Thoughts on cheap, multi CD re-issues

[paul secor]

These discussions have gone on over and over on these forums. By now, all of us know where we stand on this subject and, in the end, each of us will do what we do.

[jazzbo]

I know, but I still find the discussions fascinating to an extent.

I have a similar fascination within my own family. My Dad is a (retired, but not really) minister. Things are either RIGHT or WRONG. My two brothers are lawyers and things are either LEGAL, or ILLEGAL. Most fascinating of all is my sister who is a physical therapist, not a preacher or lawyer, who has the strongest set of moral standards of them all and the most judgmental. Personally, I'm a "black and white is really gray" person more and more, well, more like sepia tone I guess. I see both sides often and land on not just one side.

I like to see the different sides discussed here.

[paul secor]

I guess my point was that the sides have been discussed to death.

[jazzbo]

True, but there's new bits each time. I just skip over threads I've seen too much of.

[Teasing the Korean]

Aesthetics also come into it with issues properly licensed for the US - I *hate* the look of Collectables and the two-LP-on-one-cd format. I would never go near them!

Same for Applause. Yuk.

The good twofers reproduce each album cover in full on both sides of the insert, so you choose which one you want facing out. Seems like a fairly straightforward concept to me. Bad enough that LP sleeves are shrunk to CD dimensions; why they have to deliberately make them even smaller is ludicrous.

[colinmce]

I've always wanted to upgrade my Jazz Abstractions to a standalone Japanese issue. Such a great album and wonderful cover in a sleeve that just looks like crap. Not to mention it's paired with a pretty useless record.

[ArtSalt]

In Amsterdam there is Concerto, good for the whole spectrum from classical to jazz to rock. They also have a good second hand section. Basically, it's four or five interconnected stores in the Utrechtsestraat near Rembrandt Square.

In The Hague there is the Jazz Center, just jazz like the names says.

Concerto has been selling more low quality PD releases of classic albums over the past decade, but they are still pretty good, though not as good as they used to be, but perhaps that is also a reflection of the dwindling number of worthwhile new releases by reputable record labels and discs going OOP.

The Hague's record shops have been decimated in the last five years - there was a couple of discerning independents and they all went within about 18 months, including the one by the new wave lady who was in with Tina Weymouth and Chris Frantz of Talking Heads. The heavy metal one disappeared overnight, some might say, thankfully.

There's a few vinyl and second hand shops left, plus Media Mart, V&D and the Jazz Center hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Sounds in Delft is good for box-sets, I picked-up the 14 CD history of Sun Ra box-set on Transparency for a good price, small jazz selection, but now stock a few of the Blue Note SHM's.

[jazzbo]

I've always wanted to upgrade my Jazz Abstractions to a standalone Japanese issue. Such a great album and wonderful cover in a sleeve that just looks like crap. Not to mention it's paired with a pretty useless record.

Some decent prices on amazon.

[gmonahan]

let me add that I feel no guilt in buying any of this stuff because I have supported this industry with a LOT of my semi-hard-earned dollars since 1968. The record/cd business received more of my cash than anything, other than my kids.

You spent more on your kids than on jazz recordings?? Where on earth are YOUR priorities?!

gregmo

[felser]

[Hot Ptah]

I know, but I still find the discussions fascinating to an extent.

I have a similar fascination within my own family. My Dad is a (retired, but not really) minister. Things are either RIGHT or WRONG. My two brothers are lawyers and things are either LEGAL, or ILLEGAL. Most fascinating of all is my sister who is a physical therapist, not a preacher or lawyer, who has the strongest set of moral standards of them all and the most judgmental. Personally, I'm a "black and white is really gray" person more and more, well, more like sepia tone I guess. I see both sides often and land on not just one side.

I like to see the different sides discussed here.

That is very interesting to me. I am an attorney and most experienced attorneys I know are not very judgmental about right and wrong, legal and illegal. They have seen so many shades of gray in their careers that they are far more flexible. This is off the topic, I know.

[jazzbo]

Well, I believe my brothers have seen plenty shades of gray as well, but both are involved in law areas and their positions within the area (labor for a private firm the one, housing as attorney for the city the other) that their main focus is on the legality or illegality of the situation they are working on and within.

And they both have a pretty firm grounding in my Dad's preacherly judgmental (less extreme now than when we were of formative ages) perspective.

[crisp]

Labels such as Mosaic, Ace, Vocalion, Cherry Red and Bear Family have no difficulty licensing music from the copyright holders, major and minor labels alike. I presume it costs more and that cost is passed on to the consumer. But they produce a quality product and haven't gone out of business.

That European PD labels don't do this suggests to me that they are interested in neither quality products nor satisfied customers, just a fast buck.

[Stonewall15]

Watch out for these 4-LP sets. Sometimes, because of CD 80 minute limit, some tracks are left off.

[medjuck]

Well things could get interesting. I believe that the earliest Hot 5 recordings are about to become p.d. worldwide. (I'm not sure-- there were some strange wrinkles in the newest US copyright laws. )

[paul secor]

Both Columbia and JSP (remastered by John R.T. Davies) have released reasonably priced and good sounding issues of this material. I would think that if anyone else issues it, it's only to make a quick buck.

[medjuck]

But I think (don't really know) that until now The JSP was "grey" in the US. BTW I have both because they each have cuts not on the other. JSP sounds better.

[paul secor]

For many, the JSP fell into a different category, because John R.T. Davies worked from original 78s to remaster and reissue the material - much the same as he and some others did with the Frog, Jazz Oracle, and other labels - rather than just making digital copies of other people's work.

