Big Beat Steve

I agree with the gist of what RDK says. Because if reasonable efforts are made I'd guess that a settlement with whatever heirs there may be could likely be reached. After all this set of recordings ought to have "some" sales potential among collectors. @Paul Secor: We may have missed each other's points so I will try to clarify: 1) There ARE settlements and rules that would ensure that royalties are paid for a reasonable amount of time after the recordings have been made and after that the items go into public domain. I don't think the 50-year rule (as it still stands for the time being in Europe) nor the 70-year rule as it was (is?) customary in the U.S. would be all that abusive. And both would make the Savory recordings available. 2) I admit I really do not understand what this 95-year (and whatever other cutoff date after whichever key year used as a calculating basis in the past) rule mentioned in the link above is all about in all details insofar as music recordings are concerned. But if it is so that these have superseded the 70-year U.S. cutoff date then this did not come like a bolt from the blue nor because some philanthropic institution all of a sudden decided "we need to do something about those poor, penniless, overlooked artists who'd otherwise starve to death if no royalties went their way" but it is about BIG money on the part of those (Disney or whoever?) who dread that some "evergreen" that's still good for sales amd money might fall into the public domain and who therefore use the leverage they have to overturn a law (that had been considered acceptable for decades) now that the cutoff date threatens to hit THEIR stuff. Just like in the case of Cliff Richard or the Beatles and their efforts to overturn the European 50-year rule that now appropaches THEIR recordings. But is this about protecting overlooked, shortchanged, poor artists in need? Nonsense - it's about big (corporate) money. And they would not care about those artists really in need either. E.g. I have yet to hear positive proof about BMG, Sony or whoever holds the rights to the Savoy catalog now having worked out comprehensive royalty settlements with all the heirs of all those artists screwed out of their royalties by Herman Lubinsky way back ... At any rate, reshuffling and rewriting laws RETROACTIVLEY (as in this case here) at one's personal whims just because "the powers that be" unite to accomplish this (or would this retroactive extension of copyright protection terms have been accomplished if, say, only the descendants of Charley Patton had demanded this?) is something that AT LEAST is debatable. 3) The Count Basie case: Just an example of why I feel that it really is a case of double standards if those who complain about "shady" or bootleg labels that "rip off" the artists on the other hand have no qualms about buying Count Basie Decca reissues that only grease the palms of the corporate owners of the Decca catalog but do not really give the ARTIST his due. If you are against ripping off the artists, be against it the whole way. 4) The Route 66 labels: Just an example of how even those who are not THAT "shady" are falsely accused in such debates. In short, in this particular case I'd openly advocate trying to have these Savory recordings released by a European company, taking advantage of the 50-year cutoff date while that still lasts. Of course under the premise that a reasonable fund to compensate the artists ought to be set aside from the sales of the releases. That would only be fair ... But I can't see why the big corporations (radio in this case, maybe) ought have any leverage in witholding relase of this material on the grounds of protecting the artists ...I doubt it is the artists they'd be concerned about.

"Screwed over", of course, being a relative term. After all, at best, we're talking about grand children or great grandchildren. How screwable these folks are is worth questioning and worth discussing. True, it's highly relative. And it can be debated what link there is between the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who CREATED the works of art that would merit royalties after all those decades. What have those great-grandchildren contributed to that act of artistic creativity of 70 or more years ago? Besides, this entire "screwed" argument is rather silly if you look at where the real "screwing" occurred. A case in point (my favorite one): The way Count Basie was screwed out of a LOT of royalties by Dave Kapp for his DECCA recordings (his first major recording contract). To the best of my knowledge except for some moderate amount of compensation negotiated additionally by John Hammond after he became aware of how gullible, unwary Count Basie had been lured into an extremely unfavorable recording contract, no real royalties on an ongoing basis had ever been paid to him since. And how often have these studio recordings (which were and are a cornerstone of his discography and artistic accomplishments) been reissued and recycled? But have ANY of those who bemoan the fate of those who were scrwewed then and allegedly continue to be screwed today REFRAINED from buying these Count Basie recordings? OTOH there still are those who have fancy ideas about what constitutes a "shady" reissue, e.g. in the case of those late 70s and 80s ROUTE 66 etc. labels run by Swedish Jonas Bernholm for the reissue of 40s/50s R&B. He took great pains in locating the original artists or their direct relatives and PREPAID ARTIST royalties for an album run of 1,000 to them even before those were sold. Though he explicitly (and for good reason) bypassed the label owners. To many of those R&B artists the payments made by Route 66 were the first decent royalties they had ever seen for their works from that period. And still there are those who consider his labels a "shady" or "grey" or even "bootleg" affair. In short, sorry to say - Paul Secor's "argument" just doesn't hold water.

