[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 #451 March 1, 2003 In this issue: * Move "Night of Fear" Discography Question * Trevor sings the blues * Nick Pentelow info * A Woodless Move, and some thoughts on reformations * Wood-less Move (cont.) * Reformed Move without Roy? (cont.) * Wizzard to reform but Roy Woodn't ============================================================== 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: Move "Night of Fear" Discography Question Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:33:21 -0800 From: "Stephen M.H. Braitman" Hello, folks. I have two copies of the UK Deram 45, "Night of Fear" b/w "The Disturbance." Both copies are DM 109. Both copies also have, on the left side of the label, "GEMA" "BIEM" and "NCB." The latter two acronyms are in small boxes side by side, with GEMA on top of them. One copy also has the small letters "K/T" above the copyright date (1966). Are these regular UK issues? Or are they UK-made but European distributed copies? And, if so, what countries? (I suppose if I had picture sleeves for them, I wouldn't be asking these questions.) If these are "export" UK 45s, how would I tell what a regular UK issue looked like? Thanks! ********** Subject: Re: Move "Night of Fear" Discography Question Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:26:24 -0800 From: kakman1 "Stephen M.H. Braitman" writes: >Are these regular UK issues? Or are they UK-made but European >distributed copies? And, if so, what countries? (I suppose if I had >picture sleeves for them, I wouldn't be asking these questions.) I believe those were West German issues of Night Of Fear/The Disturbance 45rpm. ********** Subject: Re: Move "Night of Fear" Discography Question Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:17:30 -0800 From: "Greg Weatherby" I have one copy, the one I bought in 1967, while stationed in Germany. It is marked exactly as you have noted on your post. Mine does not have the K/T marking, however. Now, I can't remember whether I bought this in Germany or picked it up in England at the time. I know, I know, but it was a long time ago. It it, IMO, a UK copy. Most Euro singles had pic sleeves back then. This one doesn't. Nor does yours, as you mentioned. Now I also have my copy of "I Can Hear The Grass Grow", green bordered pic sleeve that is definitely German. I remember buying this one in Germany at the time. It has GEMA only on the left side, above that is a bit stating "Hergestellt Von Der Teldec Telefunken Decca Schallplatten GMBH Hamburg", also in the run out track area, it states "Manufactured in Germany". Quite a difference from the NOF 45, so I would guess (and that's all it is) is that your copies, and my copy, are standard grade UK copies. Greg how anorak was that? ********** Subject: Trevor sings the blues Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:26:49 -0800 From: Plastic Ono Dream i played the new "trevor burton" for my "blues purist" roommate this past monday. his 1st reaction..."brian...this is a step above the "bill wyman" solo stuff." i thought he'd request something else (oops, no pun intended) after 2 or 3 songs, but his comments were... "i like this guys voice...he was in the move"? "this guy's a good guitarist" "they chose some great cover songs!" "i can't believe that jam turned into "heartbreak hotel"! "this keyboard player was in "e.l.o."?" "these original songs are pretty good" "this guitar player is great! his phrasing reminds me of "clapton" at his best!" "his band is more than competent!" "this isn't "trevor bolder" from "the spiders from mars"? "when are these guys coming to new york?" "this is a great album!...can i tape this?" so there ya have it, direct from "east 3rd street" here in wonderful new york city u.s.a. as others have posted, this album is really, really nice. i'm more of a "pop" guy than a "blues" guy, but i love this album. it's great to see "trevor burton" doing this kind of music so well, & the beautiful playing of "richard tandy" is the icing on the cake. so i won over "east village danny"...however his 14 year old cat "maybelline" still prefers the "robert johnson" box set. ********** Subject: Nick Pentelow info Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:51:49 -0800 From: Lynn Hoskins I was looking up some information about Nick Pentelow (of Wizzard fame) and stumbled across this Web page: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Diner/2674/pentelow_nick_a.htm It seems to be current through 1999, so if anyone has been curious about Nick's projects, this might fill in some gaps for you. ********** Subject: A Woodless Move, and some thoughts on reformations Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:44:58 -0800 From: "dunks58" A reformed Move without Woody? Hmmmmm... Some might argue that it's as palatable an idea as Love