Mr Outsider

I only downloaded Shazam recently to wind up a DJ I know who was ranting about people using it to steal 'his' music. Even still, I was surprised by its success rate testing it at home with a few moderately obscure records. Surely eventually, as more stuff is added to it, it's going to ruin everybody's cover-up fun, and perhaps end this debate (which probably wouldn't be a bad thing).

BTW, has nobody heard of Shazam?

"The predominant purpose of a cover-up is to play a record to people so that they can enjoy the music" FFS, no it isn't!! The predominant purpose of playing a record publicly is so that people can enjoy the music. Covering the identity of that record has got literally nothing to do with anyone's enjoyment! It's done for entirely different reasons. "I'm always slightly mistrustful if people who cant decide whether to like something or not until they know all the peripheral info." Don't be so patronising. I understand it fine, it's not hard to understand. I just grew out of that kind of thinking some years ago. It's playground. "this friendly competition amongst djs is possibly one of the most positive and harmless examples of competition in human endeavor" Do me a favour! Are you taking the piss?? "It is extraordinarily middle class to be offended by it." Oh right, it's a class thing! "secondly, you have the misconception of djs getting rewards, and this beibg the crux of your moral argument" No. Perhaps you're reading too much into the word is all. Benefits don't have to be large. By your own admission, cover ups are part of a competitive spirit. If there's nothing to be gained at all, what's the competition in aid of? "at the moment your just attacking the little people who actually collectively fuel the whole thing, simply for the love of it." I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just saying I don't agree with the notion of covering up old records in 2014. This opinion isn't part of a wider attack on a besieged group. Can I ask why you didn't ever cover anything up before? Honestly? "Doesn't matter how good the original artists were if noone ever hears it. You dont ever seem to want to acknowledge that point," Because I don't think it's at all relevant. Covering up records isn't intrinsic to their exposure unless you specifically choose it to be so. Many thousands of people play records publicly without feeling the need to keep their identity to themselves. "in your strange, somewhat self-loathing, anti-dj crusade." Why does everyone think I'm on a flipping crusade?!? Through finding cover ups mildly objectionable, I just have a slightly different opinion to you. There is no crusade!

It's really simple, so simple it shouldn't bear repeating but apparently it's still necessary. I think doing cover ups is basically juvenile ego driven cock waving and that it's also somewhat disrespectful to the author. You think it's the best way to honour an artist somehow, or at least that or whatever or that it's all too trivial or something. I'm never going to change my mind on that and in spite of what you say, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my own ego or desire to conquer the world via reissues. In fact, sod it, all this music I'm 'milking' more than anyone in the world, most of this wasn't discovered by the mod scene or soul scene, and they don't own it either way. Some of it was played on the popcorn scene before then, or the rockin scene, or the Pittsburgh scene, all of which have a culture of reissues, boots and cover-ups going back for years. Some of it even appears to have been 'uncovered' by me and my mates, if you'd believe that. It's old music, none of us invented it ourselves.

No they haven't. Not in any way clearly anyway, except for Dean. A lot of other things being said are rather muddled and unclear. I don't have my 'own reasons' for thinking authors deserve accreditation when other people make money off their work. This isn't an esoteric belief, as I've said several times, it's the generally accepted standard wherever other people's work is referenced or used in a commercial venture. To deal with the point again, since you obviously feel it's pertinent. To what extent do cover-ups actually benefit artists in the long term with regard to them helping to create a demand eventually leading to a reissue? I would say it's got to be negligible and that the same effect could equally be achieved whilst crediting the artists in the first place, so long as the record is any good. In any case, it's a conceit to even go down that path of argument since a reissue is probably the farthest thing in the desire of the person originally doing the covering up. You yourself hold reissues in plain contempt - yet here you are using them to justify the use of cover-ups to eventually engender them, thus giving the artist some latter day exposure and recognition - exposure which you obviously don't really care about in the first place when the record is being covered up and are openly contemptuous about once the record is reissued. Is it just me or isn't there some hypocrisy and logical flaws here? As to all the stuff about me and my this and that, whilst I don't have any desire to join a scene and get bogged down in its dogma, that doesn't mean I don't recognize the good that they can do and the worth they have. Cover ups and general cock-waving antics don't really fit into that bracket for me, however. And I accept some of what you say about scenes creating and promoting demands for my and other people's reissues, I don't know why this is relevant to this issue, but fair enough, I accept that. I don't know why you seem to want to have a go at me about it though. Maybe you feel you deserve more, ahem, credit?

Nobody, I was quoting a joke Mik made in a previous post.

