Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious the unreleased, Disney album

[after you]

Diana Ross is great with lyrics especially this song it’s so very unusual what are the thoughts on the unreleased Disney album I love all 14 songs

[Motown Eddie]

Diana Ross is great with lyrics especially this song it’s so very unusual what are the thoughts on the unreleased Disney album I love all 14 songs

Yes indeed; Diana Ross sounds great on "Supercalifragilisistic...". However aside from the tracks included on The Supremes' Never Before Released Masters collection, I've never heard the other cuts on their Disney Classics set.

[daviddh]

I heard them many years ago, glad it wasn released.
Just to much product out on the group.

Only song I remember is Wish upon a star..
But I had a cassette tape years ago with the songs.
But Ross is a great entrepreneur of lyrics

[mysterysinger]

One of the unofficial CDs produced by that guy Ben from Germany was "Diana Ross & The Supremes Sing Disney Classics" - I was daft enough to buy one - and it included the following tracks

Original album
01 Heigh Ho
02 I've Got No Strings
03 Chim Chim Cher Ree
04 A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes
05 Someday My Prince Will Come
06 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett
07 Zip A Dee Doo Dah
08 Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
09 Toyland
10 When You Wish Upon A Star
11 A Spoonful Of Sugar
12 The Land Of Make Believe
13 Whistle While You Work
14 It Won't Be Long 'Til Christmas
Bonus
15 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett [[alternate mix)
16 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett [[backing track)



here's the link to it on Discogs - but it has been blocked from sale in the marketplace:

https://www.discogs.com/release/15330479-The-Supremes-Diana-Ross-The-Supremes-Sing-Disney-Classics

[floyjoy678]

I've never listened to the whole set. I'm not really a fan of children's music and I thought the whole idea was corny for the Supremes and they were getting pretty corny by that point.

I do like Ballad of Davy Crockett. Is Diana singing background on that one? Sounds like the Andantes in some spots.

Which tracks were with Flo and which ones were with Cindy?

[blackguy69]

https://youtu.be/FkU6s6i6wBU?si=bc-ptYx7uk-IvZum

[after you]

Most of the songs where released I love them I have heard all of them , I wonder where this German guy got all this unreleased material from , I would love to have this album exspanded , maybe if one of us wins the lottery we could give universal money to get it done

[RanRan79]

One of the unofficial CDs produced by that guy Ben from Germany was "Diana Ross & The Supremes Sing Disney Classics" - I was daft enough to buy one - and it included the following tracks

Original album
01 Heigh Ho
02 I've Got No Strings
03 Chim Chim Cher Ree
04 A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes
05 Someday My Prince Will Come
06 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett
07 Zip A Dee Doo Dah
08 Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
09 Toyland
10 When You Wish Upon A Star
11 A Spoonful Of Sugar
12 The Land Of Make Believe
13 Whistle While You Work
14 It Won't Be Long 'Til Christmas
Bonus
15 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett [[alternate mix)
16 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett [[backing track)



here's the link to it on Discogs - but it has been blocked from sale in the marketplace:

https://www.discogs.com/release/15330479-The-Supremes-Diana-Ross-The-Supremes-Sing-Disney-Classics

Between the official releases on unvaulted comps and the bootlegs that made the rounds back in the day, I have all of these accept "Chim", which I'm holding out for an official release, rather than acquiring through bootleg sources. [[Gives me something to look forward to.) I can't wait for an official release of "Zippity". My version is horrible quality. Can't wait to have a clean version because even the horrible quality of the audio doesn't mask how great a version the ladies cut.

[RanRan79]

I've never listened to the whole set. I'm not really a fan of children's music and I thought the whole idea was corny for the Supremes and they were getting pretty corny by that point.

I do like Ballad of Davy Crockett. Is Diana singing background on that one? Sounds like the Andantes in some spots.

Which tracks were with Flo and which ones were with Cindy?

"Won't Be Long Til Christmas", "Toyland", "A Dream Is a Wish", "A Spoonful of Sugar" are session singers.

"Whistle", "No Strings", "When You Wish", "Davy Crockett" are with Florence.

"Heigh Ho", "Land of Make Believe" are with Cindy.

"Someday My Prince Will Come" is with the Andantes.

"Supercali" and "Zippity" I'm having a hard time saying "definitively". I hear Mary clearly on both, but it's difficult for me to tell if she's with Flo or Cindy. I'm leaning towards Florence because Cindy's high sound is usually easily recognizable against Mary's tone, whereas as if Flo isn't going into her higher register against Mary, she isn't as in your face as she often is when paired with Mary's tone.

Regarding "Davy", yes Diana and Florence are backing Mary up on it. I don't hear anyone but the trio.

[RanRan79]

Had the Broadway to Hollywood album ultimately ended up completed, a couple of these songs would have made great additions. Diana on "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes" is fantastic, as is her vocal on "Someday My Prince Will Come".

[blackguy69]

Supercali is with Cindy. The background vocals were recorded in November 1967


"Won't Be Long Til Christmas", "Toyland", "A Dream Is a Wish", "A Spoonful of Sugar" are session singers.

"Whistle", "No Strings", "When You Wish", "Davy Crockett" are with Florence.

"Heigh Ho", "Land of Make Believe" are with Cindy.

"Someday My Prince Will Come" is with the Andantes.

"Supercali" and "Zippity" I'm having a hard time saying "definitively". I hear Mary clearly on both, but it's difficult for me to tell if she's with Flo or Cindy. I'm leaning towards Florence because Cindy's high sound is usually easily recognizable against Mary's tone, whereas as if Flo isn't going into her higher register against Mary, she isn't as in your face as she often is when paired with Mary's tone.

Regarding "Davy", yes Diana and Florence are backing Mary up on it. I don't hear anyone but the trio.

[RanRan79]

Supercali is with Cindy. The background vocals were recorded in November 1967

Thanks BG.

I wonder what the thought was when going forward with the Disney sessions after Florence left. Were the Flo cuts to be shelved, re-recorded with Cindy, or replaced with new Disney songs altogether? Seemed like a strange album with Diana calling out to Cindy on "Heigh Ho" and cajoling Flo to join in on "Whistle". Lol

[sup_fan]

i think in the notes to the L&F set, they mention that the track was recorded for Bippidy Boppidy Boo but no vocals. so that gives us a total of 16 tracks since my guess is the two versions of the Davey are just different stages of the production, not totally different versions of the song.

at this time there were multiple concept projects for the group - Disney, Broadway and R&H. I think in one of Randy's books he mentions that Diana was eager to do a children's album so maybe the Disney one was due to her interest and less so from Berry. The results are quite strong

my guess is that Berry was very, very precise in what would and would not be released by the group. he was about to elevate Diana to star billing and the idea was to being tv work on shows, tv specials and to reach even higher levels of stardom so that she could be launched from the group. They did the theme to a big Hollywood movie [[the Happening), the Tarzan show, TCB and GIT, then she did Like Hep and Laugh In, endorsed Humphrey for Pres. They started to appear at the Waldorf and even grander clubs. their personal appearance fees increased. So Berry would have been looking very closely at what would have benefitted Diana's star ascension. the lavish R&H set is even a step above the well done Broadway one. a children's album was a nice idea but did nothing for this overall mission

[gman]

Mary is DEEP on Davey Crockett....I love it...