The BLOOMSBURY BOOK SHOP! Discovered it during my school class visits there in 1976/77, went there several times during my brief stays in London in those years, bought a load - for my student's purse anyway - of music books (including "Catalyst", the first SUN label bio by Escott/Hawkins - yes, they DID carry that sort of stuff too!) there and had nice talks with that friendly shop keeper (who later turned out to be Theresa Chilton indeed) who seemed to be pleased to give advice to this (relative) newbie. Later on I bought the Leadbitter/Slaven blues discog from her via mail order and remember I also iniqured about that huge "To Bird With Love" book (where else to shop for such specialist items in Europe in those pre-internet days). I still have The Bloomsbury Book Shop's book sale list (that they circulated regularly) with Theresa Chilton's answer to my query about that Bird book scribbled on the front page: "We can obtain "To Bird with Love". Price £56 - UGH!!!" :D (Remember this was in U.K. currency of 1980 or so!) And nearby the Bloomsbury Book Shop there was a nice secondhand record store where I remember I bought the Vogue 3-LP set with the Clifford Brown Paris sessions. Still a cherished and often-listened to item in my racks. When I got back to London the next time in 1992 I was sorry to see that book shop had long gone but was pleased to discover the Compendium Book Shop in Camden Town (now also long gone) that seemed to have continued where the Bloomsbury Book Shop had left off.

So how did they ever manage to legally release/reissue ANY other broadcast recordings from the 30s or 40s elsewhere? And there were/are PLENTY of these around. Entire labels were set up to release such decades-old live recordings. All shady? I doubt it. That said, I never really understood the hullaballoo about those allegedly "unreleased" live recordings by Benny Goodmann that triggered this whole Savory thing in the first place. After all live recordings, airshot dubs etc. by the B.G. orchestra aren't really thin on the vinyl/CD ground and have not been for more than 30 years. What's the special deal about YET ANOTHER big band set list from some location date or one nighter broadcast here or there and dubbed by Mr Savory? What makes those who went after the Savory files so sure that exactly the Savory recordings are some sort of white elephant or missing link, unheard versions, radically differrently arranged or never commercially recorded tunes, undocumented line-ups etc. whereas all the other live/airshot recordings often tend to be (minor) "variations on a theme"? I can very well understand the excitement about those newly discoverd live recordings by other bands/featured artists who have not too much of a preserved legacy of live/airshot/after hours recordings - but B.G.? Naw ..... Or is it sheeer idolatry of the kind that would welcome even the proverbial 10-CD set of "B.G. brushing his teeth"??

THANK YOU SINCERELY, Medjuck, for getting A MODICUM of reason into this unnerving copyrights debate about (allegedly) shady labels who actually make OOP material AVAILABLE that otherwise would fare even worse than being "orphaned".

Maybe Lord was misled (misguided!?) by the fact that the back cover of early pressings (such as the first/very early German pressing I have) has a facsimile reprint of the Downbeat review where Shearing (stressing his regrets about the sudden death of Isreal Crosby) is quoted a saying "Fortunately we made this trio album at Basin Street East." (Though his subsequent statements do not sound like it was all about a live recording at all) The liner notes next to the track listing only give NYC, June 20 and 21, 1962, as the recording site and date, though. And so does the listing in Jepsen's discography.

