Women and Mosaic Records

[sidewinder]

52 minutes ago, Dmitry said:

I think you and JAW are possibly substituting the effect for the cause.

A mere fifteen-twenty years ago they were the Rolls-Royce of the limited edition jazz music boxed sets. Why are they a scaled-down firm NOW, when they were so much bigger THEN?

I imagine this could be because -

a. the principals are slowing down because of age, and don't want or can't handle the rigours of larger production.

b. the business isn't nearly as profitable as it was, which means loss of financial muscle to sponsor upcoming projects.

c. other.

Would love them to continue for years. There is still a lot to do! 

 

 

 

Whatever............they have likely done the right thing, for them, at this time. It also seems to be keeping their existing customer base reasonably happy, no small feat. Like many things in this world, it is a workable trade-off.

Your list should include items d. streaming e. demographics and f. US Postal Service. The (cost) changes to f. alone, in combination with big increased price per 180g LP, would have decimated overseas LP set sales. Imagine the impact on e.g. the Maynard F. set !

Edited May 4, 2023 by sidewinder

[Justin V]

I recently lobbied Scott Wenzel for a set of Mary Lou Williams' work with Andy Kirk.  It'd to be great to have it all in one place, properly remastered.  

[Teasing the Korean]

8 hours ago, Stompin at the Savoy said:

I don't understand how you get to "it is clearly not working now".  It's working for me. 

I have been picking up on about five years' worth of posts around here stating that Mosaic is going through hard times.  I haven't looked at their books.  If they're thriving, more power to them.

8 hours ago, Stompin at the Savoy said:

The fact is Mosaic sets are cheaper per disk than the single disk releases you are so fond of touting. 

You expect to get more when buying in bulk, but you also need to come up with the capital.  It's easier to part with $20 than it is to part with $120.  And not everyone likes box sets.

Mosaic could learn from some of the film score specialty labels.  Film score listeners are an even smaller share of the audience than jazz fans.  These labels do a combination of box sets and single discs.  They also cover all periods and styles of film music.  All film music listeners whom I know routinely buy from these labels.  But all jazz fans do not buy from Mosaic.

[Dmitry]

35 minutes ago, sidewinder said:

Whatever............they have likely done the right thing, for them, at this time. It also seems to be keeping their existing customer base reasonably happy, no small feat. Like many things in this world, it is a workable trade-off.

Your list should include items d. streaming e. demographics and f. US Postal Service. The (cost) changes to f. alone, in combination with big increased price per 180g LP, would have decimated overseas LP set sales. Imagine the impact on e.g. the Maynard F. set !

I think we all want them to succeed, hence the intellectual nose-picking from yours truly. To make a premiership parallel, I confess to being a Leicester City fan...

[Larry Kart]

4 hours ago, Dmitry said:

I think you and JAW are possibly substituting the effect for the cause.

A mere fifteen-twenty years ago they were the Rolls-Royce of the limited edition jazz music boxed sets. Why are they a scaled-down firm NOW, when they were so much bigger THEN?

I imagine this could be because -

a. the principals are slowing down because of age, and don't want or can't handle the rigours of larger production.

b. the business isn't nearly as profitable as it was, which means loss of financial muscle to sponsor upcoming projects.

c. other.

Would love them to continue for years. There is still a lot to do! 

 

 

 

The cause, I'll bet, is almost certainly that over time there are fewer  projects left that would appeal to many customers. Take a look back at a chronological list of Mosaic sets and see how many of them were virtual slam dunks for one reason  or another.

[JSngry]

50 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

Take a look back at a chronological list of Mosaic sets and see how many of them were virtual slam dunks for one reason  or another.

Also look at how many of them were EMI-adjacent. 

[clifford_thornton]

19 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Also look at how many of them were EMI-adjacent. 

Yup.

I think a big part of Mosaic's model becoming narrower and narrower over time is what they can actually license. I'm all for some of the releases but it's getting to be less and less interesting. 

And yeah, Scott, Williams, and Allen for sure -- Redd and more Akiyoshi would be great too. But I don't see any of this happening.

[gmonahan]

6 hours ago, Justin V said:

I recently lobbied Scott Wenzel for a set of Mary Lou Williams' work with Andy Kirk.  It'd to be great to have it all in one place, properly remastered.  

And they could probably do that. Kirk recorded for Decca, and Mosaic has usually been able to license stuff from Universal. They could probably get hold of the Asch label material too, but who knows about the other stuff? She recorded some for Victor, Continental, Savoy, and Vogue. Sony owns the Victor and Vogue material and have been unwilling recently to license it. But a Decca/Asch set would be cool, and the Asch stuff could use a good sound magician like Doug Pomeroy to try to bring it back. I'd go for that set.

 

[Teasing the Korean]

2 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

I think a big part of Mosaic's model becoming narrower and narrower over time is what they can actually license. I'm all for some of the releases but it's getting to be less and less interesting. 

Have they ever re-released one of their previous releases?  If they could negotiate a deal the first time, can they do it a second time?  The work has already been put into the mastering and packaging.

[jazzbo]

They have never done this and have vowed to never do it. The owners of the material have used the Mosaic transfers after the leases have ended as downloads in some cases.

