Another Remake/Cover argument
larryd
Norm Katuna wrote in message <35d51b43.7026878@news>...
>
>I told Rick Schubert that I was going to do this and he groaned.
>
>As a refresher:
>
>Two school of thoughts. The original definition for a "cover" record in
the 50s
>and 60s was that it had to be timely and supposedly the "cover" record was
>released to cash in on the popularity of the first (original record)
>
>The original definition of a remake for the same above time period was a
song
>that was recorded by another artist and the second song was too late to
cash in
>on the first one's popularity. Example: Beatles did a remake of Larry
>William's "Slow Down"
>
>The new definition of "cover" by a lot of members of this group, puts
remake and
>cover as one in the same. A remake of a song from 10 years before is
called a
>"cover" by these people.
>
>The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
everyone
>should look at this.
>
Who are these "people that have changed the rules"? A careful writer should
use them just as you stated in the original definition. However a lot of
newsgroup posts are anything but careful writing, and the terms do tend to
be interchanged. "Cover" probably came into the music business by analogy
with gambling, as in "to cover a bet" or "to play a higher card than the one
previously played", since that's what a cover record is intended to do - to
make your version a bigger hit than the one already put out by the
competition.
Here's an interesting cunundrum. The Righteous Brothers remake of "Unchained
Melody" was Top 5 in 1965 on Philles 129. In 1990, following the use of
their 1965 hit in the movie "Ghost", it was re-released as Verve Forcast
871882 (with the same flip side "Hung On You") and recharted Aug. 25, 1990,
reaching #13. The Righteous Brothers also went into the studio in 1990 and
re-recorded "Unchained Melody" for Curb and that new version entered the
charts Oct. 6, 1990, and went to #19 . The original version and the remake
were on the chart at the same time, so in effect, they were covering
themselves. Yes?
As a sidebar to this story, Whitburn reports "Unchained Melody" (one of
those handful of songs where the title of the song is never mentioned in the
lyrics) as THE most charted song of the Rock Era. There have been 9 versions
so far. It charted in every decade except the 70s.
Larry Davis
Norm Katuna
I told Rick Schubert that I was going to do this and he groaned.
As a refresher:
Two school of thoughts. The original definition for a "cover" record in the 50s
and 60s was that it had to be timely and supposedly the "cover" record was
released to cash in on the popularity of the first (original record)
The original definition of a remake for the same above time period was a song
that was recorded by another artist and the second song was too late to cash in
on the first one's popularity. Example: Beatles did a remake of Larry
William's "Slow Down"
The new definition of "cover" by a lot of members of this group, puts remake and
cover as one in the same. A remake of a song from 10 years before is called a
"cover" by these people.
The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that everyone
should look at this.
Okay. Another one for me and my side, which houses the first example of what a
cover is, and says that remake and cover are two separate things.
While my monitor was down and I couldn't use my computer, I got a little more
television time in.
I happened to catch a few minutes of VH1's "Rock and Roll Jeopardy".
In essence, here was the question: Bananarama had a #1 hit with a remake of
this group's "Venus".
They could have said cover, it would have used one less letter for the question,
but they didn't. The people on the show knew the difference between a remake
and a cover. And that is, they are NOT the same.
Now, everybody else can groan :-)
**To combat unwanted autospams, I have added two x's to my e-mail
address. Please remove the xx (@xxhome.com) before responding.**
Norm Katuna
------------------
Hayden Thompson...Love my baby.....Phillips 3517
Junior Thompson...Raw deal.........Meteor 5029
Jackson Toombs....Kiss-a me quick..Excello 2083
Robert J. Boyne
>Norm Katuna
Hey Norm,
You're right, the expression "to rush out a cover version" would be
stupid if the new version was years later. It would be a remake if not
in contest with a current release.
--
Robert J. Boyne. Your North Vancouver/British Columbia Realtor, Canada. (cell. 604-644-6973)
**************************************************************************************
"You cannot hold back a good laugh
any more than you can the tide.
