CraigP Posted February 27, 2012 Report Posted February 27, 2012 No one got my Beach Boys reference...I'm disappointed Quote
Dan Gould Posted February 27, 2012 Report Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Personally I think it bears repeating. I'm with Jim, you're a sap if you happily pay good money for shitty product and he's absolutely right that it shows the exact wrong "market signal". I'll save my money for the Ace and Uptown labels of the world, and if there's a record I really want to hear but its never been reissued, or is long OOP, I'll find a friend who has it or a friendly blog. And if that doesn't work, there's way too much other music to fill my listening hours than sending my hard-earned cash to shitty companies. Edited February 27, 2012 by Dan Gould Quote
JSngry Posted February 27, 2012 Report Posted February 27, 2012 No one got my Beach Boys reference...I'm disappointed Chuck Berry got it, I'm sure! Quote
king ubu Posted February 27, 2012 Report Posted February 27, 2012 Classics did (they're long gone, I think) their own transfers, straight from 78's - just in case that makes a difference... it's my understanding they never stole or just polished up anyone's transfers. (Not sure how they handled EP/LP material, before stopping their releases they reached 1954/55 in some cases - I guess again they did their own vinyl transfers.)Definitive has used MP3 - at least according to my version of Trader's Little Helper... I've only checked one of their Bechet 3CD sets, but I'm sure there will be others, some of them have horrid sound. Quote
StarThrower Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Posted February 27, 2012 What the hell does chronogical mean anyway? Quote
jfire Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 I picked up Real Gone's Duke Ellington Eight Classic Albums set because it included a couple things I don't have and can't locate on official CDs. The sound is quite good. I may pick other RG releases if they include content that's otherwise unavailable (apart from expensive old vinyl). But I much prefer original releases when available. Quote
Shawn Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 They carry these cheap sets at Amoeba, I saw a ton of them the last time I ventured through the jazz section. NO WAY am I paying any money for this crap. Why bother purchasing if none of the appropriate people will get royalties? I'll just download them from a blog until a real issue comes along. Quote
J.A.W. Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) What the hell does chronogical mean anyway? Chronology: arrangement of events in their order of occurrence. From the ancient Greek word for time: χρόνος (chronos) "chronogical" as was printed on the cover is clearly an error. Edited February 28, 2012 by J.A.W. Quote
StarThrower Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Posted February 28, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, my point was that it's a misspelling. There's no such word as chronogical. Quote
J.A.W. Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, my point was that it's a misspelling. There's no such word as chronogical. I know, I added a line to my post. Quote
StarThrower Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Posted February 28, 2012 "chronogical" as was printed on the cover is clearly an error. Surely the sign of a high class record label! Quote
Face of the Bass Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Man, if only people would get this worked up about things that actually matter in this world. What a difference it would make. Quote
StarThrower Posted February 28, 2012 Author Report Posted February 28, 2012 You're expecting too much from record collecting geeks! Quote
JSngry Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I picked up Real Gone's Duke Ellington Eight Classic Albums set because it included a couple things I don't have and can't locate on official CDs. The sound is quite good. Help out on this one, will ya'? Or let me help you out, perhaps. Which ones were difficult to locate on official CD, exactly? Such Sweet Thunder $7.78 here: http://www.amazon.co...30392836&sr=1-1Armstrong/Ellington Master Takes (17 songs, both Roulette albums, how many did they give you?) $7.99 here: http://www.amazon.co...30393058&sr=1-1Nutcracker Suite Included here ( + two other suites - 9 additional) cuts for $7.99 http://www.amazon.co...30393235&sr=1-1Piano In the Foreground $6.99 here http://www.amazon.co...30393504&sr=1-2Piano In the Background $11.98 here http://www.amazon.co...30393577&sr=1-1Cosmic Scene $15.00 here http://www.mosaicrec...asp?number=1001Bal Masque (I think that's what cover they're imitating...) (+ bonus cuts, again, how many did they give you?) $14.84 here http://www.amazon.co...30393760&sr=1-1Anatomy Of A Murder OST - Look at the options! http://www.ebay.com/...-All-Categories And of course the sound will be good - dollars to donuts you're just getting burns of these CDs (and probably not the extra cuts on them). Edited February 28, 2012 by JSngry Quote
jlhoots Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Some of you have way too much time on your hands IMHO. Quote
JSngry Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 That's not time, that's CD dust! Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) They carry these cheap sets at Amoeba, I saw a ton of them the last time I ventured through the jazz section. NO WAY am I paying any money for this crap. Why bother purchasing if none of the appropriate people will get royalties? I'll just download them from a blog until a real issue comes along. How many of you (decade-)long-standing collectors out there did get this worked up about Count Basie getting proper royalties when they bought the (superfically speaking) "official" reissues of his Decca recordings in past decades? Do I smell a whiff of hypocrisy there somewhere, maybe? This just to mention ONE tip of a not so small iceberg - if the above is the main line of reasoning. Or is it to be condoned totally by the buyers if artists are ripped off by their own labels? Edited February 28, 2012 by Big Beat Steve Quote
