This doesn't need to descend into yet another OVO thread, it's not intended to be that, but a huge amount of irony has just occured to me while reading the youngsters thread.

The original copies are now (generally, at least) third, if not many more, hand records. The majority of the records are 60s soul records when a performer - if he was lucky - may make a few cents a copy at best. Few made that much on them. These though are seen as the versions to own. No arguments there, I like the ones I have.

But here we are, fifty years on from then, and the artists are now making more from their often long forgotten releases than they did at the time. Not due to any of the resale value making the way to the artist, but in royalties from the more honest CD manufacturers. ]

Soul collectors who admit to buying these, and, even worse, DJs who should play them are roundly castigated despite them ensuring that the creators of the sounds get their dues....

There is most definately a certain amount of irony in there somewhere.

(Though like I say - I love my old vinyl!)

others on here can answer better than me but i wonder how much the artists get from cds either?....i would have thought the owners of the rights to most of the songs we like(smaller lesser known tracks/artists) are the produders,song wrtiers,studio/label owners and not the artists anyway??...

they probably make more money coming over and doin live shows !

my objection to ovo has always been about the number of nights on and damage 'to the scene' that does...as you say nick the artists get nothing from second hand sales

dean

Certainly thought provoking and a fair point to raise - . As Dean states "others on here can give a more constructive reply". Regarding "rights". I'm sure Ian Dewhirst would be more than qualified to address this irony, which of course would make for a interesting response.

I'm pretty sure I've read that both Ian and Ady C do their best to ensure funds find their way to the correct recipient?

I don't have an argument with OVO. What I do have an issue with is the 'no one played boots back in the day' and - even more irritating - 'First release ONLY'. From conversations with friends who were around 'Back in the day', OH YES THEY DID, and if it was always 'first release only', why all the UK labels that sprung up in the 60s?

Bah.

Edited January 3, 201312 yr by barney

Barney this is not a OVO thread...stop trying to throw bait out for OVO collectors to bite! I'm starting to think you are just on here to try and irritate people

Callum

Edited January 3, 201312 yr by barney

your entitled to think what you like callum ,

but I am asking reasonable questions as to when and where the OVO started

But as the author of the thread states from the get go, 'This doesn't need to descend into yet another OVO thread, it's not intended to be that.'

There's plenty of other threads to discuss it, mate.

others on here can answer better than me but i wonder how much the artists get from cds either?....i would have thought the owners of the rights to most of the songs we like(smaller lesser known tracks/artists) are the produders,song wrtiers,studio/label owners and not the artists anyway??...

they probably make more money coming over and doin live shows !

my objection to ovo has always been about the number of nights on and damage 'to the scene' that does...as you say nick the artists get nothing from second hand sales

dean

I could give you many instances where Ace have paid sizeable sums to artists, producers, writers etc and even more where the amount is small but they really appreciate having their work released legitimately with every sale accounted for. Even if it is a small amount they like the recognition and correctness of it; in many cases it is the first cheque they have had for that work. To have their work handled by professionals who issue it in the best possible audio with the most information and history means a hell of a lot to the creative people, as soon as they hear that their work has been booted they feel sick and think the Northern Soul scene must be run by disrespectful money grabbers. If we can still salvage something out of the deal and treat the music how it should be treated, it improves their view no end.

I have licensed and put out a couple of tracks in my time, mostly on vinyl. But in most cases, in my experience anyway, the rights are not owned by the artists themselves. So they get little if any of the fees paid. If they wrote the song then they may get some part of the mechanical royalties paid to MCPS etc.

In the case of compilation CD's the amount paid per track (usually a small advance plus a percentage of the dealer price divided by the number of tracks on the CD) is likely to be not much at all.

But even so, to echo what Ady says. The artists are generally very happy to receive the recognition that they get from a legitimate release of their work.

your entitled to think what you like callum ,

but I am asking reasonable questions as to when and where the OVO started

Barney

As the topic starter indicated this is a thread about whether artists get their dues - not about OVO

So please leave off the OVO on this thread as it's really 'off topic'.

