Discussion:
TEN FAVE UNRELEASED TRACKS FROM....1959
Add Reply
Roger
2024-08-17 06:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists

Today………from 1959

LITTLE ESTHER – PAPA DO


Recorded February 19 1959 at a New York City session for Savoy that
produced both sides of Little Esther’s March single (that was her last
for the label) “It’s So Good”/”Do You Ever Think Of Me”.

The third track laid down was the rhythmic “Papa Do” which went into
Grandpa Herman’s deepest vaults not to be seen again until 1979 when it
appeared (as “Oo Papa Do”) on the massive Savoy set “Ladies Sing The
Blues : Roots Of Rock ‘N’ Roll Vol.5” (which contained several other
Esther performances plus songs by Big Maybelle,Albinia Jones,Miss
Rhapsody and Linda Hopkins

JOHN HALL & THE FIVE BELL AIRES – WEDDING BELLS


Hailing from Hartford Ct came the Five Bell Aires who have already made
an appearance in this series (see the 1958 entry in this series posted
on 12 July 2024).

The record listed there was “My Friends” by Henry Hall & The Five Bell
Aires. It’s the same group that are appearing here except that the lead
is now Henry’s brother John Hall.

Recorded for M-Z Records of Middletown Ct “Wedding Bells” unfortunately
never saw release at the time and
had to wait till 1990 to put an appearance on the exact same album that
bro Henry’s “My Friends” debuted on---yep,’twas “Unreleased Gems Of The
1950’s : The Hartford Groups” put out by---you guessed it---our friends
at Relic Records in Hackensack NJ

THE KING CROONERS – PRETTY LITTLE GIRL


Hailing from Jacksonville,Florida The King Crooners were a solid five
man group comprising John Standberry,Bobby Jones, Clifford Williams,
Alfred Corley and Douglas Marshall.

After a debut single on Hart label out of Birmingham Alabama the guys
next port of call was Ernie Young’s Excello company in Nashville where
they had a couple of singles released in 1959/1960

The very nice “Pretty Little Girl” was an outtake from their Excello
sessions (not sure tho if there was more than one??) that remained in
the vaults until 1995 when it finally surfaced on the super AVI “Excello
Vocal Groups” CD collection

BRENDA LEE – THE STROLL


At her first Decca recording session of 1959 (on January 4th to be
exact) Brenda Lee arrived at the Bradley Studio in Nashville together
with her backing entourage Hank Garland (gtr) Harold Bradley (gtr) Bob
Moore (bass) Buddy Harman [dms), Floyd Cramer (pno) Jack Gregory (sax)
and The Anita Kerr Singers with production in the capable hands of Owen
Bradley

First up for the Brenda Lee treatment is “The Stroll”----the song under
consideration here and the song
that had recently graced the higher reaches of the charts in the
Diamonds original version. Brenda doesn’t disappoint.Two other songs are
cut (both destined for the forthcoming “Grandma What Great Songs You
Sang” LP)---“Rock-A-Bye Your Baby With A Dixie Melody” and “Pretty Baby”

As for “The Stroll” it is consigned to the vaults where it remains until
1974 when it debuts on the German
Coral LP “Legends Of Rock Vol.2”

DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME


One of the high spots in one of my very favorite movies---1959’s “Rio
Bravo”---is this number from
Dean Martin with the able assistance of Ricky Nelson.

This Western classic is generally held in high esteem in most movie
circles and comes in as #6 on IMDb’s list of best movies of 1959

1, BEN-HUR
2. SOME LIKE IT HOT
3. SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER
4. THE 400 BLOWS (no,I never saw this one either 😊 )
5. NORTH BY NORTHWEST
6. RIO BRAVO

Tho Dino had a Capitol 45 out in 1959 of “My Rifle,My Pony And Me” this
is a different studio-made
take featuring just him and nary a sign of Ricky to be seen. The actual
movie version (WITH Ricky Nelson)
had to wait till 1998 for release when it turned up as part of Dino’s
epic “Return To Me” set on Bear Family

JIMMY McCRACKLIN – FOLSOM PRISON BLUES


One of the best names in 50’s r&b takes on one of the best songs in
50’s country music when the great
Jimmy McCracklin meets up with Johnny Cash’s immortal “Folsom Prison
Blues” song classic.

