maslar

I haven't suggested or stated any such thing. where did I say this? Thats isn't my logic at all.

It's nothing to do with intended use. It is what it is. In record collecting traditionally bootlegging wasn't for any financial gain anyway. But that's irrelevant. The copy is a bootleg. But like I said due to misuse and over generalization on the northern scene it's (wrongly) become a dirty word. But one thing- your vinyl carver (bootleg) is never going to be is original vinyl. (and neither is the ORIGINAL acetate).

Before the digital age acetates had a very specific function. That demanded a high level of audio fidelity. That diminishes rapidly with each subsequent play. Exactly how long you can play an acetate for before it's actually finished I have no idea. Simply because it's never occurred to me that anyone would wish to do such a thing. I said a small number and I stand by that. When I bought my first vinyl single, aged 12, I must have played it over 200 times in the first week. I've still got it and it still plays ok. That's what vinyl is designed to do. Everything is relative. If you create a vinyl copy of for example, an unreleased acetate, then that copy is a bootleg. That isn't to denigrate it. But by creating a vinyl copy, a tape or digital copy you've created a bootleg. That's the reality. Of course the problem on the northern scene is that "bootleg" is a dirty word when it really shouldn't be, simply because it's almost always used incorrectly to describe illegal counterfeits (or pressings as I prefer to call them). This is the point I was making in the long debate last year (which I'm not getting into again -if you don't see it you're never going to get it). That's precisely why using the correct terms are important. Now you've got a vinyl carver and its a bootleg (an unauthorised copy of a unreleased/unavailable track). The obvious problem is how does this "fit" with the whole "original vinyl only" ethos? There's a major contradiction there. If a dj has an unreleased acetate he/she only has three options as far as I can see: 1 Play it till it plays no more (pretty stupid) 2 make a number of acetate copies and play those as "acetates" until each wears out 3 Create a vinyl copy. Both 2 and 3 above are bootlegs in the truest and finest sense of the word. There should be an accommodation for this within the whole OVO thing but to me it looks like there isn't. Instead "bootleg" is replaced by the nicely sanitised "carver". Anyway this is going increasingly off topic and I haven't got much to add and don't really have any wish to repeat the long drawn out "bootleg" debate again.

Plexium was one of those UK labels obviously run on a very tight budget and this record shows it, It was probably done in a very short time with little real desire to get anything right. A guy who was in one of the label's bands - Sadie's Expression - tells the story of how they requested a few hours extra recording time to redo a vocal that didn't fit with later added instrumentation The owner wouldn't pay it and put the obviously sub-standard single out as it was. The point was that for that extra hours fee the record would have improved dramatically. It's this kind of mentality that results in this type of product. As for who it was. the discography shows a number of male singers recorded prior to this release and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them changed his name to put this "Soul" record out. For example, there's a Mike Conway and Irish singer who's real name was Quinn who recorded for them. To me the "gritty" vocal sounds a little forced but the guy can obviously sing . On hearing it I did think the singer sounded Irish (my own "tag" for these types of records that attempt a "growling" soul vocal is "Irish showband" eg John and The Weirdest, Can't Get over These Memories. That's not to disparage Irish show-bands in any way whatsoever.)

Yes!

Not really a fallacy since they have an inevitable marked deterioration due to the very nature of the material. That may be from pristine (about 10 to 20 plays?) to eventually sounding like a rough vinyl/styrene record but it's still there and eventually it will be unlistenable. Why would anyone wish that to happen to something they view as rare and/or collectable? They are in effect deliberately destroying it since its being used for something it was never intended to do. The sensible - and only - thing to do would be to do a vinyl copy. But then again that wouldn't b an acetate

An acetate is an acetate. That's why it's called an acetate. It isn't vinyl record. It's function in the manufacturing process is quite specific. It's only really of significance if its either got some attachment to an individual or group or label which is recognizable/verifiable) Or an unreleased track or a different version. An acetate of a record that has been released is not really greater than the original - since you wouldn't normally play it. It ISN'T a record. It's an acetate. The clue is in the name. If someone has an original they might rightly be p**** off because there's no telling where that acetate came from. You either get it or you don't but the bottom line is an acetate is NOT original vinyl. And since you can only play them a small number of times before they pack up there's only two options: keep getting further acetates made (which are modern copies) or (more practically) do a vinyl copy. If the vinyl copy is of a track that was not released it's a bootleg. If it's of an official release its a counterfeit (or pressing).

I'm not surprised. How the hell would anyone dance to it? It's all over the place

I can roughly remember when it was released - either late 80 or early 81? There was a pile on sale at Wigan for £10.00 I think. It wasn't classed a "crap" back then. I wouldn't have minded a copy but I thought it was overpriced for what it was - a new UK release. It seemed the price was put artificially high to me. £10 back then is about £35 - 40 now?

Wow that is messy. Had to listen to it three times though.

"Dear Pressing Plant" "Hope this finds you well".

Of the songs listed above only the I'm The Face/Misery is a clear copy. That really is blatant. Of the others while there are some similarities to varying degrees there's nothing that could be described as "ripping off" in my opinion. Gimme Some Lovin' and Ain't That a Lot of Love share a riff but there are loads of songs that share riffs. The chord structure isn't the same. And besides, that riff - particularly as a bass riff - is found in other songs. Tap it out, it's pretty basic. Singing Sunny over Shoes works for a few bars. Then it falls apart. I've never really considered that much similarity between the two. You can do that with lots of tunes. I always felt George Harrison was hard done by and I suspected that a major factor against him was the fact that Phil Spector was producer on both records. Let's face it GH's knowledge of music theory wasn't great. There's always going to be the suggestion that Spector in some way may have shaped the song.

