What is wrong with obscure songs??

**Blaxman** · October 5th, 2002, 10:07 PM

Hi friends,

I have realized that there are some members who dont like obscure songs. OK, we must respect their opinions, no doubt about it. What I would like to know is the reason. Why not, obscure music??

Well, in fact I love obscure music for the simple reason that they are in many more quantity than the hits. Quite simple, huh? :grin:

In other words, I like songs from the top 40 lists or wherever they came from!! But, I personally think that there are many crappy songs in both.

And, of course, since the internet is perfect to research, I wouldnt waste my time on it talking about songs that I'm tired to hear for the last 30 years. My purpose here is to get more and more knowledgement about new "old" music.

So, what is your opinion???

Obscure or hit?

_________________
SENHORES DO GROOVE - BRAZIL

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Blaxman on 2002-10-06 01:11 ]</font>

**Outsider** · October 6th, 2002, 01:45 AM

I don't care if a song is obscure or a hit. That's meaningless to me. All that matters is if I like the song or not.

**QUINNY** · October 6th, 2002, 03:24 AM

I'll say nothing! I'm not going down this dead end again.

**nrgbeat** · October 6th, 2002, 06:09 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about obscure songs, but I think less people can join in on the threads that deal with obscure titles or certain styles of music.

**BrunoRepublic** · October 6th, 2002, 08:32 AM

Good music is good music, regardless of whether 10 or 10 million people have heard it.

It is equally absurd to dismiss a piece of music because it's obscure as it is because it was a top 10 hit.

Yes, many obscure songs have remained obscure for good reasons. But I think we can all agree that there's a lot of crap in the charts as well.

I personally get a thrill when I pick up some long-forgotten single that turns out to be fantastic. It's like finding buried treasure.

Everyone knows about the songs that were huge. But there were many, many more that deserved to be heard.

**rhessel** · October 6th, 2002, 08:53 AM

Hi:

That is it Blaxman. I am addicted to obscure disco. Some two months ago I started a topic about the obscures disco songs that we like the most.

Long life to obscure disco songs.

Cheers,

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rhessel on 2002-10-06 10:11 ]</font>

**DanceMan** · October 6th, 2002, 02:55 PM

On 2002-10-06 02:45, Outsider wrote:
I don't care if a song is obscure or a hit. That's meaningless to me. All that matters is if I like the song or not.

Bravo! Short and to the point....

I concur.

**DanceMan** · October 6th, 2002, 02:58 PM

On 2002-10-06 09:32, Graham Start wrote:
Good music is good music, regardless of whether 10 or 10 million people have heard it.

It is equally absurd to dismiss a piece of music because it's obscure as it is because it was a top 10 hit.

Yes, many obscure songs have remained obscure for good reasons. But I think we can all agree that there's a lot of crap in the charts as well.

I personally get a thrill when I pick up some long-forgotten single that turns out to be fantastic. It's like finding buried treasure.

Everyone knows about the songs that were huge. But there were many, many more that deserved to be heard.

Bravo! I concur....

**Blaxman** · October 6th, 2002, 03:11 PM

Hey folks!! Thanx for the replies!!

Untill now, many good reasons to like obscure songs and nothing to the hits!! Wow!! I must confess, I didnt expected for that. I did think it would be more balanced.

But I have a feeling that this discussion it's just beginning.

Peace

**jazz_pilgrim** · October 6th, 2002, 03:33 PM

Blax asked: What is wrong with obscure songs??

NOTHING OF COURSE!! :grin: :grin:

First of all, what matters to me is the quality of the sounds that are coming out of my speakers!

And secondly, my experience has showed that if you are prepared top make the effort to dig into the music a little bit, you will be well rewarded with some real obscure gems - just lying under the surface!! :grin: :grin:

For example, I have just heard on the radio this week a post-Mowotwn Four Tops track from 1976. It is obscure, it is soulful and it absolutely brilliant!! :grin: :grin:

**Blaxman** · October 6th, 2002, 03:47 PM

Hi Jazz, I'm really happy to talk to you again!

Great example, by the way!

