aurelio

Miles Davis - So What: Complete 1960 Amsterdam Concerts

76 posts in this topic

I found it weird that MCN would release something this important and THEN go out of business. I guess this would explain why it's not even found on the Euro Amazon sites.

I guess they ran out of money. Their site has the following message:

On 31 December 2012, Music Center the Netherlands has discontinued all activities; on this date the foundation has been terminated.

Leo Pot is appointed as debtor of the assets and liabilities in accordance with art. 23, with offices held at Westpoint 138, 5038 KG Tilburg: vereffenaar@mcn.nl.

The MCN's state subsidies were cut by the Dutch government in an effort to reduce the national budget deficit. Pity, as the MCN used to support young musicians and all kinds of music.

The MCN stopped its activities but the Jazz Archive continues independendly http://www.jazzarchief.nl/. Click on the CD button to see wich CD's are available. The site is in Dutch only. The archive is now located in the 'Muziek Gebouw aan 't IJ' (Amsterdam) . It can be visited by appointment.

Edited by Stompy Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MCN stopped its activities but the Jazz Archive continues independendly http://www.jazzarchief.nl/. Click on the CD button to see wich CD's are available. The site is in Dutch only. The archive is now located in the 'Muziek Gebouw aan 't Ei' (Amsterdam) . It can be visited by appointment.

Make that "Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ" http://www.muziekgebouw.nl/ :)

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MCN stopped its activities but the Jazz Archive continues independendly http://www.jazzarchief.nl/. Click on the CD button to see wich CD's are available. The site is in Dutch only. The archive is now located in the 'Muziek Gebouw aan 't Ei' (Amsterdam) . It can be visited by appointment.

Make that "Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ" http://www.muziekgebouw.nl/ :)

Did that :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

A double CD will be issued on next March 27 on the 55 Records FNCJ-5612/13 Miles Davis/So What: Jazz at the Concertgebouw.

I ordered my copy from HMV Japan.

Good luck!

Claude

55 Records FNCJ-5612/13 maybe from Japan ???

Miles Davis/SoWhat: Jazz at the Concertgebouw

Disc 1

1. Introduction by Norman Granz 600409 (midnight) April 9, 1960

2. If I Were A Bell

3. Fran-Dance

4. So What

5. All Blues

6. The Theme

7. Whisper Not 6001015 (midnight) October 15, 1960 Miles Davis & John Coltrane out

8. Ease It Miles Davis & John Coltrane out

Disc 2

1. Introduction by Norman Granz 601015 October 15, 1960

2. But Not For Me

3. Walkin’

4. All Of You

5. So What

6. The Theme

7. Stardust Miles Davis out

8. Old Folks Miles Davis out

9. All Blues

10. The Theme

The Complete 1960 Amsterdam Concerts

PERSONNEL

Disc 1

Miles Davis – trumpet (except for tracks 7 & 8)

John Coltrane – tenor saxophone (except for tracks 7 & 8)

Wynton Kelly – piano

Paul Chambers – bass

Jimmy Cobb – drums

1-6: Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, April 9, 1960 (midnight)

7-8: Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, October 15, 1960 (midnight)

Disc 2

Miles Davis – trumpet (except for tracks 7 & 8)

Sonny Stitt – alto saxophone

Wynton Kelly – piano

Paul Chambers – bass

Jimmy Cobb – drums

Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, October 15, 1960 (midnight)

Edited by Claude Schlouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

A double CD will be issued on next March 27 on the 55 Records FNCJ-5612/13 Miles Davis/So What: Jazz at the Concertgebouw.

I ordered my copy from HMV Japan.

Good luck!

