Elvis Back In Nashville (4 cd Box Set)

[Markus K.]

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

Except from the glaring ommission of the originally recorded backup vocals I generally like the mixing decisions for this set. Interestingly though my only complaint would also be for "Merry Christmas Baby" where the low mix of the drums takes a lot of the drive from that performance. I still like the overall clarity of trhe mix but find this one exception lacking power and drive due to the somewhat low sounding drums. But I can live with that.

[etp]

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

My guess is that the original session tape / multitrack source is lost? There are some tracks on discs 1&2 that have a familiar soundmix - they are mastered louder but not different. MCB could be one of those lost tapes?

[Kullervo]

So, the only reason Sony/BMG have been releasing all these nice and impressive sets of CDs all these years is copyright protection? I could be wrong, but to me, it resembles a conspiracy theory. This theory is based on the assumption, that without the copyright issues, these sets and these versions of the music would not be released by the official label, right? If this is so, then why bother releasing them at all, if they wouldn't release them anyhow? This looks like circular reasoning: They wouldn't release them were it not to prevent others from releasing them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be releasing them at all.

[Mona Lisa]

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.

Yeah - could have included take -7 ITS ONLY LOVE then ?

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[elvis-fan]

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.

But Shane why aren't all of those TTWII live and rehearsal recordings protected when they have all been released by Sony? How is it that MRS and several other bootleggers have been flooding the market with copies of these Sony recordings the past few months? I can't even count the number of LP's and CD's that have been released since that FTD rehearsal book came out...

[elvis-fan]

So, the only reason Sony/BMG have been releasing all these nice and impressive sets of CDs all these years is copyright protection? I could be wrong, but to me, it resembles a conspiracy theory. This theory is based on the assumption, that without the copyright issues, these sets and these versions of the music would not be released by the official label, right? If this is so, then why bother releasing them at all, if they wouldn't release them anyhow? This looks like circular reasoning: They wouldn't release them were it not to prevent others from releasing them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be releasing them at all.

At the end of the day, as a fan and consumer, why do you care?

[Kullervo]

So, the only reason Sony/BMG have been releasing all these nice and impressive sets of CDs all these years is copyright protection? I could be wrong, but to me, it resembles a conspiracy theory. This theory is based on the assumption, that without the copyright issues, these sets and these versions of the music would not be released by the official label, right? If this is so, then why bother releasing them at all, if they wouldn't release them anyhow? This looks like circular reasoning: They wouldn't release them were it not to prevent others from releasing them. Otherwise, they wouldn't be releasing them at all.

At the end of the day, as a fan and consumer, why do you care?

It's not about "caring". I'm just trying to figure out the thinking and arguments behind the "copyright protection" theory of Elvis releases and whether the theory is credible or not. As a fan and a collector, of course, I buy the releases that interest me and are fairly priced, anyway.

[Brian Quinn]

'Elvis Back In Nashville' enters the first UK Midweek Album Charts at No.22.

Brian

[Walter Hale 4]

'Elvis Back In Nashville' enters the first UK Midweek Album Charts at No.22.

Brian

Thanks but we know. Emjel already said so.

I'm just rapt that Elvis is back on the charts, along with ABBA and the fab four

[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.

But Shane why aren't all of those TTWII live and rehearsal recordings protected when they have all been released by Sony? How is it that MRS and several other bootleggers have been flooding the market with copies of these Sony recordings the past few months? I can't even count the number of LP's and CD's that have been released since that FTD rehearsal book came out...

I don't think there have been live TTWII releases in the public domain labels? Although I guess Sony could have opened the way to them through shutting out Charlie Hodge in the mix.

The rehearsal releases from TTWII is something I don't understand. There has to be a loophole somewhere for those, but I'm not sure what it is. After all, the dressing room rehearsals for the 68 TV show haven't appeared on those same labels. But I'm as perplexed as you for the 1970 rehearsals - with the exception of the Stage Rehearsals which Sony have only released stitched together with live performances. So, theoretically they could be released without that happening and be legal. But did Sony heavily edit the others? That's all I can think of.

