December 28, 2013 – 7:50 am


BigO ran a No B.S. Contest No. 26 (Jan 17, 2013) and asked what readers thought about record labels that release very limited quantities of rare recordings just to avoid losing their copyright control over the recordings. Read it here.

Well, the same label, Sony Music, has once again released a second volume of its Bob Dylan 50th Anniversary Collection. This time titled The 50th Anniversary Collection: 1963, a six-LP limited edition of just 100 LPs that collects all the officially unreleased recordings of Bob Dylan from 1963, 50 years ago. The release in November 2013 was available only in Europe. Here’s the list of tracks:

Picture from

LP 1 - Side A
01. Eternal Circle (Take 4)
02. Percy’s Song (Take 1)
03. That’s All Right, Mama/Sally Free and Easy (Take 1)
04. Hero Blues (Take 3)
05. East Laredo Blues (Take 1)
06. Bob Dylan’s New Orleans Rag (Take 2)

* tracks 1 & 4 recorded 12 August 1963, tracks 2, 3 & 5 recorded 23 October, track 6 recorded 24 October during The Times They Are a-Changin’ sessions

LP 1 - Side B The Banjo Tape
01. Lonesome River Edge
02. Back Door Blues
03. Bob Dylan’s Dream
04. You Can Get Her
05. Farewell
06. All Over You
07. Masters of War
08. Instrumental in Gerde’s Basement/Jam
09. Keep Your Hands Off Her (Leadbelly)
10. Honey Babe
11. Goin’ Back To Rome
12. Stealin’

* all tracks recorded 2 August 1963 at the Basement of Gerde’s Folk City. Tracks 7, 9, 12 with Happy Traum, track 12 with Gil Turner

LP 2 - Side C
01. Ballad of Hollis Brown
* recorded for the Folk Songs and More Folk Songs TV Special, 3 March 1963
02. Girl from the North Country
03. Only A Hobo
* tracks 2 & 3 recorded for the Oscar Brand Show/World of Folk Music, March 1963
04. Ramblin’ Down Through the World
05. Bob Dylan’s Dream
06. Talkin’ New York
07. Hiding Too Long

LP 2 - Side D
01. Ballad of Hollis Brown
02. Walls of Red Wing
03. All Over You
04. Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues
05. Boots of Spanish Leather

LP 3 - Side E
01. Hero Blues
02. John Brown
03. A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall
04. Dusty Old Fairgrounds
05. Who Killed Davey Moore?

LP 3 - Side F
01. Seven Curses
02. Highway 51
03. Pretty Peggy-O
04. Bob Dylan’s New Orleans Rag
05. Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right
06. With God On Our Side

* tracks 4-7, side C and sides D-F recorded at the Town Hall, New York City, 12 April 1963

LP 4 - Side G
01. James Alley Blues
02. Long Time Gone
03. Only a Hobo
04. Untitled Blues Jam
05. A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall
* tracks 1-5 recorded at the home of Eve and Mac McKenzie, 18 April 1963
06. Honey, Just Allow Me One More Chance
07. Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues

LP 4 - Side H
01. Bob Dylan’s Dream
02. Ballad of Hollis Brown
03. Talkin’ World War III Blues
04. A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall
05. With God on Our Side

* tracks 6-7, side G and side H recorded at The Bear folk club, Chicago, 25 April 1963

LP 5 - Side I
01. Farewell
02. A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall
03. Bob Dylan’s Dream
04. Boots of Spanish Leather
05. John Brown

LP 5 - Side J
01. Who Killed Davey Moore?
02. Blowin’ in the Wind
* Side I and tracks 1 & 2, side J recorded for the Studs Terkel Wax Museum radio show, Chicago, 26 April 1963
03. Blowin’ in the Wind
04. Only a Pawn in Their Game
* tracks 3 & 4 recorded for the Songs of Freedom TV show, New York City, 30 July 1963
05. When the Ship Comes In
06. Only a Pawn in Their Game

* tracks 5 & 6 recorded at the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington, 28 August 1963. Track 5 with Joan Baez

LP 6 - Side K
01. Blowin’ in the Wind
02. Percy’s Song
03. Seven Curses
04. Walls of Red Wing

LP 6 - Side L
01. Talkin’ World War III Blues
02. Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right
03. Only a Pawn in Their Game
04. Masters of War
05. The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

* sides K & L recorded at Carnegie Hall, New York City, 26 October 1963

As we mentioned previously:

“So why won’t Sony or Universal want to release material in their vaults? Not enough business to make it profitable? If not, why hold on to the material then, why not let it enter the public domain? There are many small, collector labels that would love to make proper CDs of 50-year-old recordings for the fans.”

