[REMOVE ADS]




Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 62 of 62
  1. #51
    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.

  2. #52
    (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
    Last edited by calvin; 05-29-2020 at 12:25 PM.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by justanothermotownfan View Post
    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.
    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?

    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
    Last edited by calvin; 05-29-2020 at 12:11 PM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    877
    [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.
    Last edited by Circa 1824; 05-29-2020 at 12:44 PM.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by calvin View Post
    (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
    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.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by calvin View Post
    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?

    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
    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.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by calvin View Post
    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


    ...I expect it's a revamped copy of this release in 2016...

    http://tiny.cc/7deypz

    Grape

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by paul_nixon View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by calvin View Post
    I mentioned that "The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963", released to extend the copyright on those tracks by 70 years, had many studio outtakes. For example, it has takes (outtakes) 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the song "There's a Place". Just today I see this public domain release which has takes 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 of that song (perhaps take 3 was the one released at the time?).

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Work-Progres...784QV5SSSZJ1F5

    How did these guys get the recordings? Did someone with access to the tapes secretly copy them? Or maybe even steal them? And does it matter how you got them when you do a public domain release? Might we see some similar Motown public domain releases?
    Keith Hughes gave the following answer:

    Quote Originally Posted by keith_hughes View Post
    in 1984, EMI decided to release an LP called "Sessions", containing all previously unreleased Beatles recordings, and for that purpose pulled all the Beatles' session tapes they could find, and copied a huge number of recordings for audition.

    The project was shelved, due to disagreements at the time between EMI and the three surviving Beatles plus Yoko Ono, but not before copies of the rundown copy had escaped into the wild.
    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.
    Last edited by calvin; 05-29-2020 at 02:49 PM.

  9. #59
    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.

  10. #60
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playlist-Pl...0889082&sr=8-1

    Is this the playlist in question Roger? Which tracks are alternate versions please?

  11. #61
    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.

  12. #62

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.