scooter_phx

Trying to help out Mosaic by suggesting sets

469 posts in this topic

I don't know whether to post this here or in the Black & White thread, but I thought here would be appropriate based on the thread content.

  1. Subsequent to the Mosaic decision to exclude the Jack McVea stuff from their upcoming set, I checked out lots of his material on YouTube
  2. After listening to it, I can't figure out why this stuff is not appropriate for a B&W Mosaic.
  3. Over in the B&W thread, someone mentioned that all four volumes of the McVea B&W discs that FS put out are still available
  4. So, I went to Amazon and found used copies of volume 3 and 4.  They arrived several days ago and I'm digging them.  Still can't figure out why they are being excluded from the Mosaic
  5. I ended up at the Fresh Sounds website to purchase volumes 1 and 2.  I ordered them and today, they arrived - brand new, sealed CDs, in a well packed  envelope - direct from an address in ................. Gardena, California. 

I hope this does not make me a bad person - but I am really liking this music - and I still can't figure out why it's not considered worthy of being on the Mosaic.  But now I have it, so it really does not matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J.A.W. said:

See my post above re: Bear Family versus JSP.

This was my son's reply:  There is no definitive answer, but this is the most recent case to address the issue, and also the most thorough analysis.  The court answered with an equivocal “no.”  (And was wrong, if you ask me.). I wrote a long article on this case before the 9th Circuit decided it.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-55917/16-55917-2018-08-20.html

But this is US law and Bear Family was British. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, medjuck said:

But this is US law and Bear Family was British. 

No, German.

And as the link provided by J.A.W. (thanks, Hans! Interesting reading and summary of the situation) shows the court ruling happened in Germany too.

 

 

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Swinnich said:

I don't know whether to post this here or in the Black & White thread, but I thought here would be appropriate based on the thread content.

  1. Subsequent to the Mosaic decision to exclude the Jack McVea stuff from their upcoming set, I checked out lots of his material on YouTube
  2. After listening to it, I can't figure out why this stuff is not appropriate for a B&W Mosaic.
  3. Over in the B&W thread, someone mentioned that all four volumes of the McVea B&W discs that FS put out are still available
  4. So, I went to Amazon and found used copies of volume 3 and 4.  They arrived several days ago and I'm digging them.  Still can't figure out why they are being excluded from the Mosaic
  5. I ended up at the Fresh Sounds website to purchase volumes 1 and 2.  I ordered them and today, they arrived - brand new, sealed CDs, in a well packed  envelope - direct from an address in ................. Gardena, California. 

I hope this does not make me a bad person - but I am really liking this music - and I still can't figure out why it's not considered worthy of being on the Mosaic.  But now I have it, so it really does not matter.

You are perfectly right - I feel the same way about all this. It is a pity that theay are taking the "Select box set" route. Isn't this contrary to what used to be their policy all the time and to what made the special interest of Mosaic in many cases? I wonder who or what else among never-before reissued recordings they decide to skip in favor of the usual (sales argument-motivated?) suspects that ARE out there in reissue form on Storyville, for example. The only valid and sensible reason I can think of why they would bypass Jack McVea is that they figure themselves the material is out out there in comprehensive and currently available form for everybody on these Fresh Sound CDs (an acknowledgment that might actually be construed to be an aceptance or even endorsement of that reissue ;) - even if it is just an acknowledgment of the facts of the market ;)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait  -There is Jack McVea material out on FS, most certainly not in optimal remastered sound but in apparently copious quantity, that Mosaic has decided NOT to deal with, meaning that it will NOT be presented to the consumer in the best possible sound.

And there is still doubt about the concept of dis-incentivization playing out going forth? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in years past, I've spoken to a few people in the music industry about these obvious violations of copyright and the reason they are allowed to exist is because it costs too much to bring a lawsuit. I was told it was about $50-150K per lawsuit. Since they aren't going to recover $50-150K in lost sales when they win the lawsuit, it's really not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JSngry said:

And there is still doubt about the concept of dis-incentivization playing out going forth? Seriously?

