Hey Kids, Have You Heard The News? MOSAIC's IN TROUBLE!!!

[Brad]

Just catching up with this thread and talked to Scott.  Just submitted an order for the Fitzgerald and Chick Webb set.  Will order the JPJ set when it's available. 

[ArtSalt]

I sincerely hope that Mosaic can continue their superlative mission as it would be a great loss if the label has to end. Who could replace them in terms of breadth of scope, sound quality and historic accuracy of session notes?

I've been buying Mosaic sets since the mid-2000's directly, through the jazz centre here in The Hague and also through ebay for earlier sets. In saying that, I still only own 39 box sets and essentials have slipped through. My biggest issue is the seemingly arbitrary expensive import duties imposed by the authorities here. I fell out with J.A.W. over this a couple years back on this forum and his position was that one needs to just grin and bear it, don't challenge and he was off! But it really is a deal breaker when you're hit with import duties on the cost of the courier along with the product. It's mean and a barrier to purchasing. I've stopped buying stuff directly from North America because of this. The last thing I purchased was a J.Press blazer and I was hit with nearly €300 in import duties! The one exception is Brooks Brothers who you can now purchase online with these hidden costs now included. I like this.

As already discussed and also not wanted to be discussed, the dreaded download/digital format is crucial to any debate on music labels. So we ignore it at our peril.

The record labels royally or royalty wise screwed up on the downloading and streaming services. They got the worse deal possible and have made the selling of music by an artist a profession that is no longer viable in most cases. You need to be playing live to make a living now. Of course, jazz music was always like that!

I still believe that the record industry can be saved and made viable again through fair paying digital means. I really do and don't see Mosaic is an exception to this. Limited edition downloads and electronic booklets could work, no problem. Now, a canny idea would be the whole of the back catalogue renegotiated and made available digitally.

[sidewinder]

Art - I hear you. 10 years ago the shipping to Europe was a lot less,  customs fees were often waivered and the £ bought not far off $2. How times change..

Edited May 9, 2017 by sidewinder

[Bluesnik]

57 minutes ago, sidewinder said:

Scott must be getting a real ear-pounding about the JPJ set..

Yes, because I also ordered it a couple of days ago. It was always high on my list.

[David Ayers]

@ArtSalt We already mentioned that the owners will not licence downloads and streaming to Mosaic. Instead they market these themselves, e.g. Hines, Threadgill, Rivers, and others. 

[Scott Dolan]

56 minutes ago, David Ayers said:

@ArtSalt We already mentioned that the owners will not licence downloads and streaming to Mosaic. Instead they market these themselves, e.g. Hines, Threadgill, Rivers, and others. 

Again, we do not know this for a fact. All we know is that current licensing agreements don't allow Mosaic to market downloads, or streaming. 

[alankin]

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

Again, we do not know this for a fact. All we know is that current licensing agreements don't allow Mosaic to market downloads, or streaming. 

That is what Michael Cuscuna said.

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, alankin said:

That is what Michael Cuscuna said.

No, he did not. He said they didn't currently have digital/streaming rights. He said nothing about the possibility of renegotiating the licensing rights packages. 

[ArtSalt]

Exactly, it can be negotiated and a complete Mosaic back catalogue digital/streaming delight would be the ultimate....

[ElginThompson]

Genuinely surprised that the Ahmad Jamal set is still available. Maybe folks have it in other formats.

High price point, but such terrific music. One of my favorites.

[JSngry]

My Jamal set arrived today. Looking forward to really taking my time with it. Certainly not music to be digested in large quatities in a concentrated time span,

Now...

If we're going to discuss what Michael Cuscuna "said" about Mosaic and downloads, let's discuss what he actually did say: http://www.stereophile.com/content/survivalists-mosaic-and-newvelle-records#FCfZl8yueoAEbm51.97

Cuscuna says, with more than a hint of sarcasm, that it took until 1989 for the major labels to grant Mosaic the right to press CDs, because "they were new and were saving the business."

