Has major llabel support done reggae any good?
YushDon
stories about how they've been treated once signed to a major label. many
have accused these major record labels of signing then shelving them,
effectively neutralising them.
people might point to exceptions like bob marley but he was a special case!
can u imagine someone giving you, a yute from the ghetto, a reported £5,000
in the 1960s and saying to you, "yute go mek an album..." and you actually
going out and doing that!? then coming back with an album called "catch a
fire"
how about the jimmy cliff, third world, beres hammond, shabba ranks, buju
banton, beanie man, shaggy and the catalogue of others, what stories do u
think they have got to tell?
and what about the general reggae loving public: did we feel that these
artists output were up to standard as their "pre major label signing"
releases? or did we feel as if these recordings were watered down to reach a
wider (no, i did not say whiter) market?
forget about the period in the 1980s/early 1990s when labels like sony and
their offshoot labels, seemingly signed anyone who seemed like they were a
sure thing...an experient later abandoned whtn reality, as it often does,
set it and the numbers weren't adding up...
the question i'd like to ask to you esteemed folks is this: what good has
come out of major record companies' support (or lack thereof) of or for
reggae music, past, present or tomorrow?
YushDon
rl...@bghost.net
snipped
what good has
come out of major record companies' support (or lack thereof) of or for
reggae music, past, present or tomorrow?
....none...none at all...
but worse than that it has created confusion about reggae up to this day in
the
public's mind...and that is a big part of reggae's problem today...
don't blame the public at all since the confusion still reigns today to this
very day....
---------
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"YushDon" <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d6245cf$1...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
Carol Ott
were often released purposely with poor promotion or not at all." Now I
can't comment on the "not at all" part...but as for the poor promotion, yes
indeedy. There are three established record labels (in the US) that, if I
was a reggae artist, I would want to go with: EasyStar, AO, and Nighthawk.
The others -- forget it. They offer their artists nothing in the way of
tour support (sorry, guys -- printing up some tacky posters doesn't cut it)
or promotional support of the albums (an ad in a reggae magazine??
Helloooo...reggae buyers *read*, you know -- and not just music
magazines!!!)
But when you look at the work the three labels above do for their artists --
it's amazing...and the people who run those companies are incredibly
professional and business-savvy. And -- miracle of miracles, they actually
PAY THEIR ARTISTS!!! Hmmm...I wonder if there's a connection there
</sarcasm>.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Filthy Rich" <richard...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3q45mu4n1879j2oo1...@4ax.com...
> This has been discussed a few times over the years on rmr. My own
> view, without going into detail, is that companies signed up artistes
> to stifle them and keep them quiet by tying them into long contracts.
>
> Albums recorded were often released purposely with poor promotion or
> not at all. Many were very weak due to being forced to use alien
> producers or bland watering down in futile crossover attempts.
>
> The main reason they did it was because they knew the power of the
> music is a phenomenon they cannot otherwise control. The last thing
> the big companies want is having the sales of their own artistes being
> affected by independent labels.
> Filthy Rich
> Music House
>
YushDon
should've been, even tho i've known of it for a number of years so i'm not
aware of what's gone on b4...i guess i coulda researched it but i just
posted the question without thinking...
that said, i agree with all your comment cos i've heard artists told me the
same thing. for instance, there is the case of a well known roots rock
reggae group whose biggest rivals with similar style was signed up by the
same label. the second group was subsequently quietened with a big advance.
that group didn't release another record for several years. by that time the
whirlwind that blew them into the record company's direction, had passed...
there are many such stories, in the twilight zone!
YushDon
"Filthy Rich" <richard...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3q45mu4n1879j2oo1...@4ax.com...
> This has been discussed a few times over the years on rmr. My own
> view, without going into detail, is that companies signed up artistes
> to stifle them and keep them quiet by tying them into long contracts.
>
> Albums recorded were often released purposely with poor promotion or
> not at all. Many were very weak due to being forced to use alien
> producers or bland watering down in futile crossover attempts.
