Angelo94's user profile image


Name Jules

I've been to a few shows but I've heard a lot more than that. I love live recordings. Official or bootlegs. And when I see a mistake or something that's missing, I add it to the database.

I've been on this site for a decade and I'm not going to pack it in as quickly as some apparently would like it.

I'm something of a Wiki myself, as I tend to read a lot of articles and books about the artists I like, and often participate in discussions about them. I know quite a bit about, and have heard live (in person or on recording):

B.B. King
Status Quo
Manfred Mann's Earth Band
ZZ Top
Tears for Fears
Gary Moore
Pink Floyd/David Gilmour
Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler
Alan Parsons

My edits always make sense. That doesn't mean I'm always correct, but I always have VALID reasons for what I'm doing here, and I want this fact appreciated if you're going to discuss my edits.


Member since April 26, 2013
Last seen June 16, 2024
Edits so far 586
Edits last month 1


Please sign in to comment.
You can also connect with Facebook or Twitter.

I've noticed that on musicbrainz not many people follow the guidelines there for writing the songtitles.
Furthermore we put reprise as info for songs so statistics are not messed up.

I don't care. Post a source link as required by the site guidelines or don't edit.

Hi, sorry for the concern about German versions of PG's songs. It seemed to me that it makes a good difference to compile stats for the different translations like this; though i get the point. I took notice that the German titles had already been in use before bit didn't see your explanation in the comments below so I assumed it was just a little update. Of course this can be reverted to what it was before i messed with it.

I see a lot of artist setlists that count separate translations as other songs (most times in the Others > Covered section), so i thought it was clever and handy; otherwise you never know when one specific version was played unless you start looking for it. I'll search the forum to see what's more in use in these cases, might be valuable in future work on the site. Cheers!

Regarding your question on the B.B. King Song referenced as "Chain", I thank you. The correct title is "Chains and Things", since corrected, Cheers.

Look at the other comments on his page and you’ll see the problem. He has been warned repeatedly, and has made huge numbers of poorly sourced and just incorrect edits.

Does he always get it wrong? No, but even when he dies get something right they are generally edits that other, more reliable members can do just as well.

This site is run by volunteers, and we don’t need people who keep messing things up even after having it explained to them repeatedly and being given second and third chances. It just wastes time and results in no real benefit for the site.

Hi there. I saw your comment on the troll/spam user forum, and noticed the conversation with User BrzezniakDaniel when following up on them. Just so you know, when dealing with people whose accounts have been restricted, I don't recommend re-reverting their edits for them. Better to let mods or admins do that. Usually there is some reason behind the situation that the User needs to resolve with us for themselves.

"Is there a recording of this?? Third World Service... oh my!"

Yes I recorded the show. It's been shared on Dime a number of times but may now be inactive. I can reupload if you wish

hello. the "the" in the song title should be lower case. that is why that link was provided.

I think Born Under a Bad Sign used to be considered an Albert King song but somebody pushed the issue of Booker T. and convinced the mods. There are so many cases of songs over which i don't agree.
The mods only consider the music, they don't care about the lyrics because it suits their needs. You can translate a song and change all the lyrics, for them, it remains the same. In the mods mind, Sweet Little Sixteen and Surfin' USA are the same song.

If the songwriter releases the song, he gets credit. Even though he wrote it for someone else and that the other version is better known, that doesn't change anything.

I hope you don't plan on changing it all back.

Be careful, a user got banned some time ago for believing something somehow similar to what you think. I would make some corrections, he would undo them all and since he wouldn't understand even after explaining, (more than once) they had no choice, he was banned.

Thank you for the information about the wrong data on the Gary Moore wikipedia page

I corrected the setlists

Yes, When Love Comes to Town was first recorded by U2 with BB King. But it was first released on U2's album Rattle and Hum. So U2 is the artist we assign the song to.
I know it's a bit weird to see WLCtT on BB King setlist as a U2 cover, but this really is the best way to do it. Hope you understand :)

Song info came from a review of the concert. It could have been incomplete. Feel free to edit the setlist if you have more accurate info.