Cut during his brief 1959/60 soujourn with Mercury Records the loping
rendition was sadly never released at the time.It finally surfaced in
1992 on the CD “The Mercury Recordings” from our friends at Bear Family
which like it says on the tin contains his entire Mercury output
including greats like “The Wobble” and “Georgia Slop”

JOHNNY POWERS – ME AND MY RHYTHM GUITAR


Johnny Powers (real name John Leon Joseph Pavlik) was born in 1938 and
hailed originally from East
Detroit Mi had already cut records for several labels (including Fox and
Fortune) before arriving at Sun

He had several sessions at 706 Union producing one genuine release on
the label (“With Your Love With
Your Kiss”/”Be Mine All Mine” on Sun 327 in September 1959). His usual
session crew was Brad Suggs (gtr)
Billy Riley (bs) Charlie Rich (pno) M Van Eaton (dms)

“Me And My Rhythm Guitar” was cut on an unknown date in 1959 and lay in
the vaults until 1979 when it
appeared on a Sun 45 #604 (b/w “Waitin’; For You”) originating in
France (and of unknown legal status)

A more legalized first release is likely to be the songs appearance on
the mixed artists LP on Charly in
1985 “Country Rock Sides”----that features both sides of the above
mentioned single plus other numbers from artists such as Vernon
Taylor,Tracy Pendarvis,Ray Smith,Warren Smith etc etc

SHIRLEY & LEE – SO TIRED


Likely among the last---if not the very last---numbers recorded by these
two sweethearts of the blues for the Aladdin label before they jumped
ship to Warwick in 1959.

Never issued at the time it waited literally decades to see light of day
before finally getting a release spot on their massive multi-CD Bear
Family collection “Sweethearts Of The Blues” in 1997

So....“Let The Good Times Roll!”

THE SPANIELS – AUTOMOBILES


Comprising Pookie Hudson,Gerald Gregory,Ernest Warren,Donald Porter and
James Cochran The Spaniels’
“Automobiles”was just one of the tracks recorded at a marathon session
for Vee Jay on August 27 1959.Never
released at the time the track finally surfaced in 1981 on a Spaniels
collection on Charly in UK “Great Googley Moo”

The track got some attention on here in November 2022 when I nominated
it that months edition of Bruce’s
Obscurities contest. It did fairly well there (as most Spaniels titles
nominated in various editions of the contest did) reaching the Semi
Finals.

FRANKLIN STEWART – I FORGOT TO TELL MY BABY


Here’s Franklin Stewart native of Jackson,Tennessee and best remembered
for his excellent “That Long
Black Train” rockabilly number on Lu in 1957.

“I Forgot To Tell My Baby” was recorded at the Hi Studios in Memphis in
1959 possibly for Hi Records
itself. Whoever it was recorded for it was never issued at the time.

As far as I can tell the track first appears on the CD “Rock It : 32
Authentic R&R and Rockabilly Shakers”
in 1993 on the Rockhouse (Netherlands) label.
Bruce
2024-08-17 16:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
LITTLE ESTHER – PAPA DO
http://youtu.be/6oESWzzvtZI
A have it as a low 7, not quite making my 1959 list.
Post by Roger
JOHN HALL & THE FIVE BELL AIRES – WEDDING BELLS
http://youtu.be/Wdjyfpizgdc
A high 5 or a low 6, just good enough for me to keep an MP3.
Post by Roger
THE KING CROONERS – PRETTY LITTLE GIRL
http://youtu.be/EyrB5N40GM0
A lower 5, I'll pass on keeping it. The first verse seems to be the same
as the Monarchs song of the same title from 1956.
Post by Roger
BRENDA LEE – THE STROLL
http://youtu.be/cZ5C_oCEOyM
Not bad, but I don't need to own it.
Post by Roger
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
Post by Roger
JIMMY McCRACKLIN – FOLSOM PRISON BLUES
http://youtu.be/1xPr8K9zHzU
I am a huge McCracklin fan, but this just doesn't work for me with that
floating trumpet.
Post by Roger
JOHNNY POWERS – ME AND MY RHYTHM GUITAR
http://youtu.be/Pqb6YiYj4_M
Don't care for this.
Post by Roger
SHIRLEY & LEE – SO TIRED
http://youtu.be/4OoWmzqibBY
That shitty chorus typifies why 1959 music was such a huge drop off from
what came in the prior years of the 50s.
Post by Roger
THE SPANIELS – AUTOMOBILES
http://youtu.be/mb7tOaLagYw
Another good (a 6) Spaniels track.
Post by Roger
FRANKLIN STEWART – I FORGOT TO TELL MY BABY
http://youtu.be/I5U84rBF78U
4 to low 5 territory, not keeping a copy.
Bruce
2024-08-17 18:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A couple of things that I can add.

