[78-L] The Lost Chord was Re: Obscene Jim Reeves record

[Cary Ginell]

To cite one of Reeves' hits, I am the "Guilty" one. I thought it would attract attention.

Cary Ginell

> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:10:06 -0400
> From: dlennick at sympatico.ca
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] The Lost Chord was Re:  Obscene Jim Reeves record
> 
> Go back to the first message in the thread if you can find it. Someone posted a 
> Jim Reeves promo disc with a ludicrous price ($21 million smackeroonies) and 
> Cary, I think it was, mentioned it as obscene, meaning the price, not the record.
> 
> dl
> 
> On 4/19/2011 9:14 PM, Dan Van Landingham wrote:
> > I'm missing something here.What does the "Lost Chord" have to do with an
> > "obscene Jim Reeves"
> > recording?I had some of his Abbott and RCA sides but this "obscene recording" is
> > new to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Steven C. Barr<stevenc at interlinks.net>
> > To: 78-L Mail List<78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> > Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 6:11:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [78-L] The Lost Chord was Re: Obscene Jim Reeves record
> >
> > From: "Steve Shapiro"<steveshapiro1 at juno.com>
> >>
> >> This is even more than I am prepared to pay for the Lost Chord.  Not the
> >> song, just the chord itself.  Once I find it, I'll copyright it and
> >> license it for the next 17 years./steve
> >>
> > Interesting point here...! Could someone copyright a chord...or a note...
> > and then claim that anyone else who subsequently recorded
> > that same chord/note was infringing their copyright and thereby
> > owed them royalties?
> >
> > Steven C. Barr
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l