Both are forces of nature". (William Rotsler)
Email - rjb...@direct.ca
Home page - http://www.sutton.com/sg/rboyne/
Doug Davidsen
was originally done by someone else, and a "remake" as a new version of a
song done by the same artist that did it originally - like a lot of country
artists did (essentially "covering" themselves!).
Doug
Norm Katuna
Felt Too Good", rating it at a 76, and on 12 Aug 1998 05:30:26 GMT, in
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s, "Doug Davidsen" <dug...@worldnet.att.net>, wrote:
::: I always thought of a "cover" as a version of a song by a group/artist that
Doug:
Your version of "remake" (new version, by same artist), is called a
"re-recording".
In your example, "covering" themselves with a re-recording could only happen if
the new version was done within a few months of the original. If this
re-recording was done years later, then the artist couldn't be covering
himself/herself.
T P Uschanov
> > The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
> > everyone should look at this.
>
Perhaps there's an evil cabal at Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary
defines a cover as simply "a recording of a song previously
recorded usually by another performer". Or perhaps the folks at
M-W just try to reflect standard usage of today, as opposed to
standard usage of the fifties and sixties.
--
"I have tried too, in my time, to be a philosopher; but, I don't
know how, cheerfulness was always breaking in." --Oliver Edwards
T P Uschanov tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi +358 (0)40 584 2720
Visit my home page! http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/
Norm Katuna
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s, T P Uschanov <tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi>, wrote:
::: larryd <lar...@cport.com> wrote:
::: > > The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
::: > > everyone should look at this.
::: >
::: > Who are these "people that have changed the rules"?
:::
::: Perhaps there's an evil cabal at Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary
::: defines a cover as simply "a recording of a song previously
::: recorded usually by another performer". Or perhaps the folks at
::: M-W just try to reflect standard usage of today, as opposed to
::: standard usage of the fifties and sixties.
That's the main point. I really don't have a problem with the new usage, when
used with today's music. But this is a 60s group, and this next part goes for
the 50s group also.
When talking about a style of music, or definition of something in these two
groups, it needs to be looked at in terms of how things were back then.
"Cover" meant covering up, taking away from, rushing out to cash in on a current
record at the time.
"Remake" meant redoing an older song that was already past it's prime. Another
artist doing it, with the current musical style of the day.
If you take todays definition of these, and use them in a discussion of that
type of music in the 50s and 60s groups, you take and destroy or convolute
(twist) the standard meaning of that time period.
When discussing something from those time periods, you have to use the
terminology the way it was then or the discussions could be taken out of context
in a lot of instances.
Here's an extreme example of what I'm getting at.
Let's say this were a social 1920s group. Back in the 20s (I'm making this up)
"Hooker" meant someone that hooked rugs for a living. It didn't mean
prostitute. Like I said, this is just being made up for an example.
Okay, Hooker is now commonly used as a term for a prostitute. The term changed
over the years.
Now let's say I'm come in to this 20s group and know how the terms were back
then. I start a thread called "Jane Doe, the best hooker of the day".
Well, you are going to get people that are going to be upset, because they don't
know how that term was used back then, and they are going to assume that I'm
defaming the person, where I'm actually complimenting her.
A lot of people in the group would know the proper context of my thread for that
time period, and would not be upset.
So with that we have for this group the following:
I am assuming these examples were out around the same time frame:
Supremes covered Nella Dodds "Come See About Me"
Betty Everett (or this could have been the reverse) covered Ramona King "Shoop
shoop Song"/"It's In His Kiss"
Herman's Hermits covered (I'm not sure about the time frame here) Earl-Jean with
I'm Into Something Good"
And the Righteous Bros. Remade "Ebb Tide" and "Unchained Melody", along with
several others such as "Justine" and "Koko Joe".
So, I have no real problem with the use of "cover" as a remake for stuff done in
the 80s or 90s, but I do have a problem with it's current definition being used
in relationship to songs and instances relating to this group.
larryd
T P Uschanov wrote in message <6qsaa9$8uo$2...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>...
