[reg]

does anyone have this Ike Quebec CD from Proper?
link to CD on amazon
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0001Q5Z1C.02._OU02_PIuk-r-fp-699,BottomRight,10,10_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
anyone know what tracks are on it and if it's worth picking up?
i can't seem to get on Proper's website :(
thanks

[couw]

from the Proper website:

IKE QUEBEC
BLUE HARLEM
INTROCD2004

DISCOGRAPHY

Ike Quebec Quintet : Ike Quebec, ts; Roger "Ram" Ramirez, p; Tiny Grimes, g; Milt Hinton, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, July 18, 1944
BN 985-1 TINY’S EXERCISE
BN 986-0 SHE’S FUNNY THAT WAY
BN 987-2 INDIANA
BN 988-1 BLUE HARLEM

Ike Quebec Swingtet : Jonah Jones, tp; Tyree Green, tb; Ike Quebec, ts; Ram Ramirez, p; Tiny Grimes, g; Oscar Pettiford, b; J.C. Heard, d; Buster Harding, arr.

New York, September 25, 1944

BN 989-0 HARD TACK
BN 990-1 IF I HAD YOU
BN 991-0 MAD ABOUT YOU
BN 992-1 FACIN’ THE FACE

Ike Quebec Quintet : Ike Quebec, ts; Dave Rivera, p; Napoleon Allen, g; Milt Hinton, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, April 10, 1945

BN 233-0 BLUE TURNING GREY OVER YOU
BN 234-1 DOLORES
BN 235-3 THE DAY YOU CAME ALONG

Ike Quebec Swing Seven : Buck Clayton, tp; Keg Johnson, tb; Ike Quebec, ts; Ram Ramirez, p; Tiny Grimes, g; Grachan Moncur, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, July 17, 1945

BN 246-1 I FOUND A NEW BABY
BN 247-0 I SURRENDER DEAR
BN 248-1 TOPSY
BN 249-0 CUP-MUTE CLAYTON

Ike Quebec All Stars : Ike Quebec, ts; Johnny Guarnieri, p; Bill De Arango, g; Milt Hinton, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, August 7, 1945

S5828-1 GIRL OF MY DREAMS
S5829 JIM DAWGS
S5830 SCUFFLIN’
S5831 I.Q. BLUES

Ike Quebec Swing Seven : Shad Collins, tp; Keg Johnson, tb; Ike Quebec, ts, Ram Ramirez, p; John Collins, g; Milt Hinton, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, September 3, 1946

BN 292-4 THE MASQUERADE IS OVER
BN 29302 BASICALLY BLUE


Looks like these are the Blue Note 1944-46 sides (masters only)

[reg]

thanks couw :)

[reg]

couw, on Apr 24 2004, 01:20 PM, said:

Ike Quebec Swing Seven : Buck Clayton, tp; Keg Johnson, tb; Ike Quebec, ts; Ram Ramirez, p; Tiny Grimes, g;  Grachan Moncur, b; J.C. Heard, d.

New York, July 17, 1945

BN 246-1        I FOUND A NEW BABY
BN 247-0        I SURRENDER DEAR
BN 248-1        TOPSY
BN 249-0        CUP-MUTE CLAYTON

is that Grachan Moncur any relation to Grachan Moncur (Evolution) from the 60's?

[couw]

reg, on Apr 24 2004, 08:35 PM, said:

is that Grachan Moncur any relation to Grachan Moncur (Evolution) from the 60's?

it's his dad, bassist of the Savoy Sultans (a.o)

[Dmitry]

reg, on Apr 24 2004, 02:35 PM, said:

is that Grachan Moncur any relation to Grachan Moncur (Evolution) from the 60's?

It's his father.

Tangentially speaking, no doubt Quebec knew Grachan Moncur III through his father, Grachan Moncur II and perhaps that facilitated Grachan getting sideman and later leader recording dates for the label. His first recording for BN was done less than 2 weeks after Quebec passed away.


couw is right, looks like it's the BN 40s Quebec music on this cd.

