http://www.spectropop.com
________________________________________________________________________
______________ ______________
______________ ______________
______________ S P E C T R O P O P ______________
______________ ______________
________________________________________________________________________
DESIGNED TO ENHANCE IRREPLACEABLE MONOPHONIC RECORDINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this Digest Number 89:
1. Jackie DeShannon
From: Claudia Cunningham
2. Beach Boys Pet Sounds
From: Tilley Five
3. Re: Soundalikes
From: "mikey1"
4. Re: RIP Specs: What Are We Gonna Do Without You
From: Jamie LePage
5. It doesn't say 48 years
From: "Joseph Scott"
6. BBs and Deck
From: "Jamie LePage"
7. Playlist for "Casa Nostra" 1.12.01
From: "James Botticelli"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:51:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Claudia Cunningham
Subject: Jackie DeShannon
I was one of those who saw Jackie on Letterman the other
night. Was I disappointed! He introduced her as one of
music director Paul Shaffer's "innovators of rock"
guests, and I guess it was suppose to be "this is his
blast from the past spot"....I got the feeling that
Jackie was too Sixties to appeal to Letterman's top
demographic group, those 20 and 30 year olds who can't
relate to Jackie. Sad, isn't it?
When they cut to commercials Jackie would do a bit of a
song here and there. Once Letterman asked her why she
didn't sing one of her famed songs, "Bette Davis Eyes"
instead of giving it to Kim Carnes to record. She
hesitated, and before she uttered a word Shaffer cut her
off with, "Don't pick on her. She has nothing to say.
She's the Garbo of rock."
She wasn't extended the courtesy of sitting next to
Letterman and saying anything at all. She stood next to
Shaffer the whole time. She looked very good....the
face lift was a good one (meow!) ...seriously, she looks
great for her age. Same blond hair with bangs, wearing a
red jean jacket and slim black slacks.
Letterman, instead of having Jackie be a real guest, had
"B" actor Tim Robbins on and some t.v. personality, a
girl in her 20's who was half dressed, and they both
got rousing applause from his youthful audience.
It's all part of those of a certain age becoming less
relevant to the media. Notice that JFK's assassination
anniversary got nary a mention this year when in the
past there were t.v. specials on and magazines and
newspapers talking of little else. The media panders to
Generation Xer's these days, more so than ever.
Jackie is just the latest casualty in this mind-set and
it's very, very sad. She is relatively young and has so
much to offer.
The good news: She has a new CD out which I will for
sure pick up. Shame on Letterman's producers, it should
have been a great show. Claudia
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 01 20:32:32 +0900
From: Tilley Five
Subject: Beach Boys Pet Sounds
Hats off to VH1 for the top 100 albums of all
times...Pet Sounds came in at #3
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:17:52 -0500
From: "mikey1"
Subject: Re: Soundalikes
Paul wrote:
> > For over thirty years I have been seriously collecting
> > Hit Records from Nashville TN which sold their
> > sound-a-likes of the current pop and country hits from
> > 1962 to 1972.
Yes, those "Hit Records" versions are awesome. I have a
bunch of them on tape, and they are fascinating to
listen to. They are def NOT "cheapie" productions, they
are well done and obviously were done in good studios
with good players. Now I wonder...does anybody know who
owns the masters? A 2 Cd set of these from the
original masters would be a welcome item.
Mikey
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 01 20:24:56 +0900
From: Jamie LePage
Subject: Re: RIP Specs: What Are We Gonna Do Without You
> The passing of Jack Specs Nitzsche saddened me greatly.
Mortality is a harsh wake up call.
>my favorite Nitzsche-arranged track of all time, Lesley
>Gore's "What Am I Gonna Do With You"--
Definitely my very favorite Lesley Gore recording - I
have to mention the boy-betrays-faithful-girl lyric has
a lot to do with it. Of great appeal to me is that
sentiment expressed in so many of her recordings -
lacking that sentiment, I doubt What Am I Gonna Do With
You would so easily rank #1 on my personal list.
Also, any song that has as its main catch phrase "Hey,
baby" gets extra points. Truly Do by Fleetwoods starts
off with this line. Also, Hey! Baby by Bruce Channel and
Hey Baby (They're Playing Our Song) by the Buckinghams.
In this Titelman/Goffin work, the monotone line Hey Baby
on the surface seemingly adds no importance to the lyric.