And look....this Four Tops' song is not obscure anymore, at least to you! :grin:

In the same way, there are many hits that can be obscure for many people!! Hey, what a great incoherency, 'obscure hits' ?!? :lol:

Peace

**DanceMan** · October 6th, 2002, 03:47 PM

On 2002-10-06 16:33, jazz_pilgrim wrote:
Blax asked: What is wrong with obscure songs??

NOTHING OF COURSE!! :grin: :grin:

First of all, what matters to me is the quality of the sounds that are coming out of my speakers!

And secondly, my experience has showed that if you are prepared top make the effort to dig into the music a little bit, you will be well rewarded with some real obscure gems - just lying under the surface!! :grin: :grin:

For example, I have just heard on the radio this week a post-Mowotwn Four Tops track from 1976. It is obscure, it is soulful and it absolutely brilliant!! :grin: :grin:

Could that be "Catfish" when they were on ABC Records?...(Pretty big radio hit in NYC)...If so, that was one of my all-time faves from 76. They rarely disappointed...

**HustleBaby** · October 6th, 2002, 11:47 PM

Graham hit the nail on the head when he was comparing obscure songs to buried treasure. Ever since I've found this website, I've was re-introduced to songs that I either forgot all about or never heard of in my life. So once I got to hear these songs, it was way better than hearing the usual top 40 hits.

*DELIGHTFUL*

**Blaxman** · October 7th, 2002, 12:03 AM

I totally agree with you and Graham, Hustlebaby. Sometimes I feel like "Indiana Jones" here at this site, finding real precious songs!! Thank to the other people posts. COOL!!!!!! :grin:

Peace

**jazz_pilgrim** · October 7th, 2002, 12:46 AM

[quote]
On 2002-10-06 16:47, DanceMan wrote:

Could that be "Catfish" when they were on ABC Records?...(Pretty big radio hit in NYC)...If so, that was one of my all-time faves from 76. They rarely disappointed...

Very close, DanceMan! :grin: The track is "Ain't No Woman (Like The One I've Got) and it is off that LP "Catfish"! It is a new track to me, and I know I'm gonna be singing it all week .... :grin:

**Funky Dude** · October 7th, 2002, 12:49 AM

To my opinion, I'm more into obscure disco than the mainstream disco as there's lots and lots out there to be discovered. With mainstream top 40 disco it's less than 1% of how much disco is out there and it's good but when you hear them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again you get sick of them especially "YMCA" and "Stayin' Alive" but still I like them but I like the rarer stuff even better as I've heard a lot that sounds a lot better than the mainstream disco.

So by all means I'm all for obscure stuff, discovering the obscure stuff is like digging treasure or gold.

**QUINNY** · October 7th, 2002, 02:52 AM

For the sake of even handedness I will just write a few things. I hope these make you think a little.
IMHO: There's nothing wrong with obscurities so long as you buy them on legitimate re-issues. That way at least the writer, composer and featured artist on the music, which you have now fallen in love with, MIGHT just get some money out of it. i.e. some material recompense for creating such a 'gem', and the music industry might not go into meltdown, cos everyone wants its product but doesn't want to pay for it.
Buying from second hand stores, cut out bins or worse still, downloading MP3 puts no money back into the recording industry. This after all, was responsible for creating the 'gem' in the first place.
I'm sure that you can see the logic and the moral correctness in that. If you don't then just keep on going your own selfish way.
Yes, I was guilty just like the rest of you, but I now only buy legitimate releases from original vendors.

**Leanmean** · October 7th, 2002, 07:12 AM

One person's "obscure" is another's commonplace! To all of the straight people I know, nearly every disco song I like is "obscure." If I played any of these "common-to-me" songs, they would never have heard of them:
"Love & Desire" Arpeggio
"Have A Cigar" Rosebud (Of course, they ALL know the Pink Floyd version!)
"Two Hot for Love" THP Orchestra
"Midnight Love Affair" Carole Douglas
"Let's Start the Dance" Bohannon
"Put Your Body In It" Stephanie Mills

Even my gay grrrls don't know these songs. It depends on when they came out.