[BayouMotownMan]

This lp is best left unreleased. It's just so hokey. The spoken intro to Heigh Ho is just awful

[sup_fan]

This lp is best left unreleased. It's just so hokey. The spoken intro to Heigh Ho is just awful

but the Whistle While You Work dialog with Flo was kinda funny. Her being too busy digging the drummer! and that her teeth might fall out. Mary's line about bubble gum though was pretty weak lol

[bradsupremes]

The Disney album should be enjoyed for what it is - a children's album. It was a departure from the more adult oriented album like I Hear A Symphony and Rodgers & Hart and fun to listen to when not taken so seriously as their other works. How many other of their contemporaries were attempting this?

A lot of work went into this album and Gordy was clearly looking for different sounds as it was cut in three different places - Detroit, New York, Los Angeles and multiple producers. The fact they revived the project with Cindy shows they were committed to it. It would be fascinating to know much Disney was involved in this. "It Won't Be Long Till Christmas" was intended for The Happiest Millionaire, a Disney film that wouldn't be released until the fall of 1967. The song would eventually get cut from the film before general release, but the fact it was recorded before the film's release hints at the possibility there was some sort of Motown/Disney collaboration. I think another song from the film, "Fortuosity," would have been a better song to record.

[floyjoy678]

This lp is best left unreleased. It's just so hokey. The spoken intro to Heigh Ho is just awful

Agreed. I can appreciate that it shows how versatile they were but I just think a lot of fans would have been rolling their eyes at this one.

[Ollie9]

Diana’s girlish and playful vocals work brilliantly on the Disney songs. I really hope the intended album is included on any future expanded releases. That’s assuming there will be any more of course.

[sup_fan]

The Disney album should be enjoyed for what it is - a children's album. It was a departure from the more adult oriented album like I Hear A Symphony and Rodgers & Hart and fun to listen to when not taken so seriously as their other works. How many other of their contemporaries were attempting this?

A lot of work went into this album and Gordy was clearly looking for different sounds as it was cut in three different places - Detroit, New York, Los Angeles and multiple producers. The fact they revived the project with Cindy shows they were committed to it. It would be fascinating to know much Disney was involved in this. "It Won't Be Long Till Christmas" was intended for The Happiest Millionaire, a Disney film that wouldn't be released until the fall of 1967. The song would eventually get cut from the film before general release, but the fact it was recorded before the film's release hints at the possibility there was some sort of Motown/Disney collaboration. I think another song from the film, "Fortuosity," would have been a better song to record.

agree that it is a great demonstration of the group's versatility and i like the performances. but i do agree, in hindsight, with the decision of not releasing it. it probably would have been released in 1st half of 68 and we were already seeing the massive shifts in popular music and the decline of MOR. the youth market was exploding, not just in music but in every economic sector. IMO while motown properly calculated the need to first move into MOR, they didn't always properly calculate the need to focus on the lucrative youth. groups like Four Tops, DRATS, DR solo, Sups, MRATV etc didn't tap in as well as they could have to the increased popularity of current R&B. i don't think the groups had to abandon MOR. they were still popular acts in night clubs and vegas. but night clubs were declining.

a disney album would have only further pushed the group away from being see as hip and contemporary. and while Funny Girl did nothing to endear the group to the youth, it could at least be explained as a significant effort to further cement themselves in MOR and Hollywood. it was a dud but at least there was logic there

[Ollie9]

agree that it is a great demonstration of the group's versatility and i like the performances. but i do agree, in hindsight, with the decision of not releasing it. it probably would have been released in 1st half of 68 and we were already seeing the massive shifts in popular music and the decline of MOR. the youth market was exploding, not just in music but in every economic sector. IMO while motown properly calculated the need to first move into MOR, they didn't always properly calculate the need to focus on the lucrative youth. groups like Four Tops, DRATS, DR solo, Sups, MRATV etc didn't tap in as well as they could have to the increased popularity of current R&B. i don't think the groups had to abandon MOR. they were still popular acts in night clubs and vegas. but night clubs were declining.

a disney album would have only further pushed the group away from being see as hip and contemporary. and while Funny Girl did nothing to endear the group to the youth, it could at least be explained as a significant effort to further cement themselves in MOR and Hollywood. it was a dud but at least there was logic there

It’s a huge shame the album wasn’t completed with Flo in 67 and released the same year.
By 68 the shift was to more flower power, socially relevant songs.

[sup_fan]

It’s a huge shame the album wasn’t completed with Flo in 67 and released the same year.
By 68 the shift was to more flower power, socially relevant songs.

yes but i do think it was wise not to flood a zillion concept albums into the market. and out of the 3 being worked on [[Broadway/Hollywood, Disney and R&H), Sing R&H is IMO lightyear beyond the other two.

now supposedly B to H was to include The Happening and All I Know About You. so that sort of makes it a different concept album in that it would also have a hit single on it. but then they decided to include on Greatest Hits and obviously that was a mega success. no way would Broadway have sold anywhere near as well. and it would have only been a single disc too [[and therefore less $ generated in sales)

I don't think you'd have wanted to do both R&H and Broadway. So maybe if they really did want another concept album, Disney would have won out. I'd guess it would have been a good release for the holiday season. not so much because of It Won't Be Long Till Xmas but just because it would have been a good gift-giving item for kids. Lots of grandparents would have bought this for the kids. and younger siblings of hip cool high schoolers would have been thrilled to have a record of their own by an artist that their big sis or brother liked

[Ollie9]

yes but i do think it was wise not to flood a zillion concept albums into the market. and out of the 3 being worked on [[Broadway/Hollywood, Disney and R&H), Sing R&H is IMO lightyear beyond the other two.

now supposedly B to H was to include The Happening and All I Know About You. so that sort of makes it a different concept album in that it would also have a hit single on it. but then they decided to include on Greatest Hits and obviously that was a mega success. no way would Broadway have sold anywhere near as well. and it would have only been a single disc too [[and therefore less $ generated in sales)

I don't think you'd have wanted to do both R&H and Broadway. So maybe if they really did want another concept album, Disney would have won out. I'd guess it would have been a good release for the holiday season. not so much because of It Won't Be Long Till Xmas but just because it would have been a good gift-giving item for kids. Lots of grandparents would have bought this for the kids. and younger siblings of hip cool high schoolers would have been thrilled to have a record of their own by an artist that their big sis or brother liked

That’s exactly what i was thinking, perfect for the holiday season. I think Diana channels a lot of her inner actress into the songs bringing them to life.
I actually heard “I’ve Got No Strings” being played in a UK radio show last year which features songs from film and stage musicals. A rare treat indeed.

