Blue Harlem

[reg]

does anyone have this Ike Quebec CD from Proper?

link to CD on amazon

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]

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]

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]

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.

[A Lark Ascending]

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?

Edited April 24, 2004 by Chuck Nessa

[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]

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

The important part is it will ONLY be digital.

[A Lark Ascending]

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.

[A Lark Ascending]

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!

[A Lark Ascending]

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?

[A Lark Ascending]

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.

Edited April 25, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[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.

[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.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...l=Aab6jtr4tklkx

[RDK]

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.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...l=Ag73zefwk1gf4

[A Lark Ascending]

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.

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.

[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 ), 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!