I haven't heard this album (yet!), but Lord says 'Live "Basin Street East"'. Was it recorded after the audience had left then (it happened)? Perhaps the tape ran also at the actual gig and the tracks are from that. Just speculations, but I now know what release to look for. I am just giving this record (vinyl, first (German) pressing) a spin. It certainly does not sound like a LIVE club recording to me at all.

Uh oh ... Chewy won't like that ...

I've bought vinyl fairly often from the U.S. in the early to mid-2000s (but much less so since), and a going rate for a DECENTLY packaged LP was approx. §11 to 12 AIRMAIL per single LP in a mailer. So this is what you would have to look at as a VERY MINIMUM, given that rates still seem to be weight-sensitive and that no doubt the rates have gone up quite a bit with your USPS. Which is why my enthusiasm about buying vinyl through eBay has cooled off quite a bit since, BTW. I would also suggest that - just to get an idea - you check out the usual suspects among vinyl sellers on ebay.com and see what they state as overseas airmail rates in their item descriptions. What do you mean you want to "collect a signature"? If this means that you want to ship by registered mail only then be prepared for a significant inflation of your rates. Good luck, but be prepared for some discussions because you would have to make it clear to your overseas customers that it is not you who is (potentially) ripping them off with your shipping rates but your USPS.

I did not, Dan ... Read on here ... This is quere I "quoted" from. But in fact that's a minor point anyway. I just wanted to point out that collectors' points of view (especially when blessed with the benefit of hindsight or wishful thinking of what "might have been") sometimes don't line up with the realities of the "business" side of the music as it was (for better or worse).

OMFG indeed ... You and your "Hank" obsession ... Did it ever occur to you that maybe at that time he had become a "has-been" from the point of view of producers and record company execs? Personal problems that make handling such a man rather difficult in a music-producing "business" environment must clearly have spoken against the person concerned if there were so many competent and thoroughly professional session musicians around (and no doubt there were...). Sorry to say this, but isn't it time to shed those rose-colored glasses? As for those gospel records, I am not too familiar with them either but if you take a look at Michel Ruppli's SAVOY records discography you will see that gospel records constitute the bulk of the latter-day new-recordings output of the label. Nuff said for an explanation of why these are around?

The first one from that series I ever bought (almost 15 years ago). An intriguing release, because he is one of that kind of obscure artists that usually defy reissue and because he was enough of a chameleon to also cut and release a couple of early rocking tracks (for Savoy as well) in the mold of the Alan Freed house band recordings. Quite unlike this Savoy LP, though.

I am afraid not - my e-mail exchanges with the author's son (prior to ordering my copy) revealed that two copies have already gone to Austria and three to France. @BillF: Interesting to read your comments. Must indeed have been a great time to be there and witness all those legends live on stage. Something us young'uns (well, young-ish 'uns ) can only dream of.

I admit I dont understand the initial question, then, either. There are lots of ways of playing melodically without playing "corny". Especially in the case of ballads. Or else no jazz ballad would swing or just "be jazz". (Or is "corn" jazz?) But like I said, I have a hunch we would first have to agree on a definition of "corn". Playing melodically and conveying emotions is one thing, but playing melodic, emotional tunes in a way that makes them sound saccharine, lachrymose or just overly sentimental is an entirely different case but quite a possible occurrence. But would THAT be "corn"??

Just out of sheer curiosity: What kind of "corny" is this supposed to be if it becomes corny when EMOTIONS are being poured forth? Wouldn't this rather be "schmaltzy"? Tiny Hill was corny, Lawrence Welk was corny (O.K., no pianists, but you know what I mean), but were they so primarily because they dispensed overdoses of emotions? I don't really think so.

So how 'bout this for a follow-up by The Man? Though you might say both sound almost tame compared to "Puddy Cat".

Thanks for that link, Shaft. Very interesting and a nice addition to the corresponding part of the Birka website. As you mention loose covers floating about, indeed that does happen. Even some record sellers seem to dump the LPs (considered worthless? trashed?) and use the cardboard covers as PADDING when they send out their goods!! So through the years I ended up with a handful of rather nice 50s U.S. covers without their contents, e.g. Billy Eckstine on MGM, Harmonicats on Mercury, Billy Vaughn and others. Nice wall decoration anytime but still a real pity for those who happen to like that music.

