RDK

The DVDs are really great. I have all the "old" versions and they're packed with documentaries and other bonuses. I'm not sure if there's any new material sans the Sommers commentaries re: Van Helsing but the price has dropped and they've combined several "sequels" in the package. These should be about $20 each - a steal!

damn, that Atlantic cover is a gas!

I've got the BL version - got it in the cheapo BL "purge" a couple of years ago. It's actually rather good and a lot of fun. I'll try to pull it tonight and see if the track lengths are accurate.

Very good question indeed. Copyright law is extremely complicated and I only play a lawyer on TV, but I do believe that - in at least some cases - even though the physical painting may be sold to an individual that the image itself may remain the property of the artist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... I think we all agree that there are problems with the whole public domain issue. There are valid arguments for why creators should retain "ownership" of their artistic endeavors in perpetuity - but do the same rules apply to inventors and their patents? - as well as reasons for why material going into the public domain is a good thing. Personally, I think some sort of use-it-or-lose-it compromise is a good thing - after a defined period of time of course. The artists should be compensated, of course, but for how long is the question. Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? Forever? (Hell, I wish I was Plato's heir.)

I'm not Bev, but since I have the "Big Horn" box right in front of me let me note that it was "Compiled and produced for release by Joop Visser. With digital mastering by Peter Rynston at Tall Order Mastering" (for whatever that's worth). The booklet notes (quite good, though I can't vouch for accuracy or originality) are credited to Visser as well. As to them paying Jo Stafford (and others), well from what I understand about Euro copywrite law and such they aren't required to. That is, of course, a different argument then "should they," but I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a company anywhere paying anyone for anything when they didn't have to. It sure is nice for Bear Family or whomever to pay an artist - do they actually? - but rightly or wrongly it isn't always required. And, in the examples you gave, do you know that Bear payed the artists royalties for their music or simply for their participation in the reissue, which is an entirely different matter? Neither here nor there but interesting nonetheless, a while back I was reading Buddy DeFranco's website and he claimed to not have recieved a dime from his Mosaic set. Clem, would it make a difference to you if the artist, years ago, signed away or sold all their rights to their music to another person or company? What if the only "person" collecting royalties for Milton Brown recordings was some holding company owned by Microsoft? For all the tension, this is a most interesting discussion...

I think it's safe to use, at least in Europe...

you say po-ta-to, I say po-tah-to...

Seriously, though, how do you think I developed my jones for in-print Mosaics in the first place? That could be their new slogan: "Mosaic - the Gateway Drug..." B)

Could the same argument be made for OOP Mosaics?

Several years ago, while training for a marathon of all things, I had a long-running (pun intended) debate with a buddy of mine who is a novelist. With both of us playing Devil's Advocate, we had a grand time arguing the issue. I'm not sure if we came to any consesus, but it was interesting and fun, as is the debate here. So once again wearing the Devil's horns, let me ask you artist types (and by that I mean writers, musicians, actors, painters, whatever) what makes you think your artistic shit is so stanky that the public needs to pay for it over and over again? Why can't you simply get paid for your work one time, like the rest of us, instead of getting residuals, royalty cuts, etc. If one pays Jim Carey $20 million to act in a film, why the hell should he keep getting paid more every time the movie later airs on TV or some shmuck buys the DVD? If you work in an umbrella store and sell some dude an umbrella for 20 bucks, you don't get an extra few bits everytime it rains, do you? It's a ridiculous and not particularly apt analogy, I know, but the answers are often intriguing...

A couple of interesting (and perhaps illuminating) articles. Again, I'm very much on the fence on this issue, so please nobody take any of this personally... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...5_sprigman.html http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Opp...blicdomain.html

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

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?

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

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.

Congratulations, Jim! I've got a pair of them myself and believe me, they get better with age.

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...

"Fuck Proper?" Geez, that's harsh. Myself, I love Proper Boxes. They're one of the greatest jazz bargains out there. I've seen no cases (though I'm sure there are some; just not any I've personally run across) where they've "borrowed" masterings - details please! And there are more than a few sets where they're clearly not borrowing - note the Swing Tanzen box mentioned above. Regarding the "stealing" of masterings, I'm not sure that it's illegal - or even unethical provided the rights holders are getting their cuts (which is, of course, questionable given 50+ year old recordings). It does suck in that it may make Mosaic (or Uptown for that matter) think twice about releasing things, but as far as I understand it given the differences between U.S. and European copyright laws, Proper is doing nothing "wrong."

Anyone ever catch any of those Girls Gone Wild informercials/videos?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../en_tv_eo/13950

Ooohh. This could be a very nice set!

Everything you wanted to know about sex records can be found here. Still, they seem to have inadvertently left off Marvin Gaye... http://www.sexualrecords.com/

For some other views on Idol, check out the official site, idolonfox.com. The chat board is filled with teens and old ladies who think John is "cute." It's a waste of time, but a hoot if you want to read another viewpoint. And if you haven't already, check out the recaps - they're hilarious. Yet another group of humanity is represented here http://pub207.ezboard.com/bsurvivorsucks, though I have to warn you that they're a rude, cynical, and ugly bunch. Gee, you think I have too much time on my hands?

I find a lot about the show strange... but I still dig it!

If Your Momma Was Your Daddy, Who Would Your Daddy Be? One of the Village People?