verve downsized

[Teasing the Korean]

"Verve Downsized" should be the title of Verve's next series of compilations.

[montg]

I'm not passing judgment one way or the other, just stating the way it is. I may be wrong about this, but I'm under the impression that there was a time when the pressure to meet this quarter's earnings expectations was not so overwhelming. But I don't see how we're going to get back to that frame of mind (if it indeed ever existed).

At the end of the day, spin-offs and leasing are the best solution, IMO.

Is there any company, other than Mosaic, who is willing/able to lease this material in a way that is profitable (and does justice to the material)? It's a lot to expect Mosaic to carry the load....the Verve holdings are massive (Decca, Commodore, Keynote, Emarcy, Argo/Cadet, Impulse etc).

Don't get me wrong, I love Mosaic and news like this motivates me to support their efforts as much as I can. But I wonder if they're going to be able/willing to do much more than what they're already doing in the way of reissuing the verve catalog.

[felser]

It's also not a matter of making a profit. It's a matter of making a larger profit than if you invested the money elsewhere. If you're not doing that, you are doing a disservice to your shareholders. I know that sounds like a sucky way of looking at things to many people, but it is reality.

It is "sucky". It's a illusional/delusional "reality" that people buy into. It's a rationalization for simple, old-fashioned greed. And it has but one eventual outcome.

Shareholders who value the notion of a "good-enough" profit that comes accompanied by things like long-term social responsibility and a respect for cultural values had better start speaking up loudly and immediately, before it's too late, if it's not already.

WAKE UP!!!

Wake up! is helpful and appropriate for a sleeping man, but useless for a dead one.

[J Larsen]

It's also not a matter of making a profit. It's a matter of making a larger profit than if you invested the money elsewhere. If you're not doing that, you are doing a disservice to your shareholders. I know that sounds like a sucky way of looking at things to many people, but it is reality.

It is "sucky". It's a illusional/delusional "reality" that people buy into. It's a rationalization for simple, old-fashioned greed. And it has but one eventual outcome.

Shareholders who value the notion of a "good-enough" profit that comes accompanied by things like long-term social responsibility and a respect for cultural values had better start speaking up loudly and immediately, before it's too late, if it's not already.

WAKE UP!!!

Wake up! is helpful and appropriate for a sleeping man, but useless for a dead one.

That's an extremely stupid comment. I'm only pointing out obvious truths of pulbicly traded companies. At no point have I discussed my personal feelings. to you.

[felser]

It's also not a matter of making a profit. It's a matter of making a larger profit than if you invested the money elsewhere. If you're not doing that, you are doing a disservice to your shareholders. I know that sounds like a sucky way of looking at things to many people, but it is reality.

It is "sucky". It's a illusional/delusional "reality" that people buy into. It's a rationalization for simple, old-fashioned greed. And it has but one eventual outcome.

Shareholders who value the notion of a "good-enough" profit that comes accompanied by things like long-term social responsibility and a respect for cultural values had better start speaking up loudly and immediately, before it's too late, if it's not already.

WAKE UP!!!

Wake up! is helpful and appropriate for a sleeping man, but useless for a dead one.

That's an extremely stupid comment. I'm only pointing out obvious truths of pulbicly traded companies. At no point have I discussed my personal feelings. to you.

JLarsen, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the aforementioned stockholders in Jim's comments (which also is who he addressed the "WAKE UP" to). I like you fine and think highly of you.

Edited December 30, 2006 by felser

[J Larsen]

I apologize for misinterpreting your remark. I'm glad it was a misunderstanding.

[JSngry]

I certainly prefer to see bigger rather than smaller appreciation in the stocks that I own.

Dude, I know you're a good guy, no question about that. So I'm not busting you personal chops on this.

But...

It's statements like the one above that contribute to the current climate, that give "the powers that be" the juice they need to go on ahead and do what they do w/o fear and w/o remorse. I guarantee you that that's the first line of defense when they get called on their bullshit - "We have a responsibility to our stockholders". And then when confronted, that's their first tact, to throw it back in your face - "Well, would you rather have a samller return on your investment than a larger one?" Like they're just doing your personal bidding in all this and you should by god THANK them for creating instability, distrust, and angst in the world you have to live in.

And to the extent that nobody steps up to the plate and says WAIT JUST A MOTHERFUCKING MINUTE ASSHOLE, we want a return, we want to make money, we want you to make money, hell, we like money, we want everybody to make money, just not at the expense of the long-term health and stability of our society, then yeah, they're right.

