What Do You Think About This?

Tim Harr · Post by **Tim Harr** » 14 Jan 2003 7:03 pm

I am happy to see anything by Merle being bought and promoted.

Ron, Good call on the Billy Bob Concert. I played a show around May 00 in Indianapolis, opening for Hag. His show sounded exactly like the Billy Bob's Concert. It is one of my favorite albums.....the liner is signed by Merle, Redd, Norm, and Bonnie......

Good topic

------------------
Tim Harr - Carter D-10 8 & 9 - Troy Cook Jr Band ~ Stardust Nashville Recording Artist

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 15 Jan 2003 6:59 am

I've had the same experience.

Bought the "Hag" CD. Took it home,played it and got really ticked off. It didn't even begin to sound right !! I then got out one of the LP's with a few of the songs on it and soon realised that major differences was in play here. I took it back (as they had a "No refund" policy)and swaped it for a Ray Price thing. (Which was original)

I think that the "truth in adverstistment" clause should come into play here somehow. I,too,saw nothing stateing that this was a much later re-mix of "Hag".

Some of us,(older fans)do remember how the original songs were done,and when we pruchase a CD such as this,we expect to hear the original stuff done by the original artist AND players !! Not some remake that sounds like it came out of a back-room rip-off shop.

Expect this kind of stuff to happen more and more in the future.

Case in point.... I heard,the other day, a "wannabe" singer doing a rip on one of the the "Statlers" tunes, "Elizabeth". It hurt to hear how badly he distroyed this song. I am really ashamed (at times)to be seen in the company of a few of the NCS artist !!

Dave Birkett · Post by **Dave Birkett** » 15 Jan 2003 8:37 am

In 100 years, how will music historians know which recordings are which? In Merle's case, it may be easier as there is sometimes a 30 year gap, but some artists have recorded "their" versions of songs immediately after the "official" versions.

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 15 Jan 2003 9:45 am

At least Merle was alive when those remakes were recorded. The worst is when the labels remake them after they die, like the Hank Williams albums in the '60 with piano and strings and the Jordanaires in stereo. Or how about all the Jim Reeves and Pasty Cline duets they recorded fifteen years after they were dead.

Jason Odd · Post by **Jason Odd** » 15 Jan 2003 5:00 pm

I think Mike Johnstone summed all of this up nicely, but I just had to add my two cents.

From a retail point of view liking or dislking music is generally considered a matter of taste.
So to most retailers a matter of taste is simply not enough of a reason to exchange or refund.
I know stores that used to do this were often frequented by locals who would order a tape/CD/LP take it home, take the little sucker and return it.
Home taping makes this all less than a simpler issue, I've worked in video stores and DVD/CD places and people lie straight to your face bout stuff being unplayable or faulty as most places I've worked at don't swap stuff due to 'change of mind.'
A few rotten apples make it difficult for real consumer feedback, and chain stores aren't really set up to treat people like people anyway. I see chain stores as more like urinals or fast food in the impersonal way each customer is treated.

I realise this is little consolation for those who have bought something and then feel that they got an inferior product.

I agree that it's a worry that stuff can be re-recorded and give no warning, but considering some of the rather blunt remarks made about Hag's recuts I'm going to have no problem with this next comment.

What are you guys doing buying this stuff anyway?
Research... does that word mean anything to anyone?

A variety of artist record for a large number of labels, especially when they've been around longer than Lee Ann Rimes.
Labels have an annoying habit of taking artists for granted and dropping them when the hits are over.
Getting the rights to a lot of this stuff can be a real drag. in the past decade Haggard has had his 1960s recorings issued on Koch, Bear Family, BGO and a heap of shitty little labels, as well as a couple of different Capitol Records reissue series, most of which were done after labels like Koch, Bear Family and BGO had created a new market for them.

Artists selling stuff on the bandstand are quite unlikely to have the rights to sell their old material.
Most country artists who had hits were on major labels, if they were on an indie and had a hit, then someone like Columbia, Capitol, Decca or RCA, etc would buy out the master. Any label that's not a proper reissue label with the resources, money and contacts to get the original masters is going to have to settle with live stuff, recuts and the like. A lot of dodgy labels get the rights to a live set, then edit out the crowd, and overdub in a rather pathetic attempt to 'clean' it up.

