RDK

What do you mean? What I mean is: Al Casey: Buck Jumpin' The Louis Cottrell Trio: Bourban Street Budd Johnson and the Four Brass Giants Roy Milton and His Solid Senders Prestige Blues-Swingers: Outskirts of Town Rene Thomas Quintet: Guitar Groove Mable John: Stay Out of the Kitchen Jon Eardley: From Hollywood to New York Frank Strozier: Long Night Robert Pete Williams: Free Again Hal Singer: Blue Stompin' Paul Gonsalves: Gettin' Together Bill Harris and Friends Don Ellis Quintet: New Ideas Presenting Ernie Henry Buck Clayton & Buddy Tate: Buck & Buddy Frankie Lee Sims: Lucy Mae Blues The Fabulous Thad Jones Shorty Baker & Doc Cheatham: Shorty & Doc Elmer Snowden: Harlem Banjo! to list just a handful - I could easily list a couple of hundred more. All of these are fine records which Fantasy kept in print. I seriously doubt that any of them will see the light of day again once they go out of print, as I'm sure Concord will allow them to do. Perhaps I'm wrong, but seeing what Concord is reissuing, I don't have much hope. That's an impressive list of mostly obscure titles (and I have many of them from emusic), and kudos to Fantasy for releasing them on CD in the first place, but isn't it rather presumptive (and self-fulfilling) to suggest that Concord won't release such titles... since they're already available? As far as I know, none of those titles are oop yet, and while I'm sure that Concord will be "thinning the herd," weren't most of those intended to be single-pressed "limited editions" in the first place? I found it interesting that, even after that Concord blow-out sale earlier this summer, very few of the available titles actually sold out. And that wasn't even the only means of distribution as I've been seeing a lot of sealed OJCs showing up in used CD stores, likely through other distro channels. In other words, most of these titles have been available for years, have recently been sold at bargain basement prices, and are still available for purchase. And yet people are still complaining that Concord will no doubt be deleting them in the future? Of course they will - it makes no sense to keep such low-selling titles perpetually in the catalog - but I'll be happy so long as they continue (and expand) their digital distribution of such "fringe" titles.

I think Chewy should put in a call to Jayne...

Claude, I got that from the Fox News website. So it's not real?

Then you're the only college student in the world who doesn't know how to download music on-line!

Fuck, Chew, check out dimeadozen.org and masturbate to your heart's content...

Some of these are available very cheaply (and sound good) on emusic.

Well, Dan, yours might then be the only precinct without e-voting machine problems today. Geez, you'd think someone would have tested them first.

Agree 100% Dan. I wonder if this is a "design" issue with the e-voting machines or some policy by the local voting board.

The point is: wherever the fuck he played I'm sure someone complained!

When I hear stories like this, I always wonder if anyone ever called and complained when Sonny was practicing on the Brooklyn Bridge...

I do now! I should be okay as I've gathered the tunes, just need to xfer them from LP. Fortunately, just yesterday I got my computer back up and running from a HD crash.

A CD is a commodity, just like a car, guitar, microwave oven or any other product that can be legally purchased. Ownership of any of those products can be transferred by sale, gift, etc. All producers of those products are paid upon initial sale of the item, and give up any further claim to that piece of product, don't they? Why should a CD be considered any differently? There's nothing ethically wrong with transferring ownership of anything you've legitimately purchased. There is something wrong with duplicating something for which you don't have that right. It's introducing additional product into the market at prices far lower than the going price (in the case of CDRs, essentially free product). How can anyone say this is legitimately good for anyone on the "producing" side of the equation? Fascinating thread, but let me complicate (muddy?) things further by again going back to my silly/hypothetical/still-unanswered question above. So if one does legally purchase music from iTunes (or wherever) and burns them onto a CDR, why does that not become physical property that can be legitimately transfered to another person? It's exactly like a used CD, with the artist getting the money initially (though by a different distribution system), and the first owner transfering it by sale, gift, etc. The RIAA would, of course, consider this illegal and wrong - and I'd suspect most of us would too. It is, legally, an illegal copy, but if legitimately paid for it should be exactly like a used CD (though obviously of less value since it lacks paperwork, etc.). It's not really the same as selling a "real" cd copy that you own if you're keeping the files from which you burned the disc. If you stipulated that you also destroyed the downloaded files, then you have a closer comparison. For the sake of argument: sure. Man, what a bunch of losers we are to be engaged in this discussion on a Friday night! I'm bowing out now as I've got to put my girls to bed...

