Disallowing taping & trading is financial suicide

[Jim Alfredson]

Of course not. I was aiming my sentiment at people that spend more time and money amassing recordings than going to shows. This is not true of pop musicians, but it is definitely true of jazz musicians and it has been stated on this thread already... and that is:

Jazz musicians make their money by playing LIVE. When you don't come to see them when they are in your town and instead spend that $20 on CDs by them, they don't earn as much (if any) money from that. If you like their music, go see them play live. Support live music.

[JSngry]

No argument here, just a bit of chain-yankin' from somebody who feels your pain. Laughing to keep from crying, as it were...

[Soul Stream]

I don't dig people feeling they have a RIGHT to tape musician's live shows. To me, it comes from the same mentality that folks shouldn't have to pay a cover to see a band, hence the tip-jar mentality we live in today.

[JSngry]

Hey - the tip-jar is an "idea", so we don't even have the right to that!

[Michael Fitzgerald]

As far as I'm concerned, the tip jar is for background music (I know, I know - an insult if ever there was one, but....) - if I'm going out for dinner and there's a pianist playing in the corner - NOT on stage - and I didn't buy a ticket, then a tip jar is perfectly appropriate. I'd certainly hope the guy is getting *something* from the owner, of course.

And I have left restaurants after walking in and realizing that there would be live music there. If I'm going to hear something, it's not going to be by accident.

Now, before this thread gets visciously yanked back on topic (drugs, India, Tom Jefferson....) may I inquire as to what happened to Tina?

Mike

[John B]

BUT - has anyone HEARD of these bands? Now, I'm not the most with-it hepcat but it looks to me like these are a bunch of local unknowns. Definitely not all - by no stretch - but a LARGE portion of the list.

←

I'd guess that more people in the U.S. have heard of many bands on this list than have heard of Tina Brooks. So what?

I skimmed through the list and saw many bands that are most likely local "unknowns," as you put it, but I also saw many, many bands that are signed to major label contracts.

[JSngry]

Tina's dad's a cop. She made it home perfectly safe and sound.

[John B]

I got no interest in these "jam bands" and I do NOT see them as dragging the rest of the music industry down the road with them. They're a particular hippy trippy corner of the world.

←

You have got to be kidding. This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have read on here in quite a while, and reminds me why I have stopped posting here.

"hippy trippy?" I'm guessing most jazz musicians would love to have the level of cd sales that the Grateful Dead, Phish and the Black Crowes experience.

That fact that you don't care for a genre of music has no bearing on the ability of artists to allow taping to a degree they are comfortable with as well as sell many copies of each album they record and release.

Out of curiosity: do you own any "grey label" live Miles or Coltrane discs? Any "unofficial" studio or live recordings by any jazz musicians at all?

Edited October 12, 2005 by John B

[Michael Fitzgerald]

My point was that the local unsigned groups are kind of "padding" the list.

Absolutely there are unknown jazz artists, but with Tina Brooks I could at least point to a dozen or more recordings (that have also been reissued) for a significant label as sideman and leader.

I also see now that the 1289 includes Taj Mahal - with this note: "Taj's taping policy is this: No recording of any live performance with out written permission." So gimme a break - *that's* allowing taping?

And then elsewhere there's stuff like this: "For right now I would like our shows to not be recorded because of the sinse of surprise that you get from a live show, I don't want that destroyed. On down the road we will but not right now on our first tour I would rather not. Thanks alot for getting the album and hope to see you at the show."

And "They do not allow soundboard or video taping anymore. Audience recording only should be listed on their regulations. Also pre 1997 recordings are not to be circulated/traded per order of the band."

So keep reducing that number.

I also see things listed with absolutely no supporting documentation. Um - this band allows taping because I say this band allows taping.

Mike

[RDK]

So when's Organissimo's NYC show gonna be up on Dime anyway?

[GregN]

"Fuck ownership of ideas."

You wanna tape it?  Bring your own gear and mics.

I don't worry too much about CD copying either.  It's going to happen and there's nothing I can do about it.  As long as people come to the shows and buy tickets, I don't care. 

