Simon T

I hate Mark Dobson

Well I'm afraid those 8 and Butch can spend the evening peeling the c/u labels off! It's on t'internet for all to see, don't you just love Google!

Both sides are 'available' on a CD, recorded straight from the record, for a couple of years now. I suspect it was done in good faith, but unfortunately there's always someone who likes to show off what they've 'got' and passes stuff on. I've no idea who it is, so if some kind person would PM the details to satisfy my curiosity................

Probably he was p*ssed off because he'd known for an age what it was, but couldn't find one to confirm

I've had two copies of the WD and both of them were particularly thin vinyl, you could bend them quite easily, were they boots?

According to Dave Rimmer's site it wasn't released on Blue Rock although given a number 4039 https://www.soulfulkindamusic.net/bluerock.htm

From what I remember it just a matt plain black & white label like a photocopy. I don't think it has anything to suggest it's demo copy like an original WD does which has a glossy label. Orginal isssues are blue & white?.

It's from the 1992 CD 'Downhome Soul of ZZ'

Perhaps I'm getting confused with that boot of Kelly Garret. It would make sense for the second legit reissue to be on styrene too.

The first issue demo and issue are on styrene, but I think the reissue (red issue label) is vinyl.

Question: I have a disc which is a 10" Hitsville Sound Studio lacquer , this has REJECT and RECOAT daubed all over it, is this because they would have decided not to release it and thus losing the recording forever or would they still have it on master tape? Answer: Rundown acetates were a quick and dirty flat transfer of each reel of mixes turned in by an engineer. They were used by the quality control department to make preliminary decisions about whether or not to keep mixes. "Recoat" meant that the disk was to be "recoated" or in other words, recycled back to the manufacturer. We used so many acetates that it was worthwhile to send what we didn't want back. I think they cost 20 or 30 dollars each back in 1965. This could be because the mix was to be scrapped or just that the disk had been damaged. Somebody must have walked off with that one because they were much too expensive to just throw away Bob Olhsson, mastering intern Motown

The Enjoyables The Cairos The Statlers Frankie Karl and the Dreams

Nigel Parker bought this off Tim Brown and it was pretty knackered. He got 2 copies on EMI for Carl F & Gary S.

Nigel's a member on here, so perhaps he can confirm, but I never thought he had a copy of this; what years did he have one then ?

The labels are usually matt & 'brittle' from the glue (I presume) so don't bend it. The glue usually is coffee brown in colour. The raised X is only on one side. (Shrine records were pressed at the same place BTW)

No, it's real.

Is that true?

Thanks for the info Paul, I promise not to bootleg anything. However, how have so many for so long got away with it? Do you have have some examples of anyone getting done? Prison sentences for example?

Could you explain in simple terms how this (NCPS) works please? Say, you have a record / acetate / studio tape of a song, but can't locate the owners of the track (through BMI ASCAP???), do you just pay something into a central kitty? Then, if the owners come forward they can draw on it?

would theybe playing stuff by Jimmy Burns Danny Woods Johnny Rodgers ?

Sounds like an Ian Levine production. But worse, there's not jiggle bells to save it, awful!

Can anyone PM Marc Forest's mobile number? thanks

I was just wondering what is the longest, protracted sale of a record? Something you promised to sell back , but it took many years? At the moment mine is 10.5 months, but my word is my word, so I'm trying to honour it. Any advise?

1. My track listing that I took the sound file says ' Carol Morgan' 2. I've not seen the record for 20 + years to remember the artist. 3. I didn't check the above scans. 4. The copy I had, had completely shagged labels (water damage) 5. Morgan is a far more common name than Mogan, so assumed it's Morgan Perhaps it's time to stop posting less than accurate stuff and leave it to you experts?