[after you]

Having heard all the unreleased songs I just love them Diana is in her element , your right this would be a great expanded Christmas album what a treat it would be

[mistercarter2u]

I have the version of this album offered by Ben [[the guy from Germany) a few years back, and personally, I like it a lot. I think it is an excellent album, though I am not quite sure if it would have been a hit. I do like the fact that the album has performances by both Flo and Cindy, and both are name-dropped in the songs. Another Supremes could-have-been that Motown flubbed up!

The album is available, though expensive, through at least one online seller:

https://themusicshopandmore.com/diana-ross-the-supremes-sing-disney-classics-unreleased-album-expanded-edition-1968-2021-cd/

[Boogiedown]

I have the version of this album offered by Ben [[the guy from Germany) a few years back, and personally, I like it a lot. I think it is an excellent album, though I am not quite sure if it would have been a hit. I do like the fact that the album has performances by both Flo and Cindy, and both are name-dropped in the songs. Another Supremes could-have-been that Motown flubbed up!

The album is available, though expensive, through at least one online seller:

https://themusicshopandmore.com/diana-ross-the-supremes-sing-disney-classics-unreleased-album-expanded-edition-1968-2021-cd/


Anybody who thought they were doing anybody any favors back then by denying themselves Ben's products were fools.

Glad the product is available ....not all that expensive in today's monies ....probably worth it for those limited fans who would treasure listening to such novelty. Sometimes the paying a bit is what makes it even more special.

[bradsupremes]

Anybody who thought they were doing anybody any favors back then by denying themselves Ben's products were fools.

Glad the product is available ....not all that expensive in today's monies ....probably worth it for those limited fans who would treasure listening to such novelty. Sometimes the paying a bit is what makes it even more special.

Sorry, but I disagree. The real disservice was him making profit off of something that wasn't his. He ripped off the ladies and Motown. We can debate about Universal sitting on their catalog and not doing anything with it, but it doesn't give him or anybody else to do whatever they want with the music. In the end, he faced legal action.

It should be added there really wasn't anything on his bootlegs that weren't available else where so all people were paying for was his packaging.

[mysterysinger]

The album is available, though expensive, through at least one online seller:

https://themusicshopandmore.com/diana-ross-the-supremes-sing-disney-classics-unreleased-album-expanded-edition-1968-2021-cd/

Not all the tracks are on that edition - Chim Chim Cher Ree, Zip A Dee Doo Dah and A Spoonful Of Sugar are missing - so all the tracks on there are already available elsewhere.

[sup_fan]

Sorry, but I disagree. The real disservice was him making profit off of something that wasn't his. He ripped off the ladies and Motown. We can debate about Universal sitting on their catalog and not doing anything with it, but it doesn't give him or anybody else to do whatever they want with the music. In the end, he faced legal action.

It should be added there really wasn't anything on his bootlegs that weren't available else where so all people were paying for was his packaging.

agreed. what he was doing was just plain illegal and a complete copywrite infringement. this should not be celebrated or praised. and it potentially hurts the fans too. what if he was bootlegging the Roostertail 66 performance and there were a ton of them sold. that could lead some fans to not purchase the IHAS EE. and disappointing sales of a legit item could have lead to an earlier drop off in EE releases.

[kenneth]

The “Music Shop” link above does not show the cover art or track listing of the bootleg that came from Germany.

However, the “Discogs” link is the product that came from the German seller.

I think it’s obviously a personal choice if people held off on buying CDs from Ben. Yes many of the tracks may be available on YouTube or elsewhere but unless you download everything and put your own CDs together, they’re hard to listen to anywhere but on your phone or tablet or desktop, and hard to find. In addition, considering the content and the beautiful packaging he produced, it made purchasing the CDs to me a no-brainer. The sound quality of the recordings was equal to most authorized releases. My usual initial thought is to reflect on how long we waited for the Blinky album.

As long as the powers that be don’t care about this material, I’m going to obtain it wherever I can. I’ve been disappointed by a couple bootlegs in the past, but never by any that came from Ben.

I’m sure he didn’t make a lot of money off these CDs. They were truly a labor of love. I never asked him, but I’d be shocked to learn that he sold more than 100 copies of any of his CDs. I’m glad I bought the titles I did and there’s a few I wish I had picked up along the way that I passed on. I’m glad I have them. He did an especially fine job with the concept albums such as the Disney album, the Hollywood Palace collection, the live Ross sets, and the several lost and found collections he put together both on Diana Ross as well as the 70s Supremes. He also did the entire Martha and the Vandellas catalog including the unreleased Copa set, in expanded editions which are absolutely irreplaceable IMHO.

Finally, I still bought the legitimate “Funny Girl” set even though I had already bought Ben’s version. Admittedly, the legitimate release was a double CD set with a lot more previously unreleased material, but I will still buy the authorized releases of other similar material should the copyright holders ever manage to release them.

[bradsupremes]

I’m sure he didn’t make a lot of money off these CDs. They were truly a labor of love. I never asked him, but I’d be shocked to learn that he sold more than 100 copies of any of his CDs. I’m glad I bought the titles I did and there’s a few I wish I had picked up along the way that I passed on. I’m glad I have them. He did an especially fine job with the concept albums such as the Disney album, the Hollywood Palace collection, the live Ross sets, and the several lost and found collections he put together both on Diana Ross as well as the 70s Supremes. He also did the entire Martha and the Vandellas catalog including the unreleased Copa set, in expanded editions which are absolutely irreplaceable IMHO.

Whether he made a lot of money or not, he still was getting money for them. The ladies didn't and that is ethically wrong. We vilify Motown for how they screwed over artists. All of those folks should have been set for life for the records they sold. We see how artists are ripped off all the time for their work via SiriusXM, Apple, Spotify, etc. This is no different regardless of our own personal desires to have these collections. Do it the right way.

[RanRan79]

Whether he made a lot of money or not, he still was getting money for them. The ladies didn't and that is ethically wrong. We vilify Motown for how they screwed over artists. All of those folks should have been set for life for the records they sold. We see how artists are ripped off all the time for their work via SiriusXM, Apple, Spotify, etc. This is no different regardless of our own personal desires to have these collections. Do it the right way.

I agree. Had he cut the Supremes and the writers and producers a check- even if it came down to cents per person- I would have respected what he was trying to do. Instead he took someone else's work, made copies and then tried to make a few bucks without any regard to the people who actually put in the work to create the music.