The mean spirit that resides in this label means only often-bootlegged material finally gets officially released. Only six tracks on this new release are from studio sessions. The mean spirit also means that copies made will all come from “needledrops” as this release is only on vinyl.

For what shall it profit a record label, if they gain control of all copyrights but lose the support of music fans? Whose side do you think Bob Dylan is on?

Your no B.S. comments will earn you a pass to free music.

Meanwhile, it was announced on December 10, 2013 that iTunes will release a digital-only version of The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963 to counter bootleggers. The 59-track release, which has not been officially announced, will take place December 17 and include 15 Beatles studio outtakes and 44 more live BBC tracks to add to those already on “Live at the BBC” and “On Air: Live at the BBC, Volume 2.” The album is to counter the recent non-EMI releases in Europe that have included Beatles tracks.

Hours after The Beatles’ Bootleg Recordings 1963 appeared on iTunes worldwide, the 59 studio and live lossy tracks were withdrawn in some parts of the world, while it appears to be still on sale in the USA. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that Bootleg Recordings 1963 will be on sale indefinitely, disputing what music fans have said.

The price wobbled from a reported low of US$12 for all the tracks to US$40 or £35. The iTunes tracks are lossy at 256kbps audio resolution. News reports suggest that the release was to “beat the bootleggers” but at the current price, the only pounding being done is to fans. The release allows the Beatles 1963 recordings to have their copyright extended to 2033, when they and their fans will all be dead.


Contest No. 01 / Contest No. 02 / Contest No. 03 / Contest No. 04 / Contest No. 05
Contest No. 06 / Contest No. 07 / Contest No. 08 / Contest No. 09 / Contest No. 10
Contest No. 11 / Contest No. 12 / Contest No. 13 / Contest No. 14 / Contest No. 15
Contest No. 16 / Contest No. 17 / Contest No. 18 / Contest No. 19 / Contest No. 20
Contest No. 21 / Contest No. 22 / Contest No. 23 / Contest No. 24 / Contest No. 25
Contest No. 26 / Contest No. 27

  1. 41 Responses to “THE BRAND NEW MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 1”

  2. Really amazing tracklist from Bob Dylan!!!!!!!

    By Rochacrimson on Dec 28, 2013

  3. Slightly edited - use THIS version please:

    Dylan and his label are, of course, utterly within their rights, legally, to retain copyright as long as the law permits.
    Whether they are entitled to, and will retain, the goodwill of fans who have enriched Mr Dylan over 50 years, is another matter.
    As has been pointed out, Sony’s cynical manoeuvreing to put such marginal recordings out of reach is calculated to disadvantage only the most devoted (and knowledgeable) of Mr Dylan’s fans.
    For distributors like Sony to connive at preventing such devotees from enjoying the music is a disgrace.
    But, of course, Sony earned my loathing and hatred years ago.
    Whatever their hypocritical bleatings about their rights and how bootleggers deny artistes their fair cut, We know Sony couldn’t give a flying f*** about artistes or fairness.
    I shall continue to do all I can to circumvent their obsessive control freak bullshit, and will never Ever feel a twinge of conscience.

    By tony on Dec 28, 2013

  4. Record companies’ are are primarly to make money. Everyone knows that they have little regard for the artistes on their books. Act that are very high profile are sure sources of profit for companies who cash in on their work and will go on as long as people are still handing over cash for recording of their favourites.
    As long as the die-hard fans are out there they will pay for rare/unrealeased songs and these are the people who are targeted. The fans are happy, as completists they have another album to add to their collection and the record companies bolster their income. Unfortunately, the artists do not reap the full rewards of their efforts. So two out of three of the parties are happy.
    As long as the market is there this will continue. I don’t know what the answer is.

    By daij on Dec 28, 2013

  5. I think it’s just the same old story: there’s farmers and there’s cows, and we are clearly the cows.

    By frank on Dec 28, 2013

  6. well dylan is definitely not on the side of his fans.. thats for sure. the suits are and always have been out for the buck of course but theyll hire people who will be a happy medium between the artists and the fans who are themselves fans who can put things together many years later into box sets to satisfy the fans needs. so in a way the labels are trying to satisfy the needs and desires of the fans because they want their money and fans know what they wanna spend their money on. most real fans arent stupid when it comes to throwing away their hard earned money. and when it comes to the rare stuff and not just the greatest hits repackages.. it is important to do it right. evidently the label is afraid of something. maybe they dont wanna be the first to allow this and they dont want to invest in a release where they arent sure there is profit either. theyre on the fence here. theyre confused. maybe a limited release doesnt have enough value and would only result in counterfeits and bootlegs. if they flooded the market with the product it would have no value. theyre caught between a rock and a hard place.