Of course there is. The market is as it is. As are the buyers. And PD laws in Europe too.  No one has a moral monopoly there.
My reference to Mosaic's putative reasons for not including McVea actually was in their FAVOR, surmising they cannot possibly have been IGNORANT enough to file McVea under R&B all the way (it may be so re- his 50s recordings reissued in the 80s on Ace, but his 40s stuff??) and not BACKWARD-MINDED enough to fall into the trap of drawing a line between jazz worthy of reissue and R&B unworthy of receiving the Mosaic treatment, leaving their awareness of the PREVOUS FS reissue as a somewhat more credible reason for non-coverage (though apparently not admitted by them themselves). But would Mosaic have included them if there had not been any FS? There is no proof - I was just giving them the benefit of doubt.
Besides, you will be hard pressed to bring up another "horror" story of FS "stealing" ALL of these McVea reissues from other reissuers. So they were quite entitled to reissuing these as they saw fit. Like Classics did in their Blues & Rhythm series that nobody seems to have complained about though THEIR "remastering" certainly was not any more brilliant overall.
Actually I have only 1 or 2 or the FS CDs (and according to the FS site one of the 4 is OOP with them now too) as I don't need each and every track and they overlap to some extent with the McVea vinyl LPs I have, i.e. his Jukebox Lil LPs, a subsidiary of Jonas Bernholm's Route 66 label - the one who was a trailblazer at the time as he did bypass the big conglomerates on purpose but made a point of paying advance artist royalties to the artist for a pressing run of 2,000 even before the LPs had even been sold, putting the money where it belonged and - as acknowledged by some of the artists at the time in interviews - often making this the first instance ever the featured artists had ever seen any income from their recordings ever since they had received their flat fee after completing the session. Listening to them in comparison I'd not say FS copied the Jukebox Lil reissues one to one. Both sound OK to me but there ARE aural differences (which are a matter of preference and listening habits so overall of little importance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Wait  -There is Jack McVea material out on FS, most certainly not in optimal remastered sound but in apparently copious quantity, that Mosaic has decided NOT to deal with, meaning that it will NOT be presented to the consumer in the best possible sound.

And there is still doubt about the concept of dis-incentivization playing out going forth? Seriously?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Of course there is. The market is as it is. As are the buyers.

Exactly  -the market has shown that consumers are willing to settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Wait  -There is Jack McVea material out on FS, most certainly not in optimal remastered sound but in apparently copious quantity, that Mosaic has decided NOT to deal with, meaning that it will NOT be presented to the consumer in the best possible sound.

And there is still doubt about the concept of dis-incentivization playing out going forth? Seriously?

We're just speculating: at this point we don't know what Mosaic's reason(s) is. When they cited that excuse in regards the Benny Goodman box, IIRC all the excluded vocals could be found on major label releases, albeit most were on those shoddy Collectors' Choice. 

28 minutes ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

in years past, I've spoken to a few people in the music industry about these obvious violations of copyright and the reason they are allowed to exist is because it costs too much to bring a lawsuit. I was told it was about $50-150K per lawsuit. Since they aren't going to recover $50-150K in lost sales when they win the lawsuit, it's really not worth it.

I would think if they were really serious about combating the grey market they would strike a deal with Amazon to exclude them, or perhaps enlist the aid of congress to enact legislation against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Captain Howdy said:

We're just speculating: at this point we don't know what Mosaic's reason(s) is.

There have been a fair-enough number of examples in the past of Cuscuna talking about this dynamic. It's a limited market under any circumstance, and with the glut of cheap product out there being bought at whatever volume it's being bought, his math tells him that putting in the money to do a better (sonically and ethically) version of what an outfit like FS has already done is a losing proposition for Mosaic.

Look, I'm barely on board with the Black and White set anyway (my decider is going to be how much Gerald Wilson is there on it), and Jack McVea's presence or absence matter's not to me (yawn). And maybe there's just too damn much of it and it would throw off the balance of this set. But would it be included if it wasn't already out there in cheap editions? Evidence here is that the "it's R&B, not jazz" argument just doesn't hold up.

