Don Cherry - Unissued Session

[Jim Dye]

Someone is claiming to have this session, supposedly an unreleased record for Savoy.

Here is what is in the David Izenson discography online:

Don Cherry Quintet-(unissued session)

(unreleased tape) NYC, Stereo Sound Studios 1/6/64

Don Cherry-cor; Pharoah Sanders-ts; Joseph Scianni-p; David Izenzon-b; J. C. Moses-d

4-6 titles + numerous false starts

Does anyone have any additional information?

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The information is accurate. The session has circulated. I have seen this tracklist:

1. untitled

2. studio chatter

3. untitled

4. studio chatter

5. untitled

6. untitled

Mike

[Chuck Nessa]

I have this session. Accompanying it is information as stated above except the year is listed as 1963.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Here is the entry from Carlos Kase & Ben Young's discography of Izenzon:

Informal Session: prob. Don Cherry

Apparently 6 January 1964. Stereo Sound Studios, NYC.

Don Cherry (cornet); Pharoah Sanders (ts); Joseph Scianni (pno); DI (b); J. C. Moses (dr).

Unknown titles

Note: There are about 30 fragments of music here, including numerous false starts and rehearsal takes of a Cherry composition. There exist about 20 minutes of complete, fully realized takes and some fragments of Cherry playing Monk tunes from the piano (with bass and drums).

Donn Cherry's comments in a 1966 Jazz Monthly interview support the impression given by the tape box ledger, that the date above is correct. However, Jo Scianni suggests that he played with J. C. Moses before 2/ above [30 January 1963], and this may have been that occasion.

========

FWIW, Cherry was in Europe (Milan) with Sonny Rollins on January 13, 1963. I don't have any earlier date for that tour.

Mike

[kdd]

Score one for yourselves.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4709197237&rd=1

I've bought some things here and they were all cool.

[7/4]

Score one for yourselves.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4709197237&rd=1

I've bought some things here and they were all cool.

join http://www.easytree.org and get it for free.

[Rooster_Ties]

Score one for yourselves.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4709197237&rd=1

I've bought some things here and they were all cool.

join http://www.easytree.org and get it for free.

We are very sorry!

At the moment, there are at least 100,000 registered users at www.easytree.org, the maximum allowed under EZT's current configuration.

However, free slots become available for new users daily as inactive accounts are deleted. When EZT has fewer than 100,000 registrants, new users can sign up. Please note that the statistics on EZT's web site are updated every ten minutes; therefore, you may see this message even if the web site reports fewer registered users than the maximum.

 

Thank you very much for your understanding.

easytree.org

Couldn't find a "waiting list". Do you just have to keep checking, and just hope you're there at the right time -- to get an account???

[Big Wheel]

I guess that's how it works. I'd recommend trying at an off-peak hour, when fewer people in the US are trying to get on.

[7/4]

Just keep checking. I just happened to join at the right moment last December.

[Alexander Hawkins]

Wow, I'd love to here Cherry playing Monk on the piano!

[RDK]

For those interested, it looks like there's a few spots available on easytree RIGHT NOW!

[Rooster_Ties]

For those interested, it looks like there's a few spots available on easytree RIGHT NOW!

Thanks, got one!!!!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Score one for yourselves.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4709197237&rd=1

I've bought some things here and they were all cool.

So, selling live bootlegs is legal on eBay now?

I remember when eBay would shut a guy like this down within minutes of the listing.

And FWIW, no, this post does not mean that I am turning the guy in. I stopped notifying eBay about stuff like this a long time ago. They really don't care. One of their more laughable replies is, "Only the owner of the copyright can ask to have a listing removed." So, a dead guy is supposed to notify eBay that their music's being bootlegged? That'd be difficult.

Do a search on the Beatles "Abbey Road" on eBay. See how many copies of the rare Toshiba CD are up there. Most are fakes. The guys on Steve Hoffman's forums track these things and let people know when there's a real one up there.

Kevin

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The owner of the copyright does NOT necessarily mean the composer, so just because Don Cherry or Duke Ellington or whoevever is bleedin' demised doesn't mean that there isn't someone who owns the copyrights and can take any appropriate legal action.

Mike

[relyles]

Looks like just about everything that seller is currently listing are live bootlegs that I have seen circulating for free. It is strange that he/she would be so blatant about it, but there are many peeople out there that do not know these things should not be purchased and that they can be obtained for no more thand the price of a blank CDR and some postage. There was a time when I was one of those people.

Edited March 18, 2005 by relyles

[kdd]

Looks like just about everything that seller is currently listing are live bootlegs that I have seen circulating for free. It is strange that he/she would be so blatant about it, but there are many peeople out there that do not know these things should not be purchased and that they can be obtained for no more thand the price of a blank CDR and some postage. There was a time when I was one of those people.

