All Activity

At least as printed in the booklet RBB had a copyright (p) 1966. Whether this was only for the broadcast at that time is not mentioned or clarified. 'The Lost Recordings' (french label ---> see Discogs) has copyrights (p) & (c) 2021 for remastered edition. Its on mailorder service so it may be available in the US too.

Op.20/4 Op.20/5 Op.20/6

Any further activity around this film now that Lewis has passed on?

I was the only one watching shark week?

The Carter set is only 2 CDs, which allow for extra listens. I normally do two listens to a disc before moving on, but sometimes something get stuck in the head and stays in for a while. This one definitely is sticking, just because there's so much MUSIC in each quartet. So as an adjunct, I downloaded the Walden Quartet's recording of #1, a landmark 1st recording in my opinion, from the Internet Archive and mix it in with my Juilliard listening. Very "helpful" actually, because the Walden recording is in glorious old-school Mono, so the soundstage is VERY flat (and full). This allows for full, almost immediate, discernment of everything that's going on. So when returning to the Juilliard takes, which are totally Modern Digital, the ear is more attuned to the multi-level reality of the music. Probably going to stay on the Carter for the rest of this week. It's certainly not boring music!

Interesting to browse, the 25 highest sales. $7333 for a copy of True Blue! https://www.discogs.com/digs/collecting/most-valuable-blue-note/?utm_campaign=Newsletter_080625&utm_content=General_Email1&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=mktg

I'm not saying that I know that everything here is legally fine - how would I know... All I'm saying is 1) this has nothing to do with the European PD deadlines etc because there was no previous issue. 2) Unlike in the case of Palo Alto, this was no tape that someone secretly made. There was a contract regulating what can be done with the recording - and without access to that specific contract, we can only guess. 3) The mistake in the Palo Alto disaster was that they didn't contact Monk's label where he had an exclusive contract, not that they didn't contact his family (who were involved but apparently useless in figuring out the legal situation). 4) Despite the Palo Alto disaster, the fact that this is a release from a division of a major label gives me more confidence than if it was one of those PD labels out of Andorra or the like...

NP: with an unbelievable lineup: Geri Allen, Steve Swallow, Eddie Gomez, and Jack DeJohnette

I'm in. Powerful record.

I'll go to the mat for that record. But a lot of people don't like it so much.

Still unraveling everything inside this record. Deeeeeep album. The music is just the surface, just the segue of what was bubbling underneath. Incredible document of where "intellectual" jazz was heading in 1970. PS: No slip to Miles as "New Directions" needed to go in it's direction (a direction I like too!)

Alexis is from Dayton!

For Losers is one of the great adult darkness concept albums ever. Like Only The Lonely for trapped Black Jazz Musicians.

A contract signed for a recording being made for radio broadcast is just that... they had the legal right to broadcast it over the air. Those contractual rights don't mysteriously become "We can do whatever we want with this tape". If Stan Getz's estate i.e. Bev Getz, hasn't been compensated for a commercial release of this, then it likely isn't legit. No matter though - it's certainly not legal for sale here in the US at all, as Getz was under contract with Verve in 1966. Have we all forgotten the fiasco around the Monk "Palo Alto" release, where Impulse! tried releasing it without getting a release from his record label of the time? Same thing here. Michael Cuscuna & I talked about this label quite a bit and he acknowledged (as I do) that many are important musical artifacts that should be heard. But he was also very aware of how many of these labels like Lost Recordings release stuff like this without any compensation to the artists, which he felt was very wrong. @Chuck Nessa - Do you know if a contract to broadcast a performance extends to a commercial release of the recording?

August 6 Ravi Coltrane - 1965

thanks for clearing that up. I always thought it was a legit label and this confirms it.

me too.

it's not a PD label, and the justification for that record being out there is not "PD in Europe" (which would be relevant if it was a reissue of something issued before 1962) but rather that the tape is licensed from the radio station that recorded it (RBB in that case). I have no idea what the rules for releasing something like this are... but I would assume that they depend at least partly on the contract Getz signed with them in the 1960s... edit: also note how it says "distributed by SONY" on the backcover... not a PD label...