He's now facing the same predicament with MP3s and high-resolution downloads. "The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

While digital technology is a godsend for rescuing old or compromised source material, the future of CDs is another matter. Does Cuscuna plan to keep releasing massive CD sets like the eight-CD Classic 1936–1947 Count Basie and Lester Young Studio Sessions? "I think CDs will continue, and will be the last physical way to transport music, to disseminate music. I don't think that our generation is going to get beyond the CD. And when the CD goes, I don't think I'll be around—it will last as long as I do.

 

Ok, parse that anyway you want. I look at it like "never" is only never until...but until until, never is never.

And as far as never goes...since Mosaic only owns the rights to the Parker/Benedetti material, what happens when Cuscuna and/or Wenzel get sick, fragile (physically and/or mentally), or any other sircumstance that renders them basically incapable of running this business? There's undoubtedly a legal agreement in place, but if never becomes until if and when the next generation on both sides of the bargaining are in place, who's going to be there for Mosaic? Doesn't sound like it's going to be Michael Cuscuna? And objectively, does Scott Wenzel seem like the type of guy whose driving force is safely guiding something like a set of Rosemary Clooney transcriptions into the post-physical product era?

Finally - I've lost track of where it all stands now, but when EMI was sold, how did that affect the partial ownership of Mosaic by Capitol? Is there still a "major label" legally attached to the Mosaic business structure in any way?

If I'm following the trail correctly ( a big if...), Blue Note was folded into EMI Classics, which is now Warner Classics? Does that mean that Warner Classics now holds a 50% ownership stake in Mosaic, or did somebody pay somebody else to be rid of that, recently or otherwise?

As it relates to downloads, it seems, that there is no real need to give those rights to Mosaic unless Mosaic gets rebranded as Warner Classics Classic Jazz Download Central, in which case, why would they get cooperation from BMG/Sony?

In a perfect world, it would all last forever. But if it all lasted forever, would we have embraced Mosaic so fully in the first place?

OTOH, Mosiac coud become the new Savoy, focus on some sorely needed comprehensive and respectful Gospel sets and do that thing for a while. But Malaco already got that ground covered about as well as it's going to get covered.

Until...

[WarpedOrb]

@ElginThompson I've been into jazz for a while now but I know nothing about Ahmed Jamal besides his name, maybe that's the case with others; however, I looked into this after yr post & it sounds like a good box.

@ArtSalt  39 big boxes in about 12 years sounds like you've done pretty good to me  –  I have 42 IF I include 16 Selects and four singles. Three Commodores, two other big boxes, and two selects I bought here in town, but the rest I got from mosaic directly. I never once, since 2004 paid customs duty. The $20-$25 Canadian for shipping is a little steep, but isn't bad considering the size and "dimensional weight" of these things. It depends on the company. I hesitate to order movies from the Criterion Collection or Amazon.com because I will pay big for import. On the other hand I often order movies from Eureka! in the UK and not only do I not pay customs but shipping is free worldwide – it's an uneven world out there. 

Digital downloads will always be a compromise in my book but certainly better than nothing; however, you can pretty much do that now for hundreds of great jazz albums. The one or two I've heard sound pretty darn good but are about as special to me as listening to something on YouTube 

Edited May 9, 2017 by WarpedOrb

[lipi]

Cuscuna's argument makes no sense--it didn't make sense ten pages ago (or was it in the deleted thread?), and it does not make sense now.

"The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

There is no difference between Mosaic's creating a CD set and Mosaic's creating a downloadable set when it comes to the label's being able to take it all and dump it into iTunes/Amazon/Bandcamp/... after. The same mechanism that protects the label's interests right now (limited number of sales and limited time of sale) can be used for downloadable content.

If the labels had any plans to release their back catalogue digitally imminently, then they'd have a reason to not grant the rights to a third party like Mosaic, but absolutely nothing points in that direction.

