I kind of always thought, heard and read that the Blue Rock release was prior to the Philips one. I remember an old topic here about the glued on Blue Rock labels with Philips ones over theories... Here I go; with a closer inspection I come to understand that the Philips was actually first and the Blue Rock second but by very little bits... Anyone knows better ?

The matrix number tells this; Blue Rock B-4011 is YW1-35244, now B-4012 is YW1-34872 (decreasing !!!) & B-4013 is YW1-35248 (increasing !!!)

where for the Philips it's all chronological, most logically; 40282 is PHW1-34179, 40283 is PHW1-34872 and 40284 is PHW1-35355 !!!

 

Edited January 6, 20169 yr by tlscapital

Hmmmmm ........................Nope! Lost me.......  

If I'm following you… my understanding is that matrix numbers are often given to recordings, not release dates. Thus if a group recorded four tracks in one session (which was typical with a big studio) then each would have a sequential matrix number. Basically, the matrix doesn't have to relate to the date of release of those recordings.

As an example, The Apollas on Loma 2053, which was released around July 66.

- My soul concerto - matrix: J71047

- Sorry mama - matrix: J71048.

Step forward a few months to when The Apollas release Mr Creator on Warner Bros. Check the matrix and you'll find it's J71046, meaning that it was recorded at the same session as the two Loma releases from perhaps six or so months earlier. Check the flipside to Mr Creator and you'll see that All sold out has the matrix number JX70091, showing that it was recorded later.

(As a separate note, L71049 is unaccounted for and doesn't appears on the Loma run leaving me to wonder whether it's an unreleased track by The Apollas).

This sequential run of matrix numbers is also to be found on the four Loma recordings made by The G-Clefs who had two 45s on Loma but which were released some time apart.

 

 

Following you too Russ, but in this case I don't know if the twist would make sense. The production of Philips was bigger than the Blue Rock one but, the 3 on Philips here were issued in March 1965. While for the Blue Rock, only Johnnie Mae Matthews was issued in March 1965, Big Franck I don't know and the Triplets was issued in May 1965. And there you have a bigger time gap to slide in a change of label to target the public better. Even though, most copies I've seen had cuts and so it wasn't such a good seller I believe. But maybe someone out there knows better for facts.

One other thing, there's no promo of both the Philips and the Blue Rock release, I know this happens for different reasons but in this case, it's only the Big Franks that don't get it. Both the ones before and after did got promo releases !

13 hours ago, tlscapital said:

Following you too Russ, but in this case I don't know if the twist would make sense. The production of Philips was bigger than the Blue Rock one but, the 3 on Philips here were issued in March 1965. While for the Blue Rock, only Johnnie Mae Matthews was issued in March 1965, Big Franck I don't know and the Triplets was issued in May 1965. And there you have a bigger time gap to slide in a change of label to target the public better. Even though, most copies I've seen had cuts and so it wasn't such a good seller I believe. But maybe someone out there knows better for facts.

One other thing, there's no promo of both the Philips and the Blue Rock release, I know this happens for different reasons but in this case, it's only the Big Franks that don't get it. Both the ones before and after did got promo releases !

It appears Big Frank & The Essences on Philips also had a March 1965 release.

OK. Here's my theory. Released first on Philips in March '65. But lack of demand from record stores because of lack of profile and attention on a large national label meant a quick rethink and switch to the Blue Rock subsidiary imprint in April or May because it was more recognisable to the specialist R&B buying public and therefore easier to sell to stores specialising in R&B product - "hey guys, we have a great new uptempo Blue Rock sound in store this week". How's that for a theory?

Yours

Prof Sheldon Cooper.....

1 minute ago, Gene-R said:

It appears Big Frank & The Essences on Philips also had a March 1965 release.

That's what I said. The 3 Philips (Teresa, Big Frank and London) were released in March 1965.  While the Big Frank on Blue Rock is definitely issued between March and May 1965... The Johnnie Mae Matthews was a fair hit and was issued in March 1965 just before Big Franks and both following Blue Rock singles were issued in May 1965. So we are still without factual evidence that the Philips was first, but all evidences leads that way. 

My post was also speculating as to a possible reason why such a sudden switch from Philips to Blue Rock. Always wondered what the story was.

A quick search of the Billboard archives shows it's likely that Big Frank on Blue Rock was released somewhat prior to May 1965. The first scan here, from issue dated 8th May 1965, shows Blue Rock 4014 (Mustang Sally - Sir Mack Rice) already getting enough action to merit a mention at this time - suggesting fairly obviously that it was released some time prior.

Also from the same issue of Billboard, the "Top Selling R&B" chart lists the Blue Rock 4014 at #16, having already spent four weeks in that chart - which means it first hit the chart in the first week of April.

The next scan, also from the May 8th issue of Billboard, shows Blue Rock 4020 (Ain't you glad - The Chi-lites) making some noise in the R&B genre - again pointing to the fact that it was released before May.

