proper reissues

[reg]

after reading clementine's reply on the thread Blue Harlem it's made me wonder if i should really still be buying stuff from Proper. it's so cheap and a lot of their boxsets give a great overview to the artists, esp from the 40's. but the whole copyright issue is starting to be a big problem for me.

any thoughts?

[J.A.W.]

There's been some discussion on cheap labels like Proper, JSP, etc. in other threads. I choose not to buy from labels that seem to "borrow" their remasterings.

[couw]

There's been some discussion on cheap labels like Proper, JSP, etc. in other threads. I choose not to buy from labels that seem to "borrow" their remasterings.

but does Proper borrow? I think that is the question here. The answer is surely yes in some, but certainly not in all cases.

A set like the "Swing Tanzen Verboten!" one, is highly unlikely to be a rip off of other sources, I should think, and a good buy if you want some obscure European music from Nazi times, with an interesting booklet to go with that. Other sets plainly reek of dark business, stealing masters elsewhere, going through the trouble of "touching them up" to make them sound like original, own mastering jobs. Then again I have read (here? elsewhere?) that although a Mosaic rip-off on the surface, judging merely by track title, a certain Proper set turned out to be an original remaster after all; maybe I misread though.

[J.A.W.]

There's been some discussion on cheap labels like Proper, JSP, etc. in other threads. I choose not to buy from labels that seem to "borrow" their remasterings.

but does Proper borrow? I think that is the question here. The answer is surely yes in some, but certainly not in all cases.

A set like the "Swing Tanzen Verboten!" one, is highly unlikely to be a rip off of other sources, I should think, and a good buy if you want some obscure European music from Nazi times, with an interesting booklet to go with that. Other sets plainly reek of dark business, stealing masters elsewhere, going through the trouble of "touching them up" to make them sound like original, own mastering jobs. Then again I have read (here? elsewhere?) that although a Mosaic rip-off on the surface, judging merely by track title, a certain Proper set turned out to be an original remaster after all; maybe I misread though.

Well, even if they've only "borrowed" once, they're out as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for JSP, Definitive, etc.

[couw]

Well, even if they've only "borrowed" once, they're out as far as I'm concerned. Same goes for JSP, Definitive, etc.

ah yes, but that is the same harsh stand that would not allow you to enjoy LFCeline...

[advocate devil mode on]

Seriously, if Proper were the only source for a sought after item, and copyright law can hold nothing against it, what is the problem? That you would be subsidising other activities with that acquisition? That means that probably all Freshsound releases are a no-go as well. Does that also include the new talents series?

In case of some very legit reissues, knowing the larger labels are not very diligent in finding out whom to pay royalties to, would you not buy from them either?

There are bad people everywhere. One may as well look at Proper/Definitive/JSP as some sort of Robin Hood: stealing from the rich (the record companies who give a shite about the performers [not true in all cases of course, but we're in devil mode here]), and giving to the poor (the grossly over-spending, poor music fan).

[/advocate devil mode off]

I myself have not decided yet what my stance on this issue is exactly. I tend to hold off, just like Hans. BUT: I know I buy books written by bad people. I buy music performed by bad people (see thread elsewhere). So where is the line and why?

I got the Swing Tanzen verboten box because of my interest in this war time shite. That's the only Proper box on my shelves.

[J.A.W.]

You're absolutely right, it's impossible to draw the line, but buying Definitive, Proper, post-John R.T. Davies JSP (I have some JRTD-remastered JSP sets, and they're great), etc. just doesn't feel good, so I don't. Oh, and I never denied being inconsistent

[couw]

good, I'll be inconsistent at my own convenience without many qualms and without fearing the wrath of the JAW then...

My line runs quite close to yours I should think.

[RDK]

"Fuck Proper?" Geez, that's harsh.

Myself, I love Proper Boxes. They're one of the greatest jazz bargains out there. I've seen no cases (though I'm sure there are some; just not any I've personally run across) where they've "borrowed" masterings - details please! And there are more than a few sets where they're clearly not borrowing - note the Swing Tanzen box mentioned above.

Regarding the "stealing" of masterings, I'm not sure that it's illegal - or even unethical provided the rights holders are getting their cuts (which is, of course, questionable given 50+ year old recordings). It does suck in that it may make Mosaic (or Uptown for that matter) think twice about releasing things, but as far as I understand it given the differences between U.S. and European copyright laws, Proper is doing nothing "wrong."

[Chuck Nessa]

This message from me is copied from another thread.

Nobody ever addresses my major objection to the various copyright laws. Commercial concerns are the holders of the primary source materials. If they lose the incentive to protect these materials we have serious consequences. Why should BMG, Sony, etc (not to mention Delmark or Uptown) spend resources protecting these "artifacts" after 50 (or 75) years. These are our best sources of the art we supposedly love and are at risk because we want what we want NOW.

