"The Rolling Stones British Discography of Singles on DECCA Records"
is an almost ready, forthcoming 500-page book I've researched and compiled and it'll be available on Amazon and eBay in January 2017 (I hope).
At the moment, it includes circa 400 records and 1.000 illustrations. All topics have already been faced and, no need to say, it's been cracked
the meaning of the additional letters that appear on labels.
If there's any particular topic you want to be included in the book, please, ask and I'll what can be done. The book will be followed by a similar illustrated one on RSR British singles and a third volume with the most detailed discogrpahy ever of the 1963/1977 solo works issued on single.
I hope you'll like them. Bye'n'thanks, Luca

400 records on decca alone, i take it many are outtakes and unreleased, so what i would want to know is, how many are finished, would get finished in future and what would be released through the vaults either by the band, abcko or any other source.

and would similar info come out regarding the post decca to present recordings.

would be great to have a complete finished database of all stones discography just to get a figure of how many songs they actually performed/released whether in an official or unofficial capacity.

Quote
buttons67
400 records on decca alone, i take it many are outtakes and unreleased, so what i would want to know is, how many are finished, would get finished in future and what would be released through the vaults either by the band, abcko or any other source.

and would similar info come out regarding the post decca to present recordings.

would be great to have a complete finished database of all stones discography just to get a figure of how many songs they actually performed/released whether in an official or unofficial capacity.

UK singles would not include outtakes and unreleased.
More likely all the various label variations.
See here for "Come On":
[www.45cat.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

I think I would like to know more about the business and financial arrangements between Decca/London and the Stones both pre and post 1970.
The 'tape lease agreement' with Impact Sound in 1963 and subsequent renewals.
The effect of Allen Klein's involvement.
The relationship between ABKCO and Decca post 1970.
Why Decca appears to be superseded by ABKCO as the label from the mid 80's.
Do Decca /London today have any 'distribution rights' to the 60's material.
Do they hold anything in their Vaults.

Yes Jlowe,
it's all in the book.except for what they're keeping in the safe. They refused to lend me the key...

For any other aspect, you'll have a circa 100-page intro re-creating the entire history of the DECCA period, with some very inedit point of views.
Furthermore, I've cracked the meaning of the letters placed on labels and investigated the pressing plants in UK and Ireland.
You'll have anything you need on Allen Klein and ALO plus Eric Easton and all their companies.
For the first time ever, you'll have a long list of markers creating a correct timeline of the release of the DECCA singles and the financial interests behind them.

No outtakes, just legit DECCA singles by the Rolling Stones all of them illustrated and commented.


We have circa three months to add more topics. No off-topics, please: more books will follow to cover enveild aspects in collecting British singles.

Thanks everybody for caring, bye Luca



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-09-03 12:11 by 1963luca0.

Hi Luca...many thanks. Looking good!
Eric Easton has been virtually airbrushed out of the history books. Never been sure why ALO was so damning about him, after all he gave HIM the break.
Eric organised the first tours, had the contacts and apparantly ensured that sums were put aside to pay for individual tax liabilities. That practice clearly stopped when Klein stepped in.
Instead of dumping him in August 1965, they should have let him sit out his Agency role until the 3 years were up in May 1966.
It would have saved years of litigation which didn't help the band members cash flows at all. I don't think they got resolved until the mid 70's.
He retired to Florida and I believe his son Paul is connected to the music business.
Bill has always been a supporter of Eric..and I would trust his judgement (on these matters) over the others.

As the book points out, ALO and the RS discovered that Eric Easton earned extra undue money through Southern Music publisher. What sounds somehow strange
is that business between the RS and Southern Music was not stopped and Southern Music kept on beign the sole selling agent of some of the early songs penned by J/R or Nanker-Phelge.
I've dedicated a Whole chapter to publishers of songs of the RS and you'll realise how strong were the links in the music business in the 60's!
Bye, Luca