>
> The main reason they did it was because they knew the power of the
> music is a phenomenon they cannot otherwise control. The last thing
> the big companies want is having the sales of their own artistes being
> affected by independent labels.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:36:44 +0100, "YushDon"
> <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Filthy Rich
> Music House
YushDon
attractive...but also very true the things you say...
very often the artists themselves are to blame for the way they are treated
by record companies because nuff of them treat their business like it's some
kind of hustle...the magic word you used in that piece is "professional"...
sadly many don't do that and see their recording as just a way of "making a
money". so they forget about the business side as long as they get paid for
the music.
i always say to anyone interested in the music that the music business is
more about the business than the music, if ur seriously into making money
and the otherway round if you care abut the artistic elements of it...
YushDon
your
"Carol Ott" <cs...@NOSPAMcsottdesign.com> wrote in message
news:S4x89.15140$LO1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
jah bill
mind that reggae would not have left the island without that major labels
support. island broke bob marley world wide and followed up by signing many
reggae artists and put out what i consider perhaps *the* international
reggae record, the harder they come soundtrack. and then there was virgin
who attempted the same thing but had much less success with the result that
many ja artists felt done over when they were not allowed to release more
records and were not supported with tours etc.
but to a big degree i have to agree that generally speaking, signing to a
true major label spells the end of a reggae artists career at least as a
reggae artist. they generally attempt to "cross over" with the inevitable
result that they alienate their reggae fans and never pick up a substantial
crossover audience. the examples are legion.
--
one love
rasta 4 I
jah bill
"Rl...@bghost.net" <rl...@bghost.net> wrote in message
news:um4j3ip...@corp.supernews.com...
jah bill
spend money to make money. and i dont think any company would buy up
artists and then stifle them just to prevent them from making records
elsewhere. that just doesnt make business sense...if they were so hot that
they would otherwise interfere with the majors sales, the majors would put
out their stuff.
if youre referring to bob marley and island records...and islands signing up
a bunch of other artists and then not releasing stuff (like the famous
upsetter story), i put that off to perrys overactive imagination. imo he was
not making good enough music for island to put out (return of the super ape
being a good example of substandard stuff). and i think the other artists
they signed but then released were just economics...they decided to put
their money behind marley for better or worse. of course it was for better
and his success in part validates their strategy imo.
it is a business after all, not a religion. or as josie wales put it: you
mus think i come here fe love.
--
one love
rasta 4 I
jah bill
"Filthy Rich" <richard...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3q45mu4n1879j2oo1...@4ax.com...
> This has been discussed a few times over the years on rmr. My own
> view, without going into detail, is that companies signed up artistes
> to stifle them and keep them quiet by tying them into long contracts.
>
> Albums recorded were often released purposely with poor promotion or
> not at all. Many were very weak due to being forced to use alien
> producers or bland watering down in futile crossover attempts.
>
> The main reason they did it was because they knew the power of the
> music is a phenomenon they cannot otherwise control. The last thing
> the big companies want is having the sales of their own artistes being
> affected by independent labels.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:36:44 +0100, "YushDon"
> <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Filthy Rich
> Music House
kd
>
> " The proponents argue that "Crossover" will make reggae bigger....'they exclaim all the majors have a Reggae artist on their roster....Billboard will soon have a reggae chart....even Mango has returned to the fold'.
> Yet while everyone has been promoting the obvious, the discussion of the downside has yet to materialize. "Crossover," loosely defined is an industry tem for shifting the sales base of black performers(in our case, reggae artists) to the larger white audience(read: mainstream), The concept has been around since the sixties. While crossover has been financialy rewarding to some performers, its overall effect on Black music is devestating.
>
> While industry insiders will defend the majors in saying that Crossover gives the artist a wider audience base, it is widel known that today's music is not as gutsy, spirited, or as tuned in to its core audience as it once was. Crossing over means compromisisng.......The critical musical diversity that gave the music its passion and essence is nowhere to be found. The argument most frequently used to support Crossover is that it makes 'dollars and cents'. But for who? And for how many? Examining the Billlboard charts for the last 30 years...a good % of artits enjoyed "natural" Crossover success i.e. they sold in both markets prior to being steered the crossover route.
