Blue Harlem

[Clunky]

I don't really want to immerse this thread further into the doo-doo but what under the European laws would be the standing of recordings from over 50 years ago but not released until now (I'm thinking specifically of the hopefully upcoming Bird/Diz concert on Uptown)

Will that release have any more protection than previously issued material. I share Chuck's concerns re. the potential loss of heritage if there's no incentive to look after it ( metal parts, acetates) .

Perhaps Columbia's hotch potch America's No1 Band :Count Basie set is indicative of this approach. ( ie it's too expensive to release the whole thing properly and we'll just get ripped off) These last 15 years may be seen as the hey day of pre-tape reissues in best sound as everything else from now will just be a digital copy.

[A Lark Ascending]

Clementine,

I know what our alto sax player did. I can live quite happily with the outcome. But if you are following a hardline on morality then the fact remains that he recorded tunes by others unacknowledged, however much he reconstructed them.

If a Hollywood film company takes a current novel, keeps the plot, changes the characters and incidents and retitles it does that mean they owe the original novelist nothing?

As for how do I justify your examples. I'll say it again. Fifty years is quite enough time, in my opinion, for anyone to live off their royalties. I know you disagree but at that point our differences are not ones of intelligence but of opinion.

I'm not too convinced by the argument that we have to give record companies perpetual rights over the material in their vaults or they will destroy it. I want to keep my toys forever and if you won't let me I'll break them?

I'm inclined to respond 'Go ahead!'

Some good headlines there!

[A Lark Ascending]

????????????????????

[RDK]

you say po-ta-to, I say po-tah-to...

[A Lark Ascending]

you say po-ta-to, I say po-tah-to...

Hope you sought permission to quote that!

One of those smiley things.

[RDK]

I think it's safe to use, at least in Europe...

[couw]

mebbe

[Dmitry]

Is Proper an England-based company?

[brownie]

Is Proper an England-based company?

Proper's mail adress is: The Powerhouse, Cricket Lane, Beckenham, Kent.

Hard to be more England than that

[couw]

Does Proper credit their own engineer, ever? If not, why the anonymity? Who "produces" these things? I don't have any here so that's an honest inquiry. Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem tho' noone has yet offered ANY evidence to the contrary.

FWIW, I took a look in the booklet of my ONLY Proper box and it says:

Compiled and produced for release by Joop Visser

Digital remastering by Peter Rynston at Tall Order Remastering

[RDK]

So Bev--

Once more, slowly--

Who did the transfers of source material on the Proper Milton Brown set? Or the Bob Wills? Or the Jo Stafford? Is Jo Stafford, who we now know is alive, seeing one fucking "farthing"? (Whatever a farthing is.) Did she even get a free copy of the box?

Does Proper credit their own engineer, ever? If not, why the anonymity? Who "produces" these things? I don't have any here so that's an honest inquiry. Maybe things aren't as bad as they seem tho' noone has yet offered ANY evidence to the contrary.

Why can't you answer a question, or even seek an answer if yr so damn sure of yr moral propriety?

Why can't you admit they're ripping off Texas Rose & Bear Family & Jo Stafford... just for starters?

Meanwhile, if someone more worldly than I can tell me what the approxmiate English word for "douchebag" is I'd be much obliged. Sometimes my powers of expression in this forum suffer because of the limits of my South Brooklyn patois.

clem

I'm not Bev, but since I have the "Big Horn" box right in front of me let me note that it was "Compiled and produced for release by Joop Visser. With digital mastering by Peter Rynston at Tall Order Mastering" (for whatever that's worth). The booklet notes (quite good, though I can't vouch for accuracy or originality) are credited to Visser as well.

As to them paying Jo Stafford (and others), well from what I understand about Euro copywrite law and such they aren't required to. That is, of course, a different argument then "should they," but I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a company anywhere paying anyone for anything when they didn't have to. It sure is nice for Bear Family or whomever to pay an artist - do they actually? - but rightly or wrongly it isn't always required. And, in the examples you gave, do you know that Bear payed the artists royalties for their music or simply for their participation in the reissue, which is an entirely different matter?

Neither here nor there but interesting nonetheless, a while back I was reading Buddy DeFranco's website and he claimed to not have recieved a dime from his Mosaic set.

Clem, would it make a difference to you if the artist, years ago, signed away or sold all their rights to their music to another person or company? What if the only "person" collecting royalties for Milton Brown recordings was some holding company owned by Microsoft?