An example: For the early Mingus project we found the owners of Fentone and bought the original metal parts. These (some alternates still unissued) are taking up space in a rented area. Why spend this money if "it belongs to the world"? The parts would not have survived if we had not found them (and there is unissued stuff). Since the Uptown cd came out there are at least 2 European companies selling the product.

Much can be lost under this system. Fuck "legal".

The rights of income for the artist's heirs is another rant.

These stupid rules make intellectual creations less than "physical property". You can buy a house and pass it on forever. Why?

[Nate Dorward]

...as far as I understand it given the differences between U.S. and European copyright laws, Proper is doing nothing "wrong."

It's perfectly possible to do something (morally) wrong without doing something illegal. That Proper seem not to be breaking copyright law in their country don't mean that they're not doing anything ethically wrong.

I've been tempted by some of the boxes from these various companies but have so far avoided purchasing any.

[Brad]

Having been a Proper advocate for a long time and having read some recent threads is giving me pause. I think it will have to depend on the box in question and what I can find about it before I decide to take the plunge. However, I'm not sure I'd buy this blindly (not that I have that many of these). Of the ones I do, Bebop Spoken Here, Hawkins, Dex and Fats Navarro, I can't see that these were stolen from elsewhere. Also, the Sonny Stitt one seems to fall in that vein. It's a little disconcerting to say the least. The least I can say is that I studiously avoid Definitive since Chuck pointed out what they were doing a while back.

[JSngry]

Buy 1 Proper, and then burn 100 more!

[RDK]

Buy 1 Proper, and then burn 100 more!

Could the same argument be made for OOP Mosaics?

[JSngry]

Absolutely. Buy one, burn 100. Then give them away or trade them for other OOP items.

Nice try, Ray, but not nice enough!

[RDK]

Seriously, though, how do you think I developed my jones for in-print Mosaics in the first place?

That could be their new slogan: "Mosaic - the Gateway Drug..." B)

[JohnS]

I wouldn't go quite as far as to say fuck Proper. I don't have any and haven't been persuaded that I need one so far.

I'd definitely be a reluctant buyer. Fortunately I already have a lot of the stuff I'd be interested in on lp so that helps a lot in decision making.

[David Ayers]

Which Proper sets are ripped off? Any? Maybe I missed a trhead.

[White Lightning]

Which Proper sets are ripped off? Any? Maybe I missed a trhead.

Same here. Didn't know they are ripping off remastering. It is very surprising, considering the fact that most of the Proper sets I've listened to were very inconsistent sound quality wise.

Personally, I love Proper Boxes. they are bargain priced, have desent booklets and discography info, and sometimes they contain invaluable stuff. The Wardell Gray set, for example is great and it offers most of Grays unforgettable moments, including some rare airchecks.

I won't even go into the 50-75 years debate. suffice to say that in Israel, as well as in the EU, the 50 years period is the law. That's good enough for me.

[Brad]

David and Barak, you may want to check out the Blule Harlem Ike Quebec Proper thread for additional discussion and background on this issue.

[White Lightning]

David and Barak, you may want to check out the Blule Harlem Ike Quebec Proper thread for additional discussion and background on this issue.

Thank Brad. Will check it out.

[David Ayers]

Thanks Brad. Actually I saw this thread, but there is no direct claim that masterings were stolen. Clementine says (in this thread) that Proper used 'the work' of other companies in two cases, but does not list others and does not specify which work. Did they use the remasterings? Or did they just use the editorial concept?

The Propers I have are all remastered by them. They have put out some pretty convenient sets.

[neveronfriday]

Hm.

I have to admit that I'm and not sure which way to turn on this issue. I have always been for copyright control, but European copyright law seems ok to me. I'm not going to go into that here, but suffice it to say that I'm very weary of Americans trying to impose their view of things on us.

Very.

It's more a reflex than anything well thought-out.

What I have problems with is the ripping off of other people's remastering job, which often seems to be the case (see my Baker thread just below).

The real problem is that this "theft" gets me good music cheap. And I readily admit that a lot of ethical considerations have again and again flown out the window when I was confronted with a good-sounding CD at a fraction of the price asked by others. As an avid listener and a damn good customer of various music companies, I've gotten a bit tired of dishing out vast sums of money for products which, often, could be cheaper. I know this can be debated ad nauseam, but I can't shake the feeling that for a few years now, I've been ripped off. The argument that I can simply stop buying stuff if it's too expensive usually comes either from people who have enough cash to purchase the expensive version ...or who are just plain dumb (no offense intended). I'm a freak, and I jump on good offers first and think later. I think a lot of us collectors do that.

What am I saying?

Don't know really, but I'm buying some of this stuff, Definitive as well, because I can't afford the other stuff. It's legal here, so I don't have too many qualms about it ... just a bad conscience then and again.

Cheers!

[ajf67]

This message from me is copied from another thread.