But imagine extending the word "do" for a couple of
beats and replacing "hey baby" with "with you". It works,
but the impact is radically lessened. It's an example of
the sum of the lyric and melody exceeding its components.
It works brilliantly. A similar example is the use of
the word "now" in the Honeys' He's a Doll. The sentence
doesn't require the word, but without it, the lyric
isn't nearly as infectious.
>Goodness knows I put in a lot of serious headphone time
>with those two tracks before I tried to arrange my own
>Net Sounds cut.
I remember having time to do that; sit and carefully
compare versions of the same song or recording. I did it
today with What Am I Gonna Do With You. My wife has just
made a doctor's appointment for me.
By the way, any chance of your uploading your Net Sounds
track to the file sharing space?
>If anyone would care to listen to the files I would
>enjoy discussing the differences
OK. I downloaded the files just for fun (cool feature!)
but listened to the CDs which I already purchased long
ago for the purpose of A/B'ing the mixes. Now I am about
to tear apart the mixes. Egad. Remember, this is my
FAVORITE Lesley Gore recording!
>the Mercury Anthology version is apparently the original
>mix, with a lot of the classic Gold Star echo on it and a
>more primitive stereo pan--instruments sort of huddled
>left of center, and Lesley over to the right and a
>little too upfront. The version on the Golden Hits cd
>was apparently remixed...
First of all, Jack, this recording is a difficult mix.
Comparing the two mixes, it appears the strings were
"ridden" in the MA mix because the pizzicato parts are
too present on the multi-tracks to allow a single level
throughout. That, unfortunately, caused problems in both
mixes although for different reasons.
>[on GH] the instruments are splayed more evenly across
>the soundstage
The intro of the MA mix sounds astonishingly similar to
Silent Night by Phil Spector with the resonating
repetitive piano figure soaked in the Gold Star chamber.
The GH mix loses this character completely. Here, the
harpsichord is overbearing.
>The harpsichord is clearer, too.
It's overbearing, Jack. It buries the piano :-)
> It's lost some of the echo,
The toppy (digital?) reverb used on the GH remix lessens
further the eerily hollow effect of the MA original mix.
>Lesley is smack dab in the center and mixed down a
>little, so that you can crank it and really revel in
>that big honkin' sleigh bell arrangement...
>making it easier to pinpoint some of the tricks that went
>into creating the Wall of Sound.
OK, I buy this. In fact, it is one redeeming quality
of nearly all stereo vs. mono mixes, and the same can
often be said of recent remixes. All those "sessions"
tapes like the Pet Sounds box too help pinpoint those
tricks.
Lesley's voice has quite a bit of distortion on it. It
is a warm, valve-induced (I would guess) distortion, but
it's been cleaned up considerably for the GH remix. The
comparatively lower vocal level (and different comp/EQ)
on the GH remix helps mask the apparent distortion.
Aesthetically, though, level-wise the vocals generally
sit where they should on the MA version.
GH remix at 1:01 marks the point when the reverb on the
snare becomes very unlike wall-of-sound. Compare this to
the MA mix where the backbeat comes in but is never
intrusive (bytheway, this hasta be Hal Blaine, right?).
Also, listen to the way the strings fall back at 0:59 on
the MA mix. Obviously the fader was pulled down at this
point, in typical Nitzsche/Spector fashion. You can tell
both of these producers spent considerable time
balancing the strings on their records. On the GH
remix it seems the fader was left untouched. This
becomes particularly irritating at 1:22 on the GH remix.
Because the strings track had some parts that needed to
be ridden in the mix, both mixes have the strings
balanced strangely at least some of the time, and on the
MA mix they seemed to get it perfect until 2:27. None of
the pizzicato bits are overbearing as they are on GH.
>From 2:27 forward, though, the strings mix is pretty
sloppy on MA. Actually, the whole MA mix seems to fall
apart from that point. Suddenly the vocal jumps out,
then the band seems to surge forward in the mix. Of
course there was no automated mixing in those days.
Perhaps after getting everything so right up to 2:27, a
decision was made to live with the less than desirable
ending. I can imagine Nitzsche listening to the mix,
looking at his watch and saying to Levine - It's OK, the
DJs will be talking over the fade anyway...
