Tonny Bennet - SINGS FOR 2 + SINGS STRING OF HAROLD ARLEN

[king ubu]

What I meant is that they not only pay licensing fees for material that is still copyrighted in the United States, but also for recordings that are in the public domain over there. In Europe licensing fees for public-domain material are paid by the German Bear Family label. There really is a difference in my view.

Really can't agree. If material is public domain it is publically owned. That means that no-one can claim to own the license in those territories. Any payment made to the former license owner is a voluntary donation. If Bear Family do that then...it's curious, but it has no implications for what anyone else should do. I am sure Sony and Universal are grateful for the donations. Likely it has more to do with payment for access to original sources, but that is another discussion. Bear Sound's generosity to major corporations doesn't make Fresh Sound's activities illegal - they plainly are not.

And that line of argument, to me, is no contradiction to what I said ... the voluntary donation ... are we sure about that, anyway? That really makes little sense to me, even though it's a knightly gesture, but usually also small and "good" labels are tough business operations - probably need to be if anyone's live and income depends on it. Not justifying any exploitation by this, btw, no sir. But again, if the Pujols were your friend, they would design their catalogue in a way that would add to what's around. Instead, he conquers and captures territory that is already claimed, sometimes as I said, by small operations.

[Big Beat Steve]

This discussion is getting skewed..

Let me ask a question (again) that seems to be overlooked conveniently by some here in discussions like this on this forum:

Do we know for sure that ALL the Japanese reissue labels pay ARTIST royalties? (Never mind what the biggies cash in among themselves, all of you , you are worried about the ARTISTS getting their fair share even once the 50.-year Euroepan Public Domain lable applies, right?).

Did the Japanese? Do they? All of them? And if they didn't are those who didn't any better than the much-maligned Euopean P.D. reissues? Greasing the palms of the majors is not the issue, I think - paying to the artists themselves is.

Just one example: A couple of months ago a discussion of the JAZZHUS label was started here on this board. Checking out their website made me sit up and note one particular item: "New Jazz from the Old World" by a so-called "European Jazz Quartet". This in fact is the Wolfgang Lauth Quartet from Germany (a "local hero" of 50s jazz in Southern Germany, if you want ...). I'd been aware of this release for a long time, particularly since I read a review of it in an early volume of the "Down Beat Record Reviews" yearboks, as this release on the obscure Pulse lable stands out as a real oddity among the leader's 50s discography which otherwise consistently was on German Telefunken.

This reissue gives a U.S. address for the Jazzhus operation (though, as mentioned in the discussion, the Japanese characters on the Obi strip make this look like a Japanese reissue after all) and mentions something of having been licensed by arrangement with the copyright proprietor. No idea what this EXACTLY means on the bottom line - Fresh Sound did use similar terms on some of their reissues too (not to mention those Fresh Sound reissues that are strictly legal and endorsed by the original label owners). But be that as it may - did any of the money from this release find its way (beyond some scheming entrepreneur who might have bought the official rights to the Pulse back catalog at one time in the past) into the bank accounts of the estate of Wolfgang Lauth and his fellow musicians? I really wonder ...

Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Beat Steve

[David Ayers]

You know what, Fresh Sound do a great job. Use it or lose it.

Lose what, the opportunity to pay a stranger to do what a friend will do for free?

It's a service, that's all. Same applies to Mosaic re. material which is PD in Europe. Why should anyone here pay them for material which they have to license from Sony etc. but which here is unowned. I won't persuade you, but the only difference between Mosaic and Fresh Sound is level of access to original sources i.e quality of the product. There really isn't any moral distinction indeed the opposite, each is a labor of love. From an ethical and legal point of view it is exactly the same to rip PD material from whatever source. But if I help myself to PD stuff reissued by Mosaic then Mosaic will suffer, and same for Fresh Sound. That's a choice, of course. I think the fact is that people who purchase FS CDs have over the years sponsored a major and important activity (from the point of view of we record nerds). I know that from the US point of view the euro-PD position makes for some discomfort but I suggest a revaluation and I am trying to explain the case.