[brownie]

The same material - with a couple of slight variations - is included in the Definitive Ike Quebec 'Swing Hi Swing Lo' that also came out recently. This CD has 22 tracks.
By the way the August 4, 1945 was recorded for Savoy, not BN.
About the same material was used for the Classics Ike Quebec 1944-1946 CD. This one had 20 tracks.

[Bev Stapleton]

Yup.

Proper are 100% within European law. No reason why they should feel any obligation to comply with US law in what they produce.

I've always felt 50 years is quite enough time for performers to recoup their artistic investment. The 75 year rule is there to protect business interests, not the performers.

I understand the argument that Proper are taking advantage of the remastering work of others. I just don't see how you would ever get an enforcable law protecting specific remastering.

So its going to happen.

And make no mistake, when the 75 years are up it'll be happening in the States too.

[Chuck Nessa]

Nobody ever addresses my major objection to the various copyright laws. Commercial concerns are the holders of the primary source materials. If they lose the incentive to protect these materials we have serious consequences. Why should BMG, Sony, etc (not to mention Delmark or Uptown) spend resources protecting these "artifacts" after 50 (or 75) years. These are our best sources of the art we supposedly love and are at risk because we want what we want NOW.

An example: For the early Mingus project we found the owners of Fentone and bought the original metal parts. These (some alternates still unissued) are taking up space in a rented area. Why spend this money if "it belongs to the world"? The parts would not have survived if we had not found them (and there is unissued stuff). Since the Uptown cd came out there are at least 2 European companies selling the product.

Much can be lost under this system. Fuck "legal".

The rights of income for the artist's heirs is another rant.

These stupid rules make intellectual creations less than "physical property". You can buy a house and pass it on forever. Why?

This post has been edited by Chuck Nessa: 24 April 2004 - 06:49 PM

[RDK]

I know we've discussed this before, Chuck, and I understand your arguments. But at the same time a few questions: do you not believe in the *concept* of Public Domain? What do you, if you do, think is an appropriate amount of time for the artists to profit from their works?

I see valid agruments on both sides of the issue. I think it's important that creative endeavors - whether artist or technological - become p.d. at some point, but I also understand the concern - more pertinant for old, silent movies I think than for mass-produced records and books - that the rights holders won't have any financial incentive to preserve the original elements.

And Lord help us all in the future, when *everything* is digital...

[Chuck Nessa]

RDK, on Apr 24 2004, 07:44 PM, said:

And Lord help us all in the future, when *everything* is digital...

The important part is it will ONLY be digital.

[Bev Stapleton]

They are 'legit' within European copyright law. The issue is whether they are morally right to do this.

But once you occupy the moral high ground saying you will not buy from a company that does not remaster itself or pay the source company, then you're going to have to adopt some fairly high standards for yourself. No burning CD-Rs or receiving CD-Rs (the blindfold tests are out!). No copying and pasting articles from newspapers onto the politics threads. No scanning pictures or text or downloading images to use yourself without first contacting the copyright owner. No buying second hand. In all these cases the artists, recording companies, writers, photographers etc get no recompense.

Now you might respond "Ah, but I'm not making money out of it like Proper." True. It makes your sin a venial one...but a sin nonetheless.

I can see Chuck's point about the proliferation of these cheap sets acting as a disincentive to the pioneering companies to do any work on this music at all.

Yet I suspect both markets can co-exist. In the same way that you can buy cheap copies of out-of-copyright novels that nowadays are probably just scanned off someone elses edition; yet that does not stop the more established companies putting out more expensive editions. Personally, if I was going to buy a Shakespeare play I'd go for a well-known company because I know I'm likely to get some good commentary.

Proper and Mosaic appeal to two very different markets. Mosaic will only ever sell to a small specialised audience - the limited nature of the editions acknowledge this. And that audience will buy the Mosaic anyhow, regardless of the existence of a cheaper edition. If all that existed was the Mosaic then this music would remain the preserve of a small subset of the jazz audience (itself small).

