http://www.spectropop.com ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ S P E C T R O P O P ______________ ______________ ______________ ________________________________________________________________________ DESIGNED TO ENHANCE IRREPLACEABLE MONOPHONIC RECORDINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 7 messages in this issue. Topics in this Digest Number 89: 1. Jackie DeShannon From: Claudia Cunningham 2. Beach Boys Pet Sounds From: Tilley Five 3. Re: Soundalikes From: "mikey1" 4. Re: RIP Specs: What Are We Gonna Do Without You From: Jamie LePage 5. It doesn't say 48 years From: "Joseph Scott" 6. BBs and Deck From: "Jamie LePage" 7. Playlist for "Casa Nostra" 1.12.01 From: "James Botticelli" ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: Claudia Cunningham Subject: Jackie DeShannon I was one of those who saw Jackie on Letterman the other night. Was I disappointed! He introduced her as one of music director Paul Shaffer's "innovators of rock" guests, and I guess it was suppose to be "this is his blast from the past spot"....I got the feeling that Jackie was too Sixties to appeal to Letterman's top demographic group, those 20 and 30 year olds who can't relate to Jackie. Sad, isn't it? When they cut to commercials Jackie would do a bit of a song here and there. Once Letterman asked her why she didn't sing one of her famed songs, "Bette Davis Eyes" instead of giving it to Kim Carnes to record. She hesitated, and before she uttered a word Shaffer cut her off with, "Don't pick on her. She has nothing to say. She's the Garbo of rock." She wasn't extended the courtesy of sitting next to Letterman and saying anything at all. She stood next to Shaffer the whole time. She looked very good....the face lift was a good one (meow!) ...seriously, she looks great for her age. Same blond hair with bangs, wearing a red jean jacket and slim black slacks. Letterman, instead of having Jackie be a real guest, had "B" actor Tim Robbins on and some t.v. personality, a girl in her 20's who was half dressed, and they both got rousing applause from his youthful audience. It's all part of those of a certain age becoming less relevant to the media. Notice that JFK's assassination anniversary got nary a mention this year when in the past there were t.v. specials on and magazines and newspapers talking of little else. The media panders to Generation Xer's these days, more so than ever. Jackie is just the latest casualty in this mind-set and it's very, very sad. She is relatively young and has so much to offer. The good news: She has a new CD out which I will for sure pick up. Shame on Letterman's producers, it should have been a great show. Claudia --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 01 20:32:32 +0900 From: Tilley Five Subject: Beach Boys Pet Sounds Hats off to VH1 for the top 100 albums of all times...Pet Sounds came in at #3 --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 3 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:17:52 -0500 From: "mikey1" Subject: Re: Soundalikes Paul wrote: > > For over thirty years I have been seriously collecting > > Hit Records from Nashville TN which sold their > > sound-a-likes of the current pop and country hits from > > 1962 to 1972. Yes, those "Hit Records" versions are awesome. I have a bunch of them on tape, and they are fascinating to listen to. They are def NOT "cheapie" productions, they are well done and obviously were done in good studios with good players. Now I wonder...does anybody know who owns the masters? A 2 Cd set of these from the original masters would be a welcome item. Mikey --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 4 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 01 20:24:56 +0900 From: Jamie LePage Subject: Re: RIP Specs: What Are We Gonna Do Without You > The passing of Jack Specs Nitzsche saddened me greatly. Mortality is a harsh wake up call. >my favorite Nitzsche-arranged track of all time, Lesley >Gore's "What Am I Gonna Do With You"-- Definitely my very favorite Lesley Gore recording - I have to mention the boy-betrays-faithful-girl lyric has a lot to do with it. Of great appeal to me is that sentiment expressed in so many of her recordings - lacking that sentiment, I doubt What Am I Gonna Do With You would so easily rank #1 on my personal list. Also, any song that has as its main catch phrase "Hey, baby" gets extra points. Truly Do by Fleetwoods starts off with this line. Also, Hey! Baby by Bruce Channel and Hey Baby (They're Playing Our Song) by the Buckinghams. In this