It is unfortunate that the label doesn't release the music fast enough for us, and they definitely get some of the blame for this type of stuff by sitting on the music even though there's clearly some type of demand for it. But I'll wait another lifetime before I put a dime in a bootlegger's hand, especially after learning about what Cindy is currently going through. [[Yes, I recognize that even if the music is officially released that Cindy wouldn't see a dime because she signed away her rights, but I'm sure y'all get my point.)

[kenneth]

I appreciate your opinions but question the statement of @brad's that "all these folks should have been set for life" after their success in the 60s or 70s." That seems a bit short-sighted or even naive. Don't the artists have some accountability in the decisions affecting their futures?

Obviously, no one can fault Diane, Mary or Flo, or the Marvelettes, for the contracts they signed [[or their parents signed) when they were teenagers. But Cindy Birdsong was already more than 10 years in the music business when she left the Supremes. She was no naive youngster. She'd had several years as a Bluebelle prior to becoming a Supreme. She also had the tragic example of how Florence fell into obscurity after signing away her royalties. She'd also had some rather harsh experiences including the horrific kidnapping [[though I'm unsure when this happened, I'm assuming it was while she was a member of the group).

Maybe she needed a lump sum badly, for a house or family, I don't know. But finding an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles in the 1970s couldn't have been a difficult proposition, and perhaps she even engaged one to negotiate her exit from the group. But I think to state that she should have been "set for life" is unrealistic. She wasn't a member of the group during their most successful early years so she wouldn't have received royalties for anything from the Florence era. Wasn't "Stoned Love" the last top 10 hit for the group? Their later records didn't have the impact that they did in the earlier years. Mary relates in one of her books that when they performed some of their Terrell era hits live, a lot of those in the audience didn't know their material. They had some success, but with a more limited scope than in the earlier years.

As an example, Rick Nelson was a successful teen idol and TV personality when his father helped negotiate what was at that time the largest contract ever for a pop artist when Nelson left Imperial and signed with Decca. He obviously would have had legal representation along with his father's decades of experience in the business. Nelson still continued to release albums and tour [[some said almost constantly) to support himself and his family, even with all the advantages he had as far as business acumen.

I love Cindy and would like to know more about what motivated her decisions that she made at the time. She was a huge part of preserving and carrying forward the Supremes legacy following Flo's exit and certainly deserved better.

[Boogiedown]

Sorry, but I disagree. The real disservice was him making profit off of something that wasn't his. He ripped off the ladies and Motown. We can debate about Universal sitting on their catalog and not doing anything with it, but it doesn't give him or anybody else to do whatever they want with the music. In the end, he faced legal action.

It should be added there really wasn't anything on his bootlegs that weren't available else where so all people were paying for was his packaging.


It's OK to disagree.
I was under the impression that Ben was offering music that wasn't available otherwise. And for that service, for doing what the right people wouldn't, I hold him in high regard, and with gratitude.
As for the lofty notion of denying oneself the pleasure of the music that's been made available thru these means, and instead waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and ... just so that the rightful people will one day, some day get their entitled cut.... one word:
Mary Wilson.

[sup_fan]

I appreciate your opinions but question the statement of @brad's that "all these folks should have been set for life" after their success in the 60s or 70s." That seems a bit short-sighted or even naive. Don't the artists have some accountability in the decisions affecting their futures?

Obviously, no one can fault Diane, Mary or Flo, or the Marvelettes, for the contracts they signed [[or their parents signed) when they were teenagers. But Cindy Birdsong was already more than 10 years in the music business when she left the Supremes. She was no naive youngster. She'd had several years as a Bluebelle prior to becoming a Supreme. She also had the tragic example of how Florence fell into obscurity after signing away her royalties. She'd also had some rather harsh experiences including the horrific kidnapping [[though I'm unsure when this happened, I'm assuming it was while she was a member of the group).

Maybe she needed a lump sum badly, for a house or family, I don't know. But finding an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles in the 1970s couldn't have been a difficult proposition, and perhaps she even engaged one to negotiate her exit from the group. But I think to state that she should have been "set for life" is unrealistic. She wasn't a member of the group during their most successful early years so she wouldn't have received royalties for anything from the Florence era. Wasn't "Stoned Love" the last top 10 hit for the group? Their later records didn't have the impact that they did in the earlier years. Mary relates in one of her books that when they performed some of their Terrell era hits live, a lot of those in the audience didn't know their material. They had some success, but with a more limited scope than in the earlier years.

As an example, Rick Nelson was a successful teen idol and TV personality when his father helped negotiate what was at that time the largest contract ever for a pop artist when Nelson left Imperial and signed with Decca. He obviously would have had legal representation along with his father's decades of experience in the business. Nelson still continued to release albums and tour [[some said almost constantly) to support himself and his family, even with all the advantages he had as far as business acumen.

I love Cindy and would like to know more about what motivated her decisions that she made at the time. She was a huge part of preserving and carrying forward the Supremes legacy following Flo's exit and certainly deserved better.

there are a lot of reasons as to why so many performers end up in financial difficulties:

1. rock was young in the 60s and 70s. no one really knew that there'd be a long-term market for music. and so they probably didn't think that "future royalties" would really be much of a thing.
2. poor financial management - so many top performers have given the advice that up and comers need to recognize and understand "the business." There are a fair amount of singers and artists that are not prone to focusing on business and math. it's not a topic they're interested in. therefore they can leave themselves open to being mismanaged by unscrupulous people.
3. royalties are not salaries and therefore are not subject to the same federal laws on social security. cindy was in her late 20s when she became a Supreme and probably had not real thought about what she'd do in 60 years, from a financial standpoint. there was no legal requirement to withhold social security benefits and so no one did. and no one probably thought to set up personal retirement accounts at the time. remember there were no 401ks back then.
4. companies took care of employees, until they no longer did. this was a common situation. people got a job with companies and mostly worked there until they retired. then they had their pensions and retirement plans through that 1 company. but then companies started to change and changed prior to employees really realizing. lots of people have lots out on planned pensions and health care. Diana, mary, cindy and all the rest at motown probably grew up in an environment where family members worked for a union in a Detroit auto plant. all of those people were trained to think "the company is here for me" and so they had similar beliefs when motown said that.

[kenneth]

@sup_fan,

All insightful, thought-provoking points. It is easy to forget how young they all were even after Cindy’s 10 years in the business. Thanks for your comments.

I don’t know much about tax. Can you actually go years without ever paying Social Security? I guess I always just assumed people had to pay it along with their income taxes or something, but I was always an employee when I was younger so I never had to pay it myself.

K

[sup_fan]

@sup_fan,

All insightful, thought-provoking points. It is easy to forget how young they all were even after Cindy’s 10 years in the business. Thanks for your comments.

