Tags
Motown M 1006 (A), April 1961
(re-pressed May 1961)
b/w A Love That Can Never Be
(Written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King)
Ladies and gentlemen, we now present one of the least edifying chapters in the Motown story: the Satintones’ Tomorrow And Always.
This is supposed to be an “answer record”, i.e. a record which attempts to cash in on the chart success of another, usually unrelated record. Indeed, it’s meant to be the most literal kind of answer record: a sweet, reassuring response to another song whose very title is an unanswered question – the Shirelles’ Will You Love Me Tomorrow? Here, the Satintones attempt to give voice to the voiceless boy being addressed in the Shirelles’ hit, as they strive to reassure their girl that yes, they will indeed love her Tomorrow and Always. Aw.
In fact, though, it’s not really an “answer record” at all. It’s an unashamed, inexcusable, totally brazen rip-off of the Shirelles record, literally a note-for-note cover version with slightly different lyrics. Not only that, a note-for-note cover version of a song everyone in the world already knows. Seriously, it’s hilarious.
The story quoted in the liner notes The Complete Motown Singles: Volume 1 smacks of the party line to me. Janie Bradford, who claims much responsibility, brushes it off as an error; “Mr Gordy was out of town”, she says, “we didn’t know anything about stealing melodies”, and so on. There are a few rather gaping holes in that story. Firstly, young they may have been, but Janie Bradford was also already a successful hit songwriter; I find it hard to believe anyone could be that ignorant of copyright law, or that Berry Gordy, one of the most ruthless, brilliant businessmen in Sixties America, would have overlooked what was happening and allowed such a jape to continue when he got back to the office. Secondly, according to both the paperwork and the record’s label, Berry Gordy actually produced this record, in two separate versions recorded several weeks apart, so unless he somehow did it in his sleep, I fail to see how Bradford’s story stacks up.
I like to fill my posts with Youtube links to other records to provide context and reference, but I never normally post links to the actual record I’m writing about – I always think if you’re going to do that, well, why bother reading what I’ve written when you can listen to it yourself and make your own mind up? But here I’m going to make an exception to that rule, just this once, in order to illustrate just how gobsmackingly brazen a rip-off this record is.
First, the Shirelles…
…and then, the Satintones…
…yeah, OK, you’re thinking, it’s pretty egregious, but… what’s that? It’s not quite as blatant as I’ve made it sound? It’s not completely outwith the bounds of probability that this was just a youthful mistake, naïve teenagers with no real idea about copyright law, blah blah blah, no harm done?
Maybe, except – and this is the really unbelievable bit – except that, having somehow avoided attracting a lawsuit, those involved then went back two weeks later and re-recorded it to sound even more similar.
I mean, just listen to it, for goodness’ sake. Sheesh.
No, it’s utterly inconceivable that everyone involved didn’t know exactly what they were doing, and it’s impossible to work out how they thought they’d get away with it – but they obviously did think they could get away with it, since they had the sheer brass neck to pretend this was a new original song, and award two Jobete writers, Robert Bateman and Janie Bradford, songwriting credits.
It doesn’t say that any more, because they very much didn’t get away with it; Motown were served with a lawsuit at breakneck speed, less than a week after the release of the second version, an open-and-shut case of copyright infringement. Which they would have lost, obviously. (I’m guessing this may have been an out-of-court settlement deal, rather than Motown actually having the sheer gall to stand up in court and pretend otherwise, but I don’t know the facts and don’t pretend to.)
What is clear is that the songwriting credits now list only Goffin and King, reflecting Tomorrow And Always as a barely-altered cover of Will You Love Me Tomorrow?, and that this single was swiftly withdrawn for a second time, being re-pressed with the same catalogue number but with the A-side now replaced with an older (and far superior) recording, the pretty Angel.