In the beginning it was Easton (who had the contacts and experience) who took the lead in business matters. The Southern deal was probably not unusual. Its a bit like the Insurance salesman who gets you the policy then gets renumerated by the Insurer for his efforts and ongoing at each renewal.He was old school and wouldn't have concerned 'his boys' with the minutiae of contracts.
Believe me, this sleight of hand was nothing to what Oldham and Klein got up to later. Then, the cake was of course much bigger.
Southern were a well established Publisher with offices in Denmark Street. It was a bit like the Beatles first publishing deal which was with Ardmoore and Bedchwood, who were a subsidiary of EMI.
The Southern deal was probably for an initial 12 months. I suspect Southern and Easton expected the group to last little more than 2-3 years.
Southern also made a good living from sales of Sheet Music and Songbooks. Those Stones books are probably collectors items now.
Presumably Southern held the copyright to Stoned, Tell Me etc. Publishing credits now state Songs of Peer, part of Peer Music who at some point Southern merged into (?). So, its not true for ABKCO to state they control ALL the publishing to 1971 (plus a few Exile tracks).

Andrew Loog Oldham
“While I had been away, Eric (Easton) had done more than handle the recording sessions. My co-manager and partner had done a move to handle the disposition of the B-side composition. Eric had explained to the band the obvious fact that ‘Stoned’, as an original song, needed a publisher to collect royalties due to it, and recommended that the band publish the song with ‘some good publishers’ he knew over on Denmark Street, Southern Music. Eric Easton was in fact acting duplicitously and had forgotten to mention to me or to the Stones that he had already had a joint-publishing company with Southern, called South-Eastern Music (which would co-publish ‘Stoned’. Easton would have Mick and Keith assign a few more songs into this arrangment before the three of us put a stop to it early in 1964.The actual details of the inter-company arrangement between Southern and Easton emerged years later when the other shoe dropped. Desapite his seeming so straight, Eric was just plain criminal at times, representing that ’Southern are good oufits, lads, they’ll make sure you get paid properly...”

Thanks Luca. Yes Ive read also the references to Southern in Oldham's book. His two books are amongst my favourites in StonesWorld but he is selective when it comes to facts. I wish he would get on to another Volume and give us more detail on the 1967 split from the Stones, the subsequent selling of copyrights to Klein (without the Stones knowledge?) and if course the Immediate Records debacle.

Actually ALO fell out with the Stones next music publisher, one David Platz of the Essex Group. (They nearly got the admin publishing of Northern Songs in 1969).
Klein and Platz also ended up in the Courts!

Life seems rather dull now, by comparison.
Looking forward to your book.

To: lucaaccialini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Aug 1, 2017 5:52 pm
Subject: ROLLING STONES/DECCA YEARS

Hello Luca
Have just finished reading your book. Excellent, very thorough and well researched. Well done! I just have a few queries, if you can find some time to respond, it would be much appreciated.

SOUTHERN MUSIC PUBLISHING
They were major and established Publishers but at some point have had their catalogue transferred to PEER MUSIC. The very early compositions eg Stoned, Tell Me, are now published by SONGS OF PEER, which I assume is a Peer Music affiliate. Do you know much about this? Do ABKCO have a 50% share?

I always start from what is written onto records, then I try to collect info on what I want to investigate from two main sources: old books and magazines (Billboard, mainly) and the web. At the moment, there are no records showing direct/ indirect evidence that songs of the Rolling Stones are copyrighted/owned by Peer Music, UK. On top of that, Peer Music - or whatever you call it, as they use more than one name - is the UK subsidiary of major publishing companies, actually. I can't speak for ABKCO - or better, their GIDEON Music -, but I believe they do not grant a 50% share to nobody. In any case, up to the mono boxed-set (2017) no record from the DECCA years lists Peer Music among the controllers. If you have different evidence, I'd be very, very glad to consider your source.


ERIC EASTON
As you say Eric pretty much disappeard from the scene in the late 60's. His eventual pay off ( courtesy of Klein) probably was enough to live on. At some point he moved to Florida in the States. His son, Paul Easton is involved in the music business there (bookings management, I think). A Google search gives some information. Eric died in the mid 1990's. Bill, whose opinion I trust, had a lot of respect for him. More straight than Klein or ALO.

