king ubu

*****Lester Young Corner*****

351 posts in this topic

I guess it might be more about being afraid of GREED? Of silly lawsuits (there seem to be many of those in the US) that will cost money, and time too, and keep the music from being released?

Mosaic should start a European subsidiary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If descendants of the musicians involved don't want the music released - whatever their reason(s) - that's their right under the law. You and I don't have the right to own and listen to recordings of the music just because we might want to. In a civilized society, no one has a right to something simply because they might want it, even if that goes against the beliefs of the "internet generation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the descendants still have the right to withhold simply because they want it ... to me the notion of inheriting works of culture is an extremely odd one in general. I find it hard to grasp that sons and daughters should hold any rights to a book or piece of music or art created by their father or mother. Now with spouses, that's a different thing, but I can't come to grips with the fact that maybe there's some seventh-grade cousin to Lester Young's bother's grand-grand-grand-child and that cousin has any claims to make there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heirs are heirs, whether they are spouses, children, or whoever is an heir under the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know ... but inheritance laws tend to help those that have amass more ... and ought to be changed. But we're not allowed to talk politics here ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can heirs inherit something their family has never owned? Did the tapes lay in the basements of those "heirs"? King Ubu has it spot-on. This copyright law of such "works" is grossly skewed as it is. Umpteenth generations of "heirs" cashing in for something they never had any hand in coming up with in the first place? Like King Ubu said - fair enough for spouses (and possibly children). But beyond that? Hey, assume a 50-year period during which you can KEEP earning money from something you did once, but beyond that it ought to be fair enough that this "keeping earing" business is over and ended. Just imagine the same thing going on for any scientist, engineer or whoever who comes up with an important invention, new technology or whatever within the scope of his work? Take a guess how many of those will be able to take out a patent for themselves. Not many ... at best it is their employers that file a patent (and even THOSE are limited). And to what extent are there engineering or science "royalties" (or something comparable) out there? And now don't tell me each and every "artist" towers that sky-high above the importance of the entire spectrum of renowned and knowledgeable scientists, engineers, researchers etc.

The least that that ought to be done is a "use it or lose it" clause (i.e. market it or forfeit it). Happens in LOTS of other strata of business too where marketable goods or goods of general interest are concerned. Just check out the entire trademark segment.

In my job I am in that part of business myself that might be handled along those royalties by not so much of a stretch of imagination too if you ride a principle to death. But the practice is that a fee is paid for the job to be done and then the one who pays out is free to use the object of the service performed against payment of the invoice. Fair enough and I am not complaining (though I am at the "fee receiving end" of it all, as opposed to any royaltiy business ...). Another example of the principle evoked not being a universally applicable one.

Hey, I am almost beginning to feel some understanding creep up inside of me for recording sessions done against a payment of flat fees and that's that ... After all, once the music has been played, ALL the rest of the work along the line (right down to the finished product and to marketing, including re-marketing) is done by other parties than the musicians (unless you are your own composer, producer, marketer, label/streaming company owner, etc.) ... ;)

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a 50 year limit sounds good to you, work to get the laws changed to that.

To my mind, there's more than enough music readily available to keep people occupied for years and years. I doubt that most folks know the music in their collections thoroughly right now. I know that I don't. If the music becomes available, fine. If not, I won't lose any sleep over what I'm missing out on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you are right about not being familiar enough with the contents of one's collections so one ought to have enough listening to do to keep yourself busy for quite some time. I've never been overly worried about the drying-up of certain releases/reissues either.

It just is so that in cases like the "savoury Savory" ;) collection where the contents fall right into the core of one's personal jazz interests (like mine ;)), things are slightly different but even there I won't cry and pine forever if things remain buried after all. It just is a pity ...

No doubt you will realize this is quite a natural thing to happen, just looking at how all those hard bop fanatics out there drool over any new snippet of previously unreleased Miles, Blakey, Morgan, Mobley (whoever ...), though overall and by reasonable standards such new discoveries often do not add much of ADDED value to the overall opus of the musicians involved. Something that just is a BIT different with quite a few of the 30s jazzmen where the recorded legacy is a bit more spotty. Not many need the zillionth live version of BG's "Rachel's Dream" but beyond that there is a lot where considerable gaps remain (that just MIGHT be filled by the Savory collection).