Tangentially, there's also the issue of whether one is "purchasing" the music or the object. Say I bought an artist's LP years ago that hasn't been released on CD. And say I want to make a needle drop CDR to play in my car. But I see that someone else has already posted the same music on-line, for (illegal) download. Is it okay for me to download the album (that I physically own on LP) and burn that or would that be "wrong" too? If the same album was legitimately released on CD at some later point, would I be obliged to but that?

A CD is a commodity, just like a car, guitar, microwave oven or any other product that can be legally purchased. Ownership of any of those products can be transferred by sale, gift, etc. All producers of those products are paid upon initial sale of the item, and give up any further claim to that piece of product, don't they? Why should a CD be considered any differently? There's nothing ethically wrong with transferring ownership of anything you've legitimately purchased. There is something wrong with duplicating something for which you don't have that right. It's introducing additional product into the market at prices far lower than the going price (in the case of CDRs, essentially free product). How can anyone say this is legitimately good for anyone on the "producing" side of the equation? Fascinating thread, but let me complicate (muddy?) things further by again going back to my silly/hypothetical/still-unanswered question above. So if one does legally purchase music from iTunes (or wherever) and burns them onto a CDR, why does that not become physical property that can be legitimately transfered to another person? It's exactly like a used CD, with the artist getting the money initially (though by a different distribution system), and the first owner transfering it by sale, gift, etc. The RIAA would, of course, consider this illegal and wrong - and I'd suspect most of us would too. It is, legally, an illegal copy, but if legitimately paid for it should be exactly like a used CD (though obviously of less value since it lacks paperwork, etc.).

I'm fairly certain that Trane's relatives aren't seeing a dime... -_- On the other hand, this stuff isn't of high enough quality to likely ever see a legit release.

This was, uh, shared, a while back on dimeadozen.org. Should check it out.

Er... not exactly. They're not legal, but not unethical, given that they introduce people to music they haven't heard and may not otherwise come across, resulting in sales that wouldn't otherwise have come about. Not ethically dissimilar to playing a record for a friend. MG So let me get this straight: charging friends to come over and listen to my record collection is wrong? Damn - there go my plans for the weekend!

And yet - in an example that probably hits closer to home for many of us - what if that CDR is of an album that we either wouldn't or can't buy otherwise: for example, an album by an artist who we're not sure we'd like, an oop album, or a rare/expensive import - or old vinyl? If it weren't for free radio, library loans, used LPs (and CDs), generous friends, and (more recently) on-line downloads, the breadth of my jazz listening would be much more limited than it is now. Heck, how does one go from Miles and Brubeck and Coltrane to Charles Tolliver, Misha Mengelberg, and Von Freeman without being exposed to them in ways other than buying their albums outright? It's hardly a "lost sale" when you wouldn't buy that artist's work anyway, but the exposure might give that same artist a sale down the road.

Can Britney even make her own crap sell 1 million any more? Maybe worldwide, but not domestic US. I'm not really up on such things, but got the impression she jumped the shark a few years ago. She ate the shark. Well she did get pregnant - twice - so fat jokes aren't really appropriate. Talentless hack jokes, however, are. Didn't she "retire" after her first kid? If so, I gotta hand it to her for stepping back for the next generation of teen idols to race past her. In fact, if not for the media constantly hounding her, she seems to be taking a fairly low profile these days. "Teen idols" are nothing new, and it's really pointless for us mouldy old figs to knock them. We all had our own; let the younger kids have theirs.

They did get paid for the used copy, on its original purchase. That's the difference. They aren't getting paid on the copies you burn for your friends. When you are comparing buying a used copy versus buying a new copy, then I think the artist would obviously prefer you buy the new copy, since that results in an additional sale and revenue. But that used copy did what it was manufactured to do, already. The burned copy does not result in payment to anyone who is entitled to payment for that recording. All good points, of course, but let me repeat myself from my post above... So what if I purchase the music on itunes, burn them to a CD, and then sell the CD? How is that different from the record company "burning" the CD for me before I bought it? And how is that different from my buying the music and then selling it (the digital files) "used?" I was being silly before, but now I'm serious: how is a CD-R made from purchased audio files different from a used CD? They both affect the artists/rights holders the same way. And yet one is perfectly acceptable while the other is tantamount to raping young children in church basements.

R.E.M.

Who has a link to a Britney discography? I hear that Britney is leaving jazz behind...

So what if I purchase the music on itunes, burn them to a CD, and then sell the CD? How is that different from the record company "burning" the CD for me before I bought it? (we really need a "Devil's advocate" smilie by the way...)

So how many kids does that Ravi Shankar dude have anyway?