Titelman/Goffin work, the monotone line Hey Baby on the surface seemingly adds no importance to the lyric. But imagine extending the word "do" for a couple of beats and replacing "hey baby" with "with you". It works, but the impact is radically lessened. It's an example of the sum of the lyric and melody exceeding its components. It works brilliantly. A similar example is the use of the word "now" in the Honeys' He's a Doll. The sentence doesn't require the word, but without it, the lyric isn't nearly as infectious. >Goodness knows I put in a lot of serious headphone time >with those two tracks before I tried to arrange my own >Net Sounds cut. I remember having time to do that; sit and carefully compare versions of the same song or recording. I did it today with What Am I Gonna Do With You. My wife has just made a doctor's appointment for me. By the way, any chance of your uploading your Net Sounds track to the file sharing space? >If anyone would care to listen to the files I would >enjoy discussing the differences OK. I downloaded the files just for fun (cool feature!) but listened to the CDs which I already purchased long ago for the purpose of A/B'ing the mixes. Now I am about to tear apart the mixes. Egad. Remember, this is my FAVORITE Lesley Gore recording! >the Mercury Anthology version is apparently the original >mix, with a lot of the classic Gold Star echo on it and a >more primitive stereo pan--instruments sort of huddled >left of center, and Lesley over to the right and a >little too upfront. The version on the Golden Hits cd >was apparently remixed... First of all, Jack, this recording is a difficult mix. Comparing the two mixes, it appears the strings were "ridden" in the MA mix because the pizzicato parts are too present on the multi-tracks to allow a single level throughout. That, unfortunately, caused problems in both mixes although for different reasons. >[on GH] the instruments are splayed more evenly across >the soundstage The intro of the MA mix sounds astonishingly similar to Silent Night by Phil Spector with the resonating repetitive piano figure soaked in the Gold Star chamber. The GH mix loses this character completely. Here, the harpsichord is overbearing. >The harpsichord is clearer, too. It's overbearing, Jack. It buries the piano :-) > It's lost some of the echo, The toppy (digital?) reverb used on the GH remix lessens further the eerily hollow effect of the MA original mix. >Lesley is smack dab in the center and mixed down a >little, so that you can crank it and really revel in >that big honkin' sleigh bell arrangement... >making it easier to pinpoint some of the tricks that went >into creating the Wall of Sound. OK, I buy this. In fact, it is one redeeming quality of nearly all stereo vs. mono mixes, and the same can often be said of recent remixes. All those "sessions" tapes like the Pet Sounds box too help pinpoint those tricks. Lesley's voice has quite a bit of distortion on it. It is a warm, valve-induced (I would guess) distortion, but it's been cleaned up considerably for the GH remix. The comparatively lower vocal level (and different comp/EQ) on the GH remix helps mask the apparent distortion. Aesthetically, though, level-wise the vocals generally sit where they should on the MA version. GH remix at 1:01 marks the point when the reverb on the snare becomes very unlike wall-of-sound. Compare this to the MA mix where the backbeat comes in but is never intrusive (bytheway, this hasta be Hal Blaine, right?). Also, listen to the way the strings fall back at 0:59 on the MA mix. Obviously the fader was pulled down at this point, in typical Nitzsche/Spector fashion. You can tell both of these producers spent considerable time balancing the strings on their records. On the GH remix it seems the fader was left untouched. This becomes particularly irritating at 1:22 on the GH remix. Because the strings track had some parts that needed to be ridden in the mix, both mixes have the strings balanced strangely at least some of the time, and on the MA mix they seemed to get it perfect until 2:27. None of the pizzicato bits are overbearing as they are on GH. >From 2:27 forward, though, the strings mix is pretty sloppy on MA. Actually, the whole MA mix seems to fall apart from that point. Suddenly the vocal jumps out, then the band seems to surge forward in the mix. Of course there was no automated mixing in those days. Perhaps after getting everything so right up to 2:27, a decision was made to live with the less than desirable ending. I can imagine Nitzsche listening to the