Fresh Sound: Jordi Pujol Interview

[BillF]

http://www.jazzwax.com/

[Big Beat Steve]

Good to see this clarified straight form the horse's mouth.

But will the bottom line - that the "fault" in all this reissuing business lies with those "majors" who are unwilling to reissue recordings or keep them in print themselves - really stick with those who have made a point of being indiscriminately oh so wary of ALL European reissues?

[brownie]

Many thanks BillF.

Would have caught this later in the day!

Another great interview from Marc Myers

[king ubu]

Yes, just read it... but it does leave a few open questions, at least to me.

1) Why are so many Fresh Sound records of such so-so quality when they have these reel-to-reels, what are those anyway?

2) Would paying licensing fees allow Fresh Sound to negotiate about using masters?

3) Why does Fresh Sound so often put forth compilations of stuff that just a few months ago was readily available? Doesn't gain them sympathy points from me!

4) Why does Fresh Sound so often combine a wide-spread album with a rarer one? If they're really catering the serious collector, it would be nice to stop that crap and change the concept a bit!

The main point, though, as BBS says, is the reluctancy of the majors, to do anything... but I'd still wish for better quality reissues! Just recently got the EMI Japan Joe Puma disc and it beats the crappy Fresh Sound disc by many a mile!

[JohnS]

Thanks for posting Bill.

[David Ayers]

Thanks Bill. Basically what we knew, but it is good to hear it from him.

[Big Beat Steve]

4) Why does Fresh Sound so often combine a wide-spread album with a rarer one? If they're really catering to the serious collector, it would be nice to stop that crap and change the concept a bit!

Yes, this irks me too - in a BIG way. I could rattle off at least a dozen Fresh Sound "2 CDs on one" reissues that I've not bought just because I already had one of the two CDs included in each set and the other one was not THAT mandatory for me to want to get it by all means.

HOWEVER - I think the marketing strategy behind this is a fairly simple one: Fresh Sound has reissued a LOT of material in their vinyl days that was just heaven-sent back then (because - as pointed out in the interview as well - the major labels just did not give a rat's ass about reissuing ANY of that). And now they are expanding their program but are of course rehashing (O.K., re-reissuing would be a nicer word) their former catalog on CD too, because a) those vinyls are long OOP, and b) many collectors have given up on vinyl and use CDs only. So all this would be fine with a newer generation of colectors. But as I have a fairly large proportion of those Fresh Sound LPs from the 80s (and will NOT part with them ) the value-for-money ratio of the 2-in-1 CD reissues is a bit slim for me.

But that's only me ...

And it's a reissuing policy that is not uniuque to Fresh Sound, unfortunately.

OTOH, what I don't understand is that IIRC there have been some CD reissues of SINGLE LPs on Fresh Sound (now maybe deleted?) that have now been re-reissued on Fresh Sound in 2-in-1 couplings. A bit unnecessary.

As for fidelity, oh well ... Japanese reissues are a different playground altogether and as long as their pricing and worldwide acesiblity is as it is it's a moot point to discuss about items that seem to vanish almost as fast as they appear.

And maybe I am just a bit too tolerant on some needledrops because if you have embraced so many reissues from the 78rpm era you have learnt to make concessions (as long as the "noise" on these 78rpm reissues doesn't overwhelm the overall sound impression).

[Clunky]

thanks for the link, very interesting.

[AllenLowe]

interesting interview, though it does not address the fact that, technically, even if these recordings are not bootlegs in Europe, they are technically bootlegs when they arrive in the USA (AFIK). But as one who has worked with a few Euro labels, I agree, that without this work all of this stuff would simply disappear. I've been buying jazz since 1968, and even then it was primarily the grey-area independents who kept jazz alive.

[king ubu]

interesting interview, though it does not address the fact that, technically, even if these recordings are not bootlegs in Europe, they are technically bootlegs when they arrive in the USA (AFIK). But as one who has worked with a few Euro labels, I agree, that without this work all of this stuff would simply disappear. I've been buying jazz since 1968, and even then it was primarily the grey-area independents who kept jazz alive.

That's of course true - but there's no blaming the European labels for that (again: of course!)

But as the majors don't give sh*t, it seems they're being sold widely in the US.

