Amsterdam Russ

Thanks, Pete. That'll keep me busy on YouTube for a while.

Were they compiled on a CD release or did they come from various sources? I'd certainly like to know what else is out there.

Was having a discussion about French language soul songs on Saturday at the Amsterdam Soul Club. A couple of us 'over here' have taken a bit of an interest in them recently. It seems to have been common practice in France to record popular American releases, make the backing track sound very like the original, but for the actual song to be completely different. For example, I have versions of... Monkey Time The Snake Rescue Me Same old song Beggin' Gimme some lovin' Comin' home baby ...and not one of them is a French language cover version. However, just to confuse things, labels and picture sleeves often give the original American song title in brackets. Funnily, I played the French 'version' of 'Comin' home baby' at a night not so long ago and it went down a treat with everybody except one young skinhead who came up to the decks and insisted that I was playing Mel Torme at the wrong speed!

You should drop into the 'Member's Shouts and Intro's' forum and do exactly that - introduce yourself I'm sure people here would love to know more about you and to hear some of your experiences of being a musician working with the likes of Jimmy Delphs - that's if you wanted to share! One thing you cannot share: mp3s. And I'm sure a moderator will come along shortly and remove the file you've added. No matter, Soundcloud is one means of sharing files here: https://soundcloud.com Best wishes, Russell

I picked up a Jimmy Delphs LP on acetate a couple of years back. It was cut in the mid 60s, so I was really rather excited to get it. Imagine my disappointment when playing it for the first time and listening to a (I'm guessing, white) cocktail lounge pianist doing an album of easy listening jazz standards!!

Sven, I have a YouTube channel made up of soundfiles/vids of 45s and get a lot of pleasure out of it. It's been running for almost exactly two years, in which time I've had over 130,000 views. In that time, I've never yet had any trouble from YouTube about copyright issues. Yes, a number of tracks have been identified by YouTube as belonging to others (nearly always the previously mentioned Orchard Group), but it hasn't resulted in any of my videos being removed. Instead, some of them have ads at the beginning and I presume that the company claiming rights ownership receive a small amount of money each time the ad is shown. I suggest you give it a try - upload one or two vids and see what reaction you get.

For me it has to be The Neville Brothers - Shepherd's Bush Empire, 1995. A band of outstandingly brilliant musicians and fronted by the one and only Aaron Neville - superb!

"Here's one to sort the men from the boys" is how Keb Darge often introduced at the 100 Club!

And before becoming the Fabulous Playboys and subsequently The Falcons, they were The Ramblers. Found this great footage on YouTube of of Sonny Munro singing Honkey Tonk Woman courtesy of the "Original Historical Music Society of Detroit"!

Here's a closer and more accurate look at the bidding...

Do I understand that correctly - two versions on the same label & release number? If so, that's confusing! How slow is the other take & any background on how/why this came about?

Listening to Honkey Tonk Woman on YouTube, I came across one version that seemed slightly different to the rest. The uploader tells me that this take is featured on a Goldmine CD - Thelma's Detroit Collective. It's not just the sound quality, but there are differences in the arrangement. For example, where the 45 has a bit of sax, the CD version doesn't. The vocals also sound different. Anyone know about the origins of this other version: did it come from the archives, was it a released version on a different label, or is it a 'digitally remastered' version that was tinkered around with as well?

You illustrate the potential of YouTube and such outlets perfectly, Carl. If the mechanisms are in place for royalties to be paid, then the opportunities for rights owners are huge. Exactly as you say, previously unreleased songs and other obscurities - which by their very nature always attract much interest - have the possibilities to receive much exposure and thus the financial returns. I reiterate my view that YouTube and the like represent a new form of radio where fees can be collected every time a song is played anywhere in the world. Another way of looking at it perhaps is as a glorified and hugely personalised global jukebox that both aids in the promotion of music and (eventually) ensures through technical means that dues are paid. Rather inevitably, many artists and songwriters won't benefit at all, but it is a new digital landscape for music and one that offers a greater sense of transparency and accountability - or at least the potential to - for rights owners.

That's the one. The LP is a compilation of Loma releases and includes Bobby Reed 'I wanna love you so bad' along with 11 other tracks. Apart from being in stereo, to these ears there's nothing different about Ben Aiken's Satisfied at all.

You're right. I was being cranky. My apologies. Posting on here after having cycled 8 miles back from a soul night at four in the morning obviously doesn't agree with me! I'm better now, honest!