My, incredibly negative, outlook on it all is that Mosaic is, sadly, stuck in the 20th century, and that the people running it are as out of touch with modern technology as the major labels were five years ago (or perhaps still are?), and as most of the people posting on this board seem to be. (And that's totally OK! We don't all have to jump on the new bandwagon. It's OK to prefer vinyl, or CD's, or weird high-fidelity cables made of moonrock. It's OK to not quite know (or care about) the difference between MP3, AAC, ALAC, and WAV. But it's shortsighted to complain that the old ways are no longer working without fully understanding the new. In other words: I don't think any of this is really a business problem: it's a technology/generational one. Here's hoping I didn't just start a massive flame war. I love you all, you're all dear to me, <3, etc. etc.)

[Scott Dolan]

"He's now facing the same predicament with MP3s and high-resolution downloads. "The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material."

That essentially reads as how he sees any potential conversation over download licensing rights playing out. Not that the conversation ever actually took place. 

They could have just as easily taken the exact same route with ANY of their property. 

The closing statement says it all. He doesn't "think" "our generation" will get beyond the CD. I guess he wants to be seen as a proud buggywhip maker, but why be so wishy-washy about it? 

[jazzbo]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

 

Finally - I've lost track of where it all stands now, but when EMI was sold, how did that affect the partial ownership of Mosaic by Capitol? Is there still a "major label" legally attached to the Mosaic business structure in any way?

If I'm following the trail correctly ( a big if...), Blue Note was folded into EMI Classics, which is now Warner Classics? Does that mean that Warner Classics now holds a 50% ownership stake in Mosaic, or did somebody pay somebody else to be rid of that, recently or otherwise?

 

Just a note to say that Blue Note is part of Universal, did not go to Warner.

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, jazzbo said:

Just a note to say that Blue Note is part of Universal, did not go to Warner.

I was never aware of all the mergers and acquisitions that have obviously taken place. So are Universal and Warner essentially the only two real parent companies left? 

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

I was never aware of all the mergers and acquisitions that have obviously taken place. So are Universal and Warner essentially the only two real parent companies left? 

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

[WarpedOrb]

@lipi We love you too, man. Haha. I don't know, for me running off into the bright new future with digital is to be a dupe of the corporations. They have far more control over your music when it's digital than when it's physical, but maybe I'm being paranoid. I just know new has panned out over and over again to not always mean "best". Also, when I go into a records store it's packed with 20-somethings buying vinyl. I agree with you though, a company must be willing and able to adapt to new trends. Speaking of corporations it's interesting that you used ALAC as an example instead of the open-sourced FLAC. Corporate dupe! 

Now I admit I don't want to jettison my large collection of vinyl and CDs collected over many years, but I'm not stuck in the 20th century. I have a Bryston digital-player and DAC collecting dust...so I'm ready if need be. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by WarpedOrb

[Scott Dolan]

What do you mean when you say the corporations have more control over your music when it's digital? 

[JSngry]

I don't know that the phrase "it's their feeling that..." is indicative of a supposition,.or a potential conversation. I've observed Cuscuna for years and seen him be a passionate, aggressive advocate, but never an outright fake news propagandist. So I feel solid about an actual conversation (or more) actually having taken place. How recent that conversation was, or how aggressively the point was pursued, I would not dare to speculate.

As for the present (and thank you, Lon, for supplying accurate information), does anybody know if the Universal/EMI/Capitol partnership still exists? Perhaps more relevantly, does anybody know (that that any of us need to know) the details, like, is their a buyout clause that either party can execute, or any other way to dissolve the partnership if it's not yet been dissolved?

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

Ah, yes. Sony. Duh. 

In my defense, I actually am a blonde...

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, medjuck said:

Sony?  (Which owns Columbia and RCA I think.) 

Yes, remember the Mosaic Dreams of all the possibilities of RCA & Columbia now having the same rights holders?

Those were good dreams...

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

I don't know that the phrase "it's their feeling that..." is indicative of a supposition,.or a potential conversation. I've observed Cuscuna for years and seen him be a passionate, aggressive advocate, but never an outright fake news propagandist. So I feel solid about an actual conversation (or more) actually having taken place. How recent that conversation was, or how aggressively the point was pursued, I would not dare to speculate.