Thing is, this ain't nothing new. This is the oldest trick in the book, the work of the silver-tongued serpent who steals your soul under the guise of simply "giving you what you want". We can all claim that it's not our fault, but when the beast files the papers in the Case Closed drawer, it will simply smile and say "You had a choice and you made it. I just gave you what you wanted".

Jan, I think you're not old enough to have lived for too long, if at all, in a pre-Reagan-era America. So this may well be all you know. But some of us are old enough and have memories long enough to know that although "business realities" are always going to be what they are, and something over which we ultimately have only a modicum of control, the degree to which those realities play themselves out are very much a matter of choice. A generation of Americans has been hypnotized into thinking that they don't have these choices, but I'm here to tell you right now that goddammit, you do. You do, I do, we all do.

[ghost of miles]

As much as I love the jazz of the past--obviously, since I do a weekly show devoted to the 1945-1990 era--I keep thinking, "Well, I've got so much of that music already... and much of it that I would like and enjoy listening to again." I keep thinking, as well, that the relatively small amount of time I invest in listening to new/modern jazz might need to expand by default... and that might not be such a bad thing. I think it's a more dire time for those just starting to get into vintage jazz--many of the wonderful recordings that Verve reissued in the 1990s (truly a golden age for such releases) have gone OOP. Andorra is too problematic (ethically and aesthetically speaking) to be the answer. Better downloads than nothing, I guess, but until they offer up covers, liners, and better-quality audio, I'm staying away.

[Guest youmustbe]

Geez!!! You guys are impatient! It's all there now and it will be there in the future, the near future. The 'biz' has to shake out, adapt to the too frequent as of now, tech innovations...but it will settle.

Just think if you were living a hundred years ago, all the things thrust upon you, airplanes, cars, radio, recordings, indoor plumbing (yeah, that too) and God what not....so we're a little bit like that now.

Relax. You'll be able to hear your favorite Hank Mobley record thru your toaster any day now. The Gary McFarland with Steve Kuhn you might have to wait a minute for.....

As for the comment about 'moderate' profits....Why do people without money want people that have it, not make 'too much'? Trust me a little...in my previous life as an Accountant, I had many clients, Park Avenue duplexes and all that, and trust me, they are just as unhappy as the rest of us. 'Money does not....' So forget about that.

[felser]

I certainly prefer to see bigger rather than smaller appreciation in the stocks that I own.

Dude, I know you're a good guy, no question about that. So I'm not busting you personal chops on this.

But...

It's statements like the one above that contribute to the current climate, that give "the powers that be" the juice they need to go on ahead and do what they do w/o fear and w/o remorse. I guarantee you that that's the first line of defense when they get called on their bullshit - "We have a responsibility to our stockholders". And then when confronted, that's their first tact, to throw it back in your face - "Well, would you rather have a samller return on your investment than a larger one?" Like they're just doing your personal bidding in all this and you should by god THANK them for creating instability, distrust, and angst in the world you have to live in.

And to the extent that nobody steps up to the plate and says WAIT JUST A MOTHERFUCKING MINUTE ASSHOLE, we want a return, we want to make money, we want you to make money, hell, we like money, we want everybody to make money, just not at the expense of the long-term health and stability of our society, then yeah, they're right.

Thing is, this ain't nothing new. This is the oldest trick in the book, the work of the silver-tongued serpent who steals your soul under the guise of simply "giving you what you want". We can all claim that it's not our fault, but when the beast files the papers in the Case Closed drawer, it will simply smile and say "You had a choice and you made it. I just gave you what you wanted".

Jan, I think you're not old enough to have lived for too long, if at all, in a pre-Reagan-era America. So this may well be all you know. But some of us are old enough and have memories long enough to know that although "business realities" are always going to be what they are, and something over which we ultimately have only a modicum of control, the degree to which those realities play themselves out are very much a matter of choice. A generation of Americans has been hypnotized into thinking that they don't have these choices, but I'm here to tell you right now that goddammit, you do. You do, I do, we all do.

Jim,

I supported McGovern and John Anderson, and am with you in spirit. I'm middle class, own no stock in Universal/Sony or WEA. And I want nothing to do with bad downloads. Please let me know how the convictions you've stated should be played out in our cases. Thx.

