AllenLowe

I like Hodeir, terrific arranger, composer, though I don't like the books that much. Dickey Wells told me he was very hurt by Hodeir's piece on him. Dickey was a classic case of no second act, though he could still summon the fire on occasion. Hodeir's piece was smart but did not really take into account the whole life.

wow, wow, and double wow. Thanks for posting that; but I hope all the musicians and their estates get paid each time we play it - (see Pujol thread)

well, if we are talking about labels that don't pay, I was ripped off by one of the major independents that has a rep for clean and honest dealing - and every small publisher I have dealt with has failed to issue proper royalty statements, and these were "legit" concerns. So I really see little difference in business practices (ask the Dixie Chicks about this as well). as for putting out the Evans/Thornhill, re-Jim's reponse to my prior, that's one out of three, and at least one of the releases he posted was not legit, anyway. The Japanese Sony probably costs $50 and I'm willing to bet the Evans and Thornhill estates see nothing. Al Haig was reissued by US-based majors and never saw a penny (I called one of them up - it was a lable since purchased by Concord - they said "we can't find him." I said, "You're a little late, but here's his widow's address." They said, "we will contact her." She never heard a thing) The happy days cast just sued for royalties on merchandise. Another reissue label, beloved here, makes legit purchases of labels, then rips off anyone who does any work for them on the reissue (they owe me $300 from about 12 years ago). Go through your collection. This stuff is as unavoidable as dog poop in the park. Not saying this is all ok, but if we are going to look at the industry and only purchase from someone who is100 percent honest, than the only things we can buy are Nessa releases.

"Allen you keep repeating your thing on Tristano based on some interview you did when you were a teenager... well, whatever, his music speaks for itself - check out the Jazz Records catalogue - not to mention the many who, contrary to you, knew him well and admired him greatly." Quasi - first of all I was not a teenager; second of all, I don't really care what the Koolaid kids have to say about a guy who was nasty and petty, had his friend Warne Marsh enter psychoanalysis with his own brother (truly a manipulative and disgusting thing to do) and who thought everybody else in the world was his spiritual, moral, and musical inferior. Lennie was a classic genius/manipulator; as long as you told him he was God, he loved you and you loved him. this is based not merely on my personal experience but on the testimony of many of his peers, whom I knew and spoke to . he was also, btw, a great pianist and teacher. So take the blinders off.

well, nobody else would have put out George Handy or the Fruscella Atlantics or the George Russell '50s stuff or Red Rodney from the '50s or Gil Evans' Claude Thornhill arrangements. And I don't think those original companies suffered from the reissues.

1) I don't think the product is inferior - I have had pretty good sound on nearly all my Fresh Sound and Lonehills. 2) I like the label and I'm glad they are doing what they are doing. 3) If I were Pujol, to make everybody happy, I would just pay the leaders or their estate a percentage royalty on sales. That seems to be the real sticking point here.

well, you seem to be assuming that the bootleggers in jazz are making a lot of money - without an audit, this would be hard to determine or confirm. and if they're not, then the "greed" aspect changes. also, let me re-track - if musicians are not entitled to fees for the re-issue of their material (and they are not) and the publishing is being paid properly - as I know it is with the companies I've dealt with - then what is the real issue?

I see, and I basically agree - but how do we reconcile that sense with the absolute reliance that we, as a jazz audience, have had on labels like Fresh Sound?

Larry - would you elaborate please? I understand Jim's comparison (Pablo Escobar had similar virtues), but I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing.

just as an aside, re: Dan, above, I have it on fairly good authority that the initial Xanadau cds were authorized, but the licensing ran out - and they continued to issue them anyway.

interesting interview, though it does not address the fact that, technically, even if these recordings are not bootlegs in Europe, they are technically bootlegs when they arrive in the USA (AFIK). But as one who has worked with a few Euro labels, I agree, that without this work all of this stuff would simply disappear. I've been buying jazz since 1968, and even then it was primarily the grey-area independents who kept jazz alive.

I still prefer the Varese tapes, middle 1950s.

I always wonder - they continually cite "outrage" at his playing, but I've never seen actual documentation of such.

thank you -

I'm with Jeff's mom on this one. Sid Catlett would have been better.

Larry, say it ain't so - or listen to the stuff with Clifford Brown - though your problems with her may be related to my theory that engineers don't know how to record her - one must use a condenser mic on a voice like that, and it always sounds like they're using ribbons - and, believe me, that can make a BIG difference (unless it's an RCA 77) -

there is love and affirmation in a lot of great art, but that's just a lucky, occasional side effect, and one missing in a lot of great art - think Kafka, Soutine, Bud Powell (we will disagree here, but I think he's answering to a much deeper muse than humanity); also Tristano, who was a grade a asshole IMHO and had contempt for audiences; Beckett, without a doubt; Buchner, who invented modern theater; Robert Johnson had other concerns, as did Son House - we could go on and on here.....

there was a play, I think, years ago, called Insulting the Audience. Now, that made sense.

1) I don't believe in communication as an artistic goal. I go with Beckett who said of Proust "he has nothing to say - only a way of saying it." Art isn't about anything, it just is. Or as John Cage said, "I have nothing to say and it's poetry." 2) Corea is full of it and is just voicing the fake populist sentiments of Billboard-America. Or rationalizing his own inner recognition that he is a great pianist but mediocre artist, IMHO (we should bring Larry Kart in here; Larry has perfectly, in his book, summed up Corea's basic shallowness). 3) It reminds of the story of when Georgie Jessel was at the funeral of some Hollywood star who was, privately, a horrible person. Somebody said "look at the crowds here." Jessel responded: "Give the people what they want and they'll always turn out."

I'm not against having an audience; I just think guys like Corea, relative to that statement, have retreated to what seems to me a fascist position. It basically says that if something has support it must be good.

I like all those crazy Europeans; have read more Schultz than Walser (there was, btw, a short film about Schultz that came out some years ago, concerned with, as I recall, trying to find his drawings). Gotta check out the Walser that you mention,

trumpet guy - as I mentioned above, I played with both Hayes and Zimmerli, probably in the 1990s. I was standing up for them; for the good things I know they can do.

I did read the autobiography, interesting stuff. My impression from musicians who knew him was that his alcoholism caused professional problems.

my problem with his statement is that it puts down, by implication, many great artists, like Walser, Bruno Schultz, Herbie Nichols, etc, who had little or no audience in their lifetime. it substitutes marketing for the urge to create something - and that's fine for anyone for whom that works - it's the implied reduction of other artists that bothers me here. the larger context does not change anything - to say "in terms of music as a culture and a society, you have to take changes in audiences into account..." is almost bizarrely blind. In any creative form, it works the other way around - audiences have to take changes in form and content into account.

also, as Walter Benjamin pointed out, there is no such thing as "an audience" - the phrase itself implies too many varied and contradictory things for one to envision any single entity.