If you want to start up a new thread about OVO please do so and we will all happily pile in on there

Cheers

Richard

Edited January 3, 201312 yr by Premium Stuff

I could give you many instances where Ace have paid sizeable sums to artists, producers, writers etc and even more where the amount is small but they really appreciate having their work released legitimately with every sale accounted for. Even if it is a small amount they like the recognition and correctness of it; in many cases it is the first cheque they have had for that work. To have their work handled by professionals who issue it in the best possible audio with the most information and history means a hell of a lot to the creative people, as soon as they hear that their work has been booted they feel sick and think the Northern Soul scene must be run by disrespectful money grabbers. If we can still salvage something out of the deal and treat the music how it should be treated, it improves their view no end.

maybe we should shun the purveyors of bootleg records then and any reputable dealer should not have anything to do with them ,

Edited January 3, 201312 yr by barney

your entitled to think what you like callum ,

but I am asking reasonable questions as to when and where the OVO started

Ask your "reasonable question" on a thread started under that topic.

Asking it on here is derailing the thread.

Ask your "reasonable question" on a thread started under that topic.

Asking it on here is derailing the thread.

have edited out my previous posts on this thread to enable discussion to continue on the irony of the thread

and not on my posts

have edited out my previous posts on this thread to enable discussion to continue on the irony of the thread

and not on my posts

Good - thank you

Richard

I could give you many instances where Ace have paid sizeable sums to artists, producers, writers etc and even more where the amount is small but they really appreciate having their work released legitimately with every sale accounted for. Even if it is a small amount they like the recognition and correctness of it; in many cases it is the first cheque they have had for that work. To have their work handled by professionals who issue it in the best possible audio with the most information and history means a hell of a lot to the creative people, as soon as they hear that their work has been booted they feel sick and think the Northern Soul scene must be run by disrespectful money grabbers. If we can still salvage something out of the deal and treat the music how it should be treated, it improves their view no end.

and i wouldnt expect ace to do it any other way!....quality and repect shine through on all your releases

sure i can remember a post by lorraine chandler quite recently being angered and gutted about her tunes being booted

dean

This doesn't need to descend into yet another OVO thread, it's not intended to be that, but a huge amount of irony has just occured to me while reading the youngsters thread.

The original copies are now (generally, at least) third, if not many more, hand records. The majority of the records are 60s soul records when a performer - if he was lucky - may make a few cents a copy at best. Few made that much on them. These though are seen as the versions to own. No arguments there, I like the ones I have.

But here we are, fifty years on from then, and the artists are now making more from their often long forgotten releases than they did at the time. Not due to any of the resale value making the way to the artist, but in royalties from the more honest CD manufacturers. ]

Soul collectors who admit to buying these, and, even worse, DJs who should play them are roundly castigated despite them ensuring that the creators of the sounds get their dues....

There is most definately a certain amount of irony in there somewhere.

(Though like I say - I love my old vinyl!)

Do you want to show one incidence of anyone being castigated for buying CD 's? I haven't seen it and most people I know buy them. So what do you base that statement on and by linking it to playing on the scene just makes it another variation of the dreaded format question no matter how you try to disguise it.

Making up facts to suit yourself doesn't a debate make.

I can only hope once holidays are over the current obsession of muppet led OVO/format/same old boring shit ad nausea will have gone

My apologies then.

I phrased it like that to deliberately avoid yet another 'look how righteous' OVO thread, and to answer (what i thought was) a definately worthwhile observation. Perhaps no one has been castigated for owning CDs, but heaven help anyone who takes the shiny disks DJing.

Is that better? It's certainly how this forum reads a lot of the time - see admin posts on the 'when did OVO start thread.

Now, to return to the question..

Is there not an element of irony about claiming to care for the artists as much as the music whilst limiting (by peer pressure) the use of the only method they have of earning money?

I just know that's going to be denied by members of the self appointed peer group, but ever it was so.

Edited January 4, 201312 yr by ScooterNik

I can only hope once holidays are over the current obsession of muppet led OVO/format/same old boring shit ad nausea will have gone

Having a acceptance of the reply within post nine, I am sure the dumb show will continue, in which a story is acted, played with songs, topical jokes, dancing, etc............................a large amount of pantomime regulars all year round on here !

Edited January 5, 201312 yr by Nick Harrison

My apologies then.