I’m inclined to see this as an error of judgment about how far you could push your luck nicking other people’s songs, rather than an honest mistake about the minutiae of copyright law, and I find it brazenly amusing rather than disgracefully venal – but it’s still scarcely admirable behaviour, and I’m glad Motown didn’t do anything like this again.
Oh yeah, and the record itself? It’s not a bad cover, as you can hear, but it’s nothing more than that.
Needless to say, it didn’t arrest the by-now-starting-to-get-alarming run of non-charting, critically-underwhelming Motown singles in early 1961, though one gets the feeling this was a bit of a lucky escape; a struggling indie label trying to pull this sort of stunt today would probably find themselves dissolved and penniless having been sued back to the Stone Age by some major label’s relentless legal pressure. Music fans everywhere should be eternally grateful that Motown got off so lightly.
MOTOWN JUNKIES VERDICT
(I’ve had MY say, now it’s your turn. Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment, or click the thumbs at the bottom there. Dissent is encouraged!)
You’re reading Motown Junkies, an attempt to review every Motown A- and B-side ever released. Click on the “previous” and “next” buttons below to go back and forth through the catalogue, or visit the Master Index for a full list of reviews so far.
(Or maybe you’re only interested in The Satintones? Click for more.)
 |
 |
| Richard Wylie & His Band “I’ll Still Be Around” |
The Satintones “A Love That Can Never Be” |
Motown Junkies 
Someone should ask Carole King what transpired. I find it hard to believe Berry didn’t sign off on this. He still ran the whole production side, most of the writing side, talent scout, and probably swept up occasionally. Which reminds me, I think it was one of the Temptations who said everybody pitched in and did what needed to be done…cleaning, sweeping, whatever…”we were family”.
LikeLike
Like I said in the review, I think the “party line” just stretches credibility to breaking point. In every other aspect of the company’s day-to-day operation, most accounts give the impression you couldn’t have sneezed at Hitsville without Berry Gordy knowing about it, so to then suggest he’d let a record slip out (with his name on it as producer, to boot) without him at least approving it first…? I just don’t buy it.
I doubt Carole King herself gave much of a toss, to be honest; it was Eldon Publishing who launched the lawsuit, and according to the liner notes to excellent The Satintones Sing! compilation CD, even that might only have been because this was starting to get airplay and looked like it might conceivably break big, rather than as a point of principle or anything. The implication – and we’ll never know – is that if this had stayed under the radar, nobody would have bothered to sue; the maxim seems to have been “push it as far as you can get away with”. This just turned out to be too far.
LikeLike
Luckily for us who were able to get ahold of the “replacement” issue with “Angel”, it WAS “pulled back”. Otherwise we’d have had to wait until a couple of years ago to hear the unreleased “Angel”. As it was, that song was already to “ancient sounding” to sell much. Waiting another 4-5 months might have made Berry to decide to NEVER release it.
LikeLike
Indeed – I made the same point at the end of the Angel review, it’s certainly one of the luckier scrapes with history in the Motown story.
LikeLike
When the song began to play, I had to look back at the Youtube page to make sure I was not playing a cover of “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow.” Sorry Young Motown this record is grand theft robbery of song. I would have sued them too. Regardless of the thievery & re-wording the group sound good vocally.
LikeLike
I was listening to this again today (three and a half years later!) after it came up on shuffle, and while the copying is just laughably blatant – I mean, what did they think would happen?! – that 2 feels much, much too harsh, because the singing (as both you and Ricky pointed out) is actually really rather good. If it was a straight cover, rather than pretending to be a new song, I’d probably have looked upon it more kindly.
LikeLike
Even though it is a knock off of Will You Still Love Me…This is another Satintone fav of mine
Motown should have known better lol. But the lead is very beautiful and i like it so 7/10
LikeLike
I wouldn’t go as high as that, but yes, you’re right, the singing is tight and 2 is too low. Or maybe I’m becoming soft in my advanced age.