Just because you get it for free doesn't make you any better than the person selling it. The real fact is that this stuff shouldn't be circulating at all and if you buy it, trade it, sell it or whatever in reality you are all wrong to do so. I don't know about these trees or whatever, I just bought them from the guy on ebay because it was fast and $10. I'm wrong, he's wrong, we are all wrong technically. So make a decision to enjoy these recordings or not but unless the artist has authorized the release we are all dealing with music we shouldn't be.

[AfricaBrass]

Looks like just about everything that seller is currently listing are live bootlegs that I have seen circulating for free.  It is strange that he/she would be so blatant about it, but there are many peeople out there that do not know these things should not be purchased and that they can be obtained for no more thand the price of a blank CDR and some postage.  There was a time when I was one of those people.

Just because you get it for free doesn't make you any better than the person selling it. The real fact is that this stuff shouldn't be circulating at all and if you buy it, trade it, sell it or whatever in reality you are all wrong to do so. I don't know about these trees or whatever, I just bought them from the guy on ebay because it was fast and $10. I'm wrong, he's wrong, we are all wrong technically. So make a decision to enjoy these recordings or not but unless the artist has authorized the release we are all dealing with music we shouldn't be.

I never had a problem with you about buying from this guy. My problem was with him for selling things that are being shared for free.

I know we have no right to some of this music, but I don't see anything wrong with sharing it, as long as it is not for profit and as long as it doesn't take away sales for a legitimate product.

I'm grateful to musicians that allow sharing of their music and I want to respect their wishes in that we only share it, not profit from it. It's a two way street; sharing this music does keep it alive. A lot of it might be lost if it wasn't for fans who traded live recordings.

For example, a few years back the rock band Quicksilver Messenger Service released an album of a live concert from 1968. I believe they got the tapes for that concert from underground traders. I read an interview with their guitarist about how when he asked for cds of shows, they were sent to him.

I collect this stuff because I love the music. I've never profitted or would ever profit from it. Another example, I have hundreds of Grateful Dead shows, yet I've also purchased 95% of the Dick's Picks series so far and plan to buy the rest in the future. I have purchased all their other archive releases also.

I think file sharing of unreleased material is the greatest thing. It gets the music out there and also takes the profit away from most of the bootleggers. It takes away the reason for bootleg labels in the first place; they know their bootleg will be shared by file sharers. All the have to do is sell one copy for the bootleg to become a shared item. This takes all the demand away for their products.

[kdd]

Looks like just about everything that seller is currently listing are live bootlegs that I have seen circulating for free.  It is strange that he/she would be so blatant about it, but there are many peeople out there that do not know these things should not be purchased and that they can be obtained for no more thand the price of a blank CDR and some postage.  There was a time when I was one of those people.

Just because you get it for free doesn't make you any better than the person selling it. The real fact is that this stuff shouldn't be circulating at all and if you buy it, trade it, sell it or whatever in reality you are all wrong to do so. I don't know about these trees or whatever, I just bought them from the guy on ebay because it was fast and $10. I'm wrong, he's wrong, we are all wrong technically. So make a decision to enjoy these recordings or not but unless the artist has authorized the release we are all dealing with music we shouldn't be.

I never had a problem with you about buying from this guy. My problem was with him for selling things that are being shared for free.

I know we have no right to some of this music, but I don't see anything wrong with sharing it, as long as it is not for profit and as long as it doesn't take away sales for a legitimate product.

I'm grateful to musicians that allow sharing of their music and I want to respect their wishes in that we only share it, not profit from it. It's a two way street; sharing this music does keep it alive. A lot of it might be lost if it wasn't for fans who traded live recordings.

For example, a few years back the rock band Quicksilver Messenger Service released an album of a live concert from 1968. I believe they got the tapes for that concert from underground traders. I read an interview with their guitarist about how when he asked for cds of shows, they were sent to him.

I collect this stuff because I love the music. I've never profitted or would ever profit from it. Another example, I have hundreds of Grateful Dead shows, yet I've also purchased 95% of the Dick's Picks series so far and plan to buy the rest in the future. I have purchased all their other archive releases also.

I think file sharing of unreleased material is the greatest thing. It gets the music out there and also takes the profit away from most of the bootleggers. It takes away the reason for bootleg labels in the first place; they know their bootleg will be shared by file sharers. All the have to do is sell one copy for the bootleg to become a shared item. This takes all the demand away for their products.