mix, looking at his watch and saying to Levine - It's OK, the DJs will be talking over the fade anyway... And no matter how much the GH remix makes it easier to hear the W-O-S, the background vocals during the verses are, simply, wrong. Listen at 2'19 to both versions to see what I mean. Those trademark ethereal "oohs" heard on so many Gold Star/Nitzsche/w-o-s tracks is nearly non-existent on the GH remix. After comparing both versions, I can't declare a superior version. THe GH remix is slicker, to be sure, but the Nitzsche magic, enhanced by careful blending of his string arrangement with the other tracks, is far more perceivable on the original MA mix, once again, until 2: 27 where they seemingly lost it. Now I am very keen to hear the original mono mix. I believe I have the LP somewhere, but I can't remember if it is mono or stereo. In any event, I can't seem to find it just now. If I continue to look I just might find it and listen to it several more times. My wife is surely bound to call the medics then! I've seen the Lesley Gore Bear Family box set at a local record store recently. I am trying to justify shelling out 120 bucks or so for this. I have the Mercury Anthology and Greatest Hits packages. Do I need the Bear Family set too? Anyone? Jamie --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 5 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:11:50 -0700 From: "Joseph Scott" Subject: It doesn't say 48 years Hi all, re the quote from the Library of Congress and the summary > So according to the Library of Congress, a copyright for > a recorded sound work applied after 2/15/1972 can last > 48 years. No, the material quoted doesn't indicate 48 years, it says initial term of copyright (28 years), plus renewal term of copyright (it never says here how many years that is), plus the additional 20 years that were tacked on to the renewal term in 1998. Best wishes, Joseph Scott --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 6 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:12:10 -0000 From: "Jamie LePage" Subject: BBs and Deck Andrew wrote: > > If an artist pays for and makes their own recordings, > > they certainly should have the rights over their > > material, and in fact they do. They always have. > > Not quite... most artists are given an advance, which > is a loan, usually (not always) paid back at interest, > but always intended to be paid back, by the record > company. They are then, out of that, expected to pay > for the recordings. It's roughly equivalent to getting > a mortgage, and finding that after you've paid it off > 'your' house belongs to the bank... *smile* Very good analogy, Andrew! Major points for that one! It's a very convincing argument. Just to play the devil's advocate for a minute - try this analogy - the bank gives you a loan to create a brand new traveling circus called Munchkin One. You use the start up money to create the circus, The bank then, at its cost, promotes Munchkin One, takes out ads to attract people to come, sells the tickets and uses the door to recoup the mortgage (after the mortgage is paid off, the bank pays a percentage of the door to you). You keep 100% of all the related food (touring) and merchandise franchises, of which the bank gets zero commission. You also keep the rights to use the name Munchkin for future circuses. After you quit Munchkin One, you create Munchkin Two. Munchkin Two is a low risk investment because your previous banker promoted One to the point that it became a hit. Now, all the bank has is the old circus, which has to compete with your new circus, and for which they still pay you a percentage, but the food and merchandise franchises at the old circus are STILL owned 100% by you. ...and don't forget that if is a flop and it never earns enough to pay back the "mortgage", it's the bank's loss and you don't go to jail. > > So yes, it would be ideal if artists always owned > > their own work, though I'm not convinced it's practical. > > I'm perfectly convinced it's practical. The standard > artist contract could be identical to how it is now, > except that all rights revert to the artist when the > advance has been recouped, with the caveat that the > artist has to agree to licence the work to the label > for a minimum period after reversion... Again, ideally this is a great concept, but it seems to me such a structure would remove all the incentive to sign new artists. A label would be far better off in such a scenario to pay big advances for established artists. It's a sure bet, and a hell of a lot