The Spectropop Group Archives presented by Friends of Spectropop

[Prev by Date] [Next by Date] [Index] [Search]

Spectropop - Digest Number 80


______________                                            ______________
______________                                            ______________
______________        S  P  E  C  T  R  O  P  O  P        ______________
______________                                            ______________
            To insure longer life and enduring sound quality  

There are 7 messages in this issue of Spectropop.

Topics in this Digest Number 80:

      1. Take Me For A Little While
           From: "Jack Madani" 
      2. Happy holidays and other things. 
           From: "Steve Marinucci" 
      3. Versions of "White Christmas"
           From: "Dan Murphy" 
      4. Re: WMBR Lost and Found
           From: Stewart Mason 
      5. BB recordings
           From: Dmirich
      6. Lawsuit
           From: Carol Kaye 
      7. Beach Boys latest lawsuit
           From: "Jamie LePage" 


Message: 1
   Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:31:57 -0500
   From: "Jack Madani" 
Subject: Take Me For A Little While

>Chip Taylor (and Al Gargoni) produced Evie Sands' Take
>Me For a Little While (Trade Martin) for Leiber and
>Stoller's Blue Cat label in 1965.
>Take Me For a Little While was later recorded by Patti
>LaBelle in 1967, and most notably by Vanilla Fudge as
>a Top 40 rock hit in 1968.

There was also Dave Edmunds' version from 1979, on that 
(for me, anyway) breakthrough album Repeat When 
Necessary. It had a big wall of sound sort of treatment,
starting with massed acoustic guitars and solo voice, and
then on the first singing of the title phrase came a big 
crash of drums and then the rest of the band plus a 
choir of overdubbed Daves. An arresting version that 
opened up my ears to the fact that Spector was still 
alive and well and living in the grooves even at the 
height of the disco era.


--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 2
   Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:27:07 -0800
   From: "Steve Marinucci" 
Subject: Happy holidays and other things. 

Coming out of lurkdom to wish everyone a happy holiday 

I recently picked up the Ellie Greenwich Raven CD. Very 
very nice.

And an aside to Carol, a friend invited me to see Brian 
in concert locally when he came into town a few months 
back. She'd won the chance to meet him through his 
website, so we were both introduced to him. We were too 
speechless to say a heck of a lot, but I have a picture 
to remember it all by. Talk about memories to last a 

It's been a very good year. Also met another of my music
heroes, Michael Nesmith. And on my birthday, no less...:)


In-depth Beatle news and info. plus Byrds,
Beach Boys and '50s-'60s music.

--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:52:19 -0000
   From: "Dan Murphy" 
Subject: Versions of "White Christmas"

Paul Urbahns asked how to identify the different 
recordings of "White Christmas".

Although I do not know why it was re-recorded in 1947,  I
know that you can tell the 1942 version by the word 
"dreaming" in the very first line. In the 1942 version, 
Bing streches it out to three syllables: "I'm 
dre-ee-ming of a white Christmas...". In the 1947 
recording, "dreaming" is given a regular two-syllable 
phrasing. I'm sure there are other noticeable 
differences in phrasing as well.

I'm fairly sure the '47 version is the more commonly 
available one. Maybe it was re-done for his "Merry 
Christmas" album on Decca (DL 8128), which I think has 
sold about a gazillion copies.

The 1942 version is available on the 2-CD collection 
"Stardust: The Classic Decca Hits and Standards 
Collection" (MCAD2-11120). The liner notes give the 
recording date as May 29, 1942, but do not offer any 
information about why it was later re-done.

Happy Holidays to all Spectropop members!

Dan Murphy

--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 4
   Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 19:17:35 -0700
   From: Stewart Mason 
Subject: Re: WMBR Lost and Found

At 09:35 AM 12/27/00 -0000, Jimmy Botticelli wrote:

>>Stewart, who although he lives in Albuquerque has a
>>pair of WMBR stickers on his car
>It just goes to show how often people strugglin' away in
>the music bizz get to buy new cahs!

