Phony Oldiea

Do you enjoy re-recorded oldies?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Depends

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Total voters
    9

tomswift2002

Well-Known Member
Thread Starter
So I saw this YouTube video a few weeks ago and just rewatched it.

I’ve got a few of these, as he calls them “Phony Oldies” collections in my collection, as well as a few of the sound-a-like “Phony Oldies” collections that try to recreate the original single and get a sound-a-like voice to record the song (although in this case a few of my sound-a-like CD’s a few of the tracks only sound like the original in instruments only—-the vocalist clearly does not sound like the original artist—-one that comes to mind is The Countdown Singer’s version of “Hello”—-their vocalist sounds nothing like Lionel Richie!) where the original lead vocalist or group make new stereo recordings or live concert recordings. But as is mentioned in the video, these re-recordings/live tracks have flooded the CD/streaming era. And, at least the re-records, span from the 1970’s (for artists from the 1940’s to 1960’s) to the present (60s to 80’s).


But I will say that there are a few Original Artist re-records, like “He’s A Rebel” by the Crystals where I find the original, and it’s mostly because of the technology of the era, it doesn’t sound as good as the newer recording. The new stereo recording from the 80’s or 90’s has more of a punch than the original. The original was good in its day but unfortunately the original hasn’t aged well.

But there are other tracks where the artist(s) have not recreated the original hit but reimagined it. Instead of it sounding like the original 1940’s, just in stereo, now the song has been remade as a disco version or 80’s techno song by the original artist.

Remember, for these albums, the artists are doing these re-records or live versions because:

1. the original record company wants way more than the issuing record company is willing to pay

2. the original record company is not willing to increase the rate of pay that they give the artist and want the artist to stick to the rate agreed upon in the 1940’s or 50’s or whenever, for a single release. But with a re-record, the artist owns the copyright to that recording and the new record company is willing to pay a higher, more contemporary rate.

3. For deceased artists, estates can license live recordings of hits for a higher rate. For living artists they can get 2 pay checks, since they get the revenue from the concert and the royalties from making a live recording and licensing it themselves.

4. the original masters that were recorded in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s or 80’s have deteriorated or, especially for 40’s & early-50s songs were direct-to-disc recordings and those discs no longer exist and only 7th or 8th generation analog tape copies exist that contain record scratches and other analog errors that were built up over the years and it would be more expensive to clean them up than it would be for the new label to pay the artist for a new recording.



 

Bobberman

Well-Known Member
And remember add another possibility in the case of Universal owned Labels (Example the Fire of 2008) where many original masters were completely lost some of those artists who lost their masters have no choice but to either Re Record their oldies or authorize another artist to recreate them just my thought on it even though I prefer the original when possible I voted for It depends because there are a few songs in my collection where an artist re-records one of their hits many years later one such gem is Gino Vannelli's 1981 hit "Living inside myself" Which he Remade in 2014 just slightly one key lower than the original I consider that version Equal in a sense it has the same impact on me musically and other wise as the original and its still my favorite Gino Vannelli song of all time
 

tomswift2002

Well-Known Member
Thread Starter
And remember add another possibility in the case of Universal owned Labels (Example the Fire of 2008) where many original masters were completely lost some of those artists who lost their masters have no choice but to either Re Record their oldies or authorize another artist to recreate them just my thought on it even though I prefer the original when possible I voted for It depends because there are a few songs in my collection where an artist re-records one of their hits many years later one such gem is Gino Vannelli's 1981 hit "Living inside myself" Which he Remade in 2014 just slightly one key lower than the original I consider that version Equal in a sense it has the same impact on me musically and other wise as the original and its still my favorite Gino Vannelli song of all time
True—-but a lot of the re-records out there, especially those artists from the 40’s to 60’s who have passed away, were made prior to 2008. I’ve got a few CD’s of these re-records, and most of my CD’s have copyrights in the 2002-2006 timeframe, but I have heard some of the same tracks on CD’s dated post-2008.
But another interesting thing with the video, I actually have a 6-CD set that is called “Ultimate 80’s”, but it also contains a few 90’s hits. But thanks to the CD player in my truck, I can tell that the CD’s in that set came from different sets, since a few CD Text Titles pop up as “Love Songs 2”, “Love Songs 5”, and then my favorites, “59AJ3B1MZXP”, so I think that explains the 90’s tracks in an 80’s collection.
 
Top Bottom