Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious the unreleased, Disney album

[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?) 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 "

[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 ... ....



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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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