Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
LITTLE ESTHER – PAPA DO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oESWzzvtZI
JOHN HALL & THE FIVE BELL AIRES – WEDDING BELLS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdjyfpizgdc
THE KING CROONERS – PRETTY LITTLE GIRL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyrB5N40GM0
BRENDA LEE – THE STROLL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ5C_oCEOyM
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
JIMMY McCRACKLIN – FOLSOM PRISON BLUES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xPr8K9zHzU
JOHNNY POWERS – ME AND MY RHYTHM GUITAR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqb6YiYj4_M
SHIRLEY & LEE – SO TIRED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OoWmzqibBY
THE SPANIELS – AUTOMOBILES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb7tOaLagYw
FRANKLIN STEWART – I FORGOT TO TELL MY BABY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5U84rBF78U
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 6:15:19 +0000, Roger wrote:
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:34:05 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 6:15:19 +0000, Roger wrote:
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
The fact that this song features in a movie is irrelevant in this
scenario.
The bottom line is that I CANNOT own a legal physical copy of this
particular recording and play it whenever I want at any point during the period we discuss on here----which I submit is the #1 basic requirement
of a commercially released 78,45 or 33rpm record at this time
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Todayfrom 1959
THE KING CROONERS PRETTY LITTLE GIRL >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyrB5N40GM0
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 7:35:59 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:34:05 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 6:15:19 +0000, Roger wrote:
Ten fave unreleased tracks chosen from my yearly Favorites lists
Today………from 1959
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued.
For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if
it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the
least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
Meaning things that were recorded,left in the can for whatever reason
and never released for
sale as a commercial record during the period in question here.
Key words "for sale." IMO it is irrelevant whether or not the recording
was available "for sale." Even back then there were things played on the radio that were never available "for sale." Acetates, promo copies that
never came out commercially. etc...
That's not what it means to me. For me it means that there was no way
for the general public to hear the recording at that time.
The fact that this song features in a movie is irrelevant in this
scenario.
The bottom line is that I CANNOT own a legal physical copy of this
particular recording and play it whenever I want at any point during the
period we discuss on here----which I submit is the #1 basic requirement
of a commercially released 78,45 or 33rpm record at this time
Now you are adding in the word "commercially." That is not part of the
title of the thread. When I was a DJ I had several things that I used to
play regularly that were no commercially released. There were song like "Fire" and "The Fever" and "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" by
Springsteen that I played a lot. They were either on bootleg records or
on a home made cassette.
Are you claiming that something that is available only on a bootleg 45
is still "unreleased." Racio issued lots of 45's and even some albums
with "unreleased" things by acts like the 5 Keys and others where he had gotten ahold of some master tapes or something.
What about TV show theme songs that were on all the time back then. If
you had a reel to reel recorder in the 1960s you could easily record a
TV theme song and play it back whenever you wanted to.
Let's say I had a
friend who was a projectionist at a movie theatre in 1960. If I could
get him to play the movie privately when the theatre was closed and
transfer the sound from "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" on to a reel to reel
tape that I would then start playing on my radio show, people could hear
it.
I think you are stuck on the "commercially available" part. If the
public was able to hear it, like in a movie that millions of people saw,
it's not unreleased IMO.
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued. >>>> For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if >>>> it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the >>> least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
I assume from what I've read that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private
recording between the two of you and so falls outside the scope of this discussion.
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 17:06:07 +0000, Roger wrote:
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued. >>>>> For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if >>>>> it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the >>>> least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued."
Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not "issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
Records just happened to be the most convenient way that most music got
disseminated to the public at that time. Would you say today that "Rock
And Roll Mama" by Jim Colegrove was unreleased? It's not on a record,
CD, or any other physical format, but it's right there on Youtube for
anybody to hear it and even download it.
I assume from what I've read that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private
recording between the two of you and so falls outside the scope of this
discussion.
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial releases these days are only available digitally.
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own
the recording. Just because the technology wasn't there back then for
most people to be able to do that doesn't make those recordings
"unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company
then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
Okay, you are entitles to that opinion. I disagree with it though. I
also don't agree that this has anything to do with record companies.
There are many thousands, maybe even ,millions of recording that people
have done on their own and made available to the public in one way or
another without being involved with any record company. Dean even has a
site where you can buy and download digital copies of his recordings.
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 18:23:28 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 17:06:07 +0000, Roger wrote:
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued. >>>>>> For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if >>>>>> it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the >>>>> least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued." >>>> Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or
in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
With regard to the Dylan promo record it is accurately described as
released (or issued) of course---but only as a promo.
