Mr Outsider

Is it? By your own example, 'they wouldn't know', so it really isn't an offering or tribute of any kind whatsoever. Whereas if the artist was afforded the dignity of having their name revealed to the few 100 people who have come to enjoy their record, they stand a much greater chance of eventually becoming aware of it, and hence realizing that some people do finally appreciate it. As opposed to their name being kept a secret from their would-be fans in order to preserve the exclusivity of a DJ's set and prop up his ego - and continued DJ bookings presumably. In any case, saying 'they wouldn't know' so it makes no difference isn't a very compelling argument. Certainly isn't a moral one.

Neither the BBE comp or Trouble's set lists are examples of DJ's covering up records? Aren't they? What are they then? "Some people might think putting your own name, as a 'compiler', on a compilation LP in bigger writing than the featured artists is fairly arrogant, " Haha, yes, it definitely might appear that way and it's not something I've ever been comfortable about. I was persuaded by a few people to put my name on comps etc as it helps with DJ bookings - look at others who have done similar - or in the case of the aforementioned comp, put their own name on the cover and none of the artists names ANYWHERE! Not accurate to say it's bigger though, it's equal to and in some cases smaller than the other artists names and is the size it is simply so it fits into the space, trust me, I'm the designer - I had to keep making it bigger than I wanted it to be so it would fit into the circle I'd drawn!! "djing in the first place is something of a conceit, especially flying around the world to do so." Don't really follow that, nor why DJing in other cities or countries is more conceited than doing it in your own city or country. If people think any given DJ is more important than they are and look up to them then that's their own lookout. Playing records publicly isn't by definition a conceited thing to do. Unless you're conceited about it. "the fault with the bbe comp is that they were making money without paying the artists" That was the fault of BBE as a company. As a completely separate issue, for Keb and Shadow's part I thought it was utterly disrespectful not to credit the artists and brazenly egotistical to omit these credits whilst representing their own names to the full. Trouble's top 10 was completely meaningless as a list, literally useless as information of any kind, but it exposed very clearly the sheer egotism which undeniably lies at the heart of SOME if perhaps not all instances of cover-ups. "I never used to cover anything up and the only people this seemed to help was other djs and record dealers." Well, sure. But you probably also didn't cover anything up because you thought it was a bit of a dickish thing to do. Am I right? For me, I can only look it and think that I don't own the music and I don't own the rights to DJ it. It's precisely conceited to think otherwise, surely? Who cares if someone else plays it or a record dealer makes a few extra quid off it, through your exposure. Well, you might care on a personal level, but only on a purely self-regarding level? Exposing and popularizing - 'discovering' even - an existing piece of artwork doesn't come with a license to dictate who consumes or enjoys it, nor control the future economics of it. Apologies for all the quotes and random font sizes, not sure how to quote individual sentences properly...

If I'm fortunate enough to discover a good record that for whatever reason appears to be "unknown", I may keep it quiet for a bit while I try and find other copies etc, but the idea of publicly claiming some kind of ownership of the music via a cover up (which is exactly what a cover up equates to) would never occur to me. Not only would it seem monumentally arrogant, it would also strike me as tantamount to artistic theft. Stumbling across someone else's work doesn't make you any kind of artist, it just means you found someone else's work. If you intend to share that with people, it's obnoxious to withdraw the credit and mis-direct it to yourself. Sounds like some Christopher Columbus business to me. The worst kind of example of this that I've seen remains Keb and Shadow's Deep Funk bootleg comp on BBE which didn't reveal the artist's names on the sleeve so that the records could remain the secret treasure of the compilers. Then there was the self-parody of the likes of James Trouble posting up top 10 lists with bullshit credits, each one followed by (C/U) in brackets. Jeebuz.

£675 Final Reduction

£750 takes it, decent price for a very nice copy I think

M- copy SOLD Rare modern soul dancer.

My favourite double sider, hands down... Raw Detroit R&B at its finest... M- copy SOLD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMrG8uDmBmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwGZJWXnKQg

Vinyl is M- Some minor staining on label (see attached scan) Monster New Orleans crossover rarity, £800

Something for everyone I guess... https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=&LH_Auction=1&_ssn=mroutsider&_sop=1

Just skimmed through this thread. I think I have a solution of sorts. Records like Ray Agee, which there just doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on, should be settled by way of joint custody. The R&B fans get to play it on Friday, the Northern on Saturday.

Yes, fair point Mace, I'll scuttle off then...

Yep, and that's fine for Northern do's, that was my point really. They can and will keep upholding the traditions of that scene, cos that's what scenes do. Don't expect the rest of the world to respect or even recognise these rules though, and don't get angry when they don't. Makes no sense.