As for the public domain and inheritance laws, surely you yourself will admit that these laws are no eternal clear-cut matters of principle and overall fairness but highly arbitrary matters that have been dictated and enforced by wrestling, lobbying and levering of powers at work that, for example, might want to prevent certain MAJOR sellers from falling into the public domain (such as the Beatles etc. when the European laws changed recently) or whatever was at stake to the big players in the US when they tightened down their laws again (maybe it was the Glenn Miler estate that had a hand?). Which appears to be why these laws have changed several times after all .... And yet ... compared with other realms of professional life where a lot of individual creativity (that on objective grounds should not be considered any less important or valuable than whatever any musician did at any time) remains outside any sort of ongoing decade-long (and therefore almost eternal) royalty settlements, this kind of royalty regulations as they are now in the music business sometimes appears rather out of place to me. Particularly because with the way they are set up it is the big players that cash in but the anonymous (to the general public) journeyman sidemen or studio musicians (who were invoked as benefitting from the new European regulations) in fact do not profit to such a huge extent from the new regulations after all (as investigations into the matter over here have shown). It is just the bigwigs that get bigwiggier. In short, the highly moral grounds that had been invoked for changing the European copyright/royalty/public domain laws proved to be largely bogus upon closer inspection.

There COULD be settlements where deals could be worked out that should be beneficial to all parties involved, particularly in cases of those tapes where no record companies are involved (which removes one major obstacle). I can only invoke the example of the Route 66 labels from the 70s that on the face of it were bootlegging the record companies but supported the artists, i.e. by starting by paying an ADVANCE artists royalty (at the going rate) for a pressing run of 2000 albums to the featured artist (don't know to what extent the sidemen were covered but often the featured artists/session leaders were hugely pleased in finally seeing some money from those 25 to 30 year old sessions after all).

Besides, rarely were any of those sessions we are talking about limited to only ONE musician involved. Now what if the descendants of several musicians would be delighted to see their ancestors' music released under a royalty settlement that would appear fair to them but ONE such heir obstinately refuses to go along with it? The majority being held hostage by the whims of a minority? Do you have any real argument to support why those who say "No" should prevail over those who says "yes"? Is there any valid reason why the rights of those who'd say "yes" are to be less worthy of being fulfilled?

Just my 2c ;)

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steve. To me the way Route 66 paid advance royalties and reissued is a good model. If a work of art (book, recording) has been off the market for a long time - maybe 20 years - you should have the right to reissue it on your label and pay royalties. One wrong thing: Book publishers keep books officially "in print" for years after they cease distribution of those books - print-on-demand. No reason record companies can't keep music "in release" for years - burn-on-demand.

The Basie-Evans-Pres-Dicky Wells music in the Savory collection is priceless, joyous, and very revealing about the ways these artists performed together. Better (at least partly because more extensive) than the air-shots albums over the years. Major works of art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steve. To me the way Route 66 paid advance royalties and reissued is a good model. If a work of art (book, recording) has been off the market for a long time - maybe 20 years - you should have the right to reissue it on your label and pay royalties. One wrong thing: Book publishers keep books officially "in print" for years after they cease distribution of those books - print-on-demand. No reason record companies can't keep music "in release" for years - burn-on-demand.

The Basie-Evans-Pres-Dicky Wells music in the Savory collection is priceless, joyous, and very revealing about the ways these artists performed together. Better (at least partly because more extensive) than the air-shots albums over the years. Major works of art.

"If a work of art (book, recording) has been off the market for a long time - maybe 20 years - you should have the right to reissue it on your label and pay royalties."

That's your opinion. Do the laws agree?

John - Route 66 (and Jonas Bernholm's associated labels) made agreements with the leaders involved and issued the records. (By the way, Bernholm could have been sued by the labels involved, though it probably wasn't worth their while to do so.) Coming to an agreement with the estates of the artists involved in the Savory collection would be a different deal partly because there was probably no one musician designated as leader. And there may not have been signed contracts - in which case, who owns that music? Certainly not you and not I and not someone who just decides to issue it.

