For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
NikkeiQuote
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.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NikkeiQuote
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.
Quote
MathijsQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
NikkeiQuote
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
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.
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?
Quote
slewanQuote
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!
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?
Quote
MisterDDDDQuote
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]
Yes, I did.Quote
dcba
You really boosted the levels, didn't you?
Quote
His MajestyQuote
dcbaQuote
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.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Didn't one of the articles state that the tracks were released on the Stones's Youtube-channel as well?
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
Quote
axl79Yes, I did.Quote
dcba
You really boosted the levels, didn't you?
Perhaps too much
But I check that there isn't any clipping ..
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.
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.
Quote
retired_dogQuote
MisterDDDDQuote
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.