Thoughts on cheap, multi CD re-issues

[Big Beat Steve]

I am very skeptical that the huge multinational conglomerates which have control of the recorded music industry today are at all interested in paying royalties to artists they consider to be nothing less than has-beens. if we know that 60 years ago, in the glory days of the record industry, the business was run by shysters, weasels and mob associates who regularly screwed their recording artists out of money, what reason is there to believe that the situation is any better now that the record industry is in the even more unseemly hands of corporate accountants and lawyers (no offense to any lawyers or accountants here, who I am sure are groovy folks). The corporate execs would rather spend bucks having lawyers finding obscure clauses in long ago contracts that can be used to show the artists are not owed one damn dime. To pay a washed up and forgotten (by the public at large) musician royalties for music they recorded before most of today's music industry execs were even born would set a bad precedent in their minds.

As I said earlier, unless a musician or their estate can afford to have their own accountant or lawyer go over the music conglomerate's records and accounts, they are likely getting screwed. And how many musicians who have recorded works from 50-60 years ago -- say Sonny Rollins, Jimmy Heath, Roy Haynes, McCoy Tyner -- are in a position to afford a team of accountants and lawyers? And which deceased musicians have a family in such a position? The Coltrane family? The Davis family? The Brubeck family? The Ellington family? The Armstrong family?

Very valid points. And probably all too near the truth.

Though in a way it is a sign of the times and of THIS forum that the musicians mentioned are for the most part from the 50s onwards.

As is probably known to ANY jazz fan worth his salt around here, Count Basie was screwed badly by Dave Kapp when he signed that initial recording contract for Decca in 1936. John Hammond who had been trying to negotiate a contract with Columbia on (by the then standards) much fairer terms was beaten to it by a fast-acting Dave Kapp taking advantage of the not so business-wise Count Basie. Above all that contract included no royalty arrangements whatsoever. Alarmed at the throat-cutting rates that term held Hamnmond tried to obtain a better contract for Basie with Decca but was only successful to a VERY limited extent.

Now I have yet to see conclusive proof that Decca and those conglmoerates who have owned the Decca catalog ever since (MCA etc.) have substantially updated those intial contract terms and paid Basie (and his musicians and his estat etc.) the royalties that ought to have been due him for those reissues that have come out evers since.

Particularly since, as linked to above, apparently the music from that era would NOT YET be in the public domain by U.S. copyright laws and therefore also ought to offer some royalty protection to the artist.

Reason enough for outcries and calls for boycotting buying Decca/MCA stuff because of those unfair terms or just a case of shrugging your shoulders ("you can't do anything about it anyway"), buying anyway and moving on, never mind the (30s, not 50s/60s! ) artists ...?

Which would be a stark contrast to what is discussed about 50s artists/recordings where, like Duane set, it would indeed be doubtful too that royalties on nthe umpteenth reissue are actually being paid everywhere.

So are the majoros that much better than some of the P.D. labels that take advantage of the 50-year rule in effect in Europe which makes these totally legal products in Europe? (Offering these CDs in the US where strictly speaking they might be illegal is not something to blame the labels for, but rather the U.S. retailers. If you need to complain, take your complaints there, please ...)

Actually in this entire reissue field the only really fair royalty project (which was not based on what one was required to but what seemed ethically fair) that I'd know of was what Jonas Bernholm from Sweden did with with his Route 66 label and its subsidiaries throughout the 80s where he always paid the featured artist advance royalties on a basis of a pressing run of 2,000 LPs each (no idea what the eventual average pressing runs of those LPs were) but of course never paid the recording companies a dime. Which strictly speaking made them bootlegs. Many of the featured artists were on record at the time as being extremely grateful to him for those royalty checks because often this was the first time they had seen ANY money from those late 40s/early 50s recordings in a long time or at all ever since the day the might have let themselves be lured/pressed into recording for a flat session fee (Hermann Lubinsky, etc., anyone? )

Edited May 10, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

....In other words, do I buy a used LP for 100 $, or a 10 € box set from one of those "triflin'-ass EuroMusiPorn" labels.

Or, third option (why are there always just two "or"s in discussions like this?) - do we do for ourselves what these labels are doing for us?

We can - we've got access to EVERYTHING they do, and we are not doing it to create a marketplace presence.

[Big Beat Steve]

....In other words, do I buy a used LP for 100 $, or a 10 € box set from one of those "triflin'-ass EuroMusiPorn" labels.

Or, third option (why are there always just two "or"s in discussions like this?) - do we do for ourselves what these labels are doing for us?

Simple .. because this third option is irrelevant to some (or maybe many) people.

"Sorry I don't do downloads, not even payable ones" or "No, I don't use my PC as my main LISTENING source for my music" - does that ring a bell?

