Yabby You & the Prophets Academy: Hear Conquering Lion, Follow the Credits

Objective: distinguish the activity of a lead voice from the contributions of accompanying voices without guessing who sang an undocumented part.

A group recording can direct attention toward one recognizable voice while the other voices shape how its statement reaches us. Begin by noticing entrances, overlaps, pauses, and shared endings. You can describe those relationships before you know their technical names.

1. Hear the title recording once and write a first impression in the Listening Log.
2. Listen again, following the lead. Select one passage and describe an event you can locate.
3. Return to the same passage while following the accompanying voices. Explain what became more noticeable.
4. Compare the two notes. Which description is an observation, and which sentence interprets its significance?

Deliverable: two audible observations and one interpretation, each labelled. Add a timestamp from your own player if available; otherwise describe the surrounding event.

Objective: explain how two musical parts relate across a repeated passage.

Follow one part until you can recognize its return. Then notice a second part around it. Listening for a relationship is more manageable than attempting to identify every instrument at once. Do not assign a drum-pattern label merely because you expect a roots recording to use it.

1. Choose a short passage of “Conquering Lion” and follow the bass through two repetitions.
2. Sketch the sequence of events using words, marks, or a hummed phrase. A formal score is unnecessary.
3. Hear the passage again and add the drum events that frame the bass.
4. Write two sentences: what remains consistent, and where a space or accent draws your attention.

Deliverable: a relationship sketch and two supported sentences. Keep any unconfirmed instrument identification in the questions column of your log.

Objective: identify how a different mix changes the listener's attention while recognizing a related musical foundation.

Use “Conquering Lion” and “Conquering Dub” on the selected expanded edition. This is a comparison of presentations, not an instruction to rank the vocal as complete and the dub as incomplete. A mix can make a familiar part function differently by changing what surrounds it.

1. Record both titles and the edition in the Release-Version & Mix Tracker.
2. Compare a manageable passage. In three columns, list something retained, something removed or reduced, and something transformed.
3. Test a possible effect description. What audible feature makes you call it an echo, a sustained tail, or a change in tone?
4. Explain one shift in attention using your comparison, leaving its precise studio mechanism open when unverified.

Deliverable: a three-column comparison and a 60–90-word explanation. Your own player supplies any timestamps.

Objective: connect a role to a particular recording and evidence source, while preserving differences between participant accounts.

Use the Contributor Map and read the relevant passages of Jackson's 1986 interview and Bobby Melody's 2009 interview. Both are later published accounts of earlier work. Their dates and perspectives belong in your notes.

A starting credit register: the title recording only

1. Enter three names with roles supported for the title recording. Use the label notes or Katz's session account as appropriate. ^[1][4]
2. Compare the two participants' explanations of the Ralph Brothers collaboration. Record an overlap and a difference.
3. Label each claim: documented by a release; reported by a participant; interpretation; or unresolved.
4. Rewrite one over-broad claim so it specifies the recording and the source.

Deliverable: a contributor map with a source and scope for every filled role, plus a short comparison of the recollections.

Objective: distinguish the original single, the album, a differently titled issue, and an expanded reissue.

The name “Conquering Lion” can refer to a song, a single, and an album. A platform date may describe an original year while its copyright line identifies a later edition. The Release-Version & Mix Tracker makes those differences visible.

1. Compare the authorized digital listing with the Roots Archives entry linked in the sources. Record exactly which item each dates. ^[6][7]
2. Read the specialist review's discussion of Ram-A-Dam. Note what evidence would be needed before treating its mixes as identical to your selected edition. ^[5]
3. Write a concise edition note that keeps 1975 as the usual album date, makes the 1977 catalogue disagreement visible, and identifies the 2021 teaching copy.
4. Find one title or sequence difference in the listings and explain why titles are safer than unqualified track numbers.

Deliverable: three release records and a 50–80-word edition note. Do not claim to have auditioned a physical pressing you have only seen in a catalogue.

Objective: connect a songwriting interpretation with an identifiable feature of delivery, form, or musical response.

Choose “Covetous Men,” “Love Thy Neighbour,” or “The Man Who Does The Work” within the vocal program. Start by asking who appears to be addressed, what conduct is being considered, and how the performance directs your attention. These are questions to explore, not predetermined readings.

1. Listen without consulting a transcription and write down one question the performance raises.
2. Describe a repeated idea, shift in address, vocal emphasis, or instrumental response in your own words.
3. Compare your reading with the relevant release notes. Identify where the source supplies context and where your interpretation begins.
4. Write a short paragraph that connects one audible detail to one proposed meaning. Avoid reproducing extended lyrics or using the song as sole proof of a historical claim.

Deliverable: a 100–130-word reading with one audible example, one context source, and a clearly qualified interpretation.

Objective: explain why preserving a recording, identifying its contributors, and establishing rights are distinct tasks.

Read the selected portions of Steve Barrow's 2013 interview about source material and Randall Grass's 2014 account of researching a Yabby You collection. These accounts concern their own projects, not a technical specification for the 2021 Pressure Sounds edition. ^[8][9]

1. Use the Source Comparison sheet to identify each speaker's role and what they describe doing.
2. Explain why having multitrack material does not necessarily preserve a particular historical mix.
3. List the extra evidence needed to identify an unknown performance, verify a credit, or establish a current rights claim.
4. Rewrite “the reissue proves who owns everything” as a sentence the available evidence can support.

Deliverable: three distinctions: sound source versus mix; performer identification versus resemblance; release credit versus ownership. No legal conclusion is required.

Objective: create a usable guide that another learner can follow and a reader can check.

Bring your four worksheets together. Your final product is a 150–200-word listening card for the title recording and its selected dub comparison, followed by a small contributor table and source list. Aim for an invitation somebody can act on during a short listening session.

1. Identify the artist, titles, teaching edition, and authorized listening destination.
2. Include two concrete listening prompts and one short activity that produces an observation or comparison.
3. Add at least three contributor entries with role, recording scope, source, and evidence status.
4. Keep the original album date separate from the reissue date and state one unresolved point.
5. Exchange the guide with a partner, or use it yourself after a break. Can its example be located, its sources checked, and its instructions completed?

Deliverable: the revised listening card, contributor table, and bibliography. You may add your own timeline, but do not include copied audio, album artwork, or invented session photographs as if they were evidence.