[Big Beat Steve]

Any payment made to the former license owner is a voluntary donation. If Bear Family do that then...it's curious, but it has no implications for what anyone else should do. I am sure Sony and Universal are grateful for the donations. Likely it has more to do with payment for access to original sources,

In fact I do think this is the main point in what Bear Family actually does about "licensing" stuff.

I can't put my finger on it but I remeber discussing this aspect in passing with one Bear Family employee at a record fair when the subject of the way they do their box sets came up.

They pick their sources carefully and in a targeted manner and then cover those fields in full. It certainly is no coincidence they covered the MERCURY label's files in all fields of music THAT extensively. They must have made a deal at one point that they have free rein in the Mercury archives and files so they cover the entire field in great depth (I am not talking about jazz, specifically, of course). Makes sense if you are in the reissue field and have access to the source.

BTW, for all the uncharted territory that the Fresh Sound label thankfully makes accessible again, one thing that puts me off in a big way is their 2 LP on one CD policy where you indeed often end up having one LP (half the CD) already. I fully agree with King Ubu that this is not exactly to the strictest benefit of advanced collectors. Though I feel one major reason of theirs is that they recycle their past VINYL catalog that way. A lot of those cases where I find I already have one of the two LPs on their reissue CDs are those where I already have the Fresh Sound vinyl they issued in the 80s (I have a LOT of these). It's a policy I don't like and often I cannot be bothered to go for the second half but sometimes it is a pity. But other buyers probably wont even mind because they don't even want to be bothered with vinyl amnymore and have gone 100% CD long since.

But FS aren't alone in such recycling practices that don't allow you to fill gaps in your collection in an EFFICIENT manner.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Beat Steve

[lobbyman]

Looks like Mr. Lobbyman ("I just wanted to share it with you") might be connected with this store. See his post re: a likely Tommy Flanagan bootleg.

Again and again...

The next time, i will put an amazon link !

Anyway, very constructive remark Mr. Kart ('look like someone is connected to a store')

[J.A.W.]

Likely it has more to do with payment for access to original sources,

In fact I do think this is the main point in what Bear Family actually does about "licensing" stuff.

I can't put my finger on it but I remeber discussing this aspect in passing with one Bear Family employee at a record fair when the subject of the way they do their box sets came up.

They pick their sources carefully and in a targeted manner and then cover those fields in full. It certainly is no coincidence they covered the MERCURY label's files in all fields of music THAT extensively. They must have made a deal at one point that they have free rein in the Mercury archives and files so they cover the entire field in great depth (I am not talking about jazz, specifically, of course). Makes sense if you are in the reissue field and have access to the source.

Having access to original sources - which the public-domain labels clearly don't have - is exactly the point of making licensing agreements, and it's also the point I was trying to make but didn't explicitly mention. As I said there is a difference

Edited September 27, 2013 by J.A.W.

[Big Beat Steve]

Yes, of course, Hans.

And now it is up to each and everyone to decide individually if the fidelity difference warants other complications, additional expenses, etc. Sometimes it objectively makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. To some the difference is immaterial (because hardly noticeable on THEIR equipment that THEY are perfectly satisfied with, which is a point that is for NOBODY else to judge EVER, BTW) whereas to others it is a matter of principle (for whatever reason ...).

And to others the aspect of product presentation (liner notes, booklets et.c) is another important criterion.

Now where does the ARTIST royalty aspect come in again THERE?

Besides, you ought to know quite well that one cannot generalize in this debate.

Fresh Sound is one matter. They may reissue stuff than can be found elsewhere (personally I find the way they have recently been delving into what used to be OJC territory of fairly little interest) but they did and do reissue items that nobody ever bothered about anywhere else (with the possible exception of some obscure long-OOP Japanese reissue that may have popped up briefly and then vanished again and therefore is totally immaterial in this ENTIRE debate of whether there is a "legit" alternative to FS - and like David Ayers said, once the European PD rules are respected these things ARE legal over here).