LikeLike
I’m 65. White. Born & raised in Detroit & suburbs. The Satintones are 1 of my favorite early Tamla/Motown groups & Tomorrow & Always is one of my favorite early Tamla/Motown releases. I have copies of both versions. (There has been a rumor/tale in Det of a third version with a female co-lead but that is simply an error on the part of some FEW listeners who have heard the ORIG 1st version [no strings] with the alternating dual male harmonies [one sounding high pitch falsetto] & mistaking it for a female voice). Yes, the 1st “DETROIT ONLY” version is QUITE scarce. It’s taken me YEARS to find a copy. HOWEVER, the 2nd version, WITH STRINGS, is not as hard to find as you might believe. The 1st version was withdrawn/replaced after less than 3 weeks to be replaced by the “alternate” 2nd version. NOT just over-dubbed but re-recorded with a single male lead & accompanied by moonlighting members of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra to play the “string” (violin) accompaniment. (These same DSO members were used on the “string/hit” version of WAY OVER THERE (Miracles) not long after.) The song got immediate airplay in Detroit & began to break out regionally (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, western Pennsylvania & also southern Ontario, CANADA). It may not have charted in Billboard or Cashbox but it was headed for those charts. OR, it may have begun to chart & due to the Federal Court order was dropped from the charts. Anyway, Tamla/Motown was so enthusiastic about the song that, in anticipation of the companies 1st hit, they contracted with MONARCH RECORDS in California to make/distribute several thousand copies on the west coast! MONARCH copies can easily be identified by the label. For some reason California pressings from Monarch have a label “font” totally different from east coast pressings. This is true not only of pressings of “Tomorrow & Always” but also carried over onto Monarch pressed releases of “WAY OVER THERE” & “SHOP AROUND”. “FONT” is the description of “print size and letter spacing”. NOTE- the reference of “west” coast vs “east” coast pressings is based on the fact that in the late ’50’s thru most of the ’60’s independent pressing plants located WEST of the Mississippi river (in general) added a “delta” triangle to the matrix of records pressed at their plants. The label “font” difference is easy to detect. East coast presses have the song title (in capital letters) as “TOMORROW & ALWAYS”. The west coast (Monarch pressed) labels have the title printed (again in capital letters) as “T O M O R R O W & A L W A Y S”. Double spacing between letters & triple spacing between words. In all as many as 50,000 “string version” copies were pressed nationwide. The Monarch copies were the last to be pressed due to the lawsuit. ALL 2nd versions “with strings” have H625 etched in the “dead wax/trail off” of the record) How many reached stores before sales were halted is unknown. The lawsuit was filed by SCEPTOR RECORDS & the music publisher ALDRON MUSIC once the 2nd (stringed) version broke out regionally (OUTSIDE OF DETROIT). The lawsuit was filed in New York City Federal Court based on a copy write infringement claim. (NOTE-Sceptor records was headquartered in New York City.) That New York City based Federal Judge, without a jury, ruled that TAMLA/MOTOWN was guilty of copy-write infringement after listening to both the Shirelles version & Satintones version. Had the hearing been held in Detroit (or Pittsburgh or Cincinnati) a different Judge may have ruled differently. The NYC FED Judge ordered that Tamla/Motown had to pay damages equivilent to all profit to the plaintiffs and immediately cease production & promotion of “Tomorrow & Always”. In a broad step he also ordered that all Federally licensed radio stations were enjoined from broadcasting (playing on the air) MOTOWN 1006/Tomorrow & Always. So, based on fear that they could lose their FCC license to broadcast, the song left the airways for good.