Since you are trying to get across that Roger is not responsible for the strikes, why can't he write an "Open letter" like the one he did replying to the questions about the Paris DVD? Many people are blaming Roger, and a clarification would at least take the anger out of this discussion.

I'm happy that you've given me a reply, and I think that I'm understanding what you're saying but it doesn't really explain why this company that calls itself "Evergreen Social Media Associates" (i.e. a company that is associated to Evergreen, perhaps Evergreen Copyright Acquisitions??) has to treat YouTube users in such a fashion when there's really no need for it. From your previous comments, I suppose Roger is not responsible for it but UMG doesn't seem to be either (in contrast to what you're saying) since UMG has TONS of registered music. I would accept it easily if the video would have been striked by UMG or Delicate Music or some other entity I have already heard of but the Evergreen thing is just nebulous & irritating.

I mean, is is really necessary to do the whole striking thing?? I don't get the feeling that any other artist's songs are protected like that. In fact I haven't heard of anything similar like that to people covering or uploading other musicians' songs. Of course I know about the rules, but look at the masses of covers that are being accepted & all that. Supertramp seems to be more or less extinct on YT.

Back to your statement "YouTube knows this is Roger's channel": How do they know?? It doesn't even seem that YouTube knows whether Evergreen has the copyright to those songs. To me it appears as if anyone can claim the copyright and hope that the user is frightened enough not to do a counter-notification. Some have done it (as you can read in the Google Groups discussion) and gotten their videos back. Also, Roger features "fan channels" on YT that are, apparently, also protected. So if I ask Roger for permission, could he gurantee me that I won't be striked? Has it something to do with putting "composed by Roger Hodgson" in the title of the video (which is what another user suggested to me)?

I'm not intending to win anything; as you said, after six months the channel restrictions clear up - they did, it's true, but it makes me sad to say that people keep falling into this 'trap'. It has also to some degree alienated me as a big Supertramp fan. It just doesn't FEEL right, although I understand that it's apparently all in the rules.

Thank you for questions, I needed to complete some research in order to offer you answers for your questions concerning copyright laws that YouTube, record labels, publishers and their representatives are enforcing. Generally, all recording artists hold copyrights to their songs and almost always labels and publishers also hold part of the copyrights.

Regarding your question of "How come Roger ( is able to upload his songs (even from the Supertramp albums) without any restrictions?" Roger is able to have videos of "his songs" on his channel because they are his songs. He wrote and composed every song and owns copyright and approval rights, in addition to his label and publisher. Youtube knows this is his official channel and of course they would not put any restrictions on the artist uploading videos of his own songs.

Any musician/band can perform a copyrighted song but they cannot record it or upload a video unless going through many levels of approval. No one, not even signed recording artists, have the authority to upload a video of a song that is owned by someone else. As a side note, even if an artist gets approval to record a song, they cannot legally upload a video unless they have written approval.

Over the last two years, more and more record labels, publishers, and their reps have been pursuing those who upload covers, videos using original recordings, remixes, or performance footage. I have been told that videos by the thousands are being removed from YouTube and other video sites for copyright infringement.
Sometimes people question why UMG would claim a video and then it's removed. Just because a label/publisher claims a video does not mean it's "approved." They have automatic fingerprinting in place so that when a particular song, or any part of the lyric or composition of a particular song, is uploaded, it is automatically claimed. The labels and publishers reserve every right to remove videos that are infringing copyright and they have been doing "sweeps," so it is quite possible that a video could have been up for months or even years and then be removed.

YouTube's guidelines say that 100% of the content of any uploaded video must be fully owned. Any video that uses a recording, part of the lyric or composition, copyrighted photos to include pictures of bands/artists/album covers, performance videos, etc., are subject to removal. This goes for covers, too. It does not matter if the uploader used his own camera/phone to film it, is not making a profit, etc.

Any time a person receives a strike from YouTube, they are given full detailed instructions on how to submit a counter claim. However, in order to submit a counter claim, the uploader must confirm, under threat of perjury, that they own the content 100% and they feel the removal was a mistake. We are told that copyright strikes are removed from the channel within six months provided there are no other copyright infringements.

To help keep your channel in good standing uploaded content that is yours and not possible copyrighted material. I hope I have been able to answer your questions.