Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:10 PM

Thanks for that link Ralphie, another highlight from Saturday night.

Best regards,

Dave

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:25 PM

Peter Bellamy wasn't joking when he sold his own dubbed merchandise. Far from it. He was acting 'illegally', yes, but this was because he didn't own the rights to some of his own material which people wanted but which Mr Bulmer refused to release or sell back. So Peter created a cottage industry and sold cassettes at gigs.

Some of this, such as extracts from the Trailer LP Tell It Like It Was, Green Linnet stuff and outtakes from Both Sides Then and Fair Annie have appeared on the Free Reed retrospective Wake The Vaulted Echoes. But almost 16 years after his untimely death, some of his work still remains unavailable.

If you ask me (no-one did), we owe it to his memory, and that of Lal Waterson and of Tony Rose (Pete was a guest artist on his Young Hunting) to continue the struggle for simple justice.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:29 PM

Lost Album? £35 to £55 so what this then Bright Phoebus

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralph Jordan
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:44 PM

Mr Tyke.
It's what it says it is.
It's a CD-R of Bright Phoebus being sold from an obscure country, which will benefit the participating artists....NOT ONE JOT!
And your point is??? (Please be precise as to your moral standpoint)
Sleep well.
Ralph Jordan (Full Name, as always)
PS...Wow, 2 copies available, might help towards Mr Bs Milk bill for the next day or so!!

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:48 PM

Ah, yes Mr Tyke/Clarke.
I think it's already been established very clearly way above that there are places where you can get this item, a CD-R sold at CD prices:

Firstly, at that South American river place, ever so ethical.
Secondly, at a US online site unconcerned with morality
Thirdly, at CM's own site (when it works)
Fourthly, through some grubby little merchant on eBay, and
Fifthly, at certain retailers where a ritual smashing demonstation can be arranged.

But maybe people prefer to trade second-hand among themselves at the prices you quote and keep their hands clean. Or better still, await the product's availability in a guise that benefits the artists, not just your not-so-sainted anti-hero.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:48 PM

Folkie dave.
Twasn't me who put up the Muddy Water link...wouldn't even know how!!
Someone else hijacked me. Ah well. Glad you enjoyed it.
Ralphie

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,buspassed
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:56 PM

The £35 -£55 obviously [to some!] refers to pristine vinyl copies, the likes of which Bulmer holds 100's, well according to him.

And the band played 'Believe It If You Like'

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 14 May 07 - 05:53 PM

Precise me tell? the truth or is Dave Bullmer responsible for the earths Magnetic core that make all recorded music with the exception of film sound track deteriorate.

Fancy someone is hijacking your thread. So it's not you that's put up so much drivel made veiled threats. So you did not write
" Hello George.
How can you justify Mr Bulmer denying the world of such treasures?
Ralp Jordan"

Is this an argument about money or the chance of listening to some wonderful music?
So you buy a mint copy of the original recording what are you going to do play it once whilst recording it to CDR on your computer. Or are you going to put it on your turntable and play it till it wears out.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Surreysinger
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:22 PM

Tyke - your first sentence scarcely seems to be English, and as far as I can see doesn't make any sense ... as to the rest, having read this thread, and contributed once or twice to it, I would hardly say that Ralph (or most of the other contributors who have supported his comments, or other similar ones) is/are talking drivel - nor has he or anybody else at any point that one can see made "veiled threats" - what threats could anyone issue in these circumstances??

As to the final two sentences ... I don't think this is an argument, more statements of people's feelings and thoughts - an argument has to be two sided, and one of the protagonists is conspicuously missing from view. The concernsas far as I can see relate to the non-availability to the general public of a vast and precious catalogue of work, and to the denial of any current benefit to the artists concerned in the production of that work.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:22 PM

Ah yes countess richard or may we call you Dick for short.so you wrote.
"Ah, yes Mr Tyke/Clarke.
I think it's already been established very clearly way above that there are places where you can get this item, a CD-R sold at CD prices:

Firstly, at that South American river place, ever so ethical.
Secondly, at a US online site unconcerned with morality
Thirdly, at CM's own site (when it works)
Fourthly, through some grubby little merchant on eBay, and
Fifthly, at certain retailers where a ritual smashing demonstation can be arranged.

