maslar

Wakeman plays piano right through the track , there's barely a let-up although it probably didn't tax him too much. I'm biased admittedly but it's one of the greatest ever British pop/rock songs. Elton John mimed at the piano for the TOTP Christmas show and he's more or less doing what RW would have played. Interesting pedigree on that track with Wakeman on keyboards and Ian MacDonald (King Crimson ) playing sax. Also Bolan's mainstay backing singers at that time Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan (ex-Turtles). Both these two contributed greatly to the early 70s T.Rex sound. Back on topic - anyone mentioned Gerri Granger, I Go To Pieces?

Darrell Banks - Our Love Pat Lewis - No One To Love Lorraine Chandler - I Can't Change Montclairs - Hung Up On Your Love Edwin Starr - Stop Her On Sight

I'm good thanks. Hope you're ok too. I pretty sure I wasn't at his last one. I seem to remember reading something about it in Echoes. Could be wrong though. Well I can definitely remember one occasion when Arthur Fenn played either before or after Sam. Then again I could be losing it. I went to the first/last official last night (Tommy Hunt) and it was on a Friday. Yet as the years went by I would have put money on it being on a Saturday.

Going off topic slightly but with reference to Soul Sam at Wigan in 1981. I was at a couple of those nights and it was bizarre to say the least. This is how I remember it and I'm not knocking anyone. it wasn't just SS but also Arthur Fenn and they went back to back. The floor was largely empty or near empty for the whole time (and that was quite a while). It was the strangest sight and I remember a really strange atmosphere. A sort of "you had to be there" moment. Quite depressing and a little surreal. I'm not knocking either DJ. I thought both played some good records, The problem seemed to be that they were both transplanted into the Wigan Saturday night each with established modern soul playlists that the majority of Casino regulars had probably never heard before. And then they played one after the other. If it was an experiment then it seemed to me to have been set up to fail. Also on those night the attendance wasn't that great which didn't help matters. That's how I remember it through the hazy passage of time. If I've got anything wrong apologies in advance.I I wasn't there when any banner was hung from the balcony or anyone was thrown off the stage.

The record that always reminds me of my first night at Wigan (June 1980) is Happy (Velvet Hammer). That was the first time I saw a big rush onto a half empty dance floor - filling up in about ten seconds. Although it was coming to the end of its shelf life by then - It was pressed up about that time with Omni's Keys To The City on the other side.

I first heard the Blue Sharks version on the Destiny Record Collector Lp in about 1980. I thought it was an ok if slightly sub-standard version of a great record. I've just listened to it again (the first time in decades) and I've got to say the best thing about it is the vocal which is adequate. The arrangement is pretty poor. So this track is basically an early 70s "session cover", exactly the same as the Top Of The Pops LPs and such like. Not that these were necessarily musically bad - in some cases they were equal to or better than the original. But nevertheless it's a substandard track when compared to the original and the idea that anyone would pay £700 or even £50 for it I find quite baffling. Maybe £20 to £30 would be ok. A quick google search finds that Barbara Kay was the voice of The Piglets (Johnny Reggae).

If you're talking about starting to collect then I think the most important thing is to spend some time thinking about what interests you and what parameters you're going to set yourself. For example, it may be mainly Detroit 60s soul but also some early 70s . With this as an example, going back to your question, as a new collector I'd be looking to buy about ten records with £150. If it was Detroit soul that could be Rictic, Golden world etc. That would be a combination of £5.00, to £25.00 original records. That would be a good base to build on. But the main thing is to find an area that really interests and collect with that in mind, not to impress other people.