I don't see an item in a movie as released at all (unless there is an accompanying record). If not its just a song in a movie and entirely
seperate to the physical records we disuss
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer
unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
For the second time the man's name is Mike RASCIO!
And no,I don't agree at all that bootlegged items count as genuine
releases. They may (and should) be mentioned of course as they are on
the 45cat site---but they are not and never will be genuine releases.
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the
public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of
recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
The fact that its on YouTube (and btw thanks for putting it there)
alters not the fact that as it stands it IS a private recording between
the two of you (assuming the circumstances you described are still the
same).
So no I don't think I assume wrong
Nowadays a recording that is only in a movie is easy to make a digital
file from if you want to own >>>> the recording. Just because the
technology wasn't there back then for most people to be able to do that >>>> doesn't make those recordings "unreleased."
We are not talking about the modern situation. The discussion is
centered on the music and record company scene as it was in the 1950's
and early 1960's. But if a modern artist has a song in a current movie
and said song is not commercially available from their recording company >>> then IMO it still counts as "unreleased"
Okay, you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree with it though. I
also don't agree that this has anything to do with record companies.
There are many thousands, maybe even millions of recordings that people
have done on their own and made available to the public in one way or
another without being involved with any record company. Dean even has a
site where you can buy and download digital copies of his recordings.
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then the kind of "private" recordings you describe really count for little in comparison tho they may of course be excellent in themselves
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 20:43:16 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 18:23:28 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 17:06:07 +0000, Roger wrote:
DEAN MARTIN & RICKY NELSON – MY RIFLE,MY PONY AND ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yz-nlseVOc
Very good, a 7, and on my 1959 list, but I don't consider it unissued. >>>>>>> For me it doesn't have to be on an actual record to have been issued if >>>>>>> it plays in a movie that was issued.
As I've said before I find your interpretation here illogical to say the >>>>>> least and I don't agree with it at all
We are talking about "unissued records" here right?
Wrong. Recordings, not records. And it's "unreleased," not "unissued." >>>>> Look at the title of your own thread.
In the context of this argument the wording means the same. Everyone
reading this knows the full meaning.
I'm someone who is reading it, and I don't agreed that unreleased means
the same thing as unissued. Unissued pertains to something actually not
"issued." Issued means that it was put out on a record, a tape, a CD, or >>> in some other format so that people have a way to own a copy of the
recording. not necessarily a commercial issue. You can say "Columbia
issued this Bob Dylan record as a promo only." So it's not unissued. So
there can be an item that is released (as in a recording in a movie),
but not "issued."
With regard to the Dylan promo record it is accurately described as
released (or issued) of course---but only as a promo.
I don't see an item in a movie as released at all (unless there is an
accompanying record). If not its just a song in a movie and entirely
seperate to the physical records we disuss
I don't agree that legality has anything to do with unissued or
unreleased. If a bootlegger like Mike Racio gets a hold of master tapes
illegally and "issues" the recording(s) on a bootleg LP, it is no longer >>> unreleased or unissued. Whether or not he did this legally is not
relevant IMO. There are also different laws in different countries when
it comes to this. Recordings can become "public domain" in some
countries while still under copyright restrictions in other countries.
For the second time the man's name is Mike RASCIO!
And no,I don't agree at all that bootlegged items count as genuine
releases. They may (and should) be mentioned of course as they are on
the 45cat site---but they are not and never will be genuine releases.
How did the word "genuine" get into this discussion. I don't think they
are "genuine" releases either, but they certainly are "releases" and
have been "issued." As I said before, legalities are irrelevant here.
Let the lawyers deal with that.
Can you STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment?
This is not about records or any physical hard copy of anything that
contains a recording. It's about a piece of music that was able to be
heard by lots of the public, whether only in a movie, or only on a TV
show, only on the radio, or however it was able to be heard.
You assume wrong. The recording was always meant to be available for the >>> public to hear on Youtube, and maybe in other places, we'll see. Lots of >>> recordings these days are only available on Youtube. Lots of commercial
releases these days are only available digitally.
Suppose a modern artist did a piece of music that appeared in a current
movie and is available for free or for a price as a digital download on
the artist's website. Are you still calling that "unreleased?" Record companies are not magic, Roger. Music can and is "released" by one
person without a record company. As a digital download or as a Youtube
video, or in many other ways. There are TONS Of artists who make music
who don't have a record company, but they release their music themselves
as digital downloads, and/or on Youtube or at other places, like om
Facebook for instance.