Music is simply not like buying a product that performs a function (eg: washing machine, gun, drain cleaner, vacuum cleaner, mop, glasses, and so on), so it's up to the consumer to to invetigate, if possible do some research, be informed or even sample at a listening post if possible.

You guys have a point, but it's not quite as simple as the name or labeling, when it's a compilation. If it was, then people could come in and complain that the stereo mix, mono mix, remix, etc is nothing like the 45 they bought in 1965.

In brief I agree on principal with the point that Tom originally makes in this post, but at the same time buyer beware.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 7:41 pm

Jason -- I agree with most of what you've said. I definitely agree and I think most people would agree that, for the most part, a no-return, no-exchange policy is completely justified for a music store. One reason for this is (as you've said) it is simply too easy to make copies of recordings. If the music stores did not have such policies consumers would take advantage of it and would simply buy what they wanted to record, take it home (or even simply take it out to the car) make a copy of the recording, then return it to the store and exchange it for a different one. Bottom line -- the store would make no money.

Also, simply not liking the music after you buy it is no reason to return the CD either. Of course the store can make no guarantee that a consumer will like the music. A record producer and/or artist can make no representation of how "likable" the music is. And, as you say, people have the opportunity to check out the music before buying to see if they like it.

However, in my case, and in the cases of many of the above posters, it was a horse of a different color all together. It wasn't a case of not liking the music or wanting to record the music and not pay for it.

The issue is simply (as Jim Cohen mentioned), misrepresentation. I went into the store for the purpose of purchasing "X" and I found what appeared to be "X" and I purchased it. When I got the CD home and opened it, it turns out that it is not "X" but it is "Y."

Whoever was responsible for labeling this particular CD (and others as is evident from above posts) made a material misrepresentation of the product.

Any average, reasonable consumer would naturally assume that -- if a CD said "Joe Artist's 16 Biggest Hits" and if the songs were listed, and if no indication was given that the songs were re-recorded versions -- then the recordings on the CD would be original versions.

This is the crux of the whole matter -- that the CD packaging gave the impression that what was contained on the CD was original versions of the recordings listed.

I have been buying greatest hits albums and CD's for probably 30 years, and I've never run into this situation before. That tells me that it's a bit unusual.

I had no reason to think that I should listen to the CD before buying it -- the packaging gave the impression that what was contained on the CD was exactly what I was looking for.

By virtue of the fact that the store sold an item that was packaged in a misleading manner, that makes the store liable for the misrepresentation as well.

However, I agree with you and Michael that certain circumstances over the last several decades have made re-recording previously released songs look like a good idea for many artists.

But, if the producer of a CD doesn't even have the confidence to indicate to the consumer that the songs on a particular CD are, in fact, re-recorded versions, then what does that say about that producer?

Personally, I think it does not speak very highly of the producer or whoever is responsible for the marketing of the CD.

As you've also pointed, out (along with at least one other poster above), it looks like from now on a little research is in order before buying a CD anymore. I personally think this is a reflection on a sad state of affairs when you have to go on the internet or whereever just to make sure you're not going to get taken when you buy a CD. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 15 January 2003 at 08:40 PM.]

Tim Harr · Post by **Tim Harr** » 16 Jan 2003 5:45 am

After reading all of this post ..I am wondering this. Why do you think Merle re-recorded all of that music in the first place??

Do you think that he wanted to improve it....give it another try?? Or was it to make some more money...??

I am curious about this....

I actually own this CD in question...I was surprised it was not the original recordings as well.

Two things: I liked the earlier versions of the music tracks but enjoyed the vocal tracks a little bit more than the originals...
I guess it comes down to personal taste.

I don't remember being fooled or tricked into buying the CD though. I got it at the Army PX at Ft. Jackson, SC....it just looked like a good one to buy...

I will try to look for production dates or other indications of 'vintage' the next time I get something like that...

------------------
Tim Harr - Carter D-10 8 & 9 - Troy Cook Jr Band ~ Stardust Nashville Recording Artist

[This message was edited by Tim Harr on 16 January 2003 at 05:46 AM.]