So what other factor might be in play? Although it's not (and might never be) stated that "hell, we're not throwing money down the drain on that when people are already buying it unimproved", the corollary to that is that if the McVea material wasn't out there so readily available, would it be considered an attraction, a positive addition, a selling point? It would definitely appear that there's a market, and that market is being served. It might be presumptuous to assume that that market is content with a less-than-perfect product, but c'est la vie. If it's my money, and if the margin of error is that narrow, hey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JSngry said:

with the glut of cheap product out there being bought at whatever volume it's being bought, his math tells him that putting in the money to do a better (sonically and ethically) version of what an outfit like FS has already done is a losing proposition for Mosaic.

And yet the ready availability of the old Count Basie Decca box didn't stop him from remastering those tracks (actually, borrowing PD transfers from Hep!) and selling them at a hefty markup. 

If you read that article (which correct me if I'm wrong was not written by anyone at Mosaic) again, notice it says "Saxophonist Jack McVea and some other musicians whose recordings for Black and White fall more into an R and B or blues category will not be included" https://indianapublicmedia.org/nightlights/mosaic-planning-black-white-label-box-set/ Notice that it doesn't necessarily say McVea was excluded because he falls more into an R and B or blues category; he seems to have been excluded because he's McVea--IOW, for some reason specific to himself. Also excluded are "several jazz sides ... that were sold for release on other labels, or recorded for other labels and then sold to Black and White." So there are a variety of reasons besides being R&B for exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Reasonable enough, but if it was a matter of what was already out there and available, then how come Mosaic has so often produced complete/completist sets of which there already was a more or less huge chunk available on other reissues even at that time (or recently enough to still be around for those who did not mind searching a little - and not on sub-par fidelity either). And all this with material that was far, far (comparatively) less rare than the B&W stuff that Mosaic does not seem to want to include? Just on the premise that they must have figured that there  were enough who'd buy it because it was on Mosaic, regardless of how much of it they already had?

This CHANGE of policy has me a bit puzzled.

 

@Captain Howdy: Admittedly the McVea/R&B sentence you quote is ambiguous. But the way I see it it CAN be interepreted to mean McVea as one of several they feel to be too R&B-ish.

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Exactly  -the market has shown that consumers are willing to settle.

That assumes that consumers had a choice.  When consumer purchases a cd from a PD label, he/she doesn't know that a company like Mosaic or Bear family may be thinking about a project like B & W.  When FS issued McVea discs, a consumer wanting the B & W material may have only had two options: the LP or the CD. Barring the purchase of the LP, they will purchase the cd. There is no way of knowing that Mosaic may decide to make a B & W set years later. Heck, even Mosaic may not have even thought about a B & W set. You can't ascribe to consumers a crystal ball.  They can only make decisions based on the choices then available to them. Yes, the FS' may be a reason why they won't appear on the Mosaic but should have consumers not purchased those discs on the assumption that they might appear on a Mosaic some day. I don't think so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly thankful for Cuscuna and Mosaic, but is there a certain amount of BS in his complaints about the PD market?  Really, how many sets has Mosaic produced that they did NOT sell out their entire run?  I've never seen a Mosaic cutout ^_^.  The mystique holds their market, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, felser said:

I'm certainly thankful for Cuscuna and Mosaic, but is there a certain amount of BS in his complaints about the PD market?  Really, how many sets has Mosaic produced that they did NOT sell out their entire run?  I've never seen a Mosaic cutout ^_^.  The mystique holds their market, doesn't it?