>
> In the case of Reggae, Crossover has to be viewed in a different context.Despite the latest efforts by the majors, Reggae's core audience still remains college educated 'caucasians' and Carribean ethnics, many of whom are being alienated by the attempts to 'makeover' the music to satisfy te taste of Dancehall's targeted urban market. Consequently, carribean musical culture has atrophied, sacrified on the altar of the HIP-HOp rap model. The music....no longer conveys.... positive values but instead.... self destruction. Is the majors' willingness to sell destructive songs in the name of Crossover just a ploy?
>
> ....were we led to believe 'all fruits ripe?' Were we led to believe that the influx of corporate dollars would allow everyone to do a better job promoting, marketing and distributing reagge music , without tampering with the artform? I am still waiting....Lest we forget, the majors had nothing to do with rap's initial Crossover success. They only came on board when all ruits ripe.....
>
> Isn't it ironic thatReggae's biggest seller is Marley, a prime example of natural Crossover-music that makes little or no concessions to the mainstream sensibilities or political correctness? So despite what ....people.....think, it is clear that mainstream is willing to accept "real" hardcore reggae-music without spiritual surrender."
>
> I want to say 'Trainer' wrote the above editorial but I'm not sure. Regardless of my inability to give credit where full cred is due, the above words are essential to understanding why so many were disheartened by Reggae's condition in the early nineties. Also, there is insight into just how far the American music industry has fallen. Ironically, reggae's brief stint with the "majors" was so deplorable and insulting that it may have awakened those in the industry to engage in the return to cultural vibes in the latter half of the decade.
>
> Peace,
>
> Papaken
>
>
> "YushDon" <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d6245cf$1...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
YushDon
i think the music public is aware when they are being fed bullsh*t and
reggae in its truest form is a true and pure (from the heart) music form,
just as how soul, r & b, hip hop, folk and any other "roots" music is
essentially heartical. it seem to become "tainted" when individuals or
corporations decide to "market" it to the masses. generally this means
subtracting the references to rasta, religion, bible, revolutionary and anti
establishment rhetoric.
these are the very essence of true reggae which is a people's protest music
at heart.
it's fair to say that chris blackwell's (and island's) independent
involvement with reggae has been exceptional and unique. but when island got
big it's curious to recount how reggae was ethnically removed and palmed
onto a new label offshoot called Mango. further down the line when the
majors gobble up island and now island is probably more known as a rock
label than the label that bob marley's success help built!
as for virgin, there's many a people who will tell you that virgin got big
off reggae then got out when the going was good, just before the bubble
burst, leaving many an artists with tales of woe.
nuff of them put their grievences on record...
to date i cannot think of one reggae artist who can say that major label
support has benefitted their careers because most reggae artists dont
usually last on a major label past a one or two album deal.
if anyone canshed any light on that, be my guest...
YushDon
"kd" <pap...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:um6lh7n...@corp.supernews.com...
Beverly Gould Shaw
genre became their own niche, however, they remain connected. I see the same
with reggae. It has branched and evolved, yet roots still remains. Different
segments of the music add and subtract from the audience, however, in the end,
the relationship is still there. In reggae, I agree, there has always been
reggae not related to Rastafari and a tremendous amount of early reggae rooted
in Rastafari messages. They both are important and there is no need on a reggae
group to divide and conquer.
Do blues message groups refuse to recognize the hereditary nature of negro
spirituals? I don't really know the answer to that, but it reminds me of the old
adage about not knowing your future until you know your past. Reggae can and
should acknowledge the sum of all the parts that made it a whole. (IMO, of course)
rl...@bghost.net
snipped
In reggae, I agree, there has always been
reggae not related to Rastafari and a tremendous amount of early reggae
rooted
in Rastafari messages. They both are important and there is no need on a
reggae
group to divide and conquer.
...exactly...no separation, no division and for sure no divide and conquer
bizness...