But maybe people prefer to trade second-hand among themselves at the prices you quote and keep their hands clean. Or better still, await the product's availability in a guise that benefits the artists, not just your not-so-sainted anti-hero."

So when you click on the link Bright Pheobus did you not notice the UK Shipping.

"Fifthly, at certain retailers where a ritual smashing demonstation can be arranged.I hope Folkie Dave who is at Shepley Spring Festival this coming weeked dosent have any Artist smashing up his second hand vinal in protest". Mind you they are so delicate just a scrach or two would. Unless of corse he is donating some of his profits to the Artists.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:40 PM

I assume that Countess Richard's "Secondly, at a US online site unconcerned with morality" refers to CAMSCO Music. If you want to snipe, at least have the courtesy of spelling the name right.
    I also assume that the good Countess is willing to explain what's immoral about my retailing CDs that are commercially available. Or is it just easier to take unjustified pot-shots at people who are simply trying to make some fine music available to people who love it.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:49 PM

Mr Polytunnel, I didn't spell the name of your online retail outfit at all. I assumed readers would be aware of it and what it does.
What's 'immoral' about retailing CDs that are commercially available? Normally nothing.
What you are doing, however, is flogging CD-Rs comprising intellectual property for which artists are deprived of benefit.
Though not illegal, this is immoral, unethical and very, very deplorable.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:52 PM

Surrey singer, yes quite right my Dyslexia Rules. My apologies for having this disability I'm so very sorry for upsetting you command of the English language. Yes I'm from a different country, Yorkshire it's in the North one knows.

I have asked about ones price of Eggs but one seems to think that ones Eggs from the south are worth more than ones Eggs in the North. Where Dave Bullmer has defiantly copy written ones chickens so you won't give them a Buck, buck, buck, buck in.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Surreysinger
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:05 PM

If you actually have got dyslexia, then can't see that you need to apologise for it... other things in your posting which have absolutely NOTHING to do with dyslexic problems probably do require apologies to other people, and not me.

Anybody have the foggiest idea what that second paragraph is supposed to mean?? Although I rather suspect that "one"** may find its not worth a fig anyway... never mind eggs/chickens or whatever
** does he/she really think that everybody south of the Thames talks like that ??? Strangely deluded......

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:11 PM

The price I quoted was for a mint version of the original vinyl - based on two things.

1. The price I last sold a copy for.

2. The current price on GEMM - www.gemm.com

If you want to purchase a CD-R of the original at an inflated price from someone that is your privilege.

I do not include Dick Greenhaus in this since as far as I know he pays artists the royalties due to them and makes strenuous efforts to do so.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Phoebus
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:12 PM

And he accuses RALPH of talking drivel??

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:14 PM

countess richard you wrote,

"So long as I was aware that mechanical royalties were being paid because the production company was MCPS-registered and that all notes and packaging was properly and professionally produced, yes of course I would, regardless of who puts them out.

Once I had nearly all them them on vinyl but sold them to Collets in 1979 because I could find no-one to store them for me when I was leaving to live in Germany. Of all the silly things I've ever done, that tops the list."

Did you keep any copies that you had dubbed on to cassette tapes?

Did you contact all the artistes and pay them additional royalties out of the profits?

I bet you had signed copies didn't you?
Don't answer just come out with more drivel and twaddle!

I bet Dave Bullmer sells an extra record every time you advertise his catalogue.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 May 07 - 07:19 PM

The words hole and digging come to mind....

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:54 PM

Firstly Dick G...

I fully realise your attempts at trying to recompense artists whenever you can. (I seem to remember someone earlier said that they would be bumping into Mike Waterson soon, so expect a demand for a fistful of dollars...Only Joking!)
You have always dealt courteously and correctly with the UK distributors that I know of.
But, as you must surely appreciate, this whole sorry tale is not really about hard cash.
Feelings are running very high over here in the UK. As the years go by, more of the artists are falling by the wayside, not knowing if their work will ever be heard of again.
If Mr Bulmer had a grand plan for hiding all this material away, Fine!
But, for the life of me why just hoard them??