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 16 Jan 2003 8:30 am

Tim -- I wouldn't want to speculate on the reasons for re-recording an album of old hits. However, I don't dispute any of the reasons given above by you, Jason, Michael and others.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 16 Jan 2003 8:35 am

I'm thinking that what we may be overlooking here is that these re-issues are not intended for "musicians", but are for his non-professional fans. They see them in an entirely different light than we do....and they are the buyers, not us. www.genejones.com

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 16 Jan 2003 8:50 am

Gene -- good point. As I've tried to make clear above, I don't think the MH CD in question was bad. I can see that many younger fans and/or new fans might not ever know the difference and might thoroughly enjoy the CD. There's definitely a positive side to offering re-recorded songs -- it exposes the artist to more potential fans and probably generates more sales for the artist. I just wish they would label the darned thing to prevent any confusion.

Bill Crook · Post by **Bill Crook** » 16 Jan 2003 11:59 am

Keep in mind also that there is a big difference in "Re-Issue" and a "Re-Mix" CD.

If I purchased a "re-issue"of MH,I would expect the original stuff on a CD platform. If I purchase a "re-mix",I cain't expect the thing to be other than just a ploy to deceive the public.

My daughter got me(for Christmas)a CD which I have been lookin' for a long time. She was so proud and pleased that she found it. As I opened the present, I noticed that written very small and close to the color of the overall label,was the words" Tribulte to (Artist). Now the Artist name was in BIG letters and the songs listed were some of the biggest ones. How-ever,the "wannabe" that actually did the singing,sounded like crap. I think what happened was that someone got a few tracks,cut the numbers and packaged it in a manner to trick the consummer.

I will keep the tape but feel very bad that I wont be able to enjoy it.

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 16 Jan 2003 12:29 pm

Roy Orbison recorded a greatest hits album in the 1980s so that he could own it.

I am surprised that so few of you guys prefer Merle's later recordings.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 16 Jan 2003 5:24 pm

Earnest -- My reasons for wanting the earlier recordings is not that I feel Merle was better when he was younger, or that his newer stuff is not as good. Instead, it is more of a nostalgia thing. The original recordings have a certain value to me from the standpoint of nostalgia -- that is, I want them simply by virtue of the fact that they are old and original, not necessarily because they are better.

Sort of like going out to look for a '66 Mustang 2+2 fastback. Sure, the newer Mustang GT's are pretty nice, and from a purely technical standpoint, they are far better cars than the old Mustangs. But, if somebody has just got to have a '66 Mustang, then the newer one isn't going to be a satisfactory substitution. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 16 January 2003 at 05:25 PM.]

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 17 Jan 2003 1:16 pm

I like a lot of the later Hag recordings of old tunes. Long time Hag record buyers know that on many, if not most of his albums Merle will rearrange a previous release. I always took that to mean ... here's something special for my long-time fans. His practice of doing this dates back at least to the early 80's, e.g. "Our Paths May Never Cross" on Rainbow Stew was an up tempo rearrangement of the original.

Billy Bob's takes the practice to a whole new level with all the old hits being reworked.

I know when I bought the "Down Every Road" box set, Merle did not make a dime. He'd sold the rights to that portion of his catalog for a period of time. It was my understanding that the rights reverted back to him some time later. That's got mostly original cuts, but in a couple of cases they used a never before released take.

------------------
HagFan

Dave Boothroyd · Post by **Dave Boothroyd** » 18 Jan 2003 1:30 am

Ernest has the key to a lot of this re-recording. An artist who loses a record deal with one company often loses the mechanical rights to the songs that the company released.
Re-recording produces a new copyright. I have CDs in my collection from an artist who has done this about four times.
The "Tribute to ..." albums are a ripoff and always were.
Cheers
Dave

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 18 Jan 2003 1:15 pm

So, just to clarify -- when an artist re-records a song a new copyright of that new recording springs into life. However, this new copyright is only in the recording itself, not the song. Whoever owns the copyright of the song still gets a royalty from the re-recorded song even if they don't own the copyright of the new recording

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 18 January 2003 at 01:15 PM.]