easier than starting from zero and creating a fan base for a newbie. And by the way, what you describe is basically the same thing as a license deal, the difference being that the advance in a license deal is not necessarily used to produce the recordings. In a license deal the rights DO revert after a certain period of time (sometimes, not always, the retention period is triggered by point of recoupment.) > If I had the option, I would sign one of > those contracts - because the rights I'd be signing > away are actually financially worth less than nothing > to me at the moment...If, on the other hand, I were > actually in a position to get my music heard and > bought by a reasonable number of people, then I > wouldn't consider it for half a second... That's an entirely reasonable position. But wait! The Beach Boys were in precisely the same situation when they signed the Hite deal. Now, 40 years later they are in a position to get their music heard and bought by a reasonable number of people. So, they claim Deck doesn't own the recordings. According to the info at Surf's Up website, Judge Harry Hupp indicated that he was prepared to issue an injunction against the release of any of the Morgan recordings that were previously unreleased as of December 2000. This indicates that the dispute is limited to *unreleased* recordings made under the Hite agreement. That concept boggles the mind. May you never hear unreleased surf music again, to paraphrase Mr. Hendrix. This is all fascinating to me as an observer because I personally enthuse more about writers, producers and arrangers than I do about artists. Labels like Motown, Philles, Red Bird, Atlantic were spearheaded by music men I respect and admire greatly. The contributions of Berry Gordy, Phil Spector, Leiber/Stoller, Ahmet Ertegun etc. (and their staff) were often more "artistic" than the artists whose names appear on the record. In the case of the Crystals, for instance, they often didn't even sing on their records. We can't really draw a concrete conclusion to the Deck vs. BBs case - That's for the courts to decide, but the discourse is very enjoyable. That being said, I've written way more than enough about it here, so until there are new developments I won't be writing more on this. That leaves you with the final word, Andrew! Best regards, Jamie --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- Message: 7 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:59:47 EST From: "James Botticelli" Subject: Playlist for "Casa Nostra" 1.12.01 "Casa Nostra"airs on 88.1FM WMBR, Cambridge, MA at M.I.T. Fridays at Midnight "Casa Nostra" features Loungecore/Breakbeat/EZHouse/Exotica/SABPM/Soft Rock >from the Age of Space to the Age of Bass "Casa Nostra" streams in Real Audio: http://wmbr.mit.edu click on the listen link "Casa Nostra" is produced, programmed and hosted by James Botticelli Can 7-Cruisin'-Beach House Comp. Jimmie Haskell-I'll Take Sweden-OST I'll Take Sweden Zuco-Outro Lado Ferrante & Teicher-Oh! Calcutta DJ Me DJ You-Glassong-Emperor Norton Sampler Bob & Phil Orchestra-Baubles, Bangles, and Beads- Hot Line For Sound Tate's Place-Burnin'-Jazzanova Remixes '97-'00 Shirley Bassey-Light My Fire-The Remixes Ennio Morricone-Belinda May-Morricone 2001 Sunny Face-Rainy Boo-Ga-Loo-Temptation Claus Ogerman-Its Not Unusual-Watusi Trumpets Sophia Loren-Soldi Soldi Soldi-Boccaccio '70 Michael Airhart-Shapes From Da Windy City-12" Henry Mancini-It Had Better Be Tonight (instrumental)- OST Pink Panther Domenic Fronteire-House of Dawn-Pagan Festival Enoch Light-Rain In My Heart-Glittering Guitars Lord Sitar-If I Were A Rich Man-Bass-ic Hip comp Vinnie Bell-More-Pop Goes The Electric Sitar Balanco-More Take Rodriguez-Club Eroticana-(thanks Brian and Cheryl) Creed Taylor Orchestra-Lonesome Ol' Town-Lonelyville Buddy Morrow Orchestra-San Francisco Blues-Double Impact Peter Thomas-Theme From Perry Rhodan-Remix Yoshinori Sunahara-Journey Beyond The Stars-Takeoff And Landing A VISIT TO THE SOFT-ROCK CAFE FOR THE FINAL SET Gentle People-Groovin' With You Nick DeCaro-I'm Gonna Make You Love Me-Happy Heart (A&M) Small Circle Of Friends-Don't Take Your Time-(A&M) Free Design-Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head Paul Williams-We've Only Just Begun-(A&M) Nick DeCaro-Under The Jamaican Moon-Italian Graffiti (A&M) Roger Nichols-Our Day Will Come (A&M) Dells-One Less Bell To Answer Thanks For Reading --------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]-------------------- End
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.