Conspiracy theorists tell me that it is because the original tapes are in such a sorry state that they are now unplayable. I have no idea if this is true, but, it's certainly possible, and would explain Daves reticence in discussing the whole situation.

George/Tyke
Sigh!
I am not threatening anyone, just asking difficult questions.
And after all these years, still not getting any answers.

Ok OK. lets call a halt to all this.
If indeed the tapes have deteriated, then all is not lost. (after all back in the 70's I stupidly stored some tapes, luckily not vital, in a damp cellar...silly boy!)

I'm sure I could contact the right people with the right technology to restore as many as possible, before it is too late.

Far from losing face, Dave B would be thanked for having kept all this stuff all this time.

I must state that I have no financial interest in any of these shenanigans. But, as someone who always kept safety copies of most of my sessions for the BBC before I left, I am still getting calls from producers who have mislaid (!) their Master tapes.

If Dave has a master plan.   Fine!
If not, the vagaries of time, damp, temperature and the Earths magnetic field, etc will do untold damage to whatever is left.

Surely now is the time to safeguard the remains?
And if any of the recordings are subsequently released, I'm sure deals could be done. The annoying thing is that Dave won't talk to anyone, and hides behind a certain lawyer (No, Not naming him, too dangerous).

While this situation continues, threads like this will continue to pop up from time to time. C'est La Vie.

Ralph Jordan

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:14 AM

Oh and Mr Clarke.

All this talk about Home Taping is the reddest of herrings.
The record industry long ago gave up the fight to stop individuals copying LPs onto cassette. As any legislation would be completely unenforceable.

In the modern Digital world, it's even weirder..and lawyers are still scratching their heads about it.
After all, copying to cassette always had some audio degradation, but, nowadays, It's not copying, it's cloning. (Digi-wise)

The Herring bit is that the market we are are talking about is so small, and the profit margins so tiny, that your arguement is specious.

It just really saddens me that an artist of the stature of Peter Bellamy was forced to bootleg his own recordings because a few people wanted them, and he was being denied access to the original LPs.
And that Tony Rose had to re record his favourite songs before his untimely death.
And that various artists had to re record Bright Phoebus a year or so ago, just to allow people to hear the brilliance of Mike and Lals writings.
And that the Jones family had to go down the road of releasing, private recordings just to make ends meet.

Do I need to go on? Haven't even mentioned Pat Cooksey yet!!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This is not about money, it's about decency.

Come on Dave, I know you are reading this.

DO THE DEAL

Regards Ralph Jordan.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:22 AM

Tyke.
I Quote

"Did you contact all the artistes and pay them additional royalties out of the profits?"

Mmm interesting. Apart from the fact that the phrase "additional royalties" hardly seems to be relevant, as no original royalties have ever been paid by the owner of the catalogue!!!!
An example.
If I bought a fancy mug from a bespoke potter, and subsequently sold it on to a friend, would I have to pass on 10% to the original potter?

Don't think so. Said potter would already have had his money, some of which would be his profit. If his mug, subsequently came up for auction and made £1000, would he be entitled to 10%??
No. But if I were said potter, I'd get potting pronto!!

My last CD is now out of print. (Not enough interest to do another re-pressing)
But if anyone I know that had bought a copy wishes to copy it for a friend then I have no problem, as it is unavailable otherwise.

But, this fictitious friend is not purporting to be a distributor, and does not own the rights to said recording. Just doing a favour for a mate.

A very different scenario to the one being discussed here.
Hope that clears up that point.

Ralph

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:07 AM

Tykeperson/George

Your latest assertion is spectacular only in its lack of logic. It is doubly specious to raise the question of 'additional royalties' due on payment for items from the Leader/Trailer catalogue which came from Bill Leader's stock several years before your mate Mr Gollum . . . er . . . Bulmer acquired it.

I left my collection of vinyl, books, magazines and memorabilia with Hans Fried at Collets and he paid me a year or so later. It was mine to sell on, though money was not the issue. It was more a case of leaving them in safe hands and making them available for others. And this is precisely what DB is preventing. He's hanging on to stuff that artists want out there and people need to hear. Just because he can. I've no idea why, but can he stop it please?

