Ian Dewhirst

You should have seen him. Very camp effiminate bizarre type. He probably saw a photo of Lada Edmund Jr and built a shrine to her for all I know. Bizarre. And what exactly was he doing with the record alone in the kitchen anyway? Fr*ggin' weirdo. Ian D

Absolutely. And it was very rare at the time but that's when rare was £15 LOL (bear in mind I bought my Eula Cooper original for £2 back then). But why would a hairdresser want to pay so much for a record he'd never even heard? He had no idea what Northern Soul was either. Ian D

Yes, correct Karen. The primary recipients will be the owners of the copyright but obviously it also extends the royalty period for artists too, so theoretically good for everyone involved if they receive royalties. The songwriters benefit from the 20 year extension. They've just got another 20 years of royalties from nowhere. Ian D

Ah, you're a musician or producer then. The thing that always kills me is the expense in going after people. I hope the lawyers aren't taking all the money! Best of luck. I've been there myself. Ian D

Yeah but the problem is you just never know why someone wants something there and then and is prepared to pay a high price for it. I've been absolutely staggered at some things that I've sold over the years. The first auction I ever did in the mid 70's, I managed to sell a Lada Edmund Jr for aproximately 400% more than it was worth to anyone else at the time. How come? I have no idea at all. "The Larue" buyer was a hairdresser from Northampton who placed what he hoped would be a pre-emptive bid on it which was aproximately 380% higher then my wildest dreams. He wanted to pick it up about 2 days before the auction ended but I said the auction didn't close until 6.00pm 2 days later. He then rang 2 days later @ 5.50pm and raised his bid further still. When he won it @ 6.01pm, he then drove 5 hours from Northampton, arrived at my place @ 11.00pm and asked to be alone with the record in my kitchen. 5 minutes later he came out of the kitchen and paid me in cash. As he was leaving, I said something like, "you must really like the record". He looked at me and said he'd never heard it. Questions questions ay? I've met some mad eccentric collectors down here who really have no real interest in the Northern or Modern Soul scenes but collect rare Soul records and they will buy a record for completely different reasons to someone else. I've got one guy who's been collecting 'dance' themed records since he was a kid and another guy who collects particular titles with certain words in them in them. The moral of the story, is that you just never know. Also it must be really difficult to guage the value of a record these days unless you're pretty on top of it all and a regular buyer, seller or dealer. I mean Lee Fields "Take Me Back" £700?????? Never in a million years. Worth £50 tops because I know how many copies are around. So I'd have flogged it for £30 probably. However,there's a lot of difference between £30 and £700 though, so who can blame people for trying? Ian D

Wow. You sound pretty genned up on this Kris. Do you study the law in this area? I'm curious because I'm generally in favor of greater transparency and access in most situations but the music biz is still pretty murky in some areas, not least this kind of thing. I know records which have blatently sampled some Northern Soul riffs and not credited the original in any way, either in using the master recording or using part of the song. So naturally I'm curious. Does the EEC have an accord on this stuff? I need to study up on this stuff a bit more...... Ian D

It's different in different territories Kris. I'll do some digging around (maybe Paul can help) but I can think of countless UK records that have sampled basslines, rhythms and persussion without accreditation and who haven't been sued, not that I'm avocating that or anything. Not much time to dig around, but just found this, which is interesting.... "Not all copyright disputes over uncleared samples are resolved in favour of the sample’s copyright holders. One example is the US case of Newton v Diamond (2003). In this case the Beastie Boys had actually obtained permission from ECM Records to sample a six-second, three-note sequence from James Newton’s flute recording Choir. The Beasties then incorporated the sample as a loop into their song ‘Pass The Mic’, which featured on the album Check Your Head. Unfortunately, the composer of the tune, James Newton, sued, as he hadn’t given his permission for use of the underlying composition. On appeal, the court confirmed an earlier ruling that no infringement had taken place. The court was of the opinion that the use of the sample was minimal, the two records weren’t substantially similar, and also that the public wouldn’t recognise any appropriation of Newton’s composition. (Though it should be stressed that recognition alone is no legal barometer of whether another work has indeed been copied.) Other defendants on the receiving end of sample infringement claims in the US have been able to rely on the defence of ‘fair use’. Fair use is a doctrine not recognised in UK, which permits copying for the purposes of criticism, reporting and review. The aim of the US legislators who enshrined this in law in 1976 was to allow authors to build upon, and transform existing works, but without the requirement of buying a licence to do so. The rights accorded to the copyright holder needed to be balanced with the broader cultural benefits of allowing artists to borrow from, re-work, and comment upon existing works of art. If Andy Warhol could re-work the images of Campbell’s soup or Marilyn Monroe, then a fair use defence would argue that today’s gangsta rappers should be free to sample their source of musical inspiration to produce new and original work". It's still a very grey area if you ask me..... Ian D

That's because you look respectable Steve. Whereas I get busted every trip! Ian D

Yep. Generally the 'you'll be playing a few records at a friend's wedding' is the one.........until they ask you for proof! Ian D

Brilliant Val. I see this as a sales pitch in the future for record dealers: "Brilliant double-sider that will appeal to both Northern and Crossover crowds. Ideal for international DJ's who suffer airline weight restrictions".......... We should do a chart of the most airline-friendly double-siders! Ian D

Probably lynched LOL...... Ian D

It's the music that's the important thing, not the format LOL. Unless you have some kind of vinyl fetish that is.....? 100's not enough for me by a long chalk Steve (but granted we do different gigs). I like a massive choice to keep things varied. Plus how do you predict so accurately what the foreign crowd will like? Is there like a Top 200 newies so if you have half of them you're covered? I think you'll find that 98% of regular working DJ's who travel regularly use CD's and laptops these days Steve. It's only the serious physical collector's scenes that demand physical vinyl. Plus travel costs for lugging 2 x boxes of 12" records are simply way too prohibitive these days which I guess is the beauty of 7"'s. My mate Greg Wilson used to take a vintage tape machine everywhere with him until it cost him £600 to take to Australia LOL.... Ian D

It can happen in quite a few European destinations including France and Spain. I've never personally been stopped but some mates of mine who DJ abroad on a regular basis have quite a few tales. Plus a well-known DJ had his records nicked within 5 minutes of his landing at well-known destination. I guess it depends on the country. Ian D

Win some lose some Joan. At least you were an international DJ with a gig in Seattle LOL. I've never even been! Hope it was in Summer,,,,,,,, Ian D

Didn't they ask you why you were bringing U.S. 45's INTO the U.S.? Ian D

Seattle's a great gig. You could have nipped up to Portland and found a few goodies whilst you were there! Did they pay airfare or was it a freeby? Ian D

They're OK in the hold if you have a reasonably solid case and they're in a light 100 count box inside the case with clothes wrapped around. I prefer 'em in the hold to be honest 'cos it's makes for a heavy holdall to lug everywhere with you. Mind you, if you're carrying £30,000 around with you then I guess you don't want 'em out of your sight. Bloody inconvenient though. What happens if they start charging for carry on weight though? Ian D

I reckon 100 is about the minimum. The vinyl thing is really limiting. The last time I took vinyl abroad was earlier this year and had to check a case in hold with around 200 7"'ers and around 20 12"'s in. A pain in the arse and there's always something you wanted to play but couldn't have with you, so quite frustrating too. Whereas a CD wallet can hold a few thousand tunes and a portable hard drive 50,000, both of which you can fit in a pocket or carry on bag and not get busted for weight, or worse still, by local customs. The minute some local customs guy sees people carrying record boxes in certain countries it's like waving a red flag! It's often an immediate 'fine' or 'import tax' and they know all the tricks now. I've had mates get their records confiscated until they've coughed up the 'tax' on their DJ fee. Also I'd check your insurance too. Thieves often target people with record boxes in airports. It's a dead giveaway so be careful out there. Ian D

Yep, still here Kev. Open to offers if anyone wants it. Surprisingly it's never been a major fave of mine but that white promo was kinda irresistible when I picked it up........... Ian D

But surely the record company or whoever paid for the studio time and the musicians are the ones who should be concerned since they own the recordings or am I missing something? Once a musician accepts a session fee, then presumably they only get to receive performance residuals after that don't they, and only then if they register with the appropriate bodies (another grey area by the way) or unless they're credited as a writer. In other words, once they've done the session and been paid, then the performance doesn't belong to 'em anymore does it? Also, I'm not sure if it's against the law to sample either a bass line or a drum beat as long as it doesn't go over a certain length - maybe Paul can clarify. Clyde Stubblefield must be the most sampled drummer of all time...... Ian D

Since when have musicians ever listened to advice Paul? Also, I think I've always understood that Carl wanted to learn all the processes himself anyway 'cos that's what generally came across in his posts. Which is fair enough. You definitely learn what not to do, that's for sure. I don't blame him actually. I'm still confounded by the stupidity of the business on a weekly basis, plus the rules really are changing very quickly. For every company whch continues to charge ridiculous advances and royalty rates in the current market and every company that wants to charge $500 per track for 'tape retrieval' or take 6 months to clear a track, there's a bunch of bootleggers out there who are just laughing that we still put up with it all and that's what worrying to me. Ian D

Also, I should add that I've just had a horrible week in making a stupid attempt to try and clear 2 Jackson's re-edits/remixes. One is Onur Engin's 8 minute extended version of "Show You The Way To Go" - The Jacksons (which never even had an extended mix or 12" release ever) which is a work of art that he spent 18 months finessing and the other is Julien Love's fantastic re-edit of "Living Together" by the Jacksons which is a huge record around the world and much bigger now than it ever was 35 years ago. The processes that one has to go through in getting the necessary legal clearances are long, torturous, painful, very stressfull and often much more expensive than the actual project is worth. That's why bootlegging is increasing faster than anyone realises which will turn into a much much bigger problem soon. There needs to be a clear cut, simple way of clearing for remixes, samples and useage. It's too complicated by far. It's far easier to bootleg and the chances of you getting caught are less than 1% I reckon. I say that after having been told that it will be virtually politicially impossible to get the above re-edits legally cleared for numerous reasons. Plus the process would more than likely take 'years' and need to go through approvals via 5 different parties. So unfortunately no one will ever get to be able to buy those tracks legally. So they'll simply get bootlegged and no one will see any money apart from the bootleggers. What sense does that make? It's not been a good week for me fellas. I do everything by the book and generally get slaughtered for it. Right now I'm STILL waiting painfully for clearances on albums that should have been out in 4 weeks which means that I spent most of last week begging U.S. companies to clear tracks before the CD disappears completely! The business part of the music business needs overhauling completely. It's like a dinosaur and far too complicated for it's own good. The music bit is fine in comparison! Ian D

Well I feel a lot more comfortable with remixes to be honest. Probably because I'm essentially a DJ and quite like the different angles that some mixes, remixes and re-edits can take. Also, some of these efforts significantly improve on the originals in terms of beefing up certain areas and making the songs more attractive to different audiences. So I'm generally always interested in what other mixes bring to the equation. Also, we're living in an age now, where re-edits are opening up huge audiences for people who never heard the original in many cases, so they're certainly creatively valid in my opinion. Probably 60% of what I actually play out to serious Disco audiences these days tend to be re-edits, which makes it more interesting for eclectic audiences. It's a similar thing to some of the new releases which sample key parts of old records. The biggest record for me this summer has been the Jack Splash remix of Cee-Lo's "I Want You" which liberally samples piece from a Saint Tropez track from '79. Is it a better for it? Yes, totally. Would I have ever played the Saint Tropez? No, never - mainly because apart from that great background chorus, the song is unplayable. So, legal and moral issues apart, I think good remixes and re-edits are a positive thing generally. That Pied Piper remix of "Soul Rece$$ion" is actually great. It's obvious that a lot of time and effort has gone into it and I'd take that as being a credit to your vision. He's taken a mammothly positive attitude to the song and could potentially break it out to a much larger audience. Have you had a chat with him? He's a good friends with my mate Jay Negron, so if you wanted to talk it probably wouldn't be difficult. But I don't know if there's been any communication between you guys. Thinking about it, he probably knows half the guys on the record 'cos he's been around a while......... Ian D

And no sooner do I go on Facebook today, then the latest post is the Pied Piper remix of "Soul Rece$$ion" by Double Exposure 're-loaded' by public demand'. Looking at the credits I'm curious as to whether he actually overlaid the additional strings and horns with the players credited? In other words, like a whole other recording session....... Mixed by Pied Piper Additional production by Pied Piper Additional strings by: Cees Van Schaik & Opera Strings Additional Horns: Tenor Saxophone – Rolf Römer Trombone – André Paquinet Trumpet, Flugelhorn – Bernhard Jobski, Horst Larisch, Milo Pavlovic, Rolf Ericson Additional guitar: Ingo Cramer Original Lineup: Drums: Earl Young Bass guitar: Jimmy Williams Keyboards: T Conway & Bobby Eli Guitars: Bobby Eli & Dennis Harris Percussion: Rikki Hicks Tambourine: Chiquita Green Additional percussion: John Morales Additional backing vocals: Chiquita Green, Janice McClain Executive Producer: Carl Dixon Written by: Bobby Eli/Chiquita Green/Carl Dixon Produced by: Bobby Eli I know it's a contentious issue Carl, but Pied Piper is pretty respected in the remix community and he's definitely taken a shine to this tune without a doubt, so could it be worth doing a limited 12" and offering legal downloads on this mix? Plus the title's actually bang on for this moment in time isn't it? . Ian D

I could make a million quid out of publishing if I could team up with a workaholic adminstrator. There is so much money just laying around waiting to be collected with the proper tools and administrative processes but it is a very time consuming and I just can't get very excited about the actual work. I also know all sorts of interesting things about the murky world of publishing and collection agencies, many of which I don't agree with and would undoubtably have moral problems with too. There's some very unsavoury elements to parts of the UK publishing business which I just feel happier not to be involved with. I like the million quid bit though........ Ian D