Yes, because you're missing the salient point - seemingly willfully as I don't believe you haven't identified it - which is that by playing it in clubs, posting it on youtube, putting it on playlists etc, you're seeking to achieve some benefit from that recording beyond your personal home enjoyment of it. Would an artist - conceivably - be put out by the notion of someone privately enjoying their record in their own home? Well, no, why on earth would he, unless they are somehow unhinged? Would an artist - conceivably - be put out by some DJ trying to make a name for themselves by retitling their song and their name in order to preserve their exclusive 'ownership' of it? Conceivably, I think you'd have to agree, 'yes'. Even if Bald Prick and the Knobheads wouldn't be offended.

Is keeping the identity of 75 year old cuddly Morgan Freeman's secret really an important part of the music?,Would these chaps recognize this importance and defer to it, and to those who are guarding their identities for the continued good of their music? I think it all seems a bit far-fetched and besides the point. Digging up 4 or 5 decade old black American records via aged Northern English record dealers and ebay and then championing yourself for it is functioning in quite a different realm to the then contemporary early 60s sound system scene in Kingston or nascent Hip Hop culture of 1970s South Bronx. All this is purely subjective and anecdotal anyway. I have heard DJ's talk about cover ups. I can't really remember hearing any musicians preaching the 'importance' of having their identities obscured by self-promoting DJs.

The extent to which it is enforceable - and I assure you, it is enforceable in many cases, perhaps not for individuals so much but certainly where it comes to a large number of masters which are now owned by major labels - isn't the point. You seem to be arguing that since nobody can really enforce the laws of ownership etc, that it's free for anyone to do with it how they please. At least I think that's what you're arguing. It might be true that poor individuals have little power to enforce proper accreditation and royalty payments, but in my mind at least that doesn't give anyone carte blanche to exploit their works however they wish for their own rewards. Maybe practically, yes, but ethically it's a different matter. The issue isn't enforcing laws anyway, that's yet another blind alley thrown up to muddy the waters of what is really a simple thing. Which is acknowledging the author of a work from which you are seeking to exploit for notoriety and / or income.

It's not even the same argument. If you buy a 2nd hand book and read it and shelve it, fine, that's what most people do. No problem. If you are a professional book reciter - if such a thing exists! - and start reciting the book in public and using it to make money, credit the author. Not naming the author, or else making up a phony name so as to promote your continued exclusivity over the book seems egotistical, and surely a bit disrespectful to the author. Do you see?

The book example, which someone else made, it's an interesting one to pursue. Let's say I was a poetry enthusiast and regularly attended poetry recital groups. Rummaging around in my local 2nd hand book store, I uncovered a book of poetry which I didn't think my fellow group members would be aware of. Feverishly excited with my new 'discovery' I vow to myself to keep the title of the book and the identity of the author secret for as long as possible, whilst regularly reciting verses from this impressive yet obscure publication to appreciative audiences. I might even tell the group members that I wasn't going to reveal the details of my remarkable find, lest they all go and find a copy of the book with which they could potentially use to recite the verses themselves. After all, why should they benefit from my 'discovery' and share the adulation and praise that I deserve for having found the book in my local 2nd hand book store? And as for the original writer, who cares? Me reading out his poetry to a group of true poetry lovers, whilst refusing to tell people his name, that's probably the best thing that's ever happened to him, even though he doesn't actually know it's happening and maybe never will so long as I can keep his identity a secret. In any case, it's early 40 years old. He's probably dead or else working in a pig farm somewhere in Norfolk or whatever. And after 40 years, all those pretentious ideas of authorship and rights and all that go out the window, they turn to dust, everyone knows that. I found the poetry book, so by rights, I pretty much own the poetry now, and I intend to use it to make poetry fans everywhere love me and pay me money to recite it.

That's not the point at all. He/she can't pay their bills with thankyou's but I'm sure he/she appreciates them a whole lot more than fuckyou's.

There are plenty of artists, and their descendants, still around. What do you mean by "The chain of ownership from an intellectual property or licencing perspective has been completely eroded and the practicality of enforcement has become prohibitive."? This is inaccurate. Mostly all records considered to be Northern Soul are protected by copyright laws. This isn't a wishy washy, unenforceable ideal, in the first place it's actually the law. "The only ownership that exists is the physical possession of the individual copies in circulation amongst the record buying community that is "the scene"." This is the crux of my disagreement I think. Misplaced sense of ownership and an appropriation of someone else's work based upon that. The scene owns nothing. It is just borrowing and using stuff that it's found. Nothing wrong with borrowing and using stuff but it's not the same as creating or owning it. Is it pretentious and naive to think that the creators of art ought to be credited? I don't think it is. I think it's more than pretentious to assume the ownership of some art because you happened to come across a replica copy of it. How would you feel if you created something you believed in, it flopped, you forgot about it, then found out 40 years on that a whole new audience for it had emerged, except that nobody would tell anyone that you made it because a DJ thought his own name and rep as a discoverer of an 'unknown' record by someone else was more important?