Yes it is pretty obvious. But the only issue I personally have with this sale is that it explicitly states a 1980 release (original UK date) That is definitely misleading and untrue. Normally there's a lot of ambiguity with these types of sales I've noticed. My views is that this is deliberate because the seller maybe hope the buyer's ego won't allow them to ask questions. (Imagine the cyber sn*****ing at that guy asking if that obvious original really is an original). No laughing matter if you don't ask, spend a lot of money and then find out that you've got no comeback becasue the seller hasn't stated anything that isn't untrue. There is one question that arises though. It seems that this particular Grapevine release is the only one that has been copied? I know it's a long shot but is there any way this could have been released legally?

Surely a better starting point is to ascertain whether it's a legit release (from whatever country) or not and then work from there. Then you can decide whether you want to play just original U.S. releases, or include UK first releases, or maybe include any legal issues including relatively new unreleased legal issues. You could also decide whether you want to play pressings (counterfeits/repros). It seems some early 70s US pressings are gaining a certain credibility (to me a anyway) .

To be honest, as an academic paper (if that's what it's aim is) I found it pretty poor. It's full of supposition. Nothing is clearly explained. The intro section on "music sub-culture", which should provide the basis of what's to come, is vague and rambling. For example, the authors talk about "music subculture" yet there's no real definition of what they mean. No clear examples. This leads to problems from the start: For example "music sub-culture" suddenly becomes "youth sub-culture". The two are not the same thing, In fact to give a real critique would take a long time. Almost every paragraph yields something that is contentious.

So is anyone going to make a copy and post it here. . And no Venus, I'm not losing my bodily functions.

I was going to message you but you've saved me the trouble. It's come to my attention that you're putting it about oh fb that I have complained about you putting a logo on your clip. That is a lie. For the record it doesn't matter one iota to me. I really couldn't give a toss. I was simply curious why you would go to the trouble since its usually something for original content. I asked a perfectly reasonable question out of curiosity. It wasn't a complaint in any way shape or form. Nor does it have any bearing on the topic. All my comments were aimed at the clip above which has been in the public domain for over three years. I know nothing about any facebook video.

It seems to me Pete Smith's just made it really simple.

The BBC "own" them but obviously they aren't going to mount a legal challenge. Imagine you had taped a tv drama back in 1980. Now all the episodes are lost, no longer in the BBC archive. You've legally still got ownership of your vhs copy. The BBC own the copyright but they aren't going to take you to court to get your copy are they? Now imagine someone got hold of your copy and made a copy. Now there's two copies. The BBC still couldn't care less. You might be angry because up until this point you thought you were the only person on the face of gods green earth who could watch it but you have no legal recourse against the person who copied your copy.

You don't seem to get it. The wishes of another collector count for nothing really. It's all meaningless. The material exists. it doesn't legally belong to the person who paid for it no more than the film I recorded last night on virgin on-demand belongs to me It's no different to someone recording an edition of TOTP2.. The fact that it's rare doesn't have any bearing other than to those who want to keep it exclusive to themselves. But they have no legal right to do that. If such material "gets out" then it's just bad luck on the part of those who don't want it to.

I'm not talking about physical ownership obviously. I'm not a member of the missing episodes forum but I view what's going on there from time to time and some years ago it was news that a number of full episodes of TOTP that had thought to have been wiped existed. The owner of this lot had offered them for sale to the BBC who had declined on a matter of principle: that they didn't buy their own copyrighted material. I believe some of these were then offered for general sale to the public although I haven't a clue what the cost was. That lot included the Jan 30 1975 edition I'm guessing this is may be the source of the clip. Not that it matters. The fact that money exchanged hands is totally irrelevant. Someone has a copy. Someone makes a copy of that copy. There isn't really grounds for complaint. It doesn't "belong" to either of them.

The TM records I strongly associate with Wigan in the 1980-81 period (Sat and Fri nights) are Barbara McNair - You're Gonna Love My baby Velvelettes- Lonely , lonely girl am I Isley Brothers - Tell Me It's Just A Rumour Brenda Holloway - When I'm Gone To a slightly lesser extent - Four Tops - Can't Seem To Get You Out Of My Mind

Why would you put a logo on it? That implies legal ownership and neither you or the person who gave it you legally "owns" the clip. It's a BBC clip.