A different matter are those P.D. labels (some of them found way outside Spain, as you know) that indeed just re-reissue easily accessible items that had only relatively recently been released or reissued by those who did all the remastering work. This just ain't right. If you want to reissue stuff then do your own field work, even if you take FULLL advantage of all the P.D. leeway that these rules offer you.

Which is why I buy Uptown releases only from Uptown as a matter of principle and avoid those piggyback riders (that follow in the wake of Uptown reissues) like the plague.

But is this something that you can accuse Fresh Sound of across their ENTIRE product range?

Differentiating in this debate really is way overdue.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Big Beat Steve

[lobbyman]

As you said Big Beat steve, this debate is really way overdue. Do i have to remember that i wanted to talk about tonny bennett ?

Anyway, this debate will never end.

Some people don't want to buy public domain material. They recognize the work from the label put into it.

That's ok but please, right now,

- stop drinking water. Go find your water source and bring it each day to your house. I hope you will find one close to your house otherwise, you will be screwed !
- stop paying for electricity cause you can be energy independent

... and so on !

Before people said that i'm connected to jazz messengers, i want to explain my point:

Thanks to those people, some very nice works can available outta there. I will never wait for a big company like Sony control what i can hear and, overall, when i can hear.

They don't even care about the catalog. Do you think Jazz is very important ?

Anyway, some people believe the artist will earn the money from his work. We all known that a lots of them died poor...

best regards.

[king ubu]

You come accross rather cynical. Sounds like "them dying poor" actually suits you. A rather lazy position there, not being willing to double guess one's own behaviour. Sorry if I get you wrong, but that's what I read from your post.

Sure, maybe it won't matter, the CD is dying (like the artists), not much money to be made there for anyone, there's always been crooks and shady businessmen in the record industry (as well as in the promotion and booking industry) ... but just because something's rotten, it needn't stay that way, even less so if you *know* how to make your (admittedly small) contribution to change things.

[Big Beat Steve]

Agreed, King Ubu.

If it were ALL about ARTIST royalties.

I am still awaiting definitive statements that those who obtain licenses from the majors for reissuing products that have already entered the public domain will actually pay money to the artists by obtaining these licenses. I.e. will the majors who license recordings for reissue to one of those reissue labels use the revenue from the licenses to pay artist royalties and the artists and their heirs even once those records have entered the public domain? In a niche market such as jazz? And will they do so now even for those artists whom they haven't even paid at the time those recordings were released and in current print?

And is this the case with ALL of the Japanese reissues too?

And if they don't then what's the difference between those who don't and ANY of the P.D. labels?

[king ubu]

...

And if they don't then what's the difference between those who don't and ANY of the P.D. labels?

None, really, for the artist - but maybe for the listener: I assume if the reissues come from majors, they will still be based on sources closer to original masters than what you get from Freshsound?

(edited to include quote)

Edited September 27, 2013 by king ubu

[lobbyman]

You come accross rather cynical. Sounds like "them dying poor" actually suits you. A rather lazy position there, not being willing to double guess one's own behaviour. Sorry if I get you wrong, but that's what I read from your post.

Sure, maybe it won't matter, the CD is dying (like the artists), not much money to be made there for anyone, there's always been crooks and shady businessmen in the record industry (as well as in the promotion and booking industry) ... but just because something's rotten, it needn't stay that way, even less so if you *know* how to make your (admittedly small) contribution to change things.

Agreed, King Ubu.

If it were ALL about ARTIST royalties.

I am still awaiting definitive statements that those who obtain licenses from the majors for reissuing products that have already entered the public domain will actually pay money to the artists by obtaining these licenses. I.e. will the majors who license recordings for reissue to one of those reissue labels use the revenue from the licenses to pay artist royalties and the artists and their heirs even once those records have entered the public domain? In a niche market such as jazz? And will they do so now even for those artists whom they haven't even paid at the time those recordings were released and in current print?