As for me, I have discovered some songs I had forgotten about as well as been turned onto songs I never heard before by people who are way more knowledgeable than me on this board. This place is like a homecoming, where although I may be in the junior leagues when it comes to what I know about disco, I still feel more at home discussing it on this board than with most of the people I know, straight or gay.

The only problem now is that there are no more audio files on this site. When there were sound bites on the Top 500 list, I found songs I had forgotten about and immediately bought the CDs on Amazon or CDNOW. Since I can't hear the song anymore, I don't know what it is and I won't buy it.

Someone please tell me - Is there an actual LAW that says you can't even have a sound bite on the Internet? If not, what's with the overkill? If there is, what is it and where can I read about the law? It seems the musicians shot themselves in the foot because people like me won't buy without hearing it first if I don't know the song right off the top of my head.

**BrunoRepublic** · October 7th, 2002, 07:25 AM

On 2002-10-07 03:52, QUINNY wrote:
IMHO: There's nothing wrong with obscurities so long as you buy them on legitimate re-issues.

Uhm... you have a point, but... most obscurities haven't been reissued. That's why they're "obscure".

**Leanmean** · October 7th, 2002, 07:47 AM

Graham,

What DID the Catholic priest say to the Iranian gynecologist?!

**QUINNY** · October 7th, 2002, 07:59 AM

GrahamStart: Graham, you're a musician so I'm surprised you know nothing about copyright law.
When a Record, Cassette, CD, DVD, Minidisc or Video is released they all carry the All rights reserved/Duplication is a violation blurb. In other words, strictly by the book, it is illegal to copy, broadcast, hire, lease or diffuse over any medium the contents of that Cassette, Disc etc. In reality there is something called 'fair use' which means that the law turns a blind eye to home copying for PRIVATE use. So we can tape from the TV and makes compilations for the car.
The trouble is that when a CD, record or whatever is released, there are several copyright owners involved. Firstly, there are the writers of the piece and they own the intellectual copyright. They in turn normally employ a music publisher to make the sheet music available and collect copyright fees. Then there's the producer (ie Record company/Film studio) who put up the money and resources for the product to be recorded, duplicated and distributed. They own the 'mechanical copyright' (although strangely, mechanical copyright fees are collected on behalf of the writers and publishers from the record company). The record company also own publishing rights concerning the overall packaging etc and the content and are paid performing rights by radio stations, dance halls, shops etc. A percentage of this money is also distributed to the Publishers, then to the writers and the artist may also get a cut.
Surely it's not too difficult to see that in today's digital age it would be possible for a CD to be made, be bought by say 10,000 people, but be downloaded by 10,000,000 if the net hadn't been slapped on the wrist for making everything 'free', even 30 seconds.
It's interesting to note that if a feature film features just 30 seconds of music that has been released on CD or record, the film company would pay thousands of dollars to reproduce that music, even if susequently the film only showed to 100 people.

whether its right or wrong is another matter.

**DanceMan** · October 7th, 2002, 08:32 AM

[quote]
On 2002-10-07 01:46, jazz_pilgrim wrote:

On 2002-10-06 16:47, DanceMan wrote:

Could that be "Catfish" when they were on ABC Records?...(Pretty big radio hit in NYC)...If so, that was one of my all-time faves from 76. They rarely disappointed...

Very close, DanceMan! :grin: The track is "Ain't No Woman (Like The One I've Got) and it is off that LP "Catfish"! It is a new track to me, and I know I'm gonna be singing it all week .... :grin:

That is so wild how things get released in different years in different countries....we tend to think everything hits the bins at the same time, but that is not always the case.

"Catfish" came out here in the States in the Autumn of 1976 while "Ain't No Woman" was released in here in the Spring of 1973 - over three years earlier and on another LP....As a matter of fact, "Catfish" was the only "hit" off the '76 album which didn't contain "Woman" at all....so that is why I thought you meant "CF" - which was also good - but nowhere as HUGE as the Top 5 single "Woman" from '73....Good choice, either way!

