[This digest is the copyright of the Move "Useless Information" Mailing List. Re-publication or re-distribution of "Useless Information" content, in any form whatsoever, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.] USELESS INFORMATION The Move Mailing List Digest Issue #431 December 31, 2002 In this issue: * Royaltease * Much more "Flowers In The Rain" feedback * Postcard from Hell * Rock Legends Speak Highly of Another (cont.) * Roy Wood & Squeeze? (cont.) * Denny Ball website * Roy Wood on V Graham Norton ============================================================== To POST TO THE LIST: Send an e-mail to: move-list@eskimo.com Move List Info & Archives: http://www.eskimo.com/~noanswer/movelist.html TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send an e-mail to move-digest-request@eskimo.com with the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes) in the subject line ============================================================== Subject: Royaltease Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:49:38 -0800 From: "SANDIE Blickem" Rob said: >How would everyone feel if we listed "Flowers In The Rain" and "(Here We >go Round) The Lemon Tree" on all future compilations (hopefully only two >more) but crossed them through and didn't have them on the actual CD? >Basically banning the tracks from ever being put out so the Wilson >trustees are prevented from earning any further money off the band? >We would then make remastered (plus remixed) versions available for free >download from the website. >Thoughts, opinions? I'm in favour - it's time they stopped it - it shouldn't have been allowed to go on Ad Infinitum. Perhaps you might mention on the site that anyone downloading them would be making a pledge to Roy's favourite charity?! Happy New Year everyone Sandie ********** Subject: Re: Royaltease Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:26:45 -0800 From: "Andrew Footman" Thats a good idea maybe something like Birminghams Childrens Hospital or what ever Roy wants. At least he would have a say on this and i would feel a lot happier knowing it is not getting to Wilson's crooks. ********** Subject: FITR... Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:15:43 -0800 From: Carmelo Hernández As a fan of heart and mind of the Move, i think it´s a pity if any of their greatest songs were left off any compilation, specially if a new fan was to stumble upon this disc, they would be missing out of one of their best in FITR. Nobody can understand the Move´s body of art without that song. The H. W´s story is another stone in the process of making the album. If the money is taken by the trustees and donated let it be known on the track list by putting an * next to the title and put the names of the charity or charities it may be helping. ********** Subject: Re: FITR... Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:37:02 -0800 From: Richard Messum My tuppence ha'penny: If i recall correctly (a dubious suggestion at the best of times), all royalties from George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" go to ... whoever it was who wrote "He's so fine" for the Chiffons, as George was found guilty of "unconscious plagiarism." Does this mean that "My sweet lord," arguably his finest solo recording, should be left off any future GH compilations? Or is this even analogous? ********** Subject: Re: Question for new, olde, ancient Move fans Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 01:07:35 -0800 From: Zabadak (Rick) Folks, I don't understand. At this point, are we talking about a large amount of cash that will be made, & donated to the Trust? Isn't this royalty rate based on a payment contract negotiated decades ago that is perhaps minuscule? Are you implying that millions of CD's will be sold and wads of filthy lucre will be diverted? Naaaaaaah. It seems that it's a matter of principles, ones "art" Vs commerce, ones "oeuvre." I agree with the principle and omitting the tracks is the proper thing to do, vis vis righting a wrong. Certainly there are enough budget CD's out there where you can get the original versions if absolutely necessary. Speaking as a former member of the original Move fan club, here in the US, circa 1972, I appreciate the addiction of needing to have everything ever released by an artiste. Nevertheless, if Roy Wood personally feels that telling the Trust to "sod off" is the better thing to do, than I agree totally. As a 50 year old, I can die and not be wishing I had heard the remixed, remastered, octa-phonic -sound version of Flowers In The Rain or whatevah track those vampires wish to feed off. Nevertheless, if this were the "lost" version of "Brontosaurus" or the "trip-mix" version of "Omnibus" each with its 15 minute guitar outro we were discussing; all opinions are retracted and I expect to be spinning in the coffin when it gets released; 15 yrs hence. ********** Subject: Re: Comment from an Ancient Move fan Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:15:59 -0800 From: "cuselton" Zabadak900@aol.com wrote: > Folks, I don't understand. > > At this point, are we talking about a large amount of cash that will > be made, & donated to the Trust? Isn't this royalty rate based on a > payment contract negotiated decades ago that is perhaps minuscule? I originally just sent my vote on this issue off-post to Mr. Caiger without comment. Wasn't really intending to comment on this one, but oh well... ;-) I remember reading an article once that was also an interview with Roy Wood. Seems like the interview was conducted sometime in the 1990's. In the article, the author mentioned something about the amount of money generated from the royalties of "Flowers in the