>larryd <lar...@cport.com> wrote:
>> > The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
>> > everyone should look at this.
>>
>> Who are these "people that have changed the rules"?
>
>Perhaps there's an evil cabal at Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary
>defines a cover as simply "a recording of a song previously
>recorded usually by another performer". Or perhaps the folks at
>M-W just try to reflect standard usage of today, as opposed to
>standard usage of the fifties and sixties.
WOW, they really did change the rules huh? I use the American Heritage
Dictionary, 1976. It gives over 40 definitions for "cover" and none of them
involve include this new meaning.
I hate it when they change the rules after the game has already begun :o)
Larry Davis
MADONNA826
recorded or not?
Bands that play only material originally recorded by other artists are often
referred to as "cover" bands; I have never heard them called "remake" bands.
My acappella group is often asked whether we perform "covers" or "originals"
referring to whether or not we write any of our material.
If we sing "In the Still of the Nite" live is it a "cover" which becomes a
remake if we record it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Dan Madonna
Bass/Baritone
Relatives By Appointment
Acappella Oldies
Home page: http://members.aol.com/madonna826/index.html
-------------------
shar...@cut#this.umcc.ais.org
>Herman's Hermits covered (I'm not sure about the time frame here) Earl-Jean with
>I'm Into Something Good"
>
One has to know the relative release dates of Earl-Jean's and HH's
record in the U.S. and the U.K. (both countries for both artists). A
couple of things that are clear. Earl-Jean's did not chart in the U.K.
and H.H's record did not chart in the U.S. until a couple of months
after Earl-Jean's fell off the chart.
I just tend to call it "HH's version" because I dpn't want to call it
a cover but the timing was very close to call it a remake.
Steve
sharknas(at)umcc(dot)ais(dot)org
Note the new addy
Marc Wielage
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:51:04 -0700, Norm Katuna wrote
(in message <35d51b43.7026878@news>):
> The new definition of "cover" by a lot of members of this group, puts
> remake and cover as one in the same. A remake of a song from 10 years
> before is called a "cover" by these people.
------------------------<snip>------------------------
Gee, not me. I've always defined a "remake" as a new version of an old song by
the original artist. For example, McCartney did his own remake of "Long &
Winding Road," which he originally performed with The Beatles. You could be a
stickler and say that technically, these are two different performers (Beatles
vs. McCartney), but to me, it's close enough for rock & roll.
My only other comment is: what the hell are you watching ROCK & ROLL JEAPORDY
for? 90% of the questions on that show only covered 1980s and 1990s groups!
Wouldn't that totally leave you in the dark? :-)
--
--MFW
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= Marc Wielage | "The computerized authority =-
-= MusicTrax, Ltd. | on rock, pop, & soul." =-
-= Chatsworth, CA | m...@musictrax.com =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John Frank
wrote:
>larryd <lar...@cport.com> wrote:
>> > The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
>> > everyone should look at this.
>>
>> Who are these "people that have changed the rules"?
>
>Perhaps there's an evil cabal at Merriam-Webster, whose dictionary
>defines a cover as simply "a recording of a song previously
>recorded usually by another performer". Or perhaps the folks at
>M-W just try to reflect standard usage of today, as opposed to
>standard usage of the fifties and sixties.
I think they're out to get Norm Katuna. (Though I agree with his
definitions, in this case.)
(To reply, remove ".out" from address.)
BigStar303
Generally, I'm all for precision (as you should know if you recall our
wonderful discussion with Mr. Bill over answer records!). The only slippery
slope I see here is basing your definitions (at least partially) on an artist's
*intent* in recording a song first recorded by someone else.
