This is an excellent point. I certainly want everything I buy to be upfront, properly labeled, and the real thing , not a cheap knock-off that's pretending to be something it isn't, no matter what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo
Printable View
This is an excellent point. I certainly want everything I buy to be upfront, properly labeled, and the real thing , not a cheap knock-off that's pretending to be something it isn't, no matter what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo
No matter how well you think you cover something, there is always someone who says it better. You said it better. You really hit every single nail on the head with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo
Thanks WWLFAC [[hope it's ok I used an acronym instead of your full alias) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance
Many of us feel the same. I do not hesitate to buy official releases, even if I already have bootlegs. Only as a matter of principle. I understand that it's a question of revenue and possibly royalties to the artists, songwriters and musicians who created the product.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJMoch
However, many media conglomerates, and sometimes individual owners, will withhold music until it is outside of copyright protection. That can mean that the artists, musicians, songwriters -- and the audience -- are dead before it sees the light of day. It is a deliberate strategy to reduce the need for consent or attribution, or the number of potential claims to sale and licensing proceeds.
I will take my music however I can get it. And then I will purchase official commercial releases whenever I can.
Guy, obviously I don't know what Blinky's 'Heart Full of Soul' sales were but for a couple of weeks it was in Amazon UK's Top 10 soul/funk best sellers so that's not too shabby. It was in the best sellers list for a couple months. It's now out of stock on Amazon UK and is only available via import.
These label art depts should hire you. IMPRESSIVE!!!!
First, I want to say thank you to the folks at Universal [[Andy, Harry, George, et al), for every release they painstakingly put together for the fans. Every release was a labor of love and they’ve put out an impressive body of work over the years despite the lackluster interest from corporate. Indeed, they have kept the legacy alive. I LOVE what they did with The Supremes, and what they did worked - at least for this group of fans, we hunger for MORE MUSIC.
I appreciate the music and would never want to “knowingly” support a bootlegger for the simple reason that the artists and others associated with the music don’t get paid. That simply is wrong on many levels. However, this guy [[whoever he is), is like any other business. He sees an inefficiency [[or inconsistency) in the market and fills the gap. That being said, he makes money knowing the fans will likely support him because of the disinterest at Universal about being consistent with the releases. Again, it’s wrong, but I certainly understand it.
What I don’t understand, which has been voiced by several posters in this thread, is exactly why Universal isn’t interested. I have supported every release whether I was interested or not [[including the many definitive versions of WGO on both CD and vinyl), in some cases like that of The Supremes and others, buying more than one copy - NOT to sell on eBay - but simply to support the official release and because if something should happen to one copy, then I have another and not have to endure the price gouging on online second hand marketplaces. There have been many CD’s that have sold out - Motown Complete Singles 1966, This Is The Story, WDOLG expanded, and others so clearly the interest is there.
This is where I get confused however: the company that puts out Beatles releases over time do such a fine job with their mono albums box set, and their stereo albums box set, and other notable releases both on CD AND vinyl, that one can only wonder why Motown isn’t held in the same class as that of The Beatles [[I don’t even understand why original Motown albums - classic period - are valued considerably less than those of the Beatles, yet at one time they were - but that’s another conversation). Are we a different “caliber” of fans? One can only guess. Motown in it’s own right is every bit as popular and iconic as The Beatles and yet I find Universal’s disinterest appalling.
I would bet my last $5 that most of us on this board would probably max out their credit cards to buy all of the expanded CD’s at once by the Supremes or even other artists rather than wait 5 years in between sets just to buy the latest ONE. If Universal was putting out, for example, some limited edition collection of albums or such, THEN it would make sense for a 5 year gap. Hell, I’d even buy a complete mono albums box in vinyl if they’d put it out. Even a remastered Diana Ross Jazz and Blues blu ray [[hope springs eternal).
Universal is clearly missing the mark here. And I agree with the poster who spoke of missed opportunities with anniversaries and musicals and such - even with the Hitsville documentary that has YET to be released for sale on DVD or blu ray [[maybe it’s me, but I don’t want to subscribe to Showtime just to see the doc anytime I want).
And yet, another poster was right - it’s not just the fans that’s getting older. So are the surviving artists Universal claims to want to support. On one hand, the bootlegger[[s) are keeping money from product for the fan’s sake that should go to the artists, and on the other hand, Universal is holding back from active releases for the serious fans and collectors that would generate the income artists and others surely need. An aggravating situation to be sure.
