I think. Dcba has hit it right. Good thinking.

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
His Majesty
1969 is the starting point. No one has yet proven it isn't from 1969.

I have musically been studying Brian for about 30 years. It is absolutely not him playing piano on this RT.

The piano has various signatures that Nicky often played. Similar with Charlie in relation to 1968/69.

That's being dogmatic, but I guess it can happen if you study the same thing over and over for 30 years. When you hear The Who's "Lets See Action" for the first time, that would be an instance where you can tell it's Nicky in a split second. How about you focus on the drums and Micks pronunciation instead.

You don't need 30 years of Stones listening to be able to tell it's Nicky playing that piano. His viruoso style is all over it - the resemblance to everything he did with the Stones in 67-74 is uncanny. It's okay to think it's Brian, but to state that as fact is ignorant.

I was on the side of those who think RT is from 66 but since all the posted material stems from 68 or 69 (apart from the fast G.shelter) logically RT should be too.

Now let's argue about WH!
It's a moot point but is it from early 1970 or late 1969?


It certainly postdates the WH II (rec. Dec. 1969 at Olympic Studio) that accidentally appeared on the 1st pressing of the "Hot Rocks" album. Does it stem from the same session? I think so.
Obviously the band tried to add a bit of grandeur and poignancy to the raw WH track they got at Muscle shoals early Dec. 1969. Hence this "strings and glass harmonica" overdub which might be the 1st attemmpt at fleshing out the song.

Then early 70 they tried another way and went for the "pedal steel" option (which is well-known to us collectors). Since it didn't work any better than the rather lame "strings and glass harmonica" arrangement they chose to stop working with outside contributors and rely on their own strenghts ---> they came up with the album arrangement.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
His Majesty
1969 is the starting point. No one has yet proven it isn't from 1969.

I have musically been studying Brian for about 30 years. It is absolutely not him playing piano on this RT.

The piano has various signatures that Nicky often played. Similar with Charlie in relation to 1968/69.

That's being dogmatic, but I guess it can happen if you study the same thing over and over for 30 years. When you hear The Who's "Lets See Action" for the first time, that would be an instance where you can tell it's Nicky in a split second. How about you focus on the drums and Micks pronunciation instead.

The Stones (or any other band) couldn't mic their drums that way in 1966, with a stereo panning and that full sound. And listen to the drum rolls, and compare them with Charlie's playing on the studio track. Then put on BB and/or LIB.

The track has all the soundmarks of a Jimmy Miller recording at Olympics studio's in late 1968 or early 1969.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Nikkei

Quote
His Majesty
1969 is the starting point. No one has yet proven it isn't from 1969.

I have musically been studying Brian for about 30 years. It is absolutely not him playing piano on this RT.

The piano has various signatures that Nicky often played. Similar with Charlie in relation to 1968/69.

That's being dogmatic, but I guess it can happen if you study the same thing over and over for 30 years. When you hear The Who's "Lets See Action" for the first time, that would be an instance where you can tell it's Nicky in a split second. How about you focus on the drums and Micks pronunciation instead.

The Stones (or any other band) couldn't mic their drums that way in 1966, with a stereo panning and that full sound. And listen to the drum rolls, and compare them with Charlie's playing on the studio track. Then put on BB and/or LIB.

The track has all the soundmarks of a Jimmy Miller recording at Olympics studio's in late 1968 or early 1969.

Mathijs

Yep + Keith's acoustic playing style a la 1968/69.

Quote
dcba
I was on the side of those who think RT is from 66 but since all the posted material stems from 68 or 69 (apart from the fast G.shelter) logically RT should be too.

Now let's argue about WH!
It's a moot point but is it from early 1970 or late 1969?


It certainly postdates the WH II (rec. Dec. 1969 at Olympic Studio) that accidentally appeared on the 1st pressing of the "Hot Rocks" album. Does it stem from the same session? I think so.
Obviously the band tried to add a bit of grandeur and poignancy to the raw WH track they got at Muscle shoals early Dec. 1969. Hence this "strings and glass harmonica" overdub which might be the 1st attemmpt at fleshing out the song.

Then early 70 they tried another way and went for the "pedal steel" option (which is well-known to us collectors). Since it didn't work any better than the rather lame "strings and glass harmonica" arrangement they chose to stop working with outside contributors and rely on their own strenghts ---> they came up with the album arrangement.

WH is the original 1969 recording, sans the overdubs, with added strings from 1970.