I don't think it does anymore. Aren't we seeing almost every set in the past 5 years being deleted before selling out? I'd be surprised if they're running 50/50 on sell outs versus deletions. Prior to these latest deletions, they've also gotten "stuck" with several not-so-great sellers over the years. The Mobley box and the Condon boxes seem to fit that description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brad said:

That assumes that consumers had a choice.  When consumer purchases a cd from a PD label, he/she doesn't know that a company like Mosaic or Bear family may be thinking about a project like B & W.  When FS issued McVea discs, a consumer wanting the B & W material may have only had two options: the LP or the CD. Barring the purchase of the LP, they will purchase the cd. There is no way of knowing that Mosaic may decide to make a B & W set years later. Heck, even Mosaic may not have even thought about a B & W set. You can't ascribe to consumers a crystal ball.  They can only make decisions based on the choices then available to them. Yes, the FS' may be a reason why they won't appear on the Mosaic but should have consumers not purchased those discs on the assumption that they might appear on a Mosaic some day. I don't think so. 

Consumers always have choices. The glut of Euro PD material certainly gives them more choices. But consumers should be aware of the repercussions of their actions, especially in today's global, schizoid-legal marketplaces.

Chuck Nessa used to rant against the spirit of "entitlement" that was driving the consumption of all these things, and he's not entirely wrong about that. "I want" now means "I will have", and yes you can, there's providers who will give you whatever you want on the open market, using legalities and loopholes to get it to you with them doing as little investment to add value as possible because they know you don't really care that much.

It's very much a deterioration of the norms of respect for self and for others, and it's not limited to this form of music product, or just to music. It's a culture that demands instant gratification because I WANT, and by god what I WANT I shall have. We have all sorts of dysfunctionality because we as a world no longer understand the value of discipline, of waiting, of sometimes just not having what we want. Paths of least resistance now become freeways, and we wonder where all the trees have gone.

Well, the trees were in the way, so we cut them down. It's not complicated. That was our choice and we made it.

I can always kinda respect the "well, I bought it because it was there for cheap and what the hell, you know" thing. Been there, done that. But please don't tell me that you had no choice. In today's world, with today's technology, you always have a choice. If you have social skills and/or good internet abilities, you always have a choice other than buying that type of product. And if you don't want to go there, that's your choice.

It's a piss-poor excuse of a sinner that blames the devil for his behavior.

33 minutes ago, felser said:

I'm certainly thankful for Cuscuna and Mosaic, but is there a certain amount of BS in his complaints about the PD market?  Really, how many sets has Mosaic produced that they did NOT sell out their entire run?  I've never seen a Mosaic cutout ^_^.  The mystique holds their market, doesn't it?

This is the perfect mentality for becoming a collector who wants to buck the system, eliminate the middle man, and go about getting the shit they want. I applaud that type of mentality!

But Jordi Pujol is still a middle man. So...applause withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Consumers always have choices. The glut of Euro PD material certainly gives them more choices. But consumers should be aware of the repercussions of their actions, especially in today's global, schizoid-legal marketplaces.

Chuck Nessa used to rant against the spirit of "entitlement" that was driving the consumption of all these things, and he's not entirely wrong about that. "I want" now means "I will have", and yes you can, there's providers who will give you whatever you want on the open market, using legalities and loopholes to get it to you with them doing as little investment to add value as possible because they know you don't really care that much.

It's very much a deterioration of the norms of respect for self and for others, and it's not limited to this form of music product, or just to music. It's a culture that demands instant gratification because I WANT, and by god what I WANT I shall have. We have all sorts of dysfunctionality because we as a world no longer understand the value of discipline, of waiting, of sometimes just not having what we want. Paths of least resistance now become freeways, and we wonder where all the trees have gone.

Well, the trees were in the way, so we cut them down. It's not complicated. That was our choice and we made it.

I can always kinda respect the "well, I bought it because it was there for cheap and what the hell, you know" thing. Been there, done that. But please don't tell me that you had no choice. In today's world, with today's technology, you always have a choice. If you have social skills and/or good internet abilities, you always have a choice other than buying that type of product. And if you don't want to go there, that's your choice.

It's a piss-poor excuse of a sinner that blames the devil for his behavior.