Some (me included) just don't care for sound files randomly lurking one one's hard drive and the inconvenience of having to shift them around and get them into a playable format on where one prefers to listen to them. Not very many of those P.D. CDs or box sets can be THAT bad in their presentation that they would be worse than a downloaded file that comes with exactly NOTHING for additional information in final form. Quite apart from the fact that "legit" reissues from the majors have been known to exist and be marketed in just as bare-bones, cheapo presentations.

And if the bottom line of some of those box sets in the quality/presentation/price tradeoff is OK to some (particularly in countries where they are perfectly legal by the P.D./ copyright expiry laws of those continents) then that's that. People making their own decisions based on THEIR criteria. End of discussion. Pointless of ranting or trying to pass allegedly morally superior (or just plain smart-aleck) "judgment" over and over and over and over again. Dead horses being beaten, you know ...

Edited May 10, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[johnblitweiler]

this discussion reminds me of when RCA Bluebird was reissuing LPs 30 or more years ago, and my neighbor Little Brother Montgomery wanted to get paid for his 2-LP album, music he'd recorded in 1935-6. RCA told him sorry, but they'd paid him $5 a side for all performance rights, no more $ for you. But Jim O'Neill got RCA to send Brother all their Bluebird reissues. I happened to be visiting Brother when the Fats Waller piano solo album came in the mail and remember how overjoyed he was at hearing those beauties again. Incidentally, that $5 would be around $100 a side today and his album had 32 tracks. (But in the 1980s he may have collected a pittance for songwriting - I don't remember whether.)

[JSngry]

....In other words, do I buy a used LP for 100 $, or a 10 € box set from one of those "triflin'-ass EuroMusiPorn" labels.

Or, third option (why are there always just two "or"s in discussions like this?) - do we do for ourselves what these labels are doing for us?

Simple .. because this third option is irrelevant to some (or maybe many) people.

"Sorry I don't do downloads, not even payable ones" or "No, I don't use my PC as my main LISTENING source for my music" - does that ring a bell?

Some (me included) just don't care for sound files randomly lurking one one's hard drive and the inconvenience of having to shift them around and get them into a playable format on where one prefers to listen to them. Not very many of those P.D. CDs or box sets can be THAT bad in their presentation that they would be worse than a downloaded file that comes with exactly NOTHING for additional information in final form. Quite apart from the fact that "legit" reissues from the majors have been known to exist and be marketed in just as bare-bones, cheapo presentations.

And if the bottom line of some of those box sets in the quality/presentation/price tradeoff is OK to some (particularly in countries where they are perfectly legal by the P.D./ copyright expiry laws of those continents) then that's that. People making their own decisions based on THEIR criteria. End of discussion. Pointless of ranting or trying to pass allegedly morally superior (or just plain smart-aleck) "judgment" over and over and over and over again. Dead horses being beaten, you know ...

Dude, you make it sound like it requires a PHD to download an album, burn it to CD, print out some artwork, and put it in a jewel box.

It's not. It's so easy a 12-year-old could do it.

Just be honest with yourself about why the EuroMusiPorn is so palatable an option for you - it's easy and it's cheap and that's your driving motivation. Acknowledge that yes, there are other factors involved for other parties, but those don't concern you. Don't go constructing all sorts of trifling "arguments" or "logics" about why you feel morally - or whatever - justified in buying this stuff. You don't need to be justified, hell you just need to be honest about it. You like it cheap and you like it easy. That position is completely defenseable. Not particularly "noble", but fuck that, nobody is noble ALL the time. The oversized outraged excuses, not so much. And the attempts to paint some sort of creepy technoworld where downloads are these disease carrying netherworld insects hovering around your hard drive like flies over a dead dog' carcass and you know, oooohhh, it's HARD WORK to get them under control are just plain moronic. I get it - you don't like to be bothered. But "I don't like to be bothered" and "It's too HAAAAAARD" are not the same thing, not even close.

Because, really, with the type of material we're talking about with these sets, "I don't do downloads" is just as much 100% bullshit as is "it's not available ANYWHERE else!". When you buy this stuff, you ARE doing downloads, you're just paying somebody else's 12 year old kid to burn it to CD and then put together some halfass pictures and slam it into a jewel box.

Just say it - it's easy and it's cheap, and in this case, for you, that trumps all. And to that, all I can honestly say is "been there, done that". You keep rantsquawkin' all this other bullshit, hey...

[paul secor]

this discussion reminds me of when RCA Bluebird was reissuing LPs 30 or more years ago, and my neighbor Little Brother Montgomery wanted to get paid for his 2-LP album, music he'd recorded in 1935-6. RCA told him sorry, but they'd paid him $5 a side for all performance rights, no more $ for you. But Jim O'Neill got RCA to send Brother all their Bluebird reissues. I happened to be visiting Brother when the Fats Waller piano solo album came in the mail and remember how overjoyed he was at hearing those beauties again. Incidentally, that $5 would be around $100 a side today and his album had 32 tracks. (But in the 1980s he may have collected a pittance for songwriting - I don't remember whether.)