Quote
dcba

One possibility : if ABKCO admit some of these tracks are not from 69 but 68 or 66 don't they logically lose the right to extend copyright protection on them?

most likely you are right!
Has anyone the guts to test this explanation by trying to sell this version of Ruby Tuesday – just to see what ABKCO is able to do, i.e. if they are able to proof that the song has not been recorded before 1969?

Quote
slewan

Quote
dcba

One possibility : if ABKCO admit some of these tracks are not from 69 but 68 or 66 don't they logically lose the right to extend copyright protection on them?

most likely you are right!

Ah I would have loved to be a lawyer for ABKCO!!! Polyester hawaiian shirts, loud pink ties, a ring at every finger, and "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse, amigo!" as a professional motto! A dream life!

thank you so much for doing the transfer of these files, by far the best quality. Awesome share !

Quote
slewan
most likely you are right!
Has anyone the guts to test this explanation by trying to sell this version of Ruby Tuesday – just to see what ABKCO is able to do, i.e. if they are able to proof that the song has not been recorded before 1969?

The Stones should publish the whole lot of them.
"Publishing" them in this manner on YouTube I don't believe would hold up.

"This is a classic example of modern technology differing from the constructs of original legislation," says music attorney Jason Boyarski, a partner at Boyarski Fritz. "So you have you have legislation that's written at a certain period of time that's not really contemplating releases that can be done like this."

Boyarski, who notes he is not an expert in EU copyright law specifically, adds that the YouTube dump appears to have been "done purposefully," and that the episode should become an interesting test case for how far the term “lawfully communicated to the public” can be stretched.
[www.billboard.com]

Here comes the rest (Part 3 ) of the alternates studio tracks.

69RSTRAX
Remastered - tone removed, level adjustment.
Studio Alternates (6 tracks)

- Brown Sugar (alternate Hot Rocks version)
- Wild Horses (alternate Hot Rocks version)
- Gimme Shelter (alternate version)
- Gimme Shelter (Keith on lead vocal)
- Honky Tonk Women (alternate lyric version)
- You Got The Silver (1969 Mick Jagger on lead vocal)

[we.tl]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-05 23:44 by axl79.

Can anyone tell me what these recordings Copyright status is in the countries OUTSIDE of the EU ?

Quote
axl79
Her comes the rest (Part 3 ) of the alternates studio tracks.

[we.tl]

You really boosted the levels, didn't you?

Generally agreeing with the conventional wisdom here.
-- It's a tragedy a proper music history hasn't been released. There could be multiple albums in vaults.
-- Time is running out. Twenty years from now there won't be the market. Will people like me be buying music in our 80s?
-- I could see the Stones and music done this way (in a studio, jamming, trial and error) make a comeback. Maybe in a couple of generations.
-- I can imagine the bitterness and rancor Mick & Keith (and Charlie? and Bill? Do they have a say?) have as a result of their classic work being stolen from them. I hope there are laws in place today that prevent this from happening.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
slewan
most likely you are right!
Has anyone the guts to test this explanation by trying to sell this version of Ruby Tuesday – just to see what ABKCO is able to do, i.e. if they are able to proof that the song has not been recorded before 1969?

The Stones should publish the whole lot of them.
"Publishing" them in this manner on YouTube I don't believe would hold up.

"This is a classic example of modern technology differing from the constructs of original legislation," says music attorney Jason Boyarski, a partner at Boyarski Fritz. "So you have you have legislation that's written at a certain period of time that's not really contemplating releases that can be done like this."

Boyarski, who notes he is not an expert in EU copyright law specifically, adds that the YouTube dump appears to have been "done purposefully," and that the episode should become an interesting test case for how far the term “lawfully communicated to the public” can be stretched.
[www.billboard.com]

Well, it's interesting to read that a music attorney shares my scepticism about copyright extension projects like this ABKCO move that I already expressed in the Hendrix thread about the Royal Albert Hall concert movie one-night screening some months ago -

[iorr.org]

- a scepticism that is also reflected in the recent Guardian-article about ABKCO's 1969 tracks "release" as an attempt to secure a copyright extension for this material.

As I have already mentioned in the Hendrix thread, the respective EU directive demands a "lawful communication to the public" with the requirement that the performance or the fixation of the performance must be available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, what in my humble opinion is hardly the case here.

First, it would not surprise me if a court would dismiss making the material available for less than 24 hours on a video platform in subpar lossy quality and by purposedly adding beeps and other distracting noises as not a "serious attempt to release the material" to the general public in tems of the EU law.