She Knows How To Rock - Carl Perkins


Live on TV, Carl does "Rockin' With Red" with the title that Little
Richard used when he did it. Not technically unissued in my mind, but it
is under Roger's rules.

Don't Blame It On Me - Eddie Cochran


Same story here. Eddie Cochran live on TV doing the Fats Domino hit
"Don't Blame It On Me."
http://youtu.be/MhOKwA6uvBc

Run, Diddley, Daddy (version 2) - Bo Diddley
NOT ON YOUTUBE

This version is under 2 minutes. It's a very different arrangement that
the released version from the "Have Guitar, Will Travel" album.

Hallelujah, I Love Her So (undubbed version) - Eddie Cochran
I always liked this version even better than the Ray Charles version,
but without the fucking violins it's
MUCH better than the Ray Charles for me. When Eddie heard the record
with the violins added in by some producer without consulting him, he
was so pissed off that he found the guy who did it and had him up
against the wall. Here it is without the violins.


Roger
2024-08-18 07:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all

We are talking about "unissued records" here right? Meaning things that
were recorded,left in the can for whatever reason and never released for
sale as a commercial record during the period in question here.

The fact that this song features in a movie is irrelevant in this
scenario.

The bottom line is that I CANNOT own a legal physical copy of this
particular recording and play it whenever I want at any point during the
period we discuss on here----which I submit is the #1 basic requirement
of a commercially released 78,45 or 33rpm record at this time

Í rest my case
Bruce
2024-08-18 14:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.

Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it. Nowadays a recording that is
only in a movie is easy to make a digital file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."

Meaning things that were recorded,left in the can for whatever reason
and never released for
sale as a commercial record during the period in question here.

Key words "for sale." IMO it is irrelevant whether or not the recording
was available "for sale." Even back then there were things played on the
radio that were never available "for sale." Acetates, promo copies that
never came out commercially. etc...

That's not what it means to me. For me it means that there was no way
for the general public to hear the recording at that time.
Post by Roger
The fact that this song features in a movie is irrelevant in this
scenario.
The bottom line is that I CANNOT own a legal physical copy of this
particular recording and play it whenever I want at any point during the
period we discuss on here----which I submit is the #1 basic requirement
of a commercially released 78,45 or 33rpm record at this time
Now you are adding in the word "commercially." That is not part of the
title of the thread. When I was a DJ I had several things that I used to
play regularly that were no commercially released. There were song like
"Fire" and "The Fever" and "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" by
Springsteen that I played a lot. They were either on bootleg records or
on a home made cassette.

Are you claiming that something that is available only on a bootleg 45
is still "unreleased." Racio issued lots of 45's and even some albums
with "unreleased" things by acts like the 5 Keys and others where he had
gotten ahold of some master tapes or something.

What about TV show theme songs that were on all the time back then. If
you had a reel to reel recorder in the 1960s you could easily record a
TV theme song and play it back whenever you wanted to. Let's say I had a
friend who was a projectionist at a movie theatre in 1960. If I could
get him to play the movie privately when the theatre was closed and
transfer the sound from "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" on to a reel to reel
tape that I would then start playing on my radio show, people could hear
it.

I think you are stuck on the "commercially available" part. If the
public was able to hear it, like in a movie that millions of people saw,
it's not unreleased IMO.
Roger
2024-08-18 17:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning
Post by Bruce
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
I assume from what I've read that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private
recording between the two of you and so falls outside the scope of this
discussion
Post by Bruce
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
Post by Bruce
Meaning things that were recorded,left in the can for whatever reason
and never released for
sale as a commercial record during the period in question here.
Key words "for sale." IMO it is irrelevant whether or not the recording
was available "for sale." Even back then there were things played on the
radio that were never available "for sale." Acetates, promo copies that
never came out commercially. etc...
In my book if such recordings (and important here that they are proper
RECORDINGS and not simply numbers performed live) were not available for
general sale then they obviously count as "unreleased"
Post by Bruce
That's not what it means to me. For me it means that there was no way
for the general public to hear the recording at that time.
Most of the time that's true.But my definition of "unreleased" correctly
goes further to examples where the public can get to HEAR items like "My
Rifle...."---but are UNABLE tom buy them on a record.