←

Anybody have any suggestions for gear?

But seriously, board feeds sound like shit, generally. So, I can see why someone wouldn't want those floating around. I will also qualify further, Big O Records does allow taping in most cases. The venues must be cool with it, and not when we are taping a show of our own for purposes of makin' our own CD. So, Baker's is out. Plus, I don't know if the owner would want all those telescoping mini booms in the air.

These qualifications don't negate the general soundness of the marketing model.

Still not sure what MF is railin' against.

Greg

Big O Records

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I'm railing against the idea that the list that you posted is some kind of indicator as to the widespread acceptance of this concept by artists. It would be wonderful if there really were such a list with official info, but this ain't it. The more I look at it, the more problems I see with it.

And because it exists and it's on the internet, people will believe it.

Mike

[GregN]

I'm railing against the idea that the list that you posted is some kind of indicator as to the widespread acceptance of this concept by artists. It would be wonderful if there really were such a list with official info, but this ain't it. The more I look at it, the more problems I see with it.

And because it exists and it's on the internet, people will believe it.

Mike

←

Forest for the trees...

You desire an official list? That is funny. Anyhow, I think it appears to be a very honest and frank list. It indicates who allows taping and who doesn't. Obviously, the list of who does, is quite large. By all accounts, this list is a bit dated, and yet, with the growing jam band scene it is an economic model worth considering. This is the third time I've mentioned the model. Maybe it is the fourth. You tell me.

Anyhow, the main question once again, and please consider it directly, is whether it's a viable model for bands for increased exposure and subsequent increased revenue, (and if it could benefit artists outside of the jam band scene). Many jazz artists seem to think so. Metheny is one of them.

Mose Allison is not. Why have they decided differently? Is Metheny merely weak? Or does his particular product better fit the model? Or Is Mose old fashioned and woefully behind the times?

These are the essential questions.

Nit pickin' diverts.

Edited October 12, 2005 by GregN

[RDK]

There does seem to be a generation gap thing going on between the "allows" and "not allows" groups, and I suspect this gap will only increase. No surprise that the "kids" are more open to taping/trading and that the majority (?) of older jazz cats are not. But as they say, you can't unring a bell, and I suspect that the digital distribution of music, whether legit or "bootleg," will only become more widespread... whether the artists wish it to or not. I think the "smarter" artists will try to embrace it in some way and use it to their advantage.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

What's so funny about an official list? If we aren't talking about official, authorized, take-it-to-the-bank (or the judge) permissions, then it's all bullshit.

Here you go again with your "many jazz artists" - how are you backing that up?

I will grant you Metheny

<http://www.patmethenygroup.com/pmg/qa/questionView.cfm?queID=317>

and Charlie Hunter <http://www.charliehunter.com/setlists/tapingpolicy.html>

Scofield, no - not on jazz gigs.

So where's this "many"?

Mike

[GregN]

What's so funny about an official list? If we aren't talking about official, authorized, take-it-to-the-bank (or the judge) permissions, then it's all bullshit.

Here you go again with your "many jazz artists" - how are you backing that up?

I will grant you Metheny

<http://www.patmethenygroup.com/pmg/qa/questionView.cfm?queID=317>

and Charlie Hunter <http://www.charliehunter.com/setlists/tapingpolicy.html>

Scofield, no - not on jazz gigs.

So where's this "many"?

Mike

←

"What's so funny about an official list? If we aren't talking about official, authorized, take-it-to-the-bank (or the judge) permissions, then it's all bullshit."

Then it is ALL bullshit? Wow. That is some crystal ball you have there. Let's us see, this unofficial site links official websites in several cases. The official websites indicate liberal taping policy. So, in those cases it wouldn't be "bullshit". So your universal quantifier "all" is off. See two people can play this game of yours. See how silly it is? Problem is, I am better equipped for it. Now,

for the last time. How is the model itself flawed?

Btw, add Bruce Hornsby, Jim Alfredson, and Joe Gloss to the list of those who allow taping within certain restrictions. Man, without even trying I am approaching 'several'. What constitutes many anyhow? Oh I know, you are going to call one of the above not a real jazz musician, and subsequently believe you are negating the main premise.