Rain" - royalties from which Roy never saw a penny. It came to around 200,000 pounds as I recall. As to how much of that was generated over the first 10 year period, and how much of that amount has come over the subsequent years, I can only guess. I would guess that the amounts generated over the years is similar to an declining scale type of thing - more $$$ were generated in 60s versus in the 90s. BIG GUESS ON MY PART! What I know about the music industry wouldn't fill a thimble, so please forgive any inaccurate guesses. That's why I don't usually like to comment on issues like this, 'cause I only end up displaying my ignorance. ;-) Anyway, according to the article, the amount generated over time has been far from minuscule. Those $$$ add up over time. Plus you think about how many possible cover versions there might have been had it not been for the judgment. Since cover versions also have to pay all funds to the "charity", I can only imagine that it takes away any incentive for a group to cover this song in any capacity other than a charity contribution. And how many groups would want to contribute to a charity that uses part of the money to build a statue to a former prime minister? ("Yes, by all means, let's support the "Former PM Wilson Self-Aggrandizement Charity". That sounds like a worthy cause!!!") A truly sad situation created by a promoter's unauthorized actions and an unscrupulous politic. I'm all for making it a free download on ftmusic.com and excluding it from cd releases. People will still have access to it, and that's what counts. It's not an ideal solution, but with a messy situation like this, THERE IS NO IDEAL SOLUTION. There's only the best remedy that one can devise. Making it free on ftmusic and restricting its inclusion on cd is the best remedy, considering the situation. my 2 cents... thanks! cu tornado alley, ok Move fan since age 15 - now 41. Does this qualify as Ancient? Hope so!!! Let's here it for all us old coots out there!!! ********** Subject: Re: For List Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:08:06 -0800 From: "Richard Shaw" Do the Wilson trustees give the money to worthy charities or just keep it to themselves and/or their cronies? If it's the former, then those charities would lose out, which seems a shame. If we could change things so that Roy got the money, then that would be different. ********** Subject: Re: For List Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:08:25 -0800 From: "Bill Krouwel" If extreme solutions to the FITR problem are being considered, here's my ha'penny worth: Include one or more blank postcards pre-addressed to the Wilson Trust and encourage poeple to send them off without a stamp. The resultant excess postal charges which would accrue to the Trust would more than negate their Royalties...... Perhaps a more sensible alternative would be to engage in (maybe petition-supported) dialogue with the Trust? ********** Subject: Re: Question for new Move fans... Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:10:33 -0800 From: Poisongold (MJC) While I think it's a shame it had to come to this, I do see the merit in omitting the songs from the compilation CDs. This way, there'll be room for two more royalty-paying songs. (I wonder if printing and crossing off the titles might open up some kind of legal liability if the Wilson kin notice, though. Legal advice is... er... advisable.) However, I think the actual re-releases of the first album should contain the two songs. They're part of the album, full stop. And being a dial-up dude for the foreseeable future, I agree with some of the other list members that downloads still aren't a universally effective way to make music available. As an alternative to paying the Wilson mob royalties for compilations, though, I'd suck it up. I hope this somewhat ambiguous opinion is helpful... ********** Subject: Re: For List Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:13:27 -0800 From: marmil (Marc) Rob wrote: >We have for the last two years, blocked licensing of Flowers to various >artist compilations and have received excellent support by record >companies using alternate tracks such as Grass, Fire Brigade and >Blackberry Way - Rhino's recent box set, Nuggest 2, was a good example >of this. I think that putting these songs on another CD is pretty much the same as buying a bootleg, what with no royalties and all. Just my opinion... ********** Subject: Flowers... Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:19:11 -0800 From: "Ronald Nobbs IV" As a fan of the Move for about 4 years now I would feel it to be a shame if any of there great songs were left off any compilation, especially if a new fan was to stumble upon this disc, they would be missing out of one of their best in Flowers. If the money is taken by the trustees and donated let it be known on the track list by putting an * next to the title and put the names of the charity or charities it may be helping. Ronald Nobbs IV ********** Subject: Re: For List Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:10:14 -0800 From: Bob Kelly Hi Lynn, I've been reading the debate about Flowers In the Rain and (Here We Go Round) The Lemon Tree with interest. Surely the final decision should come from Roy Wood? Couldn't he simply withdraw the tracks from licensing availability, so that if anyone wanted Move track/s for a compilation they could have anything but those two? Whatever the unfairness of the original court ruling, the song is still part of Roy's body of work and if there's a decision to effectively write it out of history, it's a decision only he could make. I suppose it would be impossible to add an amount equivalent to the royalties from those