The end of Easytree

[AfricaBrass]

Very disappointing.  The pile of shows that I was planning to seed was growing.  Oh well, suppose I will just have to vine them at the yahoo jazz vines group.

Oh--do you mean this group?

It looks like you've been getting a number of new members today...

[JSngry]

Yeah, the "traders" who gloat and hoard and who won't share w/o getting such&such in return are pretty much pigs. Usually, not always. But that's not what I'm talking about.

There's a reason why most artists (and their labels) don't record and release everything they do, and it's not just economics. It's a matter of "presentation", of offering up a "vision", if you will. An "official" recording is usually an attempt by an artist to present, to the best of their ability, the truest portrait of said vision. The rest, the outtakes, aborted/unsuccessful sessions, live dates, etc. are definitely of interest often enough, but it could easily be argued that their "purest" interest should be to "deep" fans, scholars, etc., and that such material really was/is not intended to be heard by anybody else. An artist's vison is their most personal possession. To deny that in effect puts the artist in the positon of a slave. It denies them the intrinic/assumed right to posess anything personal, as well as the control over how their most personal impulses should be presented. In effect, it gives the "fan" the position of being able to say, "We OWN you. Give us everything you have, whether you want us to have it or not".

Of course, the aptness of this will vary widely depending on the artist in question, the nature of the performance, and who's wanting to hear it and why. Which is why I personally think that the private/personal distribution system is more in keeping with a show of respect for the material involved. Yes, you DO have to work harder to get a hookup, and no, you WON'T be able to get anything you want anytime you want it. Oh well.

But...

There's something to be said, I think for "earning" the "right" to hear such material. It teaches you an appreciation for both the material and the processes of creation and performance. It also means that you have to deal with people rather than computers. Basically, it forces you to deal with the music, and the individuals who inhabit/surround it, as people, and not just a set of digital data to be bandied about like so many subway tokens.

The very nature of this type of material places it in the realm of "special", and I truly believe that it's dissemenation should do the same. I'm certainly not accusing anybody in this forum of being the type of person who "knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing" (FAR from it!), but the easy, open, and public distribution of unofficial recordings can't help but breed that type at a rate far greater than a more selective/restrictive one. This music in general is viewed cheaply enough as it is. Do we really want to expedite and encourage that any more than what already exists?

I'm in no way advocating the hoarding of private recordings, nor of not using the Internet per se to distribute them. I just think that such a process should be kept as private as possible out of respect for all concerned.

Edited April 6, 2005 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

I'd feel a whole lot better about "sharing" if the sites got waivers from the artists. As it stands now it's an "opt out" policy and all of us hate this with junk mail, phone solicitations, etc.

Why do these operations wait for complaints?

Should Roscoe, Ornette, Sonny or anyone else, have to spend time checking the net for "freebies"?

[JSngry]

I don't like the elitism of thinking that slipping artist-picked choices to an adoring

public in piecemeal bits really teaches anything about appreciation of music.

Networking does that...and in the old days it was done "mano a mano,"

but today networking is done digitally.

It's not the medium, that bugs me, not at all. It's the application thereof.

A little propriety is called for, and I don't think that hanging somebody else's schlong out the window for anybody and everybody who walks by to suck on as little or as much as they desire exactly qualifies as such.

[Chuck Nessa]

AND before anyone thinks otherwise - I had nothing to do with the problems they are having.

[JSngry]

What about the probelms Tom Delay's having?

[Guy Berger]

What about the probelms Tom Delay's having?

Chuck is actually the owner of the Russian record store that Delay visited out there. I heard some cash exchanged hands...

Guy

[JSngry]

Would that be Cap'n Crusty Sumsuch?

[JSngry]

[RDK]

A little propriety is called for, and I don't think that hanging somebody else's schlong out the window for anybody and everybody who walks by to suck on as little or as much as they desire exactly qualifies as such.

Uh, okay - you win, Jim. I'm not gonna touch that one with a ten foot, uh...

[Man with the Golden Arm]

A little propriety is called for, and I don't think that hanging somebody else's schlong out the window for anybody and everybody who walks by to suck on as little or as much as they desire exactly qualifies as such.

Homer couldn't have said it better himself:

Homer Simpson: "We can outsmart those dolphins. Don't forget -- we invented computers, leg warmers, bendy straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory hole, AND the pudding cup."

[Jazzmoose]

I'd feel a whole lot better about "sharing" if the sites got waivers from the artists. As it stands now it's an "opt out" policy and all of us hate this with junk mail, phone solicitations, etc.

Why do these operations wait for complaints?

Should Roscoe, Ornette, Sonny or anyone else, have to spend time checking the net for "freebies"?

Now that makes sense. If the artist doesn't mind then of course it's okay. But it should be incumbent on the offerer to make sure the artist doesn't mind, not just to be willing to stop if the artist finds out and says something...

That said, how long can I resist this stuff....

