Moon Label

[Hoppy T. Frog]

I liked what Sonny Rollins did with some live recordings illegally issued by Harkit. He sells downloads on his website.

Yeah, beat the bootleggers at their own game. One problem, those who would most likely be interested in the Ronnie Scott shows really aren't into MP3s.

I hate that those Harkits were not legit. I love them! I figured if it was from the UK it couldn't be a bootleg label, 'cause they have stronger copyright laws right? I guessed wrong.

[Big Beat Steve]

Oh my ...

All this babble about bootleg releases and ripping off artists in soooo many cases is just a cartload of nonsense - and phony it is too, especially in the case of those collectors who clamor out loud for oh so high standards of legitimacy of those record relases.

Tell me quite honestly, you who uphold such high standards, did you ever buy ANY reissues of the 30s Decca recordings of the Basie band? (Remember the 70-year cutoff date by U.S. copyright standards for that music did not expire that long ago) Do I need to remind you about how the Count was screwed in a BIG way by the Decca execs (shame on them forevermore and beyond their graves!) in a manner that even John Hammond could better only marginally. Did later owners of the Decca catalog ever make good and come up with the royalties that would have been the Count's due? Did the Count ever benefit in a CORRECT manner from the reissues that have been released through the decades? His autobiography does not sound (read) like it ...

Or did you ever give a consideration to the RCA material recorded by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup and how he was cheated out of the royalties even at a time when Elvis tried to get him his due but RCA backed off at the very last minute and said No at a time when Crudup already was an old and ill man who could have used every penny (and it would have ben PEANUTS to the RCA bosses).

Or did Big John Dolphin die because that recording artist was oh so grateful for the down-to-earth honest way he handled his artist royalties?

And who knows how many MODERN JAZZ sessions were done for a measly one-time lump sum recording fee but no roaylties ever? Even with collector labels? Do you all know if ALL those cheapskate dealings done way back then were ALWAYS corrected later on into a correct royalty settlement?

Now please, don't give me that babble if al the above justifies ripping off artists elsewhere too (in the case of those "grey" reissue labels) - it does NOT - but if all of you who whine so loud all the time about artists being ripped off were really SERIOUS about your attitude and standards then you would have to steer clear of a LOT of other nominally "legit" releases too! BTW, no, IMHO it is not nice to keep the money from the artists (as in the case of those grey labels) but it is even MUCH WORSE keeping that money from the artists and at the same time stuffing it into the wallets of those ripoff major biggie music industry execs. Keeping the money from those execs too is FAR BETTER IMHO ;)

And in many cases those grey area labels at least have made music available that the majors would't even have given a rat's ass about (therefore not yielding any royalties to the artists either)!

Hats off therefore to (nominally) bootleg labels like that ROUTE 66 label conglomerate from the 80s whose owner up front paid royalties of a 2000-LP pressing run to the artists (even before the LPs were sold) but definitely steered very clear of shelling out to the labels. Many of the artists graced with reissues on those ROUTE 66 etc. labels had been ripped off by the reecording labels way back when and were VERY pleased to get at least some belated financial recognition from that collector source. An attitude that puts to shame quite a few of the Majors!

(Oh, I forgot - that's "only R&B" and just cannot concern you hard bop etc. fans to whom jazz and collecting only begin with Bird and post-Bird music ;) - but still it is just like this: If you are serious about that artist royalty thing then you'd better check and double check what ripoffs there are at work in "legit" labels.

And finally, that thing that music ought to be (re)issued only if the artist wants to see it released is just utter nonsense too. If you went down that lane would there be any Prestige releases by Jackie McLean anymore, for example? He has disowned his work for that label in no uncertain terms on several occasions. So .... ? Where would you end up? Or is your conscience just fine and dandy knowing that conscience and standards can be a highly selective thing?

Nuff of this rant for now ...

[king ubu]

I quite agree with many of the points you make.

I guess one of or THE most important thing to do is to actually attend live concerts and support the artists like that. These days it seems, generally musicians have to pay to release their music (at least if they do so on CD), and the only way to earn something is by drawing attention and audiences to their live shows... how many concerts have you been to where only 15 or 20 people attended?

I know this doesn't apply to reissues and dead artists and their heirs etc bla-bla-bla (further point: if the heirs want bigtime money and are over-protective or in some cases just nuts, while not being dedicated to the heritage they're managing... is that "legit" or "just" or what?) - but for the scuffling artists still around, this is the best thing you can do: go to their concerts, and maybe buy some CDs from them directly (they often get a truckload for free, because they won't get any pay from the labels... and the 15$ they ask for their discs at a concert hence go directly into their pockets).

[clifford_thornton]

Complex issue.

Interesting points.

I try not to consume at all costs, but it hasn't stopped me from owning Ingo, Ozone, BYG, etc. LPs. Then again, I have paid artists collector prices for their out-of-print private issues.

You win some, you lose some.

[Hoppy T. Frog]

Tell me quite honestly, you who uphold such high standards, did you ever buy ANY reissues of the 30s Decca recordings of the Basie band? (Remember the 70-year cutoff date by U.S. copyright standards for that music did not expire that long ago) Do I need to remind you about how the Count was screwed in a BIG way by the Decca execs (shame on them forevermore and beyond their graves!) in a manner that even John Hammond could better only marginally. Did later owners of the Decca catalog ever make good and come up with the royalties that would have been the Count's due? Did the Count ever benefit in a CORRECT manner from the reissues that have been released through the decades? His autobiography does not sound (read) like it ...

Haha, I bought my Basie Deccas used, smart guy!

[paul secor]

Or did you ever give a consideration to the RCA material recorded by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup and how he was cheated out of the royalties even at a time when Elvis tried to get him his due but RCA backed off at the very last minute and said No at a time when Crudup already was an old and ill man who could have used every penny (and it would have ben PEANUTS to the RCA bosses).

Don't want to enter yet another discussion of labels like Moon.

But to get matters straight about Arthur Crudup - It was actually a publishing company, Hill & Range, that reneged at the last minute on paying Arthur Crudup for back royalties. Dick Waterman, in his book, Between Midnight and Day, tells the complete story. Arthur Crudup died shortly after this incident. On his way back from the funeral in Virginia, Dick Waterman spoke with an associate of a lawyer he had used to negotiate a contract for Bonnie Raitt. The lawyer suggested that they file suit to stop record companies from paying further royalties to Hill & Range. Chappell music was in the process of buying Hill & Range, and refused to go forward with the deal unless the legal matter was settled. A deal was reached, and Arthur Crudup's heirs received an initial payment of $248,000. The initial one time settlement that Hill & Range reneged on was for $60,000. Dick Waterman writes that he was present when the first check was issued, and that over the past 30+ years Arthur Crudup's estate has received around three million dollars in royalty payments.

From everything I've read over the years, Dick Waterman comes across as an honest guy, so I have no reason to doubt what he wrote in his book.

[Big Beat Steve]

Thanks for the update.

I admit I did confuse the roles of RCA and Hill & Range but as for the sequel, apparently Arnold Shaw in his "Honkers & Shouters" published in 1978 (and others that essentially gave the same story) were not up to date in their info on the further settlement of the royalties.