Hey Kids, Have You Heard The News? MOSAIC's IN TROUBLE!!!

[JSngry]

My Jamal set arrived today. Looking forward to really taking my time with it. Certainly not music to be digested in large quatities in a concentrated time span,

Now...

If we're going to discuss what Michael Cuscuna "said" about Mosaic and downloads, let's discuss what he actually did say: http://www.stereophile.com/content/survivalists-mosaic-and-newvelle-records#FCfZl8yueoAEbm51.97

Cuscuna says, with more than a hint of sarcasm, that it took until 1989 for the major labels to grant Mosaic the right to press CDs, because "they were new and were saving the business."

He's now facing the same predicament with MP3s and high-resolution downloads. "The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

While digital technology is a godsend for rescuing old or compromised source material, the future of CDs is another matter. Does Cuscuna plan to keep releasing massive CD sets like the eight-CD Classic 1936–1947 Count Basie and Lester Young Studio Sessions? "I think CDs will continue, and will be the last physical way to transport music, to disseminate music. I don't think that our generation is going to get beyond the CD. And when the CD goes, I don't think I'll be around—it will last as long as I do.

 

Ok, parse that anyway you want. I look at it like "never" is only never until...but until until, never is never.

And as far as never goes...since Mosaic only owns the rights to the Parker/Benedetti material, what happens when Cuscuna and/or Wenzel get sick, fragile (physically and/or mentally), or any other sircumstance that renders them basically incapable of running this business? There's undoubtedly a legal agreement in place, but if never becomes until if and when the next generation on both sides of the bargaining are in place, who's going to be there for Mosaic? Doesn't sound like it's going to be Michael Cuscuna? And objectively, does Scott Wenzel seem like the type of guy whose driving force is safely guiding something like a set of Rosemary Clooney transcriptions into the post-physical product era?

Finally - I've lost track of where it all stands now, but when EMI was sold, how did that affect the partial ownership of Mosaic by Capitol? Is there still a "major label" legally attached to the Mosaic business structure in any way?

If I'm following the trail correctly ( a big if...), Blue Note was folded into EMI Classics, which is now Warner Classics? Does that mean that Warner Classics now holds a 50% ownership stake in Mosaic, or did somebody pay somebody else to be rid of that, recently or otherwise?

As it relates to downloads, it seems, that there is no real need to give those rights to Mosaic unless Mosaic gets rebranded as Warner Classics Classic Jazz Download Central, in which case, why would they get cooperation from BMG/Sony?

In a perfect world, it would all last forever. But if it all lasted forever, would we have embraced Mosaic so fully in the first place?

OTOH, Mosiac coud become the new Savoy, focus on some sorely needed comprehensive and respectful Gospel sets and do that thing for a while. But Malaco already got that ground covered about as well as it's going to get covered.

Until...

[WarpedOrb]

@ElginThompson I've been into jazz for a while now but I know nothing about Ahmed Jamal besides his name, maybe that's the case with others; however, I looked into this after yr post & it sounds like a good box.

@ArtSalt  39 big boxes in about 12 years sounds like you've done pretty good to me  –  I have 42 IF I include 16 Selects and four singles. Three Commodores, two other big boxes, and two selects I bought here in town, but the rest I got from mosaic directly. I never once, since 2004 paid customs duty. The $20-$25 Canadian for shipping is a little steep, but isn't bad considering the size and "dimensional weight" of these things. It depends on the company. I hesitate to order movies from the Criterion Collection or Amazon.com because I will pay big for import. On the other hand I often order movies from Eureka! in the UK and not only do I not pay customs but shipping is free worldwide – it's an uneven world out there. 

Digital downloads will always be a compromise in my book but certainly better than nothing; however, you can pretty much do that now for hundreds of great jazz albums. The one or two I've heard sound pretty darn good but are about as special to me as listening to something on YouTube 

Edited May 9, 2017 by WarpedOrb

[lipi]

Cuscuna's argument makes no sense--it didn't make sense ten pages ago (or was it in the deleted thread?), and it does not make sense now.

"The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

There is no difference between Mosaic's creating a CD set and Mosaic's creating a downloadable set when it comes to the label's being able to take it all and dump it into iTunes/Amazon/Bandcamp/... after. The same mechanism that protects the label's interests right now (limited number of sales and limited time of sale) can be used for downloadable content.

