..or was it 'The Michigan Mood''?

This was a fantastic instrumental that Guy Hennigan used to play incessantly throughout the 1980s. I don't think it was ever attributed to a band, was it? Was just known as 'The Michigan Move (or possibly 'Mood')

That is all I know about it. Anyone got any more info?

Edited October 21, 201410 yr by son of stan

Michigan Move. Can from session tapes from the Washpan set up.

what a record

Great record. Just remembered it was it by 'The Frenenitics Band' lol!

b side to te soul bros inc pyramid on golden eye,80's reissue,and yes the michigan move.

 

wasnt it a one off acetate that guy had/has?

 

it sounds like a garage band to me,i wouldnt be surprised if it was on a obscure b side garage band single?

Great record. Just remembered it was it by 'The Frenenitics Band' lol!

It was the Phrenetics band and taken from the studio tapes which had a couple of dozen 'takes' on it I believe.  One of the musicians referring to it at one point as chicken shite.

Think Andy Rix played it on Richards show years ago-and sounded embarrassed when talking about it.

 

Oops-wrong tune!Apologies.

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by sir cumference

i bet everyone will be straight on ebay now looking for the soul bros inc pyramid 80's reissiue

Dunno about reissue, it is a boot.  i still think there is some stock of the boot left, or there was.

Stu Bennett has Guy's old copy.   

Dunno about reissue, it is a boot.  i still think there is some stock of the boot left, or there was.

 

But if it came originally from session tapes, doesn't that imply that Guy had it cut to an acetate himself, so there actually isn't an original anyway ?

Dunno about reissue, it is a boot.  i still think there is some stock of the boot left, or there was.

i thought it was a legal reissue,same label as golden eye but with a small hole,with the michigan move on the back

About as legit as the "Mafmon" or "Joker" reissues I presume. Although there may be a moral argument amongst some, I don't think that being the first D.J. to play a record out on the Northern scene gives you the legal right to reissue a track?

 

Des

Wasn't there a tale about the tapes falling to bits after they managed to get a recording to the desk done or something? Great track and brings back memories.

what a record,great memories of this tearing the roof off at stafford !

jason

i thought it was a legal reissue,same label as golden eye but with a small hole,with the michigan move on the back

 

It's not a reissue. It was never issued so it can't be a reissue.  An acetate isn't an "issue". It's an acetate.  In this case a recent acetate as opposed to an historic one which gives it even less significance.  It may be a "bootleg" but that would need examination. Even if it was a "bootleg that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The ethos of true bootlegging (as opposed to counterfeiting) has legitimacy in record collecting.  If the owners of the tapes gave permission for their use then that would offer some legitimacy but then again there may be other legalities.

 

As it stands personally I'd view the UK release of MM as a legitimate issue (but not in the same way as an official record company release). More like an "indie"release. Until someone  proves it isn't. 

About as legit as the "Mafmon" or "Joker" reissues I presume. Although there may be a moral argument amongst some, I don't think that being the first D.J. to play a record out on the Northern scene gives you the legal right to reissue a track?

 

Des

 

Unless you put it on vinyl no one is ever going to hear it.  It was never issued. Playing of an acetate copy doesn't give it any more legitimacy than playing off a vinyl copy from a  limited vinyl release. 

If I remember rightly the Golden Eye issue is fairly poor sound quality, or was that just my copy. I can understand the possible misuse of the term "reissue" in respect of MM, but the Golden Eye release merits the classification of "reissue", as the other side "Soul Brothers Inc" is a reissue of a previously issued track. Weren't the labels on the wrong side too, or again was that just my copy 

 

Des

Here it is 

 

My copy of the golden eye boot has crap sound quality, pressed off centre maybe.  All time favourite instrumental for me.  So atmospheric you can nearly smell it!!

When I met up with Guy again after more than twenty years, he still had a load in his sales box.   

 

I tried to get Stu to play it at the old Burnley nighters as a homage to Guy, but he never did.   

I remember the first 50 copies of the golden eye issue thing of Michigan Move that guy did were all warped and didn't play....the rest that he got made the sound quality wasn't great.

