[78-L] Goldmine article on value of ODJB original 78

[Chris Zwarg]

At 19:09 08.11.2008, you wrote:


>-----Original Message-----
>From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
>[mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Chris Zwarg
>Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:36 AM
>To: 78-L Mail List
>Subject: Re: [78-L] Goldmine article on value of ODJB original 78
>
>At 17:25 08.11.2008, you wrote:
>>From: Steve Ramm <steveramm78l at hotmail.com>
>>> I happened to see this today and thought you guys (and gals)
>>> would get a kick out of it. Go to this URL and look at the
>>> SECOND letter in Tim Neely's letter column.
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/5jvhk7     Steve
>>
>>Reasonable, $4-20 valuation, and the guy did OK for 50 cents which is
>>what we usually see it at.  Were there really all these label changes
>>Neely mentions?  I don't recall ever seeing this particular record with
>>a label other than Original Dixieland Jass Band.  Never Jazz for this
>>record, but Jazz on all their later records.  Interesting his modern
>>interpretation of "Introducing . . ." as a label indication of the song
>>they "stole". 
>
>If they had "stolen" it, why would they mention it openly on the label?! 
>
>-----
>Because a court case forced them to!  The composers of "That Teasin' Rag"
>took the band to court for using their song without attribution or
>compensation.   

A-ha! Didn't know that - there is nothing unusual about the "introducing..." line itself, it is used on hundreds of 1920's dance records. So the oddity (and the legal problem) was that it was *left out* from the original label, rather than that it was *included* in the later edition. Thanks for the explanation.

Chris Zwarg