For example, you say:
>>Two school of thoughts. The original definition for a "cover" record in the
50s
and 60s was that it had to be timely and supposedly the "cover" record was
released to cash in on the popularity of the first (original record)
The original definition of a remake for the same above time period was a song
that was recorded by another artist and the second song was too late to cash in
on the first one's popularity. Example: Beatles did a remake of Larry
William's "Slow Down"<<
Sometimes, artists record other artists' songs just because they like them and
enjoy performing them --without necessarily meaning to "cash in" on their
popularity. An example, which is somewhat interesting because of the time
frame, would be The Beatles' version of The Miracles' "You Really Got a Hold On
Me." The original entered the US charts in January of 1963 (it didn't chart in
the UK). The Beatles recorded their version in July of 1963, and it was
released on "With The Beatles" in November of 1963. Admittedly, it wasn't
released as a single, but it is a fairly short time between versions.
The other problem I see, though I'm not exactly an expert on this, is this one:
from what I've always gathered, the farther back in pop history you go, the
more songs written by professional songwriters (as opposed to self-generated)
were "pitched" to artists by middlemen -- often in rough demo form.
The proliferation of versions of certain songs at the dawn of the Whitburn Top
40 era is I think at least partially attributable to this -- not to artists and
their producers hearing an already-recorded version by someone else and rushing
to "cover" it. So if we are to be accurate in cases such as these, we would
have to speak of a "simultaneous release" or some other unwieldy term, rather
than a cover.
Finally, you stated:
>>I happened to catch a few minutes of VH1's "Rock and Roll Jeopardy".
In essence, here was the question: Bananarama had a #1 hit with a remake of
this group's "Venus".
They could have said cover, it would have used one less letter for the
question,
but they didn't. The people on the show knew the difference between a remake
and a cover.<<
Please, don't bolster your case with an example like this.
The mere appearance of an answer in a "public" form of one sort or another
certainly doesn't automatically confer authority. By way of example, I once got
mightily steamed playing a game of Trivial Pursuit. The question was "What was
the first Beatles album to contain all-original songs?" I gave the correct
answer, which is (in both the U.S. and the UK) "A Hard Day's Night" -- but of
course, the Trivial Pursuit people had "Rubber Soul."
OK, technically the US "A Hard Day's Night" is a movie soundtrack album, but it
certainly was considered a part of The Beatles' US discography at that time,
and was invariably listed as such before the world settled on the UK releases
standard.
My point is that there is little guarantee that the people behind "Rock 'n'
Roll Jeopardy" know anything more about rock 'n' roll and its history than you
and I do. I seriously doubt they chose to use the term "remake" with the degree
of calculation you impute to them.
larryd
BigStar303 wrote in message
<199808150440...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Interesting post, Norm.
>
>Generally, I'm all for precision (as you should know if you recall our
>wonderful discussion with Mr. Bill over answer records!). The only slippery
>slope I see here is basing your definitions (at least partially) on an
artist's
>*intent* in recording a song first recorded by someone else.
>
>For example, you say:
>
>>>Two school of thoughts. The original definition for a "cover" record in
the
>50s
>and 60s was that it had to be timely and supposedly the "cover" record was
>released to cash in on the popularity of the first (original record)
>
support Norm's argument. In the booklet to the Les Paul & Mary Ford box set
LEGEND AND THE LEGACY, Les Paul says this to the interviewer:
"We'll be first out with "Mockin' Bird Hill". What's Patti (Page) going do?
She's got to copy it - if she doesn't she's crazy!
Sure as hell, as Patti later told me, her manager heard our version, picked
her up at the airport and rushed her into a studio, where Bill Putnam
recorded her singing "Mockin' Bird Hill". Bill also told me years later that
before the session, they'd actually bought our version and copied us!"
(laughs.)
Sorry to use an example from the 50s for this argument, but I think you'd
find anyone in the A&R end of the business could tell similar stories of mad
rushes to get their cover version out as fast as possible, not because they
loved the song, but because they were hoping to have the biggest hit version
of it.
Larry Davis
BigStar303
>>...I think you'd
find anyone in the A&R end of the business could tell similar stories of mad
rushes to get their cover version out as fast as possible, not because they
loved the song, but because they were hoping to have the biggest hit version
of it.<<
Oh, there's no doubt this is true. I was merely pointing out that the existence
of multiple versions of a song on the charts at the same time wasn't *always*
the result of an artist copying another artist's recording.