And so you should give credit where credit is due. Failure to give proper credit will result in your comments being appropriated by the Orchard Group!

Glad you agree with this... ...and that... ...and this too, (although admittedly I only mentioned US/UK legislation) . Beware repeating His name three (or is it six) times in a row whilst staring in a bootlegged mirror...

...and legally...

Ever thought of reading the posts before replying?

How much do you pay the artists for each play of the "two hundred and seventy five thousand" hits to your channel? If your channel were a radio station then a royalty would be paid for every one of those "two hundred and seventy five thousand" hits. So, why are you saddened?

Thanks for that. Very interesting indeed. His experience mirrors exactly a situation I had recently. Some while back, I put together a video montage of some of my photographs. The theme of the photos is 'winter'. The soundtrack to it is Vivaldi's Winter, from the Four Seasons suite - an obvious and very appropriate choice. I sourced it from the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), a brilliant database of public domain and creative commons licensed material. Not long after uploading it to YouTube, I received a copyright notice telling me that the rights belonged to, guess who...? The Orchard Group. I went through the dispute process, which seems to be nothing more than a case of someone sending YouTube an email and them rejecting it - and they did. If you land on the video page you will see a panel stating that the soundtrack is recorded by such-and-such, and can be bought from iTunes. Refresh the page and the panel identifies the music being by someone else altogether! Confused? Not half! Having watched the vid above, I've now disputed YouTube's judgement that the music does belong to Orchard Group. They, it seems to me, are claiming to own something that is not theirs. Of course, mistakes may have been made and the tune could have been identified as belonging to them by mistake. On the other hand, perhaps it has been uploaded to the Internet Archive and made available to the public by mistake. We'll see...

I've also had numerous notifications from YouTube that obscure 45s are apparently owned this organisation. A few weeks ago I was going to ask Paul Mooney (but forgot to) if he could shed some light on who they are exactly and whether they do own the material they claim to. In light of this thread, now seems like a good time.

Fair Use is when (for example) a TV programme uses a clip of a new film to give viewers a glimpse of a coming attraction. The use of the clip aids in the promotion of the film and is used by the programme for the purposes of critique and reporting. Fair Use is when a magazine, newpaper or website quotes a few lines from a new book. Here copyrighted material is being used to promote, critique and educate - the core principles of Fair Use. Fair Use is when snippets of tunes are used by music programmes for the purpose of promotion, criticism and education. Also, when considering whether the usage of copyrighted material falls under the Fair Use principles, law courts use four important criteria: the purpose and character of the use the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. Source: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html From this you can all too easily see that uploading a complete song to YouTube (or anywhere else) falls outside the principles of Fair Use. It is only because increasingly music companies tolerate this activity and see that they can in fact earn money from what is essentially an illegal act. In a nutshell, the uploading of music to places like YouTube is being decriminalised because many companies now see that they can make money from it. However, some companies don't see the potential yet and have a blanket 'take down' policy. That, I'm sure, will change in time...

Sorry, but sticking a tune up on YouTube is not fair use! I've seen so many people use that text under the videos they've uploaded of songs they do not own the copyright or broadcasting rights to and think they're protected by some sort of magic spell. Wrong! People need to look a little closer at what Fair Use actually means. Using a clip of a song can be considered Fair Use depending of the context in which it is used, but not the whole bloody thing! Also, Fair Use is a term applied in American copyright legislation. In the UK, there is a similar principle called 'Fair dealing'.

For rights owners there are three main options when copyrighted material is published to places like YouTube: 1/ Require that the site hosting the copyrighted material remove it immediately. A 'take no prisoners' approach. 2/ Take a commercial view and allow songs exposure they might otherwise not get. This is a financially useful option for music publishers as they effectively receive 'royalties' every time a song is played. The most obvious way in which money is generated is by showing ads before and during videos, and having ads placed on the video page. Music publishers will receive small amounts from the ad revenue generated by YouTube/Google. 3/ As 2, but with territorial restrictions. Often videos with copyrighted soundtracks are blocked from being watched in specific countries. One way of looking at YouTube is that it is a new form of radio, with the difference being that the public decides what it wants to listen to rather than a dj/presenter programming tunes. On radio, copyright owners and artists receive 'royalites' every time a song is played. YouTube - and the more forward thinking music companies - are working towards developing the same system for the online world. For music companies & copyright owners, this represents a whole new revenue stream - and a rather large one at that!