Yes, I totally agree. Easton was older than ALO and managed his business with polished manners. To tell the truth, I'm not sure he was paid-off by ALO and/or Klein (who wasn't a pertner of his).
The Big Change happened in Agust 1965 and it took not more than a week to definitely re-write the future of the group. The very first ready-to-be-sold copies of 'Satisfaction' are credited to Impact Sound. ALO fired Easton soon before 20 August 1965 (official date for 'Satisfaction') and labels were re-worked. As always at DECCA, old copies were not trashed and stores got records with two kinds of labels: before/after Klein. Eric Easton lived his last 30 years well, I guess. I believe that he was not paid-off in 1965/66. I believe he was paid-off in a later time, when ABKCO aquired the royalties
of Impact Sound work (1963-August 1965), via their GIDEON Music.


LAW SUITS
1. Stones v Oldham and Easton 1971: Do you know the outcome of this?

Immediate Records went in bankrupt in 1970, Eric Easton was not a big name anymore. Even if I can't prove what I'm going to say (this is the reason why I've not included what follows in my book), I'm quite sure the suit was made to settle pending problems (copyrights, master tapes, documents, ...) rather than for money. At the time the group was still hoping they held the copyrights of their back catalogue and I think they still hoped to issue it all as RSR and this suit was meant as necessary step toward indipendece.



2. Easton v Klein etc 1972: Do you know the outcome of this?

As per the other suit. we can guess that money was asked, but not given. I don't know how the suit ended, but I would not be surprised if it was an usueless law suit.


EMI-COLGEMS
Seem to handle the music publishing from 1973 to mid 1980s. Does Promopub hold the copyright to the compositions? Are EMI merely the Administrators? Is it time limited?

Since 1973 onward, all the 1971-present songs of the Rolling Stones are property of Promopub/Promotone/Musidor/... The hole subject will be deeply analyzed in my next book on the 1971-present singles. As a preview: yes, EMI Pub. and EMI-Colgems were collectors - rather than administrators - of royalties in Countries were RSR Corp. could not handle them directly.


40 LICKS
I notice that amongst the copyright credits the name of DECCA. Surely this is a mistake. Don't ABKCO and Promotone hold the recording copyrights for all the Stones recordings worldwide?

No, I don't think it's a mistake. Moreover, I don't think that Mercury appears on some of the 'Sympathy For The Devil' re-mixes due to a mistake. Please, verify what I'm going to say as I'm writing by heart and I can't check if I remember what follows correctly. If I can rememer well, GIDEON Music is not mentioned on any of the '40 Licks' releases. '40 Licks' is a joint-venture effort. It's the only record we have with ABKCO and RSR co-operating and I believe that what we read on the record labels and inlays is a compromise written by the legal offices of the companies involed: ABKCO, RSR, VIRGIN and EMI, DECCA, Mercury.

PS Your questions are of general interest. I hope you've nothing against a post that could allow to share our corripondence with a wider number of fellow Collectors. I think IORR is the best place to meet. Thanks, Luca

Hope to hear from you soon.

Best Wishes

J.L.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-08-02 09:43 by 1963luca0.

A further update on some of the above.
SOUTHERN MUSIC.
Following some more research, I can confirm:
-Stoned
-Little by Little
-Now I've got a witness
-Tell Me
Are all copyrighted to Peer Music (UK).
Sources: ASCAP (Title Search) and Peer Music own web site.
Andrew Oldham moved the Stones' (Nanker Phelge and MJ/KR) own compositions, from Southern at some point in 1964 to the Essex Music group. This is confirmed in his books. Obviously, Southern (now Peer Music) were not going to let go of these first compositions!
So when the media state that ABKCO holds ALL of the Stones work to 1970 (ish) it isn't quite true.

40 LICKS
The Discogs site state labels for the Europe release as:
-RSR/Virgin/ABKCO/Decca
My CD also as above.

I cannot understand why DECCA would be included on this 2002 release.
In terms of Stones product, they pretty much bowed out in the early 80's (I think) when ABKCO started releasing them directly on their own label.
ABKCO of course always held the recording copyrights/ masters, DECCA were just distributors.
Label credits are not always reliable.

Thanks, interesting indeed. I'll be black soon for more.
Bye

Dear John,
I've very appreciated you to enquire Peer Music and, above all, their ground-breaking reply! I hope you'll paste here their mail as it puts the group under a totally new light: Nanker/ Phelge compositions were also credited to Stu, as he still was a member of the group and now I love these guys more than ever...