**Bernie** · October 7th, 2002, 08:32 AM

Quinny,

While I agree in principle about supporting the artist by buying reissues, not dl'ing MP3s... it's not realistic. As Graham pointed out, "most obscurities haven't been reissued. That's why they're "obscure." Besides, chances are the artist is no longer with us so it only goes to some fat corporate cat who could care less. As long as you are not dealing with MP3s, the artist and musicians have been compensated from the recordings original release. If we go with your premise, we wouldn't be buying used cars either. As long as a music fan buys legitimate product there is no harm done.

As for MP3s, I am slowly starting to sing a different tune. While I still believe that in essence wholesale "sharing" of MP3s is not right, I feel that it is the record labels shortsightedness and their greed that are destroying their sales and karma. The record labels are sitting on a goldmine by not taking advantage of MP3s. An MP3 is worth a thousand words and an excellent promotional tool.

Leanmean asked about not seeing music samples here at DiscoMusic.com anymore and that is a perfect example. For years I was paying good money to license the hundreds of music titles that I featured and the music industry wasn't satisfied with that--they wanted more money and ridiculous maounts of paperwork and recordkeeping despite the fact that this site helped to spotlight artists and help sell CDs. They should have been paying me! Leanmean said it straight out that if she can't hear it, she won't buy it and I can't blame her. She is the consumer and the labels should listen to her and what her needs are.

Could you imagine if the labels actually started releasing quality compilations with sought after titles and promoting them with MP3 samples through sites such as this one and others? They'd make a killing and we would all be happy to have some great music. One day...

**jazz_pilgrim** · October 7th, 2002, 09:12 AM

[quote]
On 2002-10-07 09:32, DanceMan wrote:

On 2002-10-07 01:46, jazz_pilgrim wrote:

On 2002-10-06 16:47, DanceMan wrote:

Could that be "Catfish" when they were on ABC Records?...(Pretty big radio hit in NYC)...If so, that was one of my all-time faves from 76. They rarely disappointed...

Very close, DanceMan! :grin: The track is "Ain't No Woman (Like The One I've Got) and it is off that LP "Catfish"! It is a new track to me, and I know I'm gonna be singing it all week .... :grin:

That is so wild how things get released in different years in different countries....we tend to think everything hits the bins at the same time, but that is not always the case.

"Catfish" came out here in the States in the Autumn of 1976 while "Ain't No Woman" was released in here in the Spring of 1973 - over three years earlier and on another LP....As a matter of fact, "Catfish" was the only "hit" off the '76 album which didn't contain "Woman" at all....so that is why I thought you meant "CF" - which was also good - but nowhere as HUGE as the Top 5 single "Woman" from '73....Good choice, either way!

Some confusion here!!

It could be that the radio DJ made a mistake. He definitely said 1976 for that track, because that is what I wrote down. I will play the MD recording back tonite and check... Definitely sounds more '73 though ... I looked up the Four Tops Lps and saw Catfish from '76. As the site I was on did not have a track listing, I assumed Ain't No Woman was off that LP! Looks like you are right, Danceman! :grin:

Secondly, so it was a big hit in the US? I don't remember it all in the UK but I was only twelve then! Maybe someone like discodisk can enlighten us as to its chart position in the UK.

Whatever - it is a new record to me and I love it! :grin:

**QUINNY** · October 7th, 2002, 09:46 AM

Bernie: I'm glad you've put this input to the debate. Just one thing; you buy a second hand car you cannot make a clone of it and give that clone away or SELL it. So I think my argument holds water.
I realise exactly why you gave up the samples and it is a shame that record companies get greedy. They do tend to use a sledge hammer to crack relatively small nuts. However, the law is on THEIR side and for 70 years after the death of the wtiter/composer. The whole world of publishing is full of moral dilemmas, so far as I am concerned. I have personally lost lots and lots of business because I advise musicians who phone me for CD or cassette copying, that copyright fees will have to be paid if their product contains their copies of someone else's tunes or songs. A great many of them go to a less scrupulous manufacturer who doesn't mention this to them.
Money makes the world go 'round and we all have to make a living. The real problem is that many of today's internet kids don't want to pay for anything. How many of us have illegal copies of programmes running on our computers? Go to any University residential block and you'll find every software title under the sun, none of which have actually been bought.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, don't you think?