As for the present (and thank you, Lon, for supplying accurate information), does anybody know if the Universal/EMI/Capitol partnership still exists? Perhaps more relevantly, does anybody know (that that any of us need to know) the details, like, is their a buyout clause that either party can execute, or any other way to dissolve the partnership if it's not yet been dissolved?

No, no! I wasn't accusing him of anything of the sort. Just pointing out that the language is purely speculative in nature. 

And as I said, his closing statement tells me it's not a conversation he's willing to entertain. Let alone whether the labels would. 

Instead of concrete statements, he leaves everything rather ambiguous. 

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[lipi]

1 hour ago, WarpedOrb said:

[The corporations] have far more control over your music when it's digital than when it's physical, but maybe I'm being paranoid. I just know new has panned out over and over again to not always mean "best". Also, when I go into a records store it's packed with 20-somethings buying vinyl. I agree with you though, a company must be willing and able to adapt to new trends. Speaking of corporations it's interesting that you used ALAC as an example instead of the open-sourced FLAC. Corporate dupe! 

Re: more control: that's actually an excellent example of the kind of possible misunderstanding I was thinking of when I pointed out that one must truly understand new technology to be able to usefully critique it. I suspect you are mixing issues of DRM and Cloud storage into the more basic difference between CD and download media. A non-DRM-ed download saved on a local disk is just(*) as owned as a CD. It is not controlled by the seller anymore. ((*) It is (currently, in the USA) not re-sellable, so if that's your concern, it is valid. The first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. See Capitol v. ReDigi, 2013.)

Re: new not always meaning best: by the same token, old has not always meant best, either. I am not arguing that downloads are better than CD's (regardless of what I may personally believe). I am arguing that most of the arguments given against them in this thread have been baloney. An analogy to annoy and elucidate: to debate landline-vs-cell-phone, one must understand both sides. If you've never used a cell phone, or if the only cell phone you've used is the Motorola suitcase of the late 80's, then you will be unable to provide a whole lot of useful input. (Generic "you".)

Re: ALAC: Hah! Guilty as charged? I jumped on ALAC because FLAC support was poor on the Mac at the time, and now I'm happily ensconced in ALAC. The list was obviously not meant to be exhaustive. WMA? AIFF? (Ogg) Vorbis? (Cue discussion about the difference between an encoding and a file format.)

[Scott Dolan]

59 minutes ago, lipi said:

Re: more control: that's actually an excellent example of the kind of possible misunderstanding I was thinking of when I pointed out that one must truly understand new technology to be able to usefully critique it. I suspect you are mixing issues of DRM and Cloud storage into the more basic difference between CD and download media. A non-DRM-ed download saved on a local disk is just(*) as owned as a CD. It is not controlled by the seller anymore. ((*) It is (currently, in the USA) not re-sellable, so if that's your concern, it is valid. The first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. See Capitol v. ReDigi, 2013.)

Re: new not always meaning best: by the same token, old has not always meant best, either. I am not arguing that downloads are better than CD's (regardless of what I may personally believe). I am arguing that most of the arguments given against them in this thread have been baloney. An analogy to annoy and elucidate: to debate landline-vs-cell-phone, one must understand both sides. If you've never used a cell phone, or if the only cell phone you've used is the Motorola suitcase of the late 80's, then you will be unable to provide a whole lot of useful input. (Generic "you".)

Re: ALAC: Hah! Guilty as charged? I jumped on ALAC because FLAC support was poor on the Mac at the time, and now I'm happily ensconced in ALAC. The list was obviously not meant to be exhaustive. WMA? AIFF? (Ogg) Vorbis? (Cue discussion about the difference between an encoding and a file format.)

Well now, let's not let the cat out of the bag that MP3 isn't the only digital codec out there. Or that all the others are superior to it.  

As for DRM, that died a very quite death about a decade ago.