Ornette Coleman, New Vocabulary

[clifford_thornton]

I was just saying that the "agreement" not reached could have been more monetary than aesthetic. Either way, NAGL for these Antibalas dudes.

[JSngry]

Either way, NAGL for these Antibalas dudes.

I think only one plays with Antibalas

http://www.jambands.com/news/2015/05/27/ornette-coleman-suing-jordan-mclean-of-antibalas-and-amir-ziv

So what now, is "Antibalas" going to become a new variant of "thug", like you know, HAHA, I never liked Antibalas, so I KNOW they're guilty?

Antibalas, The Band That The Cats Who Fucked Ornette Are In. How Can ANYBODY Listen To Them Now?

If so, I'd imagine the rest of the band and it's management are going to have something to say about that.

I am definitely, almost 100% certain sure that if they don't owe Ornette any money now, they will, soon enough. Ornette and, the longer it goes, a lot of other people. But I want to hear their story, I don't think it'll end up being as easy as Antibalas Guys Suck(s), Set Out To Screw Ornette, Get By With It For A Little Bit, And Then Get Busted.

It might be actually be that simple, but that seems really counter-intuitive on a few levels (the most immediate being, as stated earlier, do you REALLY want to be a young player trying to make a career outside of the mainstream and get tagged as an Ornette Fucker?), although, not knowing any of them personally, maybe it is as simple as that.

[JSngry]

For those keeping score at home..

• Denardo's lawyers: http://www.reitlerlaw.com/
• Specifically, http://www.reitlerlaw.com/bio/briancaplan/
• 

• System "The Antibalas Thugs" Dialing's lawyers: http://fmstern.com/
• Specifically: http://fmstern.com/attorneys?id=22
• 

I kinda liked it better when the mob ran jazz? Not really, but it was easier to pick sides.

[clifford_thornton]

I already like the bald guy better.

[Chuck Nessa]

Bigger ears.

[JSngry]

Young guy's got what looks like a marginally better shirt/tie combo (never dug the tie-showing-through-the-collar thing too much, too...conspicuous, kinda like with trousers, if there is to be a bulge, it should be discreet, not blatant, otherwise you're not a player, you're just a manwhore), but I do not like the cut of that jacket, not one bit.

I do kinda like that he's standing in front of a window, though, like, hey, if worse comes to worse, I can always jump. That's the spirit!

[jcam_44]

but I do not like the cut of that jacket, not one bit.

It's cut like the suit Kingpin from Spider-Man wears.

[.:.impossible]

Bigger ears.

Thinner lips.

[bertrand]

'...made with the willing involvement of each artist. The album is the end result of multiple deliberate and dedicated recording sessions done with the willing participation and consent of Mr. Coleman and the other performers.'

If they did not know to make sure to do all the legal paperwork with Denardo, with the specific financial details clearly spelled out, then they were hopelessly naïve. If they did and the lawsuit contradicts what the signed agreement said, then they may not be at fault. But it could also be that there was a contract and they did not stick to what was agreed upon.

Hard to tell what kind of 'consent' they got from Ornette. if it was just oral, then they goofed big time. Ornette could well have said yes, but they needed a lot more than that. Ornette certainly would have asked for enough money to warrant a detailed legally binding agreement.

Curious to see how this plays out.

Bertrand.

[mjzee]

Has anyone considered that Denardo might be another Vince Wilburn?

[JSngry]

I really did not know about Antibalas' involvement in Fela The Musical, just because that's not something I would have any type of any interest in. So all I can say about Antibalas is that I'm familiar with their music from before this whole Broadway thing, and I always enjoyed it for not even trying to do a straight Fela cop, because that's what would be lame.

But the whole Broadway/Antibalas thing, that's what I mean about who would be stupid enough to intentionally get into something as potentially career-derailing as this over something like this. To wit, this Billboard headline: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6582967/ornette-coleman-lawsuit-antibalas-jordan

Ornette Coleman Lawsuit Against Antibalas' Jordan McLean: Both Sides Weigh In

So now, it's gone from being a lawsuit against one label and the two guy who run it, to being a lawsuit against a specific person, you know that band that played Fela The Musical, yeah, their trumpet player, him. He fucked Ornette.