In the "Breakout Singles" section of the same issue, Blue Rock 4015 (To be or not to be - Otis Leavill) gets a mention as achieving strong plays in Chicago and Detroit. Again, this clearly points to it having been issued some time prior.

 

 

All evidence therefore supports the belief that Blue Rock 4012 - Big Frank - was released a number of weeks prior to May 1965. Plenty more digging to be done in the Billboard archives for anyone with the time to do so (I'm supposed to be working!).

Edited January 7, 20169 yr by Russell Gilbert
Clarity

Thanks for those paper clips Russel. Indeed, things seems to be much more complicated than we can only try to speculate... even rationally !

Here's what 'globaldogproductions' makes out of the Blue Rock discography and look at the dates of issues ?! Chronology becomes something of nonsense... unless it's all made up...

 

 

2 hours ago, markw said:

blue rock must have come before philips, otherwise you wouldnt have the copies with the philips labels stuck on top of blue rock demo labels

 

27 minutes ago, trev thomas said:

blue rock must have come before philips, otherwise you wouldnt have the copies with the philips labels stuck on top of blue rock demo labels

Have you seen them ? I have never. Heard about it, that's all ! Wondered if it was not another myth... If that is proven indeed, I'll just leave understand that the Blue Rock was first.

3 minutes ago, tlscapital said:

Have you seen them ? I have never. Heard about it, that's all ! Wondered if it was not another myth... If that is proven indeed, I'll just leave understand that the Blue Rock was first.

I was going to ask the same thing. I have heard this numerous times over the years but have never actually come across anybody who has one or who has seen one. Lots of claims, but no firm evidence. Urban myth IMHO.

11 minutes ago, tlscapital said:

Have you seen them ? I have never. Heard about it, that's all ! Wondered if it was not another myth... If that is proven indeed, I'll just leave understand that the Blue Rock was first.

i've had two philips copies with the blue rock label underneath, first one was keb darge's copy , second one came from steve smith, managed to peel the philips label part way off on the second copy to reveal a white blue rock label with red text

Edited January 7, 20169 yr by trev thomas
added more info

16 minutes ago, trev thomas said:

i've had two philips copies with the blue rock label underneath, first one was keb darge's copy , second one came from steve smith, managed to peel the philips label part way off on the second copy to reveal a white blue rock label with red text

Uh-Oh ! Trev, fantastic and thanks 4 that ! That makes sense. So they pressed the promos (and the stockers) and maybe didn't distributed them promos (I have never seen one out there) but instead decided to commercialize it on Philips and so covered up the Blue Rock promos they had with Philips labels. Mystery solved and so OK; Blue Rock is first and Philips is second.

13 minutes ago, tlscapital said:

Uh-Oh ! Trev, fantastic and thanks 4 that ! That makes sense. So they pressed the promos (and the stockers) and maybe didn't distributed them promos (I have never seen one out there) but instead decided to commercialize it on Philips and so covered up the Blue Rock promos they had with Philips labels. Mystery solved and so OK; Blue Rock is first and Philips is second.

label like the scan but with red text, the philips copy i've got at the moment  does not have a blue rock label underneath

Edited January 7, 20169 yr by trev thomas
more info

One thing I can guarantee is that the quality of the Blue Rock styrene will be rubbish.

I don't know where they got it from but it must have been made from re-cycled tarmac.

I was living in Chicago when the Blue Rock record was released in spring 1965.  I saw a fair amount of the Blue Rock store stock issue.  No one was buying it.  I never saw the red on white DJ copy.  I never saw the Philips pressing until the 1970s (so, I think it never got any decent distribution).  I've never seen the Philips label atop the Blue Rock DJ.  So that one must be extremely rare.  I don't understand the reasoning for moving it to Philips after it failed to sell on Blue Rock.

9 hours ago, grouse said:

One thing I can guarantee is that the quality of the Blue Rock styrene will be rubbish.

I don't know where they got it from but it must have been made from re-cycled tarmac.

Here's my Philips straight... would like to own it on Blue Rock for the look of it but does it sound as good ? big frank.mp3

My copy on Blue Rock sounds absolutely fine.

Which is rarer , Philips or Blue rock ?

2 hours ago, Bossfourpart1 said:

Which is rarer , Philips or Blue rock ?

I'd say 1 Blue Rock for every 2 Philips found... or about.

3 hours ago, tlscapital said:

I'd say 1 Blue Rock for every 2 Philips found... or about.

Things must have changed since I was searching for records (stopped seriously in 1972-altogeher in 1987 or '88).  When I was looking in USA, since the record was released, I saw a LOT more on Blue Rock.  Perhaps a box or 2 made it to UK through John Anderson (which is why the opposite is the situation in The NS scene now).  I never even saw a Philips copy until the 1970s (and that was probably in England).  I saw several Blue Rocks in USA during the first few years after its release ('65-'67).

Popsike shows 22 on Philips and 17 on Blue Rock. Might be some kind of indicator.