Both artists involved were signed to well known record companies. The
song in question here was not released by either company.In anybody's
book that must surely make it "unreleased"
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
The fact that this song features in a movie is irrelevant in this
scenario.
The bottom line is that I CANNOT own a legal physical copy of this
particular recording and play it whenever I want at any point during the
period we discuss on here----which I submit is the #1 basic requirement
of a commercially released 78,45 or 33rpm record at this time
Now you are adding in the word "commercially." That is not part of the
title of the thread. When I was a DJ I had several things that I used to
play regularly that were no commercially released. There were song like
"Fire" and "The Fever" and "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" by
Springsteen that I played a lot. They were either on bootleg records or
on a home made cassette.
In cases like these then at the time the recordings being played from
"bootlegs" and other "unauthorised"
sources were unreleased
Post by Bruce
Are you claiming that something that is available only on a bootleg 45
is still "unreleased." Racio issued lots of 45's and even some albums
with "unreleased" things by acts like the 5 Keys and others where he had
gotten ahold of some master tapes or something.
Yes I'm saying exactly that. There were bootleg 45's and even LP's
especially in the 1970's when boots were really rife that included
unreleased (at the time) material. To me describing said material as
"unreleased" in those circumstances is still correct.

And I suppose your "Racio" (sic) is my old friend Mike Rascio then of
Lefferts Blvd Queens NYC :)
Post by Bruce
What about TV show theme songs that were on all the time back then. If
you had a reel to reel recorder in the 1960s you could easily record a
TV theme song and play it back whenever you wanted to.
Unless they were out on a bona fide record they are unreleased
Post by Bruce
Let's say I had a
friend who was a projectionist at a movie theatre in 1960. If I could
get him to play the movie privately when the theatre was closed and
transfer the sound from "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" on to a reel to reel
tape that I would then start playing on my radio show, people could hear
it.
For the purposes of this discussion it is still "unreleased".
Post by Bruce
I think you are stuck on the "commercially available" part. If the
public was able to hear it, like in a movie that millions of people saw,
it's not unreleased IMO.
But it most certainly is in mine!!
Bruce
2024-08-18 18:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."

I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer
unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
I assume from what I've read that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private
recording between the two of you and so falls outside the scope of this
discussion.
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the
public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of
recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
Okay, you are entitles to that opinion. I disagree with it though. I
also don't agree that this has anything to do with record companies.
There are many thousands, maybe even ,millions of recording that people
have done on their own and made available to the public in one way or
another without being involved with any record company. Dean even has a
site where you can buy and download digital copies of his recordings.
Roger
2024-08-18 20:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
With regard to the Dylan promo record it is accurately described as
released (or issued) of course---but only as a promo.

I don't see an item in a movie as released at all (unless there is an
accompanying record). If not its just a song in a movie and entirely
seperate to the physical records we disuss
Post by Bruce
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer
unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
For the second time the man's name is Mike RASCIO!

And no,I don't agree at all that bootlegged items count as genuine
releases. They may (and should) be mentioned of course as they are on
the 45cat site---but they are not and never will be genuine releases.
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
I assume from what I've read that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private
recording between the two of you and so falls outside the scope of this
discussion.
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the
public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of
recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
The fact that its on YouTube (and btw thanks for putting it there)
alters not the fact that as it stands it IS a private recording between
the two of you (assuming the circumstances you described are still the
same).

So no I don't think I assume wrong
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
Okay, you are entitles to that opinion. I disagree with it though. I
also don't agree that this has anything to do with record companies.
There are many thousands, maybe even ,millions of recording that people
have done on their own and made available to the public in one way or
another without being involved with any record company. Dean even has a
site where you can buy and download digital copies of his recordings.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison tho they may of course be excellent in
themselves
Bruce
2024-08-19 02:05:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
With regard to the Dylan promo record it is accurately described as
released (or issued) of course---but only as a promo.
I don't see an item in a movie as released at all (unless there is an
accompanying record). If not its just a song in a movie and entirely
seperate to the physical records we disuss
Post by Bruce
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer
unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
For the second time the man's name is Mike RASCIO!
And no,I don't agree at all that bootlegged items count as genuine
releases. They may (and should) be mentioned of course as they are on
the 45cat site---but they are not and never will be genuine releases.
How did the word "genuine" get into this discussion. I don't think they
are "genuine" releases either, but they certainly are "releases" and
have been "issued." As I said before, legalities are irrelevant here.
Let the lawyers deal with that.

