue, as theoretically, they would have been excluded from royalties on the promo and, if the record had been released, they would been accounted to on any sales from the issue only once the advance, recording costs and other marketing costs had been recouped. Plus record company contracts were not designed to be over-generous to the artists back then, as they're not now.

In the case of Frank Wilson the record never got issued, so no moolah.

It could be argued that Frank has actually made more royalties from the various re-issues then he would have if the record had actually been released! Maybe he should send a thankyou note to Simon Soussan for boosting his income LOL.....

Ian D

if it never passed q/c and was never released in the usa how come it got a issue in the uk ? ,it says 1965 on my copy this must have been well before the northern scene was in full swing,how many other motown tracks were like that ,he must have had a cut from the uk issue wonder how many copy sold then.TMG 1170 i note on other thread it say the uk issue was 1979 ? I think I picked it up mid 80's for £1 with some other stuff

Edited February 6, 200916 yr by soulboy

Quite clearly says 'Promotional. Not For Sale' on the 2, 3, 4, 5, boxfull of known copy's.

Does this mean that legally Motown could actually claim ALL of the money from the auction or even demand it's return? Same goes for the sale of any Demo/Promo copy.

Got to remember no tax or royalties have been paid on it in the first place.

I'm going to scrap a knackered old Fiesta, do I send Henry Ford a fiver?

  soul.boy said:

it says 1965 on my copy this must have been well before the northern scene was in full swing,

It says OXO on the side of buses, doesn't mean they serve it on board.

1965 is the publishing date - ie the year the tune was written and submitted for future royalties - not the year the record was made or even recorded.

  soul.boy said:

if it never passed q/c and was never released in the usa how come it got a issue in the uk ? ,it says 1965 on my copy this must have been well before the northern scene was in full swing,how many other motown tracks were like that ,he must have had a cut from the uk issue wonder how many copy sold then.TMG 1170 i note on other thread it say the uk issue was 1979 ? I think I picked it up mid 80's for £1 with some other stuff

Don't Forget The Motor City....

Do I Love You (Indeed I Do) (Frank Wilson) publ. Jobete

Chris Clark; rec 02-Jan-66 ; produced by Hal Davis, Marc Gordon

07-Apr-66; 45 (M): V.I.P. 25034 A [test pressings only]

05-Feb-01; CD (M): Spectrum 544 426 2 Tamla Motown Connoisseurs [ UK ]

03-Jun-02; CD (M): UMO 544 619 2 A Cellarful Of Motown [ UK ]

24-Nov-06; CD (M): Hip O Select B0007872-02 The Complete Motown Singles Vol. 6 1966

Frank Wilson ; [v1] ; produced by Hal Davis, Marc Gordon

[rel date unknown]; 45 (M): Soul S 35019 A

Nov-79; 45 (M): Tamla Motown TMG1170 A [ UK ]

11-Aug-97; CD (S): Debutante 530 818 2 This Is Northern Soul! [ UK ]

03-May-05; CD (S): Motown 067 024 2 This Is Northern Soul! The Motown Sound Volume 1 [ UK ]

04-Aug-06; CD (M): Hip O Select B0006775-02 The Complete Motown Singles Vol. 5 1965

Frank Wilson ; [v2] ; produced by Marc Gordon, Hal Davis

22-Aug-95; CD (M): Motown 31453 0522-2 Motown Year By Year / The Sound Of Young America 1966

28-Jun-01; CD (M): Spectrum 556 827 2 Northern Soul Connoisseurs [uK]

  pikeys dog said:

It says OXO on the side of buses, doesn't mean they serve it on board.

1965 is the publishing date - ie the year the tune was written and submitted for future royalties - not the year the record was made or even recorded.

so was it issued on the back of the northern scene then

  soul.boy said:

so was it issued on the back of the northern scene then

Absolutely 100% issued due to Northern scene demand.

If you look around on the net you should be able to find a copy of the sleeve that tells the records story, which went out with the promo copies.

Is this a serious question

The anwer is a most definite yes.

  soul.boy said:

so was it issued on the back of the northern scene then

  Andy K said:

Nice one Chalks! You've just proved your weight in gold to the BMI, get your resume in mate! If I were running operations there I'd hire you in a flash!!

Details of most Motown releases are on the site Don't Forget The Motor City.

  Drew3 said:

Should Mr Wilson (who is still with us is he not) receive anything fiancially for the sale of the record, especially if it does reach a stratospheric price?

Should he receive anything at all?

Frank Wilson wasn't an artist, he was a producer. Many artists did get dicked out of rightful royalties, and were mainly paid by the session. For all the hits that Wilson produced at Motown, it's safe to say that he got paid more per record than any of the actual artists. For this relic (face it, it's no longer a "record") to go sky high and for Frank Wilson to not see a dime from its sale is nothing short of music industry karma. Nothing against the man, I have respect for his work, but he is probably the least deserving of a kickback. Hell, Barry Gordy deserves it more, since he's the one who ultimately made the decision to destroy the promos.

...and that is my extremely amateur opinion...

  pikeys dog said:

Absolutely 100% issued due to Northern scene demand.

If you look around on the net you should be able to find a copy of the sleeve that tells the records story, which went out with the promo copies.

so any idea how many copys sold then i cant remember it at wigan but i only went now and again and stopped mid 70's it def wasnt a big record then ,i was more into moses smith bobby sheen ect so sorry for being a bit thick about it to be honest that stage in my life just seem to pass me by?More interested in lambrettas

  pikeys dog said:

It says OXO on the side of buses, doesn't mean they serve it on board.

Bo**ocks Pd!! When was the last time you saw OXO advertised on a bus!!

KTF.

Drew.

Edited February 6, 200916 yr by Drew3

  Lord GrabAndFlee said:

Frank Wilson wasn't an artist, he was a producer.

He sang the song didn't he!!!!

KTF.

Drew.

  Ian Dewhirst said:

It could be argued that Frank has actually made more royalties from the various re-issues then he would have if the record had actually been released! Maybe he should send a thankyou note to Simon Soussan for boosting his income LOL.....

Ian D

Quality!!!!

KTF.

Drew.

Frank Wilson sang the song it is his song, dispite wanting all copies destroyed surely he deserves some pay but even if he wasn't to get any he has made his money elsewhere.

no wait only the songwriter gets paid royalities for the tracks released and so on. so answer is a simple yes

  WPaulVanDyk said:

Frank Wilson sang the song it is his song, dispite wanting all copies destroyed surely he deserves some pay but even if he wasn't to get any he has made his money elsewhere.

no wait only the songwriter gets paid royalities for the tracks released and so on. so answer is a simple yes

FW may have written the song , but I doubt very much if Simon Saucepan will pay him any royalties ........

Malc Burton