I don’t know much about tax. Can you actually go years without ever paying Social Security? I guess I always just assumed people had to pay it along with their income taxes or something, but I was always an employee when I was younger so I never had to pay it myself.

K

i'm hardly a tax attorney lol but Social Security and the like are deductions from "WAGES." A wage would generally mean that you have a set salary that a company pays you on a regular basis. royalty payments are not wages, even though they are part of an artists income. same with contractual appearance fees - again they're not a "wage" and therefore standard federal deductions wouldn't be processed.

of course all of this was happening back in the 60s so i have no idea if the tax codes have changed over the decades to account for this. royalties, appearance fees, etc are still "income" and would still be reported annually for your federal taxes. none of the girls ever had tax problems, at least not while they were at motown. they were typically given an "allowance" with the rest put into an account. I would assume motown would have handled their annual tax bill and filings and would have deducted whatever amount was necessary to pay the taxes.

if you were to sign up for piano lessons with a music teacher after school, you would pay your weekly charge for the lessons. that money would certainly be taxable income for the teacher but wouldn't be part of his/her wage. the school would have paid the salary and withheld Federal taxes and SS. but the teacher would be responsible for reporting this additional income for taxes. but they wouldn't really do anything with SS, other than perhaps set some of the earnings aside in some sort of retirement account. like an IRA

[Roger Polhill]

I`m with Kenneth on this. I bought as many as I could and am sorry that I didn`t get more. Call me an arsehole if you like but you others all hold record companies in high esteem even though the often screwed the artists out of their dues.

[floyjoy678]

I see both sides of the coin to this. I will add that Motown/Universal was never going to release some of this music to begin with so they wouldn't have been making money regardless. I remember someone was selling Martha's At the Copa album, not sure if it's the same guy or not. I will say I'm sorry I didn't snag that one when I had the chance.

[bradsupremes]

I`m with Kenneth on this. I bought as many as I could and am sorry that I didn`t get more. Call me an arsehole if you like but you others all hold record companies in high esteem even though the often screwed the artists out of their dues.

It's not that we hold record companies in high esteem. Frankly, I wish the Motown catalog was owned by another company that actually appreciated it rather than treat it like a old box in the attic. What upsets me is that it takes away from the work people like Andy and George do. They devote their love, time, and hard work into these projects without earning a cent only for this Ben guy to take it upon himself to do these bootlegs illegally and deceive the public as if they were the real thing.

[Boogiedown]

It's not that we hold record companies in high esteem. Frankly, I wish the Motown catalog was owned by another company that actually appreciated it rather than treat it like a old box in the attic. What upsets me is that it takes away from the work people like Andy and George do. They devote their love, time, and hard work into these projects without earning a cent only for this Ben guy to take it upon himself to do these bootlegs illegally and deceive the public as if they were the real thing.


What !!!!????
Are you sh*ttin' me??
They didn't/don't get paid???? I thought the whole regal point being made here was that the right people must get their fair share!!

Screw the accountants and lawyers at Sony et all.
They had NOTHING to do with creating this music. And most that did are dead. That a bunch of bean counters years down the road "own" this music, I'll say it again , that they had no creative involvement in making, and dismiss us for daring to want what's "theirs", is sickening.

[RanRan79]

I`m with Kenneth on this. I bought as many as I could and am sorry that I didn`t get more. Call me an arsehole if you like but you others all hold record companies in high esteem even though the often screwed the artists out of their dues.

Arsehole.:p

Those record companies we supposedly hold in high esteem are largely responsible for our favorite artists and favorite songs. You really wanna compare a Motown or Atlantic or Stax to some random thief in Germany? This dude took someone else's products and decided to sale them for his own personal profit. Where else in our lives is this type of thing okay?

To be clear, my "arsehole" retort aside [[and hopefully it's clear that my use of it was in a joking manner because you said "call me an arsehole if you like"), I get why you or anyone else would purchase this stuff. I've bought more than my fair share of bootlegs over the years. As I said before, the record labels bear some responsibility for this because they sit on the music that people want to buy. Bootleggers have always capitalized on this. You'd think the labels would do all that it could to circumvent this by actually releasing the music, but they don't.

I am not going to fault fans for wanting to get their hands on this stuff, especially those of you who are of an..."advanced age" and may feel like you don't have the time someone of my age might feel we have to wait. But I have no sympathy for someone who takes from someone else and tries to make a profit. If ole boy was all about just making sure the music was heard, he would have made copies for whomever wanted it and called it a day. I wouldn't even fault him for asking that only the postage be paid. [[That's actually how I acquired Supremes bootlegs back in the day, I reimbursed for postage.) But instead he was trying to make a "living" off someone else's hard work. That's some bullshit to me. I'm glad they shut his ass down.

[RanRan79]

I see both sides of the coin to this. I will add that Motown/Universal was never going to release some of this music to begin with so they wouldn't have been making money regardless. I remember someone was selling Martha's At the Copa album, not sure if it's the same guy or not. I will say I'm sorry I didn't snag that one when I had the chance.

Fingers crossed that Universal finally sees the light. I can't wait to get my hands on Martha and the Vandellas Copa, and the one they did in Paris[[?).

[RanRan79]

It's not that we hold record companies in high esteem. Frankly, I wish the Motown catalog was owned by another company that actually appreciated it rather than treat it like a old box in the attic. What upsets me is that it takes away from the work people like Andy and George do. They devote their love, time, and hard work into these projects without earning a cent only for this Ben guy to take it upon himself to do these bootlegs illegally and deceive the public as if they were the real thing.

I had no idea the guys don't get paid for what they do with these projects! My respect for them has just gone even more through the roof!!!

I agree 1000 percent, the Motown catalog belongs in someone else's hand who will respect it and its fans.

[Boogiedown]

Fingers crossed that Universal finally sees the light. .

Ya let's all sit around waiting with our sanctimonious fingers crossed. That'll show 'em. :rolleyes:

[kenneth]

How did anyone get the idea that Andy et. al don't get paid for their work? I'm sure that they do but can't say I know with certainty, as it's never come up in any discussions that I've been part of. But this, after all, is Andy's, Harry's, and George's profession. They've all been in the business for 20 years or more, some like George I would guess has been doing this for close to 40 years, it would seem. I'm sure they are compensated for the work they do for Universal or other companies on the various remaster projects.

[bradsupremes]

How did anyone get the idea that Andy et. al don't get paid for their work? I'm sure that they do but can't say I know with certainty, as it's never come up in any discussions that I've been part of. But this, after all, is Andy's, Harry's, and George's profession. They've all been in the business for 20 years or more, some like George I would guess has been doing this for close to 40 years, it would seem. I'm sure they are compensated for the work they do for Universal or other companies on the various remaster projects.

I want to clarify that what I meant is that they don’t earn from the profits. I believe there is some kind of compensation but I can’t speak to what that is. These releases are done and motivated from love.