[AfricaBrass]

I'd feel a whole lot better about "sharing" if the sites got waivers from the artists. As it stands now it's an "opt out" policy and all of us hate this with junk mail, phone solicitations, etc.

Why do these operations wait for complaints? 

Should Roscoe, Ornette, Sonny or anyone else, have to spend time checking the net for "freebies"?

Now that makes sense. If the artist doesn't mind then of course it's okay. But it should be incumbent on the offerer to make sure the artist doesn't mind, not just to be willing to stop if the artist finds out and says something...

That said, how long can I resist this stuff....

I agree.

This is how archive.org works. They have to get proof from the artist before they'll host the files.

[WD45]

There's a reason why most artists (and their labels) don't record and release everything they do, and it's not just economics. It's a matter of "presentation", of offering up a "vision", if you will. An "official" recording is usually an attempt by an artist to present, to the best of their ability, the truest portrait of said vision. The rest, the outtakes, aborted/unsuccessful sessions, live dates, etc. are definitely of interest often enough, but it could easily be argued that their "purest" interest should be to "deep" fans, scholars, etc., and that such material really was/is not intended to be heard by anybody else. An artist's vison is their most personal possession. To deny that in effect puts the artist in the positon of a slave. It denies them the intrinic/assumed right to posess anything personal, as well as the control over how their most personal impulses should be presented. In effect, it gives the "fan" the position of being able to say, "We OWN you. Give us everything you have, whether you want us to have it or not".

This reminds me of the smallest pencil sketch that was part of the permanent art collection at the University of Northern Iowa [my alma mater - Go Panthers!]. It was about the size of a CD cover. I remember being excited to see it because it was sketched by Rembrandt.

One of my music history professors was instrumental in unearthing a previously unknown and unpublished Mozart opera.

It would seem to me that people would want to see both of these items. They were created by masters of their art, but were not likely meant for public consumption as they now exist. Did that professor look at that opera and say "Well, Wolfgang did not have it published, so lets just let that sucker languish in the bowels of some archive forever."

Is it okay for these works to come to light because the artists themselves are dead? Has the immediacy of recording technology and the fortunate longevity of the artists being discussed make it different? Is it okay to publish every last alternate take and false start of Charlie Parker's Verve and Clef sessions but not Roscoe Mitchell? Where is the difference?

When does the artist's vision and control become revisionist? When Zappa re-records drum parts on some of his records upon re-release? When Illinois Jacquet leaves a side or two off of the Mosaic set?

Can I ask any more questions?

[Free For All]

the University of Northern Iowa [my alma mater - Go Panthers!]

Mine too! I was a student from '76-'80. How about you?

[JSngry]

Short answer, since I'm almost late for work - yes, I do think that the distance of time makes a difference. The bigger the distance, the bigger the difference as well, usually. Once a cat's dead, well, that instantly creates a different dynamic in terms of perception and such.

I'm speaking non-monetarily, btw.

[WD45]

the University of Northern Iowa [my alma mater - Go Panthers!]

Mine too! I was a student from '76-'80. How about you?

A bit later, 1996-2000.

UNI-Dome!

[relyles]

There's a reason why most artists (and their labels) don't record and release everything they do, and it's not just economics. It's a matter of "presentation", of offering up a "vision", if you will. An "official" recording is usually an attempt by an artist to present, to the best of their ability, the truest portrait of said vision. The rest, the outtakes, aborted/unsuccessful sessions, live dates, etc. are definitely of interest often enough, but it could easily be argued that their "purest" interest should be to "deep" fans, scholars, etc., and that such material really was/is not intended to be heard by anybody else. An artist's vison is their most personal possession. To deny that in effect puts the artist in the positon of a slave. It denies them the intrinic/assumed right to posess anything personal, as well as the control over how their most personal impulses should be presented. In effect, it gives the "fan" the position of being able to say, "We OWN you. Give us everything you have, whether you want us to have it or not".

Those are some interesting comments. I have read similar comments by other musicians before. In particular, Ellery Eskelin has on several occassions articulated his preference that recordings of his live performances not circulate for much the same reasons that you stated. I could not locate the exact comments I was thinking of, but following are some interesting comments by Ellery in a similar thread on Jazz Corner over one year ago:

"But one must take into account the effect that the poor sound quality has on the music itself. There's so much of the sound that simply isn't even there. It paints a very distorted picture of the music and in my opinion a lot of improvised music suffers immensely if the textures of the sound itself are compromised to that degree.

Most of the time my own music doesn't even make sense to me when I hear it back recorded that poorly (which is 98% of the time). I can't imagine what someone else would think. If this were someone's introduction to my music I certainly wouldn't expect them to go any further in seeking out one of my CDs. So I don't feel that having these kinds of recordings floating around really does me any favors.

. . .