I phrased it like that to deliberately avoid yet another 'look how righteous' OVO thread, and to answer (what i thought was) a definately worthwhile observation. Perhaps no one has been castigated for owning CDs, but heaven help anyone who takes the shiny disks DJing.

Is that better? It's certainly how this forum reads a lot of the time - see admin posts on the 'when did OVO start thread.

Now, to return to the question..

Is there not an element of irony about claiming to care for the artists as much as the music whilst limiting (by peer pressure) the use of the only method they have of earning money?

I just know that's going to be denied by members of the self appointed peer group, but ever it was so.

10, 9, 8, 7, .........

6,5,4..............

A lot of this comes down to whether we are talking about buying vinyl/CDs or playing them out.

One thing people tend not to mention when talking about bootlegs/counterfeits (whether vinyl or CDs) is that they are against the law That in itself should be an important point to think about when deciding on our buying/playing policies. Artists also don't get anything from these in any case.

Artists may get money from new vinyl or CD releases. However, isn't it licensing deals or maybe even the number of sales of new legitimate vinyl/CD releases that artists would get money from - not from the number of plays in clubs?

So playing of boots could be argued to be out in due to illegality of the product, and no benefit to the artists anyway.

Playing out of legitimate vinyl/CD releases could be argued against as no benefit to the artists from the number of plays (this comes from the buying), and if there is an original vinyl release that would be the authentic original anyway.

Playing of previously unreleased material on a legit CD or new vinyl is perhaps the most grey area - but again no benefits to the artists from playing them, just maybe from buying them?

...3, 2, 1 .............

Cheers

Richard

Edited January 4, 201312 yr by Premium Stuff

Artists may get money from new vinyl or CD releases.

not from the number of plays in clubs?

Correct - one would sincerely hope this will clear this subject up !!!

Clarice Cliff pottery sells for vast amounts of money between private collectors she doesnt see a penny of it same with rare records OVO is for me about provenance and a tangible link with the artist its that simple .

So the idea that OVO is in the artists interest is at best a misnomer

what this thread does is ask a very interesting question , are all CD releases legitimate ie. do all the companys pay royaltys ,now the answer is a different kettle of fish , some do Ady et-al some possibly dont , but how are you ever going to find out ? cos you can bet you last pound that those that dont won't come on here and say so.

the northern soul compilations at HMV in oxford street continue to grow by the month and the titles are so obscure you wonder where they find them .even Haynes the motor car manuals guys are in on the act .but few younger buyers are around the shelves, all mature buyers .so how long can the prices of the rarer records stay up ?

Clarice Cliff pottery sells for vast amounts of money between private collectors she doesnt see a penny of it same with rare records OVO is for me about provenance and a tangible link with the artist its that simple .

So the idea that OVO is in the artists interest is at best a misnomer

Id be mighty suprised if she did the old bints dead is she not . The whole world turns on irony does it not , or does it ? :-)

I play ovo at nighters & buy the odd cd for listening pleasure only. Once a rare or unknown track has been played on the scene from ovo and people like the track, demand for a record is created as not everyone is a collector (thank god) so a cd shall be released by a reputable record company and hopefully a few cents are sent to the license holder !!!! If the artist is still alive a few performances shall give him/her a direct reward and hopefully a great day to remember & cherrish... in a perfect world that is .....

Edited January 5, 201312 yr by viphitman

Id be mighty suprised if she did the old bints dead is she not . The whole world turns on irony does it not , or does it ? :-)

seems I know less about rare pottery than rare soul

Certainly thought provoking and a fair point to raise - . As Dean states "others on here can give a more constructive reply". Regarding "rights". I'm sure Ian Dewhirst would be more than qualified to address this irony, which of course would make for a interesting response.

The rights are generally owned by whoever financed the recording and shelled out the money for the studio, master tape, engineer etc. Only around 1% of new releases ever made their money back since 99% of releases are commercial flops and the percentage is obviously much, much lower for rare Soul. So for most rare Soul records, there wasn't much money flying around in the first place, so in many cases the artist probably got a few hundred bucks as an 'advance' which in all liklihood would probably never be recouped anyway.