Proper and their like put out sets for listeners who want a taste of this music but arn't sure if it's for them. They'll take a chance on a £15 Roy Eldridge or T-Bone Walker. They wouldn't on a £60 box.

I can appreciate how infuriating it must be for those who put huge amounts of time and effort into remastering music to see it picked up elsewhere and sold for far less.

But until an enforceable law appears that makes specific remasterings protected then this will continue. And people (like myself) will buy them.

[Bev Stapleton]

Chuck Nessa, on Apr 24 2004, 11:45 PM, said:

These stupid rules make intellectual creations less than "physical property". You can buy a house and pass it on forever. Why?

Yes, it's always bothered me that people can pass on physical property indefinitely .

Maybe that's the part of the law that needs to change making each generation work for its own prosperity rather than inheriting it from Daddy!

Fat chance!

[Bev Stapleton]

But surely, using your ethics, if I want the Blue Sky Boys on Bear Family I should buy it myself (I'm assuming it's in print). And you should certainly not collude with me by burning me a copy. After all, could you vouch for the fact that I would make the appropriate donation to the appropriate fund?

Using your ethics there is absolutely no excuse for burning a CD for anything beyond personal use. Even if it's OOP. After all, with burned copies circulating it might put back a legitimate release.

I accept this is all extremely murky. But rather than seeing Proper as "opportunists and vultures" I tend to see them as businessmen/women who've spotted a niche in the market and are operating within the law. Whether they are acting 'morally' will clearly depend on ones own personal morality (I'll admit to frequently breaching copyright in the process of creating teaching materials).

Proper also distribute Candid, Rounder, Topic, Arhoolie, Sugar Hill, Free Reed, Yazoo, Document, Blind Pig and other in the UK. If their business practices are so deplorable why do these companies do business with them?

Surely they too are compromising the 'moral' high ground by working through Proper?

[Bev Stapleton]

I think you're being as selective with your ethics as I am, clementine. It's OK to burn a copy for someone who's not well off and you judge to really 'need' it? Hmm.

Yes, I accept that Proper falls short in its failure to acknowledge or credit its sources. That's poor practice.

But reason to denounce and boycott?

Well think of all those companies down the years who short-changed musicians with dodgy contracts, one-off payments and the like, taking advantage of their youth, poverty, naivety or desparation. There'll probably not be too many labels that will survive our moral boycott there. If you want to find the villains who have really 'ripped-off' performers then Proper are way down the list.

I suppose in the end we all draw the line in different places. I don't buy stuff that clearly infringes the 50 year copyright. Outside of that I'll buy.

But I can understand your greater scruples even if I don't find them completely consistent.

This post has been edited by Bev Stapleton: 25 April 2004 - 12:00 PM

[RDK]

Man, you just keep moving that moral/ethical/legal line to wherever it fits your needs, don't you?

The difference to me between Proper and Classics (hey, you brought up the similarities) is that Classics is a "completist" line (not unlike Mosaic, in a way, but released individually) while Proper offers nice 100-track artist or genre compilations. And the fact that you think that Proper slaps together a "cheap-o booklet" only shows me that you have no idea what you're talking about. I only wish the Classics booklets were as thorough as the Proper booklets. Heck, in some ways I think the Proper booklets are superior to the Mosaics (though obviously the discographical info isn't as critical to Proper or their target audience.

You do realize, don't you, that Classics bread-and-butter is releasing public domain (at least in Europe) recordings? They could never do what they do - with artists as obscure and uncommercial as they are - without limiting themselves to PD work. And I really doubt that Classics goes above and beyond European copyright lay to pay artists and monies that they *aren't entitled to* (again, under law).

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever read on this board. Here's a company making significant compilations of both famous and obscure artists available at prices that any jazz fan can appreciate - and there are some here arguing that they don't charge enough and are doing a disservice to jazz artists by preserving their legacies in a classy manner. :wacko:

[JSngry]

I don't see the argument here. Proper and other labels of their ilk are certainly "legal theives". But the key word is "legal", so if there's an ethically superior (relatively speaking) alternative, I'll go elsewhere, and if there's not, it won't be the first time I've willingly given my money to people who have done little to deserve it other than to offer me a quick and easy fix. Far from it.