    By darth on Dec 30, 2013

  7. Like I posted on the 17/1/13 contest, good music never die, but must be kept alive. My 15 year old son discovered Dylan´s music this year, and is amazed, diving deep in his lyrics (even if english is not our native language). How many kids around the world will get rid of today´s junk music if they have access to this kind of material?

    By Belasco on Dec 30, 2013

  8. This, plain and simple, is why there is music piracy. The constant feeling, over may decades, that the music industry’s biggest supporters, the biggest fans, are repeatedly screwed by the labels, over and over, with next to no respect. I mean, every industry there is has grown more and more rapacious and ripoffs have become the way of the world. But when it’s a matter that touches people so deeply, that they define their very identities by, that they are as passionate about as music is for ardent music fans, the unfairness strikes at a very deep existential level. Of course, the knowledge that our favorite artists have been screwed over just or almost as badly all along by the same industry only adds to the resentment.

    By Jeffro on Dec 30, 2013

  9. Limiting the output of the Dylan recordings to only 100 copies will only allow the label to gain a copyright extension, primarily in Europe, and prevent 3rd party labels cashing-in. Hard-core fans will be able to find this anywhere on the web. Thank you Sony!

    By arcadian on Dec 30, 2013

  10. Once again the record companies only interest is itself. The limited quantities do not profit the artist. Heck, this stuff is nothing the artists or their companies ever wanted to release in the first place. The copyright is the only reason this stuff is surfacing now and it may just be returned to the vaults again. But by limiting the releases aren’t the record companies inadvertently abetting the bootleggers?

    By sking on Dec 31, 2013

  11. These tracks are inferior to previously released recordings. They are the same sort of quality that the labels claimed were ruining the reputation of the artists when the same quality of tracks appeared on bootlegs.

    EMI (?) are also releasing some 50 year old tracks by Brian Wilson, The Beach Boys & others produced by BW.

    Everybody say moo it’s time to be milked.

    By BarrieB on Dec 31, 2013

  12. It is indeed puzzling that more artists aren’t doing what the Beatles dis by releasing the BBC tracks on iTunes in order to protect their copyrights. The record companies indeed need to find other ways of making money since no one buys CD’s anymore. It is also curious that there are not other sites like Wolfgang’s Vault that claim that they own the copyright of music played in their arenas. If I owned a theater I would make Soundboard recording of the artist that play there and sell them. If WV can do it then why not.


    By John on Jan 3, 2014

  13. I don’t believe that this plan is enabled to protect their copyright, but to decrease supply and, therefore, increase the price of the sets. Geez…Don’t they think they get enough for these sets?

    By GOLD MINER on Jan 3, 2014

  14. Sony is a corporation - their in it for the money, plain & simple. Bob, while a great artist, has never really been “fan friendly”. Bob is on Bob’s side..and that’s okay!

    By Dave on Jan 4, 2014

  15. It’s just business, it’s always ben called the music “business” why be surprised when the companies make what is in effect a business decision. Don’t hear Dylan complaining do you?

    By Liam NSW on Jan 7, 2014

  16. I say put it out piece by piece one LP at a time and charge a reasonable rate for it. Limiting releases to 100 copies is ridiculous.

    By Phil on Jan 9, 2014

  17. I for one, welcome any release that delivers new music or a different take on an old tune. Yes, the studios and musucians need to make their dollar. But come on guys…100 copies? There’s a bunch of us out here who would buy such material, but need access to it. Every fan (all of us on BigO) value great music and look forward to sharing our knowledge with new fans. Plant the seed (access to the tunes) and see it grow (money that is)!

    By bubbles on Jan 10, 2014

  18. I can understand complaints about these kinds of releases. It may be that the copyright laws need changing, as well. The bottom line is, most hardcore fans already have this material.

    I think what The Beatles camp did is better than Sony’s move, however: if you want it, come and get it (as the old song goes).