without Arthur Lee (although some might also argue that Love without Bryan Maclean is equally unthinkable) or The Byrds without McGuinn (I know, I know). On one hand, to me at least, Woody IS the Move. Where would The Move have been without him? Who wrote the hits? In one sense, calling a reformed band "The Move" without Woody being involved is just not right. But this is the real world, after all. I don't really mind if other members of The Move decide to tour under that name -- as long as Woody doesn't mind. And Jeff? Well, he was a later (albeit hugely important) addition, so I don't think his opinion really counts. The Move were a big name long before he joined and he arguably got famous from being in The Move, not the other way round. If the fellas can still pull a crowd and put on a good show and earn a few bucks, good luck to them. Likewise ELO II. Not something I would personally go and see (I never liked Lynne's ELO anyway) and clearly Jeff doesn't mind them using the name to be able to stash a bit away for the retirement fund -- I mean, it's not like he's short of a quid --and if they want to tour, and they put on a good show, and people want to see it, well so what? Reformations can be a tricky thing. In one sense, many, many people would LOVE to see such a show, especially those who never had the chance to see (INSERT HERO/HEROINE/FAVE BAND HERE) live in their heyday. And more often than not, better technology, lighting, sound, and a couple of decades of additional experience can make it a far, far better and richer musical experience than it ever would have been in 'the good old days', when the best you had to play with was a 50-watt Vox amp, one mic on the drum kit (if you were lucky) and a PA system that would be outgunned by the average modern car stereo. I've seen this first hand with a number of Aussie bands who reformed for various purposes (including one charity show a few years back which was one of the very best concerts I've ever been to) and it can be great -- e.g. The Easybeats reunion was both a emotional thrill AND a genuinely great concert. BUT on the other hand it can be a bitter disappointment when an act you have long adored turns out to be a (or a bunch of) fat, bald, mediocre has-been(s) who is/are barely able to sing and/or play anymore. I've seen that happen too, and it ain't pretty. I guess this is one of the dilemmas we face as we baby-boomers and our baby-boomer rock/pop acts age into and beyond middle age. How do we (and especially the media) deal with what was primarily a youth phenomenon, now that we're all getting old(er)? Is it right? is it 'appropriate'? Should these 'veteran' musicians just retire? Personally, I've always been baffled by the stupid, recalcitrant and blatantly ageist attitudes displayed by many journalists when it comes to "aging" acts like The Stones and The Who. As Mick and Keith have often said, when someone like Muddy Waters or B.B. King keeps performing into their 60s and 70s, they are hailed as "legends", yet when the Stones do it, they are attacked. Why? What is it about this phenomenon that seems so threatening to a certain class of music writers? My basic problem with this attitude -- which is regularly faced by MANY Australian acts of the '60s and '70s who are still peforming -- is that it assumes, with no reason, that these people suddenly stopped being good sometime around 1977. Clearly, this is crap, as Dylan's dogged persistance and recent resurgence have demonstrated. I think it's an attitude still coloured in large measure by the lingering and largely mythical influence of British punk and in particular by the chauvinistic 'Year Zero' revisionism of the rock journalists that emerged in that era, who were intent not only on promoting the acts they favoured, but on ruthlessly excoriating the acts that preceded punk as a bunch of irrelevant,self-indulgent dinosaurs. The rather delicious irony is that those same "dinosaurs" still roam the rock world with authority, while almost all those supposedly revolutionary punk acts have faded away to become little more than footnotes in the history of popular music. Virtually none of those groups/artists still perform, and even the supposedly oh-so-crucial Sex Pistols are now arguably as fat, mendacious and anachronistic as the supposed "dinosaur" acts that they vilified in punk's fleeting heyday. The acts who emerged at that time who have endured and grown -- people like Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, etc -- were not really "punk" acts at all. It was rather heartening to follow the course of the coverage of the recent Stones tour of Australia. When it was first announced, we were bombarded with the predicatble barrage of tiresome cliches about the "aging rockers", "zimmer frame rock" etc, how unseemly it all was and why they should give up and