paul secor

Great news about the Le Poisson Rouge dates and thank you for posting the link to the revised C.T. web site.

Monty Hall Warren Oates William Penn

All the best!!!

Will Rogers Mr. Rogers Roger Roger

Artis John Jimmy Dale

Machito: Afro-Cubop (Spotlite)

Ijahman Prince Far I Popeye

There's also one called "1976" on the Candid site - maybe it's an unreleased session - not listed in the Lord Discography HERE they seem two be two completely different recordings. I had no knowledge of 1976 before this.

Rick Derringer Bazooka Joe T.N.T. Tribble

Sergeant Friday Charlie Chan Boston Blackie

Visions of Johanna Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands Absolutely Sweet Marie

New member here. Yes the Dickerson is excellent. I have the Japanese version. The other Dickerson disc from this time (Tell me only the beautiful things) is even better. The opening unaccompanied solo on the first track is one of my favourite Dickerson moments, and Ware is very fine throughout. The two Air albums also fine. Welcome - Hope you'll stick around and join the conversations.

For me, Chico Freeman never lived up to his early promise, but I've always liked that one.

The Modernaires Tex Beneke Jim Alfredson

Halle Berry Hale Loke Perry Como

Zoot Sims: Zoot (Cadet Japan)

Happy Birthday!

"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. First - Steve, when you arrange to leave your worldly goods to "humanity" and not to your children or descendents, I'll give your "argument" some respect. After all, what connection will your descendents have to what you've done to accumutate your worldly possessions? Under U.S. law, the descendents of the musicians who created the music we're speaking about have rights. Just because you want to hear that music, you have no absolute "right" to do so. Perhaps you have that right in your own mind, but not under the law. And, to use RDK's phrase, "humanity" - be it the record companies or society as a whole -didn't treat those musicians well, so why should "humanity" have the "right" to hear that music now, without the musicians' descendents receiving what is legally theirs? Jonas Bernholm did pay the artists whose music he reissued a fee - 40 cents an LP. Then some other folks, not connected with Jonas Bernholm, reissued the Bernholm issues on CD and didn't pay the artists. That's what a friend of mine who was in contact with Jonas Bernholm was told by him. This was in the early 90's - before those recordings were 50 years old, and perhaps before the European 50 year law. I'm not interested in getting into another argument about intellectual property, the rights of society, or whatever. There's a matter of U.S. law involved with these recordings. If a legal argument doesn't hold water for you, go ahead and break the law. Perhaps the law doesn't "hold water" for you. And - to use your example - just because Count Basie was cheated out of royalties by Decca, does that make it legally right (I would even say morally right, even though you probably wouldn't) to sidestep the law in this case just because you want to hear some music?

Peter Carey's The Tax Inspector

One company has in fact done this so far in the United States: the Edison Company. Edit: I appear to be mistaken about this. Edison did bequeath its recordings to the National Park Service, but it is disputed that this constituted a relinquishing of copyright. http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2008/07/the-messy-messy.html So the musicians of the 20s, 30s, and 40s performed and recorded (mostly) with the understanding that they would not even be copyrighted, much less copyrighted for so long, yet somehow it is fair for their recording companies' descendants and heirs to assert monopoly for well nigh 90 years? Because that's what we're talking about. We are not talking about the descendants of side men getting checks for music from so long ago. In some genres, all a musician got was a work for hire fee at the time of recording or payment from his bandleader. And if we in 2011 cannot somehow correct injustices that these musicians faced in the 20s, 30s,and 40s, then NO ONE MAY HEAR the music? That sounds like the deal to me. Taking that argument another way, because record companies screwed musicians in the 20s, 30s, 40's ... whenever, we should do the same thing today just because some people feel it's their right to hear some music? And why should the the heirs of musicians who were screwed over by "humanity" - I'm not just talking record companies here - give up their rights for the good of "humanity".

Best birthday wishes!!!

Or perhaps those who feel the need to hear these works could magnanimously contribute to a fund so that the creators (or their families) could be fairly compensated.

Lassie Rin Tin Tin Bullet