Sometimes, the song was "pitched" simultaneously to many artists at once, and
the decision to record what seemed to hold the potential of becoming a hit was
reached without regard to another, existing version.
Serumgard
personal definitions have always been:
a "cover" is a soundalike version, a faithful rendition of the "original"
(although you may never have heard the original "original"). Not necessarily a
"copy" which tries to sound exactly like a more famous version, these were very
popular in the '60s. I used to own literally dozens of copy records - there was
a label that specialized in that sort of thing, giving the groups very similar
names and everything. Can't remember the name of the label off the top of my
head, it was plain black, no decoration at all.
a "remake" is an attempt to add a personal and unique stamp on the song.
Just my 2 cents worth.
JohnS
Norm Katuna
rating it at a 81, and on 12 Sep 1998 14:24:43 GMT, in
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s, seru...@aol.com (Serumgard), wrote:
::: I missed the original post, and most of the discussion on this topic, but my
::: personal definitions have always been:
:::
::: a "cover" is a soundalike version, a faithful rendition of the "original"
::: (although you may never have heard the original "original"). Not necessarily a
::: "copy" which tries to sound exactly like a more famous version, these were very
::: popular in the '60s. I used to own literally dozens of copy records - there was
::: a label that specialized in that sort of thing, giving the groups very similar
::: names and everything. Can't remember the name of the label off the top of my
::: head, it was plain black, no decoration at all.
:::
The label you are thinking about is Tops. It was all black with silver print.
Then there was Broadway and Gilmar. All of these were budget labels that did
copying. In most cases these were eps (two songs per side) that cost 49 cents.
**To combat unwanted autospams, I have added two x's to my e-mail
address. Please remove the xx (@xxhome.com) before responding.**
Norm Katuna
------------------
Mac Wiseman ......Step it up and go.....Dot 15544
Jimmy Wolford.....My name is JImmy......4 Star 1714
Don Woody.........Not I.................Arco 4623
John Wade
>> - there was a label that specialized in that sort of thing, giving the
>> of the label off the top of my head, it was plain black, no decoration
>> at all.
Norm Katuna replied:
>The label you are thinking about is Tops. It was all black with silver print.
>Then there was Broadway and Gilmar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
He could also be thinking of the "Hit" label. I've
found more of these than any of the others. These
were not EP's, or at least I've never seen an EP from
them, but they generally had one artist (I use the term
loosely) on one side and a different artist on the other.
The label made a lot of money selling records to
people who knew the name of a song, but not the
artist, or who weren't paying close attention when
buying it. Unfortunatly, when they got home, they
knew soon enough that this wasn't what they thought
it was.
Some of the groups were The Bugs, The Chellows, The
Jalopy Five, The Gleams, and single artist names that,
on first blush, seem to ring a bell, like Joe Cash, or
Connie Dee. Of course, the names were created just
to add to the confusion of the customer.
I have to admit that in the early sixties, I was fooled
by one of these. Many people were, but only once.
In my yard sale days, if I found a stack of 60's records,
there was a good chance that one of these "Hit" records
would be in it, but hardly ever more than that. People do
learn.
This has given me an idea. I just posted photos of some of
these "copycat" labels to the "alt.binaries.rock-n-roll" group.
The one on "Hit" is "Blowin' In The Wind" by Jimmy, Wayne,
& Betty. (Two guys and a gal, like, say, Peter, Paul and Mary
perhaps?)
These are actually fun now. You haven't lived until you've
heard "She Loves You" by the Bugs, or "Shake, Rattle and
Roll" by Artie Malvin & The Brigadiers".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wade
ov...@nr.infi.net
Graeme Freeland
John, this is very interesting to me. Around 1953-54, the respected Australian HMV
(His Masters Voice) label issued a number of releases by the afore-mentioned Artie
Malvin and The Brigadiers, not necessarily together, and other artists such as Loren
Becker, Betty Harris, Davey Piper, The Light Brigade, etc. As you say two popular
songs of the day, a different artist each side. Backing sometimes credited to Enoch
Light and his Orchestra. (Light later sold many orchestral albums on the Command
label in the quadrophonic sound era.)
