The sources for the story of "Apache" have been given in this thread:
http://www.bertweedon.com/interview.htm
http://www.mcr26.freeserve.co.uk/shadows/Lordan/Default.htm
These sources also say that Weedon's version was recorded in early 1960
and that The Shadows recorded their version later on June 17th.
I've done more research for you about release dates and chart positions.
It seems clear that both versions were released in July 1960
(http://www.rocknroll.freeserve.co.uk/july.htm)
and that The Shadows got to #1 and Weedon got to #24 of the UK chart.
Alltogether it is likely that The Shadows' version was released ca. 1 week
earlier than Weedon's, though an "expert" in the newsgroup rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s says otherwise:
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3a7d80ae.33415843%40news.dircon.co.uk
One source has 21.07.1960 for The Shadows and 28.07.1960 for Weedon (but these seem to be chart entry dates rather than release dates):
http://www.skidmore.edu/~gthompso/britrock/60brchro/60brch60.html
Another source has 23.07.1960 and 30.07.1960 as chart entry dates:
http://www.chartwatch.co.uk/tobias/CLUK5_S.HTM
http://www.chartwatch.co.uk/tobias/CLUK5_W.HTM
So we can say that both versions were around at the same time and were
"well-known". Also the guys from the newsgroups seem to "intuitively"
consider Weedon's version the original:
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3a674a9b.10631664%40news.dircon.co.uk
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=3e127693.2996040%40news.blueyonder.co.uk
I think that's funny because you didn't even want to have Weedon in your
database. :-)
I guess if you'd be working on the the data you'd understand.
I think I do a little bit because I've seen those problems when contributing many
submissions and corrections to other databases (mainly coverinfo.de, also
the-breaks.com).
It's just impossible to fit in non-exact data in an exact system.
The problems depend on your definitions, if you define
"original = first release" then it will be easy, and for the few problem cases
you can put additional infos on previous recordings/performances in a
comment field, so you don't loose important information.
I can imagine why many music experts/journalists/radio people make
the assumption "original = first release", because:
- release dates are "hard facts" and easier to find than dates for
(pre)recordings and performances and thus you will have less
mistakes and more consistency in your results
- a song that hasn't been released (as sheet music or medium) virtually doesn't exist for them, it is not accessible to the public, it can't show up in charts
and often it is not even registered with a rights organization (e.g. ASCAP),
so it can have nearly the same significance as the songs (for example)
a teacher is "inventing" when improvising with a guitar in front of his class.
- You can not take the first release as the original because a lot of songs, which everybody considers as the original versions of the songs (think of old Dylan songs he performed in 60s but only released decades later) are released years after their covers.
- You can not take the first performance as the original because this information is way too hard to find. It's even unclear what a first perfomance could be.
You seem to contradict yourself.
At first you want to take Bob Dylan's (unreleased/not recorded) performances
as an original and then you say you can't take first performances as the original. :-)
I'm confused.
I can't see the problem with your first point (it depends on the definition
of original again), because you want to suggest that most people intuitively
define original version as first performance/recording and I don't have this
impression.
I totally agree with your second point. But then I wonder why you seem to
have first performances in your database, e.g. Todd Duncan performed "Unchained
Melody" in the movie "Unchained". But I don't know if you can call this
a recording as he only performs the song in the movie and there are no infos on a
recording with him as Al Hibbler sings "Unchained Melody" on the soundtrack
that was released. That's why Al Hibbler's version is commonly regarded as
the original.
So what are the conclusions?
Good analysis and conclusions. I'm very pleased to see that you're open-minded to arguments and aware of the problems.
But of course I know that there is no perfect way to do it.
No matter which guidelines you choose I will be happy to
help you with some consistency checks in the future as I have
a small list of problem cases to compare.