Reading this, I was reminded of a similar situation with Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup. Here's a repost from sometime back on these forums:

Big Beat Steve, on Jul 11 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

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).

paul secor, on July 11, 2009 said:

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.

I imagine that there are those here who would say that Arthur Crudup's family shouldn't receive royalty money because Mr. Crudup died before the settlement came about. No comment from me on that.

[ejp626]

As with most things in life, there are "good" estates and "bad" estates, and the changes in copyright law seem to favor rent-seeking behavior by "bad" estates that seem to act pretty much like patent trolls. It is interesting that the movie thread discusses Vivian Maier, since there are two distant relatives coming out of the woodwork and putting in their claims on these negatives, when they certainly had no actual connection to Maier during her life. Estates like this -- screw them. I think they should lose their rights and have the material go into PD.

But I'm not going to have my mind changed just because "think of the children" nor do I expect to change anyone else's mind. I guess it was a good thing that I have built up my collection when I did, since I think the changes in copyright law are definitely detrimental to the culture as a whole and specifically to music fans that follow niche genres. If you think the music scene is bad now, just wait another 10-15 years after the majors stop bothering to reissue most jazz artists (and they are no longer allowed to fall into PD) alongside the related issue of these ridiculous "sounds like" copyright infringement suits. Lawyers and music are never a good mix.

[David Ayers]

The ethics of the beer coaster collection are more arcane than is commonly thought.

[mikeweil]

As for downloads, they are okay for me if I get decent documentation. I did download quite a bit for about two years but noticed even though I did burn some of the stuff etc. I hardly listened to it. Now that I have got decent listening equipment for downloaded audio I still prefer CDs or vinyl. I have no idea why, but I do.

The only case where downloading is an option for me right now is some classical stuff that is download only, but in excellent audio quality and with full documentation, or some pop tracks where I like only single tracks and don't need the whole album.

Audio quality and documentation is the most important to me. Since most of the cheapos don't gve me that I do not care for them. But I returned or gave away legit reissues that sounded like crap just as well.

I'd say the whole idea about copyright and property of art badly needs re-consideration. If we, the people, want music,we should pay our musicians decently. A governmentally guaranteed income for artists or the like. Sounds like Utopia, I know.

[David Ayers]

That's what Mick Jagger told me when I dropped 10 pence in his hat when he was busking on the subway the other day. Renee Fleming was trying to agree with him I think, but hunger had made her too weak to speak. Apparently Shostakovich thought the whole state-funded system of the arts worked brilliantly. Government to the rescue.

[JSngry]

Audio quality and documentation is the most important to me. Since most of the cheapos don't gve me that I do not care for them...

...I'd say the whole idea about copyright and property of art badly needs re-consideration....

Documentation, me personally, I need less and less as time goes by (except for really well written new or original notes), but yeah, the cheapos don't give you that because it would be, like, too much trouble/expense. What they do give you is basic facts that anybody with a computer has access to.

As for why they don't give better audio quality than downloads, that's easy - they're using - at best - the exact same files you - or your favorite 12 year old - can get yourself. Guaranteed.

Not just copyright and intellectual property, but also the entire notion of where information "is". Hard copy data can be guarded, locked up, protected, etcetcetc. If it leaks, it leaks, but some leaks happen easier than others. Digital data, once it leaks, its gone. And then the issue is not CAN I find it, it's WHERE can I find it. So with that reality, it's time to start reimaging the notion of what creates value as separate from what creates product. And that ain't gonna come into focus or be clearly/cleanly resolved in my lifetime, I'm sure, because right now, everybody i all about keep what you earn rather than earn what you keep, so...not a lot of common ground to be found right now, desperation breed counter desperation and then people get stoopid.

[AllenLowe]

once again I think there is some confusion - I don't know who Paul thinks would deny Crudup's estate their publishing royalties - which has NOTHING to do with royalties on sales of records made by Crudup himself (who was, btw, a real pioneer; read my book for explanation).

and as I said earlier, even PD labels are REQUIRED to pay publishing fees. So no composer is being cheated.

Edited May 11, 2015 by AllenLowe

[medjuck]

once again I think there is some confusion - I don't know who Paul thinks would deny Crudup's estate their publishing royalties - which has NOTHING to do with royalties on sales of records made by Crudup himself (who was, btw, a real pioneer; read my book for explanation).

and as I said earlier, even PD labels are REQUIRED to pay publishing fees. So no composer is being cheated.

Bu† I doubt if they do. I knew the owner of a record that did a lot of avant-garde and traditional records and he told me they tried to avoid paying composers' royalties. And his was legit operation.