This is the perfect mentality for becoming a collector who wants to buck the system, eliminate the middle man, and go about getting the shit they want. I applaud that type of mentality!

But Jordi Pujol is still a middle man. So...applause withdrawn.

We’ve been over this again and again and I don’t believe in argument for argument sake so there’s no point in continuing this discussion — actually more like a monologue — any further, as far as I’m concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response, thank you for your participation, and thank you for deciding to no longer participate. Noble choices all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

I don't think it does anymore. Aren't we seeing almost every set in the past 5 years being deleted before selling out? I'd be surprised if they're running 50/50 on sell outs versus deletions. Prior to these latest deletions, they've also gotten "stuck" with several not-so-great sellers over the years. The Mobley box and the Condon boxes seem to fit that description.

Would like to know more about the sets being deleted rather than selling out.  How can we tell?   I assumed that when it said "last chance", that meant it was about to sell out.  Also seems that their "subscription series" (such as the upcoming Mobley) are getting enough interest to go forward.  Never did understand why boxes like the first Mobley and the Turrentine were not selling more quickly.   I bought both on pre-order, and would have thought plenty of others would have jumped on them.   

51 minutes ago, Brad said:

We’ve been over this again and again and I don’t believe in argument for argument sake so there’s no point in continuing this discussion — actually more like a monologue — any further, as far as I’m concerned. 

Argument for argument sake is one of the great international pastimes!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, felser said:

Would like to know more about the sets being deleted rather than selling out.  How can we tell?   I assumed that when it said "last chance", that meant it was about to sell out.  Also seems that their "subscription series" (such as the upcoming Mobley) are getting enough interest to go forward.  Never did understand why boxes like the first Mobley and the Turrentine were not selling more quickly.   I bought both on pre-order, and would have thought plenty of others would have jumped on them.   

Argument for argument sake is one of the great international pastimes!  

Arguing without rhyme or reason seems pointless to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, felser said:

Would like to know more about the sets being deleted rather than selling out.  How can we tell?   I assumed that when it said "last chance", that meant it was about to sell out.  Also seems that their "subscription series" (such as the upcoming Mobley) are getting enough interest to go forward.  Never did understand why boxes like the first Mobley and the Turrentine were not selling more quickly.   I bought both on pre-order, and would have thought plenty of others would have jumped on them.  

I can perfectly understand that a licensing deal is negotiated for a fixed amount of copies produced and no rights granted for any additional copies being produced. So when they are gone, they are gone.
But letting oneself additionally be manhandled into a deal where you can sell the items only for a limited period of time (that as far as I recall wasn't even always that exceedingly long) and then forfeit any right to go on selling the remaining copies though you haven't even reached the contractually agreed volume is a - top put it kindly - "undersmart" move IMHO in THIS niche market and not one that serves the collectors' clientele out there.

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mystery Of The Mobley has yet to be resolved!

7 minutes ago, Brad said:

Arguing without rhyme or reason seems pointless to me.

And what evidence do you have to support this? :g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Black & White set is still in the planning stages.  I'd suggest that posters who want to see the McVea material included in the set email Scott, who might be able to give them a more detailed reason as to why, right now, anyway, it's not slated for inclusion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I can perfectly understand that a licensing deal is negotiated for a fixed amount of copies produced and no rights granted for any additional copies being produced. So when they are gone, they are gone.
But letting oneself additionally be manhandled into a deal where you can sell the items only for a limited period of time (that as far as I recall wasn't even always that exceedingly long) and then forfeit any right to go on selling the remaining copies though you haven't even reached the contractually agreed volume is a - top put it kindly - "undersmart" move IMHO in THIS niche market and not one that serves the collectors' clientele out there.

It makes sense if the licensing party wants to be able to sell the material again at a later date. E.g. Universal licensed the Chuck Berry material to Hip-O, which released a complete recordings box set, which sold out immediately, then Universal turned around and licensed it again to Bear Family. Of course the likelihood of anyone other than Mosaic ever wanting to legit release this material is slim to none.

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.