quietly fade away. Yet by the time they actually played their first show (at the 1800-seat Enmore Theatre in Sydney, just around the corner from my house) the critics were -- of course -- gushing like Old Faithful, falling over each other to praise these "ageless" talents. And after all, does anyone even bat an eyelid when jazz or classical players keep performing into their 70s, 80s and even 90s? Would any classical critic have dared to suggest that Artur Rubenstein or Herbert Von Karajan should have given up simply because they weren't 28 anymore? As if ... And also, in Australia, there's a really annoyingly persistent element of 'cultural cringe' which always creeps in and which until very recently has prevented many of our best artists from getting the recognition they deserve. For example, the once great Wilson Pickett (who was actually booed at the end of his recent Sydney concert) is promoted as a 'legend', yet the mighty NZ-born (white) soul man Max Merritt (who got better reviews than the act he recently supported, Ray Charles) is routinely written off as a "nostalgia act"? Why? I have no idea, other than to point to the consistently deplorable standard of the rope-a-dope column filler that passes as music journalism. I saw Max about 18 months ago and he was *fantastic*; when he announced that he was turning 60 the next week, I thought, well sh**, I've seen more than a few acts half his age who he could easily still blow right off the stage. Go figure ... Dunks ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:32:14 -0800 From: John DeSilva Lynn Hoskins wrote: > And I just don't want to see the name "The Move" get trashed by the > media. Carl, Ace, Trevor and Bev don't deserve that. > > Are my concerns unfounded? Lynn: I totally agree, and no they aren't unfounded in my view. That's why I thought the four getting together, but billing themselves anything other than "the Move" or "Move Part II" is a good idea ... I too would love to see them perform onstage, but they should do a mix of stuff from their individual careers, as well as the big Move hits. Let's face it, this might be the only time we'll get to see "Groovy Booby Jam" performed live!!!! ;-D JD San Jose, CA ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:17:23 -0800 From: "Andrew Footman" You are right Lynn. They cannot call themselves The Move. Even things like Bev Bevans's Move its awful. No Roy, no Move name. They could call themselves Fire brigade, Looking On, whatever and bill thereselves as all ex Move members. Then no one would feel cheated. Or more damaging rip them apart in the press saying it is a con its not the Move where the heck is Roy! Even with no Roy they will blow most bands off the stage, with Roy there will be no competition. come on GUYS. GO FOR IT! Might even make Roy sit up and take notice. Ask him to write you some songs. Even if he will not play in the band i bet he would feel happy to write some songs for them. After all thats what Roy can do best. ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:18:09 -0800 From: "David Woodier" There have been a many good discussion on the pro's and cons of the Move without Roy, I've even given my bit as a big no, mainly because i'm a Roy fan first and foremost and not 'keen' on seeing any of the others. It is not clear if Bev's intentions were to do it for a) money mainly b) a forerunner to something else i.e keep in the public eye or c) just a larf! I believe if Roy doesn't want to be a part, they should not call themselves anything with Move in it. Not even 'Partial Move', 'Small Move' or 'Move(d) on' - please excuse my humour, pretty poor! But I would not be totally against other members getting together. Where I see the problem, and Lynn kind of touched on is how it is advertised and what people would expect to see if they went. This can be split a number of ways, and lets assume they are advertised as Move or ex-Move members - but not mentioned 1) Us list land devotees would know what it was all about 2) 'pop' buffs would probably just know the hits, if they went along how would some of the old live stuff and Looking On material go down, not very well I think 3) Those who saw the advert, checked reference books and saw a string of hits, an album or two and Roy plastered every where - they may be a little dissapointed. At the end of the day, however it works out it needs to be carefully advertised, sold etc so there are no assumptions on what will be the style of or included in the set. It always becomes difficult when you have common material and later solo stuff. Do you mix it? (Saw the Eagles on their last UK tour they did both and were on stage for nearly three hours - brilliant) If Roy WAS with them and they did both it could be an all-nighter! At the end of the day, whilst it's nice to be asked for opinions which are no doubt valued we are a small number in a big world out there and without paying finite attention to all the possible scenarios/critiscims/pitfalls all the members whether involved or not could suffer. Good luck to all the band members in whatever they choose to do. ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:23:34 -0800 From: kakman1 Lynn Hoskins writes: >If Roy doesn't care whether other members of the band perform as The >Move, then it's fine by me. But press does matter, and reviews will >focus not on who IS in the band, but who ISN'T in the band. And I >just don't want to see the name "The Move" get trashed by the media. >Carl, Ace, Trevor and Bev don't deserve that. > >Are my concerns unfounded? No, you made an excellent point that I did not consider. The new Doors with Ian Astbury on vocals and Stewart Copeland on drums and perc. is coming to Dallas next month and the media are definitely trying to have it both ways on this one, i.e. simultaneously slagging and fawning. It's been happening to the Stones since they kicked Brian Jones out of the band, so they think it's part and parcel when they plan a new tour. With a new Move reformation, the question may be whether the media would take any notice, and if they did, would it be a small snide comment buried in the middle of some non descript's briefs column, or would it generate worthy column inches that would attract the attention of Mr and Mrs Joe Public? In this case, any publicity, good or bad, would be great, IMO, because it would generate interest, curiosity and support from old-time fans. Also it may be best not to attract too much attention and wind up looking bad because of nerves, tension, etcetera. Better to start out small and work up your fan base than start out with a huge fanfare trumpets blaring then falling over on your arse. What is interesting is back in the day, The Move had two different types of press coverage. The music trades just focused on their live shows, singles and albums, while the dailies reported on all their outrageous publicity stunts and clothing and bad boy image. What's gonna be the big headline now? "MOVE REFORMS; ROY A NO-SHOW!" or perhaps, "ROY: NO MOVE?". Come to think of it, a reformed Move without Roy would be way way way better, because a lot of the attention would be on Roy and not the rest of the band (similar to what happened at beginning of ELO). After the initial hoo-haw would die down and usual back and forth in the letters to the editor section, (and if the band is real good) people would get used to the immediate idea of this new Move, and that would be that. So ... Nevermind the press, Lynn ..... Here's The New Move! Kevin Kunreuther Dallas TX ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:10:21 -0800 From: "DAVID BURLEY" I have been against forming a 'Wood-less Move' because my first 'gut' reaction was that something essential would be missing. But I've recently given it some thought. How about this... 1. Bev Bevan and Carl Wayne reform The Move. 2. They include Ace Kefford, Trevor Burton AND Rick Price. After all somebody will have to play and sing Roy's bits. 3. They call themselves The Move (none of that 'part 2' rubbish which would not be taken seriously by the Music Industry or Press). 4. They do not record any new material. 5. They do not re-record any old material. 6. They operate as a serious live band only. 7. It will be a short-term project (none of that Mike Love/Beach Boys interminable crap). 8. Touring is planned to coincide with a full Move reissue programme. 9. There is no pressure on Roy to write or organise anything. 10. Roy joins them on stage for one gig. 11. Roy enjoys it so much that he joins them on stage for another gig. 12. Loads of respected musicians (Paul Weller etc) and serious music press rave about them. 13. They record a live album and DVD. 14. Roy realises that he is loved and respected and sanctions Solo/Wizzard/Wizzo etc reissues. 15. Roy records a new 'solo' album with LOADS of music stars. 16. Roy gets the green light for a salsa album. 17. The Move play live in my living room. 18. Sony sit up and take notice. They kick-start the rest of ELO's remastering programme. 19. ELO tour! 20. It is discovered that I am the illegitimate son of Harold Wilson and I get all the Flowers In The Rain royalties. Regards David Burley Burley Towers ********** Subject: Re: Wood-less Move Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:00:54 -0800 From: "Tom De Val" As well as negative press coverage, what is also disheartening is when I see those £1.99 CD's, which have the immortal phrase something along the lines of: "These recordings contain one or more of the original artists." ie. They're crap remakes of classic numbers. I REALLY hope the potential new Move don't go down this road. ********** Subject: Re: Reformed Move without Roy? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:20:10 -0800 From: David Friedman John Van der Kiste wrote: > The Move Part II, anyone? How important is it? Life's > too short, guys! Obviously the more members from the old line-up > involved the better, but I think it's a mistake to get too purist > about the principle. I'd like to give my two cents worth and agree with John that its worth it to see the Move reform without Roy, but with as many original members as possible (I'd prefer the original "4" lineup of Carl, Bev, Ace, and Trevor). He's right as well when he asks us to not get hung up on principle. So many posts dealt with offending Roy and disgracing "his" name so to speak. If it would offend or disgrace him, he wouldn't have offered his blessing for a reformed band to use the name in the first place. That says his mind is made up, so we shouldn't try to second guess or "tell" him how he should feel. And a different name wouldn't do anything ... it has to be the Move, Move II, Move without Roy Wood, something like that ... if not, there is no point. It also seems funny to me that its been over 30 years since their last gig and so many of you would NOT go see this band. Lets face it ... we spend more time talking and obsessing about this band than is healthy, so it should be in your wildest dreams that such a reunion, with or without Roy, comes to fruition. ********** Subject: Wizzard to reform but Roy Woodn't Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:40:22 -0800 From: "Peter MANION" Next Friday I have tickets to see Roy Wood in Bilston, and then, two weeks later, Carl with 'The Hollies' in Cheltenham, and I can't help myself, as much as I am like a stick of rock with 'Woody' through the middle, it is 'Carl and The Hollies' I am looking forward to most, in terms of entertainment value on the night! I always go and see Roy and always come away thinking - if only - and then I get cheesed off and think how brilliant it could be, and then I think who am I to be critical of a genius and the most important musical influence of my life, but I can't help it. Yet still I keep going back time after time, Now that 'The Hollies are doing up to four 'Move' covers it becomes even more enticing, because they are the same four of the five (plus California Man) that Roy does live - so, comparisons are inevitable. When 'The Hollies' do a 'Move' song they add something, whilst remaining faithful to the original, (although their 'Flowers in the Rain' is a bit too acoustic for my taste,) Now I know why I get frustrated when I watch The Army - because 'Fire Brigade' shouldn't have trumpets and trombones in there and 'Blackberry Way' is a bit too brassy as well, and whilst visually the Big Band are attractive and good to watch it is Wizzard songs that come out better live and the newer songs that obviously suit the band because Roy wrote them for a bigger outfit. I guess I am saying that Roy should move on - even though I will miss the hits, but I am also saying that if he going to do 'Move' songs then give it one last go and do them properly with guitars and harmony and earn some money and raise some money for charity and have a ball with the old lads and make the fan base ecstatic There was a Midlands radio show a while back hosted by Roy where Carl phoned in and they discussed about getting 'The Move' together and Roy was dead against it saying 'they would never get out of the rehearsal room.' I find in difficult to see Carl agreeing to it, unless Trevor does because they will be light in the guitar department without Roy or Trevor, assuming Ace plays bass, but then Rick is quite handy and seems to get on with everyone, (not into the Dave Morgan, Richard Tandy, view and can't see Jeff Lynne in this) I could see the scenario of some Carl, Bev, Ace, Trevor and Rick combination doing the early live numbers, 'Move' and some 'Shazam' album-wise, the singles up to 'Blackberry Way' (and 'Wild Tiger Woman'?) plus some rockers from 'Something Else.' They must call themselves 'The Move' because that's who they are and whose songs they will be playing and with Carl in charge it will be done professionally, and the door remains wide open for Roy . . . Then I can see Trevor quitting halfway through the agreed number of gigs because Carl jokes, 'shall we give Curly a go?', and then Roy joins the tour on the last minute, so they add California Man, Hello Susie, Brontosaurus, Lighting Strikes and Tonight, and drop Yellow Rainbow, Hey Grandma, The Girl Outside, Something Else and Useless Information, (and 'Curly' still gets left out . . . ) Thanks goodness we have this list so things that go on inside ones head can be purged occasionally to prevent madness setting in, Pete End of Useless Information #451 ******************************* [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.]