Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Need Jaon Baez help - kind of

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Hugh

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 4:16:09 PM3/7/03
to
In searching Googles groups archives I found a few postings on the
Silent Running soundtrack albums from this group.

In particular I'm looking for information on a 1971 Silent Running
soundtrack album I've run across from MCA. This album is copyrighted a
year before the Decca release of 1972.

Any information would be appreciated.

Hugh

Michael Black

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 10:07:12 PM3/7/03
to

But if you've found those messages, what more information could you want?

The albums haven't changed, so whatever I (and others) posted back
then would be the same.

If you want more information, you need to be specific about what
you are looking for.

Michael

Hugh

unread,
Mar 7, 2003, 10:40:35 PM3/7/03
to
Perhaps I need to be a bit more detailed.

The album I have is not mentioned in the prior postings.

Is older than the mentioned Decca.

Hugh

Steven Rowe

unread,
Mar 9, 2003, 7:42:51 PM3/9/03
to
>Perhaps I need to be a bit more detailed.
>
>The album I have is not mentioned in the prior postings.
>
>Is older than the mentioned Decca.

hmm, maybe some sort of error,
didnt Decca change their name to MCA (in March 1973)? so there cant be any
MCA albums prior to that date

steven rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.

join the FelixTheCat list at www.yahoogroups.com
.

Hugh

unread,
Mar 9, 2003, 9:23:36 PM3/9/03
to
Hmmm.... So the copyright date of 1971 and the large MCA on this album
is just a fragment of my figmentation???

Hugh

Rick B.

unread,
Mar 9, 2003, 10:05:27 PM3/9/03
to
srowe...@aol.comUNSPAM (Steven Rowe) wrote in
news:20030309194251...@mb-mw.aol.com:

>>Perhaps I need to be a bit more detailed.
>>
>>The album I have is not mentioned in the prior postings.
>>
>>Is older than the mentioned Decca.
>
> hmm, maybe some sort of error,
> didnt Decca change their name to MCA (in March 1973)? so
> there cant be any
> MCA albums prior to that date

Is the MCA album a British (or other non-US) pressing? They used the
MCA label earlier in Great Britain because they did not have rights
to the Decca name there.

In any event, the movie was not released until March 1972, so unless
there was some sort of special circumstance or legal technicality the
1971 date would be incorrect.

Steven Rowe

unread,
Mar 9, 2003, 10:53:08 PM3/9/03
to
No, the 1971 date is an error

it is probably a later pressing and they put the wrong date on it....

In article <3E6BF72C...@ReallyBigCableCompany.Net>, Hugh
<Hu...@ReallyBigCableCompany.Net> writes:

>Hmmm.... So the copyright date of 1971 and the large MCA on this album
>is just a fragment of my figmentation???
>
>Hugh
>
>Steven Rowe wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps I need to be a bit more detailed.
>> >
>> >The album I have is not mentioned in the prior postings.
>> >
>> >Is older than the mentioned Decca.
>>
>> hmm, maybe some sort of error,
>> didnt Decca change their name to MCA (in March 1973)? so there cant be
>any
>> MCA albums prior to that date
>>

Hugh

unread,
Mar 10, 2003, 12:45:58 AM3/10/03
to
Internet Movie Data Base has the copyright for the movie as 1971.

It was released in 1972.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0067756

The MCA album has 1971 on the label as a copyright.

The Decca has 1972.

Time warp???

Hugh

Hugh

unread,
Mar 10, 2003, 12:54:05 AM3/10/03
to
They must have marked the master the same way. It's embossed in the
vinyl center ring as well as printed on the record label and the jacket.

Quite odd to be a "mistake".

Hugh

Steven Rowe

unread,
Mar 10, 2003, 6:56:58 AM3/10/03
to
In article <3E6C2882...@ReallyBigCableCompany.Net>, Hugh
<Hu...@ReallyBigCableCompany.Net> writes:

>hey must have marked the master the same way. It's embossed in the
>vinyl center ring as well as printed on the record label and the jacket.
>
>Quite odd to be a "mistake".

so is the only explanation that you will except is that they decided to put out
a rare special edition two years before the company changed their name?
rare because they had a special desire to confuse record collectors who 30
years later will wonder MCA announced their first USA album would come out in
March 1973???.....

later pressings of anything (LPs, CDs, books) put the original copyright
date -- it's not the same as the pressing date at all.....not all of them put
the date of pressing on it.

on the other hand, if you insist on believing that you have an LP that came
out before the company actuallly existed -- it's no skin off my nose....
just be aware that if you try to sell it, you'll probably get the same
explanation again that MCA started in 1973, so your pressing is at least 1973-
if not later!

Steven Rowe (exiting this thread)

Hugh

unread,
Mar 10, 2003, 2:29:49 PM3/10/03
to
Know what Steve I have no reason to scam anyone and your outright
insinuation is a true insult!

I have confirmation from industry sources that the date on the MCA album
is correct.

So exit the thread and stuff it up your ass!!!!

Hugh

Jinxblues

unread,
Mar 13, 2003, 1:14:11 AM3/13/03
to
<<
I have confirmation from industry sources that the date on the MCA album
is correct.

So exit the thread and stuff it up your ass!!!! >>

Well, now, there's a Kumbaya love fest for you . . .


Michael Black

unread,
Mar 13, 2003, 10:47:09 AM3/13/03
to

Ah, but in this case it doesn't quite count, since the album in question
is hardly a folk album. Indeed, it's not even a Joan Baez album except
by stretching a definition. It's a soundtrack album, of mostly instrumental
music, that happens to have two tracks where Joan sings.

I liked the movie, liked those two songs, which is why I bought the album
years ago. I sure didn't buy it for completing my Joan Baez collection.

Michael

0 new messages