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just offensive and wrong.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 2:05:15 +0000, Bruce wrote:
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison
to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 6:06:40 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 2:05:15 +0000, Bruce wrote:
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison >>> to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
You said, and I quote:
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official release or not.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 6:06:40 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 2:05:15 +0000, Bruce wrote:
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison >>> to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
You said, and I quote:
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from >commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official >release or not.
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:39:14 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 6:06:40 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 2:05:15 +0000, Bruce wrote:
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment.
Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison >>>> to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just
offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
You said, and I quote:
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of
the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from >>commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for
just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official >>release or not.
And it's not private. It's on YouTUbe where anyone in the world can
listen to it. At least consider it a "promo' since it's a freebi
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 2:01:33 +0000, Mark D. wrote:
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:46:50 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 15:39:14 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 6:06:40 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 2:05:15 +0000, Bruce wrote:
As I said before, STOP thinking like a record collector for a moment. >>>>> Saying that Jim's "Rock And Roll Mama" "counts for little" in comparison >>>>> to another piece of music that was issued by a record company is just >>>>> offensive and wrong.
I never said or implied any such thing.
You said, and I quote:
That may well be so but on this site since I'd suggest that as 99.9% of >>>the music we talk about is found either on 33,45 or 78 RPM releases from >>>commercial record companies or otherwise in unreleased material from
such companies then...
,,,"the kind of "private" recordings you describe really
count for little in comparison"
----------------------------------------------------------
You claim that "Rock And Roll Mama" is a private recording, so it must
be included in those recordings that "count for little," no?
That's ass backwards record collector thinking. A recording counts for >>>just as much whether some record companies validates it with an official >>>release or not.
And it's not private. It's on YouTUbe where anyone in the world can
listen to it. At least consider it a "promo' since it's a freebi
First off,Jim nothing I've written in this conversation is intended or
aimed at denigrating the "Rock And Roll Mama" recording-far from it. I
think its pretty good as I've already stated.
The word "private" was used simply because the process of actually
getting the song recorded--from Bruce's description---seemed to be an arrangement worked out by both of you.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 2:01:33 +0000, Mark D. wrote:
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:38:08 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 2:01:33 +0000, Mark D. wrote:
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
The only people who care about whether a record is a bootleg or not are record collectors.
If the record sounds good then a non record collector
doesn't give a shit as to the legality of it. They are just as happy to
get a best of album put out by Rascio as one but out by someone who
legally had the rights to issue the recordings
BTW, I'm sure you know that lots of legitimate record labels like Collectables and Lost-Nite issued many recordings that they did not
actually have the legal right to. They would take some obscure thing
like the Hideaways on Ronni and just put it out. Sometimes they would be contacted and/or sued by the person or company that owned the master, or
by their lawyer. How do you classify those releases which are
essentially the same thing as "Kansas City" on Fury. A record issued illegally by a legit record label.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:38:08 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 2:01:33 +0000, Mark D. wrote:
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records
So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?
It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 15:40:11 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:38:08 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 2:01:33 +0000, Mark D. wrote:
On Aug 19, 2024 at 10:32:45 AM CDT, "Bruce" <Bruce> wrote:I took "bona fide" to mean genuine
"bona fide" means genuine, real.
Actually the Latin phrase means "in good faith." Genuine and real are
merely
approximations. I'll leave it to you and Roger to decide whether
bootlegged
records are in good faith.
And in that connection--as I said---bootlegs are certainly not
Legalities have nothing to do with this IMO. It's a record, it plays
just like a record issued legally. It's not a "fake" record, it's a real
record. I'm sure you have some bootlegs in your collection. Are they
figments of your imagination, or are they real records
I have hundreds of boots in my collection.They are all real boots
So is "Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison a bona fide release?
It was deemed to be an illegal release by the US courts and Robinson had
to pay Herman a hefty sum. So it's no different than a bootleg, and
therefore not a genuine release in your eyes, right?
I don't know the intricacies of the Harrison case but if the courts
there say its illegal then its illegal.
But don't hold your breath waiting for me to throw my Top Rank copy (I
guess that's illegal too?)
away any time soon
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 485 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:16:25 |
| Calls: | 9,651 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,704 |
| Messages: | 6,165,186 |
| Posted today: | 2 |