To me, Motown is more than just a greatest hits package with Baby Love, My Girl and I Heard It Through The Grapevine. Bootleggers be damned, but all I know is had it not been for the guys in Belgium with their Marginal CD’s, I, and most of us, never would have known what type of treasure trove existed/exists in the Motown vaults.
There is a further concern and that is when 'fakes' enter the market on top of all the damage they do financially to the repertoire owners and the artists they also gum up the history of the label. Even down to designing 'could have been LP and 45 covers' can be a problem. I've seen these picked up and used in the not so recent past as examples of Motown picture sleeves. Imagine if you will the market suddenly got flooded with 'what if' painting by Rembrandt - Gainsborough or Constable..to the casual art fan they could easily be taken as genuine and go down in history as being the real thing or used in the classroom or lecture theatre as examples of an artists work. The Motown history is as important as any other and to lay claim by inference has been officially available is just so wrong. If you want to sell fake covers and fake picture sleeves then they should be clearly marked as counterfeit for that's what they are or be stickered non - genuine release for in twenty or thirty years time when we are all gone the current Motown historians will believe these to be real.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanothermotownfan
Secondly our friends at the Belgium label - you were marginally correct - they did stir up a hornets nest BUT the material they put onto their CD's was in the main released - maybe hard to find and maybe new to CD BUT released. It was the tape sharing bootleggers that opened up the Motown vaults fully in the 1990's when the first Volume of Cellarful Of Motown was released and with the full backing of Universal was dubbed the 'bootleg buster' and what followed was a Tsunami of unreleased tracks in the early 2000's - the problem becomes that the audience becomes so greedy as soon as one release comes along another is demanded immediately - business and record companies cannot just work like that.
When I see the 'well if they don't release it they deserve what they get' attitude it really makes my blood boil, so if your neighbour want to borrow your lawnmower but he doesn't want to let you have if for whatever his reason - you believe you can get somebody to go in his yard and take it? Madness....
Paul, you make very valid points especially about the artwork mistakenly becoming "official" over time. I never thought about that. Well received...
Just chiming in on the business side of things -
Yes, artists get paid on legitimate releases. How much they are paid is decided by their individual contracts, as well as their advance / expense / recoup status with the label.
An even more enthusiastic yes for songwriters. With CDs, Vinyl, and Cassettes, Songwriting and Publishing royalties are paid based on the amount of copies physically pressed, not the amount sold. So, if a label presses up 1,500 copies of a record, the songwriters are paid their due for every single copy, regardless of whether that copy sells or not. For digital, it is calculated in real time based on the number of downloads and streams, but there is a court mandated rate paid per physical pressing of every song to songwriters/publishers.
This doesn't exactly apply to the "mock ups" above but is relevant to some of the other posts.
Many are saying that they wouldn't want to buy releases if the artists aren't getting paid. I just wanted to point out that there are legal releases for which the artists don't get paid, namely public domain releases. You are aware that if you bought a cd of The Twistin' Kings' "Twistin' the World Around" [[as just one example), a public domain release from Hallmark, that no artists were paid?
My preference would have been to buy that from Universal, digitally mastered from the original master tapes, for better quality. I can understand that it probably wouldn't have sold enough to justify a cd release, but perhaps it could have been done as a download.
Harry Weinger once said that one of his group's goals was to digitize the music for archival purposes. [[Once you've made a digital master, it's easy to make many perfect copies and store them in various locations, so that this digital master will be safe from disasters such as fire and won't degrade with time.) If you've spent the money and made the effort to digitize an album, I would expect that it would cost very little to additionally offer it as a download, so why not do it to recoup some of your mastering expenses? My guess is that they still haven't done a digital master of that LP and maybe they never will.
If they were going to release it as a download, it would have made sense to do it before 2012, when the album went into the public domain and others could begin to legally offer public domain vinyl rips on cd as competition - some people might not understand the difference when making their purchase and buy the public-domain cd. If Universal offered it as a download now, I would buy it [[if priced normally) to replace what I have, but some who purchased that cd probably wouldn't - either because they don't know that the sound quality would be much better or they don't care enough to spend money on the same album again. [[I have to admit, I have not listened to that album since right after I bought the Hallmark cd back in 2012.)
Also, as a warning - if you're buying older recordings on cd, say 1950s jazz or vocal, pay attention to the issuing label. Because these recordings are in the public domain in the EU, there are companies offering budget-priced sets which look like great value but are actually needle drops. These compete with the higher-quality releases from the original labels.