Well, Shaft, if there had been a cover of that BARBEN 1004 LP "Sax Apeal" by the Swedish Modern Jazz group feat Lars Gullin in that lot, I'd be very glad to snap up the cover only. I do have the music on a 70s reissue LP but with an EXTREMELY nondescript cover (Telestar label, I think) so the original one would be a LOT nicer (even if we don't count the cheesecake factor). :D And YET I am able to enjoy the music for what it is, original cover or not ...

Sure there are two different (and not necessarily, though often) related aspects: - Enjoyment of the music per se - Collecting the music in the way it was marketed (original releases or not) Maybe Mr Christensen was just adressing the enjoyment of music a such but in the context of my original question and the subsequent answers it did come across as something like "pointless worrying about the packaging at all, it's only the music that counts". Well, in THIS (collecting) context it is not, at least not in the way such a categorical statement would imply, hence my reaction. We all know fanatical collectors (who might see those platters more as investment objects and not as items that actually get regular spins on the tunrtable) are overdoing things, but aren't we all sometimes? I'd bet that almost ALL of us forumists here (who usually are collectors in a way too) value a nicely packaged release or reissue (maybe reproducing the orignial artwork) higher than one with shoddily and clumisly "updated" sleeves/artwork etc. But except if you are really a fanatical "first pressing" fetichist you will be able to get enjoyment out of the music even if the packaging is so-so. E.g. the "Jazz in Paris" CD series is nice, but wouldn't we all just love to be able to at least look at many of those items in their original 10in LP releases, if only for the artwork? So I do consider myself a collector too yet I couldn't care less about OBI strips, for example. But as for just "enjoying the music", how far can you cut down on the packaging goes with the music? The other day I attended a lindy hop record hop here in town, and the DJ spun a track by the Ina Ray Hutton big band, and obviously he (and the dancing crowd) enjoyed it too. Very nice, and as reissues are thin on the ground, I asked him what track it exactly was. His answer: "Don't know, just burnt me a CD-R one day but have no info on the contents at all." WTF???? Like a track but don't even care enough about it to find out the TITLE of that track? Just fodder for hoofing on the dancefloor? So this is what full anjoyment of the music amounts to? So if we are at least halfway interested in the music, don't we almost automatically end up with wanting to find out about the artists too? Which leads to sleeve notes and then to recording dates etc. etc. Just to put things into context and be able to explore more music like that from a knowledgeable starting ground. Yet all this without going haywire about first pressings etc. Which in turn should make it easy to understand why that foolishness of DUMPING the covers that I described in my opening post just left me so exasperated ...

FWIW, I did not mean to really ridicule anyone but I take offense at being ridiculed or belittled - even if it is by someone made out by others to be claiming "seniority" (though I doubt Mr Christensen himself made his statements based on his "seniority" - of which, incidentally, I was largely unaware when I replied). And please do remember what the original question and the initial replies were all about. Don't you think that denigrating the very concern about throwing out those covers as if any regrets about this were an oh so silly thing to do almost automatically calls for an answer if one really cares about the subject on hand? In short, if respect for differences in personal preferences is being claimed then this clearly is no one-way street and respect should be due both ways. Besides, I for one am not THAT much of a youngster in my own listening myself anymore (for better or worse!) Or do 36 years of active collecting and real interest in the music amount to nothing? If so, boy, do we have a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears youngsters around here ... That said, I still agree with Shaft's latest statement above about what constitutes a "complete" product. Hence my regrets about the state of affairs in my initial post. Is that really that hard to sympathize with, even to seasoned listeners?