These labels that just reap the rewards of other folks' work w/o making any but the barest contribution of their own are weasels, so even if we choose to patronize them (and I have one Proper box that I bought willingly), then let's do so on honest terms and not make excuses. I'll say it - I DO do business with weasels and sleazeballs on occasion. I try not to, but sometimes, I just can't avoid it. Or, more truthfully, don't, for the sake of convinience. There, see? Not difficult at all!

Have to say, however, that the notion that I should have no right to pass on my "property" to my children, and they to theirs, etc., is pretty much full of shit, as is the "property is theft" slogan. Sorry, I love both you guys, but that's some totally fucked up bullshit there.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on!

[RDK]

Here's my latest Proper Box - bought yesterday and already loved to death. You tell me where I can find over 100 tracks of this sort of stuff all compiled for around twenty bucks.

http://www.allmusic....l=Aab6jtr4tklkx

[RDK]

JSngry, on Apr 25 2004, 09:25 AM, said:

I Have to say, however, that the notion that I should have no right to pass on my "property" to my children, and they to theirs, etc., is pretty much full of shit, as is the "property is theft" slogan. Sorry, I love both you guys, but that's some totally fucked up bullshit there.

Ah, there's the rub, Jim. I take it, then, like Chuck and just about every artist I know you don't support the concept of public domain? I don't mean to put you on the spot and I certainly understand the idea that an artist would want to profit for their work in perpetuity. (Heck, *I* would if I my output wasn't already owned by The Man.) Personally, I find the whole P.D./Mickey Mouse controversy absolutely fascinating. I can see and support both sides of the issue and can proudly claim to be on the fence about it and see no easy solution.

I'm actually better versed in the issue when it comes to P.D. films, notably the old silents. If it weren't for the collectors pulling these out of dumpsters years ago and saving them, many more (in addition to the legions that are) would be lost to history. It's only the collectors who seem interested in them and they can really only share them if they lapse into the Public Domain. (Because they're essentially valueless to the film studios/rights holders who still hold the few that are left.) 99% of their value has expired, but if they remain "private" it's likely they will never be seen again by fans and/or film historians. But at the same time (the other side of the issue), if they lapse into P.D. then whoever owns the original materials will have no incentive to keep and preserve them - why should they?

As I said it's a complex issue that I find myself smack dab in the middle of. In my business I know people (and institutions) affected by this from both sides. I keep pestering you, Chuck, and others with such questions not to, uh, pester you so much as to simply seek clarity from you guys, as artists. So, to repeat but hopefully not badger, do you see any validity in the whole Public Domain doctrine at all? If so, what do you see as the limits? If not, how would you treat, for example, Shakespeare?

[RDK]

Clem, I hate to make any point by trashing Classics (a label that I consider influential and essential), but what do you make of this (and I suspect many more like this in the future)...

http://www.allmusic....l=Ag73zefwk1gf4

[Bev Stapleton]

JSngry, on Apr 25 2004, 05:25 PM, said:

the notion that I should have no right to pass on my "property" to my children, and they to theirs, etc., is pretty much full of shit, as is the "property is theft" slogan.

Said a bit tongue in cheek.

The concept of passing on property is so ingrained in human society (thanks to those with lots of it and the power to shape the laws the way they want) I don't see that changing for a moment.

That we should be able to pass on a reasonable amount of our property to our immediate family seems pretty fair. That the Windsors are passing on billions of pounds worth of the stuff seized by the forefathers centuries ago seems a bit off.

But, again, you're into line drawing. And those with lots of it are not going to even allow serious discussion. And those with a little have long been terrified into thinking that the sky will fall in if a different system was to be tried that did not favour those already in possession. Which keeps them voting for those with lots.

Quote

Why don't they even attempt to out stuff w/the best quality source material? Put out a 2-cd set & do it right? Uh... uh... we're waiting for answers neither you nor Bev wanna bother with.