[[continuing previous post)
In 2011 the EU changed the copyright law so that any music which was released in 1963 or later would be covered for 70 years instead of 50. That's why the Hallmark releases dried up after 2013, so we probably won't see a legal release until 2034 of, say, the Paula Greer album on Workshop Jazz.
If music is not released at all within 50 years, the copyright expires and it seems that anyone can legally release it [[if they have it or can somehow get it). That's why we get these "Motown Unreleased" downloads each year, to protect the copyright on those recordings - they get 70 more years from their first issue as part of "Motown Unreleased."
If you have some Motown tracks that were never officially released in the 50 years since they were made, I think that you can legally release them for sale [[but don't trust me, ask a lawyer who knows about this!). I guess this must also apply to alternate takes, for example take a look at this legal but unoffical release of alternate takes from the Beatles:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Work-Progre...763623&sr=8-27
Universal sees the numbers and The Beatles sell. Motown was more of a singles label until Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, and others changed that - and I think those albums have generally been available [[how many expanded/deluxe/whatever versions of "What's Going On" are there?). The Beatles have a quite limited number of albums [[I think maybe 13 if you count "Magical Mystery Tour", which was originally released as a double EP in the UK but was extended to an LP in the US). There were probably more than 200 Motown albums released through 1972 when the label left Detroit. Who - besides those of us in this forum - are going to buy all, or even most, of those?Quote:
Originally Posted by justanothermotownfan
The Supremes were huge, but if those expanded editions were selling really well and Universal was making a lot of money from them, they would have kept them coming - say at least one each year.
Let's face it, most people who want to buy some Motown are happy with compilations, greatest hits of various artists or greatest hits for particular artists. Think about how many Supremes compilations have come out, they must sell ok or Universal would stop.
I guess this is another one?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-D...s=music&sr=1-2
[QUOTE=calvin;578151]Universal sees the numbers and The Beatles sell.”
The Supremes were huge, but if those expanded editions were selling really well and Universal was making a lot of money from them, they would have kept them coming - say at least one each year.
........
The problem with sales is the general public has no idea about these. I am puzzled why Ross does not mention these in her shows. Even I had no idea about the earlier expanded editions until I found this fan site.
But of course you have to KNOW that the track has not been released - know it's title - know who it's by - know the author - you can't just go in with guns blazing saying 'give me everything that's not been released 50 years ago', which in a way already protects the unreleased tracks, talking to some of the artists they recorded so many they have no recollection of what and when - so I think those unreleased tracks are pretty secure.Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin
I'd be more than interested in buying this but it has to include some songs that are not typically on other compilations like; at least a couple of Disney songs [[remastered of course), maybe 2-3 tracks from the Funny Girl album that have not been released on cd yet, a track or 2 from G.I.T. On Broadway, or even those few songs from the Motown Unreleased digital only releases. Looks like it is a 3 cd set but of course I am sure that each cd will not be filled up as usual. I bought the Playlist Plus 3 cd compilation back in 2008 when it came out cause it contained a couple of rarities including the extended version of "You've Been So Wonderful To Me" however, there was more than enough room for more songs.Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin
...I expect it's a revamped copy of this release in 2016...
http://tiny.cc/7deypz
Grape :)
I guess that some of the experts in this forum [[I am not one of them!) would know, or could at least determine, whether a song had been officially released for sale back in the day or since. But you'd still need to know the year of the recording to know that it was more than 50 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_nixon
But how did these studio tracks which were never released get out? Obviously one can't just go into the vaults to look around without permission. Maybe some are from acetates, which might also be dated? Or did someone who had access to tapes copy some and smuggle them out?
In a 2014 thread I noted that iTunes had released a batch of Beatle's outtakes from 1963 and then a public domain cd of different outtakes was released the next year.
Keith Hughes gave the following answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin
So it would seem that those tapes were copied and basically stolen by someone, and yet once the 50 years had passed and the copyright expired they were legally [[?) released.Quote:
Originally Posted by keith_hughes
Grape, they would sell loads more copies if they included a few alternates and noted them on the cover. I recently bought DRATS "Playlists Plus" because I heard that there were alternates included. I would have bought it years ago if I had known.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playlist-Pl...0889082&sr=8-1
Is this the playlist in question Roger? Which tracks are alternate versions please?
Copley, aarondillon in #56 mentioned "You`ve Been So Wonderful To Me" amongst others.I had this track already as I`d been a very naughty boy and bought a bootleg! That`ll teach me. Aaron would have more idea than me.