[Roger Polhill]

RanRan79 it`s Mr. Arsehole. You young folk have no respect for your elders!
What shall I play next my copy of "Drats expanded "Love Child", Matha`s "Live At The Copa" or maybe Drats "Disney Classics" decisions, decisions. I know Matha`s "Live" oh mono or stereo?

[RanRan79]

RanRan79 it`s Mr. Arsehole. You young folk have no respect for your elders!
What shall I play next my copy of "Drats expanded "Love Child", Matha`s "Live At The Copa" or maybe Drats "Disney Classics" decisions, decisions. I know Matha`s "Live" oh mono or stereo?

Ha!!

Hey, you bought them, might as well play them all.:cool:

[sup_fan]

i'll be the first to admit that i have a box of bootlegs. old cassette tapes, cds, vhs. and i've traded with fans. but it wasn't about making money. it was simply passing around the things we had and sharing the wealth. no one was ever posing as "i have the UNRELEASED album of XXXX" And now many of those are no longer really necessary since we've received all of this wonderful content from Andy, George, harry and team. it wasn't about profit, just sharing

i was on a long car trip the other week and just playing a random playlist of Sups off my itunes music. i've loaded all of those old bootleg cds and even converted most of the cassettes to digital too. On one of the cds, there was an unreleased version of Someday. it had the organ intro like what we got on L&F but a totally different lead from the released version or the L&F version.

there's still tons of material out there and it's fine to share but it's not fine to profit at the expense of the artists

[sup_fan]

How did anyone get the idea that Andy et. al don't get paid for their work? I'm sure that they do but can't say I know with certainty, as it's never come up in any discussions that I've been part of. But this, after all, is Andy's, Harry's, and George's profession. They've all been in the business for 20 years or more, some like George I would guess has been doing this for close to 40 years, it would seem. I'm sure they are compensated for the work they do for Universal or other companies on the various remaster projects.

i would 100% volunteer to work for a week or a weekend with Andy and team in the vaults. imagine being able to just go through all of those reel to reel tapes!! or going through the archives of imagines from photo shoots. or going through whatever old files they have with memos, paperwork, recording studio schedules, etc

in mary's exhibit, i remember seeing in a few glass cases some of the receipts from gown work, dry cleaners, etc. it was fascinating!

[Roger Polhill]

If there is anybody with low low morals like me would like a copy of any of the aforementioned drop your details in my box. I will be purchasing the legitimate product when available which will be not in my lifetime.

[RanRan79]

i'll be the first to admit that i have a box of bootlegs. old cassette tapes, cds, vhs. and i've traded with fans. but it wasn't about making money. it was simply passing around the things we had and sharing the wealth. no one was ever posing as "i have the UNRELEASED album of XXXX" And now many of those are no longer really necessary since we've received all of this wonderful content from Andy, George, harry and team. it wasn't about profit, just sharing

i was on a long car trip the other week and just playing a random playlist of Sups off my itunes music. i've loaded all of those old bootleg cds and even converted most of the cassettes to digital too. On one of the cds, there was an unreleased version of Someday. it had the organ intro like what we got on L&F but a totally different lead from the released version or the L&F version.

there's still tons of material out there and it's fine to share but it's not fine to profit at the expense of the artists

Same. That's why it's hard for me to really fault the fans who buy. We're fans. Fanatics. Our fanaticism causes us to do all kinds of things, although most of us don't cross the line into psycho territory. Lol

It's also important to remember that we aren't entitled to anything from the Motown catalog. I know that's hard to read because we want everything. [[I'd buy a set comprised of nothing but studio chatter of the Supremes, and I'm not joking about that. Is that psycho territory?:cool:) But we don't own that stuff. When it enters into the public domain, then it's up for grabs. Until then, it is owned and belongs to someone else.

I'm waiting for someone to present an argument of why this Ben guy [[if that's his real name) should have been allowed to do what he did without paying people. Everybody in this thread would be pissed if they found out their work- whatever it is- was being produced and sold without your permission. Is music the only thing we're okay with this, or should any and every product be up for grabs?

I want everything Motown can give me. If they sell the product and put it on the market, I pay, and for my payment I expect the product. That's the only thing I'm owed.

[Boogiedown]

why this Ben guy [[if that's his real name) should have been allowed to do what he did without paying people. Everybody in this thread would be pissed if they found out their work- whatever it is- was being produced and sold without your permission. .
"Hey. I hear you've got some of my widgets ."

"Yes but don't worry I didn't pay anything for them , I got them for free."

"Oooh well .... OK then ":p

[Boogiedown]

By buying from Ben:

A - The interested party acquires their otherwise unavailable desires.
B - The providing party gets their costs and rent paid.
C - Universal gets to continue not making one thin dime as is their choice.
A - Win
B - Win
and
C - Win


everybody gets what they want.

[bradsupremes]

By buying from Ben:

A - The interested party acquires their otherwise unavailable desires.
B - The providing party gets their costs and rent paid.
C - Universal gets to continue not making one thin dime as is their choice.
A - Win
B - Win
and
C - Win


everybody gets what they want.

You're missing the most important component...

D. The artists who created the music are not getting a paid for their work.
That's a major loss.

So no, not everybody gets what they want.

[Boogiedown]

Yes but that is solely the consequence of C being happy in their role of choosing to keep the product unavailable through them.

Apparently C's happiness in this has nothing to do with the proper people making some money.

[Roger Polhill]

All members who have traded or provided tapes, cds or dvds to others are guilty of depriving their favourite artists of their dues and I am VERY guilty. As most seem to have participated I think that some of you have a very selective morality.
Gosh I haven`t had so much fun since I heard that Mrs. Trump had a abortion and kept it.

[RanRan79]

You're missing the most important component...

D. The artists who created the music are not getting a paid for their work.
That's a major loss.

So no, not everybody gets what they want.

The entitlement. At least that person is honest, even if not using the words "I'm entitled".

So as long as the entitled public gets what it wants, damn the people who created it?
I seem to recall either George or Andy mentioning that sometimes certain songs don't make it onto the expandeds because of certain "rights" issues. Might be my mind playing tricks on me, but I'm thinking that was the reason given that the Supremes/Gladys and Pips mashup of "Always In My Heart" ultimately did not make the Sing HDH expanded. So sometimes, the people involved in the creative side of the music don't want the release. Isn't that what's said about the album Nick and Val recorded for Motown, that Val is against the release? But if "Ben" had somehow gotten a hold to it, he could mass produce it and charge for it and now "everybody gets what they want"...except Valerie?

Entitled.

[RanRan79]

All members who have traded or provided tapes, cds or dvds to others are guilty of depriving their favourite artists of their dues and I am VERY guilty. As most seem to have participated I think that some of you have a very selective morality.
Gosh I haven`t had so much fun since I heard that Mrs. Trump had a abortion and kept it.