Secondly, a "lawful release" also requires the written agreement of the actual artists concerned - The Rolling Stones. While I have my doubts that the band was actually involved at all with this "release", at court ABKCO would actually have to prove it.

Thirdly, concerning live shows ABKCO can only copyright their own recordings of concerts, not the concerts themselves, and that excludes recordings from third parties like audience recordings from bootleggers - which they indeed heavily used for this "release" (apart from the MSG soundboard recordings, of course). But even for these MSG soundboards they would need the written consent of the artists involved, The Rolling Stones, to constitute a "lawful release". Without such an agreement, even the MSG soundboards would receive no copyright extension because then they're basically unauthorized by the performing artists and therefore not "lawfully released".

Fourthly, at this time (December 2019) ABKCO could only "rescue" true 1969 material from falling into the public domain. If it turns out that some material was actually recorded prior to 1969, this material would be in the public domain already and nothing could change that.

All in all, in my opinion this whole exercise smells a bit fishy and I'm pretty sure that ABKCO is fully aware of that and that in case of a possible court ruling, they would encounter dangerous waters.

Quote
dcba

Quote
axl79
Her comes the rest (Part 3 ) of the alternates studio tracks.

[we.tl]

You really boosted the levels, didn't you?

Yes, I did.
Perhaps too much
But I check that there isn't any clipping ..

<Secondly, a "lawful release" also requires the written agreement of the actual artists concerned - The Rolling Stones. While I have my doubts that the band was actually involved at all with this "release", at court ABKCO would actually have to prove it>

Didn't one of the articles state that the tracks were released on the Stones's Youtube-channel as well?

Will be interesting to see how ABKCO deal with CS Blues/Schoolboy Blues track twelve months from now. One view is that it has already been officially released, others not sure. Also there could be other takes of the track lying around.
The saga continues! I'm sure Mick will have a smile on his face.. thinking....50 years on....LOL

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
dcba

Quote
His Majesty
1969 is the starting point. No one has yet proven it isn't from 1969.

ABKCO have tried to sell us a 1969 "shelter" that was recorded 9 years later... It took the most perspicacious IORR members (not me btw...) about 10 minutes to find the correct attribution for this track.

Yes, but I am talking about this new Ruby Tuesday.

It actually took me the first 10-15 seconds of hearing it.
The keyboards/mix are dead giveaways.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Didn't one of the articles state that the tracks were released on the Stones's Youtube-channel as well?

Could be that one of the articles stated that, but was it actually the case? I did not notice it, because by then I was quite busy downloading all the stuff from ABKCO's channel.

Quote
jlowe
Will be interesting to see how ABKCO deal with CS Blues/Schoolboy Blues track twelve months from now. One view is that it has already been officially released, others not sure. Also there could be other takes of the track lying around.
The saga continues! I'm sure Mick will have a smile on his face.. thinking....50 years on....LOL

CS Blues is actually an unreleased composition, and though not the recording itself, but the songwriters (copy)right to allow or veto a release ends 70 years after their death. Consequently, even if the recording falls into the public domain at the end of this year, Jagger/Richards could stop a release through their songwriters copyright.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-06 02:51 by retired_dog.

Having only listened to RT, I'm amazed. Always love to hear new Nicky Hopkins' renditions. Of course it's Nicky, I have studied his playing. But I'm also confused with the rest. Jagger sounds 66-67. And also Nicky is playing backing piano, as he used to do in 67. If it is from the Jamming Edward' sessions, he sure will be playing more licks in the higher register. In 69 he was in Woodstock playing with Jefferson Airplane, and doing some West Coast touring. Maybe more close to One plus One, his compressed grand piano do sound like that. Also, the suspended chords are exactly the same he was playing in BB, just take SCB for example.

So, I go for 68.

--------------------------------------------


"I'm gonna walk... before they make me run"

--------------------------------------------

To all of you involved with efforts,information and knowledge...
Thank you very kindly

Quote
axl79

Quote
dcba

Quote
axl79
Her comes the rest (Part 3 ) of the alternates studio tracks.

[we.tl]

You really boosted the levels, didn't you?

Yes, I did.
Perhaps too much
But I check that there isn't any clipping ..

Many thanks again, axl79 !!!!

axl79, once again my regards!

jb

Quote
Nikkei


That's being dogmatic, but I guess it can happen if you study the same thing over and over for 30 years. When you hear The Who's "Lets See Action" for the first time, that would be an instance where you can tell it's Nicky in a split second. How about you focus on the drums and Micks pronunciation instead.

Already have, it's obviously not from 1966.