Either these folks got balls the size of Jupiter (and assurances of coverage from somewhere that are even bigger) or else....wow.

Does this sound like somebody on either extreme of stupid OR evil?

https://soundcloud.com/fun2know/f2k-ep-15-antibalas-trumpeter

[clifford_thornton]

Perhaps neither an idiot nor an evil person - but lying to ensure that sessions he made with Ornette are in the marketplace.

[JSngry]

Perhaps neither an idiot nor an evil person - but lying to ensure that sessions he made with Ornette are in the marketplace.

You have been called by Mr. Caplan to give factual testimony, then?

Even assuming that you're closer to being correct than not (as I am more or less willing to do at this point), the larger question remains - if this man/these guys are neither idiots or, to a far-lesser relevance, evil, then who gave them the assurances that releasing this would not be an act with serious consequences, and/or who gave them the boldass assurances that even if they DID run into some unpleasant consequences, that it would be covered, i.e. - don't worry if all kinds of financial/career shit RAINS down upon you, we got you covered. Who injected that into the process? And where are they now, and are they returning any of these guys' calls?

If nobody in fact did that, and if they are in fact neither idiot nor evil, then that's the ballsiest move made in recent jazz history, far more than most of the music being made, for sure. And although, sure, gangster needs punished, still, gangster still be american hero. They had music that needed hearing, they got it heard, fuck the consequences, here's the music, here's the consequences. Fuck you, fuck us, fuck all of us, same room, same time, here's the music.

But I seriously doubt that it's either that noble or that simple, any of it. Dodgy, for sure, but that's why you try to never be the last man standing on your dodgeball team.

I really want to hear what Adam Holzman has to say about this.

[sonnyhill]

Just my opinion. If Ornette Coleman or his legally appointed representative requested that production of a recording made under the circumstances that seem to be apparent here be discontinued, it should have been pulled simply OUT OF RESPECT for Ornette. The man is 85 and he has more than earned that type of deferential treatment for all that he has done.

I have not heard anyone claim that they had Ornette or his legal representative's written authorization to use the recordings of Ornette. If there is a writing, it would likely put to an end speculation concerning the basis upon which the persons releasing the recording were relying upon to release it. However, even with written authorization, if Ornette or his legal representative told them to stop, in my opinion they should have just complied. You can be within your legal rights and still be unequivocally wrong.

Edited May 31, 2015 by sonnyhill

[JSngry]

Yeahyeahyeah, nobody's disagreeing with any of that. But that's not the real story here, that's the Brian Williamsy emodistraction.

[JSngry]

Serious question - I know this got withdrawn at some point (or at least never "officially" reissued), but did Paul Bley ever pay Ornette for this one (other than for the gig itself)?

[sonnyhill]

Yeahyeahyeah, nobody's disagreeing with any of that. But that's not the real story here, that's the Brian Williamsy emodistraction.

Then what is the real story? They either comply with Ornette's (or his representative's) request or not. They chose the latter.

If they have a signed document that gives authorization for use of the recordings of Ornette (and Ornette had the capacity to enter into the agreement when it was signed), one of the central questions presented is resolved.

If they do not, it's a he say vs. he say (and one of the "hes" is a genius who has been adjudicated by the New York State Supreme Court to be an incapacitated person in need of a guardian). In my book, the tide goes to the genius and his wishes should be respected; the non-geniuses should have stepped off when they were told to do so.

Lawsuits like this are far more stupid than most people can really imagine. Both sides will likely spend (and might have already spent) more on lawyers than the profit that could ever be recouped on sales of the disputed recording. There is nothing Brian Williamsy or "emodistraction" about that. Those are the facts.

Edited May 31, 2015 by sonnyhill

[JSngry]

Those are facts, yes, but they are not all the facts.