If the labels had any plans to release their back catalogue digitally imminently, then they'd have a reason to not grant the rights to a third party like Mosaic, but absolutely nothing points in that direction.

My, incredibly negative, outlook on it all is that Mosaic is, sadly, stuck in the 20th century, and that the people running it are as out of touch with modern technology as the major labels were five years ago (or perhaps still are?), and as most of the people posting on this board seem to be. (And that's totally OK! We don't all have to jump on the new bandwagon. It's OK to prefer vinyl, or CD's, or weird high-fidelity cables made of moonrock. It's OK to not quite know (or care about) the difference between MP3, AAC, ALAC, and WAV. But it's shortsighted to complain that the old ways are no longer working without fully understanding the new. In other words: I don't think any of this is really a business problem: it's a technology/generational one. Here's hoping I didn't just start a massive flame war. I love you all, you're all dear to me, <3, etc. etc.)

[Scott Dolan]

"He's now facing the same predicament with MP3s and high-resolution downloads. "The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

That essentially reads as how he sees any potential conversation over download licensing rights playing out. Not that the conversation ever actually took place. 

They could have just as easily taken the exact same route with ANY of their property. 

The closing statement says it all. He doesn't "think" "our generation" will get beyond the CD. I guess he wants to be seen as a proud buggywhip maker, but why be so wishy-washy about it? 

[jazzbo]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

 

Finally - I've lost track of where it all stands now, but when EMI was sold, how did that affect the partial ownership of Mosaic by Capitol? Is there still a "major label" legally attached to the Mosaic business structure in any way?

If I'm following the trail correctly ( a big if...), Blue Note was folded into EMI Classics, which is now Warner Classics? Does that mean that Warner Classics now holds a 50% ownership stake in Mosaic, or did somebody pay somebody else to be rid of that, recently or otherwise?

 

Just a note to say that Blue Note is part of Universal, did not go to Warner.

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, jazzbo said:

Just a note to say that Blue Note is part of Universal, did not go to Warner.

I was never aware of all the mergers and acquisitions that have obviously taken place. So are Universal and Warner essentially the only two real parent companies left? 

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

I was never aware of all the mergers and acquisitions that have obviously taken place. So are Universal and Warner essentially the only two real parent companies left? 

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

[WarpedOrb]

@lipi We love you too, man. Haha. I don't know, for me running off into the bright new future with digital is to be a dupe of the corporations. They have far more control over your music when it's digital than when it's physical, but maybe I'm being paranoid. I just know new has panned out over and over again to not always mean "best". Also, when I go into a records store it's packed with 20-somethings buying vinyl. I agree with you though, a company must be willing and able to adapt to new trends. Speaking of corporations it's interesting that you used ALAC as an example instead of the open-sourced FLAC. Corporate dupe! 

Now I admit I don't want to jettison my large collection of vinyl and CDs collected over many years, but I'm not stuck in the 20th century. I have a Bryston digital-player and DAC collecting dust...so I'm ready if need be. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by WarpedOrb

[Scott Dolan]

What do you mean when you say the corporations have more control over your music when it's digital? 

[JSngry]

I don't know that the phrase "it's their feeling that..." is indicative of a supposition,.or a potential conversation. I've observed Cuscuna for years and seen him be a passionate, aggressive advocate, but never an outright fake news propagandist. So I feel solid about an actual conversation (or more) actually having taken place. How recent that conversation was, or how aggressively the point was pursued, I would not dare to speculate.

As for the present (and thank you, Lon, for supplying accurate information), does anybody know if the Universal/EMI/Capitol partnership still exists? Perhaps more relevantly, does anybody know (that that any of us need to know) the details, like, is their a buyout clause that either party can execute, or any other way to dissolve the partnership if it's not yet been dissolved?

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

Ah, yes. Sony. Duh. 

In my defense, I actually am a blonde...

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

Yes, remember the Mosaic Dreams of all the possibilities of RCA & Columbia now having the same rights holders?

Those were good dreams...

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I don't know that the phrase "it's their feeling that..." is indicative of a supposition,.or a potential conversation. I've observed Cuscuna for years and seen him be a passionate, aggressive advocate, but never an outright fake news propagandist. So I feel solid about an actual conversation (or more) actually having taken place. How recent that conversation was, or how aggressively the point was pursued, I would not dare to speculate.