Releasing, distributing, marketing and promoting new records is generally a sure-fire way to lose money. Also, as a rule, the USA does not put much value on previously commercial flop back catalogues which probably says a lot about the differences in values between the US and UK. The US has always traditionally been a 'now' kind of market and if something doesn't immediately sell, then it's generally forgotten about pretty quickly. Numero Group is the obvious exception here by the way and the best example of a U.S. company which does things properly along with Ace and Demon in the UK, who both account properly.

I used to be a format freak in the 70's and understand the importance of original vinyl to the Rare/Northern market but to really make an impact in today's declining market you have to sell a few thousand CD's and reach a wider market rather then to a few hundred vinyl aficianados. Selling 10K of a Tom Moulton package or 5K of a Philly International box set spreads the music a lot further than the core market and ultimately helps the artists a lot more by making their music easily available to more people.

You're absolutely right that there is an irony here. Most artists that I know would surely take a lot more pleasure by knowing that 10K people have bought a compilation with their track on it, rather than one guy paying 5K for an original copy of their record.

Ian D

well, without the record searching & collecting madness for the next biggie and the ovo ethos since day one, the soul scene as a whole wouldn't have exsisted in the first place and therefore a big chunk of the market for selling cd's !!!!!

anyway, people like ady crosdale play original platters, sell, produce & buy cd's + support artists whenever possible through live appearances and so on.... as stated in a previous post, I & I and many others buy cd's occasionally.... but still play out ovo at nighters and watch as many live performances possible !!!

so, no irony there

Edited January 5, 201312 yr by viphitman

well, without the record searching & collecting madness for the next biggie and the ovo ethos since day one, the soul scene as a whole wouldn't have exsisted in the first place and therefore a big chunk of the market for selling cd's !!!!!

anyway, people like ady crosdale play original platters, sell, produce & buy cd's + support artists whenever possible through live appearances and so on.... as stated in a previous post, I & I and many others buy cd's occasionally.... but still play out ovo at nighters and watch as many live performances possible !!!

so, no irony there

LOL, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Good points. The UK Soul crowd is a pretty unique market and the leading audience for back catalogue re-ssues, so the tradition and culture of exploration of unknown black music by passionate DJ's is a wonderful phenomenon for which the music biz should be eternally grateful.

So I guess I'm agreeing with you.

Ian D

Getting their proper dues was one reason why some artists moved to England that and they were treated more as equals and much appreciated ,one example is Richie Pitts if you have ever chatted with him.

I think the irony may be though that he has probably had more royalties from singing the Black Adder theme song than anything else,

Adder 3: Singers Ritchie Pitts, Alison -’Where Love Lives‘ — Limerick, Lyn Kieran, percussion Nigel Shipway & Richard Marcangelo, oboe Sandra Mackay, cello Lesley Shrigley-Jones, accordion Gavin Povey, bass Robbie Burns, harpsichord Helen Ireland.

Back in the day, an American based soul artist had to have a record on the charts to secure a decent number of live gigs.

If you didn't have a hot record, you were 'old news' & couldn't land any live gigs.

A new 45, especially if it was played on the radio, would secure them a chitlin circuit tour that could run to 12 to 16 weeks (starting in New York and playing week long engagements in Philly, DC, Baltimore, Norfolk, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Miami and such like).

So even if they never received a cent in record royalties, it was worth them having a new 45 out as it could help them earn up to $10,000 in live show fees.

By the early 70's, the top soul acts were earning really good peformance fees ... BUT .... they started putting them on in bigger arenas (to help cover the promoters higher artist cost's) and so engagements dropped from 7 night stints to 1 / 2 night stints in each city. So , coz they were doing less gigs, they still only ended up with the same total in fees. Unfortunately, lesser artists (the support acts) fees didn't increase that much but they also suffered around a 70% reduction in bookings.

Artists who hadn't been 'hot' for a while would end up playing regular gigs in the UK (& elsewhere in Europe) from the mid 60's thru to the 70's, as audiences here didn't care about hit 45's. That was coz hardly any soul 45's made our pop charts, so the lack of chart hits didn't really matter here. Thus the likes of Ben E King, Jimmy Ruffin, Oscar Toney Jnr, Jnr Walker & more were always over here back then. Others soon followed & quite a few settled here.

Edited January 5, 201312 yr by Roburt