[Dan Gould]

I do think Lon is right, with the exception that the recent return of the Paul Desmond set with Ed Bickert involved a discovery of many "pieces" of the set, which triggered a negotiation of a new lease with a limit of 3500 copies.

But if I remember weren't the original recordings done by an individual - not held by any large conglomerate. It was probably pretty easy to make a new deal, for new cash flow.

[JSngry]

Don Thompson, right? 

[colinmce]

43 minutes ago, Teasing the Korean said:

Have they ever re-released one of their previous releases?  If they could negotiate a deal the first time, can they do it a second time?  The work has already been put into the mastering and packaging.

I personally think they're crazy not to redo the Tolliver Selects in a big box with The Ringer, Paper Man, and Live At The Loosdrecht Jazz Festival. The second of those was barely even in print. Tolliver's music overall has suffered availability issues that are still unaddressed. 

[Dmitry]

One word — MONO.

For instance, redo the BN sets released by Mosaic in stereo, which were originally recorded in mono and stereo simultaneously. There’s a lot of interest in that today. 

[Teasing the Korean]

58 minutes ago, Dmitry said:

One word — MONO.

For instance, redo the BN sets released by Mosaic in stereo, which were originally recorded in mono and stereo simultaneously. There’s a lot of interest in that today. 

I'm all for mono!

[Stompin at the Savoy]

I would definitely buy a Mary Lou Williams set.  My guess is they thought of it long ago and didn't produce it - not because they are biased against female musicians but because they encountered difficulties licensing the material or getting it at prices which fit their model.

[clifford_thornton]

3 hours ago, gmonahan said:

But a Decca/Asch set would be cool, and the Asch stuff could use a good sound magician like Doug Pomeroy to try to bring it back. I'd go for that set.

 

I know Doug. Really nice guy. Think he's semi-retired but I could be wrong about that.

[J.A.W.]

26 minutes ago, Stompin at the Savoy said:

I would definitely buy a Mary Lou Williams set.  My guess is they thought of it long ago and didn't produce it - not because they are biased against female musicians but because they encountered difficulties licensing the material or getting it at prices which fit their model.

Exactly. Their projected Lucky Thompson set was also killed by licensing issues many years ago.

Edited May 4, 2023 by J.A.W.

[JSngry]

If you did Andy Kirk JUST with Mary Lou's writing and solos, how much would there be? 

[John L]

3 hours ago, JSngry said:

If you did Andy Kirk JUST with Mary Lou's writing and solos, how much would there be? 

I would think maybe 1.5-2 discs.  But recordings that Mary Lou Williams made first with the Synco Jazzers and later as a leader (solo, trio, quartet) during her time with Andy Kirk would comprise another full disc.  Then they could add to that a good part of her recordings for Asch from 1944-1945 - and BINGO - a great potential Mosaic.  

[JSngry]

Excellent! 

[JSngry]

Seriously?

At the most basic level, what you're quoting from me was a response who seemed to think that the NYT was going to fawn all over a Williams Mosaic simply because she was female. 

Past that .. Seriously? 

[Stompin at the Savoy]

1 hour ago, Face of the Bass said:

The fact that this message board is given over to endless advertising and fawning over Mosaic and its products is exactly why I started this thread. 

 

So knowing a lot of people here like Mosaic you started this thread to do what - point out to all these fans how bad the object of their interest actually is?  That those Mosaic sets fans mention enjoying here are actually not good?  You indicate that you wish the label were like some other labels.  Why?  How in any way does the existence of Mosaic label and its adherents injure you, those other labels, your pursuit of other labels, or your decision not to buy Mosaics?  Why all the put-downs?  Nobody is forcing you to buy Mosaics, like Mosaic sets or be involved with them in any way if you don't like them.  It's as though you resent the fact that people praise them here.  But why should you? Why would you want to change what other people like? Is this all a big attempt to justify your own refusal to buy Mosaics?  You don't need to justify your tastes - we are perfectly cool with it if you don't like Mosaic sets.  You seem to be not cool with it if others like them?

I'm not mad at you and think you have some interesting things to say.  In this particular you seem to be going after Mosaic.  I'm trying hard to imagine a way for this not to be the same thing as going to a Taylor Swift fan site and posting stuff dissing the hell out of Taylor Swift.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Stompin at the Savoy

[JSngry]

I'd like to see some suggestions.

Already mentioned are Mary Lou Williams, Shirley Scott, and Geri Allen. I'm not fond of either Barbara Carrol or Miriam McPartland, so I would not be excited about those. Amina, maybe, In a parallel universe.

We can probably rule out Shirley Scott (too funky and Geri Allen (too modern). That leaves Mary Lou.

So, who else you got, Face? Broad complaints carry with them a moral imperative for at least a superficial solution of the specific 

[John L]

Historically, the majority of great female jazz musicians have been vocalists.   Mosaic has issued box sets for Sarah Vaughan, Ella Fitzgerald, Anita O'Day, Dinah Washington, and even Mildred Bailey.   There certainly would have also been a Billy Holiday set if all her studio recordings had not already been reissued in lavish box sets by Columbia, Decca, and Verve.   I don't really understand the charge of sexism. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by John L