=========================================================
--
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"Beverly Gould Shaw" <sis...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3D63A650...@io.com...
minidub
> off reggae then got out when the going was good, just before the bubble
> burst, leaving many an artists with tales of woe.
>
> nuff of them put their grievences on record...
>
virgin is to be pure and clean, and the label is wrongfully titled! i can't
for the life of me remember the title of it--and maybe it's on one of those
singers & players lps--but anyway, he sure nails 'em.
michele.
Werner de Bruijn
news:tJQ89.121668$me6.17090@sccrnsc01...
> > as for virgin, there's many a people who will tell you that virgin got
big
> > off reggae then got out when the going was good, just before the bubble
> > burst, leaving many an artists with tales of woe.
> >
> > nuff of them put their grievences on record...
> >
> this certainly brings a prince far i tune to mind. singing about how a
> virgin is to be pure and clean, and the label is wrongfully titled! i
can't
> for the life of me remember the title of it
it's called........ "virgin" :-)
--and maybe it's on one of those
> singers & players lps--but anyway, he sure nails 'em.
it's on the Singers & Players compilation cd "Golden Greats volume 1". In
the liner notes it says "only previously available as a 10" single released
in 81".
Werner.
--
*********************************************
"Strickly Drum an' Bass mek yu wine up yu waist!"
*********************************************
A.T.
label's prime motivation is making money. However, labels do sign up bands
to keep them away from rival labels. By signing a hot upcoming new band,
and then putting them on the back burner, they keep that band from competing
with a group that the label already owns and is putting considerable
investment into. Basically, the whole excercise is an attempt to 'protect'
their investment in the band they really want to promote. I've heard of it
happening in reggae, but it's far more preveland in music genres where
there's big money to be made (and lost). It happened to a friend of mine as
well... the story is quite disillusioning. For most big labels it seem
that, to them, musicians are much the same as what chickens are to Colonel
Saunders... vitally important, but their feelings and best interests are of
no particular interest.
Just my $0.02 worth
A.T.
"jah bill" <wj...@dgweb.com> wrote in message
news:ajvc8...@enews4.newsguy.com...
rl...@bghost.net
is Virgin ( enterprises ?) is the brainchild of richard branson...
i dunno if that virgin records was run by branson...
anyone know?
======================================
--
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"Werner de Bruijn" <wer...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:ak0luq$s2k$1...@news.tudelft.nl...
YushDon
the major record companies. first chance executives get, usually on signing
a reggae artist, they seem to want to "subtract rasta, religion, bible,
revolutionary and anti establishment rhetoric" from the music in their bid
for "crossover" success.
mento, blues, ska, rock steady, dub, reggae, dancehall (the chronological
order and evolvement of reggae music) are still very much around and
probably will always be around as long as there is a heartbeat in jamaica.
selah...
divide and rule, in any format, is not an ideology that i & i endorse. if
nothing else marcus mosiah garvey done already tell us that "unity is
strength". and from you know that u tend to look upon divide and rule
practitioners, even if they are called major label or recod companies, as
just so much unwanted space...
YushDon
"Beverly Gould Shaw" <sis...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3D63A650...@io.com...
rl...@bghost.net
leaves room for many scenarios and possibilities,
this whole ting is like the magician and the mirrors isn't it?
===============================================================
--
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"A.T." <and...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:YgR89.5030$bv5.4...@news0.telusplanet.net...
YushDon
(and branding) has changed from what it was then to the more corporate one
it is now, but it was defintely the same people behind it...
YushDon
"Rl...@bghost.net" <rl...@bghost.net> wrote in message
news:um7o7s2...@corp.supernews.com...
YushDon
that bit! but there are others too!
YushDon
"minidub" <min...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tJQ89.121668$me6.17090@sccrnsc01...
rl...@bghost.net
degree is a very
successful one to say the least...
even when used on the reggae scene, it seems to work ( unfortunately )
...its victims are lured into its trappings by many myriad ways...
babylon system is the vampire...
======================
--
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"YushDon" <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d63...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
Carol Ott
artists who sign the contracts with whatever label -- they're adults and
should have the good sense to *read* what they're signing and *understand*
what they're signing. If something isn't clear, they should *ask* an
outside party for help.