And no matter how much the GH remix makes it easier to
hear the W-O-S, the background vocals during the verses
are, simply, wrong. Listen at 2'19 to both versions to
see what I mean. Those trademark ethereal "oohs" heard
on so many Gold Star/Nitzsche/w-o-s tracks is nearly
non-existent on the GH remix.
After comparing both versions, I can't declare a superior
version. THe GH remix is slicker, to be sure, but the
Nitzsche magic, enhanced by careful blending of his
string arrangement with the other tracks, is far more
perceivable on the original MA mix, once again, until 2:
27 where they seemingly lost it.
Now I am very keen to hear the original mono mix. I
believe I have the LP somewhere, but I can't remember if
it is mono or stereo. In any event, I can't seem to find
it just now. If I continue to look I just might find it
and listen to it several more times. My wife is surely
bound to call the medics then!
I've seen the Lesley Gore Bear Family box set at a local
record store recently. I am trying to justify shelling out
120 bucks or so for this. I have the Mercury Anthology
and Greatest Hits packages. Do I need the Bear Family
set too? Anyone?
Jamie
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:11:50 -0700
From: "Joseph Scott"
Subject: It doesn't say 48 years
Hi all, re the quote from the Library of Congress and
the summary
> So according to the Library of Congress, a copyright for
> a recorded sound work applied after 2/15/1972 can last
> 48 years.
No, the material quoted doesn't indicate 48 years, it
says initial term of copyright (28 years), plus renewal
term of copyright (it never says here how many years
that is), plus the additional 20 years that were tacked
on to the renewal term in 1998.
Best wishes,
Joseph Scott
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:12:10 -0000
From: "Jamie LePage"
Subject: BBs and Deck
Andrew wrote:
> > If an artist pays for and makes their own recordings,
> > they certainly should have the rights over their
> > material, and in fact they do. They always have.
>
> Not quite... most artists are given an advance, which
> is a loan, usually (not always) paid back at interest,
> but always intended to be paid back, by the record
> company. They are then, out of that, expected to pay
> for the recordings. It's roughly equivalent to getting
> a mortgage, and finding that after you've paid it off
> 'your' house belongs to the bank...
*smile* Very good analogy, Andrew! Major points for
that one! It's a very convincing argument.
Just to play the devil's advocate for a minute - try
this analogy - the bank gives you a loan to create a
brand new traveling circus called Munchkin One. You use
the start up money to create the circus, The bank then,
at its cost, promotes Munchkin One, takes out ads to
attract people to come, sells the tickets and uses the
door to recoup the mortgage (after the mortgage is paid
off, the bank pays a percentage of the door to you). You
keep 100% of all the related food (touring) and
merchandise franchises, of which the bank gets zero
commission. You also keep the rights to use the name
Munchkin for future circuses. After you quit Munchkin
One, you create Munchkin Two. Munchkin Two is a low risk
investment because your previous banker promoted One to
the point that it became a hit. Now, all the bank has is
the old circus, which has to compete with your new
circus, and for which they still pay you a percentage,
but the food and merchandise franchises at the old
circus are STILL owned 100% by you.
...and don't forget that if is a flop and it never earns
enough to pay back the "mortgage", it's the bank's loss
and you don't go to jail.
> > So yes, it would be ideal if artists always owned
> > their own work, though I'm not convinced it's practical.
>
> I'm perfectly convinced it's practical. The standard
> artist contract could be identical to how it is now,
> except that all rights revert to the artist when the
> advance has been recouped, with the caveat that the
> artist has to agree to licence the work to the label
> for a minimum period after reversion...
Again, ideally this is a great concept, but it seems
to me such a structure would remove all the incentive
to sign new artists. A label would be far better off
in such a scenario to pay big advances for established
artists. It's a sure bet, and a hell of a lot easier
than starting from zero and creating a fan base for a
newbie.
And by the way, what you describe is basically the same
thing as a license deal, the difference being that the
advance in a license deal is not necessarily used to
produce the recordings. In a license deal the rights DO
revert after a certain period of time (sometimes, not
always, the retention period is triggered by point of
recoupment.)
> If I had the option, I would sign one of
> those contracts - because the rights I'd be signing
> away are actually financially worth less than nothing
> to me at the moment...If, on the other hand, I were
> actually in a position to get my music heard and
> bought by a reasonable number of people, then I
> wouldn't consider it for half a second...