Clementine

Because they're not in the business of specialist, academic, audiophile product. They're selling to people like me who are curious and find what they sell perfectly listenable.

There will always be the other guys because there will always be those who want the perfect remastering, every out-take etc.

The two markets are perfectly compatible.

Now if the likes of Mosaic feel shortchanged by Proper maybe they should be looking at doing their own line for the less committed (and there are plenty of us). I somehow think that's not what they're interested in. In which case people like Proper will always fill the gap.

[JSngry]

I'm not too terribly enamored with the concept of "public domain", but a realistic compromise for me would be a modified public domain, where "ownership" consists of nothing more than a "reasonable" set fee being paid for use - no more allowance of veto rights to usage, etc. And, if the heirs deem it desireable, they should be allowed release the works in question into "traditional" public domain. But it should be their choice alone.

I can certainly appreciate the notion that certain works "belong" to the public at large after a while, but intellectual property is property nevertheless, and if we don't totally strip other beneficiaries of inherited property of their assets after a fixed period, why the hell should we feel good about doing it to the heirs of "creative" types?

Whenever the creators of intellectual property never have to worry providing about food, clothing, and shelter for their families just like everybody else does, THEN talk to me about public domain. Until then, we and our heirs are afforded less "rights" than those of other "manufacturers". What's fair about that?

[JSngry]

And in answer to the inevitable, "the heirs should diversify and not be dependent, etc." argument, well, yeah, ok. Let's pass laws that dictate how people should and should not seek to provide for their income.

Yeah, let's do that. :rolleyes:

[JSngry]

And of course, the heirs COULD combat public domain releases by building a better mousetrap and all that. But if we're going to take that tact, somebody tell the Coors family that they've had the brand name and the business long enough, and that Anheiseur-Busch is now legally allowed to make "Coors" beer using the Coors family recipie, and if they don't like it, they can just try harder. And tell the Busch family that Coors is free to do the same with Budweiser (itself a "stolen" name, I know, and I know that in a sane world nobody would be drinking that shit in the first place, but hey...). Yeah, it's a family name, and a family business, but you motherfuckers have had it long enough, says We The Law, and now anybody can use it anyway they like. If that means buying "Coors" beer that is made out of rancid Florida swamp water (like it's not already :g ), tough shit. It's not yours to control anymore.

Sometimes the little guys benefit from the "greed" of the big guys. Not often enough, but it happens. And this is one case it does. It's an imperfect world. Deal with it! ;)

[JSngry]

As for the Windsors, stage a revolt, either in the street or at the ballot box, or else, again, deal with it. Those are the options, right?

Either that or wait for the day when somebody will take the throne and dissolve the whole thing because they can no longer maintain an interest in and/or energy for perptrating such a fucked up gig. Day's BOUND to come sooner or later.

But I'd take the revolt tact first myself I was really THAT bugged about it. It's my American heritage! :g :g :g :g :g

[JSngry]

If property is theft, what is the total taking away of ownership for no other reason than that the clock's run out?

[couw]

JSngry, on Apr 25 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

And of course, the heirs COULD combat public domain releases by building a better mousetrap and all that. But if we're going to take that tact, somebody tell the Coors family that they've had the brand name and the business long enough, and that Anheiseur-Busch is now legally allowed to make "Coors" beer using the Coors family recipie, and if they don't like it, they can just try harder. And tell the Busch family that Coors is free to do the same with Budweiser (itself a "stolen" name, I know, and I know that in a sane world nobody would be drinking that shit in the first place, but hey...). Yeah, it's a family name, and a family business, but you motherfuckers have had it long enough, says We The Law, and now anybody can use it anyway they like. If that means buying "Coors" beer that is made out of rancid Florida swamp water (like it's not already :g ), tough shit. It's not yours to control anymore.