You keep trying to lump yourself in with our criticisms of this "Ben" character, and I'm not sure why. We've acknowledged that we understand why you made the purchases Roger, because, unlike your accusation of selective morality, we admit we've all been there. No one is questioning your morality. You're a fan doing fan stuff. Hope this clears it up for you.

[RanRan79]

I'll tell you one thing, if former president Trump had some stuff out there he didn't want being sold without his compensation and consent, the entitled Motown fans who would sniff his butt if they could, wouldn't be able to shut up about his right to compensation. And unfortunately I'd have to agree with them.

[Boogiedown]

All members who have traded or provided tapes, cds or dvds to others are guilty of depriving their favourite artists of their dues and I am VERY guilty. As most seem to have participated I think that some of you have a very selective morality.
Gosh I haven`t had so much fun since I heard that Mrs. Trump had a abortion and kept it.
..... hey, you want some true and real political yippee aye yay?? ?? How about a good ol' folksy Biden story.
I know how about the 'rub my hairy legs' tale ? The children artificially grouped around him really seem to get a kick out of it ... ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs

I love kids jumpin on my lap .....whoa ...the hell you say !!
classic knee-slapper that one !

[[https://soulfuldetroit.com/showthread.php?31328-Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-the-unreleased-Disney-album/page2)
[[https://soulfuldetroit.com/showthread.php?31328-Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-the-unreleased-Disney-album/page2)
[[https://soulfuldetroit.com/showthread.php?31328-Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-the-unreleased-Disney-album/page2)

[carlo]

As most seem to have participated I think that some of you have a very selective morality.


I 100% agree with you on this. In recent years, there have been a small handful of unreleased tracks that have very obviously been leaked from [record company's name redacted] vaults, which is proven by the superior sound quality of the digital files that have been circulated. It seems it is ok to privately circulate unreleased tracks among a chosen few [and one of those will send the song to a dozen others, but then says 'don't share this', and then it gets out to hundreds of fans], but it's not ok to purchase a bootleg. It's also ok for fans to post music on Youtube that they do not own the rights to, and artist royalties will not be earned from each play, but it's still not ok to purchase a bootleg. Like you said, it's selective morality. I have seen this situation play out with tons of artists' catalogues.

I am generally not ok with bootlegs either, but if it's clear that it's a situation where the music is not being released, such as is the case with The Supremes' catalogue at this point in time, then hey...

I have a hard time imagining that any of the die-hard fans who purchased a Reflections Expanded Edition from Ben [I don't know if he was selling those, but let's assume yes] are going to turn around and say that they are not going to bother purchasing the official physical release, once Universal's top-execs finally roll over in bed.

The logic is that bootlegs prevent the real product from being released and negatively impact sales. I would also generally agree with that. However, do I agree that this same logic applies to a very small fan-base, on a niche product, that only appeals to die-hard fans? No.

I would argue that Flo Ballard's solo album only ended up getting an official release due to the recordings that were circulated and talked about amongst fans.

Should another fan be illegally profiting off of other artists' work? No. Should a copyright-holding company be intentionally and semi-perpetually withholding artists' work, in order to guarantee a bigger profit down the road, once they pass away? Should a record company be issuing cease and desist notices to fans who are sharing their copyrighted property on their Youtube accounts, Facebook groups, fan sites, etc., in order to maintain the value of their property and preserve sales?

Selective morality. That's capitalism for ya.

[carlo]

So sometimes, the people involved in the creative side of the music don't want the release. Isn't that what's said about the album Nick and Val recorded for Motown, that Val is against the release? But if "Ben" had somehow gotten a hold to it, he could mass produce it and charge for it and now "everybody gets what they want"...except Valerie?

Entitled.

Interesting point, RanRan. Does this same argument apply to record companies and estates who legally put out unreleased recordings after an artist passes away? I've always had mixed feelings about this myself, as we've seen a lot of artists pass away and the flood gates open, with their unreleased recordings. I have always wondered if these artists still would have asked for these recordings to not be released, if they were alive. We've also seen it with incomplete recordings being released, where a record company will hire other producers and musicians to re-work the tracks. I tend to wonder what those deceased artists would think, and if they would be happy about this? As an extreme example, we saw it with one of the posthumous Michael Jackson albums, where Sony hired a session singer to complete entire songs that were missing Michael's vocals, and they tried to pass it as Michael Jackson's vocals, with the session singer going uncredited.

[RanRan79]

I 100% agree with you on this. In recent years, there have been a small handful of unreleased tracks that have very obviously been leaked from [record company's name redacted] vaults, which is proven by the superior sound quality of the digital files that have been circulated. It seems it is ok to privately circulate unreleased tracks among a chosen few [and one of those will send the song to a dozen others, but then says 'don't share this', and then it gets out to hundreds of fans], but it's not ok to purchase a bootleg. It's also ok for fans to post music on Youtube that they do not own the rights to, and artist royalties will not be earned from each play, but it's still not ok to purchase a bootleg. Like you said, it's selective morality. I have seen this situation play out with tons of artists' catalogues.

I am generally not ok with bootlegs either, but if it's clear that it's a situation where the music is not being released, such as is the case with The Supremes' catalogue at this point in time, then hey...

I have a hard time imagining that any of the die-hard fans who purchased a Reflections Expanded Edition from Ben [I don't know if he was selling those, but let's assume yes] are going to turn around and say that they are not going to bother purchasing the official physical release, once Universal's top-execs finally roll over in bed.

The logic is that bootlegs prevent the real product from being released and negatively impact sales. I would also generally agree with that. However, do I agree that this same logic applies to a very small fan-base, on a niche product, that only appeals to die-hard fans? No.

I would argue that Flo Ballard's solo album only ended up getting an official release due to the recordings that were circulated and talked about amongst fans.

Should another fan be illegally profiting off of other artists' work? No. Should a copyright-holding company be intentionally and semi-perpetually withholding artists' work, in order to guarantee a bigger profit down the road, once they pass away? Should a record company be issuing cease and desist notices to fans who are sharing their copyrighted property on their Youtube accounts, Facebook groups, fan sites, etc., in order to maintain the value of their property and preserve sales?

Selective morality. That's capitalism for ya.

It's the selective morality accusation that's sticking me. It's insulting. Almost every example you give is of fans doing fan stuff. The entire machine [[i.e. entertainment industry) is set up to create fanatics. I am not talking about the fans trading. I'm not talking about fans posting stuff to Youtube, unless the vids are making them money, which I doubt. I'm talking about someone using someone else's product to make a business. My "morality" comments [[I guess that's what it is, since y'all calling it) are solely aimed at anyone ripping off someone else's work for profit. That's what "Ben" did.