two tracks to the cost of a compilation CD and apply it to two other tracks (ie. Double royalties on those two)? That way the band would still receive the same money as if the trust were taking nothing. It could only be a small amount of money per disc so the individual punter wouldn't exactly 'suffer'. Or am I being naïve? It just seems another way of letting the fans overturn what we consider an unfair judgement... I suppose it's too expensive to consider taking the matter back to court? As far as I'm aware nothing has happened to Joe Haines, whose allusions to the matter are far more explicit than the cheeky postcard. And I don't suppose for one moment that when the judge made his original ruling he thought the song would still be paying out 35 years later! He'd have probably assumed that the record would have earned everything it was going to in a matter of months. It WAS only 1967.... ********** Subject: Re: For List Feedback Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:37:32 -0800 From: "Rob Caiger" Bob Kelly wrote: > Surely the final decision should come from Roy Wood? Couldn't he > simply withdraw the tracks from licensing availability... Roy doesn't own his Move songs. Careful negotiation with the publishers have gone on for quite a few years to (just about) get a reasonable working dialogue in place as to how best to protect The Move's long-neglected catalogue. No wonder the Wilson affair has been left alone since the roginal judgement. > ...the song is still part of Roy's body of work and if there's a > decision to effectively write it out of history, it's a decision only > he could make. You have to realise how deep the feelings of all the band members are in relation to the injustice of the original judgement. > I suppose it would be impossible to add an amount equivalent to the > royalties from those two tracks to the cost of a compilation CD and > apply it to two other tracks (ie. Double royalties on those two)? That > way the band would still receive the same money as if the trust were > taking nothing. It ceased to be about royalties due to the band a long time ago. It's about the continued injustice of the original judgement and money still going to a Trust, whatever royalty calculations are applied to make up a shortful. Someone else is getting money from anothers hard work and talent. > It could only be a small amount of money per disc so the individual > punter wouldn't exactly 'suffer'. Or am I being naïve? It just seems > another way of letting the fans overturn what we consider an unfair > judgement... Doesn't matter - it's still money going to someone else. Dialogue in the past has been attempted yet the money is still being paid away with no sign of that ever being changed. So lets now think of the publicity generated if the banning of the tracks was to be implemented... > I suppose it's too expensive to consider taking the matter back to > court? Yes - very. > As far as I'm aware nothing has happened to Joe Haines, whose > allusions to the matter are far more explicit than the cheeky postcard. Except that his book has not appeared - and doesn't look likely to. I wonder why... Anyway, don't lose sight of the original point. The Move were found guilty on something they knew nothing about. The allegations were made by Secunda as an admittedly clever publicity stunt. But his bluff was soon called. The members of The Move aren't interested in proving or disproving the allegations. They were not part of it originally. After the story came out and Secunda apologised to the band for not telling them what he'd done, the publicity machine swung into action and the band were swept along. If they'd been allowed independent legal advice at the time, they would have been told to stay away from the whole matter and deny all knowledge. Any lawyer would have seen the five "unsophisticated" young lads (three of whom were minors and shouldn't have been on trial) would be used by Secunda as scapegoats. Easier said then done when your every move is being watched by MI5 and the full force of the Establishment is bearing down on you. Scapegoats is what they became in the end and saved Secunda a lot of money had he been hauled into the dock on his own. Strangely enough, what band today wouldn't kill for that level of worldwide publicity? Could have been Tony Secunda's greatest triumph had he decided to fight the case... ********** Subject: Move Money Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:09:33 -0800 From: "Tim Emerich" i dont know exactly what is going on here. something about Lemon Tree, Flowers in the Rain and a new comp? my question is, do either of these songs have tentative names on the masters? *anywhere*? tape boxes, paper, verbal spoutings... literary quote??? you know, a totally different song title that could be used in a would be new compilation that would seem suiting to an alternate take. perhaps even as 'alternate' as the Xanadu track on Flashback or the Laredo Tornado bit on Eldorado. a thought... Tim Emerich Merced California ********** Subject: Re: Question for new Move fans... Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:36:55 -0800 From: Mike Griffiths Lynn Hoskins wrote: >Banning "Flowers in the Rain" and "(Here We Go Round) The Lemon Tree" >from future Move compilations would be a very anarchist, and a very >"Move" thing to do. I tossed around the idea of just leaving the >titles off the CD, which would be the quiet, subtle approach. Nah. >I'd actually like to see a continuation of the Tony Secunda way of >doing things. Not only would it make a very firm statement, but it >would be one heck of a publicity stunt. I'm not a new fan and I've got the tracks the two tacks a few times over. I sympathize with Greg Weatherby's point of view - Flowers In The Rain is a great track (not so crazy about ...Lemon Tree), but I have to go with the political stick in the eye approach. As long as The Move have been consulted and are for it. After all, it's their career that will be affected by this. Scratch them out and leave them off! ********** Subject: Re: Question for new Move fans Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:15:51 -0800 From: "Andrew Footman" An alternative solution would be to make a free promotion CD. This could have a cover showing headlines from a newspaper of the period and a short bio on the subject. It could also contain info on all the remasters to come out and maybe a few short exerts of a few gems. This could then also be mailed to the press i bet that would make the newspapers! It may well promote the new remasters too. All everyone would need to do is pay P&P or it could be sent with the orders of the 'Best of the move' marked free promotion copy not for resale. If free surely there can be no way the trust can get any money. PS. If they can still demand money this way still do a promo CD and cross out the two songs and say the reason you had to do this. Then put on some short gems and the info about the remasters which will come out and still mail it to the press. Oh and still include a bio on how unfair this is. ********** Subject: Postcard from Hell Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:27:23 -0800 From: Gmcorie how d, the wilson postcard has a lot of MOVE history. i have never seen it. is there anyway it can be posted on the list? louisiana george ********** Subject: Re: Postcard from Hell Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:16:16 -0800 From: "Greg Weatherby" I know I have a pic of this thing around somewhere. If I find it (no promises), I will post it up for all to see. Believe me, by today's standards, it's quite tame. If anyone would like to see some of the other postcards, as well as a fan club letter to me, that were put out to support the records, check out this web page. http://www.marmalade-skies.co.uk/move.htm And this from another Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich fan (I think!) >Speaking as a former member of the original Move fan club, here in >the US, circa 1972, I appreciate the addiction of needing to have >everything ever released by an artiste. Errrrm, was that Mellow that you are referring to? I assume it is. I was a member as well, though the fan club, as shown on the above web page, would certainly pre-date Mellow, and be the real "original fan club"! ********** Subject: Re: Rock Legends Speak Highly of Another Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:48:18 -0800 From: "DAVID BURLEY" Ally Gourlay said of Nazareth: >The upshot is they'll be coming into my radio show on 8th January to >talk all about the glam and prog rock days. Nazareth (Razamanaz is still on my turntable) talking about Roy etc??? We must have tapes of this, Ally! Regards David Burley ********** Subject: Re: Roy Wood & Squeeze? Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:09:17 -0800 From: "Roy Cooke" Gill wrote: >I did. And I took photos at Roy's request to use for the first Woody tour >book. And Chris Difford bought me a drink. It was at The Town & Country >club in London which is now called The Forum. It was the first gig after >the NEC debut... I think - it seems such a long time ago. The band went >out as The Roy Wood Band in those early days. The Big bit was added >later. My mate & list member, Mr. Roy Cooke was with me. Maybe he >remembers more. He was pissed. I wasn't. Young Gillian was right we were both at the gigs (I was lucky enough to know the guy who owned the forum and got a few of us in free for both nights) he also gave me a fee tab at the bar which added to the jollyness. Seriously it was a great first gig Roy did KMGB for the first time and it was a blistering rendition he also did 2 encores which were electric age and down to zero, having dug out a tape of the gig (shhh) I also should add that they then played 123 as part of the set. He was so good on the first night that he completely blew Squeeze of the stage (they were incidentally doing an acoustic set which sensibly they didn't do the second night)the only way squeeze actually got the crowd going was to incorporate a version of IWICBXE into their gig. ********** Subject: Denny Ball website Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:16:07 -0800 From: Harold Montgomery John Twigger wrote: >Denny Ball has a web site which is WWW.denny-ball.co.uk I tried this several times and I keep getting an error message, "Can't Find This Website." ********** Subject: Re: Denny Ball website Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:11:01 -0800 From: John Twigger With apologies it seems as though the Christmas pudding gremlins made an error and the website should read www.denny-ball.com. With apologies. John T. ********** Subject: Roy Wood on V Graham Norton Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 10:59:34 -0800 From: "Jim Hoban" Just been updating my ELO Network website with screen shots of Roy Wood's Army's appearances on GMTV & V Graham Norton on 24th December. Also a new soundclip uploaded. Best wishes for 2003 to all ELO & Woody fans !!!!! Jim Hoban, Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K. ELO Network - www.elonetwork.com End of Useless Information #431 ******************************* [This digest is the copyright of the Move "Useless Information" Mailing List. Re-publication or re-distribution of "Useless Information" content, in any form whatsoever, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent.]