I really get ruffled when we blame only the "big bad" record labels, and
never the "poor ignorant" artist who signed the contract because all he was
hearing was "advance money"...and didn't have the sense to understand what
he was getting into. I don't deny that theivery goes on in the industry --
of course it does, as it does in every other industry. But let's be
realistic about where the blame goes....I think it should be shared most of
the time. And please don't prattle on to me about "babylon contracts" and
such... Here's a good example of what happens when you get stupid in a
business meeting:
Reggae Artist A: I don't want to sign your Babylon contract, I don't work
like that.
Record Label Guy: Well okay. Here's your $5000 advance.
Reggae Artist A (five years later to me on the phone): My royalties aren't
being paid on time. They're always late. Where's my money? I should sue.
Me: Yes, you could indeed sue your record label for breach of contract.
But guess what, idiot? You didn't SIGN the contract. There's no breach.
And frankly, if you complain, they could turn around and say they don't have
to pay you because you were too full of yourself to sign.
Reggae Artist A: Damn.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Rl...@bghost.net" <rl...@bghost.net> wrote in message
news:um7pqjp...@corp.supernews.com...
YushDon
start no artist, however bright and clever (s)he is, should ever undertake
the signing of a recording contract without the help of a specialist,
entertainment type lawyer. it might be worth mentioning that we've long
since redefined a contract thus:-
CON = a trick or ruse of some kind
TRACT = piece of paper/pamphlet.
so basically a contract is a piece of paper designed to fleece you out of
something of worth! in this case your true value! if you view all such
documents in this light you would never be taken or surprised again!
only the hustler type of artist (and you'd be surprised the big name of such
these acts) fall for badly written or almshouse type recording contracts.
YushDon
"Carol Ott" <cs...@NOSPAMcsottdesign.com> wrote in message
news:25S89.904$yd1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
YushDon
first brought my attention to the revance of the thread question. jimmy
named me around 5 or so major labels he was or had been signed to at one
time or another and he was not very impressed with how he was treated
promotion and otherwise.
i am not saying that reggae artists have not been signed by major labels!
what i am asking is what do the major labels do with those artists once
they've signed them? is it enough? does it further or hinder their careers.
my research has shown me that very often it does not further their careers
at all. but some artists can actually use the experience to further their
own self development by using the money to build their own studios.
good cases in point are junior reid, tappa zukie, third world, sugar minott,
buju banton and several others.
YushDon
"rocksteady" <rockstea...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1e59mu0418i34sovn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:46:51 -0700, "jah bill" <wj...@dgweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >well if you consider island a major label, then there is little doubt in
my
> >mind that reggae would not have left the island without that major labels
> >support. island broke bob marley world wide and followed up by signing
many
> >reggae artists and put out what i consider perhaps *the* international
> >reggae record, the harder they come soundtrack. and then there was virgin
> >who attempted the same thing but had much less success with the result
that
> >many ja artists felt done over when they were not allowed to release more
> >records and were not supported with tours etc.
> >
> >but to a big degree i have to agree that generally speaking, signing to a
> >true major label spells the end of a reggae artists career at least as a
> >reggae artist. they generally attempt to "cross over" with the inevitable
> >result that they alienate their reggae fans and never pick up a
substantial
> >crossover audience. the examples are legion.
>
> There are many other example that contradict this. Burning Spear, Joe
> Higgs, Jimmy Cliff, and Toots & the Maytals are all examples of JA
> artists that have had major label deals at one time or another. The
> promotional muscle of these labels no doubt helped to expose their
> music more widely in the US and elsewhere. This particular list of
> artists didn't seem to have suffered artistically from the major
> record deals.
>
> Al
Carol Ott
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"YushDon" <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d64...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
Sista Irie
about the reggae Grammy Awards, several of the nominated artists mentioned to me
that many artists do not want any kind of stereotypical label on the style of
their music like roots vs. dancehall, etc. Several mentioned that the labels
work very hard to keep the music categorized for business reasons, while artists
want the artistic freedom to break stereotypes with artistic freedom. Sis Irie
(back to my real email account)
Carol Ott
everything for free -- it's all about sharing the vibe, blah blah blah.