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Dai Jeffries
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:12 AM

This discussion seems to be going in ever-decreasing circles with the majority of contributors holding roughly the same point of view. It's sad but true: you can always tell a Yorkshireman - you just can't tell him very much.
Perhaps someone should invite Dave Bulmer himself to join in?

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:23 AM

Dai.
Careful now boyo!! (best not offend the good people of Yorkshire)
Seriously, would love Mr B to join in, (with anyone) but my breath is hardly bated.
And, I doubt that he would appear without his faithful legal Rottweiler by his side anyway.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:36 AM

did not one of his faithful legal rottweillers do a spell in prison recently,.
I maybe mistaken but I believe,This same rottweiler was also struck off by the legal society.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:30 AM

Dear Ralph,
I was hoping that you would have realized that this is not the place to demand answers from anyone. I'm not surprised that Dave Bullmer is not contributing it concerns legal issues. Why not talk to Dave about it personally I'm sure then you would have an insight towards his reasons.

You worked or work for the BBC what do you think of the corporations attitude to "Folk" I don't want you to answer that. I don't want you to blot your copybook with the BBC, as it's my belief that you were one of a minority who supported "Folk". The lost Album beeb thing sounds like just the hook, a way to sell the programme, to the BBC who now do little enough for "Folk Music". We do know that it's not lost at all.

Now Folkie Dave has told us where to price up our record collections thanks Dave. Great business move that letting people know in advance how much profit you may make on once you sell their old LP's.

Just in case you missed it click on this link http://www.gemm.com/

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:45 AM

Surreysinger I was being sarcastic I'm not really sorry. I plain and simple you have made no comment about other contributors Typo's, as they seemed to take your point of view.


An argument is to deferent points of view this argument has Dave Bullmer being blamed for everything that wrong with the world.

Oh and I am Dyslexic so keep having a go if you wish but it isn't the answer to the arguments. It's just your way of trying to shut me up with Bully Boy smart RRst tactics. Grow up slurryslinger!

So sorry for any smelling mistakes not.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Surreysinger
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:56 AM

Tyke - I think I probably HAD got the gist of your tack on this, as your sarcasm is less than thinly veiled. I can't see anything new, or original in any way in what you have to say - no further comment.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:57 AM

Now Folkie Dave has told us where to price up our record collections thanks Dave. Great business move that letting people know in advance how much profit you may make on once you sell their old LP's.

Just in case you missed it click on this link http://www.gemm.com/

Tyke - ~I am convinced you are losing it here. I do not operate on GEMM so it does not apply to me. And it is a bit patronising to assume because you were not aware of GEMM that others interested in S/H records weren't either. I only posted it for people to refer to as far as the Bright Phoebus record was concerned.

However for anyone using GEMM to "See how much profit there is in selling their old LP's" as TYKE puts it - here are some guidance notes:

generally speaking the LP's have to be in mint or near mint condition and the covers in very good (or better) condition. If the vinyl has anything other than tiny scratches and not many of those - basically you can forget it, the LP is worthless.

the prices you see on the screen are retail prices and you will be offered between 30% and 40% of those prices when you sell to the dealer.

another way is to sell your old collection via ebay. This has disadvantages which are that you have to post and package the material, you have to make sure the customer pays you, and it takes a modicum of skill and time to write a good advert and take a good picture. The profit margin can be higher but the work you put in is harder.

So there you have it. I never knew you were so interested Tyke.

I wrote similar but far more detailed guide to selling s/h folk books, about a year ago.

But come and see me at Shepley Folk Festival where I have a stall and I can go through everything with you there.

You worked or work for the BBC what do you think of the corporations attitude to "Folk" I don't want you to answer that.

Do us all a favour Tyke. Please don't write any more sentences like that. Speaking for myself I find it confusing, just as I was looking forward to reading Ralph's answer, you change your mind and tell us you don't want to hear it. I am sure - open and honest as he is - Ralph would tell you his opinion.

Sorry for the thread drift.

Do the deal Dave.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:11 PM

smart RRst

Like it.
Who can I try it out on in a text?

As for the BBC's attitude to music generally, it's hard-edged narrow on the outside but ever so woolly in the middle.