Can you STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment?

This is not about records or any physical hard copy of anything that
contains a recording. It's about a piece of music that was able to be
heard by lots of the public, whether only in a movie, or only on a TV
show, only on the radio, or however it was able to be heard.
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the
public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of
recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
The fact that its on YouTube (and btw thanks for putting it there)
alters not the fact that as it stands it IS a private recording between
the two of you (assuming the circumstances you described are still the
same).
So the fact that it is available for anybody to hear does not make it a
recording for the public to hear? Of course it does. Lots of music these
days is only available on Youtube and/or other digital outlets. Artists
"release: music all the time now that can only be attained by
downloading it from that artist's website. Many times at no charge, just
a gift to their fans. There doesn't have to be profit, or commerce, or a
hard copy available for a piece of music to have been "released."
Post by Roger
So no I don't think I assume wrong
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own >>>> the recording. Just because the
technology wasn't there back then for most people to be able to do that
doesn't make those recordings "unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
I say no. Usually the movie scene that contains the piece of music is
available on Youtube where anybody can download the audio and/or the
video too. PLUS even back then were people who had the equipment needed
to record things from TV, movies, the radio, etc. to have their own copy
of the musical piece to play whenever they want to.

Suppose a modern artist did a piece of music that appeared in a current
movie and is available for free or for a price as a digital download on
the artist's website. Are you still calling that "unreleased?" Record
companies are not magic, Roger. Music can and is "released" by one
person without a record company. As a digital download or as a Youtube
video, or in many other ways. There are TONS Of artists who make music
who don't have a record company, but they release their music themselves
as digital downloads, and/or on Youtube or at other places, like om
Facebook for instance.
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Okay, you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree with it though. I
also don't agree that this has anything to do with record companies.
There are many thousands, maybe even millions of recordings that people
have done on their own and made available to the public in one way or
another without being involved with any record company. Dean even has a
site where you can buy and download digital copies of his recordings.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison tho they may of course be excellent in
themselves
I say they count just as much as something put out by a record company.
Music releases do not need to be put out by a "record company" to be
just as legitimate as a record company release.

How about paper records that were available through coupons on the back
of cereal boxes, or were included inside issues of a magazine like Mad?

As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong. The world is not made up of record collectors,
Roger. And maybe 99.99% of the music that we discuss here was issued on
records, but more than 99.99% of people in the word don't give 2 shits
about whether or not a piece of music was issued by a record company, or
only as a video on youtube, or however they got to hear it. They just
care whether or not they like the piece of music.
Roger
2024-08-19 06:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
With regard to the Dylan promo record it is accurately described as
released (or issued) of course---but only as a promo.
I don't see an item in a movie as released at all (unless there is an
accompanying record). If not its just a song in a movie and entirely
seperate to the physical records we disuss
Post by Bruce
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer
unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
For the second time the man's name is Mike RASCIO!
And no,I don't agree at all that bootlegged items count as genuine
releases. They may (and should) be mentioned of course as they are on
the 45cat site---but they are not and never will be genuine releases.
How did the word "genuine" get into this discussion. I don't think they
are "genuine" releases either, but they certainly are "releases" and
have been "issued." As I said before, legalities are irrelevant here.
Let the lawyers deal with that.
The word "genuine" got in for exactly the reason that bootlegs shouldn't
(and don't) count because
they are not bona fide records by any standard.The rock 'n' roll and r&b
bootleg singles of the 70's
were welcomed by thousands of fans (including moi) and sold huge
amounts---but they can't be classed as bona fide records since the were
all just mixed up together in someone's bath tub
Post by Bruce
Can you STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment?
Sure but I can't stop thinking like a 50's music fan
Post by Bruce
This is not about records or any physical hard copy of anything that
contains a recording. It's about a piece of music that was able to be
heard by lots of the public, whether only in a movie, or only on a TV
show, only on the radio, or however it was able to be heard.
But we come back to the brick wall of NOT being able to possess a bona
fide real life copy of those movie,TV or radio tunes because nobody is
marketing hard copies of them and thus THEY STAY UNRELEASED!!!!!
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the
public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of
recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
The argument here started about a 1959 piece of music never released by
the record company and thus
staying "unreleased" for decades. It's all so childishly simple. I don't
see the complications
Post by Bruce
Suppose a modern artist did a piece of music that appeared in a current
movie and is available for free or for a price as a digital download on
the artist's website. Are you still calling that "unreleased?" Record
companies are not magic, Roger. Music can and is "released" by one
person without a record company. As a digital download or as a Youtube
video, or in many other ways. There are TONS Of artists who make music
who don't have a record company, but they release their music themselves
as digital downloads, and/or on Youtube or at other places, like om
Facebook for instance.
This is all irrelevant since the argument here is based on a piece of
1950's music. I am not concerned with the recording scene today and it
plays no part in my main argument that the 1959 original version of "<My
Rifle My Pony And Me" was a bona fide unreleased item and stayed that
way for decades
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
Bruce
2024-08-19 15:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 6:06:40 +0000, Roger wrote:

bootlegs shouldn't count because they are not bona fide records by any
standard.

They are bona fide "records." When I mail a bootleg 45 to Europe I list
it as a "record" on the customs form. Whether is was pressed up legally
or not has ZERO relevance as to whether it is a record and was released.
When Herman Lubinsky sued Bobby Robinson over "Kansas City" because
Wilbert Harrison was still under contract to Savoy, Herman won the case,
which made Bobby's release of "Kansas City" illegal.

According to your twisted logic, that means that "Kansas City" on Fury
was not a bona fide record.

"bona fide" means genuine, real. Those words have zero to do with
legality and copyright laws.
Mark D.
2024-08-20 02:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.

--md

remove "xx" for email
Roger
2024-08-20 13:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine

And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Bruce
2024-08-20 15:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real
record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records?

So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?

It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
Roger
2024-08-20 17:26:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real
record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records
I have hundreds of boots in my collection.They are all real boots
Post by Bruce
So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?
It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
I don't know the intricacies of the Harrison case but if the courts
there say its illegal then its illegal.

But don't hold your breath waiting for me to throw my Top Rank copy (I
guess that's illegal too?)
away any time soon
Bruce
2024-08-20 17:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real
record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records
I have hundreds of boots in my collection.They are all real boots
Post by Bruce
So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?
It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
I don't know the intricacies of the Harrison case but if the courts
there say its illegal then its illegal.
But don't hold your breath waiting for me to throw my Top Rank copy (I
guess that's illegal too?)
away any time soon
I guess you are just a record collector first. Otherwise you would have
sold them all, and made a lot of money. Because only record collectors
would take the stance that you have taken here, or even care about
whether a release was bona fide or not. Non collectors like me and
pretty much everyone else in this group only care about the actual music
made by the artists, not about the physical records issued by the label
owners.

I was never that serious of a record collector other than with Fats
Domino, where I had every 45 and album except for some real early
Imperial 45s, and I had most of those on 78s. Otherwise I just wanted
the best sounding copies of the music, which is why I had a lot of
reissue albums. Most of the time things sounded better on those than on
original 45s. Once Diane exposed me to MP3s, I was free to start selling
the records and I did. I still have several hundred things hanging on my
walls for decoration, but I haven't cared about owning an actual record
for over 20 years now. Give me a real clean sounding MP3 any day over
some noisy record.
ROGER
2024-08-21 12:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real
record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records
I have hundreds of boots in my collection.They are all real boots
My response to Mark was concerning the legal position of bootleg records