Was Berry Gordy involved with the songs release? In my opinion YES! MAYBE he was “out of town” during the release of the !st version. But he CERTAINLY had a hand in recalling that version & replacing it with the “strings” hit version. And NO ONE at Motown would ever order a west coast pressing of up to 25,000 copies without HIS approval. Add to that the fact that word in Detroit (by those who would know) is that he was so incensed by the NYC Federal Court ruling that he immediately ordered that Motown 1006 be re-released AGAIN! This time with “Tomorrow & Always” replaced by “Angel” and instructions to radio stations to play “A LOVE THAT CAN NEVER BE” as the “A” side. His error here was to release this as Motown 1006-AGAIN (or was it DELIBERATE?). In any case, due to the Federal Court ruling prohibiting broadcast of M-1006, NO radio station would play ANY record with the label M-1006. EVER. The 3rd version of M-1006 died quickly & remains quite rare today.
Because the original ruling was in the form of a “Temporary Restraining Order” (in the U.S. called a “T.R.O.) once Gordy sold Motown & all it’s assets the buyers were free to release, or lease out for release, the song(s) which they ultimately did on CD. Is the song an “answer song”? ABSOLUTELY. Is it meant to sound like/mimic another song? ABSOLUTELY. Was it copy write infringement? NO, I don’t believe so. This type of “answer” song was an accepted “standard practice” in the U.S. throughout the ’40’s, 50’s & ’60’s. MOST WERE FAILURES. A couple notable exceptions would be “He’ll Have To Stay” & “I’m The Girl From Wolverton Mountain”. There are MANY others. The fact that then struggling Tamla/Motown would put it out is understandable. The label needed cash flow. The song itself IS subtly different from the Shirelles version. Sung by males, with different wording AND to a similar yet SLOWER beat makes it DIFFERENT. One of your sites contributors comments that it’s “too slow” comparerd to the Shirelles version. That alone makes it different (not exact). It’s fate was decided by a New York City based Federal judge (a resident of NYC) in response to a complaint filed by a New York City based company against an out of state upstart record label (owned by a black man) based in Detroit, MI. ‘Nuf Said
LikeLike
Interesting information, but I don’t think any other judge would have made a different descision. The melody is the same as WYLMT and therefore must be a copyright infringement without a doubt. However, by citing Goffin & King as co-writers and Aldon along with Jobete for publishing, one might have thought this would have allowed a different judgement to be made. Unless, Motown had no intention of sharing any profits from the sales with Goffin/King/Aldon.
LikeLike
At the time of release “Motown” (actually incorporated as Tamla) was strapped for cash. The first 3 records released (Bad Girl, Come To Me and Merry Go ‘Round) were ALL pressed in limited quantities and for the sole purpose of LEASING those records to larger companies for a share of the sales profits. Those leases cost dearly. To get BAD GIRL on Chess Gordy had to give up The Miracles 2nd release to Chess (I Need A Change). A “throw away” granted, but he had to provide a followup. He had to give up the CONTRACT of Marv Johnson to United Artists to get “Come To Me” released. He had to give up Eddie Hollands 2nd release, again to U.A. to get Merry Go ‘Round released. A number of “duds” followed. Listening to some one might wonder HOW they escaped the studio. Then came “Money” and that helped the cash flow for a while. Gordy got sweet deal from his sister Raynoma Gordy who worked in the offices of ANNA records-AT THE TIME A SUBSIDIERY OF CHESS RECORDS for Anna to distribute the song nationally EXCEPT for within Det . Tamla kept Detroit.
So at this point, early ’60, it seems to me that Gordy would have been willing to share the profits from Tomorrow & Always-given the chance. He needed the money. But with Sceptor/Aldon taking him to NYC Fed court almost as soon as the song broke out regionally they gave him no opportunity.
The timing of the lawsuit to me makes little sense. Obviously Sceptor/Aldon had no plans for their own male artist/group “answer song” or we’d have heard it by now. If they truly felt they’d been “infringed” on why not wait until the song gained more popularity (AND SALES-which it seemed destined to do) THEN file the lawsuit. It would have meant more profit for them when the suit was upheld.