[JSngry]

Buy a lot of Sony & Univedrsal stock and start acting a fool?

Seriously, I don't know. I don't own any stocks myself, other than a few options granted through my job. But somebody's gotta start making enough noise of the type that starts putting corporate decisions that so many people don't like (and in their hearts probably feel are wrong) in a negative enough light that it starts to have an adverse effect on image, which in turn should translate to a negative impact on stock prices. That will get their attention.

Think about it - the only real reason so many of these decisions are getting made is that the common comatosity dictates maximum profit uber alles. Perception driving reality driving perception. Change the perception, change the reality, and in turn change the perception. Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

Yeah, I know it's not that simple, and yeah, I know it's not that easy. But we didn't get where we are today w/o collectively buying into a perception that created a reality that created a perception. Shit don't have to be this way. So I'm saying that we need to buy out of the old and into the new. Just make it happen, one step at a time, and don't quit until we get there. If we can't do it, then that's admitting that we have absolutely no control over our destiny, and I ain't buying that shit for one motherfukkin' minute.

In the words of the Profhet Nike - Just Do It.

[JSngry]

Why do people without money want people that have it, not make 'too much'?

I'm not poor, thank you. I got me some money, and I'd like more. I'm all for motherfuckers making BIGASS bucks, including myself. But there's different ways to make it, and not all ways have the same outcome on society.

Quanity is not the issue. Quality is. And that's very much a matter of priorities and discernment. Collective priorities right now suck, and discernment is so narrow in scope as to render the word all but meaningless.

"Revolution of the mind" is an oldass phrase, but it ain't obsolete. Not yet. If it is, take me home.

[Teasing the Korean]

So which tracks/artists do you think should be represented on Verve Downsized Volume 1? I vote for "Hard Latin" by Kenyon Hopkins, "Fried Bananas" by Gary McFarland, and something from The Distant Galaxy by Don Sebeskey, but I haven't decided which track yet. Let's put together the perfect compilation and propose it to Verve before they go belly up. I'll add some more suggestions soon.

[medjuck]

So which tracks/artists do you think should be represented on Verve Downsized Volume 1? I vote for "Hard Latin" by Kenyon Hopkins, "Fried Bananas" by Gary McFarland, and something from The Distant Galaxy by Don Sebeskey, but I haven't decided which track yet. Let's put together the perfect compilation and propose it to Verve before they go belly up. I'll add some more suggestions soon.

Kenyon Hopkins! I didn't know he made any records that weren't movie scores.

[Chas]

As for the comment about 'moderate' profits....Why do people without money want people that have it, not make 'too much'? Trust me a little...in my previous life as an Accountant, I had many clients, Park Avenue duplexes and all that, and trust me, they are just as unhappy as the rest of us. 'Money does not....' So forget about that.

Trust you a little ? No , your straw-man refutation evinces too much disingenuousness for that .

No 'politics of envy' going on here . Unequal distributions of economic resources generate unequal distributions of political resources ; economic freedom undermines political equality .

[Teasing the Korean]

Kenyon Hopkins! I didn't know he made any records that weren't movie scores.

He did, but "Hard Latin" is from the soundtrack of Mr. Buddwing, released on Verve. His other Verve soundtrack was Yellow Canary. They would make a fine twofer, but of course no one at Verve has ever heard of Kenyon Hopkins, let alone thought about reiussing him.

[Guest youmustbe]

People with money DO have a 'special responsibilty'...every day thousands if not milllions of Americans contribute to art institutions, museums, hospitals, medical research, etc.. even those 'evil' corporations underwrite most of what we watch, experience and enjoy.

Bill Gates and George Soros didn't put their money into their foundations just to cheat the taxman.

Say what you will about the American economic system, just because it's not concerned with the hundreds of people that must have the Pete Rugolo Columbia sessions remastered, it ain't all that bad.

[gmonahan]

Say what you will about the American economic system, just because it's not concerned with the hundreds of people that must have the Pete Rugolo Columbia sessions remastered, it ain't all that bad.

Oh, I don't know--those sessions really should get remastered. Maybe we should make the Revolution!

[Roger Hiles]

I digitized a lot of my cds last year, and I couldn't help noticing that the late 90s really were a golden age for re-issues from the "major" labels. One of my favorite sets is the big Verve Lester Young set that if memory serves didn't sell as planned and caused an earlier wave of downsizing there. Looking back, it is astonishing that a big corporate label would approve a lot of those wacky "Verve by Request" reissues-- certainly hard to see that happening ever again!