Who is this directed at? The converted soul crowd? Because to the wider public, the notion that you should only be allowed to dance and enjoy a certain song in a public space if you've travelled 100s of miles to experience a collector playing the original would seem alien, and frankly quite absurd in the modern world. And that's really the problem with a lot of these arguments - a handful of people within a given scene trying to set the terms by which certain pieces of music can acceptably be enjoyed, owned or danced to. As if soul music is subject to entirely different rules and constraints as all other kinds of music, because, well, you say so. Doing my own night, my main concern is making the music as good as it can be, in my opinion. I find it difficult to think that a more casual DJ who only plays reissues will be able to present the music in the same way as me and the people I choose to play with, so I don't feel at all threatened, and neither should anyone else so long as they are confident that they are doing the same. If numbers are low at my night, it isn't because someone down the road is playing the same stuff off boots, it's just because there isn't really that much general interest in this great old music, as hard as some of us try to promote it.

Always hear that reissues are killing real soul clubs. Two things here: Surely real soul clubs are those with an original vinyl only policy, at least by the standards that those who speak in such terms would have it. Hence other people playing reissues in a different venue, to a different crowd, cannot damage real soul clubs. It's an entirely different market, a different audience. Unless... the audience for real soul clubs are leaving en masse, to hear other DJs play reissues in other kinds of venues with other kinds of crowds. I would find that hard to believe, but if somehow it were the case then the defence for original vinyl wouldn't even be resonating with your audience, in which case you should probably start to recognize it for what it is: an esoteric collector kink which you can enjoy and indulge in but which is not really a firm basis for a world view. That much is made clear by all the contradictions and inconsistencies which emerge in people's arguments about them. I say this as someone who continues to collect and DJ originals. Because I like them. I'm passionate about music and like collecting the old records. I'm also involved in making reissues, and the two things are linked. I try and make records that I personally see some value in, because I like old music and I like records. I strive to make new records with an echo of the old ones I like, not just in the music, obviously, but in the way they look and feel. I'm not always happy with how they turn out and always want to make them better. Might sound weird to some people, but I do take a level of pride in the making of them. Anyway, if people are DJing reissues, then I can't see it as a bad thing. There's far too little decent music around in the mainstream to be upset that somewhere someone might be playing a good song to people. Is it harming my own clubs and personal choice of DJing with original vinyl - categorically no. People often talk of people only doing reissues because they're greedy. This might indeed be a motivation for some people. But ironically, most originals were made by record companies with zero interest in the music and artists. I would say the majority of those involved with the reissues, and even the boots, are more passionate about the music than the majority of 60s label owners. The artists are often getting a better royalty rate too. Just a minor issue, but felt it worth nothing. There's often a lot of hand-wringing and moralizing in the arguments of those who rage against reissues etc. And a lot of hypocrisy too.

Clarence Daniels & Obie Jessie - Hard Working Girl (Affiliated) VG+ HELD Young Jessie's rarest 45, and a super nice Jazzy R&B cut. Picked up a spare a little while back. Has a little pen on one label and some light marks on shiny vinyl. Flip side is pretty nice too.

Obscure 80s boogie / funk. Last copy through ebay was $133. Got a couple of M- stock copies at £35 (paypal gift preferred) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAOnYo57sE

I'll back up what Dennis says about the Betty James, total banger and A LOT rarer than 'mixed up'

Don't know for sure either way, seems nobody does. My only point is that I was wary of them before and still am. They could quite conceivably be cut from an unissued master, in which case you're right, they are what they are. Does seem odd that nobody ever turns up a used copy and they all come from one person, with a long history of making his own pressings, that's all. In terms of the graphics, I personally don't think the type faces used look particularly authentic for the era. It looks like a stock label layout, and most plants would have used a Futura or Franklin font variant. Don't know if anyone has any other Vegas pressed releases of a similar vintage to compare to? Anyway, no specific point to make. Just waffling really.

Yes, definitely stamped on after the fact, somewhat odd that none of the others have it though.

Yep, but when he's mixing this up with manufacturing his own counterfeits, some of which are pretty convincing, it's a good idea to approach with a little scepticism imo.

Just looked it up out of boredom and found this interesting: it has publishing info and an address stamped onto the label, which most copies do not have. https://www.popsike.com/php/detaildatar.php?itemnr=370244166857

The 'guy in vegas' is pretty much a known bootlegger and I always assumed the Hymes was one of his own pressings from the off.

Was the Zeke & The Soul Setters ever released with a 'proper' label. I've seen it only a couple of times as a white label with hand writing.

Got a small handful of copies, all EX to M- dead stock. Ralph Young - Cool Off The Floor (Goldband) £25

Great R&B dancer in top nick SOLD