True enough, there is a legit argument to be made against even fans doing fan stuff, and I'll allow it. But again, the entertainment industry has set us up to be the fanatics that we are. Like I said before, the labels are part of the problem because the demand is there [[obviously, or the bootleggers would be doing something else) and they sit on the product, and again, I'll repeat, they themselves all but programmed us to want and acquire this stuff at all costs.

I don't know what more can be said, at least by me, to be clear that my "outrage" is not at the fans in the least.

[mysterysinger]

I have a copy of Ben's Disney offering. "All" I have to do is find a printer to copy the CD packaging for me, copy the CD and sell it to willing fans for big money. A kind of usurp the usurper. All profits to a suitable charity. How many would buy it.

[RanRan79]

I

I have a hard time imagining that any of the die-hard fans who purchased a Reflections Expanded Edition from Ben [I don't know if he was selling those, but let's assume yes] are going to turn around and say that they are not going to bother purchasing the official physical release, once Universal's top-execs finally roll over in bed.

The logic is that bootlegs prevent the real product from being released and negatively impact sales. I would also generally agree with that. However, do I agree that this same logic applies to a very small fan-base, on a niche product, that only appeals to die-hard fans? No.

I would argue that Flo Ballard's solo album only ended up getting an official release due to the recordings that were circulated and talked about amongst fans.



But from a business perspective, that's absolutely the fear. That's why a purse company would crack down on mock bags. If the bag design can be mass produced and decidedly cheaper, why would anyone buy the real thing?

In these trying economic times, I don't think it's a given that die hards who buy the bootlegs are going to turn around and buy the official releases, unless the official releases make it worth their while somehow. I don't think a business is asking too much to ensure that their product is protected from bootleggers when possible.

That being said, your example of the Flo Ballard solo is spot on. I would also guess that the fact that a lot of us had the bootleg prior didn't prevent us from getting the official release. But then I figure none of the bootlegs had the sound quality of the official release either, so there was incentive to purchase.

[RanRan79]

Interesting point, RanRan. Does this same argument apply to record companies and estates who legally put out unreleased recordings after an artist passes away? I've always had mixed feelings about this myself, as we've seen a lot of artists pass away and the flood gates open, with their unreleased recordings. I have always wondered if these artists still would have asked for these recordings to not be released, if they were alive. We've also seen it with incomplete recordings being released, where a record company will hire other producers and musicians to re-work the tracks. I tend to wonder what those deceased artists would think, and if they would be happy about this? As an extreme example, we saw it with one of the posthumous Michael Jackson albums, where Sony hired a session singer to complete entire songs that were missing Michael's vocals, and they tried to pass it as Michael Jackson's vocals, with the session singer going uncredited.

Hey Carlo, when you're dead, you're dead. All bets are off.:p

All jokes aside...well, it's true. The dead not know what the living is doing anyway. The estate is the rightful owner, or the company is the rightful owner, they are free to do with it as please. Admittedly, like you, I have mixed feelings about it. But it has to be pointed out that at some point the music becomes part of the public domain and if someone gets their hands on it at that point, under the law, it is what it is.

Now that whole MJ debacle was shameful and disgusting. That was somebody trying to get as much money from his name as they could and tried to pass off inauthentic product as authentic. No excuse for that. Imagine someone being brought in to finish Diana Ross vocals. I know doggone well this sub section of Soulful Detroit would join me in some serious rioting.:cool:

[RanRan79]

I have a copy of Ben's Disney offering. "All" I have to do is find a printer to copy the CD packaging for me, copy the CD and sell it to willing fans for big money. A kind of usurp the usurper. All profits to a suitable charity. How many would buy it.

Well that's one way to do it.:cool:

[Boogiedown]

I have a copy of Ben's Disney offering. "All" I have to do is find a printer to copy the CD packaging for me, copy the CD and sell it to willing fans for big money. A kind of usurp the usurper. All profits to a suitable charity. How many would buy it.

you lost me when you said, "big money" he haw

and I dread to imagine the suitable charity ..... hey maybe a Hollywood star for Shorty Long??

[carlo]

It's the selective morality accusation that's sticking me. It's insulting. Almost every example you give is of fans doing fan stuff. The entire machine [[i.e. entertainment industry) is set up to create fanatics. I am not talking about the fans trading. I'm not talking about fans posting stuff to Youtube, unless the vids are making them money, which I doubt. I'm talking about someone using someone else's product to make a business. My "morality" comments [[I guess that's what it is, since y'all calling it) are solely aimed at anyone ripping off someone else's work for profit. That's what "Ben" did.


I agree that fans should not be allowed to profit or create a business off of someone else's copyright/art. I mentioned this in my previous post. I gave examples of fans doing fan stuff, but the point is that these are all examples where someone is taking someone else's copyright and doing something with it, resulting in the artist not being paid. That point has been raised on this forum numerous times...many take issue with bootlegs for the reason that the artist doesn't get paid. My point is that there are a lot of other activities going on that are robbing artists of their royalties [see my previous post for examples].

To respond to your statement about me only giving examples of fans doing fan stuff ...well, we can easily extend the issue of illegal infringement to the artists themselves. I think of Mary and how she was being prevented from using The Supremes' name for years, because quite simply, she didn't own it...much like the bootleggers who don't own the music. She was making money by using the Supremes' name, during an extended period of time, when she didn't own it. Was she wrong to do this? Depends on who you ask. I feel that she had every right to do it. The trademark owner would have stated that she was damaging their brand and detracting from their future revenue potential...much like fans, bootleggers, etc etc use music for their own activities that go beyond listening to it in their own home [ie. Copying, file sharing, broadcasting, remixing, etc]. Again, I agree that it is indeed selective morality. We see many cases where it seems ok to do one thing and not ok to do another, but the underlying premise is still the same...copyright is being infringed in every scenario, and someone is losing out on their money.

[carlo]

In these trying economic times, I don't think it's a given that die hards who buy the bootlegs are going to turn around and buy the official releases, unless the official releases make it worth their while somehow.

Gosh, you should spend some time in the Facebook groups and see the collections amassed by some fans. They will most certainly buy the official releases every time, no matter the economic outlook. One guy mortgaged his home a second time so he can continue to attend every Diana Ross concert. Yikes.

[sup_fan]

going through my notes and found that they were also preparing I'm Late. looks like backing vocals were recorded but possibly no leads.

so that makes the song list for the project:


01 Heigh Ho
02 I've Got No Strings
03 Chim Chim Cher Ree
04 A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes
05 Someday My Prince Will Come
06 The Ballad Of Davy Crockett
07 Zip A Dee Doo Dah
08 Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
09 Toyland
10 When You Wish Upon A Star
11 A Spoonful Of Sugar
12 The Land Of Make Believe
13 Whistle While You Work
14 It Won't Be Long 'Til Christmas
15 Bippity Boppity Boo
16 I'm late