As for radio broadcasts of performances it's a gamble...on the one hand you're getting some extra money from the radio to let them record and broadcast your gig...on the other hand I'd say of all the radio broadcasts if been a part of (and I'm guessing there've been dozens) there's maybe 3 that I know of that I think sound good. Not great, but good. Actually there was one that sounded better than good and that was the Baron Down gig from the Willisau festival some years back. There was talk of releasing it and I actually hope that happens one day.

But so many of the radio gigs are less than great sounding since the engineers don't always know your music and there is rarely sufficient time to do a proper sound-check. There's always some amount of compromise involved...as the clock ticks and start time looms and you realize that's about as good as it's going to get if you want to actually eat before the concert.

Ironically one of the better sounding radio gigs we did was one in which we arrived at the festival about 30 minutes before show time. Keep in mind that we need one or two hours just to do a regular setup and sound check. So we threw the equipment up on stage and the engineer put up some mics and that was it. We had no idea what it was going to sound like. But the engineer was special...his name is Dick Lucas and he records a lot of the Dutch cats. He did better in 30 minutes than most others do in a whole afternoon. I was shocked.

So I take my chances and hope that the recordings are going to be OK. There's little I can do about them being diseminated and as I agreed to have them be recorded in the first place I can't get too upset about it. There are many that I think sound terrible but thems the breaks.

As for boots as keepsakes I try to offer a deal on CD sales at the gigs so that people who've already paid to get in can take something home with them rather than boot the show."

[ghost of miles]

What about the probelms Tom Delay's having?

Chuck is actually the owner of the Russian record store that Delay visited out there. I heard some cash exchanged hands...

Guy

Yet another reason C. Nessa is a genuine jazz hero! Or is that "Eliot" Nessa...

[Hardbopjazz]

Has anyone tried http://www.tradersden.org

I think everyone from easytree jumped over to there. Right now the server is down do to too many users.

[Chuck Nessa]

Has anyone tried http://www.tradersden.org

I think everyone from easytree jumped over to there. Right now the server is down do to too many users.

So, I take it you have bought all the cds you want and are looking for more.

[Hardbopjazz]

Has anyone tried http://www.tradersden.org

I think everyone from easytree jumped over to there. Right now the server is down do to too many users.

So, I take it you have bought all the cds you want and are looking for more.

I'm not a member there. I have too much already to listen to that I don't get a chance to enjoy.

[Guy Berger]

Has anyone tried http://www.tradersden.org

I think everyone from easytree jumped over to there. Right now the server is down do to too many users.

So, I take it you have bought all the cds you want and are looking for more.

Why do you say that Chuck? Are they trading officially available material?

Guy

[Tom Storer]

The whole appeal of EZT was that the concert performances being shared were not commercially available anywhere and most likely never will be.

I've been thinking about Sangrey's and Ellery Eskelin's objections that these concert performances are blemished and imperfect and therefore not kosher to pass around. Without contesting the artist's prerogatives, it seems to me the fan's motivations in wishing to hear and share such material stem from a fundamentally more generous attitude than one of cold and demanding judgment. Anyone who's heard more than a few of the kinds of things that circulate, let alone people who listen to a lot of them, know that they rarely equal a well-prepared studio session, but also that well-prepared studio sessions rarely equal the best moments of exceptional concerts. Those exceptional concerts are the rare nuggets whose existence makes the whole business of acquiring unreleased concert recordings worthwhile. The sub-par stuff doesn't bother us because we also go to concerts and understand that not every concert is perfect, and that even imperfect concerts have moments of beauty that make the imperfections worthwhile. Artists are understandably nervous about how they are presented, but fans have already seen and heard them warts and all, and love them anyway.

Every jazz fan knows that live performance is what it's all about. 99.9% of the bittorrent and postally traded recordings are live. What we're trying to do is be a fly on the wall at all the concerts we couldn't attend because we can only be in one place at a time. One can object that we don't have the right to attend those concerts virtually and after the fact, and I can't really argue that we do. But our keen and selfish desire to listen, in the absence of a commercial interest that would be adversely affected, gets the better of us. And I believe that the more we hear, the better listeners and fans we become, and the stronger the bond there is between us and the musicians, whom we continue to see in concert and whose CDs we continue to purchase--even if we piss off artists with the show-trading thing. An artist might retort, "My interest is not in how much or how well you listen, my interest is in controlling the presentation of my music." Therein the interests of fan and musician quite naturally diverge. Like couples in love, artists and fans are in a symbiotic relationship that involves both deriving advantage from one another and looking after one another's welfare, and the line between them is often an area of conflict.

[relyles]

AND before anyone thinks otherwise - I had nothing to do with the problems they are having.

It was actually Nirvana:

Howdy again, folks.

The fax just came in a couple of minutes ago.

The offender was torrent # 30630, NIRVANA 08/30/1992 Reading Festival

Complete PRO Shot DVD. In particular the title "Smells like Teen

Spirit", rightowner: Universal, claimed through Universal Music GmbH,

Germany, and pro MediaGmbH (exclusive partner of IFPI in Germany).