(Actually, I've never lived in Boston/Cambridge, it's 
just that my sweetie volunteers at the station during 
the pledge drives and so she gets extras of the stickers
and t-shirts.)

.... I would just
>like to say that I have been a sometimes proud member of
>that station (WMBR) since '74. These days I spin
>breakbeat/loungecore/latin-house/SABPM fridays at
>which we stream live. But I also claim the mantle of
>founder of the "Lost And Found" program airing daily
>from noon - two, Monday through Friday....

If anyone happens to be near a computer with RealAudio 
from noon to two EST, I recommend tuning in this show--
I'm particularly fond of Magnus's show on Friday, since 
we seem to have about the same taste in oldies.

So, Jimmy, I'm a bit confused--did you start "Lost and 
Found" or its predecessor, "Needles and Pinza"? If the 
latter, I owe you something for stealing that name for 
my Live365 oldies station...


--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 5
   Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:52:40 EST
   From: Dmirich
Subject: BB recordings

> So these are not bootleg recordings such as have
 > surfaced in the recent past.
 > Paul Urbahns 

It is understandable that you would feel this way, as 
you were the purveyor to the Lost and Found BB 
recordings. However, Carol has a right to side with the 
Beach Boys, whose indignation at Brad Elliot and Hite 
Morgan's son's actions resulted in a lawsuit against 
them. Artists are continually ripped off by those who 
know just enough to figure a way to make money off of 
their heroes, who sidle right up against what might or 
might not be legal. If I were her, I'd have the same 
attitude about such entrepreneurs.

The BB lawyers must feel that there is good legal 
reasoning to file the suit. Therefore Paul, just as when
Brian sued and got his songs back many years after his 
father legally sold them, it turns out that sometimes 
"legal ownership" does not in fact constitute ethical 
treatment of the artist and can result in ownership of 
the rights to the music reverting back to the artist.

I'm sure we will all learn more about the ins and outs 
of the legitimacy of this now-pulled Surfs Up release, 
and can also discuss the implications for other 
"quasi-legal" releases from Japan, Britain, and other 
places (remember P. Ruem's Beach boys Capitol Years box 
set, released in Japan and Australia? was this legal? 
ethical? How about all the Japanese BB related releases?
the 2fers? Brian Wilson Productions? etc?) But you 
shouldn't admonish Carol so strongly, implying this is a
cut and dry case where Brad and Surfs Up will prevail.

Dave Mirich

--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 6
   Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:37:19 -0800
   From: Carol Kaye 
Subject: Lawsuit

It doesn't matter whether I played on the recordings in 
question or not - no I didn't - that isn't even in 
question as I stick up for my friend Brian Wilson and 
the BB's in their lawsuit.

With over 10,000 record dates to my name, a Lifetime 
Achievement Award, and a Women in Music Award etc., I'd 
say I have the background to support this lawsuit 
publicly to help my friend(s) And I worked intensely 
with both Brian Wilson and his father Murry and know 
things no-one here does. 

Carol Kaye

--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Message: 7
   Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 07:26:26 -0000
   From: "Jamie LePage" 
Subject: Beach Boys latest lawsuit

Paul Urbahns wrote:

>As long as proper royalities are paid for mechaninal 
>royalities the artists are being compensated.

Partially correct. There are typically two royalties due
on manufacture and sale of recordings, one for the 
mechanical reproduction rights and the other for master 
reproduction rights.

Mechanical compensates the writer/publisher. 
Master compensates the owner of the recording.

Since there is no dispute over writers and publishers, 
let us deem it a non-issue and limit the discussion to 
the recording.

Typically there is a chain from the end user to the 
artist. In the case of the early BB tapes, the chain 
would look something like this:

CD consumer --> retailer --> wholesaler --> 
Licensee --> Deck Records --> Beach Boys

In the case of the new Surf's Up! compilation, the set 
is marketed directly through the internet, so the chain 
is much shorter:

CD consumer --> Surf's Up --> Deck --> Beach Boys

Paul wrote:

>Deck Records is run by Bruce Morgan who's father Hite 
>Morgan got the Beach Boys in the musicians union in the 
>first place so they could record.