[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 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.

But Shane why aren't all of those TTWII live and rehearsal recordings protected when they have all been released by Sony? How is it that MRS and several other bootleggers have been flooding the market with copies of these Sony recordings the past few months? I can't even count the number of LP's and CD's that have been released since that FTD rehearsal book came out...

I don't think there have been live TTWII releases in the public domain labels? Although I guess Sony could have opened the way to them through shutting out Charlie Hodge in the mix.

The rehearsal releases from TTWII is something I don't understand. There has to be a loophole somewhere for those, but I'm not sure what it is. After all, the dressing room rehearsals for the 68 TV show haven't appeared on those same labels. But I'm as perplexed as you for the 1970 rehearsals - with the exception of the Stage Rehearsals which Sony have only released stitched together with live performances. So, theoretically they could be released without that happening and be legal. But did Sony heavily edit the others? That's all I can think of.

Some of the TTWII rehearsal recordings originally appeared on boot CD's before they were issued by RCA / Sony. These included the July 24 Hollywood rehearsal and the August 10 stage rehearsal.

It's possible that these boots were not sourced from RCA recordings and the tapes came from someone in Elvis' inner circle.

Therefore, I would guess that the legal loophole for the PD companies is that the tapes were owned by M-G-M rather than RCA, and are therefore eligible for release under the EU copyright law as they hadn't seen an official release within 50 years of being recorded.

[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.

But Shane why aren't all of those TTWII live and rehearsal recordings protected when they have all been released by Sony? How is it that MRS and several other bootleggers have been flooding the market with copies of these Sony recordings the past few months? I can't even count the number of LP's and CD's that have been released since that FTD rehearsal book came out...

I don't think there have been live TTWII releases in the public domain labels? Although I guess Sony could have opened the way to them through shutting out Charlie Hodge in the mix.

The rehearsal releases from TTWII is something I don't understand. There has to be a loophole somewhere for those, but I'm not sure what it is. After all, the dressing room rehearsals for the 68 TV show haven't appeared on those same labels. But I'm as perplexed as you for the 1970 rehearsals - with the exception of the Stage Rehearsals which Sony have only released stitched together with live performances. So, theoretically they could be released without that happening and be legal. But did Sony heavily edit the others? That's all I can think of.

Some of the TTWII rehearsal recordings originally appeared on boot CD's before they were issued by RCA / Sony. These included the July 24 Hollywood rehearsal and the August 10 stage rehearsal.

It's possible that these boots were not sourced from RCA recordings and the tapes came from someone in Elvis' inner circle.

Therefore, I would guess that the legal loophole for the PD companies is that the tapes were owned by M-G-M rather than RCA, and are therefore eligible for release under the EU copyright law as they hadn't seen an official release within 50 years of being recorded.

Many things have come out on boots first. But they would still be copyrighted under MGM anyway if the tapes were owned by them, so that doesn't make a great deal of difference. It could be that the copyright on those rehearsals aren't actually owned by either MGM or RCA, and that they were licenced to Sony by a third party who also licensed them to MRS etc. But there's definitely some strange in that instance, and I don't have the rehearsals set from FTD to see any small print in there. Something somewhere seems to have prevented them from coming out officially in the first place - there seems no logical reason why FTD would wait 20 years to get around to this stuff. I guess we will never know!

[pmp]

When I get up tomorrow morning all will downloaded on my Apple Music. Looking forward to that. Most likely I’ll make the purchase of the box set next month. Got to get the cds.

The set is available on Apple Music in lossless 24bits/96khz, why on earth I want to play a CD in 16bits/44,1khz is beyond me I am wondering why I still keep buying this stuff in (much) lesser quality and keep it sealed on the shelf because of this ... I think that my CD days are finally over ...