Claude

55 Records FNCJ-5612/13 maybe from Japan ???

Miles Davis/SoWhat: Jazz at the Concertgebouw

Disc 1

1. Introduction by Norman Granz 600409 (midnight) April 9, 1960

2. If I Were A Bell

3. Fran-Dance

4. So What

5. All Blues

6. The Theme

7. Whisper Not 6001015 (midnight) October 15, 1960 Miles Davis & John Coltrane out

8. Ease It Miles Davis & John Coltrane out

Disc 2

1. Introduction by Norman Granz 601015 October 15, 1960

2. But Not For Me

3. Walkin’

4. All Of You

5. So What

6. The Theme

7. Stardust Miles Davis out

8. Old Folks Miles Davis out

9. All Blues

10. The Theme

The Complete 1960 Amsterdam Concerts

PERSONNEL

Disc 1

Miles Davis – trumpet (except for tracks 7 & 8)

John Coltrane – tenor saxophone (except for tracks 7 & 8)

Wynton Kelly – piano

Paul Chambers – bass

Jimmy Cobb – drums

1-6: Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, April 9, 1960 (midnight)

7-8: Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, October 15, 1960 (midnight)

Disc 2

Miles Davis – trumpet (except for tracks 7 & 8)

Sonny Stitt – alto saxophone

Wynton Kelly – piano

Paul Chambers – bass

Jimmy Cobb – drums

Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, Saturday, October 15, 1960 (midnight)

Why get a probably expensive Japanese import while you can get the same material on the Dutch 2CD-set we've been talking about on this thread? The Dutch release is excellent and I doubt the Japanese version will sound better.

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this set worth picking up? Is it already out of print? There's a seller from Sweden with copies listed but their feedback is terrible.

BTW, when Royal Jazz issued some material from this tour prior to the EU 50 year copyright limit, they got sued/stopped by Miles' estate. So the only reason this release is legitimate is because the copyright has lapsed, not because it was licensed from the estate. Most artists would still consider this a bootleg since they don't get a dime from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth picking up if you're a completist of official releases from these 1960 tours. It's not the place to start (performance and sound wise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, when Royal Jazz issued some material from this tour prior to the EU 50 year copyright limit, they got sued/stopped by Miles' estate. So the only reason this release is legitimate is because the copyright has lapsed, not because it was licensed from the estate. Most artists would still consider this a bootleg since they don't get a dime from it.

As was the case with the Stockholm concerts that were released on the Dragon set (which, by the way, came out long before the old EU 50-year copyright limit and wasn't stopped; it's still available) the rights of the Amsterdam concerts are owned by the radio station that recorded them, not the estate. The release is legit.

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll have to see if Mr. Nessa can chime in here. I believe that the artist or the label they're under contract to owns the rights to any recording, not the company/person who made that recording. It must all come down to the contract Miles signed. It's possible that it was licensed for radio airplay only. Since he was under contract to Columbia, there's little chance that they would want this released on another label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll have to see if Mr. Nessa can chime in here. I believe that the artist or the label they're under contract to owns the rights to any recording, not the company/person who made that recording. It must all come down to the contract Miles signed. It's possible that it was licensed for radio airplay only. Since he was under contract to Columbia, there's little chance that they would want this released on another label.

Check out this post:

Also on this search page:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/rec.music.bluenote/PQPoejTqszM/gYqVy-xh3SMJ

Edited by jazzbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll have to see if Mr. Nessa can chime in here. I believe that the artist or the label they're under contract to owns the rights to any recording, not the company/person who made that recording. It must all come down to the contract Miles signed. It's possible that it was licensed for radio airplay only. Since he was under contract to Columbia, there's little chance that they would want this released on another label.

Check out this post:

Also on this search page:

https://groups.googl...zM/gYqVy-xh3SMJ

Thanks for posting those links.

-----

Exclusive contracts under U.S. law, such as Miles Davis is assumed to have had with Columbia, don't necessarily apply to the rest of the world.

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll have to see if Mr. Nessa can chime in here. I believe that the artist or the label they're under contract to owns the rights to any recording, not the company/person who made that recording. It must all come down to the contract Miles signed. It's possible that it was licensed for radio airplay only. Since he was under contract to Columbia, there's little chance that they would want this released on another label.