[medjuck]

Well things could get interesting. I believe that the earliest Hot 5 recordings are about to become p.d. worldwide. (I'm not sure-- there were some strange wrinkles in the newest US copyright laws. )

Wow did I get that wrong. It looks like nothing recorded in the US is going to enter the public domain in my lifetime:

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Edited May 8, 2015 by medjuck

[AllenLowe]

if a major does it right I will buy it; if an independent does it right I will buy it.

Without this approach we would know about 20 percent of the history of American popular music of all genres.

Edited May 9, 2015 by AllenLowe

[StarThrower]

My local brick & mortar store has loads of legit classic jazz titles for 5.99, so I buy them there. I did buy one title on the Avid label. The Clark Terry 4 Classic Albums because I wanted the unavailable One Foot In The Gutter album. This label claims that their CDs are remastered for superior sound, but I think it's bullshit. These albums don't sound very good.

[GA Russell]

In my view, I have a moral duty toward the people involved with the making of the recording.

"Copyright holder" is a legal concept, a creation of the local government. I don't recognize a government to have the ability to create moral duties, and without knowing anything else about a situation, I would not feel a moral duty toward a copyright holder.

Anyone want to persuade me otherwise?

[mjzee]

In my view, I have a moral duty toward the people involved with the making of the recording.

"Copyright holder" is a legal concept, a creation of the local government. I don't recognize a government to have the ability to create moral duties, and without knowing anything else about a situation, I would not feel a moral duty toward a copyright holder.

Anyone want to persuade me otherwise?

I'll give it a shot. This has little to do with government. It's not clear whether songwriters, for example, are paid for the use of their compositions. Moreover, Concord (to use one example) paid the original owners of Fantasy for the recording masters. Given the timing of their purchase (at the start of the record industry's decline), it's hard to say it was a wise purchase. Surely they have the right to make money off these masters. These cheap sets make it harder for them to do so.

[GA Russell]

Michael, I am happy to consider the songs' composers among those involved with the making of the record.

In my view, I have a moral duty toward the people involved with the making of the recording.

"Copyright holder" is a legal concept, a creation of the local government. I don't recognize a government to have the ability to create moral duties, and without knowing anything else about a situation, I would not feel a moral duty toward a copyright holder.

Anyone want to persuade me otherwise?

I'll give it a shot. This has little to do with government. It's not clear whether songwriters, for example, are paid for the use of their compositions. Moreover, Concord (to use one example) paid the original owners of Fantasy for the recording masters. Given the timing of their purchase (at the start of the record industry's decline), it's hard to say it was a wise purchase. Surely they have the right to make money off these masters. These cheap sets make it harder for them to do so.

But Concord did not pay "the original owners of Fantasy." They paid Saul Zaentz, who acquired the company in 1967, 18 years after Dave Brubeck's first recordings, which Fantasy obtained from Coronet Records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Records

Should I have a moral duty toward the current owner of tapes (which have changed hands many times) after the musicians, producer and engineer are dead?

In regard to the US, the Constitution states that copyright shall be for a limited time.

( Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Does that make the Constitutional immoral?

[A Lark Ascending]

In my view, I have a moral duty toward the people involved with the making of the recording.

"Copyright holder" is a legal concept, a creation of the local government. I don't recognize a government to have the ability to create moral duties, and without knowing anything else about a situation, I would not feel a moral duty toward a copyright holder.

Anyone want to persuade me otherwise?

What about the moral duty of those who own the copyright of music to make it available to those who would like to hear it? You could make an argument that this is material of cultural interest to people as a whole. In this day and age the technology is there to make it available. But music often lies buried whilst the copyright owners wait for the right moment to 'realise their assets'. In other words working off a business model, not morality.

I'm not arguing for a free for all. The 50 year rule always struck me as pretty fair. Time for the originator to make financial gain to reward their efforts and ingenuity. Any profit invested from those years could be passed on to descendants like other inheritance. But after 50 years the music going into the public domain seems pretty reasonable. Where companies infringe that 50 year rule they should be open to prosecution.

The reason why copyright has been extended has little to do with compensating the makers of music (morality) and more to do with businesses wanting to secure profit from the more lucrative parts of back catalogue - the Beatles, Dead Maestros etc. It's a form of asset stripping - acquire the bulk, use the lucrative parts, let the rest rot if you can't sell it off to someone else.

Of course this is currently all academic as technology allows the free distribution of virtually anything for those who know how to access it. We each make our own 'moral' decision on what to do when faced with an opportunity to acquire something that has not been authorised by the originator - a bootleg tape, illegal download, recording made supposedly legally in some dastardly foreign country, CD-r or mp3 of an OOP recording passed on by a friend, personal recording made of a library or otherways borrowed copy, tracks recorded on a PC recorder from a streaming service or radio broadcast etc.

If the copyright laws were extended to 600 years or more to protect music, literature etc would it be 'morally' wrong to acquire an illegal copy of the Works of Shakespeare even though High Literature PLC had bought the rights to all the material? I'd say that morally the Works of Shakespeare need to be made available to all (as they are) as an important cultural body of work of interest to all. You then run back into the thorny issue of just how long is it right for material to lie within private ownership, when is is just (or morally right) to allow it into the public domain. The decision on that needs to be made (as it is) legally. Morality (more accurately, considering various interpretations of morality) might inform your judgment, but it is too slippery a concept to make an absolute decision on.

Edited May 9, 2015 by A Lark Ascending