When I started down this road in the 70s, most everything was only available on sometimes scratchy used lps, purchased in garage sales or swap meets. Then the cd changed the economic equation for the big labels, and we've just lived through this period of wonderful, more-or-less easily available reissues. But the cd era is ending, and the business equation is changing again, with digital downloads, the passing of most of the big catalogs into public domain in Europe, and a global retail market as well as a global second-hand market (ebay, etc.).

Stuff is still getting out somehow, though maybe not always the way one would like. Compared to what I was buying seven or eight years ago, I'm now getting many more imports (including Japanese reissues that probably would have been OJCs had Fantasy not been bought by Concord), some middling quality digital-only copies, and (yes) some Spain/Andorra reissues that I gave up hope of getting in better quality (or sometimes more legitimate) releases.

Who knows what will happen next, but I'm confident that as long as people still love this music they will find a way to get it. At the same time, I'm really glad I don't work for Verve.

[.:.impossible]

Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

I don't know all that much about economics, but it sounds like what you are calling for here is inflation. Artificial increase in stock prices due to demand? I think most financial analysts would agree that the balance sheet is still more important than demand, long-term anyway. Also sounds like a decrease in the federal minimum wage.

Honestly, I think it is WAY more complicated than that, what with cause and effect and all.

My question is why these major corporations maintain the rights to this music (assets?) if they are just going to store it up in the attic.

[Guy Berger]

Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

I don't know all that much about economics, but it sounds like what you are calling for here is inflation. Artificial increase in stock prices due to demand?

No, it isn't inflation.

Guy

[ghost of miles]

Compared to what I was buying seven or eight years ago, I'm now getting many more imports (including Japanese reissues that probably would have been OJCs had Fantasy not been bought by Concord)

Thank our lucky jazz stars for Hiroshi Tanno.

[.:.impossible]

Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

I don't know all that much about economics, but it sounds like what you are calling for here is inflation. Artificial increase in stock prices due to demand?

No, it isn't inflation.

Guy

What is that called? A buying frenzy? I'm sure there's a term for it.

[Dan Gould]

Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

I don't know all that much about economics, but it sounds like what you are calling for here is inflation. Artificial increase in stock prices due to demand?

No, it isn't inflation.

Guy

What is that called? A buying frenzy? I'm sure there's a term for it.

Jim is counting on a legion of money managers and stock pickers to say "I don't care if bringing those jobs home will increase expenses and reduce profits, I'm going to buy and hold MegaCorp stock!"

So the operative term would be "fantasyland".

[felser]

Why doesn't "Megacorp announced today that it will be be be brining back 2500 jobs to America that it had outsourced" cause a rise in Megacorp's stock price? Because everybody's convinced themselves that it shouldn't. If enough people would say, "Hey, you GO Megacorp, bring those jobs back home!" and start buying Megacorp's stock as a show of support, then hey, stock prices go up, right? Pretty soon, GiantInc says, "DAMN, we gotta keep up w/Megacorp. We better bring some jobs back home too!" And on and on it goes. New perception creates the new reality that drives the new perception.

I don't know all that much about economics, but it sounds like what you are calling for here is inflation. Artificial increase in stock prices due to demand?

No, it isn't inflation.

Guy

What is that called? A buying frenzy? I'm sure there's a term for it.

Stock prices are based on perception, on expectation of future performance. Past/present performance is only one aspect of that. Remember the dot com boom/bust? The boom had everything to do with the allure of the then seemingly limitless potential of the internet technology, almost nothing to do with the actual performance of the companies. The bust came when the realities prevailed in the future projections, not because the actual businesses somehow started to do worse. Has Amazon had a profitable quarter yet? I know for many years they hadn't. It was years before major cable interests like CNN, ESPN, and MTV turned profitable. Think that kept their stock prices depressed? Good jobs will return to the US when the US government makes that a public policy priority and gives tax breaks to companies for creating good jobs. That's what public policy is supposed to be about, enabling desirable outcomes in a free enterprise system (I'm sure I'll get nailed from both the right and the left for that statement!). That's why you get a tax break on your mortgage payments, because it's good for people to own houses. That's why there are now starting to be education credits, because it's good for the US population/work force to be educated, etc.

Edited January 2, 2007 by felser