[sonnymax]

Imo, this reads more like a press release than a journalistic endeavor to inform and clarify. First off, let's establish the fact that the legal owners of copyrighted material are bad, greedy, or just ignorant people. Then let's spoon feed Pujol a series of softball questions ("So issuing these recordings isn't bootlegging?"), and never challenge or ask for clarification of his answers. How about something like, "So, if it's legal to sell these recordings in Spain and other parts to Europe, why do you sell them in the U.S. where they are protected by copyright?" Pujol cites the source of FS's releases are "a large warehouse of reel-to-reel tapes that we bought from many different record labels in the 1980s". When asked how he could have purchased these copyrighted titles, Pujol says, "I assume these recordings were not protected under the U.S. copyright law". Curiously , he seemingly contradicts himself by adding, "You should know that we never bought them." So, you assume they were legal to sell, and so you purchased them, but you never bought them.

Pujol also asserts that "Many people believe that all labels coming from Andorra or Spain are related to FS. This is simply not true." So tell me then, what website advertises the Andorran labels' titles, as well as those from Fresh Sound? Answer: Blue Sounds, owned by Cristina Pujol Masdeu. And who distributes the physical product? Why, it's Absolute Distribution, whose parent company is Blue Moon Producciones Discograficas SL, a division of...drum roll, please...Fresh Sound Records.

I'm not saying that some of Pujol's efforts aren't noteworthy. Specifically, I'm thinking of the new recordings released on the Fresh Sound New Talent label, many of which I enjoy very much. However, I'm not buying this guy's Robin Hood act, and the bias and obvious holes in this "article" only serve to reinforce my opinion of him.

[David Ayers]

They have Warehouses of Mass Distribution. Exterminate all the brutes!

[Dan Gould]

Imo, this reads more like a press release than a journalistic endeavor to inform and clarify. First off, let's establish the fact that the legal owners of copyrighted material are bad, greedy, or just ignorant people. Then let's spoon feed Pujol a series of softball questions ("So issuing these recordings isn't bootlegging?"), and never challenge or ask for clarification of his answers. How about something like, "So, if it's legal to sell these recordings in Spain and other parts to Europe, why do you sell them in the U.S. where they are protected by copyright?" Pujol cites the source of FS's releases are "a large warehouse of reel-to-reel tapes that we bought from many different record labels in the 1980s". When asked how he could have purchased these copyrighted titles, Pujol says, "I assume these recordings were not protected under the U.S. copyright law". Curiously , he seemingly contradicts himself by adding, "You should know that we never bought them." So, you assume they were legal to sell, and so you purchased them, but you never bought them.

Pujol also asserts that "Many people believe that all labels coming from Andorra or Spain are related to FS. This is simply not true." So tell me then, what website advertises the Andorran labels' titles, as well as those from Fresh Sound? Answer: Blue Sounds, owned by Cristina Pujol Masdeu. And who distributes the physical product? Why, it's Absolute Distribution, whose parent company is Blue Moon Producciones Discograficas SL, a division of...drum roll, please...Fresh Sound Records.

I'm not saying that some of Pujol's efforts aren't noteworthy. Specifically, I'm thinking of the new recordings released on the Fresh Sound New Talent label, many of which I enjoy very much. However, I'm not buying this guy's Robin Hood act, and the bias and obvious holes in this "article" only serve to reinforce my opinion of him.

I'm also wondering about these "old days" when they put out LPs - even if the law was 40 years at that time, was he really strictly adhering to that law? That would make him restricted to recordings from maybe the early 50s.

What I'd especially like to know though is the corporate ownership of whatever label was putting out the Xanadu catalog recently. Not even close to the 50 year rule and if its owned by his wife or daughter or whoever, his hands ain't exactly clean if you ask me.

[Big Beat Steve]

I'm also wondering about these "old days" when they put out LPs - even if the law was 40 years at that time, was he really strictly adhering to that law? That would make him restricted to recordings from maybe the early 50s.

If you read teh interview carefully you will notice that it is stated there that at the time of these reissues (80s/early 90s) the copyright laws all across Europe were set to a cut-off P.D. date of much less than 50 years.

[David Ayers]

[David Ayers]

[Guy Berger]

Whatever else you do, don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

[Dan Gould]

I'm also wondering about these "old days" when they put out LPs - even if the law was 40 years at that time, was he really strictly adhering to that law? That would make him restricted to recordings from maybe the early 50s.