This is how it goes: It begins (they think) with 'posh mainstream' classical on R3 but annoys the 'posh mainstream' punters by dumping in 'minority' listening which they think is 'common'. It ends with 'not really cutting edge but they think it is' 6 Music. 'F*lk' music is scattered about between R3 ('minority' as mentioned), R2 (Krusby/Lakeperson/SoH or whoever Smoothops thinks is the latest 'flavour), and R4 (often a useful - if not too accurate- identifier in documentaries and drama).

To struggle quite easily onto topic, the programme Bright Phoebus specifically was a classic example of how R4 uses music with All Around My Hat played at the first mention of Martin Carthy in Steeleye Span, even though he had not a lot to do with it. In other words, the BBC (as a corporate body, not just a few individuals) doesn't understand it, or even like it but they'll use it for the 'follow-through, grab the audience share and keep it', accountancy-based agenda.

This is not, to me, what public service broadcasting should be. Nor is CMD/MBM or whatever Mr Bulmer is calling his empire today the right way to deal with a national cultural treasure. Of course, the BBC won't fire me for saying this as they already have. Mr Bulmer's first reaction may be to rant and snarl at me from his bunker but if he just thinks about it, he'll realise I'm right. How to be instantly popular, all-round good guy (well almost), and EVERYBODY wins: just think, Dave. Do the deal.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:18 PM

Hi everybody peeps.
Fear not my people. (How bombastic is that!!)
All will become clear......
Mr Tyke.
I retired from the BBc last December, and am now able to keep my own opinion re my relationship with the Beeb.
Your point is????
Is my opinion relevant?
Is any of this germaine to the subject in hand?
Discuss.
Ralph

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Surreysinger
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:33 PM

"Like it.
Who can I try it out on in a text?"
Well not me for starters, as I've had it used in this place :-)

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Surreysinger
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:43 PM

"Fear not my people. (How bombastic is that!!)"
"Bombastic" = high-sounding, inflated...

So I reckon, pretty much so????

To quote (and I wish I knew exactly what I was quoting, or even indeed, why) "There is nothing to fear except fear itself"

As to whether any of "it" is germaine to the matter in hand, since "germaine" = origin or beginning, I would definitely suspect not!

What have you been drinking Ralphie??? (:-)

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:57 PM

Ahem.

You (or somebody) was supposed to agree that my analysis of the BBC's attitude to music was borne out exactly in the programme Bright Phoebus, and was thus germaine as it brought us nicely back on topic.

I shall ask them in the pub how smart RRst and/or bombastic this theory is.

G'day all.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:19 PM

Oh For Gawds sake.
Don't you recognise a joke when you see one coming?
Meanwhile, back to the subjeect!

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:11 PM

Honestly talk privately to Dave, Ralph, this is not the place for anyone to get anywhere with Dave Bullmer. Oh and I don't disagree with you once you have sold something that's it. If it goes up or down in value it's your profit or loss. As you said dubbing your LP's making your own compilations everyone has done it was red herring and just my way of telling people that the pot is calling the kettle black. Well everyone's done it, as we all know do we not.

Folkiedave well I did mean it when I said thank you for telling me about that website. I did and do realize that it would be quite easy to inflate prices just by offering LP's at inflated prices whilst selling them for less to the gullible else ware. Things are only worth what people will pay for them and you did point that out a different way true but that's the fact.

My thank you was because I checked the price of one of my LP's The Hermit, Mountain Ash Band. I bought it as it was launched in the Queens Hall, Ilkley. (You have done the sound there for a concert Ralph a long time ago but you have.) The reason I looked was because one of the Artists asked me about ten years ago if I still had my copy. When I said yes she said oh we haven't this dealer came to the door and offered us £20 each for them! Three months went by and I ran into Linda again "Have you still got your copy of The Hermit"? Say's Lynda "he's now offering £40". My reply was the same as it was three months later when The Hermit Album was spotted at a record fair priced at £300. That reply was well I'm still not selling it because it's a reminder of lot's of friends and the good times that we had.