Shawn Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 How many of you (decade-)long-standing collectors out there did get this worked up about Count Basie getting proper royalties when they bought the (superfically speaking) "official" reissues of his Decca recordings in past decades? Do I smell a whiff of hypocrisy there somewhere, maybe? This just to mention ONE tip of a not so small iceberg - if the above is the main line of reasoning. Or is it to be condoned totally by the buyers if artists are ripped off by their own labels? It's not my job to find out whether a record label pays what they should, that's for the label, the artist and all the fucking lawyers. I just make sure to buy releases from legit labels, because at least there's a better chance that the artist will get paid. Quote
king ubu Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Bal Masque (I think that's what cover they're imitating...) (+ bonus cuts, again, how many did they give you?) $14.84 here http://www.amazon.co...30393760&sr=1-1[*] Hey, what's that? Never seen it before! Good, great, essential? (Well, good at least, it's Duke!) Quote
JETman Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Bal Masque (I think that's what cover they're imitating...) (+ bonus cuts, again, how many did they give you?) $14.84 here http://www.amazon.co...30393760&sr=1-1[*] Hey, what's that? Never seen it before! Good, great, essential? (Well, good at least, it's Duke!) Bal Masque was also out as a French cd sometime during the 90s. Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) It's not my job to find out whether a record label pays what they should, that's for the label, the artist and all the fucking lawyers. I just make sure to buy releases from legit labels, because at least there's a better chance that the artist will get paid. Some labels may not be legit in the US but since even the new European copyright laws are not retroactive (i.e. P.D. cutoff dates are not tightened down retroactively) these labels are legit elsewhere at least as far as 50+ year old reissues are concerned. And since those 50+ years old reissues comply with the PD rules applicable there, no royalties are due there. Point. Sorry, but the rest of what you say is just this - a cop-out. If high moral standards about paying royalties are what the No. ONE concern is then one cannot just stop halfways and not go all the route. Besides, the Basie/Kapp/Decca case is elementary knowledge of the history of jazz. And at least at the time Basie wrote his autobiography it did not look like substantially better settlements had been reached beyond what John Hammond had been able to improve upon the screwy orignal "deal" so somebody out there earned a fat check during all those decades that did not include sufficiently fair payment to Basie. And again - this is just ONE example. You can make (possibly valid) complaints about cheapo packaging and cheapo fidelity but it just is not very convincing to try to play the royalty card if you are not willing to go the whole way with THAT question. If royalties are actually being withheld then it makes little difference to those affected by whom they are being withheld. Edited February 28, 2012 by Big Beat Steve Quote
Brad Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 How many of you (decade-)long-standing collectors out there did get this worked up about Count Basie getting proper royalties when they bought the (superfically speaking) "official" reissues of his Decca recordings in past decades? Do I smell a whiff of hypocrisy there somewhere, maybe? This just to mention ONE tip of a not so small iceberg - if the above is the main line of reasoning. Or is it to be condoned totally by the buyers if artists are ripped off by their own labels? It's not my job to find out whether a record label pays what they should, that's for the label, the artist and all the fucking lawyers. I just make sure to buy releases from legit labels, because at least there's a better chance that the artist will get paid. By legit, I think he means the company that has the rights to the original source material, not a person who can buy an album off eBay and copy it. Between the two I'd buy from the former but not the latter. Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 I did realize that. Yet ... your definition of "legit" is not what would legally be considered "legit" once the P.D. rules apply. And again ... to artists screwed out of their royalties this would still be splitting hairs. Quote
JSngry Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Bal Masque (I think that's what cover they're imitating...) (+ bonus cuts, again, how many did they give you?) $14.84 here http://www.amazon.co...30393760&sr=1-1[*] Hey, what's that? Never seen it before! Good, great, essential? (Well, good at least, it's Duke!) More or less a dance album, but an Ellingtonian one, so that ups the ante quite a bit. The royalties issue is a red herring. Don't worry about the other people getting screwed, that's out of your hands unless you're in the industry, in a position of power to effect change and/or enforce policy. Worry that it's you who's getting screwed by this flea-market crap, both short term and long term. People who eagerly embrace stuff like this are enemies of humanity and should be dealt with accordingly. Have your bitch-slaps at the ready, good citizens! Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.