Elvis Back In Nashville (4 cd Box Set)

[pmp]

SO as it stands, those of us who purchase a physical copy, run the risk of damaging the cd's or the packaging the first time we take them out!

Guaranteed... in fact most of the scratches (I believe) came from when the CD's were first inserted in production...

Mine came out pretty easily apart from disc 3 which was harder, but they are all clean. I’ve now put them in rice sleeves and trimmed the bottom edges so they are curved and re-inserted them. No problem in getting them out now but as I have copied the discs to my HD, I doubt I will ever need to do so. But Sony need to address this problem with a design change.

That's where Ernst or Roger SEMON should have some clout to follow this up with whomever folks are responsible for the design. Same thing with proofreading matters.
Also it's not like this hasn't happened before , either. DO NOT let complacency set in.

By virtue of good , positive mainstream sales, I expect there will be a 1966-1968 Nashville multi disc, so that's the time to involve a different design.

There won't be a set covering this period, alas. This set wouldn't have happened had it not been for retaining the copyright on the undubbed masters. In the same way, all of the retail sets since 2018 have all happened in order to retain copyright. The copyright has already gone in Europe for any unreleased material up to and including the end of 1970. And why there will be an EOT set next year. After that, I really don't expect any more boxed sets unless some interesting lost tapes appear.

But there are places for them to go with the idea if someone was feeling inspired - and they don't seem to be inspired at all this year. It's utterly bonkers, for example, that Sony have never done a retail set compiling all of the songs from the first four movies, together with key alternates. As you have said, the 1966-1968 studio sessions are ripe for re-evaluation. The same is true for the 1960-1961 films. It's not out of the question - A Boy from Tupelo had nothing to do with copyright a few years ago. But I don't think anyone cares enough right now. I came away from Back in Nashville feeling that those who put it together found it a chore.

The boxes since 2018 have killed two birds with one stone - copyright retention and money coming in from people buying the set. Even if they only break even, they have still served their purpose.

[elvisjock]

May I ask for a brief explanation on the copyright issue, and why removing backing vocals solved the problem for Sony?

I'm reminded of the roadblocks in years past with songs being left off the Aloha reissues and the EOT opening. But, we were told in advance and given honest information (Jerry Schilling told me that Chuck Berry simply would not return their phone calls)

It's hard to believe, and very disconcerting, that a 4 disc box set covering the 1971 recordings would fail to include the unadulterated finished product.

[chesay7]

To say the only reason we have these releases is for copyright reasons is ridiculous. It may be a factor but what company is going to pass up a 50th anniversary package. We've seen 100's of the same from many other different artists. Also to suggest this was a chore to put together is nonsense and an insult to the people involved. It is clear a lot of care has been taken over the mixing and mastering of the tracks. This session has never sounded anywhere near as good as this on previous releases. It is a real pleasure to listen to.

[pmp]

May I ask for a brief explanation on the copyright issue, and why removing backing vocals solved the problem for Sony?

I'm reminded of the roadblocks in years past with songs being left off the Aloha reissues and the EOT opening. But, we were told in advance and given honest information (Jerry Schilling told me that Chuck Berry simply would not return their phone calls)

It's hard to believe, and very disconcerting, that a 4 disc box set covering the 1971 recordings would fail to include the unadulterated finished product.

The copyright situation in Europe is this:

Anything released before the end of 1962 is now out of copyright.

Anything released after 1962 is in copyright for 70 years after its first release. So something released in 1963 comes out of copyright in 2033. Something recorded in 1963 but released in 2000 is in copyright until 2070.

Now the important bit: if something was recorded in 1963 or after but has not been officially released after fifty years, then it comes out of copyright. It's a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. So, any alternate takes from 1971 that have not been released by the end of this year can be released by any label in any way in Europe from 2022 onwards. This is how MRS got to release the 1970 soundboard this year. It wasn't released by the end of 2020, and so it's now out of copyright. MRS can't stop anyone else from taking the same recording and then releasing it themselves, however!

This is why we are getting undubbed releases in the 1970 and 1971 boxed sets. The undubbed masters hadn't been released officially prior to this, and so another company could have done it had Sony not got in their by the end of 2020 and 2021 respectively.

This is even more of a reason why the undubbed masters minus backing vocals are bizarre. because another company can come along in two months time and release those same songs in undubbed form WITH the backing vocals, and there's nothing Sony can do about it. And we can safely predict that this will happen next year or soon after.

[pmp]

To say the only reason we have these releases is for copyright reasons is ridiculous. It may be a factor but what company is going to pass up a 50th anniversary package. We've seen 100's of the same from many other different artists. Also to suggest this was a chore to put together is nonsense and an insult to the people involved. It is clear a lot of care has been taken over the mixing and mastering of the tracks. This session has never sounded anywhere near as good as this on previous releases. It is a real pleasure to listen to.

On the contrary, Sony passed up the 50th anniversary of G I Blues and of Blue Hawaii and of Elvis is Back and of His Hand in Mine. And of King Creole, Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, and Love Me Tender. Where were those retail boxed sets? Answer: nowhere. Why? Because the copyright laws were different ten years ago. Back then, the copyright was 50 years after the recording was made, no matter what, and so releasing a package of unreleased outtakes etc would have made no different to copyright length.

The reason why you've seen hundreds of such packages from other artists is because the same rule applies. Get the unreleased material out or lose European copyright on it.

I'm quite happy to insult the people involved, because putting out such a shoddy package with absolutely mindless decisions taken and a booklet full of typos and misinformation is an insult to us when we pay £34 for it.

[chesay7]

I think you make some valid points regarding this release but your general negativity towards it is difficult to take. Especially when it is not fully justified.

[elvisjock]

May I ask for a brief explanation on the copyright issue, and why removing backing vocals solved the problem for Sony?

I'm reminded of the roadblocks in years past with songs being left off the Aloha reissues and the EOT opening. But, we were told in advance and given honest information (Jerry Schilling told me that Chuck Berry simply would not return their phone calls)

It's hard to believe, and very disconcerting, that a 4 disc box set covering the 1971 recordings would fail to include the unadulterated finished product.

The copyright situation in Europe is this:

Anything released before the end of 1962 is now out of copyright.

Anything released after 1962 is in copyright for 70 years after its first release. So something released in 1963 comes out of copyright in 2033. Something recorded in 1963 but released in 2000 is in copyright until 2070.

Now the important bit: if something was recorded in 1963 or after but has not been officially released after fifty years, then it comes out of copyright. It's a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. So, any alternate takes from 1971 that have not been released by the end of this year can be released by any label in any way in Europe from 2022 onwards. This is how MRS got to release the 1970 soundboard this year. It wasn't released by the end of 2020, and so it's now out of copyright. MRS can't stop anyone else from taking the same recording and then releasing it themselves, however!

This is why we are getting undubbed releases in the 1970 and 1971 boxed sets. The undubbed masters hadn't been released officially prior to this, and so another company could have done it had Sony not got in their by the end of 2020 and 2021 respectively.

This is even more of a reason why the undubbed masters minus backing vocals are bizarre. because another company can come along in two months time and release those same songs in undubbed form WITH the backing vocals, and there's nothing Sony can do about it. And we can safely predict that this will happen next year or soon after.

Thank you for the tutorial. Very much appreciated. So, you're saying issuing masters with backing vocals removed does nothing to stay the execution of the cash cow? If that's the case, I'd be inclined to give Ernst and Roger the benefit of the doubt. I can't see them coming up with the weird idea that deleting the backing vocals makes some sort of artistic statement. And the bleeding through of said vocals? We lived through that when Joan Deary was running things. Can't believe two guys who have done more to recast Elvis as an artist of consequence would succumb needlessly tampering with history.

[Walter Hale 4]

To say the only reason we have these releases is for copyright reasons is ridiculous. It may be a factor but what company is going to pass up a 50th anniversary package. We've seen 100's of the same from many other different artists. Also to suggest this was a chore to put together is nonsense and an insult to the people involved. It is clear a lot of care has been taken over the mixing and mastering of the tracks. This session has never sounded anywhere near as good as this on previous releases. It is a real pleasure to listen to.

On the contrary, Sony passed up the 50th anniversary of G I Blues and of Blue Hawaii and of Elvis is Back and of His Hand in Mine. And of King Creole, Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, and Love Me Tender. Where were those retail boxed sets? Answer: nowhere. Why? Because the copyright laws were different ten years ago. Back then, the copyright was 50 years after the recording was made, no matter what, and so releasing a package of unreleased outtakes etc would have made no different to copyright length.

The reason why you've seen hundreds of such packages from other artists is because the same rule applies. Get the unreleased material out or lose European copyright on it.

I'm quite happy to insult the people involved, because putting out such a shoddy package with absolutely mindless decisions taken and a booklet full of typos and misinformation is an insult to us when we pay £34 for it.

well that makes sense.

As to your last sentence, could complacency also be a factor? Including from the fans themselvis.

[pmp]

May I ask for a brief explanation on the copyright issue, and why removing backing vocals solved the problem for Sony?

I'm reminded of the roadblocks in years past with songs being left off the Aloha reissues and the EOT opening. But, we were told in advance and given honest information (Jerry Schilling told me that Chuck Berry simply would not return their phone calls)

It's hard to believe, and very disconcerting, that a 4 disc box set covering the 1971 recordings would fail to include the unadulterated finished product.

The copyright situation in Europe is this:

Anything released before the end of 1962 is now out of copyright.

Anything released after 1962 is in copyright for 70 years after its first release. So something released in 1963 comes out of copyright in 2033. Something recorded in 1963 but released in 2000 is in copyright until 2070.

Now the important bit: if something was recorded in 1963 or after but has not been officially released after fifty years, then it comes out of copyright. It's a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. So, any alternate takes from 1971 that have not been released by the end of this year can be released by any label in any way in Europe from 2022 onwards. This is how MRS got to release the 1970 soundboard this year. It wasn't released by the end of 2020, and so it's now out of copyright. MRS can't stop anyone else from taking the same recording and then releasing it themselves, however!

This is why we are getting undubbed releases in the 1970 and 1971 boxed sets. The undubbed masters hadn't been released officially prior to this, and so another company could have done it had Sony not got in their by the end of 2020 and 2021 respectively.

This is even more of a reason why the undubbed masters minus backing vocals are bizarre. because another company can come along in two months time and release those same songs in undubbed form WITH the backing vocals, and there's nothing Sony can do about it. And we can safely predict that this will happen next year or soon after.

Thank you for the tutorial. Very much appreciated. So, you're saying issuing masters with backing vocals removed does nothing to stay the execution of the cash cow? If that's the case, I'd be inclined to give Ernst and Roger the benefit of the doubt. I can't see them coming up with the weird idea that deleting the backing vocals makes some sort of artistic statement. And the bleeding through of said vocals? We lived through that when Joan Deary was running things. Can't believe two guys who have done more to recast Elvis as an artist of consequence would succumb needlessly tampering with history.

The only thing that the removal of those backing vocals means is that no-one else can release the same thing (undubbed with backing vocals removed) - which they probably weren't going to do anyway. But it does mean they can release the undubbed version with backing vocals still intact, which is what is so utterly ridiculous.

They have tampered before - removing Charlie Hodge from the TTWII boxed set, for example. And they were removing channels a long while ago - was it Platinum where they removed the piano on Are You Sincere? I think that was what they did - but that was at least due to the piano part messing up. Meanwhile, there was an issue of I've Lost You (live) where the cor anglais part in the intro was repaired because there was a couple of bum notes. And there was the mixing of rehearsal and live performances on the Stage Rehearsal FTD. They have been working towards this over some time.

[pmp]

To say the only reason we have these releases is for copyright reasons is ridiculous. It may be a factor but what company is going to pass up a 50th anniversary package. We've seen 100's of the same from many other different artists. Also to suggest this was a chore to put together is nonsense and an insult to the people involved. It is clear a lot of care has been taken over the mixing and mastering of the tracks. This session has never sounded anywhere near as good as this on previous releases. It is a real pleasure to listen to.

On the contrary, Sony passed up the 50th anniversary of G I Blues and of Blue Hawaii and of Elvis is Back and of His Hand in Mine. And of King Creole, Jailhouse Rock, Loving You, and Love Me Tender. Where were those retail boxed sets? Answer: nowhere. Why? Because the copyright laws were different ten years ago. Back then, the copyright was 50 years after the recording was made, no matter what, and so releasing a package of unreleased outtakes etc would have made no different to copyright length.

The reason why you've seen hundreds of such packages from other artists is because the same rule applies. Get the unreleased material out or lose European copyright on it.

I'm quite happy to insult the people involved, because putting out such a shoddy package with absolutely mindless decisions taken and a booklet full of typos and misinformation is an insult to us when we pay £34 for it.

well that makes sense.

As to your last sentence, could complacency also be a factor? Including from the fans themselvis.

Undoubtedly. Fans were quite happy to accept mistakes from FTD, with wrong info, tapes running slow, technical glitches. And they kept buying them because they were scared the label would disappear if they didn't. There was no-one holding Ernst & Co to account. And once they started getting away with such things, there was no need to try harder. It's an unpopular view, but it seems pretty obvious considering where we are now.

[YDKM]

Yes i am "forced" to Cancel my local Amazon order and buy locally from J.B Hifi as Amazon locally suddenly had 'no release date' when JBHifi had this friday 19th and the price was good A $57 so i am now buying from their.Certainly with all the negative + positive comments coming i will listen next week with great interest,judging from all the 'extra' studio chat left on it already sounds more like a FTD release than a general public one! Looking forward to it anyhow!

[eric c]

Yes i am "forced" to Cancel my local Amazon order and buy locally from J.B Hifi as Amazon locally suddenly had 'no release date' when JBHifi had this friday 19th and the price was good A $57 so i am now buying from their.Certainly with all the negative + positive comments coming i will listen next week with great interest,judging from all the 'extra' studio chat left on it already sounds more like a FTD release than a general public one! Looking forward to it anyhow!

i predict you'll love it.
im on Rd3 going thru the set.
cd1...again...right now.

[rockinrebel]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

Of course there are so many legal loopholes to this scenario, and one could argue that acetates from a private collection don't belong to Sony, for example. So, I wouldn't totally discount it.

It would be interesting to see if the acetates from Gravel Road's 'It Don't Have To Be Strictly Country' series see a PD re-issue. They were very good quality and are a great listen.

On the subject of copyright protection; whilst I would agree that the recent sets have been driven by this aim, Ernst and the team are not obliged to issue physical discs in order to achieve this goal.

Remember that the Memphis Sessions were originally going to be a download only collection, and I'm pretty sure that if a recording is made available to streaming services, even for a limited time, the copyright is then protected. This has been done by Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones in the past.

[JohanD]

I like this release, i like the new "mixes" on the masters very much.
The voice of Elvis is so clear, it gives another look at these sessions, even more positive.

And if i want to hear the original masters again, ,i'll go back to the many various previous releases we have.

[Gary Crawford]

This might be a bit too cynical and perhaps not even rooted in any potential reality as I am no expert on the payment of performance royalties for such releases. However could it be possible that the removal of backing vocals reduces the overall performance royalties that would be payable by Sony? Helping reduce overall production costs and edge the release into some type of profit....?

[pmp]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

[norrie]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

[Steve Morse]

Why is it that we never get any feedback or communication (fan to fan, so to speak) from Ernst/Roger ? They are Evis fans, after all. The apparent decisions on removing vocal backings and the shoddy errors in the booklet are matters that should be addressed by them. We pay a lot of money for their products.

Also, I do not recall seeing any reaction (as to the issued product) on this thread from the forum's most prominent member. Why is that, I wonder ?

[pmp]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

Yes. They have got away with versions that are merely unedited by twenty seconds or so, and so my belief is that it wouldn't be challenged.

[rockinrebel]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

I'm not sure. Hence my post. If we look at the import news section on this site, it's clear that a lot of recent releases have been compiled from material that we assume can generally be issued under the EU copyright law.

I haven't seen any dedicated compilations of undubbed masters as such, even though some of these titles do include some undubbed recordings.

However such releases are only available via the normal 'import' dealers, and are not for sale via Amazon or other legal online retailers in the same way that recent soundboard releases from the likes of MRS or Rox Vox are.

So as Gravel Road for example, have released dedicated collections of undubbed recordings from both the 1969 Memphis sessions and the June / Sept 1970 Nashville sessions, when such things were illegal - I find it surprising that these recordings haven't been copied by the major PD labels that are allowed to sell legally via Amazon etc. if they are really no longer protected by EU law.

[pmp]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

I'm not sure. Hence my post. If we look at the import news section on this site, it's clear that a lot of recent releases have been compiled from material that we assume can generally be issued under the EU copyright law.

I haven't seen any dedicated compilations of undubbed masters as such, even though some of these titles do include some undubbed recordings.

However such releases are only available via the normal 'import' dealers, and are not for sale via Amazon or other legal online retailers in the same way that recent soundboard releases from the likes of MRS or Rox Vox are.

So as Gravel Road for example, have released dedicated collections of undubbed recordings from both the 1969 Memphis sessions and the June / Sept 1970 Nashville sessions, when such things were illegal - I find it surprising that these recordings haven't been copied by the major PD labels that are allowed to sell legally via Amazon etc. if they are really no longer protected by EU law.

They haven't been copied by PD labels because Sony have, by and large, released the undubbed recordings before the copyright ran out (on the 2019, 2020 and 2021 sets). Remember that releasing the 1971 undubbed recordings this year isn't just a case of Sony getting in before the PD labels, but they are extending the European copyrights on those undubbed masters for another 70 years, thus preventing those labels to reissue what Sony have first issued this year. Undubbed Memphis recordings were released in 2019, Nashville 1970 last year, and Nashville 1971 this year - so what collections of undubbed recordings would you expect from the PD labels?

And before 1969, most recordings were not overdubbed anyway, hence why there are no undubbed collections.

[pmp]

Today I copied the 3rd and 4th discs to the computer, and then edited out most of the dialogue and false starts, so that they played in a similar way to the Collector's Gold discs or the early FTD compilations.

Removing (most of) that studio chatter and false starts cuts down the running time of those two discs by a total of about 35-37 minutes.

That's room for a dozen more takes to have been included.

[rockinrebel]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

I'm not sure. Hence my post. If we look at the import news section on this site, it's clear that a lot of recent releases have been compiled from material that we assume can generally be issued under the EU copyright law.

I haven't seen any dedicated compilations of undubbed masters as such, even though some of these titles do include some undubbed recordings.

However such releases are only available via the normal 'import' dealers, and are not for sale via Amazon or other legal online retailers in the same way that recent soundboard releases from the likes of MRS or Rox Vox are.

So as Gravel Road for example, have released dedicated collections of undubbed recordings from both the 1969 Memphis sessions and the June / Sept 1970 Nashville sessions, when such things were illegal - I find it surprising that these recordings haven't been copied by the major PD labels that are allowed to sell legally via Amazon etc. if they are really no longer protected by EU law.