And is this the case with ALL of the Japanese reissues too?

And if they don't then what's the difference between those who don't and ANY of the P.D. labels?

Are you both serious ?

I'm not cynical, i'm just rational...

The jazz music is dying because of those SO POWERFULL P.D. labels ?

(i'm not sayin' the jazz music is dying, it's just a question)

Come on...

In your life, you are payin' for "public domain" goods, transformed in shitty goods which can hurt yourself and i'm sure you don't even complain (assertion of mine)

Again, the debate isn't about P.D labels but all about profit (economic aspect) and Sharing (Philosophical aspect)

Best regards...

[king ubu]

Jazz music certainly isn't dying - but the reissue business is dead (and what's not is dying) and it seems the PD labels did and do play a part in that play.

As for you being rational, you come across as fatalist to me, and there's a difference between those two..

[lobbyman]

Jazz music certainly isn't dying - but the reissue business is dead (and what's not is dying) and it seems the PD labels did and do play a part in that play.

As for you being rational, you come across as fatalist to me, and there's a difference between those two..

Beside the fact you suppose that i'm way to fatalist, what's your point ?

Jazz Artist always earn what they should have earned ?

Those european PD reissues are ruining the business ?

Tell me...

[David Ayers]

Likely it has more to do with payment for access to original sources,

In fact I do think this is the main point in what Bear Family actually does about "licensing" stuff.

I can't put my finger on it but I remeber discussing this aspect in passing with one Bear Family employee at a record fair when the subject of the way they do their box sets came up.

They pick their sources carefully and in a targeted manner and then cover those fields in full. It certainly is no coincidence they covered the MERCURY label's files in all fields of music THAT extensively. They must have made a deal at one point that they have free rein in the Mercury archives and files so they cover the entire field in great depth (I am not talking about jazz, specifically, of course). Makes sense if you are in the reissue field and have access to the source.

Having access to original sources - which the public-domain labels clearly don't have - is exactly the point of making licensing agreements, and it's also the point I was trying to make but didn't explicitly mention. As I said there is a difference

Difference of quality, no legal difference.

[king ubu]

Jazz music certainly isn't dying - but the reissue business is dead (and what's not is dying) and it seems the PD labels did and do play a part in that play.

As for you being rational, you come across as fatalist to me, and there's a difference between those two..

Beside the fact you suppose that i'm way to fatalist, what's your point ?

Jazz Artist always earn what they should have earned ?

Those european PD reissues are ruining the business ?

Tell me...

I'm judging my supposition on the tone and content of your posts.

My points can be read in my posts (and some points I've also made several times before can be found in the posts of Big Beat Steve and J.A.W. and David Ayers, too).

[David Ayers]

Agreed, King Ubu.

If it were ALL about ARTIST royalties.

I am still awaiting definitive statements that those who obtain licenses from the majors for reissuing products that have already entered the public domain will actually pay money to the artists by obtaining these licenses. I.e. will the majors who license recordings for reissue to one of those reissue labels use the revenue from the licenses to pay artist royalties and the artists and their heirs even once those records have entered the public domain? In a niche market such as jazz? And will they do so now even for those artists whom they haven't even paid at the time those recordings were released and in current print?

And is this the case with ALL of the Japanese reissues too?

And if they don't then what's the difference between those who don't and ANY of the P.D. labels?

I'd bet that EMI never pay royalties to BN artists on their own PD products issued in Europe. Why on earth would they? *Now* what they have here are versions made from the best sources and with official booklets, artwork etc. The latter are in copyright, but they can't recopyright the actual recording just by remastering. So buying from EMI remains a choice but - here's what we all know - money that goes to Sony or Universal will not pay for most of the reissues and remasters we want, so our euros and pounds don't end up supporting the reissue ventures we would like to see. You could even argue that supporting FS is *more* logical than supporting the majors.