Eugene Gaspard - Holding On (Rosemont) VG+ to EX £125 £100 label has some very minor wear (a little worse on flip side), see scan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4loolHbr04

I personally think that is incredibly strange logic, and on a very basic level I would question the motivation for those DJs and dealers indulging in cover ups, since it surely isn't with the end goal of seeing a reissue and the associated exposure for the artist, but this is your standpoint and as it clearly differs from my own, so we can only but agree to disagree really. I said it wasn't relevant because you seemed to be trying to make the matter more personal, whilst not actually knowing anything about me in person, which wasn't an avenue I wanted to go down. I don't know what you mean by assuming credit for discovering an artist's hard work. I sometimes make compilations and my name is credited as the compiler, for whatever that's worth. I don't think I've ever claimed to 'discover' anything. It's another term which has always struck me as having an egotistical baggage which hasn't sat right. My hero's aren't DJs or diggers or compilers, they're the artists, and it's always been that way, right or wrong. I'll give credit to people who work hard and find new sounds, but I think the act of covering them up once they do so is quite transparently ego driven, and as such leaves a sour taste. For me. We diggers, collectors, compilers and DJs do not own the music, and the people who do own it - artistically - deserve the perhaps trivial but surely respectful and proper gesture of being acknowledged accurately while we profit or benefit from their work in our various ways.

A couple of people were saying that accrediting artists is a basic way of paying very fundamental respect to them when you use their work for your own gain. You then brought up your keen CD habit as an example of a more valuable way of paying respects. Perhaps it is, but I'm not interested in comparing different levels of 'respect', nor establishing the 'ultimate respect' and moreover it was never the argument here. Is it disrespectful to use someone else's work to boost your own profile and line your own pocket, and not acknowledge them because not acknowledging them promotes your notoriety and profile further? In my opinion, yes, it is disrespectful. Whilst I'm accused of clutching straws, I've yet to encounter anything resembling a convincing compelling argument which explains why this simple trick is not disrespectful to the author. Quite a lot of sheer presumption there, I really can't be bothered to respond to your imaginations about my motivations and character, anything on a personal level isn't relevant and just seems to once again obscure quite a simple point - is it disrespectful or not? Well, is it? Or not? See above, don't know what you're on about, neither do you.

If you can identify the point where I make that argument, I'll give you a cream egg.

That's a fair point, and one which I had privately considered myself, hoping nobody would articulate! But, in the scheme of things, how many Kent reissues have emerged directly because of a record being covered up, and if the record was good enough, wouldn't it be worthy of a reissue anyway? In any case, I'm 100% sure that an eventual reissue is the absolute farthest thing from the mind of the person who does the initial covering-up!!!

Don't agree Dean. BBE released several bootlegs, this was the only one that was released without credits on the sleeve. The reason for this was explained by Keb as being down to Shadow's desire to keep the 45s somewhat secretive. Perhaps, as John said, it was also as a tribute to the UBB boots of the 80s (haven't heard that elsewhere). Then again, even they credited the songwriters on the sleeves, if not the artists themselves.

I'm not trying to direct anything, merely stating a personal opinion on a practice which, by the way, was not invented by nor is exclusively exercised by the Northern scene. My own status as a self professed outsider from that specific circle doesn't preclude me from understanding what is a very simple and more widely practiced phenomenon. Eh? You said that a cover-up may eventually lead to a reissue and that makes it worthwhile. But as you seem to have just admitted, the covering up itself has literally no bearing on the eventuality of the reissue, it would have been just as likely to have been reissued if it hadn't been covered up (perhaps more so, since attempting to license a record via incorrect credits would present quite a few problems). This offers no qualification or support for the practice of covering up the record and is a total irrelevance. No, you say it's the 'right way' to pay respects. Presumably, accrediting artists for their work is the 'wrong way', or if not, why bring up the example of buying CD's. I don't understand the relevance. You can play someone's record, acknowledge the person who authored it, buy CD's, book artists for 'pish' weekenders, the lot. It's not an either / or scenario, nor a case of a 'right' and 'wrong' way to pay respect. Trying to elevate one mode of respect in order to preserve a tradition of clear disrespect which honours only the careers of certain DJ's and pockets of certain dealers and the traditions of a small scene is something I find a bit confusing, if I'm honest. Is it? As I said above, it's the universally held standard when it comes to broadcasting or using other people's work in any public medium - the very minimum thing you do is credit the author. I'm not on any kind of crusade at all, and have no specific plan for Soul 45s. Just stating an opinion.