What a tune...danced many a time to it when Guy played it.....pure no nonsense old school belting northern....no prisoners taken as Mr Hennigan would put it.

i got mine at the early keele allnighter for i think a fiver,i got it for the pyramid song,but when i got it home and played the michigan move,i didnt bother with the pyramid side again! but i am a sucker for a storming instrumental!

what a record,great memories of this tearing the roof off at stafford !

jason

too right Jason

 

as dancers we didn't care.. the sounds in the Stafford days just blew u away

 

in the pocket was another that's springs to mind..

It's not a reissue. It was never issued so it can't be a reissue.  An acetate isn't an "issue". It's an acetate.  In this case a recent acetate as opposed to an historic one which gives it even less significance.  It may be a "bootleg" but that would need examination. Even if it was a "bootleg that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The ethos of true bootlegging (as opposed to counterfeiting) has legitimacy in record collecting.  If the owners of the tapes gave permission for their use then that would offer some legitimacy but then again there may be other legalities.

 

As it stands personally I'd view the UK release of MM as a legitimate issue (but not in the same way as an official record company release). More like an "indie"release. Until someone  proves it isn't. 

 

It's a bootleg. No rights, no licence. Illegitimate. Period.

It's a bootleg. No rights, no licence. Illegitimate. Period.

 

That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. The ethos of bootlegging is to make material available that for whatever reason would remain unreleased. If you look at the wider field of record collecting some bootlegs have definite legitimacy. It's down to how you look at it. I tend to take the wider picture rather than focusing on license and "rights".   These are important in some cases but in a situation such as this they're not really applicable unless you want to spend all day splitting hairs.

 

Eg the failure of EMI to release  Beatles material that was in the vaults and live performances  led to a massive market in Beatles bootleg material, much of which could be found in legitimate record shops and much of which has acquired legitimacy and respectability over the years. This of course is different to the case of Michigan Move but the sentiment is the same. From a fan perspective: It's unreleased and there's a demand to hear it that isn't going to be met by no other means than to bootleg it. That's what bootlegging is.

 

On the NS scene the term "boot" has a derogatory meaning but that doesn't give due regard to genuine bootlegging as opposed to counterfeiting.

 

So what should have happened with it? 

 

So what should have happened with it? 

 

Should have stayed unreleased.

 

I think I see your point but it doesn't change anything for me. Even if bootleging unreleased stuff has wider acceptance than bootlegging released stuff it's still bootlegging, i.e. making a profit w/out consent of whoever owns the rights.

Always loved it, loud and messy, brilliant!

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by jumpinjoan

"Michigan Move"

"Backstreets"

"I Know Something"

"Moods"

 

...some of the best unissued instruMENTALS ever!

That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. The ethos of bootlegging is to make material available that for whatever reason would remain unreleased. If you look at the wider field of record collecting some bootlegs have definite legitimacy. It's down to how you look at it. I tend to take the wider picture rather than focusing on license and "rights".   These are important in some cases but in a situation such as this they're not really applicable unless you want to spend all day splitting hairs.

 

Eg the failure of EMI to release  Beatles material that was in the vaults and live performances  led to a massive market in Beatles bootleg material, much of which could be found in legitimate record shops and much of which has acquired legitimacy and respectability over the years. This of course is different to the case of Michigan Move but the sentiment is the same. From a fan perspective: It's unreleased and there's a demand to hear it that isn't going to be met by no other means than to bootleg it. That's what bootlegging is.

 

On the NS scene the term "boot" has a derogatory meaning but that doesn't give due regard to genuine bootlegging as opposed to counterfeiting.

 

So what should have happened with it? 

Yes, and it took Bob Dylan twenty odd years to realise the potential of officially releasing what had and hadn't been circulating since those acetates of what became the Basement Tapes first fell into bootleggers hands thus kickstarting the industry. I used to love buying boot LPs at record fairs but they were bloody expensive though. Swingin' PIG, TMOQ etc

ive a copy - spare 20-00 - reversed labels = 

 

michigan move plays loud

 

its pyramid whick was low volume

 

pm me - 2-00 uk post

Reminds me of Nothing But A Heartache.  Oh, but without the singing.