As for the present (and thank you, Lon, for supplying accurate information), does anybody know if the Universal/EMI/Capitol partnership still exists? Perhaps more relevantly, does anybody know (that that any of us need to know) the details, like, is their a buyout clause that either party can execute, or any other way to dissolve the partnership if it's not yet been dissolved?

No, no! I wasn't accusing him of anything of the sort. Just pointing out that the language is purely speculative in nature. 

And as I said, his closing statement tells me it's not a conversation he's willing to entertain. Let alone whether the labels would. 

Instead of concrete statements, he leaves everything rather ambiguous. 

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[lipi]

1 hour ago, WarpedOrb said:

[The corporations] have far more control over your music when it's digital than when it's physical, but maybe I'm being paranoid. I just know new has panned out over and over again to not always mean "best". Also, when I go into a records store it's packed with 20-somethings buying vinyl. I agree with you though, a company must be willing and able to adapt to new trends. Speaking of corporations it's interesting that you used ALAC as an example instead of the open-sourced FLAC. Corporate dupe! 

Re: more control: that's actually an excellent example of the kind of possible misunderstanding I was thinking of when I pointed out that one must truly understand new technology to be able to usefully critique it. I suspect you are mixing issues of DRM and Cloud storage into the more basic difference between CD and download media. A non-DRM-ed download saved on a local disk is just(*) as owned as a CD. It is not controlled by the seller anymore. ((*) It is (currently, in the USA) not re-sellable, so if that's your concern, it is valid. The first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. See Capitol v. ReDigi, 2013.)

Re: new not always meaning best: by the same token, old has not always meant best, either. I am not arguing that downloads are better than CD's (regardless of what I may personally believe). I am arguing that most of the arguments given against them in this thread have been baloney. An analogy to annoy and elucidate: to debate landline-vs-cell-phone, one must understand both sides. If you've never used a cell phone, or if the only cell phone you've used is the Motorola suitcase of the late 80's, then you will be unable to provide a whole lot of useful input. (Generic "you".)

Re: ALAC: Hah! Guilty as charged? I jumped on ALAC because FLAC support was poor on the Mac at the time, and now I'm happily ensconced in ALAC. The list was obviously not meant to be exhaustive. WMA? AIFF? (Ogg) Vorbis? (Cue discussion about the difference between an encoding and a file format.)

[Scott Dolan]

59 minutes ago, lipi said:

Re: more control: that's actually an excellent example of the kind of possible misunderstanding I was thinking of when I pointed out that one must truly understand new technology to be able to usefully critique it. I suspect you are mixing issues of DRM and Cloud storage into the more basic difference between CD and download media. A non-DRM-ed download saved on a local disk is just(*) as owned as a CD. It is not controlled by the seller anymore. ((*) It is (currently, in the USA) not re-sellable, so if that's your concern, it is valid. The first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. See Capitol v. ReDigi, 2013.)

Re: new not always meaning best: by the same token, old has not always meant best, either. I am not arguing that downloads are better than CD's (regardless of what I may personally believe). I am arguing that most of the arguments given against them in this thread have been baloney. An analogy to annoy and elucidate: to debate landline-vs-cell-phone, one must understand both sides. If you've never used a cell phone, or if the only cell phone you've used is the Motorola suitcase of the late 80's, then you will be unable to provide a whole lot of useful input. (Generic "you".)

Re: ALAC: Hah! Guilty as charged? I jumped on ALAC because FLAC support was poor on the Mac at the time, and now I'm happily ensconced in ALAC. The list was obviously not meant to be exhaustive. WMA? AIFF? (Ogg) Vorbis? (Cue discussion about the difference between an encoding and a file format.)

Well now, let's not let the cat out of the bag that MP3 isn't the only digital codec out there. Or that all the others are superior to it.  

As for DRM, that died a very quite death about a decade ago. 

[JSngry]

Again, I don't see the phrase "it's their feeling that..." as in anyway speculative. It is their feeling, not "probably" their feeling, or "I suspect their feeling is" or I've heard that their feeling is" or anything like that. It is their feeling. That's not ambiguous.

Again, as far as how current that "is" is, I can't say, because he doesn't. Perhaps he tried, failed and gave up. Or maybe he had another crack at it six months ago. Hell if I know. That's ambiguous, at best.

[Scott Dolan]

Alright, I'll concede the point. 

The rest stands, though. I seriously doubt Mr. Cuscuna has the slightest interest in pursuing the point. Hey, fair enough, right? 