Among facts not yet known (and I do repeat myself):

• What, if anything, did Ornette say during the course of these encounters might have planted the seed (or cunning or of naivete) that it was gonna be ok with him to put this out like this? If you don't think that Ornette would never come up with all kinds of "music belongs to the world" and "this is OUR music, not mine" type things, then think again.
• If those things were said, do recordings of them exist?
• If they do exist, what legal standing will they be given, and, then, how will they be interpreted by what kind of judge or jury?
• Is Ornette really in any condition these days to remember any of this on a non-challengeable legal basis?
• For that matter, was he is any kind of condition to be recording under non-guardianship-sponsored circumstances even then?
• If not, then how did that happen in the first place? Was Denardo incompetent, distracted, or was he just like, hey, Ornette gonna be Ornette, when movable shit happens, that's when we'll deal with it (and I would not blame him one bit for that if he was, truthfully)?
• Assuming more cunning than anything else on the part of System Dialing, and also assuming that they are not idiots and/or career suicidalists, who gave them the feeling that whatever happened, they would come out of it ok? With whom did they consult to feel this certainty/rightness, and what kinda money we talking about here, anyway? What and whose?
• Where does Adam Holzman fit into all of this? Not asking that to impugn his integrity, no indication that it's impugnable at all, but he's on the record, worked on the post-production, and has yet to file suit or, to my knowledge, been asked to comment. He either feels screwed also or not, right?

The revealing of the above facts will only be relevant if the suit goes to trial and/or is not settled before a verdict. I think they're very relevant, not to the "headlines", but to the reality of how things work, which is usually ugly on some level at some point at some time.

I know we all love Ornette, I know I do, but geez, would you like be the guy's guardian? Would you like to protect him from himself?

And for that matter, would you like to have worked with him over however much time, come away with some, imo, pretty significant music, and then be told to just never mind, hand it over right now buster, it's OURS, and OURS is not yours? Respect be damned, this is music, and the music business. You want respect on demand, go see your local wedding band. Otherwise, be ready for anything.

Also consider this - between the intellectual property rights nihilsts and post-Boomers in general, there seems to be this unspoken...hatred (perhaps literally) of "the establishment" just sitting on shit and either not continuing to contribute or just getting out of the way period. I don't have that much trouble imagining a scenario where the cats did the sessions in good (enough) faith, made the record, then got their rug pulled out from under them, and then them saying, hey fuck you Ornette, you talk one game abut music and then deal another game in business, you are a great artist, this is great music, fuck you if you don't want it released, here it comes anyway. If it fucks us up our perpetual ass, so be it, we still gave the world one more great Ornette Coleman record, which is more than you were going to do.

Now if that type of attitude scares you, well, it scares me too, but at least as much because I totally understand the impulse as much as I do the needs of a civilized society to not act on it. But if you want the real story, there it is, where are we all in terms of all of that?

If there's a settlement, yes, it will have all been one big Brain Wiiliamsy emodistraction. It really was/is just about the money. How trite (necessary, but trite).

Otherwise, there' a lot of unanswered questions here about a lot of things, so...let's look for some more facts other than the bright primary colors we're now having waved in our faces.

[mjzee]

Also, you can be right and still not be right. Think about the Ayler estate and ESP suing Revenant for Holy Ghost. They put Revenant out of business. Regardless of the legality, that wasn't right, and it was predictable that it would happen. And what did the Ayler estate really get out of all that?

[JSngry]

Has anyone considered that Denardo might be another Vince Wilburn?

Nellie Monk, maybe, just guessing.

[David Ayers]

Why can't people just get along?

[David Ayers]

It looks to me as if the legal point hinges on the claim that this is a 'bootleg', and it seems that the case has been shaped by the need to show that this is a bootleg under that law, although other laws are also mentioned.

I know we have one or two people here who could maybe comment on the legals...

[king ubu]

Why can't people just get along?

too many lawyers around for that ...

[sonnyhill]

Those are facts, yes, but they are not all the facts.