 

Paul

Trouble is, those idiots that support bootlegging don't have the brains to realise that once a record has been bootlegged it makes it financially impossible for a legitimate company like Kent or Outta Sight to release the track legitimately. So, not only do the people who are due something from the record get nothing, but you get bootlegs with crap sound quality.

i bet everyone will be straight on ebay now looking for the soul bros inc pyramid 80's reissiue

I Used to have it on the Boot and it was as i recall terrible sound quality

I did read that unreleased material goes into the public domain after 50 years, that being the reason the Beatles have been issuing unissued material of late.

 

But back on topic, I find it incredible people attempting to legitimise bootlegging simply because it wasn't issued 

I did read that unreleased material goes into the public domain after 50 years, that being the reason the Beatles have been issuing unissued material of late.

 

But back on topic, I find it incredible people attempting to legitimise bootlegging simply because it wasn't issued 

 

Probably because you have a viewpoint based solely on the NS scene  where the word "boot" is  derogatory and largely refers  to copying or counterfeiting. records that are obtainable while others, myself included have a wider interest and understand the ethos of bootlegging.  It isn't about ripping people off. It's about supplying material that would otherwise be unavailable. Record Collector magazine  have done countless articles on bootleg material and even supplied discographys.  In its own way it's legitimate but you have to have a certain amount of lateral thinking.

 

You either get it or you don't. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Just stating it how it is. Look into the record collection of any serious collector and I bet you'll find numerous bootlegs - unreleased tracks, alternate takes, demos, live performances, rehearsals. Vinyl, tapes, vidoes. All unauthorised.  

Probably because you have a viewpoint based solely on the NS scene  where the word "boot" is  derogatory and largely refers  to copying or counterfeiting. records that are obtainable while others, myself included have a wider interest and understand the ethos of bootlegging.  It isn't about ripping people off. It's about supplying material that would otherwise be unavailable. Record Collector magazine  have done countless articles on bootleg material and even supplied discographys.  In its own way it's legitimate but you have to have a certain amount of lateral thinking.

 

You either get it or you don't. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Just stating it how it is. Look into the record collection of any serious collector and I bet you'll find numerous bootlegs - unreleased tracks, alternate takes, demos, live performances, rehearsals. Vinyl, tapes, vidoes. All unauthorised.  

 

Good post Maslar.

 

One of the difficulties on the Northern scene is terminology, where we call counterfeits (copies made to deceive) bootlegs, which they aren't in the more usual sense and application of the word.

 

Cheers

 

Richard

Massive difference to a cheap and nasty repro of some northern monster aimed at dunderheids to a complete document of Dylan's 65-66 US and World Tour with rare photos, meticulously put together booklet,sleevenotes etc, Outside the hermetic world of NS it takes on a whole other meaning. Never forget the first time I heard She's Your Lover Now. Mannah from heaven.

Probably because you have a viewpoint based solely on the NS scene  where the word "boot" is  derogatory and largely refers  to copying or counterfeiting. records that are obtainable while others, myself included have a wider interest and understand the ethos of bootlegging.  It isn't about ripping people off. It's about supplying material that would otherwise be unavailable. Record Collector magazine  have done countless articles on bootleg material and even supplied discographys.  In its own way it's legitimate but you have to have a certain amount of lateral thinking.

 

You either get it or you don't. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Just stating it how it is. Look into the record collection of any serious collector and I bet you'll find numerous bootlegs - unreleased tracks, alternate takes, demos, live performances, rehearsals. Vinyl, tapes, vidoes. All unauthorised.  

Yu d talk some rubbish.  No amount of lateral thinking can get away from the fact it is a bootleg, unauthorised and illegal.  No matter how you look at it, no permission was sought, no rights obtained no royalties were obtained by the rightful owner.  I don't need to read any magazine nor look into any collection.  Neither does a discography legitimise a bootleg.  

I have it on an Acetate that Guy did for me in the days of Stafford, great record.