[David Ayers]

These sets cost about the same as a sandwich and coffee. So, yes, you can make a sandwich and coffee yourself. Or you can pay someone else to do it. Either way we are talking about pocket money.

[Big Beat Steve]

and as I said earlier, even PD labels are REQUIRED to pay publishing fees. So no composer is being cheated.

Indeed it appears to be so.

Anything marketed anywhere will have to go through the composer/publishing door, and apparently there is no way you can avoid that once you want to get your goods into any sales outlet/distribution channels.

I remember an example a friend told me who produces, presses and distributes 45rpm EPs featuring rockabilly (and similar) bands of today, i.e. recent recordings but VERY much a niche product and one that is off the radar of almost anybody in the music and publishing "business". The up-front composer royalties he had to pay to the company that handles this for every record produced and sold was not so negligible for a pressing run of only 500 45s and no more. And this despite the fact that those 45s almost always hold self-penned tunes (written by the singer or some band member). But the REALLY strange thing is that these royalties paid up front do not go straight back to the artists/composers in question but into one huge pot the contents of which are distributed through the entire artists'/composers' spectrum according to some complicated formula which benefits "name" composers/artists disproportionately more. So in the end a good deal of the royalties paid for music recorded by niche artists go - in part - to the big names - and only comparatively little goes back to those indie-produced artists/composers. The small ones subsidizing the big ones!

I think the only way you could avoid these composer royalty payments (beyond a token fee if you had a batch of "demo" recordings pressed) was if you really sold your records only at your very own gigs from the trunk of your car or the like but that limits your exposure severely, of course (I know a recent case like that too - in that case the object being an LP with a pressing run of 200 or 250, more of a hobby project, in fact).

Edited May 11, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[David Ayers]

I'm amazed how many folks don't grasp that the laws were framed to protect the intellectual property (the song) and not the performance. Amazed. That is the whole point. Not least this was intended to prevent jazz musicians from using improvisation (variation) to claim rights in a piece.

People here steal music, notably the legally well-protected intellectual property in the composition. That's fine, but it has to not come with the hypocritical displays of sel righteousness.

[AmirBagachelles]

Why should the rights of ownership to artistic and intellectual property ever fade, as long as the foundational legal regime survives to enforce those rights? Trademarks, for example, are as durable as homeowners' rights to their property; perpetual rights to property are not a freak thing but in fact normal. What seems abnormal are "legal" appropriations of property and a transfer to another domain, by fiat.

[A Lark Ascending]

We could always reverse that. Introduce the 50 (or 70) year rule for property. You buy it, enjoy it for 50 (or 70) years and then it returns to the public domain.

(Sorry - after last week's catastrophe I'm further into dreamland than ever)

Edited May 11, 2015 by A Lark Ascending

[Teasing the Korean]

Why should the rights of ownership to artistic and intellectual property ever fade, as long as the foundational legal regime survives to enforce those rights? Trademarks, for example, are as durable as homeowners' rights to their property; perpetual rights to property are not a freak thing but in fact normal. What seems abnormal are "legal" appropriations of property and a transfer to another domain, by fiat.

Because it has a stultifying effect on art and culture when entire centuries are held under lock and key. If this is the preference, why not make copyright law retroactive and give the descendants of Bach and Shakespeare their slice of the pie? Because Bach is nearly as important as most jazz musicians. Edited May 11, 2015 by Teasing the Korean

[mjzee]

Because Bach is nearly as important as most jazz musicians.

Nice phrasing!

[David Ayers]

Because Bach is nearly as important as most jazz musicians.

Nice phrasing!

Haa haaaaaaaa

[AmirBagachelles]

i don't know when the legal concept of copyright or intellectual property originated but if the estates of Shakespeare and Bach were alive and kicking and trying to lobby for a change to copyright laws and perhaps re-enforce legitimate claims, I think that would be cool by me. All this "free" IP and music stealing is obviously terrible, and we would do well as a society to use all technological means to ensure that legitimate property rights are preserved through time. Will power!!!

[Big Beat Steve]

Are you, in your quest of doing well as a society, willing to extend this protection of "legitimate" property rights to ANYONE involved in the process of creating such "intellectual property", even if only in a partial (but (indispensable) area and - along the lines of what Shakespeare did - not only limited to musical works?

Remember this will fast include ANYTHING in the area of "technical writing" too, for example, and there would be no reason why such rights should be relinquished by the authors to the publishers/product companies (or else recordings artists being coerced into recording for a flat fee and no royalties ever would be quite OK too).

You are treading in a minefield! Because - by your generalizing yardsticks, ANY line that you draw will be an arbitrary one and open to dispute.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[.:.impossible]

Finally! We are in a minefield. I was beginning to feel like this was going nowhere.

[JSngry]

We are in a minefield. I was beginning to feel like this was going nowhere.

Minefields, legs blown off, going nowhere, all of a piece.