ALO was very angry with Eric Easton as he discovered he had personal interests in having the group's and/or Jagger-Richards compositions protected by Southern Music, no matter how big and good they were. It was a matter of money and - above all - leadership inside Impact Sound company.

ABKCO? They never said they own the rights of all the songs the group recorded. Simply, it's not possible: for instance, if Berry's songs are owned by Jewel Music there's nothing to do.
ABKCO owns all the original compositions, except for few ones that escaped their aquisition. True is that in a later time, ABKCO succeeded in buying some important songs they didn't have yet ('We Love You' and 'Dandelion' from Variety), but they did not buy the blues numbers the group covered.


Forty Licks
To tell the truth, I'm not very experienced with the copyright control, after the RS left EMI (that used EMI Publishing Ltd.). At the moment, I'm studying the subject, in sight of my next book and I believe that the presence of DECCA is not a mistake. It'd be such a big mistake that law suits would have arrived from ABKCO, I believe. I also believe that a correct collection of rolyaties from '40 Licks' was such a difficult task that an agreement was needed. And it was just the first of the many forth-coming agreements.

Just a few years later, Polydor entered the picture. Their logo appears on re-issues, usually. Polydor also marked the '1971-2006 Singles' boxed-set alone.
Still, they do not collect royalties.

It seems that nowadays, the original compositions are protected by Promotone/ Promopub (no more Musidor) and EMI Publishing Ltd, even if they left the company in 1984. Most likely, EMI Publishing Ltd is acting on behalf of her sister company Virgin Records...

In any case, YES YOU'RE RIGHT: credits are not always reliable. The most evident example is the 1971-2006 Singles set: the varios 'Harlem Shuffle' are protected by no less than three different companies!!


On top of that, there's another very interesting subject to investigate. 'SF' and 'Exile' had songs initially owned by ABKCO Inc. At the end of the 80's, CBS re-issues presented those same songs as owned by one of the companies in galaxy of RSR. I think that Promotone or Promopub litterally bought the songs out of ABKCO. Still, recent releases ('1971-2006' boxed-set) present 'T.Dice' as copyrighted by ABKCO, again. Can you tell something on this, please?

Any IORRian will to help?


Please, don't forget to share with fellow Collectors the mail you received from Peer Music...

All the best, Luca

Here we go again...
Among Collectors who've got the book there's a thread going on about the more than famous 'Poison Ivy' single. I think it's time for me to inform you all, hoping the thread will evolve with your help. What follows is the up-to-date text of my private file

1. from Roy Carr's book
As before, the Stones spent considerable time digging through their record collection, discarding and arguing over both the commercial and aesthetic merits of songs. Time and patience were running out and so DECCA promptly assigned the Stones a producer – Mr M Barclay, with instructions to extract a second single from these enfants terrible.

2. based on a clipping of the time
I consider the content of this clipping (taken from a music mag unknown to me) unreliable, but still very interesting. In particular the journalist states that demonstration copies were pressed and distributed. This point is very weak. Generally speaking, the reason why demonstration copies of poor selling singles are much easier to find than commercial copies is that DECCA Records used to press a high number of demonstration copies, not minding how relevant or potentially succefull that record was. In other words, for minor singles there are more demo copies than the commercial ones circulating. Coming at ‘Poison Ivy’, no demonstration copies are known. On top of that, the short article reports that ‘one or two early copies had reached the shops’.
It’s not believable, definitely. Selected shops in England, i.e. those whose sale reports were used to compile the charts, received tens of copies per each new title, actually. If ‘Poison Ivy’ had reached the shops, a minimum of few tens of copies would have been sold, not one or two. Again, advertisements on magazines had to be planned in advance, in order to have the new single promoted the same day it was out and no trade alerts are known for ‘Poison Ivy’, as far as I know. All in all, I believe the journalist wrote the article unaware he was manipulated by Andrew Loog Oldham.

3. According to Bill Wyman’s ‘Stone Alone’, the band decided to recall – not switch! – the record, due to dissatisfaction with the musical content of it. I don’t dare to say Bill Wyman is wrong, but there’s one point that must be underlined: both songs were not produced by Andrew Loog Oldham. They were produced by Michael Barclay for Impact Sound and - there’s no need
to say - Oldham would have to pay Barclay’s bill to release a record he could produce by himself. I’d be no surprised if Oldham convinced the band they had to re-record these songs, under his loving production, actually. Even if once thought that no finished copies existed, it's for sure that a few stock copies were pressed and distributed, maybe, via record club only. According to the few illustrations available, the record was pressed with album small
spindle-hole instead of the usual record centre.