If you read teh interview carefully you will notice that it is stated there that at the time of these reissues (80s/early 90s) the copyright laws all across Europe were set to a cut-off P.D. date of much less than 50 years.

So, for example, until that year, Spanish law protected sound recordings for 40 years after their release date, based on a law from 1987. Prior to 1987, sound recordings were protected only for 25 years.

You have an interesting defnition of "much less than 50 years". If FreshSound started after 1987, it was subject to the 40 year rule, making their legal LP issues going up to the late 40s or early 50s depending on the year the label was started. That leaves my question untouched.

Did FreshSound reissue on LP recordings from, say the late 1950s? Simple math tells you it violated the law even as it stood in Spain. Same thing, frankly, with the 1995 standardization of copyright. That means that at the moment of adoption, he wasn't supposed to reissue anything recorded later than 1945. Was he following that?

I kinda believe he wasn't but I can't specifically identify the releases.

[JSngry]

I think it's funny how people feel the need to justify dealing with thieves. Hell, if you do it, do it, and don't pretend otherwise.

For the record, I have dealt with thieves in the past and don't feel all that much particularly bad about having done it. But the internet has made dealing with thieves a much less cash-exchanging business these days, so going forth...

I also find it hilarious that the whole " we have the tapes, that's why we do needle drops" thing is said with such a straight face. Ubu, you asked a question for which (you know, I'm sure) the answer is obvious!

Edited November 8, 2011 by JSngry

[Big Beat Steve]

Dan, have you ever taken a closer look at those Fresh Sound VINYL reissues - ever?

1) Many of them carry production dates several years prior to 1987. 1986, for example, minus 25 means 1961 (which leaves a margin of several years with many of their reissues - simple maths).

And there must have been a lot of tehm that were reissued prior to 1987. The "Jazz West Coast" book by Alain Tercinet that makes extensive reference to Fresh Sound reissues as ACCESSIBLE listening examples of the artists and recordings of WCJ was published in 1986. And the 1987 Fresh Sound catalog already includes the reissues up to no. 279 (all those I am aware of carrying recorings made long before 1960) out of a total of some 335 vinyl reissues done by Fresh Sound. So do your maths.

2) The small print on the back cover of many of those LP reissues says specifically that the reissues were made upon agreement with a) RCA, b) WEA, c) EMI-Odeon. Which accounts for quite a lot of reissues and reissue labels. And I'd really think they'd not get themselves into hottest water deliberately by indicating agreement with licensing companies if they had NOT made such agreements.

Not to mention that the entire NOCTURNE catalog, for example, was reissued by Fresh Sound with the SPECIFIC endorsement of Harry Babasin (just check the Nocturne CD box). So who will know and judge for sure where deals with the rights holders were concluded and where they were not?

3) If you want to quote P.D. time spans, do quote the full statement, please (which, talking about the pre-1995 or pre-1987 laws, goes on to say "Other countries like Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and much of Europe had protection terms that went from 15 to 25 years". Which just MIGHT explain their extended presence in the German record shops, for example, at that time. )

Finally, is there anybody out there who can offer conclusive proof that those other (quite non-Spanish) reissue vinyl labels that were contemporary to Fresh Sound and went down a very similar route in their reissue record programming, such as VSOP, to name just one, adopted a totally different royalty policy that adhered strictly to the U.S. rules?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[Big Beat Steve]

I think it's funny how people feel the need to justify dealing with thieves. Hell, if you do it, do it, and don't pretend otherwise.

The thieves are elsewhere IMO. E.g. on download sites (at both ends of them).

Fresh Sound complies with 50-year rules that are as they are in this part of the world, like it or not. The time when U.S. rules were the enforceable rules of the WORLD is long over.

The thieves (if any) in the U.S. are at the intra-U.S. distributors' and retailers' end, nowhere else. So go complain there and tell them you will boycott buying ANYTHING from them as long as they carry stocks of "thieves' labels", how about that?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I'm not complaining, I'm laughing!

[Big Beat Steve]

Fine that this had made your day, then.

[AllenLowe]

just as an aside, re: Dan, above, I have it on fairly good authority that the initial Xanadau cds were authorized, but the licensing ran out - and they continued to issue them anyway.

Edited November 8, 2011 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Fine that this had made your day, then.

I'm a pretty happy guy, all things considered. This is just icing on the cake!