Check out this post:

Also on this search page:

https://groups.googl...zM/gYqVy-xh3SMJ

Thanks for posting those links.

-----

Exclusive contracts under U.S. law, such as Miles Davis is assumed to have had with Columbia, don't necessarily apply to the rest of the world.

You mean the greatest country (and God's favourite) in the history of the world isn't the center of the universe? I take the Fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it rather droll that in virtually any discussion that turns to the avoidance of bootlegs or grey market because the artist doesn't get a penny from them, in nearly all cases once you start digging the artist and/or estate still wouldn't get the money for one reason or another and it "should" be going to the label. If we were truly concerned about artists not being fairly compensated and boycotted all the morally grey cases, we would be restricted to a very small number of recordings indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's somewhat more complicated, Hans. Not sure the radio station actually owns what's ON the tapes or if they just bought the right to broadcast once (or any number of times). It is my understanding that all these radio releases are legally very complicated - that is, as long as the recordings in question are not in the public domain yet.

oops, plenty of new posts in the meantime, I'm darn slow posting from the smartphone.

Edited by king ubu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's somewhat more complicated, Hans. Not sure the radio station actually owns what's ON the tapes or if they just bought the right to broadcast once (or any number of times). It is my understanding that all these radio releases are legally very complicated - that is, as long as the recordings in question are not in the public domain yet.

oops, plenty of new posts in the meantime, I'm darn slow posting from the smartphone.

If the radio stations don't own the rights of their Miles Davis recordings and don't have the right to license them, then why didn't the actual owners for instance stop the Dragon set, which was released way before the old 50-year EU copyright limit? As Kevin posted above they did so with other releases. Furthermore, as was discussed on this board (Lon's first link above), Miles got royalty payments from Dragon and thanked them for it; I don't think that would have happened if the release had been illegit.

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's somewhat more complicated, Hans. Not sure the radio station actually owns what's ON the tapes or if they just bought the right to broadcast once (or any number of times). It is my understanding that all these radio releases are legally very complicated - that is, as long as the recordings in question are not in the public domain yet.

oops, plenty of new posts in the meantime, I'm darn slow posting from the smartphone.

If the radio stations don't own the rights of their Miles Davis recordings and don't have the right to license them, then why didn't the actual owners for instance stop the Dragon set, which was released way before the old 50-year EU copyright limit? As Kevin posted above they did so with other releases. Furthermore, as was discussed on this board (Lon's first link above), Miles got royalty payments from Dragon and thanked them for it; I don't think that would have happened if the release had been illegit.

Why don't copyright holders stop Amazon from selling PD material that shouldn't be brought into the US? Sometimes the fight isn't worth it. Just because they haven't stopped this release doesn't prove it's legit, esp. if it just slipped under the wire for PD status in the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's somewhat more complicated, Hans. Not sure the radio station actually owns what's ON the tapes or if they just bought the right to broadcast once (or any number of times). It is my understanding that all these radio releases are legally very complicated - that is, as long as the recordings in question are not in the public domain yet.

oops, plenty of new posts in the meantime, I'm darn slow posting from the smartphone.

If the radio stations don't own the rights of their Miles Davis recordings and don't have the right to license them, then why didn't the actual owners for instance stop the Dragon set, which was released way before the old 50-year EU copyright limit? As Kevin posted above they did so with other releases. Furthermore, as was discussed on this board (Lon's first link above), Miles got royalty payments from Dragon and thanked them for it; I don't think that would have happened if the release had been illegit.

Why don't copyright holders stop Amazon from selling PD material that shouldn't be brought into the US? Sometimes the fight isn't worth it. Just because they haven't stopped this release doesn't prove it's legit, esp. if it just slipped under the wire for PD status in the EU.

