kdd

Total bullshit

Wasn't supposed to re-open a few years back owned by a group headed by Robert DeNiro? I seem to recall a lot of hoopla about it and then nothing. Let's hope it works this time.

Score one for yourselves. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4709197237&rd=1 I've bought some things here and they were all cool.

It would be better to look through this with my records in front of me but I found one omission, a Harry Whitaker record from the mid 70s. I believe it only came out in Japan but it's trippy stuff and Woody sounds great on it.

You know... Why don't they just change it to a Joe Henderson album... I bet his family wouldn't get all uptight... It's not like it hasn't been done before... There's that Cecil Taylor session that became a Coltrane album... Problem solved. (Just kidding ) It's happened to Pete before, Turkish Woman at the Baths was re-issued as a Chick Corea album "Bliss"

I was actually kicking around started a thread about how bad I found Ratliff's writing this week and that was before reading the Moran piece. There's this from a Geri Allen review earlier this week. "Ms. Allen is squarely in the tradition of the jazz piano's high modern mainstream, deeply influenced by Herbie Hancock. This week she's using a drummer from that same old-school era, Jimmy Cobb" What the fuck!!! Herbie and Jimmy Cobb from the same era. I guess he thinks all that old stuff is the same. and this from a review of a Michael Brecker concert last week. "It has a brass section, including a French horn (Peter Gordon). There is no saxophone section per se; instead, there is one musician playing oboe and English horn (Dan Willis), one playing bass clarinet and baritone saxophone (Roger Rosenberg), one playing soprano saxophone and flute (Bob Sheppard)" No mistakes per se but it struck me as grade school writing at best. To me he also says a lot of questionable things in the Moran piece as well. Has he always been this bad or just raising it to new heights lately?

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=6756

Didn't Clifford Jordan have his own series for Strata East? The Dolphy series or something like that? Maybe it was intended for that.

I was referring more to Miles actually and Columbia. As Blue Note was an independant label and many others recorded records for other labels while on Blue Note I wasn't talking about this.

Yes, perhaps they were paid for a radio broadcast but that doesn't mean they can release it as an album and not pay them. Two seperate things. As for the record company thing, I can't speak with the same certainty but I assume that if the artist was signed to a label it was a world-wide situation, especially if the label was Columbia.

OK, I stand corrected...partially. If this was totally legit, not only would the leader have to be paid but also the sideman (usually a one time flat fee) and I was told by one that this never happened. Also they would have to get clearance from the label they were on at the time and that also appears not to have happened. I have no doubt that Dragon is a great label and has done countless number of great recordings on their own but these still aren't 100% legit, not that it's kept me from owning them.

They are bootlegs. Their other recordings may be legit but I'm sure Blakey, Davis, Rollins etc never saw a penny from these just like most European labels that put out live recordings of these artists. Great material though...

maybe the ones more along these lines will work for you: The New Jazz Composers Octet Walkin' The Line Myron Walden Higher Ground Jeremy Pelt Profile Marcus Strickland Brotherhood David Weiss The Mirror Kris Davis Lifespan have you heard any of these?

He was in Ray Charles' band for years, perhaps til the end. He lives in LA.

What company has aquired the shows? Can you provide us with a link to their web-site? Thank you

I have the LP on Strata-East/Audio Fidelity. Could it be possible that it's live versions of the same material? I think not but one never knows...

what is the New Tolliver? When was it recorded? Who's in the band? Etc. The same with the Roy Brooks please. Thank you

Thank you! And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer. I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here? Read my first post. The record company owns that particular performance of that tune and you have to get permission from the record company to use that performance of the tune. James Newton owns the copyright to the tune and you have to get permission from him to use his tune. They didn't so Newton is well within his rights to sue. If the Beasties made an offer to James and he didn't think it was enough money, that's his right. Perhaps that makes him a bit of an asshole but it's his tune. He owns it. He decides what is done with it. One thing is unclear to me: is the sample from the head of the tune or from improvising on the tune? It might not matter in this case, but what about sampling a cover version? If I sampled a one second fragment from Nicholas Payton's solo on Cantaloupe Island, from a part of his improvised solo--a part that Herbie Hancock never wrote into the music, do I still have to pay Herbie for the use of his composition? Doesn't matter if it's the solo or head being sampled, just whose tune it is. I believe that you would have to get clearance to use the performance from Payton's label and permission to use the tune from Hancock. I agree that this is where it gets a little weird but stuff like this has happened. Talk to Idris Muhammed about how other people got rich from his drum breaks being sampled but it was someone else's compostion (like Lou Donaldson).

Thank you! And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer. I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here? Read my first post. The record company owns that particular performance of that tune and you have to get permission from the record company to use that performance of the tune. James Newton owns the copyright to the tune and you have to get permission from him to use his tune. They didn't so Newton is well within his rights to sue. If the Beasties made an offer to James and he didn't think it was enough money, that's his right. Perhaps that makes him a bit of an asshole but it's his tune. He owns it. He decides what is done with it.

Thank you! And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

"To me" don't count. If it's the same thing, why did the Beastie Boys go to the trouble of getting a license? Because that's what the law says they have to do. The law is silly. It's no different than quoting someone in a book or using other pieces of art to make a collage or quoting a melody or lick in a solo. Well it is different. It's taking a piece of a copyrighted recording and using it for your own gain. How about of some millionaires sampled something you recorded and it was a hit and it made millions and you got nothing. Are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with that?

OK, I'm not 100% clear about this but Newton composed the song and put it in his publishing company, he has rights. The record company owns the rights to that performance of the tune but not the tune. The Beastie Boys have to pay the record company to use a sample from that version of the tune but also to have to come to an agreement with the composer of the tune, get his permission to use a sample of his composition. They didn't do that. The court seems hung up on the fact that it is a simple melody with few notes but it's James Newton's simple melody with just a few notes. If was that simple why didn't the Beastie Boys just record their own version of it. They didn't, they owe James money. If James wanted too much money then they have to say fuck it and find something else or I'll dare say it again, record their own variation of the sample they wanted. All this should have been resolved before the recording was released. It wasn't, which means James should have the right to collect big here. Creative Commons sounds like bullshit, a way to find stuff to sample without having to pay for it and what's in it for the composer, the thrill of someone sampling your music? How about if it sells a million copies and you get nothing, how will you feel about it then?

Most '70s recordings are marred by loud way too trebly bass sounds. I always thought Ron's sound was a bit trebly and I've heard he wants it recorded that way. I like it when they fatten him up. I overheard Joe Chambers tell someone (who asked him to sign a photo of him from the Contours session from one of those Blue Note session photo books) that he thought his best recorded sound was on Contours. I'd take a McMaster mastered session over a Van Gelder any day. The Van Gelder re-masters are over the top bright to me. I've been told Rudy only records the bass direct these days and it's been that way for a long time.

yes, greg tate the writer. I believes he conduct a la Butch Morris on the gigs. Lots of Black Rock Coalition types usually playing on the gig.

dolphy though the woody shaw has it's charms as well