You seem to have translated that legal position into my own personal
opinion of bootleg records which is quite amusing--as I said I suppose I
still have hundreds of boot 45's in my collection but the really
hilarious aspect of this is how you arrived at your projection knowing
my involvement in Moondog's Records,
my association with guys like Mike Rascio and the Marianos....do I
really need to go on?
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?
It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
I don't know the intricacies of the Harrison case but if the courts
there say its illegal then its illegal.
There I go speaking legally again!!! :)
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
But don't hold your breath waiting for me to throw my Top Rank copy (I
guess that's illegal too?) away any time soon
I guess you are just a record collector first. Otherwise you would have
sold them all, and made a lot of money.
I did sell a lot via eBay over the past few years. And I did make a lot
of money
Post by Bruce
Because only record collectors would take the stance that you have taken
here, or even care about
whether a release was bona fide or not. Non collectors like me and
pretty much everyone else in this group only care about the actual music
made by the artists, not about the physical records issued by the label
owners.
I appreciate you're trying to play some kind of silly "I'm superior to
you" card but I would remind you of my remarks above and leave others
here to judge whether I was speaking personally or legally--or a bit of
both :)
Post by Bruce
I was never that serious of a record collector other than with Fats
Domino, where I had every 45 and album except for some real early
Imperial 45s, and I had most of those on 78s. Otherwise I just wanted
the best sounding copies of the music, which is why I had a lot of
reissue albums. Most of the time things sounded better on those than on
original 45s. Once Diane exposed me to MP3s, I was free to start selling
the records and I did. I still have several hundred things hanging on my
walls for decoration, but I haven't cared about owning an actual record
for over 20 years now. Give me a real clean sounding MP3 any day over
some noisy record.
Yes mp3s revolutionised everything,they were a boon and a blessing.

And I don't remember the last time I added anything to my record shelves

It's been a while
Bruce
2024-08-21 12:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ROGER
Post by Bruce
Because only record collectors would take the stance that you have taken
here, or even care about whether a release was bona fide or not. Non
collectors like me and pretty much everyone else in this group only care
about the actual music made by the artists, not about the physical
records
issued by the label owners.
I appreciate you're trying to play some kind of silly "I'm superior to
you" card
Not at all. You are totally misreading this debate. There's nothing
personal
about it. Only record collectors care about bona fide, genuine, and even
the
fact that something was on a record. The rest of us just want to be able
to
listen to the actual music whatever way that it sounds good and is most
convenient.
At this point I can't imagine ever playing records anymore when I want
to hear music.
Playing records now to hear music would be like warming up food in the
oven for 30
minutes on 300 rather than just putting it in the microwave for 2 or 3
minutes. It
just makes no sense at all.

Playing 45s and having to get up every 2-3 minutes to change the record,
or flip it
over would be intolerable now.

Bruce
2024-08-20 16:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
The only people who care about whether a record is a bootleg or not are
record collectors. If the record sounds good then a non record collector
doesn't give a shit as to the legality of it. They are just as happy to
get a best of album put out by Rascio as one but out by someone who
legally had the rights to issue the recordings.

BTW, I'm sure you know that lots of legitimate record labels like
Collectables and Lost-Nite issued many recordings that they did not
actually have the legal right to. They would take some obscure thing
like the Hideaways on Ronni and just put it out. Sometimes they would be
contacted and/or sued by the person or company that owned the master, or
by their lawyer. How do you classify those releases which are
essentially the same thing as "Kansas City" on Fury. A record issued
illegally by a legit record label.
Roger
2024-08-20 17:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Mark D.
Post by Bruce
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether bootlegged
records are in good faith.
I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
The only people who care about whether a record is a bootleg or not are
record collectors.
I'm stating a matter of fact and a matter of law.

Bootlegs are not genuine full stop

Speaking personally I have hundreds of boots on my record shelves so my
personal feeling towards them is obvious,And if that isn't enough then
check out Rascio's 1970s best customer lists :)
Post by Bruce
If the record sounds good then a non record collector
doesn't give a shit as to the legality of it. They are just as happy to
get a best of album put out by Rascio as one but out by someone who
legally had the rights to issue the recordings
I can attest personally to that
Post by Bruce
BTW, I'm sure you know that lots of legitimate record labels like
Collectables and Lost-Nite issued many recordings that they did not
actually have the legal right to. They would take some obscure thing
like the Hideaways on Ronni and just put it out. Sometimes they would be
contacted and/or sued by the person or company that owned the master, or
by their lawyer. How do you classify those releases which are
essentially the same thing as "Kansas City" on Fury. A record issued
illegally by a legit record label.
I'd describe them as "a record issued illegally by a legit record label"
Bruce
2024-08-19 15:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
You said, and I quote:

That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...

,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"

----------------------------------------------------------

You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?