Archivist’s Point of View
The very first single of the Rolling Stones originally issued with logos of BIEM and NCB copyright controllers is ‘Little Red Rooster’ in November 1964. All the singles issued before do not sport logos of secondary copyright controllers on labels, just the one of the music publisher. Still, the few known copies of F11742 present BIEM and NCB on A-side label and, maybe, on B-side too. This sounds strange to an archivist... One steady point is the RFP1963 text: this sets the date of issue of this singles before December 31 1964. The solid centre and the presence of BIEM and NCB logo raise more than one doubt about it being issued in August 1963, actually. I can’t prove what I’m going to say, but I feel this record was pressed toward the end 1964, by mistake or for unknown purposes.


Anybody will to add/ change something?
See you in Zurich,
Luca

Quote
1963luca0

2. based on a clipping of the time
I consider the content of this clipping (taken from a music mag unknown to me) unreliable, but still very interesting. In particular the journalist states that demonstration copies were pressed and distributed. This point is very weak. Generally speaking, the reason why demonstration copies of poor selling singles are much easier to find than commercial copies is that DECCA Records used to press a high number of demonstration copies, not minding how relevant or potentially succefull that record was. In other words, for minor singles there are more demo copies than the commercial ones circulating. Coming at ‘Poison Ivy’, no demonstration copies are known. On top of that, the short article reports that ‘one or two early copies had reached the shops’.
It’s not believable, definitely. Selected shops in England, i.e. those whose sale reports were used to compile the charts, received tens of copies per each new title, actually. If ‘Poison Ivy’ had reached the shops, a minimum of few tens of copies would have been sold, not one or two. Again, advertisements on magazines had to be planned in advance, in order to have the new single promoted the same day it was out and no trade alerts are known for ‘Poison Ivy’, as far as I know. All in all, I believe the journalist wrote the article unaware he was manipulated by Andrew Loog Oldham.

I have a few clippings that mention the "Poison Ivy" single.
This one is from Pop Weekly, September 14, 1963 and is a review so the author must have had a vinyl copy in order to have heard it before publication date.



This one, also from Pop Weekly dated October 5 1963 says that DJ copies had been pressed and "one or two early copies that had reached the shops"!



This is from the UK Teenbeat magazine , a monthly publication which I have as dated as October, 1963. To the best of my research, this would have been the first edition of Teenbeat, which, as is usual with monthly titles, would have been in the shops at the beginning of September. This leads me to think that it might actually be from the November edition as Mick talks about the ongoing tour with the Everlry Brothers which started at the end of September and went on until the beginning of November.



I don't have the pleasure of owning this disc but all of the images I have seen show it with a solid centre rather than the usual four-prong centre which all Decca stock singles had.
To my knowledge, solid-label Decca records were first-run pressings intended for promotional use only.
There's a good discussion about this record here: [www.45cat.com]




Edit: "Fortune Teller" image added.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-19 14:09 by Deltics.

Great finds Deltics...I note that when Mick says 'the group' doesn't like playing the same songs every night, I guess they're attitude on that has 'evolved' over time.

Thanks, Deltic.
I'll be back on this topic in while. Bye, Luca

Re the 'Pop Weekly article.
Some hilarious statements:
-'famous feature film Director Georgio G'
-'the group will play five-year dead end kids in a 60 minute film'
-'they are skedded (?) to sing'

Sounds like a bit of Andrew Oldham PR (fantasy).

Quote
jlowe
Re the 'Pop Weekly article.
Some hilarious statements:
-'famous feature film Director Georgio G'
-'the group will play five-year dead end kids in a 60 minute film'
-'they are skedded (?) to sing'

Sounds like a bit of Andrew Oldham PR (fantasy).

[www.thefreedictionary.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Regarding the DECCA logo on 40 Licks:
The DECCA logo was also found on the ROLLED GOLD+ release in 2007, together with ABKCO's own logo, so my guess is that Decca still has some kind of involvement.