For all the tension, this is a most interesting discussion...

[JSngry]

I sense that Morris Levy has relocated to the other side of the Atlantic.

[JSngry]

And in closing, when one's horse is so high that they can not see when they have stepped in shit, then one's horse is too high indeed.

[A Lark Ascending]

Now how do I make my decision to buy and keep buying Proper discs (I've my eye on the T-Bone Walker and the forthcoming Benny Carter and Roy Eldridges at present)?

For the prosecution

* Reasoned arguments from Mr. Sngry and Nessa.

* 'Passionate' arguments from Mr. Clementine (who likes to say fuck more frequently than most teenagers I know).

For the defence

* The fact that these are widely on sale across the length and breadth of the UK. I've yet to hear of a retailer - big or small - refusing to sell them on grounds of ethics.

* The fact that a whole range of reputable labels are happy to be distributed by them - if they are the thieves and rip-off merchants claimed here then what does it say about Topic, Yazoo, Document, Sugar Hill etc who are all content to sup with the devil? Must I stop buying those too?

* The fact that they don't clutter up the sets with unreleased life tracks, alternate takes etc. If I'm interested enough in a performer to want that I'll seek an appropriate label dedicated to the specialist listener. As it is Proper do with many artists just what I want where other labels, however impressive their scholarship and dedication, just provide more than I need.

* And this one. From Ronnie Scotts House magazine from Jan-Feb of this year. THE PROPER THING…

By Chrissie Murray - 2004 makes a good start with the news that acclaimed – but until now unsigned – multi-reeds player TONY KOFI has clinched a unique recording contract with the much-loved Proper Records label.

The huge success of Proper’s amazing value, but ‘priceless’, classic box-sets, has clearly helped create a foundation for this important collaboration.

MALCOLM MILLS, Managing Director of Proper Records, says: ‘Tony’s talent was first brought to my attention by our friend JOOP VISSER. He was knocked out by the musicianship of this unsigned saxophonist.’

Tony Kofi, whose eclectic approach to the music has taken him in many innovative directions, goes into the studio with star players pianist JONATHAN GEE, bassist BEN HAZLETON and drummer WINSTON CLIFFORD to record the ambitious Monk project, which caused a stir at the Ealing and London Jazz Festivals. Studio time is also set aside so Tony can record his ground-breaking organ trio featuring his own material with new Swedish Hammond star ANDERS OLINDER.

‘This is an exciting opportunity,’ says Tony. ‘I’ve been biding my time. I like Proper’s enthusiasm and that they are prepared to get behind my music and give me the freedom to express it.’

Proper is also considering projects with Nick Lowe, bluesman Jimmy Vaughan, r&b legend Bobby Charles and Memphis soul star Dan Penn.

The partnership between the gifted Tony Kofi and Proper Records is a huge leap forward for jazz in the UK. We wish them both much success.

Source: http://www.ronniescotts.co.uk/ronnie_scott...otts/146/10.htm

So now the evil Proper are committing a further crime by supporting contemporary talent!

Oh, and it might require a quick e-mail to Lowe, Vaughan, Charles and Penn to warn them that they are about to sell their soul.

++++++++++++

So, do I adopt the puritanical approach (I can do puritan well!!!), chuck out the Proper Boxes and refuse to buy more on the advise of a few reports from websites? Or do I give Proper the benefit of the doubt?

In anticipation of a shower of Anglo-Saxon....

[p.s. I must own up to posting the above quote and photo without prior permission]

Edited April 26, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

As for how do I justify your examples. I'll say it again. Fifty years is quite enough time, in my opinion, for anyone to live off their royalties. I know you disagree but at that point our differences are not ones of intelligence but of opinion.

I'm not too convinced by the argument that we have to give record companies perpetual rights over the material in their vaults or they will destroy it. I want to keep my toys forever and if you won't let me I'll break them?

I'm inclined to respond 'Go ahead!'

The politics of resentment again - "somebody else has something I like/want, so I don't care who takes it from them (or how) because they were lucky to have something like that in the first place, so it's ok to take it from them in 50 years".

Most unbecoming, Bev. I'd expect such reasoning out of a 20 year old idealistic-yet-clueless "revolutionary", but YOU?

Maybe it IS "a British thing" based in the resentment of the class system and all that, in which case I must say that I've never lived there, so maybe I don't get it. I mean, I can smell bacon just as well as the next guy, but I have, uh... OPTIONS, if you know what I mean.