Well sorry about that, but it's not going to cut it when you're trying to
run a business. Love and vibes don't pay the bills....
People start record labels, radio stations, promotion companies, etc -- to
make money. They're not charities. The artists expect to make money -- so
where do they think the money's going to come from? The sky? Good luck
with that one...
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Sista Irie" <sis...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3D6403CB...@io.com...
rl...@bghost.net
music...
--
one, peace, roots-ee
http://reggae.thearkband.com
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_lo.asx ( windows media player )
http://radio.thearkband.com/radio_hi.asx ( windows media player )
"Carol Ott" <cs...@NOSPAMcsottdesign.com> wrote in message
news:DMT89.1733$HJ1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Carol Ott
But the fans aren't getting what they should be getting from some record
labels and promoters who don't see the need to put their artists on tour and
live up to the terms of their contracts.
Carol
www.csottdesign.com
www.csott.com
REMOVE 'NOSPAM' TO REPLY.
"Rl...@bghost.net" <rl...@bghost.net> wrote in message
news:um82gok...@corp.supernews.com...
YushDon
to reggae. similar dynamics exists in all sphere of music (and all artistic
pursuits, even!) where an artist comes to his/her craft with a pure (some
may say naive) honesty and sheer love of doing it, where the focus is more
on the art instead of on the business. you may have even heard some artists
say, "i'd do this music thing for free!"
consequently many early music artists were not so much deliberately "ripped
off" but were not informed by producers and record companies of the best way
to exploit their craft. you can see whre the possibilities for exploitation
exists...
like i've said already the music business is more about the business than
the music if you're a serious commercial artist or a record company looking
to recoup your investment. for most artists it's more about the music and
the artistic (soul) side. unfortunately, not many artists possess the skill
to accomplish both simultaneously...
YushDon
"Carol Ott" <cs...@NOSPAMcsottdesign.com> wrote in message
news:DMT89.1733$HJ1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
minidub
"Werner de Bruijn" <wer...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:ak0luq$s2k$1...@news.tudelft.nl...
> news:tJQ89.121668$me6.17090@sccrnsc01...
> > > as for virgin, there's many a people who will tell you that virgin got
> big
> > > off reggae then got out when the going was good, just before the
bubble
> > > burst, leaving many an artists with tales of woe.
> > >
> > > nuff of them put their grievences on record...
> > >
> > this certainly brings a prince far i tune to mind. singing about how a
> > virgin is to be pure and clean, and the label is wrongfully titled! i
> can't
> > for the life of me remember the title of it
>
> it's called........ "virgin" :-)
>
> --and maybe it's on one of those
> > singers & players lps--but anyway, he sure nails 'em.
>
> it's on the Singers & Players compilation cd "Golden Greats volume 1". In
> the liner notes it says "only previously available as a 10" single
released
> in 81".
thanks werner. i was pretty sure it was associated with a singers & players
work. i *know* i've got the tune somewhere, but i'd swear it isn't on the
s&p comp (golden greats) you named. that title doesn't ring a bell with me.
i know i don't have the 10"--do you know of any other lp this tune is on?
maybe it's another s&p comp with a different title, or one of his own later
releases?? oh well, thanks again.
michele.
YushDon
could have afforded to bring that big band on tour without the help of the
record company..."
although i know certain information that would shed a different light on
things, i won't comment except to say this big record company did db no
favours and i don't think db did them any favours either to be honest...
YushDon
"rocksteady" <rockstea...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:rgobmuollj3st0615...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:08:42 +0100, "YushDon"
> <yushp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >al, it was an interview i did with jimmy cliff in the lat 80s/early 90s
that
> >first brought my attention to the revance of the thread question. jimmy
> >named me around 5 or so major labels he was or had been signed to at one
> >time or another and he was not very impressed with how he was treated
> >promotion and otherwise.