That's an entirely reasonable position. But wait! The
Beach Boys were in precisely the same situation when
they signed the Hite deal. Now, 40 years later they are
in a position to get their music heard and bought by a
reasonable number of people. So, they claim Deck doesn't
own the recordings.
According to the info at Surf's Up website, Judge Harry
Hupp indicated that he was prepared to issue an
injunction against the release of any of the Morgan
recordings that were previously unreleased as of
December 2000. This indicates that the dispute is
limited to *unreleased* recordings made under the Hite
agreement. That concept boggles the mind. May you never
hear unreleased surf music again, to paraphrase Mr.
Hendrix.
This is all fascinating to me as an observer because I
personally enthuse more about writers, producers and
arrangers than I do about artists. Labels like Motown,
Philles, Red Bird, Atlantic were spearheaded by music
men I respect and admire greatly. The contributions of
Berry Gordy, Phil Spector, Leiber/Stoller, Ahmet Ertegun
etc. (and their staff) were often more "artistic" than
the artists whose names appear on the record. In the
case of the Crystals, for instance, they often didn't
even sing on their records.
We can't really draw a concrete conclusion to the Deck
vs. BBs case - That's for the courts to decide, but the
discourse is very enjoyable. That being said, I've
written way more than enough about it here, so until
there are new developments I won't be writing more on
this. That leaves you with the final word, Andrew!
Best regards,
Jamie
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:59:47 EST
From: "James Botticelli"
Subject: Playlist for "Casa Nostra" 1.12.01
"Casa Nostra"airs on 88.1FM WMBR, Cambridge, MA at M.I.T.
Fridays at Midnight "Casa Nostra" features
Loungecore/Breakbeat/EZHouse/Exotica/SABPM/Soft Rock
>from the Age of Space to the Age of Bass "Casa Nostra"
streams in Real Audio: http://wmbr.mit.edu
click on the
listen link "Casa Nostra" is produced, programmed and
hosted by James Botticelli
Can 7-Cruisin'-Beach House Comp.
Jimmie Haskell-I'll Take Sweden-OST I'll Take Sweden
Zuco-Outro Lado
Ferrante & Teicher-Oh! Calcutta
DJ Me DJ You-Glassong-Emperor Norton Sampler
Bob & Phil Orchestra-Baubles, Bangles, and Beads-
Hot Line For Sound
Tate's Place-Burnin'-Jazzanova Remixes '97-'00
Shirley Bassey-Light My Fire-The Remixes
Ennio Morricone-Belinda May-Morricone 2001
Sunny Face-Rainy Boo-Ga-Loo-Temptation
Claus Ogerman-Its Not Unusual-Watusi Trumpets
Sophia Loren-Soldi Soldi Soldi-Boccaccio '70
Michael Airhart-Shapes From Da Windy City-12"
Henry Mancini-It Had Better Be Tonight (instrumental)-
OST Pink Panther
Domenic Fronteire-House of Dawn-Pagan Festival
Enoch Light-Rain In My Heart-Glittering Guitars
Lord Sitar-If I Were A Rich Man-Bass-ic Hip comp
Vinnie Bell-More-Pop Goes The Electric Sitar
Balanco-More
Take Rodriguez-Club Eroticana-(thanks Brian and Cheryl)
Creed Taylor Orchestra-Lonesome Ol' Town-Lonelyville
Buddy Morrow Orchestra-San Francisco Blues-Double Impact
Peter Thomas-Theme From Perry Rhodan-Remix
Yoshinori Sunahara-Journey Beyond The Stars-Takeoff And
Landing
A VISIT TO THE SOFT-ROCK CAFE FOR THE FINAL SET
Gentle People-Groovin' With You
Nick DeCaro-I'm Gonna Make You Love Me-Happy Heart (A&M)
Small Circle Of Friends-Don't Take Your Time-(A&M)
Free Design-Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head
Paul Williams-We've Only Just Begun-(A&M)
Nick DeCaro-Under The Jamaican Moon-Italian Graffiti (A&M)
Roger Nichols-Our Day Will Come (A&M)
Dells-One Less Bell To Answer
Thanks For Reading
--------------------[ archived by Spectropop ]--------------------
End
Spectropop text contents & copy; copyright Spectropop unless
stated otherwise.
All rights in and to the contents of these documents, including each element embodied therein, is subject to copyright
protection under international copyright law. Any use, reuse, reproduction and/or adaptation without written permission of the owners is a violation of copyright law and is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved.
