Anyone got it, or the Kentone one by the Francettes?

Here it is:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited February 20, 201213 yr by RobbK

Thanks Robb, it turns out we own the master as part of the Bernie Besman deal for the Sensation label. You buy John Lee Hooker and you get girl group as a bonus! there were a couple of unissueds too.

Any chance of sending the scans to me as an attachment for future use please. Is there a story to how and where you picked this one up?

Ady

I will send you scans at 300 dpi. No, I don't have the Kentone. But I have the Wolfie and Sleeper releases.

I think I got them all when Herman Griffith sold his last stock when hye closed down his record shop on Adams and West Blvd. in 1967, or, if not, it was when Pat's Record shop on San pedro Place and Vernon Ave sold out in 1969. If i bought them at Griffiths they were likely at only 10 for a dollar at that time (last reduction). If at pats, they were 50 cents each.

Ady- do you need anything on The Francettes on Wolfie or Sleeper, or Challenge?

Edited February 20, 201213 yr by RobbK

my francettes on besche label looks totally different. I have almost all their 45s (as I noted before...).

my francettes on besche label looks totally different. I have almost all their 45s (as I noted before...).

Can you post yours? I assume they had orders from different plants. But they may have re-issued it, as well.

Can you post yours? I assume they had orders from different plants. But they may have re-issued it, as well.

I'm pretty sure mine actually has a label design. I will dig out all my francettes 45 later and just post them.

I don't think any of them are Aileen Frances and the Francettes, it was some wrong discographical info. I think it's either or. Would love to see your alternate Besche design Bob

I don't think any of them are Aileen Frances and the Francettes, it was some wrong discographical info. I think it's either or. Would love to see your alternate Besche design Bob

i had an emergency come up today, i won't have time to scan until tomorrow or friday. thanks.

i had an emergency come up today, i won't have time to scan until tomorrow or friday. thanks.

No worries Bob, we don't need them for the current project.

Here it is: Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us

What the hell's this about? How can a company remove an image they don't own the copyright to? The label design and wording is owned by Kent Harris.

Edited February 23, 201213 yr by ady croasdell

No worries Bob, we don't need them for the current project.

What the hell's this about? How can a company remove an image they don't own the copyright to? The label design and wording is owned by Kent Harris.

it could have hit some sort of too-broad filter that automatically searches for something else, I doubt someone reported it.

Robb, you should use photobucket, it's much better in my experience.

My mate Denbo just told me about how a big downloading type company was claiming all sorts of copyrights that hadn't been claimed by anyone else and was getting them registered as owners on You Tube to get the revenue from them. I was worried this was related.

My mate Denbo just told me about how a big downloading type company was claiming all sorts of copyrights that hadn't been claimed by anyone else and was getting them registered as owners on You Tube to get the revenue from them. I was worried this was related.

You're saying that they were registering content on youtube as theirs when it wasn't (first taking down other people's version of that content)? It seems weird, just because it would work for videos that people posted of random records they bought, but I assume it would actually hit a copyright owner fairly fast, they would retaliate, and the company's scheme would be revealed when multiple copyright owners contacted youtube.

Anyways with imageshack it's different I think because they don't have the same revenue model. When people embed images on a webpage, it doesn't earn money for the imageholder's account does it?

I've noticed that there used to be like every record ever on youtube and now it's hard to find anything. I couldn't figure out what was happening and it seemed to start happening when they implemented their new search. I assumed it just wasn't showing search results. I thought they were maybe cracking down on copyright violations, but there's no way that someone made a claim on the super obscure records I was looking for. I then thought maybe they cracked down and closed the accounts of copyright violators, so if they had other videos that violated (including the ones I'm looking for), all their videos would be taken down. I guess what you're saying now is another potential explanation.

I was reading the other day about how to beat the youtube audio fingerprinting. Apparently you either have to add so much noise that the noise floor is like 50% and it overwhelms the song, or you have to pitch the track up or down by at least 5%. I was wondering if that's why there are so many audio tracks on youtube that play too fast, I had previously assumed it was some sort of glitch on uploading / conversion, etc.

You're saying that they were registering content on youtube as theirs when it wasn't (first taking down other people's version of that content)? It seems weird, just because it would work for videos that people posted of random records they bought, but I assume it would actually hit a copyright owner fairly fast, they would retaliate, and the company's scheme would be revealed when multiple copyright owners contacted youtube.

Anyways with imageshack it's different I think because they don't have the same revenue model. When people embed images on a webpage, it doesn't earn money for the imageholder's account does it?

I've noticed that there used to be like every record ever on youtube and now it's hard to find anything. I couldn't figure out what was happening and it seemed to start happening when they implemented their new search. I assumed it just wasn't showing search results. I thought they were maybe cracking down on copyright violations, but there's no way that someone made a claim on the super obscure records I was looking for. I then thought maybe they cracked down and closed the accounts of copyright violators, so if they had other videos that violated (including the ones I'm looking for), all their videos would be taken down. I guess what you're saying now is another potential explanation.

I was reading the other day about how to beat the youtube audio fingerprinting. Apparently you either have to add so much noise that the noise floor is like 50% and it overwhelms the song, or you have to pitch the track up or down by at least 5%. I was wondering if that's why there are so many audio tracks on youtube that play too fast, I had previously assumed it was some sort of glitch on uploading / conversion, etc.

I don't know about all the other stuff but an explanation regarding your last paragraph could be attributed to how the Popcorn scene speeds up or slows down a record to suit their particular style of slow jiving. That's just a possible explanation and not necessarily a fact.

As for the other stuff that Ady was talking about earlier, I wish I could offer you the link to a certain guy on You Tube who's personally campaigning against this 'big downloading type company', starting out for personal reasons as it was affecting his ability to earn a legitimate crust but has gone further than that now I think. Anyhow, I can't give you the link as I'm at work and our office firewall prevents me from doing so. It won't allow me access to You Tube. So hopefully, somebody else reading this that knows what I'm on about, may be able to do so on my behalf?

I have a feeling this subject may warrant a separate topic heading / thread?

.

Edited February 23, 201213 yr by denbo