These records appeared on HMV for only a brief time. It was just after HMV had lost
the distribution rights to the strong US RCA Victor company and for a fairly short
time no RCA records appeared in Australia at all. Eventually a local RCA label
began. But in the interim HMV released these "covers". (I think we were supposed
to think Perry Como, Eddie Fisher, etc had quit and these other guys were the new
stars). I've often wondered where these records came from as I've never been able
to find these singers catalogued on any US label. Now I begin to understand.
John Frank
>John Wade
>ov...@nr.infi.net
Yes, this is the label I remember, I bought one of them -- once --
felt ripped off and never bought one again. I think it was
"He's a Rebel," although I can't remember the "artists"s name. And
while I'm not remembering artist's names, I can't say who but I do
remember reading about some singer who started off recording these
covers for Hit and went on to have a successful recording career.
Anyone know who that was?
John
Andrew Rogers
>[snip] while I'm not remembering artist's names, I can't say who but I do
>remember reading about some singer who started off recording these
>covers for Hit and went on to have a successful recording career.
>Anyone know who that was?
I don't know of anyone in the US who did that, but Elton John got his start
recording covers of current tunes - "Spirit In The Sky" and the like - for
the U.K. equivalent of Hit. Somebody unearthed these recently and released
fifteen or so on CD.
I remember the "Hit" label - the local W.T. Grants (long-defunct American
department store chain) used to stock them for $0.29 instead of $0.89 for
the "real" version. And earlier than that - maybe late 50s - one of my
cousins used to buy "Top Hit Tunes" EPs containg covers of six current
hits for about the price of a single 45.
Andrew
Andrew
Joe Wicks
is HIT Records.
Serumgard <seru...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809121424...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> I missed the original post, and most of the discussion on this topic, but
my
> personal definitions have always been:
>
> a "cover" is a soundalike version, a faithful rendition of the "original"
> (although you may never have heard the original "original"). Not
necessarily a
> "copy" which tries to sound exactly like a more famous version, these
were very
> popular in the '60s. I used to own literally dozens of copy records -
there was
> a label that specialized in that sort of thing, giving the groups very
similar
> names and everything. Can't remember the name of the label off the top of
my
> head, it was plain black, no decoration at all.
>
Bob Roman
> > He could also be thinking of the "Hit" label. I've
> > Some of the groups were The Bugs, The Chellows, The
> > Jalopy Five, The Gleams, and single artist names that,
> > on first blush, seem to ring a bell, like Joe Cash, or
> > Connie Dee.
The Jalopy Five was my favorite band.
I was about 3-4 years old and we had one of those cheap old 45 players
where you would slide the record into a mouth and it would start playing.
My dad went out and bought my brother and me a sackful of cheap
discard-pile 45s to listen to. Most of the records were pre-school
directed stuff on the Disneyland label, but one was the Jalopy Five on Hit
Records. They did hotrod songs. On one side of our 45 was their cover of
Brian Wilson's "Little Honda" and on the other was a song called "I've Got
a Tiger in My Tank." My brother and I listened to that record for years.
Just last year I found out that "I've Got a Tiger in My Tank" was written
by Lou Reed, when he was a struggling Brill-Building-style factory
songwriter.
Bob Roman
John Wade
I said:
>>He could also be thinking of the "Hit" label......
John Frank replied:
> I bought one of them -- once -- felt ripped off and never bought
> one again. I think it was "He's a Rebel," although I can't remember
> the "artists"s name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was by The Gleams b/w "Next Door To An Angel"
by Ward Oliver on Hit 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wade
ov...@nr.infi.net
G.T. TYSON IV
music label. Black label, silver print. I have a copy of The Chellows
"Rag Doll" (originally done by the 4 Seasons of course) right here in
front me. Of course to a kid in the 3rd grade at the time it didn't
make much difference.