Nobody ever addresses my major objection to the various copyright laws. Commercial concerns are the holders of the primary source materials. If they lose the incentive to protect these materials we have serious consequences. Why should BMG, Sony, etc (not to mention Delmark or Uptown) spend resources protecting these "artifacts" after 50 (or 75) years. These are our best sources of the art we supposedly love and are at risk because we want what we want NOW.

An example: For the early Mingus project we found the owners of Fentone and bought the original metal parts. These (some alternates still unissued) are taking up space in a rented area. Why spend this money if "it belongs to the world"? The parts would not have survived if we had not found them (and there is unissued stuff). Since the Uptown cd came out there are at least 2 European companies selling the product.

Much can be lost under this system. Fuck "legal".

The rights of income for the artist's heirs is another rant.

These stupid rules make intellectual creations less than "physical property". You can buy a house and pass it on forever. Why?

From what I've heard about Proper I'm going to skip them.

But, I wanted to highlight Chuck's quote above because I think he is on to one of the major concerns in this whole area, which is what incentive do these companies have to protect the original source tapes? This is important for many reasons, which I and others have expressed on other threads. I only highlight the quote because I agree with Chuck that this element of it never gets adequately addressed.

Edited September 2, 2004 by ajf67

[fent99]

Lots of interesting stuff here on copyright which maybe would be a better topic for discussion than solely Proper reissues love them/hate them. I have a couple which I seldom listen to like all the slabs of box sets I like the look of but seldom take off the shelf, 40 min albums work best for me!

I work in book publishing (medicines information, so no interesting freebies unless you are a pharmacist) and copyright is an important part of protecting the rights of intellectual property. As such its useful in our business though piracy/misuse of ip in some parts of the world is a problem (from students photocopying books at US universities to complete books copied and bound in India). Most of our publications go out of date so the long term consequences are less problematic than short term and indeed our publications use in historical research is helped by their going out of copyright.

Its different with books particularly since there is a longer time frame of production 500 years vs the 100 for recorded sound. And I wouldn't welcome indefinate copyright since who would benefit from Wuthering Heights or Moby Dick going back into copyright? Little need to help benefit for the Bronte/Melville family or the orginal publishers if you ask me. (Though I'm not sure why intellectual property has less value than physical property in philosophical terms)

The implications in recorded or broadcast media I'm less sure about. I'm no expert but I've always wondered why recordings differ from printed books in that the European standard for published works are life plus 70 years (copyright primer here http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html). Surely that in itself would benefit many jazz musicians?

[paul secor]

I think that most of this has already been discussed fairly thoroughly in the Blue Harlem Ike Quebec Proper Thread listed in Brad's thread above.

However, I'd like to pose a few questions:

The Classics label seems to be held in fairly high regard on the Board. What are the sources for the material they rerelease, and who does their mastering?

Labels like Hep, Frog, Oracle, early JSP, Yazoo, Revenant, etc., all have issued what amounts to legal bootlegs of recordings that are "owned" by other companies. Does the fact that they have (in some cases) made improvements to the sound quality in comparison to previous reissues, or (in some cases) made material that was commercially unavailable make their releases more "morally correct" (for want of a better term) than, say, Proper?

Does that fact the the above mentioned labels are primarily reissuing (or I could use the term "bootlegging" again) material from the '20s and '30s make a difference? Does the fact that an engineer is working from a 78 as a source, rather than an LP or even a CD, make a difference? If an engineer were to take an LP or CD and come up with a recording that sounded "better" than previous issues, would that make it OK?

Do Hep, Frog, Oracle, Yazoo, Revenant (I'll leave out JSP - even early JSP out of this one) pay royalties to the heirs of the artists they reissue? (I'm saying heirs because I doubt that many of the artists they've reissued are still alive). Some of the artists that Classics has reissued are alive. Are they paying royalties to them? I hope that all of these companies are doing that.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I just want to point out that many of the labels that most of us think are more "moral" than Proper may not necessarily be so.

My own opinion is that artists and the companies or individuals who recorded them should be paid for their work indefinitely. I also believe that reissue companies should license their material from the proper sources. That said, I do have LPs and CDs from most of the above mentioned companies in my collection. In a better world, all reissues would be done by companies like Mosaic or Bear Family, or by other companies that license their material legally.

One final issue that I'd like to mention is to question whether artists or artists' estates actually receive royalties from legally licensed reissues. My understanding is that it's the responsibility of the licenser rather than the licensee to issue royalties. (Hope I don't sound too much like a lawyer here. I can't think of anything worse.) I may be wrong about that. However, if that's the case, and Buddy DeFranco received no royalties from his Mosaic box - see the Ike Quebec Proper thread - should we be boycotting Mosaic? (Or Mosaic boxes licensed from companies that don't pay artists' royalties?)

All of this is certainly a gray area, and there will probably be no consensus among us, but at least the discussion has given me much to think about.

Edited September 3, 2004 by paul secor