They haven't been copied by PD labels because Sony have, by and large, released the undubbed recordings before the copyright ran out (on the 2019, 2020 and 2021 sets). Remember that releasing the 1971 undubbed recordings this year isn't just a case of Sony getting in before the PD labels, but they are extending the European copyrights on those undubbed masters for another 70 years, thus preventing those labels to reissue what Sony have first issued this year. Undubbed Memphis recordings were released in 2019, Nashville 1970 last year, and Nashville 1971 this year - so what collections of undubbed recordings would you expect from the PD labels?

And before 1969, most recordings were not overdubbed anyway, hence why there are no undubbed collections.

But the acetates from 1970 as released on the two volumes of 'It Don't Have To Be Strictly Country' are different mixes to the original masters, and also different to what was issued on From Elvis In Nashville by Sony last year. Some probably have longer fades too.

So where do we draw the line? This is why I think the subject of undubbed masters (or alternate mixes) is something of a grey area.

It's also worth noting that the acetates from the 1969 Memphis sessions have not seen an official release either, but to the best of my knowledge they haven't been issued by any mainstream PD labels.

[pmp]

I'm a bit sceptical about copyright protection on 'undubbed masters'. As they are essentially different mixes of the recordings that we have known for years, I'm not sure that a PD label could get away with issuing such a collection.

...

They have, and they do.

Would PD labels be able then to release the undubbed masters with the backing vocals intact ?
You know,like Ernst should have done

I'm not sure. Hence my post. If we look at the import news section on this site, it's clear that a lot of recent releases have been compiled from material that we assume can generally be issued under the EU copyright law.

I haven't seen any dedicated compilations of undubbed masters as such, even though some of these titles do include some undubbed recordings.

However such releases are only available via the normal 'import' dealers, and are not for sale via Amazon or other legal online retailers in the same way that recent soundboard releases from the likes of MRS or Rox Vox are.

So as Gravel Road for example, have released dedicated collections of undubbed recordings from both the 1969 Memphis sessions and the June / Sept 1970 Nashville sessions, when such things were illegal - I find it surprising that these recordings haven't been copied by the major PD labels that are allowed to sell legally via Amazon etc. if they are really no longer protected by EU law.

They haven't been copied by PD labels because Sony have, by and large, released the undubbed recordings before the copyright ran out (on the 2019, 2020 and 2021 sets). Remember that releasing the 1971 undubbed recordings this year isn't just a case of Sony getting in before the PD labels, but they are extending the European copyrights on those undubbed masters for another 70 years, thus preventing those labels to reissue what Sony have first issued this year. Undubbed Memphis recordings were released in 2019, Nashville 1970 last year, and Nashville 1971 this year - so what collections of undubbed recordings would you expect from the PD labels?

And before 1969, most recordings were not overdubbed anyway, hence why there are no undubbed collections.

But the acetates from 1970 as released on the two volumes of 'It Don't Have To Be Strictly Country' are different mixes to the original masters, and also different to what was issued on From Elvis In Nashville by Sony last year. Some probably have longer fades too.

So where do we draw the line? This is why I think the subject of undubbed masters (or alternate mixes) is something of a grey area.

It's where the courts and lawyers draw the line. And Sony clearly haven't taken the likes of Elvis One to court for issuing undubbed masters of certain movie songs, or unedited takes. But companies like MRS have been busy releasing stuff from TTWII etc rather than acetates of different mixes - which most fans probably couldn't care less about now they have the same material from the mastertapes. But it's also clear that different mixes do count as being different enough to get away with according to MRS lawyers - they got away with the opening and closing show from Jan/Feb 1970 and the early show from 1969 (all released by FTD), and no doubt that was because they were in fake stereo. I'm also pretty sure that the undubbed masters from Feb 1970 were released on a PD label, too, this year, albeit in limited numbers.

[ale]

The box is very good but....the master of Its only love should have been included with voices...at least on the chorus (theres a space left for them specially on the second one and left that part empty was a completely mistake)
Another pity is the mix on Merry xams Baby....the drums are too low on the mix IMO.... band doesn't sound as strong as on other xmas tracks