From what I remember (may be wrong on exact details) the big price increase came in the UK on Jan 1st 1973 when VAT came in. I had my first record player just before Christmas 1972 but I didn't start buying my own records till into the new year. So the price increase made a big impact on me at that time. It was most noticeable on LPs which went up by 15 to 20p I think (about £2.00 in todays money? Singles IIRC went up from 45p to 50p. Still a significant jump when you're 12 and struggling to save up your pocket money

The info comes from King himself. Apparently the singers had to deliberately sound young and King himself is singing backing in a "schoolgirl voice". Not sure Adrienne Posta would want to be associated with it at that time. she was doing tv and film work then and probably didn't need the money for what would be, for her, a one-off.. But who know? maybe she swore King to secrecy?

The Carol Anderson was more or less current (not exact I know but the same year). Bit hazy thinking back but I think you could still buy the US Fee pretty easily for a fairly low price.

Really, I never knew that. I suppose the only way to be certain is to get the LP? Is there anyway to tell the difference between the two?

I think sometimes it's best to go back to basics. What is record collecting? Why do you collect records? If it's as a hobby then that's something that should give enjoyment and pleasure. That's the standard definition of a hobby. If sales lists from dealers with silly prices are driving you up the wall then there's obviously not much pleasure to be had there.. A good option would be to contact them, state you find their prices ridiculous and therefore won't be receiving their lists in future. No more hair-pulling or manic outbursts in public spaces. Record collecting is a personal pastime. Yet it seems there are some who want to tell other people what they should be collecting. That really is pretty bizarre when you think about it - but it actually does happen. Only collect “originals”? Really. Great if that's what you're into but there's a wider world out there (within the record collecting sphere). I take issue with the subject of re-issues. All record releases are in some way unique. Therefore all have at least the potential to be collectable It's this uniqueness that makes the collecting of re-issues valid for some collectors. Particularly in certain collecting spheres, e.g. collecting a particular artist or label. To be derisory about such records shows a lack of understanding and often comes across as elitist. The Don Gardner may cost £5000 for an original. For most collectors that's not going to be attainable. The re-issue was done on a lookalike label. Yet it's easily distinguishable. It was a limited run and furthermore is approved and endorsed by the artist himself. To say such a record s not collectible or worthy is ridiculous. It may not meet your criteria but so what? It's certainly going to meet somebody's. How much they decide to pay for it is up to them. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. How does anyone know how they feel when buying it? How does anyone know how someone else will feel when parting with £5000 for a record? Adrenalin rush? Maybe. Or maybe that sinking feeling Maybe it will lead to long periods of doubt and anguish? Maybe guilt? Self loathing? Inadequacy? Who knows? Why is it of such interest anyway? In terms of actual satisfaction and pleasure they may actually get more from buying the collectible reissue. That's pretty feasible when you think about it. Each to their own.

The Eddie Parker version is one of my all time faves. But I can also appreciate the Sha-Rae take - which is an excellent recording its own right.

Bizarre that anyone should refer to the Sha-Rae version as "piss poor" even in the context of a comparison. It's an excellent version in it's own right. I've always preferred the EP version but here isn't much in it between all three.

So once you've had this conversation with yourself you write to who exactly?

Why not try and work it out for yourself. Whose opinion means so much to you? Of the two versions I prefer the Breakthrough although obviously there's never going to be much in it. . As far as I'm concerned (from the facts I know) its a legitimate release. That's all I need to know.

BBC Workshop? The Dr Who theme is an all time classic .......... tv theme. But surely no one danced to this? Or maybe they did?

Well no, his comments about "digging" weren't aimed at "elitists" but the ones about buying originals probably were to some degree. Or maybe certain individuals he knew. It's hard to say because he really isn't specific. I agree with a lot of what you say about OVO but I don't get the "permission to own half a dozen exclusives please sir" bit (my words). Why only a few? Why is this criteria so important? And I would have thought "cover-ups" would have gone against his ethos?

I enjoy reading his articles and reviews. Some give a great insight into what was going on at that particular time and place in a field where there really wasn't that much written information. E.g. his enthusiasm for Band Of Gold and its signalling the beginning a new era for soul music. However, some of the things he wrote were obviously his opinion and some were fanciful to say the least. I'm not getting into the Jagger stuff because there's a tendency to look too negative. Anyone is free to do their own research and reach their own concussions if it interests them.

There's no doubt that Dave Godin was a major influential figure and prime mover in the British soul scene of the 60s in particular and also into the 70s. But I've got to admit I find some of his writings a little strange to say the least. His writing style often seemed , stream of consciousness type rambling with no real attempt to make his point. This is (to me at least) one such piece. What exactly is he trying to say? Also some of his well known claims are fanciful to say the least (e.g the stuff about early days with Mick Jagger). There's a major contradiction in this piece that may be explainable but he doesn't even attempt to do so. Firstly it's obviously important to state that his "oldies" are somewhat different from today's definition. All the records he was referring to are no more that five or six years old and the specific examples: Chubby Checker and Tommy Neal, are three and two respectively. So his "oldies" are often relatively recent issues that have passed their promotion time-span. On the one hand he makes a point that most of the "oldies" in demand are not deleted but just require searching for ("finding them and digging"). He then immediately goes on to make a very strange derogatory comment about those who wish to hunt for original records (most less that five or six years old): "..... their searching is a pathetic attempt on their part to convince their playmates ...." . So he advises searching for records then calls you a poser if you do? Unless he's stating that there's no need for searching for originals if a record has been reissued. If so that's a pretty strange outlook, particularly when he's just stated much had not been deleted. This meandering contradiction then leads straight into what is essentially an advertisement for his reissue label and shop...... where he sometimes sells those original records (eg Chubby Checker) that just need searching out - presumably to his hip and zonked customers.