Yes, you are right of course, didn't Led Zepplin get a lot of their tapes from fans for that box set that came out a few years ago. Ten bucks is not a huge profit and I don't these people really get rich from this, they are probably just feeding their own habit (my CDs even came with a note thanking me for being a jazz fan). Sure there are some blatant boot-leggers out there but I guess my point is I don't see much difference between trading the stuff and paying $10 for it if I get what I want and I'm too lazy to mess with trees and going to a site 10 times to see if I can get a space. The digital age has made a lot of stuff easily availible (is there a DVD tree yet? a lot of great stuff has resurfaced with the advent of DVDs) and it's been a boon for fans like us but let's not forget it's a questionable thing we are doing and not turn our noses up at someone who makes $10 doing it as if we are so high and mighty compared to them.

[AfricaBrass]

Yes, you are right of course, didn't Led Zepplin get a lot of their tapes from fans for that box set that came out a few years ago. Ten bucks is not a huge profit and I don't these people really get rich from this, they are probably just feeding their own habit (my CDs even came with a note thanking me for being a jazz fan). Sure there are some blatant boot-leggers out there but I guess my point is I don't see much difference between trading the stuff and paying $10 for it if I get what I want and I'm too lazy to mess with trees and going to a site 10 times to see if I can get a space. The digital age has made a lot of stuff easily availible (is there a DVD tree yet? a lot of great stuff has resurfaced with the advent of DVDs) and it's been a boon for fans like us but let's not forget it's a questionable thing we are doing and not turn our noses up at someone who makes $10 doing it as if we are so high and mighty compared to them.

I understand. I really am not condeming you in any way. I've purchased boots in the past.

My only concern is that efforts will step up to stop file sharing of unreleased recordings if the true owners of the music see that people are making money off of it.

When I go onto easytree, it's like a dream come true. I remember wanting to find live concerts. I found this guy named Ed who would sell cassettes for $15 a pop. I bought a few and the quality sucked. The guy wasn't in it for the music, only for the money. I remember paying $25 for cds by bootleg labels that are now being shared for free. I do believe this kind of stuff increases interest in the artists and in the end helps them. Look at the Grateful Dead; their open policy towards tape trading and file sharing has made them bigger than ever. The people who engage in collecting this music also respect the band and thwart attempts to share officially released material. When bands/musicians respect their fans, most fans, in return, respect them and their wishes.

[RDK]

What Jeff said.

[kdd]

Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here but the Grateful Dead are millionaires probably and have a huge fan base and can survive this. How about if a jazz label gets a chance to officially release a great live concert but back off because it's been circulated so often and the fan base isn't that huge to begin with. True many of you guys would buy it anyway but say that only half of you. That's enough of a death sentence for this sort of thing.

Edited March 20, 2005 by kdd

[AfricaBrass]

Now I'm just playing devil's advocate here but the Grateful Dead are millionaires probably and have a huge fan base and can survive this. How about if a jazz label gets a chance to officially release a great live concert but back off because it's been circulated so often and the fan base isn't that huge to begin with. True many of you guys would buy it anyway but say that only half of you. That's enough of a death sentence for this sort of thing.

That's a really good question...

If it was a recording I loved, I would buy it. The jazz label could give me real value for my money, example: The Uptown Mingus set. I'd buy that even if I'd had the recordings. Maybe the official release would come from higher-generation tapes. That would be a plus.

I've listened the downloaded Cherry album and there's a lot of hiss on it. I can't imagine a label releasing it in this quality. I'd be upset if I bought it and it sounded the way this shared recording does.

Even though the Grateful Dead allows shows to be shared, the official versions usually sound much better.

[Late]

Now I wonder if a legit issue will ever show up ...

Probably not, I suppose.

(It would be great if that Savoy session could be paired with Cherry's Atlantic trio session.)

[erhodes]

Now I wonder if a legit issue will ever show up ...

Probably not, I suppose.

(It would be great if that Savoy session could be paired with Cherry's Atlantic trio session.)

This is not a Savoy session, though the disoographies all seem to list it that way. It was recorded at Jerry Newman's studio and I believe Izenson produced it. Mike is right that the date is unclear though the logic of January '64 is a bit stronger that of January '63. I've seen the tape box and it does say '63. I've also heard the master and there is no prominent hiss. As to why there is no imminent commercial release...

#1, I believe Izenson's estate has the right to this and other sessions that he supervised at Newman's. I've not heard anything about this in years but when I did hear something the matter was...unresolved.

#2, There's not enough music on this tape to fill an lp, let alone a cd.

#3, As Mike pointed out, the music is fragmentary, though there are 4-5 relatively complete takes. These are short, though...generally 3 minutes each or thereabouts. The session appears to be an early stab at the "suite" format that Cherry used for "Togetherness", "Complete Communion", and "Symphony for Improvisers". At least one of the tracks appears on "Togetherness". The pieces may have been designed to be edited together but the material I have heard is insufficient, not only in quantity but in some of the details, e.g., transitions and such.

[clifford_thornton]

Thanks for the clarification. It's an interesting historical document, but not fleshed out enough to be "great" or even that "good." It is of value, though.