I still disagree with you about the outcome of the lawsuit. In my opinion, had it been heard by a Judge in Detroit or even Chicago, I think the outcome may have been different. But that aside, lets say, for a minute it IS infringement. I still think it’s the BEST answer song I’ve ever heard! Play them back-to-back and I think you’ll agree.
Pity you (nor I) will ever hear it on the radio.
LikeLike
Raynoma was Berry’s WIFE, and worked at Tamla. Berry’s two sisters (Gwen and Anna OWNED Anna Records, which was distributed by Chess Records, but not owned by it.Chess did NOT own the music publishing rights to Tamla/Motown (Jobete) or Anna (Ro-Gor or Fidelity) Songs.
LikeLike
WOW! OK, I must have mistaken Gwen for Raynoma. MY mistake. But never the less B. Gordy got a sweet deal from ANNA and Chess distributed it. So, as you seem to know so much, which sister stole a master of the ’67 re-release of SHOP AROUND (released with A2 version only), took it to Chicago and bootlegged it (with a LINED/STRIPED LABEL)? The label is inferior, too yellow and with “broken lines” in the lined label above the center hole. It also has the identical matrix of the Tamla re-release – 55518-A2 that was put out in late ’67 with both the “globe” and “bar” labels but maintained the original release number of 54034. The etching appears hand written and the “2” at the end is slanted to the left with the bottom line of the 2 slanting upward and to the right sort of like a kite string.
To my knowledge, ALL ORIGINAL 1960 A2 matrixed versions were (accidentally) pressed in early Dec ’60 in California by Monarch Records. ALL these pressings received misprinted labels that listed the 1st writers credit as “GORDT” instead of “GORDY”. The matrix of these pressings is indeed 55518-A2 but the matrix also includes a “delta” mark triangle followed by 36968. The ’67 re-issues do NOT include this in their matrix.
The “globe” and “bar” label releases are obviously not from 1960. Th “lined/striped” label with an IDENTICAL matrix to those releases also cannot be an original.
So, do you have any insight/opinion as to where the ’67 striped label originated? My (limited) resources tell me a relative of B. Gordy, upset with him over money/distribution of profits, “spirited away” (stole) a metal master from the Motown offices, took it to Chicago, had it privately pressed, then bootlegged it out as a 1960 “original alternate version”. This bootleg pressing MAY have occurred AFTER 1967 but the 1967 master was obviously used and these bootlegs are now popping up for sale on the internet at prices well above those of an original 1960 (Monarch) pressing.
Your thoughts/insight?
Thanks
LikeLike
I have the (Gordt) pressing, which I bought in 1960. It has the Monarch delta, and has the Delta # 37073. It couldn’t be the boot, as I bought it new in 1960, and it was the same hit version as I have on my Columbia Midwest ZTSC copy from 1960. I first heard about and saw the bootlegged version during the 1980s, before Berry sold Motown, and after I stopped working for them. I have no idea who stole the master, and used a photocopy of an original striped Tamla label as a master for the new label. What you heard about a disgruntled relative is possible, I suppose. But, I have no idea who it was, and believe that it was pressed up no earlier than the early 1980s (1982 or later), and probably before the company was sold in 1988.
LikeLike
I wonder if the ‘Gordt’ mistake was simply because ‘T’ is next to ‘Y’ on a typewriter keyboard? Presumably, somebody mis-typed the original label printing order and didn’t bother checking it before sending it to the printer! This wouldn’t surprise me when one considers more serious admin errors that occured at Motown in the early days. Particularly album sleeves that were printed with wrong track orders, etc.
They must have been pretty lax in the secretarial office at Motown in those early days!
LikeLike
Yes. No doubt that THAT is what happened. That CAN’T be a printer error, because the”t” and “y” boxes are not adjacent.
