The end of Easytree

[Tom Storer]

The fact that performers own the intellectual property inherent in their own performance, hence rightfully control distribution of concert recordings, was always the elephant in the room at EZT. It's undeniable that you don't have the right to distribute concert performances without the artist's express permission. That is why, when a lawyer knocked at the door, the EZT folks put up no fight and politely pulled the plug.

Personally, I don't see the difference that Jim does between "private" postal distribution of this stuff and "public" Internet sharing of it. The only difference is in speed of distribution: quantity, not kind. There was lots of beautiful stuff being shared and people were discovering new artists all the time. Just the other day there was a recent Terence Blanchard concert up and comments included "Wow! I didn't know he was this good! What CDs would you recommend by him?" Whereas MP3 trading represents a loss of a sale, concert trading doesn't, so my own reaction was to recognize a legitimate (in my view) fan interest that didn't really negatively impact the artist's wallet.

Other examples include the Ornette Coleman completists who put up every unreleased scrap they could find from the past forty years, whether shitty-sounding audience tapes or FM broadcasts or whatever. They turned me on to the second version of Prime Time, when Ornette added a pianist, a period I had completely overlooked. I ordered the CD. I think that happened a hell of a lot.

But as Mike says, all that doesn't make it legal. I think it does make it right, or mostly, anyway. Or at least not harmful.

[Tom Storer]

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?

[jazzbo]

Jim, I think I'm going to call you "some such."

Just for the hell of it!

[Big Wheel]

Well, call me crusty and wipe me with a moist towelette, but I do see a difference between collectors trading such material as this privately and providing it "publicly" online. Maybe it's just a difference "in principal", and maybe its a moot point anymore, what with the Instanet and all, but I see a difference nevertheless. Several differences, actually...

Not that I'm above availing myself of certain "opportunities" when they present themselves (haven't yet figured out how to do the bit-torrent thing, though), but when said opportunities are removed, I can't say that I'm surprised and/or disappointed either.

Contrary to the promises of the Utopianet, "we're" not "entitled" to have whatever we want whenever we want it, and not everybody "needs" such material to an equal extent.

Call me an elitist or some such, but that's how I feel.

Certainly I'm not surprised either by the shutdowns, though I'll admit to being a bit disappointed--you could amass in weeks a collection that took the old elite collectors years. While I definitely don't feel entitled to the possession of that material, I still wish that I could hear it.

To me it comes down to how you define "provide." Easytree did not host the material. It only created a space where it was easy for you to connect to other people who had the material. The programs on your computer and those people's computers did all the trading. Moreover, the registration requirement added a degree of privacy to the whole business, although you could certainly argue that there wasn't very much of it.

[rostasi]

Hey, Crusty man - I love ya, but you know where I'm at on this.

Shutdown - heck, no surprise there in our modern world of consolidation

for the rich! People that love the music will buy the CDs whenever the

big corporate dudes decide they can rake in enuf cash and release the stuff.

I'll let go of my rare Miles sides instantly as soon as Sony releases them

and I think those who love the music will do so as well.

Easytree was a gigantic living room filled with folks having a party

with the music they brought with them - too damn bad that the host

had a sucky CD collection. If I had a party and people wanted to bring stuff around

to listen, then alright! Afterwards, I (i.e. the majors) would then learn that lots of folks

like this stuff and I'd have it available for my next "party."

Man, I'm flattered when people ask me to share tunes - mine or another's!

Mine, 'cause they like what they've heard (and it gets me commissions) and

"another's," because they appreciate my tastes and I'm able to share and

hip them to something they may never have heard or always wanted but couldn't get.

College Radio DJs who aren't as corporate hog-tied don't play the music because

they're excited that the artist will get paid - they're playing it 'cause they like it

and they hope you do too. Then you go out and buy it.

Even as a composer, I've always liked the idea of having it all free for people -

treat it just like an artwork and if you want the original from me,

then you can buy it as an original.

Yeah, you got a "Mona Lisa" in your living room right?

Well, it's not the Mona Lisa. It should be done for audio as well.

Edited April 6, 2005 by rostasi

[relyles]

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?

[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

[rostasi]

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...

...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".

To me, it's "We LOVE you. Give us more please!" (more porridge sir?)

I can understand where you're coming from, but like the food analogy:

yes, you will have people who will not appreciate fine food and eat all kinds of crap,

but they're gonna do that anyway. No matter how hard someone tries to convince me

of the luscious taste of some fast food item (this new omlette on a bun thing?),

i'm not gonna eat it - much less buy it and it's people like ME

that you want buying your "food" -

If someone records my work in concert or performance space,

I view it as a memento of my work that has yet to be released.

If I thought that the performance sucked, then I get basically two kinds

of reactions: 1) the person who has the performance on tape thought it was great

(or they've convinced themselves of this) and they cherish it and they make sure that they

experience it again, tell others, and come back to experience/meet me again...or...

2) they thought it sucked based on what they've already heard of mine

and will not be bothered by it.

Yes, the artist preens/edits carefully to get that "official" recording out,

but the people who have the edits, outtakes, etc usually already have those

recordings and are just wanting more of you!

Man, I can't wait for QO to put these new tunes of yours on the next disc!

...and when QO is no more, then, live recordings - yes, maybe filled with "mistakes" -

can be cherished as part of an era/event.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a composer/artist in Germany contact me about incorporating a complete

20 minute work of mine into a work of his - talk about sampling! -

I'm flattered!

...and I'm sorry, but 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.

Think of all of the people here who would never of heard of QO

without digital networking (of digital media - by the way).

"Bandied about" digital data has been an absolute Godsend to me and

I have more work than I ever did sitting at my desk in a bedroom in Allen, Texas

in the 70's pouring over copies of Arts Magazine and making lists of passed -

not upcoming - passed events that I felt that I better get involved in "next year."

People who don't know my work can get themselves an audio business card -

wanna know what I do? - OK, here's my "card" i.e Mp3.

...and people who know my work and want more, I say let them have at it!

I wanna know more about them then!

People wanting "special" recordings spells L-O-V-E to me!

[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

[rostasi]

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. 

I don't know how to follow that up Captain!

[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!