Among facts not yet known (and I do repeat myself):

• What, if anything, did Ornette say during the course of these encounters might have planted the seed (or cunning or of naivete) that it was gonna be ok with him to put this out like this? If you don't think that Ornette would never come up with all kinds of "music belongs to the world" and "this is OUR music, not mine" type things, then think again.
• If those things were said, do recordings of them exist?
• If they do exist, what legal standing will they be given, and, then, how will they be interpreted by what kind of judge or jury?
• Is Ornette really in any condition these days to remember any of this on a non-challengeable legal basis?
• For that matter, was he is any kind of condition to be recording under non-guardianship-sponsored circumstances even then?
• If not, then how did that happen in the first place? Was Denardo incompetent, distracted, or was he just like, hey, Ornette gonna be Ornette, when movable shit happens, that's when we'll deal with it (and I would not blame him one bit for that if he was, truthfully)?
• Assuming more cunning than anything else on the part of System Dialing, and also assuming that they are not idiots and/or career suicidalists, who gave them the feeling that whatever happened, they would come out of it ok? With whom did they consult to feel this certainty/rightness, and what kinda money we talking about here, anyway? What and whose?
• Where does Adam Holzman fit into all of this? Not asking that to impugn his integrity, no indication that it's impugnable at all, but he's on the record, worked on the post-production, and has yet to file suit or, to my knowledge, been asked to comment. He either feels screwed also or not, right?

The revealing of the above facts will only be relevant if the suit goes to trial and/or is not settled before a verdict. I think they're very relevant, not to the "headlines", but to the reality of how things work, which is usually ugly on some level at some point at some time.

I know we all love Ornette, I know I do, but geez, would you like be the guy's guardian? Would you like to protect him from himself?

And for that matter, would you like to have worked with him over however much time, come away with some, imo, pretty significant music, and then be told to just never mind, hand it over right now buster, it's OURS, and OURS is not yours? Respect be damned, this is music, and the music business. You want respect on demand, go see your local wedding band. Otherwise, be ready for anything.

Also consider this - between the intellectual property rights nihilsts and post-Boomers in general, there seems to be this unspoken...hatred (perhaps literally) of "the establishment" just sitting on shit and either not continuing to contribute or just getting out of the way period. I don't have that much trouble imagining a scenario where the cats did the sessions in good (enough) faith, made the record, then got their rug pulled out from under them, and then them saying, hey fuck you Ornette, you talk one game abut music and then deal another game in business, you are a great artist, this is great music, fuck you if you don't want it released, here it comes anyway. If it fucks us up our perpetual ass, so be it, we still gave the world one more great Ornette Coleman record, which is more than you were going to do.

Now if that type of attitude scares you, well, it scares me too, but at least as much because I totally understand the impulse as much as I do the needs of a civilized society to not act on it. But if you want the real story, there it is, where are we all in terms of all of that?

If there's a settlement, yes, it will have all been one big Brain Wiiliamsy emodistraction. It really was/is just about the money. How trite (necessary, but trite).

Otherwise, there' a lot of unanswered questions here about a lot of things, so...let's look for some more facts other than the bright primary colors we're now having waved in our faces.

Your post only proves my point. One could add dozens and dozens and dozens of other potentially relevant "facts not known" to your list. A written agreement signed by Ornette during the time that he was capable of entering into an agreement giving authorization to use the recordings significantly decreases the amount of "facts not known" that become relevant.

You've got it backwards, a settlement is the most practical and prudent thing to do in most litigation if factual issues become relevant. Trials are more often that not the Brian Williamsy emodistraction.

[JSngry]

It turned around backwards when there was a press release for the lawsuit. If you don;t want people asking questions, don't put ot a freaking press release that paints a one-sided story and expects to be taken at face value, If you put out a press release, you are inviting further speculation and investigation, as well as using emodistraction to manipulate the target audience, almost all of whom know and love Ornette, and almost none of whom have any sympathy for The Deceitful Antibalas Thugs. You're simply providing a template for people to create their own Poor Ornette to walk around with around their necks in Shared Martyrdom. Jazz People love them some martyrdom, give 'em a black t-shirt with some dead face on it, they'll wear it damn near everywhere.

If that's not emodistraction, then what is?