LikeLike
First off, the labels were printed at Monarch in Calif. NOT in Detroit. Notice the “font” differences in the printing of the song title. ONLY Monarch printed labels (for Tamla/Motown) have that font style. Previous examples, ALL Pressed by Monarch, are the stringed version of Tomorrow & Always (M-1006) as well as the stringed version of Way Over There (T-54028). Monarch, to that point, always elongated the song titles with double spacing between letters and triple or quadruple spacing between words. Totally different from pressing plants east of the Mississippi river.
Monarch was a major Southern California based independent pressing plant in 1960. Servicing many independent west coast labels. All they needed was a reel to reel master tape and they could make metal masters from that as well as print labels in-house. Servicing several labels at once required several mastering machines as well as several pressing machines.
In very early December, with Shop Around shooting up the charts everywhere EAST of the Mississippi, B. Gordy knew he had to get the song to the WEST coast in LARGE numbers as soon as possible so he contracted with Monarch for a “rush” pressing of about 50,000 units with at least 100,000 more to soon follow.
This was a BIG contract for Monarch so they began making the first 50,000 labels on a “rush” basis while awaiting the master tapes from Detroit. Somehow, during production, the first writers credit was miss-spelled as B. Gordt instead of B. Gordy. The error was not discovered.
Meanwhile, in Detroit, Gordy ordered all available master tapes of Shop Around to be boxed up for delivery to Monarch. The more tapes they got the faster they could be metal mastered and pressed. The Motown employee assigned to retrieve the tapes took everything on the shelf and boxed them up for mailing. Unknown to Motown this bundle included the previously unreleased A2 tape. Upon receipt of the tapes Monarch began making metal masters, pressing records and applying the labels with the miss-spelled writers credit. The Monarch pressed records with “GORDT” writers credit have the following Motown “master” numbers in the dead wax etching: A2 version is delta 36968, L1 (hit) version is delta 37073.
AFTER the first “rush” pressing the next 125,000-150,000 presses have the 1st writers credit corrected to read B. Gordy. The labels retain the elongated title font spacing- S H O P A R O U N D.
Now, my information is that in 1960 a metal master was good for only 5,000 to 6,000 quality pressings before it wore down. So based on that estimate Motown probably sent 5 maybe 6 tapes to Monarch. If each tape was mastered twice then the A2 tape got two masters made and 10,000 to 12,000 records pressed out of the total run.
But it gets a little murky from there. According to a conversation I had with Ron Murphy in the late ’90’s, the first distribution went to nearby Los Angeles and local radio stations began receiving calls from listeners claiming that the copies of the record they had bought had a different song then the one being played over the radio. One station challenged a listener to bring in his copy, which he did. it was at that point that, upon comparison of both the song and the matrix numbers that the A2 pressing was discovered.
Long story short the radio station DJ called Motown (phone number on the label) and inquired about the two different versions. It was at that point Motown realized the A2 had “escaped” and contacted Monarch. Monarch found the errant tape and contacted the distributor. Undelivered copies of A2 were, when found, destroyed at Motowns request. However NO recall of all distributed copies was initiated. So how many A2’s reached stores and were sold is unknown. But I’ll note here that during my 50 years of collecting (I’m 65) I’ve found that only about 1 in 50 Monarch pressed “Gordt” labeled records contain the A2 version. IF they pressed 50,000 units and half have survived that would mean there are about 500 A2 copies left. Maybe fewer.
A couple side notes here. First concerns the Columbia/Chicago ZTSC 67018 pressing. Enthused with the L1 version Gordy sent master tapes to at least 3 companies for metal mastering. Bell Sound in New York got one of the orders and Columbia Records Midwest office in Chicago got one of the others. Columbia had its’ own “in house” capability of not just making metal masters and pressing records but also of making labels. Tamla/Motown already had an account with Columbia/Chicago. They had previously pressed 8 other records and had established an account #67 for Tamla/Motown related labels. So Shop Around was the 9th pressing overall. With each side of the record getting a different yet consecutive number that meant Shop Around was #18 and the flip #19. So in Columbia/Chicago’s eyes Shop Around was pressing #18 for contract #67. OR – 67018. The capital letters ZTSC are an alphabetic code used by the press operator to enable him/her to set up the record press. “Z” is code for a 45 rpm record (the speed). “T” is for the diameter of the record (7 inch). “S” is for styrene (the substrate the record is to be pressed on). The “C” is for the Columbia office that holds the production contract- in this case Chicago.