"Major works of art." Who decides what are major works of art and what are "minor" works of art? Should "major works" be susceptible to being released over any objections because someone says they're "major", but "minor" works are not?

If a "major" (as opposed to "minor") writer holds the rights to his works and doesn't want them reissued, or even perhaps issued for the first time, does someone have the right to issue them because they decide that they're "major" works?

Ornette Coleman supposedly has a trove of tapes of unreleased concert and rehearsal performances, plus i believe he owns the master tapes of previously released records such as Crisis and Ornette at 12. If someone got hold of those tapes (either while Ornette is still with us, or after his passing, if Denardo or someone else inherited them) would that person have the right to issue them simply because they might be regarded as "major works"?

There are a lot of issues involved here, at least for me - perhaps not for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, we agree about private recordings and artists' personal archives. I'm not advocating for anyone to sneak the Savory collection onto the market. But when record companies delete recordings that they (not the artists) own, reissue should be open to negotiation with the artists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, we agree about private recordings and artists' personal archives. I'm not advocating for anyone to sneak the Savory collection onto the market. But when record companies delete recordings that they (not the artists) own, reissue should be open to negotiation with the artists.

I agree with you in theory, John, but sometimes reality gets in the way.

For example, I believe that a number of Chuck's recordings were out of print for a time. As far as I know, this wasn't of Chuck's own choosing. I can't say that I'd have thought it right for the musicians he recorded to make their own deal with another label for the music Chuck had recorded.

And when Pete Lowry was running Trix Records, a number of his recordings went out of print for (I believe) financial reasons. One of his artists made a deal with Document Records to release his Trix recording. Pete said that he wasn't happy about it, but didn't pursue it because he didn't want to sue an artist he had recorded and who needed the money.

There are a lot of gray areas involved, at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a lot of gray areas, but I strongly believe that a copyright law that prevents the Savory collection from the 1930s and 1940s from being released and heard in 2014 is a very BAD copyright law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years is enough, and there should be a compulsory licensing regime for out of print music/books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 years is enough, and there should be a compulsory licensing regime for out of print music/books.

I imagine if there's enough of a public outcry to overcome the lobbying of publishing, video, and music industries, it might happen.

I guess I have more important things in my life to be concerned about, so changing that is not a big deal for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment 10 to the Constitution of the United States of America:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Once powers have been granted to the people, such as the rights to public use of works of art after fifty years, would it not then take an amendment to the constitution to deprive the people of that right granted under laws made by an elected legislature? The purpose of the law changes is an intellectual property grab of Mickey Mouse and the Beatles, and those trains have already left the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would people feel for physical property rights to fall to the public after 50 years?

Edited by uli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would people feel for physical property rights to fall to the public after 50 years?

I for one intend to renew my copyrights to my books when they expire after 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite the same things for "sound recordings". I would love to go claim someone's house as their copyright expired but sadly only my choice of work seems at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite the same things for "sound recordings". I would love to go claim someone's house as their copyright expired but sadly only my choice of work seems at risk.

That's because folks here who want access to property rights tend to own houses (or cars, etc.) but not record companies. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what's this?

Ella Fitzgerald - Royal Roost Sessions With Ray Brown Trio & Quintet [Cardboard Sleeve (mini LP)] [sHM-CD]
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/TLCD-5102

Label is given as "Vivid Sound Collection", price is hefty (2800 yen), description says "originally on Cool & Blue", which of course is your true audiophile top quality outfit that deserves cardboard sleeve mini lp shm treatment like hardly any other does ... but, more interesting is the description found on another Japanese site (giving the label as Sound Hills, btw), and there's Pres showing up, so ...