You buy it so you can get the error-ridden booklet!

[ep1977]

'Elvis Back In Nashville' enters the first UK Midweek Album Charts at No.22.

Brian

Now down to No.29

[frus75]

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.

I’m with you that all chatter could be funny on first hearing, but waiting 1-2-3 minutes (sometimes 7 plus minutes on FTD) for the real take to start kind of kills the mood on repeating listening. That’s worse on FTD or mainstream vinyl, as you can edit it out

[Johnny2523]

I don't really mind the studio chatter.. some mentioned "but for 37 bucks" thats still cheaper then a ftd set of that kind i consider the extra chatter a bonus

[Walter Hale 4]

Copyright issues notwithstanding - Is there any interest for , any of you support a 1966-1968 Nashville multi set?

[pmp]

Part of an Amazon customer review of the new set.

I would like to respond to the review by Shane Brown – for those who don’t know, Shane has written a book about Elvis’s recordings. The book offers little insight and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the technicalities of singing – I studied voice (singing) and cello at the Royal Academy of Music, and am a professional classical musician – not that he professed to having such insight but it makes the book 100% redundant as first and foremost Elvis has to be appraised as a singer, one of innate and very rare genius, and a commercial recording artist second, and even then Mr Brown’s insight and knowledge are seriously lacking. If you can track it down, a much better starting point to understanding Elvis as a singer is Robert Matthew Walker’s "A Study In Music", later republished as "Heartbreak Hotel". But this is not a review of his book but feedback to his comments on "Elvis Back In Nashville" but the background is provided as context to his review.

This release has nothing to do with copyright law, law which Mr Brown seems remarkably unfamiliar. So, just to be clear, the essence of it are as follow as regards recordings: Master recording protections and rights are valid for 50 years after creation, those protects expiring in the event of the recording not being published (i.e released). When the work is released, copyright protections extend to 70 years from the end of the year it was released. However, to be clear, the copyright starts from new when a master recording is remastered and then released – Elvis’s recordings have been remastered many times, so each begins a new standalone cycle of 70 years. “Elvis Back In Nashville” contains very limited previously unreleased material to which the 50 year unpublished expiration of protection is of any relevance.

Someone doesn't seem to like me, and doesn't know their ar*e from their elbow when it comes to copyright law! The mind boggles.

On reporting the above review in live chat, I have just been asked if I'm the performer on the CD. Where do they get these people?

[YDKM]

Agree the Copyright laws are EXACTLY why we have recently got 1970/1971 and next year get 1972 sets released! First and foremost! And a partial reason why we recently got the Sept 2nd 1970 MRS show (although in that case it was 51 years after!)

[pmp]

Agree the Copyright laws are EXACTLY why we have recently got 1970/1971 and next year get 1972 sets released! First and foremost! And a partial reason why we recently got the Sept 2nd 1970 MRS show (although in that case it was 51 years after!)

It has to be 51 years, as public domain happens on 1st January after 50 years, so 1/1/21.

[emjel]

Part of an Amazon customer review of the new set.

I would like to respond to the review by Shane Brown – for those who don’t know, Shane has written a book about Elvis’s recordings. The book offers little insight and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the technicalities of singing – I studied voice (singing) and cello at the Royal Academy of Music, and am a professional classical musician – not that he professed to having such insight but it makes the book 100% redundant as first and foremost Elvis has to be appraised as a singer, one of innate and very rare genius, and a commercial recording artist second, and even then Mr Brown’s insight and knowledge are seriously lacking. If you can track it down, a much better starting point to understanding Elvis as a singer is Robert Matthew Walker’s "A Study In Music", later republished as "Heartbreak Hotel". But this is not a review of his book but feedback to his comments on "Elvis Back In Nashville" but the background is provided as context to his review.