Sure, no doubt, but wouldn't this lifelong experience make it even more obvious (and understandable!!) that others may have an ever so slightly different attitude about it? Especially since this "slightly different" attitude is not exactly one that is shared by an infinitesimally small minority only? So again, this (statement) explains that (reaction) ... Besides, if Mr Christensens's point had only been that there is little point in drooling about original first pressing covers, ears in wax, deep or not so deep grooves, small print addresses etc., I'd be in total agreement with him. But don't tell me, tell all those BN/Impulse etc. geeks out there. While I understand their collecting point and of course am glad to get my hands on an early pressing at a BARGAIN price here and there too, to me a decent facsmilie reissue usually gives just as much pleasure. HOWEVER - the sheer act of THROWING AWAY those covers needlessly (which is what THIS thread is about) is just so incredibly, unfathomably silly that there hardly are any words to describe such folly. Hence my original question about what would remain of such stripped records if one would want to avoid overpaying for these items.

Sorry Shaft, I really did not want to downplay Mr Christensen's enthusiasm for the music. But putting down and negating ANY importance of the covers of the records (as part of the COMPLETE object) in such an outright and uncompromising manner really struck me as very, very odd. Like you, I'd see things like this: For me an LP cover is part of the experience of listening to a record. A nice laminated cover with information and nice pictures adds to the experience. Of course the music is the most important part and therefore I've been known to buy reissues of desirable music with garish, atrocious covers if you wanted the music badly enough and nothing else was available or affordable (a common occurrence in the 70s and early 80s) but THROWING OUT the covers in the first place (like in the case that started this thread) is just utterly foolish. Oh well, maybe I can bring myself to having a look at this "naked" collection ...

With all due respect but this is silly. Or else this post is a hoax, a put-on, trying to pull one's leg or whatever ... The music is what counts - true, but the album cover art (in its ORIGINAL size!!) is not to be neglected either. On the better items it forms a unit with the contents of the vinyl. Not to mention the "rest" of the cover information. Especially since there is no REASONABLE NEED AT ALL to separate the record from the sleeve in this manner anyway. OTOH, Mr Christensen, welcome to the world of cassettes. The music in its purest form and totally uncluttered by unwieldy album covers. Or much better still - downloads. No jewel cases or booklets to contend with either. Just streams of musical bits and bytes that will fit easily on any ipod. Time to dump your CDs. Or to put it yet another way ... you surely must have been kidding???

Thanks for your inputs (more will be welcome, of course). Instinctively I'd also tend to pass without much regrets, especially since it is likely to be a hard battle convincing the "non-initiated" why the lack of covers renders most items virtually worthless without coming across as being rude (particularly if you are talking to one's heirs). But while I would not really bet on the presence of any deep-groove Blue Notes and the like there are a couple of late 50s/early 60s "Eurojazz" releases where I'd even welcome just the vinyl even without its covers so I'd grab any straw for these. Beyond that, though, it would be interesting to hear what else might be worthy of consideration without overpaying. Hence my question ...

May I ask for some guidance on the following matter related to vinyl collections? A friend of mine recently told me about a colleague of hers whose husband has died and who now would like to dispose of his "jazz collection". Not a big one (some 200 LPs or so) and I have no idea yet about the actual contents nor the jazz styles covered or the period during which the records were accumulated. The only name my friend was able to quote was "Miles Davis" (no idea if Birth Of The Cool, KOB, Electric Miles or whatever, though). Now the BIG snag is: It has also transpired that the owner wanted to save on storage space and has stored the records in some kind of crates or boxes. As a result, ALL THE COVERS HAVE VANISHED!! Unbelievable, galling, especially with this kind of collection. We've all seen it with pop and MOR 45s from the 50s and early 60s stacked in record racks now on sale at jumble sales, but THIS??? My question therefore is: Assuming that this gent bought these records when they were fairly current, are there ANY jazz LPs/labels/styles/artists from the, day, late 50s to the 80s, that would be worth more than, say, a buck or two at all, if they were clean and early pressings but, alas, minus their covers? I have no intention of speculating with this kind of stuff at all but of course would like to avoid overpaying if I really took the plunge and went for a substantial number of these. Offhand I'd say in this situation the entire stock isn't worth more than a token amount but I may be wrong. Of course any sort of reissue or very much later pressing would disqualify at once but what kind of records would you advise looking out for anyway? If I can bring myself to taking a look at such a heartbreaking mess, that is ... How can ANYBODY be so dumb, especially in RECENT decades of record buying?