But otherwise, it sounds like "the world owes me a living" has been morphed into "the world owes me cheap music". And to THAT, I can only say "NANNY NANNY BOO BOO!!!!"

[JSngry]

And I'm glad to see Proper investing in new talent ala Fresh Sounds. I wish them well, and hope they "do the right thing" by their own artists.

[couw]

All for the sake of argument. What is it about the "special" treatment of performance art anyhow. If a guy makes a painting, he sells it and that's it. No complaints about any (mis)use after that as the thing doesn't belong to him anymore. Different when it's film, music, or whatever. Why? (serious question I am contemplating myself)

[couw]

And I'm glad to see Proper investing in new talent ala Fresh Sounds. I wish them well, and hope they "do the right thing" by their own artists.

wouldn't one be investing in the "bad" part of their business by buying disks by these new talents?

[JSngry]

And I'm glad to see Proper investing in new talent ala Fresh Sounds. I wish them well, and hope they "do the right thing" by their own artists.

wouldn't one be investing in the "bad" part of their business by buying disks by these new talents?

Hey, on MY horse I can (and smell) the shit quite clearly.

Tally ho!

[couw]

And I'm glad to see Proper investing in new talent ala Fresh Sounds. I wish them well, and hope they "do the right thing" by their own artists.

wouldn't one be investing in the "bad" part of their business by buying disks by these new talents?

Hey, on MY horse I can (and smell) the shit quite clearly.

Tally ho!

ah yes...

[A Lark Ascending]

Not the politics of resentment, JS. The politics of...to use a word you use...fairness.

I'm lucky. I have a good job. I'm comfortable. Not rich. But comfortable.

But I work in a pretty deprived area. And every year I see kids who have started way behind have to pit themselves in exams against kids elsewhere who have had it on a plate...and if they fail, well, Daddy will bail them out.

And I've been doing the job long enough to be teaching the kids of some of those kids.

So if I don't find the idea of the perpetual right to inherited property and wealth all that savoury its not out of resentment. It's just out of an idealistic desire for a world where the kids I teach could get a start in life on a level playing field with those at Eton, Charterhouse or even the middle class estates of South Nottinghamshire.

I'm no revolutionary - too much of a coward for that. The best I can do is continue to push the kids in my charge so that, against the odds, some of them get a foot onto the ladder and a chance. It's why I'm still here 25 years on and not decamped to an area where the children are less challenging and where I could bask in my brilliance at getting such amazing exam results.

THAT is where I'm coming from.

[incidentally, a few kids I've taught have gone on to become history teachers. I've been responsible for a Faculty for many years and seen many new teachers through their early years; and many student teachers in training. Do you think I'd have a case charging them all royalties? I'd only want them for fifty years.

One of those smiley faces. (I don't use them because I don't believe they're out of copywrite yet!)]

Edited April 26, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[RDK]

All for the sake of argument. What is it about the "special" treatment of performance art anyhow. If a guy makes a painting, he sells it and that's it. No complaints about any (mis)use after that as the thing doesn't belong to him anymore. Different when it's film, music, or whatever. Why? (serious question I am contemplating myself)

Very good question indeed. Copyright law is extremely complicated and I only play a lawyer on TV, but I do believe that - in at least some cases - even though the physical painting may be sold to an individual that the image itself may remain the property of the artist. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

I think we all agree that there are problems with the whole public domain issue. There are valid arguments for why creators should retain "ownership" of their artistic endeavors in perpetuity - but do the same rules apply to inventors and their patents? - as well as reasons for why material going into the public domain is a good thing. Personally, I think some sort of use-it-or-lose-it compromise is a good thing - after a defined period of time of course. The artists should be compensated, of course, but for how long is the question. Fifty years? A hundred years? A thousand years? Forever? (Hell, I wish I was Plato's heir.)

[JSngry]

All for the sake of argument. What is it about the "special" treatment of performance art anyhow. If a guy makes a painting, he sells it and that's it. No complaints about any (mis)use after that as the thing doesn't belong to him anymore. Different when it's film, music, or whatever. Why? (serious question I am contemplating myself)

When you buy an original painting, you're buying the only one of its kind. Reproductions are intentionally "second best", and would never be create a disrutption of the fair market value of the original. The monetary value of the object is in its originality.

Film, music, etc., is intended to be sold as reproductions, therefore their monetary value lies in the sale/distribution of same. Apples and oranges, really.