This release has nothing to do with copyright law, law which Mr Brown seems remarkably unfamiliar. So, just to be clear, the essence of it are as follow as regards recordings: Master recording protections and rights are valid for 50 years after creation, those protects expiring in the event of the recording not being published (i.e released). When the work is released, copyright protections extend to 70 years from the end of the year it was released. However, to be clear, the copyright starts from new when a master recording is remastered and then released – Elvis’s recordings have been remastered many times, so each begins a new standalone cycle of 70 years. “Elvis Back In Nashville” contains very limited previously unreleased material to which the 50 year unpublished expiration of protection is of any relevance.

Someone doesn't seem to like me, and doesn't know their ar*e from their elbow when it comes to copyright law! The mind boggles.

On reporting the above review in live chat, I have just been asked if I'm the performer on the CD. Where do they get these people?

I’m surprised Rose gave the album 5 stars as she wasn’t that complimentary about the sound of Elvis’ voice and a few of the tracks. And I guess it wasn’t about your book either maybe she was awarding herself 5 stars with her complete misunderstanding of the new copyright laws and the remastering thing and the contradictions are strange. Clearly you have upset this person as she seems to be following you. Did you ignore her request to autograph the book perhaps?

[elvis-fan]

Copyright issues notwithstanding - Is there any interest for , any of you support a 1966-1968 Nashville multi set?

With or without the Clambake soundtrack?

[pmp]

Part of an Amazon customer review of the new set.

I would like to respond to the review by Shane Brown – for those who don’t know, Shane has written a book about Elvis’s recordings. The book offers little insight and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the technicalities of singing – I studied voice (singing) and cello at the Royal Academy of Music, and am a professional classical musician – not that he professed to having such insight but it makes the book 100% redundant as first and foremost Elvis has to be appraised as a singer, one of innate and very rare genius, and a commercial recording artist second, and even then Mr Brown’s insight and knowledge are seriously lacking. If you can track it down, a much better starting point to understanding Elvis as a singer is Robert Matthew Walker’s "A Study In Music", later republished as "Heartbreak Hotel". But this is not a review of his book but feedback to his comments on "Elvis Back In Nashville" but the background is provided as context to his review.

This release has nothing to do with copyright law, law which Mr Brown seems remarkably unfamiliar. So, just to be clear, the essence of it are as follow as regards recordings: Master recording protections and rights are valid for 50 years after creation, those protects expiring in the event of the recording not being published (i.e released). When the work is released, copyright protections extend to 70 years from the end of the year it was released. However, to be clear, the copyright starts from new when a master recording is remastered and then released – Elvis’s recordings have been remastered many times, so each begins a new standalone cycle of 70 years. “Elvis Back In Nashville” contains very limited previously unreleased material to which the 50 year unpublished expiration of protection is of any relevance.

Someone doesn't seem to like me, and doesn't know their ar*e from their elbow when it comes to copyright law! The mind boggles.

On reporting the above review in live chat, I have just been asked if I'm the performer on the CD. Where do they get these people?

I’m surprised Rose gave the album 5 stars as she wasn’t that complimentary about the sound of Elvis’ voice and a few of the tracks. And I guess it wasn’t about your book either maybe she was awarding herself 5 stars with her complete misunderstanding of the new copyright laws and the remastering thing and the contradictions are strange. Clearly you have upset this person as she seems to be following you. Did you ignore her request to autograph the book perhaps?

Me? Upset someone? Never!

Perhaps she had her hopes dashed when she found out I like blokes!

[luckyjackson1]

Copyright issues notwithstanding - Is there any interest for , any of you support a 1966-1968 Nashville multi set?

With or without the Clambake soundtrack?

Good one! Made my day!

[pmp]

Copyright issues notwithstanding - Is there any interest for , any of you support a 1966-1968 Nashville multi set?

It's been long overdue, to be honest. In fact it could extend to the non-formula soundtracks through 1969, as they rather built on the 1966-68 sound.