The tape arrived in a box labeled A1 (crossed out), A2 (crossed out) L1(2 37073. Confused, the production manager simply resorted to his “in house” reference code of ZTSC 67018 for mastering and label printing. So copies of this label are 1st presses (out of Columbia/Chicago) of the hit version. All subsequent pressings from Columbia have H-55518 A2 on the labels and L1(2 in the matrix.
My second side note reverts back to the A2 “alternate” version. BOTH A2 AND L1 are, ultimately, “alternate ” versions. The very first, ORIGINAL VERSION of Shop Around has an A1 matrix number. A1 was recorded 1st and released 1st (in limited numbers in DETROIT and WINDSOR ONT (on REO) only. After 3 weeks the A2 was scheduled to replace the A1 (due to worse than poor sales) but scheduled shipment for mastering/pressing was cancelled when B. Gordy came up with (in a dream as he relates it) the soon to be “hit” L1 versions. The A2 tape was shelved until accidentally shipped to the Monarch records pressing plant in southern California in Dec ’60.
I have many pressings of the song. A1, A2 (Monarch 36968), L1 (Monarch 37073), REO (label 8532X/matrix X532– plays A1 version), the Columbia/Chicago ZTSC 67018 as well as both the “globe” and “bar” label late 1967 re-releases with the A2 version, as well as several east coast pressed L1 versions (L1 (2, L1 (3 & L1 (1 ). So I have a pretty good idea of the Shop Around pressings.
Any insight or dissent?
LikeLike
Amazing information, I enjoyed reading it. Thanks very much
LikeLike
I am still unsure why this is thought to be any less of an answer record than, say, Damita Jo’s “I’ll Save the Last Dance For You” is to the Drifters’ “Save the Last Dance for Me”.
LikeLike
If you read my earlier comments you’ll see I don’t dispute your “answer song” analogy. I merely think it’s one of the best answer songs I’ve heard. And I also feel that Motown’s original vision and purpose of the release was to share royalties and gain cash flow. The ORIGINAL version, with no strings and a dual male lead gave the same writers credits as the stringed version that brought the lawsuit (King & Goffin). The labels BMI copy write shares credit between Jobete and Aldon.
Was this an answer song? Beyond a doubt. And in my humble opinion a great one. Was (Tamla)Motown trying to “steal” the King/Goffin/Aldon work? I don’t think so. I think “steal” is too strong a word. To me it appears they made a great “adaptation” of the song and in sharing the writing & publishing credits up front (even before those “point of the law suit -strings” were added) were simply trying to make SOME money (shared with the other parties).
For it’s time period it was a quality song.
LikeLike
It is the Nixon Administration who has taken the position, somewhat illogically I feel, that the similarities between the two records somehow make the Satintones a cover version rather than an answer record. I see no reason why these two views should be taken as mutually exclusive.
LikeLike
Somehow this song (the re-record, I think) ended up on a public domain British compilation of “The Songs of Carole King”! This led me to think she & Gerry Goffin actually perpetrated this shameless knockoff themselves! Carole probably DIDN’T care that much. Don Kirshner, who no doubt is the one who sued (he’s the “Don” in Eldon), probably paid the Goffins so little in royalties she barely noticed the difference!
LikeLike
That should be Aldon music publisher not Eldon! The Al part from Al Nevins the Don part from Don Kirshner!
LikeLike
Pingback: Motor City Memories Vol. 1 LP – Review and Guide (Side 2) | Joel E. Turner - Fiction