As I indicated a few times the Dragon set was released when the material wasn't yet in the public domain in the EU, that's why I specifically mentioned it. Why would they have paid Miles and why would he have thanked them if the release had been illegit? Did you read the discussion on this board Lon linked to above?

Edited by J.A.W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is/was legit in Miles' eyes but still broke some copyright rules or not everyone on the recording was compensated. Or the Dragon release only covered one publication of the material and these subsequent releases aren't kosher. Or the radio company really has the rights but only for the Netherlands and not the rest of the EU. It could be anything, including perfectly legit. I don't know, nor do I worry too much about it. I do think a huge number of recordings, particularly live ones, have a question mark hanging over them, and in most cases the purchaser really doesn't know if it 100% legit or not. I've stopped worrying overmuch about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think a huge number of recordings, particularly live ones, have a question mark hanging over them, and in most cases the purchaser really doesn't know if it 100% legit or not.

I agree with you there, the legitimacy of many live recordings released on obscure labels is questionable to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is/was legit in Miles' eyes but still broke some copyright rules or not everyone on the recording was compensated. Or the Dragon release only covered one publication of the material and these subsequent releases aren't kosher. Or the radio company really has the rights but only for the Netherlands and not the rest of the EU. It could be anything, including perfectly legit. I don't know, nor do I worry too much about it. I do think a huge number of recordings, particularly live ones, have a question mark hanging over them, and in most cases the purchaser really doesn't know if it 100% legit or not. I've stopped worrying overmuch about it.

that's my assumption, too - strike a deal with the musician and that's fine - doesn't, to my knowledge, work that simply anymore, as lawyers have taken over the world, at least the corporate part of it ... by now, the dutch (or swiss ot swedish or danish...) radios as those who own the tapes (but not necessarily the music in them) don't have to mind too much any more and can, correctly to dome extent in some cases, I guess, act as if they were the kegit owners nit just of the container but also of its contents ... and with amazon a willing complice, they even are able to sell on the US market ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll notice that the Dutch Jazz Archive doesn't sell/ship the Concertgebouw material outside of the EU. Copyright grey areas probably are the reason for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm not 100% certain about this but the 50 year copyright rule (or the 75 year or whatever) applies to the release date, not when it was recorded so technically, these live recordings don't fall under the 50 year rule.

For it to be a legitimate release, the label in question has to buy or license the recording from the radio station or TV station who has made the recording. The label then has to negotiate a fee with the leader and all the sidemen on the recording and of course pay them. I see some claims above of this actually happening but I'm a little skeptical to say the least. I was told about this aspect of the law by someone at Blue Note years ago as this was going to be their way of going after all these people but not for live recordings though. If suspicious label A released the complete Lester Young Aladdin Sessions because they were over 50 years old and therefore "legal" to release, they would get in trouble anyways if they included the alternate as those were released for the first time either on a 2-fer released in the '70s or on CD later and therefore not released 50 year ago. It might not be a question of it being released though, it could be when it was copyrighted. Not when the tune was copyrighted by the composer but when the recording was copyrighted by the label. This copyright probably wouldn't include material that wasn't released so it wouldn't have been copyrighted at the time but was certainly copyrighted when it was released in the '70's for the 2-fers or the '90s if it was alternate take that first saw the light on CD. I believe Blue Note was contemplating legal action based on this but it the end found it just wasn't worth their time or more precisely their lawyer's time, not cost effective......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently bought this set from a Swiss seller on ebay and find it very good. Some interesting variations to familiar material. For instance, Chambers plays the ostinato on "All Blues" all on the G string. Nice effect and rather high up compared to the usual line that uses the E and D strings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently bought this set from a Swiss seller on ebay and find it very good. Some interesting variations to familiar material. For instance, Chambers plays the ostinato on "All Blues" all on the G string. Nice effect and rather high up compared to the usual line that uses the E and D strings.

I still don't have this - but I'll eventually get it someplace.

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.