I've never been on any scene, but have at times gotten up close and personal with a few via my one and only shared interest with scenes in general - music. Maybe it has got f*%& all to do with me. So do a lot of things, doesn't stop me from forming opinions about them. As with anything, if you feel I'm misinformed or just plain wrong, you are quite entitled to use your insider position and knowledge to show why. But just saying 'you're not on the scene, you'll never understand, f*&% off etc', is, at best, a bit of a cop-out, isn't it? How will a cover-up sometimes lead to a Kent reissue? Is a cover-up more likely to lead to a Kent reissue than a non-cover-up? Seems highly improbable. So I fail to see the benefit to the artist there, sorry. You say you pay respect where it should be paid, but this is entirely on the terms you've decided. According to you, respect should be paid via royalty receipts on licensed CDs;, that is the only correct and proper way to administer respect to artists. Pardon me, but I think it's more simple than that. I shall just repeat my belief that if you are engaging in the use and broadcast of other people's work for your own financial gain and notoriety, basic and accurate accreditation is the most fundamental gesture of respect there is. It's the same in any other mode of broadcast or publication - if you use or even quote or reference someone's work, you credit them. At this stage, royalties on CDs and the second hand record market don't come into my thinking at all.

Jocko, I for one would never claim to be "on the scene", so you've no need to advise me to get off it. I'm just debating a single issue, there's no wider agenda to infiltrate or cleanse the scene of its traditions. On the one hand I understand why cover-up's are carried out by certain individuals within that context but on a personal level I can't relate to the practice and don't think the arguments for hold up to much scrutiny. The strongest arguments to emerge so far to mitigate for withdrawing credit to an artist are, variously, that 'it's only for a while', 'they don't know anyway' and now 'I buy loads of CD's so that balances it out'. Thing is, all of these arguments seem to be formed from an admission that the practice isn't really defensible in the long term or in the wider spectrum, hence the attempts to mitigate.

By your rationale then, any benefits that the artist might enjoy from their song being rediscovered would be trivial, thus also not worth arguing about and not really worth worrying about. i.e. any personal benefits or feelings of appreciation that an artist might conceivably have via the exposure of his name etc are not important enough to outweigh the importance of a DJ on a small scene in the North of England feeling that their set is exclusive. Personally I don't think 'respect' and 'dignity' are abstract or trivial in this sense, they are fundamental to my life-long enthusiasm for the music. I suppose if someone's enthusiasm and passion is more fixated on the specific scene in which they experience the music then they might value the cover-up as more important than affording an artist the simple and basic dignity of accreditation, but I've never looked at it that way personally. I'll leave you to get tangled in your own 'moral' arguments but be aware that your reasoning in this case would also lead to this : i find a record that is an unknown one-off, I quite like it but it has a 3/4 waltz bit in the middle that makes it unsuitable for me to dj with. Should I have to play it? Sell it to a more waltz-friendly dj? Isn't it arrogant to hide it from the world? Am I compelled to put it on youtube? Who am I to have that responsibility to decide if it deserves exposure or not, some sort of caesar!? I don't see how my reasoning leads there at all. I'm simply saying, if you are going to broadcast a piece of art, credit the author. Not saying that anyone has a duty to broadcast all works of art! Sometimes you have to stick to pragmatics. Most important is the enjoyment of the music, if that has evolved with cover-ups somehow, then let it be. The total gain is good, better, probably even then a few artists dying marginally happier or richer - something only a few people seem to be patronising enough to quantify anyway. Cover-ups and enjoyment of the music are not mutually exclusive. It's quite possible for someone to do as you yourself did - give exposure to a number of songs on a given scene whilst also not specifically obscuring the artist's identities. If you had covered some of these up, what tangible benefit would there have been to your audience, the artist or anyone else? You complained earlier your regret that other DJs had played the music and dealers had made a few extra ££s. Aside from that being the way of the world, it also shows that the cover up really only serves the ego of the DJ doing the covering up. I'm sure there's worse cases of arrogance or immorality to get worked up about - maybe start with the bootleg guy - everyone knows who he is but no one says shit. Of course there are and your example qualifies on that front, but that isn't the topic in hand! The bootleg debate, without the Cook report expose perhaps, happens on here about once a week. Haven't seen this one before, though I'm sure it isn't the first time all the same.

I have a Carnations. PM me if you want it. Cheers, Liam

I also think the example of Jamaican sound system culture is so far removed by time, geography and technology, from the modern day, as to be really rather irrelevant to the debate. I would say the same for the 70s hip hop scene, and 70s / 80s Northern scene even. The world has changed so much since then, there isn't really such a thing as a small, community or scene driven by the same kind of localized competition. Most DJs of all kinds are on the internet. It's one thing to hide the title of a record from your mates or a rival local DJ, it's quite another to go on the internet and lie about the names of records to virtual strangers all over the world.