Rogers (I Wanna) Testify - a re-recording rather than a re-make.

It's been years since my last post here, but I'm happy to be back.

I've always been a great fan of Rogers solo output especially the 1977 single (and the two first albums).

I admired him for being able to make such a convincing doo-wop arrangement of the soul-funk track (I Wanna) Testify) by The Parliaments. If one cares to compare the two tracks it is obvious that Rogers version is a complete remake as only part of the original song is used. How did he come up with this unlikely idea?

Well he didn't.

The track on the A-side of Rogers 1977 single is indeed NOT "(I Wanna) Testify" of The Parliaments but "Women and Drinkin'" by The Persuasions.

Admittedly the doo-wop group The Persuasions uses the chorus (the "I wanna testify-part) of the Parliaments track in their own song. Rogers track however is an almost note-for-note re-recording of the Persuasions song (with added instrumental parts).

The Parliaments released "(I Wanna) Testify in 1967
The Persuasions released "Women and Drinkin'" in April 1977 (Elektra E-45396)
Roger released his single in August 1977

While I absolutely don't mind Roger having done a somewhat "cheap" cover version of a great song I do wonder how/why he/someone messed the credits up.

Also I wonder if no-one stumbled across this before? (What does the liner-notes of "The Lot" say)

Here's links to three great songs:

The Parliaments - (I Wanna) Testify https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJW643hIKMw
The Persuasions - Women and Drinkin' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPInOtqMPI4
Roger Taylor - (I Wanna) Testify https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGwHKsyWLsU

Anders

Brilliant!
How did you make this discovery?
.... and thanks for posting.

Thanks, you're welcome.

I visited a HiFi-shop just the other day where they played another album by The Persuasions. I found it entertaining and well-recorded so yesterday I went to my local record-store and found their album "Chirpin' which has Women and Drinkin' on it. Recognized the ressemblance immediately.

As you say, both were released just months apart back in 1977, so what's the story here?

Good question

Nice find. Whilst it is clearly a cover version of that song and that they covered it up is dubious (and quite surprising that it wasn't found out at the time because it wasn't some old unknown song) - now calling the track cheap and "an almost note-for-note re-recording of the Persuasions song (with added instrumental parts)." seems really petty and wrong. Musically it has been completely re-worked - the original is bare bones to say the least.

EDIT - I don't think Roger has ever claimed credit for the song actually. If he was claiming to have only used an element of the Parliament track, then added his own lyrics and arrangement, he would have been credited on the original single surely.

Lyrics are credited to David Dashev and Jerry Lawson on "The Persuasions" vinyl releases. It was actually the B side of their 7" single "Papa Oom Mow Mow" (abridged to 4:40).

It's just odd though - it's not like Roger has got anything out of it not crediting the right people, because he's never claim a credit himself. If he had pretended to have written the lyrics or put a new melody to it, there's no way he wouldn't have given himself a co writing credit.

I notice the Persuasions came out on Elektra, Queen's US label.

Double post.

Negative Creep you're absolutely right, there's much more to Rogers version than just a note-for-note re-recording. I guess I got a little carried away there. Cheers!

The Kurgan yes the credits on the single is The Persuasions lead singer and their producer. So nothing pointing back to The Parliaments.

Negative Creep it is odd. Good spotted with the Elektra label, but if anything I would think that them being on the same label would make it obvious to get the credit right (though perhaps it might have been quite the opposite..?)

The Lot says it’s a Parliament cover.

And according to the single label Roger dit claim a part of the credits

A man named Daron Taylor co-wrote Testify with George Clinton, not Roger Taylor.

So, the conclusion is that Clinton/Taylor received the royalties and not the two composers of Woman an Drinkin’.

I wonder if Roger ever new about this...

Btw. I think it’s a great but also shocking find! I feel fooled for over 40 years

This is what Roger told the BBC in 1977: 'We came back from America, and there's a sort of slack period, and I was a bit sort of bored, I had nothing to do, and I just went into the studio with our engineer Mike Stone and did an old song by The Parliaments. I've got an a cappella version, I just sort of heavied it up a bit and did it all by myself, just really as an experiment.'

I wonder if by 'I've got an a cappella version' he meant he also owned the other record (the one you mentioned) besides the original Parliaments one. If so, it all adds up.

Good catch, but I would suggest the credits on the label are basically correct.

There's a very strong argument that the credits on the Persuasions version are just plain wrong, after all it doesn't credit the writers of I Wanna testify at all, despite using that songs same basic tune and lyrics.
Admittedly with a radical re-arrangement.

I feel pretty sure that if the Persuasions version had been a big hit there would have been a court case from The Parliaments.

Having said that, It's possible if Rogers version was a big hit, The Persuasions would be arguing for a writing credit too.

Either way, Roger never claimed he wrote it.