The GRRR...!!! compilation is also a joint effort, so 40 Licks is not the only example of ABKCO / Stones working together.

The band could also use studio outtakes from 1969-1970 for the Exile Deluxe edition, though they were recorded under the ABKCO contract. The band also gave the green light for ABKCO to release the Ya-Ya's Deluxe, which included previously unreleased material. The IORR magazine from 2009 has an interview with Jody Klein who states that ABKCO / Rolling Stones coorporates a lot more than people think. Also, the EXHIBITIONISM in London included A LOT of ABKCO copyrighted material, though still a RS creation.

Quote
Blueranger
Regarding the DECCA logo on 40 Licks:
The DECCA logo was also found on the ROLLED GOLD+ release in 2007, together with ABKCO's own logo, so my guess is that Decca still has some kind of involvement.

The GRRR...!!! compilation is also a joint effort, so 40 Licks is not the only example of ABKCO / Stones working together.

The band could also use studio outtakes from 1969-1970 for the Exile Deluxe edition, though they were recorded under the ABKCO contract. The band also gave the green light for ABKCO to release the Ya-Ya's Deluxe, which included previously unreleased material. The IORR magazine from 2009 has an interview with Jody Klein who states that ABKCO / Rolling Stones coorporates a lot more than people think. Also, the EXHIBITIONISM in London included A LOT of ABKCO copyrighted material, though still a RS creation.

Yes, thanks.
By the way, in the 'list' of 'thanks' at the UK Exhibition, ABKCO was misspelt....
ABKO (or ABCO) I think! Either poor quality control check or an in-joke perhaps.

Did GRRR !!! mention DECCA in its credits by the way?

Quote
jlowe

Did GRRR !!! mention DECCA in its credits by the way?

No, ABKCO, Promotone, Polydor and Universal are credited.




"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-18 20:45 by Deltics.

Thanks.
Maybe, that finally after all this time DECCA is now out of the picture.

Thank you very much to everybody and especially to Deltics for his articles.
Here you are what I consider a reliable history of 'Poison Ivy'.
Still, I think we're far from knowing details of how things actually went with this single...



Pop Weekly magazine seems to most informed source.
Pop Weekly, September 14, 1963
The author of this short review seems to be one of the few who’s been given the chance to listend to ‘Poison Ivy’. No problem: he listened to one of the few pressed copies. No review for ‘Fortune Teller’, instead.


Three weeks later – a long time, I’d say – Pop Weekly is back to ‘Poison Ivy’, on 5 October 1963:
Pop Weekly 5 October 1963
I consider the content of this clipping from Pop Weekly (dated October 5 1963) unreliable, but still very interesting. In particular the journalist states that demonstration copies were pressed and distributed. This point is very weak, actually. Generally speaking, the reason why demonstration copies of poor selling singles are much easier to find than commercial copies is that DECCA Records used to press a high number of demonstration copies, not minding how relevant or potentially succefull that record was. In other words, for minor singles there are more demo copies than the commercial ones circulating. Coming at ‘Poison Ivy’, no classic demonstration copies of the time (with big A on side one) are known. On top of that, the short article reports that ‘one or two early copies had reached the shops’. It’s not believable, definitely. Selected shops in England, i.e. those whose sale reports were used to compile the charts, received tens of copies per each new title, actually. If ‘Poison Ivy’ had reached the shops, a minimum of few tens of copies would have been sold, not one or two.
Again, advertisements on magazines had to be planned in advance, in order to have the new single promoted the same day it was out and no trade alerts are known for ‘Poison Ivy’, as far as I know.
All in all, I believe the journalist wrote the article unaware he was manipulated by Andrew Loog Oldham: the group hadn’t a better follow up, at the time, or – more precisely – they had no follow up at all, till ‘I Wanna Be Your Man’ was passed the them and then recorded in October, that year.
According to Bill Wyman’s ‘Stone Alone’, the band decided to recall – not switch! – the record, due to dissatisfaction with the musical content of it and this confirms what Mick Jagger said to Teenbeat for their November issue, in 1963:




MJ: We still do ‘Poison Ivy’ even tho’ it’s not gonna be our record release
Teenbeat: What happened to it?
MJ: It was supposed to be our follow-up top ‘Come On’. (...) but then ‘Come On’ kept going up and down the charts, and it never seemed to die off in sales (2), but we decided to have our version of ‘Poison Ivy’ stopped before it went out. We weren’t pleased with it.
Teenbeat: What other records do you have ‘in the can’
MJ: Oh! We’ve got about eight numbers in the can, but what they are we don’t know, not really.