    By Jeremy Shatan on Jan 10, 2014

  19. Let’s go after the ones who make the laws, not the ones who take advantage of them. Of course, more often than not, they’re essentially one and the same…

    By tajackson on Jan 10, 2014

  20. the release is just for the copyright protection in the US and Europe. They will no doubt be released to the general public in a highly expensive, super deluxe box set that will make us dig deep in our pockets, that’s all

    By walter on Jan 11, 2014

  21. I doubt those songs would appear without Dylan’s input or OK and the same with the surviving Beatles. Music is a business.

    By Mackster on Jan 15, 2014

  22. Only 100 copies? I’d love to hear those recordings.

    By Paul on Jan 27, 2014

  23. Only 100 copies? An obvious shot across the bow to bootleggers. But the labels can’t stop it right now…they’re desperate to try something…anything to maintain control. As far as the question: Whose side is Bob on? Probably, like most, his own.

    By steve22 on Jan 31, 2014

  24. “no reason to get excited…” while i understand the frustration described by some folks, i often wonder why i NEED to have more dylan. i already have more bd boots stashed away than i can listen to, besides the one time immediately after the download. if my ocd has made me a hoarder of the highest order, so be it. doesn’t mean i’d lay my money down, when most likely i can find much of the material elsewhere. furthermore, i have long ago suspended my disbelief in the greed and avarice of major record labels. desperation yields drastic action. if sharing music’s wrong, i don’t want to be right. so don’t you mind if i’m grinnin’ in your face…

    By billy jack on Feb 2, 2014

  25. Let us not lose sight of the resale value of such products, especially now that they’re legitimate pressings. These will most probably escalate in price, so the wise buyers wait until the appropriate time, then put it up on ebay or amazon, etc.

    By Ken Weber on Feb 5, 2014

  26. Two words, folks: Torrent sites.

    This stuff is out there easily enough, if you want it.

    No way I as going to pay over $30 for the Beatles tracks. I’m glad I have them, but it’s not something I’m going to listen to that often. Especially with so many different takes of the same songs. I might cherry pick some of the better BBC recordings and add it to the two officially released BBC collections I have.

    And since I have no way to play vinyl, I’m fine with pirating the Dylan tracks. This stuff always makes it out somehow… If the labels won’t let me buy this stuff, or won’t offer something at a reasonable price, I’ll get it by other means.

    By Guy Smiley on Feb 17, 2014

  27. Have to agree that copyright holders who provided the investments in an artists career should have a stake in how the material is legitimately or not released. I feel the artists’s themselves should have a say in it… but there are no good reasons why people with no vested interest in the material should be allowed to profit off works they have not created or been party to.

    By dv8r on Mar 9, 2014

  28. It all comes down to business and more times than not…that means money. It’s a shame!

    By bubbles on Apr 2, 2014

  29. The answer, my friends, is, “Money can’t buy me love”

    By David Odell on Apr 4, 2014

  30. At least we know where to find the masters. So much in the public domain gets butchered. You never know what edition of a CD containing public material to buy… could be good…could be terrible. No one, generally, bothers to take care of those masters.

    By OtisApplepie on Apr 8, 2014

  31. To be honest, the record labels probably know that any dedicated Dylan or Beatles fans already have this music from torrent sites or bootleg sites such as BigO. This is purely being done to stop semi official releases once the music falls out of copyright.
    Hopefully, at some stage, the labels will see fit to release these songs on a wider scale no doubt at a greatly discounted price as a thank you to all those people who have supported the artists throughout their careers.
    Oh who am I kidding ? The greedy [email protected]£€ards will just wait until Bob dies and then release them in some luxury mega box set to cash in on the renewed interest.

    By Gmal on Apr 14, 2014

  32. it’s just another excuse to rip off hard working folk from their cash again. they find any and all reasons to get their greedy hands on money, and sony are one of the worst out there

    By leigh on Apr 16, 2014

  33. Who’s side is BOB DYLAN on? Why, his side of course…But that side is not necessarily the same as Sony! Dylan, I’m sure, enjoys the exposure to his fans and the royalties as well. But Sony, in their finite wisdom, have only their bottom line to consider.

    By GOLD MINER on Apr 24, 2014

  34. Another Side of Bob Dylan’s… decision.

    I recently bought a new CD release with early Bob Dylan numbers to find out at home that I had just bought Bob’s debut album again. Simply packaged differently.
    And did anyone ever count how many “versions” exist of Van Morrison’s TB sheets? (New York sessions, Bang Masters, Nose in your Blow, Brown Eyed Girl, Greatest Hits etc.)

    I’m a Dylanmaniac like all of you, I’ve got over 500 bootlegs and I can fortunately keep track of what I’ve got and what I don’t by the date of the concert.