Again, the only REAL quarrel I have with any of this is the notion that somebody can lose TOTAL rights to something on a strictly arbitrary (and disctiminatory) whim of law. As I said a looooooonnnggg time ago, I'm cool with concept of "public domain" so long as there is at least a token requirement of compensation to artists estates (and again, if the estates choose to fully release the work(s) into public domain, more power to them. But it should be their choice), and to a lesser extent, mechanical rights holders. I refuse to accept as valid the notion that time alone is a valid justification for stripping an individual of some "property" but not others. The lack of logical/moral/whatever consistency is more than obvious, it seems to me. It seems that what there is of it is along the lines of, "Well, Louis Armstrong belonged to the world forever, so the world should be allowed to make money off of him forever, and his heirs can go get a job just like the rest of us". Right, Bev?

That attitude totally misses the fact that Louis Armstong's music was as much his labor as it was his bliss. Bliss it is/was indeed, but it was also WORK (and I sometimes sense an underlying resentment in some of these arguments that some individuals are fortunate enough to have a life that includes labor and bliss not being mutually exclusive). Devaluing the "labor" aspect of "the arts" is a common enough mistake, sometimes innocently ("oh, it's just music, how much work can THAT be?"), and sometimes malevolently. But it IS a mistake, and it's one that artists themeselves all too often make (although I don't have a lot of sympathy for them when they do unless they were totally duped, which is not at all uncommon ether). However, the fruits of one's labors are totally valid "gifts" to one's heirs (and they theirs), should one decide to make them such. Since when is it cool to take away from one set of heirs what virtually all others get to keep into perpetuity (or insolvency and/or incarceration, as the case may be )? Explain THAT to me!

Now when it comes to things like the pirating of just-released material like the Uptown sets, well, as they say in that Pace Picante ad, "GET A ROPE!!!"

Edited April 26, 2004 by JSngry

[JSngry]

p/s: Who Mo Levy, Tex? (Who Lew Wasserman too?)

Who, indeed!

[Chuck Nessa]

I have not read the last half dozen posts (yet) so if parts of this are irrelevent, forgive me.

I have stated my concern about preservation of source material under PD laws, so I won’t go over that again.

A couple of random thoughts before my main rant.

Outfits like Proper and the current JSP do damage to operations like Mosaic no-matter the “intended audience. If I was not allergic to these kinds of operations, the various Bix, Mildred Bailey, Django, Patton packages would easily convince me to save money and skip the more complete and expensive Mosaic and Revenant packages. This is a very small market and if these packages reduce the “originators” sales by 5% it can make the difference between profit and loss.

Lennie Tristano and/or his daughter issued private tapes on the Jazz label. These started coming out in the ‘80s and have been reissued on cd. Joop Visser has seen fit to “boot” some of this material for his Tristano box. In fact, more than 25% of the set is from this source.

This is the end of random thoughts.

Since we are operating in a capitalist system I object to the inequity in the treatment of physical vs. intellectual property.

When my maternal grandfather died he left me some stocks in a local bank. In 1967 I cashed in these stocks ($1500), borrowed more from my parents and started a record company to record Roscoe Mitchell, Lester Bowie, Malachi Favors and Joseph Jarman. In turn, the musicians composed music, rehearsed it and recorded it for me. This music has been available (almost) continually since then and I pay both artist and publishing royalties to the musicians.

In 2017 this music falls into the “50 year hole” and others will be able to manufacture and sell this music without compensating either the recording company or the musicians (or their heirs). After 2017 Nessa Records will still be obliged to pay both artist and publishing royalties, but my potential competition will not have this obligation. I not only lose control of something I helped create but I am at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

If I had kept the bank stock I could pass it on to untold, subsequent generations. If my heirs have an original pressing of Lester Bowie’s “Numbers 1 & 2” it will probably be worth more to them than the original multi-track masters.

Personally, I feel I should be able to pass on stuff to my grandchildren – probably the last generation I will have a “real” relationship.

I think the rules could be reworked in the following way to compensate master owners, composers, performing artists AND help protect the “primary source” material. The timeframe can be shifted around but I think the basic idea works to most parties advantage.

Full copyright lasts 35 years.

From year 35 to year 70 full copyright is retained IF the company makes the material generally available (not continually, but say every 7 years). If the company fails to make it available they could be forced to issue a license to interested parties. The “interested party” would pay a licensing fee to compensate the company, the artist and the composers.

From year 70 to year 100, the company is obligated to license the material to all interested parties.

After year 100 all rights terminate.