In Teenbeat, the main aim of Mick Jagger is to stick to Oldham’s style in public relations statements: young, bold and different anytime, anyplace and at any cost.
Let’s see what happens if one decides to analize Teenbeat’s article:
(1) According to Nico Zentgraf website it’s not true the boys had something ‘in the can’. On the contrary, it’s true that if it wasn’t for the sessions managed by Barclay, they’d have spent all their time on stage. The only other songs they had succefully recorded were destined to ‘The Rolling Stones’ EP scheduled for Christmas 1963 and postponed to January 1964, due to the good sales of ‘I Wanna Be Your Man’
(2) To tell the truth, ‘Come On’ stayed in the charts for seven weeks and left the Top40 in July. Being ‘Poison Ivy’ scheduled for September 1963, Mick Jagger seems to bit a little unprecise, at the least.


I don’t dare to say that Mick Jagger and Bill Wyman are wrong, but there’s one point that must be underlined: both songs were not produced by Andrew Loog Oldham. As we know, on insistence by DECCA Records, both were produced by Michael Barclay for Impact Sound and - there’s no need to say - Oldham and Easton would have to pay for Barclay’s bill to release a record they could produce by themself. I’d be no surprised if Oldham convinced the band they had to re-record ‘Poison Ivy’ under his loving production, actually.
As a matter of fact, once ‘Poison Ivy’ was produced by Impact Sound the song found its own as fourth song of ‘The Rolling Stones’ even if “We don’t like singing the same kind of stuff every night” (Mick Jagger to Teenbeat)



Archivist’s Corner
Even if once thought that no finished copies existed, it's for sure that a few copies were pressed and distributed, maybe, via record club only (some say). According to the few illustrations available, the record was pressed with album small spindle-hole instead of the usual record centre. According to some sources, singles with small spindle-hole are to be considered unfinished records used to test the quality of the manufacturing.
If the records were okayed, they could become a sort of sample distributed to the press or in other selected circles and this could be the reason why the journalist of Pop Weekly was able to write his short review.

The very first single of the Rolling Stones originally issued with logos of BIEM and NCB copyright controllers is ‘Little Red Rooster’ in November 1964 (i.e. circa 14 months after the extimated date of release for ‘Poison Ivy’) . All the singles issued before do not sport logos of secondary copyright controllers on labels, just the one of the music publisher.
Still, the few known copies of F11742 present BIEM and NCB on A-side label and, maybe, on B-side too. This sounds strange to an archivist... One steady point is the RFP1963 text: this sets the date of issue of this singles before December 31 1964. The solid centre and the presence of BIEM and NCB logo raise more than one doubt about being the record actually issued in September 1963. I can’t prove what I’m going to say, but I feel this record was pressed toward the end 1964, by mistake or for unknown purposes.

(2) To tell the truth, ‘Come On’ stayed in the charts for seven weeks and left the Top 40 in July.

"Come On" was in the UK top fifty for 14 weeks from July 31st until October 30th reaching a peak of 21.


[www.officialcharts.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-09-19 14:00 by Deltics.

Thanks! The info is totally new to me and I will reconsider my work.
Thank you so much...

Here's a poster for a gig in Crewe, Cheshire on November 10, 1963 that has the comment "Hit Parade stars "Come On" & "Poison Ivy".
"I Wanna Be Your Man" was released on November 1st.



It doesn't prove anything but interesting nonetheless!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

«Hit Parade»? They were focusing on the warhorses back then already!

The very first single of the Rolling Stones originally issued with logos of BIEM and NCB copyright controllers is ‘Little Red Rooster’ in November 1964

Whilst this seems to be the case for their single releases, the first EP, released in January, 1964 also had the BIEM and NCB logos on the label.



The logos didn't appear "The Last Time", the follow up to "Rooster".
[www.45cat.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"