Am I someone that hoards things? I don't think so it's just that some things mean more to people than others or they would not have sold what they now wish they had. Mind you I have got two copies so I could sell that one and buy a record deck so I can play all my other Treasured Albums.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:37 PM

George/Tyke
I understand.
I'm not offended by your postings.
Yes, I seem to remember doing a gig in Ilkley.
Lovely town.
Look after yourself.
Kind regards Ralphie

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Tyke
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:55 PM

Now you have retired Ralph I hope you get back to or rather have time to make more of your own music.
Cheers George

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:23 AM

Thanks George for being civilised!!
Yes, I am working on new projects, gigging etc.
Your point re the album that has rocketed in value is interesting (Wish I could say the same for my copies of the first CROWS LP!!)

But, that is just our LPs we are talking about, and in which we were involved in the production of.

So my feelings for mine, and yours for yours are very personal. Fair enough.

As I said days ago, I'm in the lucky position to have bought the rights/mastertapes/multitracks of the original recordings, in a very civilised manner from Roger Holt (MD of the now defunct Dingles label).

I cannot be sure, but I think he was making similar offers to the other artists on the label (Bonnie, can you confirm this??)

He could eaily have hung on to them, after all, he had invested lots of money in the original production of said records, but he didn't.

I, and the rest of the original band are now completely free to re-issue that LP in whatever way we like. (It's on my list of things to do!!) If we did, and it became a huge success, selling shedloads (a boy can dream) would I have to give Roger Holt a share in the profits? Legally no, but, morally, I would talk to him, and if the cash were there, I would probably cut him in in some way, as a thank you for paying for the original recording, and for looking after the tapes for all those years.
It would be done over a cup of tea, and everybody would be happy (hopefully!)

You suggest that I talk to Mr B privately, well I haven't tried I admit, mainly because I don't have the funds to purchase such a collection, and also I'm rather wary of locking horns with his legal (struck off) solicitor. I'd lose....No Doubt. Apparently. he's not averse to legal action (allegedly)

I hope that someday in the future, a company, bigger than Topic, Free Reed, Fellside, No Masters, Veteran whoever, Could make him an offer that he would accept.

Over to you Dave, How much do you want??

Name your price, and we will see if we can match it.
Going back to the original point. While you are hanging on to these recordings, people are dying.

An aside here, a year or so ago, Sid Long (Notts Alliance) sadly died. After the funeral, there was a concert for him, which I was asked to do PA for. As usual, I put a DAT M/C on the desk and recorded it. I'm not sure how many copies of the subsequent CD were sold, but, I was very pleased to have done such a thing in Sids memory. All profits went to charity.
The Folk scene is very small, not a lot of money in it, never was, never will be.
If Dave Bulmer wants to keep all this material for himself....Fine

But, it's very sad for everyone else.

Really Kind Regards

Ralphie

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST, Topsie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:30 PM

Well, both the Amazon CDs are gone, and another just sold on eBay for £36, which shows what a bit of publicity can do.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:41 PM

Hi Topsie
Better get Radio 4 to do a Doc about me then LOL !!
Ralph

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:39 AM

one good thing Dave Bulmer did, was to publish,2 0R WAS IT THREEvolumes of Irish tunes.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: nickp
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:37 AM

It was 3 volumes and I still have 2 - not that I play Irish music... and not that I can read music either! Nick

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:43 AM

So if he was to release all [or some of] the items he has hoarded,the folkworld would have a much higher opinion of him,come on Dave.,the Grim Reaper comes for us all,you might die tomorrow, next week or the month after.what use will all these recordings be then.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 18 May 07 - 06:41 PM

It's not about releasing the recordings.
It's about who owns the publishing rights.
Think about Paul McCartney-Michael Jackson. (Beatles, Northern Songs)
Who owns the publishing on the Leader Archive??
Discuss.
Ralph

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 May 07 - 07:18 PM

Ralphie-
"Who owns the publishing on the Leader Archive??" Seems to me that that's a matter of contract law. And, since nobody seems to know exactly what was on the contracts, and precisely who bought what, this forum doesn't seem a likely place to resolve any issues.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,dontwannapostmyrealnametonight
Date: 18 May 07 - 11:51 PM

for what its worth................

I never heard of this LP until
I chanced upon the Radio 4 program last Sat afternoon,
just as I was getting ready to go out;
therefore, could only listen to the first 5 mins or so..

But I was intregued enough to search for a CD.

It was me that bought one off Amazon earlier this week !!!

It was delivered today.