Sometimes you reach a point in your life/career where you just say, "fuck you. This is the best buggywhip in the business. Buy it, or don't. But I ain't interested in making no goddamn spark plugs." 

Rest in peace. You've earned it. 

Edited May 10, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

My hunch is that he had a hunger for it at one time, that it didn't go well, and then he figured, hey, by the time this is doable, I'll be too old, so oh well, I tried.

Which is I'd really like to know what if any line of succession there is for this company, or if their even is one. As well as where that 50% ownership by Blue Note stands today.

IIf Mosiac folds, how does it fold on paper? And if it floats, who's gonna make sure there's water in the lake?

[WarpedOrb]

No I wasn't thinking of DRM; I was thinking of all the ways digital can be controlled, directly or indirectly now and in the future in ways that can't be envisioned at the present. A digital entity can be "captured", monitored, and controlled in many ways. It's all about control. I don't necessarily have a preference in sound quality either in the sense that I enjoy music on all the formats.

Look at self-driving cars. Once they are ubiquitous human drivers will slowing be pushed off the road - I have a feeling you call that progress  Even now we've seen that a modern car can be located and turned off by law-enforcement. The digital age has meant many good things, but it's also been a slow erosion of personal freedoms and an increased ability of those in power to control populations. In an ideal world that would not be a concern, but this world ain't that.

I'm no conspiracy nut, but I think perhaps you're naive. But I'll allow I misunderstand a good deal of things. Thanks for putting it so nicely.

edit: sorry for stepping on toes by going way off-topic. I'll leave it there. Heck who cares what I think the future is going where it will. And I'll go there too one way or another. I just shake my head at folks who go all-in on a digital library and get rid of everything they collected (and I know a few). I'm heartened that vinyl is having a resurgence at least even though I don't collect vinyl in a big way. Peace.

Edited May 10, 2017 by WarpedOrb

[David Ayers]

Downloads - how quaint. Just remind me, were they before or after cassette? I get so confused about 20th century models of music 'ownership'.

 

Seriously, since dozens of mosaics are already on streaming and download services, this is what the owners of that material already do. During the life of this thread I have streamed through much of the Hines, Threadgill and Rivers. Cuscuna was describing what already happens. 

 

 

[sidewinder]

Streaming is all very well - until the provider ups sticks and pulls the plug..

[GA Russell]

2 hours ago, sidewinder said:

Streaming is all very well - until the provider ups sticks and pulls the plug..

Exactly right.

[David Ayers]

I'm guessing if you guys entered Miss World you'd argue for world peace. Am I right?

 

[Clunky]

3 hours ago, GA Russell said:

Exactly right.

And no liner notes, personnel , recording dates etc. Even if a PDF is made available ( as with the Savory collection ) it's still a world of difference compared to having something physically in your hand.

I've no doubt the technology will mature and improve but for now round discs of shellac, vinyl or silvered disc rule, ok.

[Daniel A]

Hi folks!

I guess I can't really envision the risk of "going digital" leading to total surveillance of my music listening. I agree with those who look upon a downloads more or less as antiquated as compact discs. They just represent two different means of storing a data file, of which the CD is easily the least durable. A cload storage solution is infinitely less susceptible to data loss than a layer of aluminium on a plastic disc.

Now, this distinction is partly becoming obsolete as streaming has all but replaced legal downloading, except for niche markets like hi-resolution files. There will always be artists and albums, especially for a jazz fan, not available on many or any streaming services. To the extent that LP, CD, reel-to-reel playback and so on is not feasible, we're left to transfer our outdated media to some suitable digital platform on our own. Since there's now a royalty mechanism for YouTube (although I don't know how well it works) there may be some collective effort (compare to discogs.com) where we could all upload our private transfers of OOP LP:s and whatnot to a big cloud from which everything can be streamed. If the title is the digital equivalent of "in print", the "offical" version is streamed and appropriate lincence fees are being paid. If the title is not officially available some kind of arbitrary royalty/licence mechanism will be used. I'm not saying this is better for the artists, better for the industry or even better for the consumers compared to the "old" model, but it's a possible development.

It seems that the LP cover/CD booklet is a big factor for old-school music listerners (like myself), just like there's still a market for printed magazines. I expect this to change. There will be functional and inexpensive digital solutions for displaying text and pictures. The annual production of paper today exceeds 400 million tonnes, which doesn't seem like a sustainable use of natural resources.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Daniel A
sp