Does anybody know where this "Hit" label came from? Have any of
their "artists" gone on to bigger and better things?
GTTysonIV
Tar...@skantech.com
David J. Coyle
>Brian Wilson's "Little Honda" and on the other was a song called "I've >Got a Tiger in My Tank."
WOW. Talk about a small world. One of the records that showed up when I found that $25 heap of vinyl a few weeks ago was "Glad All Over" b/w "Fun Fun Fun" by the Jalopy Five on the Hit label!
I just assumed the Jalopy Five were another faceless studio band hired to crank out soundalike versions of hit songs on a two-bit label. In fact I have several Hit records like this including "Hey Paula" by Bob and Bobbie.
So were the Jalopy Five a real band? Or am I right about the studio thing?
Dave
SteveOrdinetz
> Does anybody know where this "Hit" label came from? Have any of
>their "artists" gone on to bigger and better things?
>
>
From what I understand, most of these artists were either session
musicians or actual bands trying to make it. I've heard rumors that
several of these artists became famous later (tho not using the phony
names on the singles). Interesting thing, all or most of those 45s
were in stereo....very rare for '63/'64....heck, from that era a lot
of so-called "stereo" albums were just fake stereo! What a waste of
the extra $1!
Bob Roman
> >The Jalopy Five was my favorite band.
>
> I just assumed the Jalopy Five were another faceless studio band hired to crank out soundalike versions of hit songs on a two-bit label. In fact I have several Hit records like this including "Hey Paula" by Bob and Bobbie.
> So were the Jalopy Five a real band? Or am I right about the studio thing?
I'm sure you're right. When I said they were my fave, I meant until about
age 6, when we wore the record out. If I heard it now I'm sure I'd think
it was awful.
Bob Roman
bill melton
probably know more about the Hit Records label than anyone here would
care to know. The singer who did most of the vocal work on the male
vocals was Bobby Russell, who wrote 'Honey', and 'Little Green Apples',
and was married for a time to Vicki Lawrence. (In fact, I think he wrote
her hit, too,)
I believe Jimmy Elledge did some of the Hit covers. Even the group
leads were done by Russell usually. Bergin White arranged at least some
of them. Bill Beasley produced. I corresponded with him in those days a
couple of times. So. The Jalopy 5 was most likely Bobby Russell
overdubbed a few times with session musicians in Nashville, where they
were produced. Related labels include Spar, Country & Western Hits, and
Top Pop Hits.
Now please...no snide remarks
BustertheK
In article <18751-36...@newsd-224.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Pit...@webtv.net (bill melton) writes:
Rockabilly singer Sleepy Labeef also recorded for at least one of these
labels, under various other names.
Josh1497
the Jalopy Five were definitely a studio band, and the Hit label was based in
Nashville, TN. One famous person to come out of that studio scene was Jimmy
Buffett. Hecan be seen on the cover of two of those aforementioned albums, as
a member of the "Young Generation", if memory serves. I haave not seen any Hit
label 45's by them tho. Odd.
John Frank
melton) wrote:
>Dunno if anyone goes back this far into the discussion pages, but I
>probably know more about the Hit Records label than anyone here would
>care to know. The singer who did most of the vocal work on the male
>vocals was Bobby Russell, who wrote 'Honey', and 'Little Green Apples',
>and was married for a time to Vicki Lawrence. (In fact, I think he wrote
>her hit, too,)
>
>I believe Jimmy Elledge did some of the Hit covers. Even the group
>leads were done by Russell usually. Bergin White arranged at least some
>of them. Bill Beasley produced. I corresponded with him in those days a
>couple of times. So. The Jalopy 5 was most likely Bobby Russell
>overdubbed a few times with session musicians in Nashville, where they
>were produced. Related labels include Spar, Country & Western Hits, and
>Top Pop Hits.
>
>Now please...no snide remarks
Snide remarks!?