So for the sake of accurate fact & info..

The CD I purchased is NOT a CDR.

It is [99.9999etc% as far as I can be certain] a factory pressed CD


Just thought this objective info should be stated here
for whatever any of you mates what to make of it.


LEADER RECORDS 1972/2000

LESCD2076

C.M. Distribution,.. etc


[CM Distribution address & phone no etc, printed on CD artwork,
but I guesss it probably best not to reprint it here..
also the CD seller contact info easily found at Amazon,
so I'm also refraining from including that here]

Not had time to listen to it yet,
but sampling the first few bars of each track;
the sound quality seems as adequately "HiFi" enough
as many other obscure 60's & 70's 'collectors' reissues.

It cost approx 15 quid..
about 3 times more than I prefere to normally pay for CD's
off ebay or in High St sales,
but as it is obviously such a limited release,
I thought I'd treat myself to what for me
is a previously unknown folk rock milestone recording.


I can't be drawn into the 'moral' issues regarding this CD
as I was completely unaware of any rancour surrounding it
until I first read this thread a couple days ago
[after I ordered it off Amazon].
Since then I've researched/googled;
and am now more fully aware of this tragic hopeless saga.

Tuesday I tried to listen to this program on BBC.com play-again,
but was surprised and annoyed to find it had already been replaced
by the Robin Gibb episode "Sing Slowly Sisters"
[btw.. took less than 20 mins to google mp3 download of that entire 'lost' album !!!???]


So, at risk of rockin the boat even further..

did anyone record the "Bright Phoebus" program..

..and any chance of an mp3 of it being uploaded to rapidshare or somewhere..

I suggest the present circumstances would justify it being kept available in the public domain for a short while longer
for any of us who missed it
and are eager to learn more of this despairing 'profit versus folk culture' mess

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 19 May 07 - 01:15 AM

Dick Hi!

Mmmm Publishing rights....Nest of Worms, Can of Vipers!!
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
It's not about ownership of the physical product (ie, Tapes/Vinyl/Stuff)
It's all about the ownership of the publishing. Hence my mention of the Jackson/McCartney stuff. Whoever has those particular rights, has, very much the upper hand. I think it would be the dream of every artist (particularly in the Folk world, where money is at a premium!!) to actually own their own publishing rights. (Thus becoming masters of their own destinies).
Hence, the reason why I keep this subject alive. And will continue to do so!.

Which brings me on to GUEST with the very long name above!!

Glad that your little dip into Radio 4 catching the BP prog, prompted to you buying the CD. Glad you did, because it (Bright Phoebus) is really rather good.
I'm sure that everyone would be happy that you went out of your way to track it down. Enjoy. Nobody is going to take out a contract on you!!!

It's just a shame that all this legal shenanigans has deprived more people from accessing a lot of wonderful music. (See extensive list a couple of pages back).

Memo to Pat Cooksey, if he sees this. How is your case re "The Sick Note" going???

On a point of tecchie stuff, the "Listen Again" server at the Beeb isn't that huge, so, obviously, various progs have to be dumped from time to time to make way for more. Lifes a bummer, but Hey, the service didn't even exist until a few years ago!!

As regards the BP prog, a friend of mine kindly recorded it (Yes Yes, highly illegal I know!)
for me last week, but sadly onto cassette..........!

My last cassette m/c died late last year!
Ho Hum.

As usual, Regards to all
Ralphie

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: GUEST,Useless Friend
Date: 19 May 07 - 03:07 AM

Had it not been for loud whinges about plummeting bitrates I'd just have captured the replayer audio stream of Lost Albums and burned a CD. Seem to remember being asked for tape cos it would sound better . . .

Gone to find a lead to connect tape player to CPU and may be some time.

Yours blunderingly

MD Illegal Inefficient Audio Transfer Operations

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus/Watersons/Bulmer
From: Jos
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:55 AM

To the Guest with the very long name - I bought the other CD on Amazon. It seemed to be the only practical way to get to hear the rest of the album. However, there are some faults on it and I am wondering if they are just on my copy, or maybe they are scratches on the vinyl it was copied from. If you PM me when you have listened to it I won't tell everyone who you are, honest. Or you could just post a report on the thread.