[king ubu]

You could even argue that supporting FS is *more* logical than supporting the majors.

Yeah, that line of reasoning would make since with a few "ifs", like: If they'd dig out the rarities, stopped combining the obvious with the obscure, and most important of all points: if they stopped ripping off other small labels! And it makes even more sense in the few cases mentioned where they did actually buy material from artists - but guess what? Their Nocturne box selled so slowly or badly that they never followed up with Vol. 2 ... is that just a coincidence or is there more to it? Like: if they operate with a clean policy, they can't make it work economically?

[David Ayers]

You could even argue that supporting FS is *more* logical than supporting the majors.

Yeah, that line of reasoning would make since with a few "ifs", like: If they'd dig out the rarities, stopped combining the obvious with the obscure, and most important of all points: if they stopped ripping off other small labels! And it makes even more sense in the few cases mentioned where they did actually buy material from artists - but guess what? Their Nocturne box selled so slowly or badly that they never followed up with Vol. 2 ... is that just a coincidence or is there more to it? Like: if they operate with a clean policy, they can't make it work economically?

So the argument is to support the majors because...?

PD is legal. It's legal. The rest is consumer preference.

Oh and FS stick it all on Spotify, another advantage.

[J.A.W.]

Likely it has more to do with payment for access to original sources,

In fact I do think this is the main point in what Bear Family actually does about "licensing" stuff.

I can't put my finger on it but I remeber discussing this aspect in passing with one Bear Family employee at a record fair when the subject of the way they do their box sets came up.

They pick their sources carefully and in a targeted manner and then cover those fields in full. It certainly is no coincidence they covered the MERCURY label's files in all fields of music THAT extensively. They must have made a deal at one point that they have free rein in the Mercury archives and files so they cover the entire field in great depth (I am not talking about jazz, specifically, of course). Makes sense if you are in the reissue field and have access to the source.

Having access to original sources - which the public-domain labels clearly don't have - is exactly the point of making licensing agreements, and it's also the point I was trying to make but didn't explicitly mention. As I said there is a difference

Difference of quality, no legal difference.

We were talking about two different things all along.

If I have the choice between releases that were taken from original sources or often much cheaper public-domain releases of the same recordings that were not, I'll always get the former, provided they didn't mess up the sound.

[king ubu]

You could even argue that supporting FS is *more* logical than supporting the majors.

Yeah, that line of reasoning would make since with a few "ifs", like: If they'd dig out the rarities, stopped combining the obvious with the obscure, and most important of all points: if they stopped ripping off other small labels! And it makes even more sense in the few cases mentioned where they did actually buy material from artists - but guess what? Their Nocturne box selled so slowly or badly that they never followed up with Vol. 2 ... is that just a coincidence or is there more to it? Like: if they operate with a clean policy, they can't make it work economically?

So the argument is to support the majors because...?

PD is legal. It's legal. The rest is consumer preference.

Oh and FS stick it all on Spotify, another advantage.

I know it's legal, that's not the point.

There are sonic issues and moral/legitimacy issues that the law won't clear for us.

[David Ayers]

We were talking about two different things all along.

If I have the choice between releases that were taken from original sources or often much cheaper public-domain releases of the same recordings that were not, I'll always get the former, provided they didn't mess up the sound.

Agreed. I go for quality myself, but equally I don't mind dabbling in PD. There's a joy in popping into the local HMV and finding a Philly Jo Jones album. Who knows, maybe I'll even listen to it!

I know it's legal, that's not the point.

There are sonic issues and moral/legitimacy issues that the law won't clear for us.

Sonic issues and moral interpretation are part of the consumer choice, that's clear.

[lobbyman]

You're talking about moral, legitimacy about an "economic issue" !

Do you think that trading has "moral" and "legitmacy" in his ADN ?

Anyway, as david said, it's a part of the consumer choice...

[JSngry]

Let's not lose sight of Tonny Bennet, ok?

[king ubu]

So Tonny has legitmacy in his DNA?