Of course not, since Bobby Russell was the person I had read about who
did these Hit label songs and went on to be better known in music. I
just couldn't remember who it was.
Thanks.
WILLIAM MELTON
grab it. He had a smooth, 'cool' delivery that I often enjoyed every bit
as much as the original. He also recorded original lps & singles, and
all are well worth hearing!
chazw...@gmail.com
Original. (This is the first version of a song cut to an album by any artist.) (Some exceptions exist, like "August and Everything After" by Counting Crows, which was never actually recorded on an album, but is their song none-the-less.
Live. This is when a song is sung live by the band who has the original version.
Remakes... there are three types of remakes.
Acoustic - only for electric versions.
Remix - When someone takes the song and rearranges/adds/removes parts.
Remake - When someone revises the music/lyrics, but the concept of the song remains.
Cover. This is when a band sings a song which "belongs" to another band. Cover bands do this with near exclusivity.
------------------
With these definitions, you'd never hear of a band covering one of their own songs (which I think sounds absurd), but they might remake one of their own songs.
The Bloomfield Bloviator
> I've always had the following distinct classifications for songs.
>
> Original. (This is the first version of a song cut to an album by any artist.)
released only on a single. Some of the most fanous original versions
in history were not released on albums until many years, sometimes
decades, after their initial release on a single, like this one:
http://halfhearteddude.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/arthur-crudup-thats-all-right.jpg
Dean F.
> I've always had the following distinct classifications for songs.
Why the fuck are you reviving a 14-year-old thread?!
chazw...@gmail.com
chazw...@gmail.com
Why does the thread exist in the first place? <-- answer that question, and you'll have the answer to the question you posed.
tr...@iwvisp.com
Or are the most recent posts just a cover of the original thread :)
Ray Arthur
aaliyah...@gmail.com
> Norm Katuna wrote in message <35d51b43.7026878@news>...
> >
> >I told Rick Schubert that I was going to do this and he groaned.
> >
> >As a refresher:
> >
> >Two school of thoughts. The original definition for a "cover" record in
> the 50s
> >and 60s was that it had to be timely and supposedly the "cover" record was
> >released to cash in on the popularity of the first (original record)
> >
> >The original definition of a remake for the same above time period was a
> song
> >that was recorded by another artist and the second song was too late to
> cash in
> >on the first one's popularity. Example: Beatles did a remake of Larry
> >William's "Slow Down"
> >
> >The new definition of "cover" by a lot of members of this group, puts
> remake and
> >cover as one in the same. A remake of a song from 10 years before is
> called a
> >"cover" by these people.
> >
> >The people that have changed the rules say that this is the way that
> everyone
> >should look at this.
> >
> Who are these "people that have changed the rules"? A careful writer should
> use them just as you stated in the original definition. However a lot of
> newsgroup posts are anything but careful writing, and the terms do tend to
> be interchanged. "Cover" probably came into the music business by analogy
> with gambling, as in "to cover a bet" or "to play a higher card than the one
> previously played", since that's what a cover record is intended to do - to
> make your version a bigger hit than the one already put out by the
> competition.
>
> Here's an interesting cunundrum. The Righteous Brothers remake of "Unchained
> Melody" was Top 5 in 1965 on Philles 129. In 1990, following the use of
> their 1965 hit in the movie "Ghost", it was re-released as Verve Forcast
> 871882 (with the same flip side "Hung On You") and recharted Aug. 25, 1990,
> reaching #13. The Righteous Brothers also went into the studio in 1990 and
> re-recorded "Unchained Melody" for Curb and that new version entered the
> charts Oct. 6, 1990, and went to #19 . The original version and the remake
> were on the chart at the same time, so in effect, they were covering
> themselves. Yes?
>
> As a sidebar to this story, Whitburn reports "Unchained Melody" (one of
> those handful of songs where the title of the song is never mentioned in the
> lyrics) as THE most charted song of the Rock Era. There have been 9 versions
> so far. It charted in every decade except the 70s.
>
> Larry Davis