1. Ool-Ya-Koo
2. Love That Boy
3. Mr Paganini
4. It's Too Soon to Know
5. I Never Knew
6. How High The Moon
7. Heat Wave
8. Old Mother Hubbard
9. Bop Goes To The Weasel
10. Ool-Ka-Yoo
11. Flying Home
12. Old Mother Hubbard
13. Mr Paganini
14. There's a Small Hotel
15. How High The Moon
16. Robbin's Nest
17. As You Desire Me
18. Thou Swell
19. Flyin' Home
20. Someone Like You
21. Again
22. In A Mellotone
23. Lemon Drop

Ella Fitzgerald(vo), Hank Jones(p), Ray Brown(b), Charlie Smith(ds), Kai Winding(tb), Allen Eager(ts), Lester Young(ts), Jesse Drakes(tp), Ted Kelly(tb), Fred Jefferson(p), Roy Haynes(ds), Flip Phillips(ts), Howard McGhee(tp), Brew Moore(ts), Machito's(rhythm) Recorded on November 27, & December 4, 1948 / Recorded on April 30, 1949

link: http://www.vividsound.co.jp/item_show.php?lid=4940603051022

but I see now ... boils down to one single jam w/Lester present - worth it?

ella_fitzgerald_-_royal_roost_sessions_w


(btw, wasn't me who manufactured that ... not sure why quite a few of those older boots out of Italy and Spain - like plenty of old Fresh Sounds - were manufactured in Switzerland ... obviously shady business has a long-standing tradition here, but anyone knows any reason to that?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite the same things for "sound recordings". I would love to go claim someone's house as their copyright expired but sadly only my choice of work seems at risk.

And after 50 years or 75 years or 90 years you could go grab the architect's plans and build your own house, riffing off those plans. For most of time, the law has understood that "culture" is something that requires a great deal of cross-polinization and building off others' work in a way that today's corporations want to completely squelch, ignoring 500+ years of cultural history. If people perhaps had been more reasonable about licencing and sampling and keep things in print, maybe there wouldn't be such a backlash and resentment against those corporations that have eviscerated the public domain. People are going to have strong feelings about it no matter what, and I am on the side of those that thing today's copyright laws are unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what's this?

Ella Fitzgerald - Royal Roost Sessions With Ray Brown Trio & Quintet [Cardboard Sleeve (mini LP)] [sHM-CD]

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/TLCD-5102

Label is given as "Vivid Sound Collection", price is hefty (2800 yen), description says "originally on Cool & Blue", which of course is your true audiophile top quality outfit that deserves cardboard sleeve mini lp shm treatment like hardly any other does ... but, more interesting is the description found on another Japanese site (giving the label as Sound Hills, btw), and there's Pres showing up, so ...

1. Ool-Ya-Koo

2. Love That Boy

3. Mr Paganini

4. It's Too Soon to Know

5. I Never Knew

6. How High The Moon

7. Heat Wave

8. Old Mother Hubbard

9. Bop Goes To The Weasel

10. Ool-Ka-Yoo

11. Flying Home

12. Old Mother Hubbard

13. Mr Paganini

14. There's a Small Hotel

15. How High The Moon

16. Robbin's Nest

17. As You Desire Me

18. Thou Swell

19. Flyin' Home

20. Someone Like You

21. Again

22. In A Mellotone

23. Lemon Drop

Ella Fitzgerald(vo), Hank Jones(p), Ray Brown(b), Charlie Smith(ds), Kai Winding(tb), Allen Eager(ts), Lester Young(ts), Jesse Drakes(tp), Ted Kelly(tb), Fred Jefferson(p), Roy Haynes(ds), Flip Phillips(ts), Howard McGhee(tp), Brew Moore(ts), Machito's(rhythm) Recorded on November 27, & December 4, 1948 / Recorded on April 30, 1949

link: http://www.vividsound.co.jp/item_show.php?lid=4940603051022

but I see now ... boils down to one single jam w/Lester present - worth it?

For you, it is not worth it. You are a proud owner of the "Complete Perfect Collection" that already has this track on it. It has been released on a number of other boots over the years, and even on ESP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot! Wasn't even aware of an Ella track on there, so it must have left little impression ;)

(I'm not a proud owner, btw, just a guy happy to know some generous persons!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.