Sometimes the little guys benefit from the "greed" of the big guys. Not often enough, but it happens. And this is one case it does. It's an imperfect world. Deal with it! ;)

that's a nice story, but I doubt anyone on this thread stated anything that went in THAT direction. It was more like "if coors stops making beer, the recipe should be open for others to grab up and fill the taps." Keeping stuff out of a public domain is fine & dandy, but you cannot at the same time want it to be part of the cultural heritage AND keep it locked away. My guess is that any artist is in it not just for the money, but also and probably moreso for making a contribution to art and culture. From the latter perspective, the cheaper & the more widely available, the better. Having the family sit on the rights and not make works of art available is about the worst that could happen to an artist who places value on being known. Just another point to make as I am on the fence here.

[couw]

JSngry, on Apr 25 2004, 08:48 PM, said:

If property is theft, what is the total taking away of ownership for no other reason than that the clock's run out?

well, "taking away" is the opposite of "property," and the opposite of "theft" is -- I dunno -- something that's legal? ;)

[JSngry]

Ok, I've written some pieces, a few recorded, many more not. The odds that I'll see any significant money off of them in my lifetime is realistically less than 50/50. But in 150 years, what if somebody comes across a Quartet Out CD, or a manuscript of an unrecorded piece, in the collection of my great-great-howmanyevers whatever and says "Hey, that "Toot Toot" (or whatever) is a pretty catchy number. I think I'll use it." So they do, and it makes a nice piece of change.

Are you telling me that my great-great-howmanyevers whatever should not be entitled to a piece of that action whatsoever? That does not sit well with me. It's MY music, and I want my heirs to consider it as a part of my ONGOING "material" legacy to them, as well a part of my legacy to the world in general (yeah, I know, "legacy" is a bit pompous, but c'est la vie). The laws do not allow me to do that. Whereas, if I had a collection of solid gold pocketwatches, or a lusty portfolio of stocks and bonds, or damn near any OTHER asset, I would be able to (and I SHOULD be able to), no problem. As the law now stands, that "discovery" better be made pretty damn quick, relatively (no pun intended) speaking.

Again I ask - is that right? Never mind imperfect - is it RIGHT? And if it's not, then why all the noise about making it even LESS right? Make it the same for everybody.

[Bev Stapleton]

JSngry, on Apr 25 2004, 06:41 PM, said:

As for the Windsors, stage a revolt, either in the street or at the ballot box, or else, again, deal with it. Those are the options, right?

Well, yes. If you want to get whisked off to jail. The cards are very much stacked against you, however.

The idea of the absolute right to pass on all one's property (short of taxes) for ever more is so entrenched it's very hard to see beyond. To shift artistic/intellectual property law in line with physical property law will not benefit the artist, engineer or whatever. It benefits their successors who've done bugger all to earn it.

Here's another thought.

In the next four years the Miles Coltrane Prestige's all come out of copyright in Europe. This is music that is going to attract a much wider audience than the forthcoming Benny Carter or Roy Eldridge Proper discs.

You can bet your life that Proper and the rest are already planning how to handle this. Get in early with single or double discs as they become PD? Or wait until the last and put out a box (and risk being outflanked)?

Now what are those who hold that copyright doing about it. I have OJC single discs. They sound fine to my muddied ears but I suspect they havn't had the full treatment that modern engineering could bring to them. The owners have sat on their asset for the last x number of years.

Now would it not make sense for them to hire the best engineers and studios possible, produce a definitive (sorry!) box with exemplary packaging, essays etc and get it out there on the market before the copyright lapses?

They could charge full whack and reel in the jazz fans in the next couple of years. And then - like Columbia are doing with their boxes - drop the price a few months ahead of the competition.

It strikes me that those with the assets have all the cards until the date things go PD. Which makes me loath to shed tears for them when they find themselves faced with the likes of Proper boxes.

Incidentally, just how much of the monies from those former Prestiges go to the estates of Davis, Coltrane, Garland, Chambers and Jones?

Of course the prospect of Davis/Coltrane going PD is chicken feed alongside Elvis, Sinatra....

This post has been edited by Bev Stapleton: 25 April 2004 - 02:11 PM