This list is interesting

Btw, there is a search engine at the other site. You can search for jazz musicians. There looks to be many. But you can go nitpik and state you've never heard of any of them, therefore, they aren't relevant (or some similiar nonsense akin to what you put forth earlier).

Mike, your karate is no match for my kung fu.

Now for absolutely the last time:

How is the model itself flawed?

[GregN]

There does seem to be a generation gap thing going on between the "allows" and "not allows" groups, and I suspect this gap will only increase.  No surprise that the "kids" are more open to taping/trading and that the majority (?) of older jazz cats are not.  But as they say, you can't unring a bell, and I suspect that the digital distribution of music, whether legit or "bootleg," will only become more widespread... whether the artists wish it to or not.  I think the "smarter" artists will try to embrace it in some way and use it to their advantage.

←

Right on. I concur. And by the way, nice points.

[GregN]

Some more jazz or at least jazzy artists who allow or have allowed taping:

MMW

Melvin Sparks

Bela Fleck

Oteil

Anyhow,

Aw Heck This Site Looks Almost Official

[johnagrandy]

Aw Heck This Site Looks Almost Official

←

There's hellof serious jazzmen and jazz influenced artists on that list ... all I gotta do is scan it:

Charlie Hunter

Critters Buggin' (Skerik)

David Grisman Quintet + David Grisman and Denny Zeitlin duo

Deep Banana Blackout (members on Scofield albums and tours)

Derek Truks Band

Dirty Dozen Brass Band

Fred Jacob Jazz Odyssey

Funky Meters (Zigaboo Modeliste, Art Neville, and the soul of New Orleans)

Galactic (Stanton Moore, Skerik)

Garage A Trois (Hunter, Skerik, Dillon, Moore)

Gov't Mule (again, Sco gets involved)

John Scofield

Karl Denson's Tiny Universe

Mark Ribot

Martin Medeski and Wood

Pat Metheny

Stanton Moore (the hardest workin' drummer in music)

RatDog (Jay Lane, Kenny Brooks)

Skerik -- don't tell me Skerik ain't a jazz musician 'cause you simply don't know your music if you say that

Soul Coughin' (again, Sco ... )

Spearhead (Michael Franti)

Sun Ra

Trey Anastasio Band

Will Bernard 4tet, Will Bernard and Motherbug

And I'll bet money that all of the following people are fully onboard: Josh Roseman, Steve Bernstein and the rest of Sex Mob, Peter Apfelbaum, John Ellis, Broun Fellinis, Dave Ellis, Benny Green, Craig Handy, John Schott, Scott Amendola ... actually, I'll bet any jazzman originally from Berkeley is onboard ... except for Josh Redman who is a big question mark. C'mon Josh, take a stand one way or the other !

Edited October 13, 2005 by johnagrandy

[JSngry]

How is the model itself flawed?

←

I for one don't think it is, not intrinsically. Not if it's part of an overall plan that willingly trades off Potential Income A for Potential Income B, and not if fans respect the plan and carry their weight when it comes to providing Income B. If that doesn't happen, and all the artist is left with is the loss of Potential Income A, then there's a problem.

It's also up to "the fans" to respect the fact that some artists, for any number of reasons (personal, artistic, and/or professional), might not want to go this route, and to judge the music of such artists on its own merits, not stygmatize them because of their attitude towards taping. Any "fan" who prefers one artist to another simply because they can "get more stuff" from them is probably not a serious music fan anyway, but still...

Hey - it's a relatively new system, but it's a system nevertheless. As such, there's no reason whatsoever not to find a way to work it to your advantage. And if anybody is naive enough to think that somebody like Scofield is doing what he's doing entirely for some abstract, altrusitic reason(s), I've got an autographed copy of the Bolden cylinder that you can have for a very reasonable price.

[Jim Alfredson]

It's also up to "the fans" to respect the fact that some artists, for any number of reasons (personal, artistic, and/or professional), might not want to go this route, and to judge the music of such artists on its own merits, not stygmatize them because of their attitude towards taping. Any "fan" who prefers one artist to another simply because they can "get more stuff" from them is probably not a serious music fan anyway, but still...