That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official
release or not.
Bruce
2024-08-19 15:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official
release or not.
With your take on this you are allowing some asshole like Herman
Lubinsky decide for you which recordings "count for something" and which
recordings "count for little." I've been telling record collectors for
years that by collecting records rather than just collecting music (as
in MP3s) that they are not honoring the legacy of the musicians, but
they are rather honoring the legacy of the record label owners. I know
lots of collectors who only want things that were on records back then.
They have no interest in great unreleased things that have come out in
later years on albums, CDs and even 45's. Some like Frankie C. are not
even interested in items that were only on albums back then. If it's not
on a 45 they don't want to know about it.
Jim Colegrove
2024-08-19 19:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official
release or not.
And it's not private. It's on YouTbe where anyone in the world can
listen to it. At least consider it a "promo' since it's a freebie.
Roger
2024-08-20 11:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official
release or not.
And it's not private. It's on YouTUbe where anyone in the world can
listen to it. At least consider it a "promo' since it's a freebi
First off,Jim nothing I've written in this conversation is intended or
aimed at denigrating the "Rock And Roll Mama" recording-far from it. I
think its pretty good as I've already stated.

The word "private" was used simply because the process of actually
getting the song recorded--from Bruce's description---seemed to be an
arrangement worked out by both of you. It has nothing to do with what
happened afterwards (the YouTube appearance)
Bruce
2024-08-20 15:50:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from
commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official
release or not.
And it's not private. It's on YouTUbe where anyone in the world can
listen to it. At least consider it a "promo' since it's a freebi
First off,Jim nothing I've written in this conversation is intended or
aimed at denigrating the "Rock And Roll Mama" recording-far from it. I
think its pretty good as I've already stated.
The word "private" was used simply because the process of actually
getting the song recorded--from Bruce's description---seemed to be an
arrangement worked out by both of you.
So it's not a public recording because it wasn't recorded for a record
label?

That's insane. So if we took it and got a record label to release it,
then it's not a private recording anymore?

Loads of records even in the 50s were recorded by the artists buying
studio time or something, and then they try to get a label to put it
out. So once again you are letting assholes like Herman Lubinsky
determine whether or not a recording is legitimate based on potential
commerce. Some records were recorded by the artist and then the artist
himself would pay to have it pressed up. Like "Henpecked Daddy" by Ralph
Johnson. Does it cease to be a private recording once it is pressed up
as a record, and if so, why is that any different from putting it on
youtube?

In the 50s the only way to really get the recording around was as a
record, but now it's way better to get it around by putting it on
youtube where as Jim said, anybody in the world can hear it.

I think you just have recordcollectoritis. Like most collectors, you
believe that a recording has no real value unless it is on a record.
Playlist
2024-08-18 15:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
https://www.youtube.com/watch_videos?video_ids=6oESWzzvtZI,Wdjyfpizgdc,EyrB5N40GM0,cZ5C_oCEOyM,8yz-nlseVOc,1xPr8K9zHzU,Pqb6YiYj4_M,4OoWmzqibBY,mb7tOaLagYw,I5U84rBF78U,

LITTLE ESTHER – PAPA DO
http://youtu.be/6oESWzzvtZI

JOHN HALL & THE FIVE BELL AIRES – WEDDING BELLS
http://youtu.be/Wdjyfpizgdc

THE KING CROONERS – PRETTY LITTLE GIRL
http://youtu.be/EyrB5N40GM0

BRENDA LEE – THE STROLL
http://youtu.be/cZ5C_oCEOyM

DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
http://youtu.be/8yz-nlseVOc

JIMMY McCRACKLIN – FOLSOM PRISON BLUES
http://youtu.be/1xPr8K9zHzU

JOHNNY POWERS – ME AND MY RHYTHM GUITAR
http://youtu.be/Pqb6YiYj4_M

SHIRLEY & LEE – SO TIRED
http://youtu.be/4OoWmzqibBY

THE SPANIELS – AUTOMOBILES
http://youtu.be/mb7tOaLagYw

FRANKLIN STEWART – I FORGOT TO TELL MY BABY
http://youtu.be/I5U84rBF78U
RWC
2024-08-18 16:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Playlist
THE KING CROONERS – PRETTY LITTLE GIRL
http://youtu.be/EyrB5N40GM0
A long time fave. I just love this recording.
Dean
2024-08-19 06:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Some time in the last month, I played that John Hall & The Five
Bell-Aires track on ROOTS ROCK RADIO. I can only assume that it wasn't
released for financial reasons. M-Z, after all, wasn't a shoestring
operation so much as an aglet!
Loading...