So, What Are You Listening To NOW?

[Referentzhunter]

[Pim]

1 hour ago, Niko said:

it's not a PD label, and the justification for that record being out there is not "PD in Europe" (which would be relevant if it was a reissue of something issued before 1962) but rather that the tape is licensed from the radio station that recorded it (RBB in that case). I have no idea what the rules for releasing something like this are... but I would assume that they depend at least partly on the contract Getz signed with them in the 1960s... 

edit: also note how it says "distributed by SONY" on the backcover... not a PD label... 

thanks for clearing that up. I always thought it was a legit label and this confirms it. 

[Kevin Bresnahan]

1 hour ago, Niko said:

it's not a PD label, and the justification for that record being out there is not "PD in Europe" (which would be relevant if it was a reissue of something issued before 1962) but rather that the tape is licensed from the radio station that recorded it (RBB in that case). I have no idea what the rules for releasing something like this are... but I would assume that they depend at least partly on the contract Getz signed with them in the 1960s... 

edit: also note how it says "distributed by SONY" on the backcover... not a PD label... 

A contract signed for a recording being made for radio broadcast is just that... they had the legal right to broadcast it over the air. Those contractual rights don't mysteriously become "We can do whatever we want with this tape". If Stan Getz's estate i.e. Bev Getz, hasn't been compensated for a commercial release of this, then it likely isn't legit.

No matter though - it's certainly not legal for sale here in the US at all, as Getz was under contract with Verve in 1966. Have we all forgotten the fiasco around the Monk "Palo Alto" release, where Impulse! tried releasing it without getting a release from his record label of the time? Same thing here.

Michael Cuscuna & I talked about this label quite a bit and he acknowledged (as I do) that many are important musical artifacts that should be heard. But he was also very aware of how many of these labels like Lost Recordings release stuff like this without any compensation to the artists, which he felt was very wrong.

 

@Chuck Nessa - Do you know if a contract to broadcast a performance extends to a commercial release of the recording?

[JSngry]

5 minutes ago, Holy Ghost said:

On this Night, yeah! Historically and great music, love Fire Music and Four for Trane, but I like the Shepp Impulse!'s that fly under the radar, like For Losers, Live in San Francisco, Attica Blues, and Mama Too Tight. The Savoy material with Bill Dixon should be made more readily available (have the Atlantic/Savoy issue of Shepp/Dixon 7tette/Cont 5, but not the quartet issue , which is some gray-area issue).

For Losers is one of the great adult darkness concept albums ever. Like Only The Lonely for trapped Black Jazz Musicians.

 

[Holy Ghost]

4 minutes ago, JSngry said:

For Losers is one of the great adult darkness concept albums ever. Like Only The Lonely for trapped Black Jazz Musicians.

 

Still unraveling everything inside this record. Deeeeeep album. The music is just the surface, just the segue of what was bubbling underneath. Incredible document of where "intellectual" jazz was heading in 1970.

PS: No slip to Miles as "New Directions" needed to go in it's direction (a direction I like too!)

[JSngry]

I'll go to the mat for that record. But a lot of people don't like it so much.

[Holy Ghost]

3 minutes ago, JSngry said:

I'll go to the mat for that record. But a lot of people don't like it so much.

I'm in. Powerful record.  

[HutchFan]

NP:

with an unbelievable lineup: Geri Allen, Steve Swallow, Eddie Gomez, and Jack DeJohnette

 

[HutchFan]

[Niko]

1 hour ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

A contract signed for a recording being made for radio broadcast is just that... they had the legal right to broadcast it over the air. Those contractual rights don't mysteriously become "We can do whatever we want with this tape". If Stan Getz's estate i.e. Bev Getz, hasn't been compensated for a commercial release of this, then it likely isn't legit.

No matter though - it's certainly not legal for sale here in the US at all, as Getz was under contract with Verve in 1966. Have we all forgotten the fiasco around the Monk "Palo Alto" release, where Impulse! tried releasing it without getting a release from his record label of the time? Same thing here.

Michael Cuscuna & I talked about this label quite a bit and he acknowledged (as I do) that many are important musical artifacts that should be heard. But he was also very aware of how many of these labels like Lost Recordings release stuff like this without any compensation to the artists, which he felt was very wrong.

 

@Chuck Nessa - Do you know if a contract to broadcast a performance extends to a commercial release of the recording?

I'm not saying that I know that everything here is legally fine - how would I know... All I'm saying is 1) this has nothing to do with the European PD deadlines etc because there was no previous issue. 2) Unlike in the case of Palo Alto, this was no tape that someone secretly made. There was a contract regulating what can be done with the recording - and without access to that specific contract, we can only guess. 3) The mistake in the Palo Alto disaster was that they didn't contact Monk's label where he had an exclusive contract, not that they didn't contact his family (who were involved but apparently useless in figuring out the legal situation). 4) Despite the Palo Alto disaster, the fact that this is a release from a division of a major label gives me more confidence than if it was one of those PD labels out of Andorra or the like...

[HutchFan]

[Peter Friedman]

[jazzcorner]

3 hours ago, Niko said:

I'm not saying that I know that everything here is legally fine - how would I know... All I'm saying is 1) this has nothing to do with the European PD deadlines etc because there was no previous issue. 2) Unlike in the case of Palo Alto, this was no tape that someone secretly made. There was a contract regulating what can be done with the recording - and without access to that specific contract, we can only guess. 3) The mistake in the Palo Alto disaster was that they didn't contact Monk's label where he had an exclusive contract, not that they didn't contact his family (who were involved but apparently useless in figuring out the legal situation). 4) Despite the Palo Alto disaster, the fact that this is a release from a division of a major label gives me more confidence than if it was one of those PD labels out of Andorra or the like...

At least as printed in the booklet RBB had a copyright (p) 1966. Whether this was only for  the broadcast at that time is not mentioned or clarified.

'The Lost Recordings'  (french label ---> see Discogs) has copyrights (p) & (c)  2021 for remastered edition. Its on mailorder service so it may be available in the US too.

[HutchFan]

Django in his pomp.

 

[Gheorghe]

On 8/4/2025 at 11:53 PM, gmonahan said:

Found this little oddity at the Paris Jazz Corner when I visited a couple of weeks back (I love that little store!). Despite some pretty short timings, there's some nice work from Hal McKusick, Al Cohn, Jimmy Cleveland, and others.

 

love the cover. My new girlfried "Miss RA" to whom I dedicated a composition which will be on my next album (out early 2026) and SHE wore that kind of pantyhose on our second date (naturally at a jazz club), on that date in the night of July 1st she also came with me at home to my place and "after it" 🤩😎😄😋, SHE set down at my  piano and started to play around with some phrase which became  the basis  for that special tune !......what more can a musician wish ??????? 

[JSngry]

To get paid, for one thing.