Quote
dcba


One possibility : if ABKCO admit some of these tracks are not from 69 but 68 or 66 don't they logically lose the right to extend copyright protection on them?

Said differently the BB material should have been put on YT in 2018 max to keep it under the legal copyright umbrella. It's 50 years not 51.

Rather than admitting they messed up and woke up too late, they found it more easy (and very Klein-like) way to tinker with the recording dates and put all the tracks online under the false "made in 69" attribution.

Let's test them by uploading some of it and challenging their copyright claim by saying they are from 1968 and there for have slipped in to public domain.

I'll report back asap.

Herr zentgraf has updated his site. And...

191231C 31st December: THE ROLLING STONES. Internet video-streams
(YouTube/Abkco Records & Films/69RSTRAX). Copyright extension uploads, incl.

- Love In Vain I (Robert Johnson) -Olympic Sound Studios, London, May 23,
1968, blusier, with washboard

- Ruby Tuesday (MJ/KR) -1968 retake, Nicky Hopkins on piano

- Stray Cat Blues I (MJ/KR) -Olympic Sound Studios, London March 1968;
instrumental

- Sympathy For The Devil II (MJ/KR) -Intertel Studios, London, December 11
1968; Rock And Roll Circus-rehearsal

(tbc soon)"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-06 14:27 by dcba.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
slewan
most likely you are right!
Has anyone the guts to test this explanation by trying to sell this version of Ruby Tuesday – just to see what ABKCO is able to do, i.e. if they are able to proof that the song has not been recorded before 1969?

The Stones should publish the whole lot of them.
"Publishing" them in this manner on YouTube I don't believe would hold up.

"This is a classic example of modern technology differing from the constructs of original legislation," says music attorney Jason Boyarski, a partner at Boyarski Fritz. "So you have you have legislation that's written at a certain period of time that's not really contemplating releases that can be done like this."

Boyarski, who notes he is not an expert in EU copyright law specifically, adds that the YouTube dump appears to have been "done purposefully," and that the episode should become an interesting test case for how far the term “lawfully communicated to the public” can be stretched.
[www.billboard.com]

Well, it's interesting to read that a music attorney shares my scepticism about copyright extension projects like this ABKCO move that I already expressed in the Hendrix thread about the Royal Albert Hall concert movie one-night screening some months ago -

[iorr.org]

- a scepticism that is also reflected in the recent Guardian-article about ABKCO's 1969 tracks "release" as an attempt to secure a copyright extension for this material.

As I have already mentioned in the Hendrix thread, the respective EU directive demands a "lawful communication to the public" with the requirement that the performance or the fixation of the performance must be available to the public by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, what in my humble opinion is hardly the case here.

First, it would not surprise me if a court would dismiss making the material available for less than 24 hours on a video platform in subpar lossy quality and by purposedly adding beeps and other distracting noises as not a "serious attempt to release the material" to the general public in tems of the EU law.

Secondly, a "lawful release" also requires the written agreement of the actual artists concerned - The Rolling Stones. While I have my doubts that the band was actually involved at all with this "release", at court ABKCO would actually have to prove it.

Thirdly, concerning live shows ABKCO can only copyright their own recordings of concerts, not the concerts themselves, and that excludes recordings from third parties like audience recordings from bootleggers - which they indeed heavily used for this "release" (apart from the MSG soundboard recordings, of course). But even for these MSG soundboards they would need the written consent of the artists involved, The Rolling Stones, to constitute a "lawful release". Without such an agreement, even the MSG soundboards would receive no copyright extension because then they're basically unauthorized by the performing artists and therefore not "lawfully released".

Fourthly, at this time (December 2019) ABKCO could only "rescue" true 1969 material from falling into the public domain. If it turns out that some material was actually recorded prior to 1969, this material would be in the public domain already and nothing could change that.

All in all, in my opinion this whole exercise smells a bit fishy and I'm pretty sure that ABKCO is fully aware of that and that in case of a possible court ruling, they would encounter dangerous waters.

On your point re "lawful communication..." I agree. ABKCO's interpretation of "communication" is in error. For anything to be communicated successfully, it requires a sender and a receiver. The sender has to inform the receiver they are going to communicate. You cannot claim "lawful communication" protection when your audience/market was not aware that they product was being made available.

Hands up if you were aware that these releases were going to be placed on YouTube in advance?

<Hands up if you were aware that these releases were going to be placed on YouTube in advance?>

Impossible, as there are tons of other outtakes they didn't "publish" from 1967 and 1968. 1969, too, for that matter.