←

Yep.

[johnagrandy]

How is the model itself flawed?

←

And if anybody is naive enough to think that somebody like Scofield is doing what he's doing entirely for some abstract, altrusitic reason(s), I've got an autographed copy of the Bolden cylinder that you can have for a very reasonable price.

←

Fast reverse back to March 2000 when "Bump" was released and Sco hit the jam band circuit ...

At that time, Sco was already well-established as a major league jazz artist in the upper echelon: big audiences, Fri Sat sellout, almost anywhere. Even without the financial responsibility of leading a band, he could have done studio work for high-selling artists, played all-star jazz groups and festivals forever.

Already done the fusion thing for years, huge crowds in huge venues. Many recordings under his name with nice royalties.

So, it's very clear to me that Sco had the luxury of making a decision NOT based on money. Certainly only a few have that luxury, but it's still a decision to make.

I believe Sco wanted to be more relevant to youth. And it was a decision not without risks:

Sco almost always puts into his improvs a friendly, down-to-earth vibe, ingrained with a deep understanding of the human condition ... a sort of "How do I get from this day to the next without compromising who I am and continue to be a positive person?".

That vibe isn't necessarily what's going on in the jam-band scene.

More importantly, at the time of "Bump" Sco decided to go completely sober. He even put it on the CD liner notes: he said it was a personal decision that everyone must make on their own, but he had decided against all drugs and alcohol.

He said in interviews that smoking weed was an obsession that he believes would have eventually killed him.

Somewhat of a radical statement to make if you're going to play for jam-band audiences. That scene is full of party drugs and hallucinogenics. A lot of the music is derived from and is meant to mesh with altered states.

With the above in mind, I don't see how what Sco did can be viewed as financial opportunism.

[Jim R]

A lot of the music is derived from and is meant to mesh with altered states.

←

Kind of like this thread?

[Jim Alfredson]

John, with all due respect... I think Sco's decision to get into the jamband scene was because his collaboration with MMW on "A Go Go" was the biggest selling album in his career.

Pretty simple, really.

[JSngry]

I don't see how what Sco did can be viewed as financial opportunism.

←

In the world of the non-absolutists (of which there are many!), there is plenty of room between pure altruism and pure "financial opportunism".

And besides, what is wanting to be, as you say, "more relevant to youth" other than a strategy to both keep in touch with the energy and vitality of youth and a good way to build a solid audience base for the future? It's no secret that "middle aged" and older folks usually end up spending less time going out to hear live music, and, the loons of the type represented in fora like this (yours truly included!) excluded, recordings.

Who spends the money? Youth, mostly the under-45 age group. How old is Scofield? How old is the average fan of his fusion and straight-ahead stuff? And how old is the jam-band crowd?

You can kid yourself all you want, but if Scofield didn't see a long-term gain out of this strategy, I don't think he'd be pursuing it like he is. Which is not to say that there's anything insincere or calculating about his music. Quite the contrary - I suspect that it's because he digs playing it so much that he's looking to create a viable business strategy to keep it going. If he couldn't, yeah, I think he'd keep doing it, but not as his main vehicle. Lots of cats have "labor of love" gigs that they do with the full knowledge upfront that the money ain't gonna be there. But all save the purest of the pure (god bless'em) don't do anything else but scuffle.

Do you really think that he would be doing this if the future looked to be one of never showing a profit, or at least breaking even? Like you said, the man definitely has options as to what kind of music he plays (and what kind of music he can make money off of). If the choice was exclusively between cultivating the jam band scene for the next five years and going broke or playing fusion for the next five years and making a livable income, with no other choices in between, what do you think he'd do? Seriously, what do you think he would do?

Fortunately, those aren't the exclusive choices, and fortunately he can pursue multiple avenues while earning a decent wage. More power to him and his multi-faceted talent, and more power to the people who put money in his pocket, now and in the years ahead!

Edited October 13, 2005 by JSngry