>
> You can find huge numbers of artists in every genre who are unhappy
> with their treatment by the major labels, and artists often blame lack
> of sales on their record companies. I'm not defending the practices
> of the big labels (who are mostly sleazebags more or less) but wanted
> to point out the fact that at least reggae acts signed to major labels
> tended to get more press than if they weren't on those labels, and
> also you could at least find their records in the racks. You can't
> say that about many foreign releases, which are much harder to find
> for the average record buyer.
>
> >i am not saying that reggae artists have not been signed by major labels!
> >what i am asking is what do the major labels do with those artists once
> >they've signed them? is it enough? does it further or hinder their
careers.
> >my research has shown me that very often it does not further their
careers
> >at all. but some artists can actually use the experience to further their
> >own self development by using the money to build their own studios.
>
> I don't think it hinders their careers at all, although I agree it
> probably doesn't help many of them all that much, I still think there
> are a few benefits. The first reggae act I ever saw live was Dennis
> Brown touring with a full band (horns, percussion, two guitarists etc)
> to promote his album "Foul Play" which was released on A & M, who were
> also supporting his tour. There was no way DB could have afforded to
> bring that big band on tour without the help of the record company.
>
> Al
YushDon
revealed!
YushDon
"rocksteady" *snippedd*
> Yeah? So why the secrecy? Dennis certainly won't care at this
> point... Most reggae bands that play on the club level in the US
> cannot afford to bring a 7-8 piece band out. In the early days you
> did see it happen but the vocalists soon realized there was a lot more
> money to be made if you could pull it off with a four-piece backup
> band.
>
> Al
Bjahn1
order and evolvement of reggae music) >>
so dub came after rocksteady? ....... interesting
John Foster
>> it's called........ "virgin" :-)
>>
>> --and maybe it's on one of those
>> > singers & players lps--but anyway, he sure nails 'em.
>>
>> it's on the Singers & Players compilation cd "Golden Greats volume 1". In
>> the liner notes it says "only previously available as a 10" single
>released
>> in 81".
>
>thanks werner. i was pretty sure it was associated with a singers & players
>work. i *know* i've got the tune somewhere, but i'd swear it isn't on the
>s&p comp (golden greats) you named. that title doesn't ring a bell with me.
>i know i don't have the 10"--do you know of any other lp this tune is on?
Well it is on my copy of "Golden Greats Volume 1", and it's also on
"Disco Plate Collection Volume 1".
--
John
minidub
michele.
"John Foster" <this.address...@limax.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fmjtSVPi...@news.limax.co.uk...
YushDon
the raw instruments, the heart of dub.
it is significant that King Tubby et al is one of the major proponets
associated with "inventing" dub in the late '60s round about the same time
when:-
beats were slowed down in counterpoint to ska
there was very hot summer (too hot to play ska paced rhythms)
to give the musicians a chance to play their instruments.
again, take your pick as to what, which or any version you believe...
fiction and rumour is similar but a fact is a fact. but due to how reggae
music has evolved there is room to interpret things when you consider "i was
there" accounts from pioneering practitioners . perhaps you have a different
view. if so that would be interesting to hear...
YushDon
"Bjahn1" <bja...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020824112750...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Bjahn1
there" accounts from pioneering practitioners . perhaps you have a different
view. if so that would be interesting to hear...
>>
and thier accounts doesn't quite go with your timetable ....
<< again, take your pick as to what, which or any version you believe...
>>
I prefer to believe their version
<< stick dub anywhere u care to choose because before the vocals usually come
he raw instruments, the heart of dub. >>
so anything without vocals can be considerd dub, or the begining of dub?
JJerfree
Ummm....One thing people have not mentioned in the "Has major label support
done reggae well" question is that one of the huge pitfalls for reggae artists
signing tp US based labels is the fact that the artist themselves are not
really being signed. The artists are typically signed in Jamaica to a label or
a producer, and that producer is who is actually signed to the major
label...that is why so many Major label releases seem like just a compilation
of singles with some crappy filler thrown in.