Huh? Jamerson played bass on Bernadette. That's that one sorted out. You seem to be muddying things a little. Lets get back to basics: Jamerson was the main bass player at Motown. You point to a few tracks that have some ambiguity/controversy; e.g. I Want You Back. Did Jamerson ever claim to play on that? His name was put forward by others who obviously didn't know any better. You then seem to want to use incidents such as this to insinuate an even greater doubt that doesn't (or at least shouldn't) exist. It's almost as if you're looking for uncertainty when there really isn't any. And if there is some doubt does it really matter when you're dealing with an output of work as large as Jamerson's. Bob Babbitt claimed they had a disagreement in a bar about who played on Cool Jerk. Both truly believing that they did. There are always going to be minor discrepancies such as this. Does it really matter in the greater scheme of things? When so much of what they did is factually correct. You make vague comments about quality control and JJ's "problems" during the period 1967 to 72. But what exactly do you mean?. It's in this period that Jamerson produced many of his greatest lines, his best work. This brings me back to CK again. One of my favourite Jamerson bass lines is for "I Was Made To Love Her". I believe that at some point in time CK has claimed this as one of hers. Without doubt JJ plays on the original Stevie Wonder version. CK plays on the Beach Boys later cover. Listen to the two and compare. They are similar but JJ's is superior (for me anyway) and the difference is clear to hear.

Motown wasn't a "black ghetto label". It was one of the biggest labels in the US. The Supremes alone were the second biggest recording act in the USA in the 60s, second only to the Beatles. There's certainly lots of humour in your post. E.g that Entwhistle didn't play on The Who's albums and that Paul McCartney did? That is what you're saying isn't it? This alone puts the rest of your deliberations regarding the Jameson/Kaye saga in perspective. My own view on Kaye's claims is that she made statements long ago that were probably a genuine mistake and then (like a lot of people) refused to admit she was wrong when it became clear she was and just dug her heels in. A pity really but there you go. There really shouldn't be any need to debate whetherr or not JJ played on the tracks that he most definitely did play on.

As a design classic I don't think you can better the Tamla "twin globes" (any of the variations). Ric-Tic and Golden World close seconds.

I don't think Banks ever appeared on AB. I'm pretty sure Revilot would have produced promotional material mentioning it which would be out there somewhere. What's more likely is that one of his record featured on their "Rate A Record" section. E.g. as did The Precisions, If This Is Love.

But.......

A "decent quantity"? But you can't hazard a guess at how many? And how many of those are in any where near acceptable condition? How many are the same "VG" copy turning up again as the guy who paid £250 for his copy realises it isn't worth a fraction in reality and once the euphoria of owning a battered copy of DB gradually fades, as the crackles and pops get louder and louder as days go by, it dawns that satisfaction sadly wasn't guaranteed and tries to pass it off to the next guy - at the same price of course. Just because there's a copy of a record for sale on a regular basis doesn't necessarily mean its "common". Especially when you add in the all-important condition factor (eg anything over "excellent"). Dearly Beloved is a rare record by anyone's standards. The term "rare" in record collecting covers a wide range of "rarity". Usually you would prefix it with an adjective: super-rare, mega rare, very rare, fairly rare, quite rare or rare-ish for more common items, etc. The problem is a tendency to use "rare" to only describe records that are very rare.

Define "quite common". Is Dearly Beloved quite common? I don't know. I've just checked on ebay and there two original copies for sale one in the UK one in the US. How is that "quite common"? Especially when in mediocre condition. Unless you have a rough idea of how many copies were pressed, are in circulation and in collections its pretty meaningless. The evidence suggests it isn't at all common. Maybe fairly easy to get a copy if you've got a several hundred quid spare but that's a different matter. A record that commands prices of £300-500 isn't "common" by any stretch of the imagination.