    The point I want to make is that the copyright extension is not a bad move after all, to avoid that other labels make money by selling us (and others who might not be such huge fans) inferior material. ‘Cause let’s admit it, we all have stacks of this early material and though we may get all excited over a 37th obscure and badly recorded version of the same song, just because Bob changed a word or two compared to the original… it remains inferior stuff, that the artist has every right over, to keep it from being thrown on the market.
    I don’t feel let down: we will surely find it on the web pretty soon, download it, listen to it once or twice and just at it to our stack.

    By Bart Ostyn on May 6, 2014

  35. Still taking responses six months later? Cool! While only Bob can say for certain, I believe that an artist of his stature has some say over what gets release, or in this case, what gets released on a wide scale. I’ve never heard of Bob himself trying to make these early recordings readily available. This doesn’t mean that his hard core fans wouldn’t enjoy them - just that I’ll bet Bob is indifferent at best over what happens to them. I think over the last 50 years, what he really wanted released got released, along with a lot of other stuff that I don’t think he was thrilled to have released, but at the same time not opposed to enough to put his foot down. At this point it’s worth pointing out that Bob is kind of like Neil Young, who will often withhold from official release (what his fans would consider) great songs or performances for reasons the rest of us will never quite fathom. It has something to do with the way the artist sees his relationship with the public. So Columbia is releasing this old Dylan stuff just to retain the copyright? As much as many of us would like to get these recordings for free, neither Dylan nor Columbia Records are quite as humanitarian as we’d like them to be. Columbia doesn’t give away free music, nor does Bob declare all his concerts admission-free. Can you blame them? Would you rather have no Dylan at all than a Dylan you have to pay for? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the bank account. This not being a perfect world, we’re not going to get this music for free (legally) for a long time. But I still have a solution - why not just sell it online, song by song, maybe at a reduced price, with a portion of the sales quietly donated to a charity of Bob’s choice. Personally speaking, I find Dylan’s earliest period his most interesting. I would LOVE to hear this stuff. But not enough to a) go out and buy a vinyl record player, and b) fork out a small fortune for this limited edition hoo-hah. This is the digital age. There are new possibilities for the distribution and consumption of music. Artists themselves and what they do won’t change that much, but the way they reach people will is already changing big time. Too bad Bob is signed to Columbia until after he passes away - otherwise he could just sell all this stuff himself any way he wants. But once again, I think it’s fair to make a Neil Young comparison. Neil will go through periods where he gets completely immersed into organizing his own legacy - part concerned artist, part control freak - only to at some point get completely bored with the task and want to go off and do something new. How would you like to have to re-evaluate 50 years of your own music, as opposed to not worrying about it and continuing to create new stuff? What I’m getting at is, it makes perfect sense why Bob himself can’t be bothered with this old stuff. If someone else wants to bother with it, let them. In my opinion, that’s the decision of the artist, and I’m in favor of them continuing to create new stuff rather than having to spend their remaining time dealing with what they did a long time ago. IMPORTANT SIDE NOTE: On the other hand, if Dylan were an obscure artist still struggling to pay the rent, this all might be a very, very different story, and I’ll bet his attitude would be the total opposite, more like the average musician or songwriter who’s been ripped off by the recording industry. It’s not a level playing field for everyone, but we’re slowly getting closer to it.

    By JIm Kneubuhl on May 10, 2014

  36. Every fan (all of us on BigO) value great music and look forward to sharing our knowledge with new fans. Plant the seed (access to the tunes) and see it grow (money that is)!

    By mik on Dec 15, 2015

  37. Record companies are in it for themselves for most of the part, with many artists not even knowing the different formats that are being released. That said their are some artists who have the clout to say what they want or it is no go. Them we have artists who now insist on saving the world sticking a cd in a grubby cardboard friendly sleeve. What I don’t understand are the obscure artists that now only release albums in a limited edition series, at in some occasions $500 a pop. What happened to real rock n roll? has it been replaced by radio broadcasts?

    By Florence on Aug 30, 2016

  1. 5 Trackback(s)

  2. Nov 14, 2014: bigOfeature » Blog Archive » THE MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 7
  3. Jul 14, 2015: bigOfeature » Blog Archive » THE MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 8
  4. Sep 24, 2015: bigOfeature » Blog Archive » THE MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 9
  5. Dec 3, 2015: bigOfeature » Blog Archive » THE MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 10
  6. Aug 10, 2017: bigOfeature » Blog Archive » THE MORE B.S. CONTEST No. 15

Post a Comment