Paul, it is not only that, but when the Beach Boys 
recorded with Hite Morgan, their recording agreement 
gave *the exclusive ownership of the recordings* to 
Deck. When the Beach Boys signed with Capitol, Capitol 
(perhaps unwisely) decided to re-record rather than 
negotiate a buy-out of the masters from Deck.

Paul wrote:

>So these are not bootleg recordings such as have 
>surfaced in the recent past.

Bootlegs? LOL! Of course they are not bootlegs! They 
aren't even "grey area" bootlegs like the Euro and 
Japanese "semi-legal" releases. Bootlegs are 
unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material. This
is strictly a release of licensed material that is being 
contested. The plaintiffs happen to be the artists in 
this case, but it could just as well be another label or
producer or ex-band member etc.

Carol Kaye wrote:

>It's very strange when the ethics of people get so bad 
>that they think it's alright to use creative materials 
>belonging to others - there's a name for that: theft...
>such is the kind of country we're starting to become...

I agree 100% with Carol that blatant piracy is to be 
abhored. Several years ago, Deck Records sued Joe 
Saraceno for unlawfully exploiting these recordings. In 
court, Saraceno argued that the Beach Boys themselves 
owned the recordings. After hearing all the evidence, 
the judge ruled that Deck Records have the authority, 
the exclusive ownership, and the exclusive right to 
market, exploit and promote the recordings. The decision
went on to note that to take the ownership away from Deck
and to give the rights to the Beach Boys would be 
contrary to all law, custom and practice in the industry, 
would be contrary to the intent of the parties as 
shown by the evidence, and would be unconstitutional 
violation of the law to take property away from one 
person and give it to another.

This ruling was similar to the recent Ronettes vs. Phil 
ruling: The Ronettes won back royalties but the 
ownership of the recordings remained with Phil.

But Carol makes a good point. That's why I am astounded 
that no action has been taken on the {XXXXXXXXXXXXX} 
releases, which are clearly bootlegs, the source of 
which is reportedly known to both Capitol and the Beach 
Boys. It makes one wonder why they instead are going 
after Deck. Well, for one thing it has us all talking 
about the release! Good publicity stunt? I dunno, but a 
heck of a lot more people are paying attention.

One also wonders why the Beach Boys decided to take this 
action now, nearly 40 years after the recordings were 
first issued. These recordings have been commercially 
available the whole time, sold through labels such as 
Era, Wand, Orbit, Scepter, Warner Bros., CBS, EMI/United
Artists, Warner/Curb and Varese Sarabande, besides the 
excellent DCC/Lost and Found release Paul was involved 
with. All of these releases were licensed by Deck 
Records, the exclusive owner, and none of the 
above-mentioned labels were/are bootleg operations.

One additional point: If Deck aren't paying the Beach 
Boys, they should be made to do so. As for Surf's Up, 
well, it stands to reason they will be indemnified 
against any non-payment by Deck, and it goes without 
saying that Surf's Up, as the licensee, have never 
claimed ownership of the recordings.

Finally, I am not qualified to pass judgement on this or
any other of the Beach Boys countless legal cases in the 
past. Strictly from an observer's point of view, I take 
neither side, but I do find the case fascinating. I look
forward to following this story as it progresses. 
Although many group members know far more than do I 
about the Beach Boys, my hunch is that Deck will once 
again prevail and the sales of the recordings will be 
judged as within the boundaries of the original 
contract. Time will tell!


--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------

Click here to go to The Spectropop Group

Spectropop text contents & copy; copyright Spectropop unless stated otherwise. All rights in and to the contents of these documents, including each element embodied therein, is subject to copyright protection under international copyright law. Any use, reuse, reproduction and/or adaptation without written permission of the owners is a violation of copyright law and is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved.