proper reissues

[mjzee]

I haven't seen mentioned the reason copyright laws have an expiration date: to put the material into the public domain, so that more people can have use from it. If Proper is producing $20 4-disc boxes with booklet, then people who can't afford a similar $60 box from Mosaic can enjoy and learn from the material. It's similar to the copyright laws for books - it's why we can buy inexpensive works of Henry James, Hawthorne... Go to the Gutenberg project (www.promo.net/gutenberg) and see how many books can be downloaded free.

[street singer]

I haven't seen mentioned the reason copyright laws have an expiration date: to put the material into the public domain, so that more people can have use from it. If Proper is producing $20 4-disc boxes with booklet, then people who can't afford a similar $60 box from Mosaic can enjoy and learn from the material. It's similar to the copyright laws for books - it's why we can buy inexpensive works of Henry James, Hawthorne... Go to the Gutenberg project (www.promo.net/gutenberg) and see how many books can be downloaded free.

Very good point. Personally, I think it's great that Proper is getting this music out there at such a good price. I mean, really - 4 CDs plus a fantastic booklet in a nice looking, sturdy box for $20?! Simply can't be beat. Compare these to the Mosaic Selects, for instance. With those, there are only 3 CDs...the booklet consists of simply reprinting the original liners (which I like - but, some additional liners with updated information would be nice as well) and the box is laughably flimsy. I would certainly buy more Mosaics if they lowered their prices a bit. I'm not arguing that they lower the price per CD to $5 like Proper...however, somewhere in the $10-$12 range would be much more reasonable. Am I alone in this opinion?

[wolff]

How are these Proper boxes being sold in the USA?

Is the material 75 years old?

Did they license the recordings?

Is it public domain for some other reason?

Edited September 5, 2004 by wolff

[wolff]

after reading clementine's reply on the thread Blue Harlem it's made me wonder if i should really still be buying stuff from Proper. it's so cheap and a lot of their boxsets give a great overview to the artists, esp from the 40's. but the whole copyright issue is starting to be a big problem for me.

any thoughts?

I agree with Clementine, at least the parts I understand( South Brooklynese is not my native language).

Keeping it simple, what are the consequences of the entire Blue Note and Prestige 50's catalogs being reissued by public domain labels in the next six years?

At this point, I'm very interested in what the heads at Blue Note and Concord think of the medium to long term consequences.

[mjzee]

How are these Proper boxes being sold in the USA?

Is the material 75 years old?

Did they license the recordings?

Is it public domain for some other reason?

U.S. copyright laws protect recordings for 50 years. I would imagine that, as long as Proper is paying songwriter royalties (songs are protected for 75 years), what they're releasing is perfectly legal.

[wolff]

as long as Proper is paying songwriter royalties (songs are protected for 75 years)

Hmmmm. That's the big question, isn't it?

I'm holding a copy of Fats Navarro: Fats Blows(Past Perfect Records) I bought at Tower USA. Made in Germany, containig the recordings from his Blue Note albums 5004 and 1532. No mention of 'Licenced From". No mention of Blue Note anywhere. Had it been licensed from Blue Note , hell, they could have reprinted the original album cover/liner notes.

The recordings are public domain in EU. No royalties were paid. It was illegally sold in the USA.

Is there any proof that Proper pays royalties when they sell their titles in the USA?

Does Proper pay royalties/licensing fees, period?

The whole point is that they do not.

[tatifan]

I can think of one other reason to treat Proper boxes with caution: in my experience absolutely nothing they've issued is better sonically than previous issues of the same material -- most are quite a bit worse -- and many sound no better than MP3 audio quality. At least when JSP steals they know how to maintain the audio quality. Makes me wonder if Proper is trying to cover up their sources by degrading them. And what bothers ME, is the kind of sameness to the steamroller roll off of the highs on every Proper set I own, regardless of the various recordings used.

So the upshot to this for me, is that owning a Proper means the search is still on for listenable versions of the recordings contained in them.

[paul secor]

I haven't seen mentioned the reason copyright laws have an expiration date: to put the material into the public domain, so that more people can have use from it.  If Proper is producing $20 4-disc boxes with booklet, then people who can't afford a similar $60 box from Mosaic can enjoy and learn from the material.  It's similar to the copyright laws for books - it's why we can buy inexpensive works of Henry James, Hawthorne... Go to the Gutenberg project (www.promo.net/gutenberg) and see how many books can be downloaded free.

I thought that libraries served the purpose of giving people access to books. (I realize that most libraries don't provide access to music (or at least much of the music that people on this Board are interested in.)

The issue of copyright laws and public domain isn't an easy one. I would bet that there's no one on this Board who doesn't have a reissue that's not licensed in their collection. All of us want to have access to good music at the lowest price.

However, there's another side to this. I'm not a musician, but if I look at it from the musician's point of view, here's how it very well might appear. I see a record company that I had no connection with - never signed a contract - I don't even know who they are (not just Proper - there are probably a hundred out there) - releasing some of my life's work, and not paying me a penny for it. They never even asked my permission to do it. It's their "right" to issue recordings of my music and make a profit doing so. What's "right" about that?

I'm not a record company owner, but if I look at it from that point of view, it's similar. I'm not just talking about the conglomerates - though they're in it too - but over the years there have been many individuals who have invested their money and time to record the music we listen to. They've done it in the hope of making a profit, but many of them were in the record business because they had a love of music. Fifty years go by and it becomes, "Sorry, what you invested in is now in the public domain. The public has a "right" to the material you recorded." Again, what's "right" about that?

The law disagrees with me, as do many on this Board, but I feel that musicians, record company owners, and their estates should be compensated for their work for as long a period as the public listens. I don't feel that anyone has a "right" to something that they had no part in creating.

[mjzee]

I'm not a musician, but if I look at it from the musician's point of view, here's how it very well might appear. I see a record company that I had no connection with - never signed a contract - I don't even know who they are (not just Proper - there are probably a hundred out there) - releasing some of my life's work, and not paying me a penny for it. They never even asked my permission to do it. It's their "right" to issue recordings of my music and make a profit doing so. What's "right" about that?

I'm not a record company owner, but if I look at it from that point of view, it's similar. I'm not just talking about the conglomerates - though they're in it too - but over the years there have been many individuals who have invested their money and time to record the music we listen to. They've done it in the hope of making a profit, but many of them were in the record business because they had a love of music. Fifty years go by and it becomes, "Sorry, what you invested in is now in the public domain. The public has a "right" to the material you recorded." Again, what's "right" about that?

I'm not sure that Proper's put out a box of anyone that's still alive. As to the point about record companies, the owners of all the major indies cashed out long ago (or abandoned their catalogues because of lack of commercial interest). Majors like Columbia and Universal still put out high-priced reissues (the Billie Holiday and Charlie Christian boxes, for example). Concord just bought the Fantasy masters, and I'm sure the 50-year laws figured into the sale price.The story I love most is that Irving Berlin lived to see his earliest songs fall into the public doman.

I hope that the major jazz labels will now put more effort into promoting current jazz artists.

[wolff]

However, there's another side to this. I'm not a musician, but if I look at it from the musician's point of view, here's how it very well might appear. I see a record company that I had no connection with - never signed a contract - I don't even know who they are (not just Proper - there are probably a hundred out there) - releasing some of my life's work, and not paying me a penny for it. They never even asked my permission to do it. It's their "right" to issue recordings of my music and make a profit doing so. What's "right" about that?

Horace Silver comes to mind. Definitive has issued some of his BN recordings.

As I've mentioned in other threads, the general public will buy what's on the shelves at the cheapest price possible. Public domain reissues are an unknown to most people.

[paul secor]

I'm not a musician, but if I look at it from the musician's point of view, here's how it very well might appear. I see a record company that I had no connection with - never signed a contract - I don't even know who they are (not just Proper - there are probably a hundred out there) - releasing some of my life's work, and not paying me a penny for it. They never even asked my permission to do it. It's their "right" to issue recordings of my music and make a profit doing so. What's "right" about that?

I'm not a record company owner, but if I look at it from that point of view, it's similar. I'm not just talking about the conglomerates - though they're in it too - but over the years there have been many individuals who have invested their money and time to record the music we listen to. They've done it in the hope of making a profit, but many of them were in the record business because they had a love of music. Fifty years go by and it becomes, "Sorry, what you invested in is now in the public domain. The public has a "right" to the material you recorded." Again, what's "right" about that?

I'm not sure that Proper's put out a box of anyone that's still alive. As to the point about record companies, the owners of all the major indies cashed out long ago (or abandoned their catalogues because of lack of commercial interest). Majors like Columbia and Universal still put out high-priced reissues (the Billie Holiday and Charlie Christian boxes, for example). Concord just bought the Fantasy masters, and I'm sure the 50-year laws figured into the sale price.The story I love most is that Irving Berlin lived to see his earliest songs fall into the public doman.

I hope that the major jazz labels will now put more effort into promoting current jazz artists.

I don't want to get into a feud with you, but Proper has reissued recordings by Sonny Rollins, Anita O'Day, Jay McShann, B.B. King, Lee Konitz, Les Paul, Ike Turner, Dave Brubeck, and Fats Domino - to name some names - all of whom are alive, to the best of my knowledge. Not that being alive should be a requirement for being reimbursed for the use of your music. There is no moral reason - I realize that the law is not always moral - for a record company to make a profit reissuing music that they had no part in creating, while the musician who created it gets nothing. Just MHO.

I agree with you that record companies - and listeners - should be doing more to support currently active musicians. Then again, with the state of the copyright laws, some of the smaller companies may think twice about investing in recording artists whose releases don't have an immediate return. (The major labels already think that way.)

[David Ayers]

However, there's another side to this. I'm not a musician, but if I look at it from the musician's point of view, here's how it very well might appear. I see a record company that I had no connection with - never signed a contract - I don't even know who they are (not just Proper - there are probably a hundred out there) - releasing some of my life's work, and not paying me a penny for it. They never even asked my permission to do it. It's their "right" to issue recordings of my music and make a profit doing so. What's "right" about that?

Horace Silver comes to mind. Definitive has issued some of his BN recordings.

As I've mentioned in other threads, the general public will buy what's on the shelves at the cheapest price possible. Public domain reissues are an unknown to most people.

The point gets missed on these early fifties issues from Definitive that you can be certain that EMI are no longer paying performer royalties on these in the issues sold outside America [corrected - I had previoiusly written 'Europe'] - since in law they do not have to. Only American consumers have the moral dilemma when they see Definitive in the stores. EMIs idea is to compete with the alternate versions by making a superior product - hence RVGs - and also to compete on price as far as possible (see their Euro-Callas editions.)

By the way, as an author whose books are read in libraries and no doubt photo-copied if required I seriously wonder whether anyone participating in these debates can say they always bought a book (thereby ensuring the author got his/her royalty of 5-10%) and never borrowed or copied. As far as I can see copyright images and texts appear on this BB every day. The issues are similar.

Edited September 15, 2004 by David Ayers

[tatifan]

So, if we do set aside the moral dilemma, perhaps my greatest concern is that whenever possible I want my reissues to come from the best sources possible, transferred by someone with good equipment and good ears. When all of this seems of secondary concern to a company, and let's face it, there's a sucker born everyday for these companies to sell an inferior product to, then we have a problem.

The comparison was made above with photocopying a book. To me, buying MANY of the Proper boxes has been like buying a fancy hardbound volume in a slipcase, only to get it home and find inside a cheap, fuzzy photocopy of the text printed on toilet paper.

[Brad]

Keeping it simple, what are the consequences of the entire Blue Note and Prestige 50's catalogs being reissued by public domain labels in the next six years?

At this point, I'm very interested in what the heads at Blue Note and Concord think of the medium to long term consequences.

This is a very interesting question. To me, it's akin to when drugs go off patent and generics come into compete. The sales for the labeled brand get shot to hell. The same thing will probably happen here and with that happening there would be no incentive to reissue anything. At least when you issue a post 1954 Jazz Messengers, BN is the only one who can do so and keep all the sales. But if Definitve, Proper, Classics, etc. are doing the same, why bother?

[ejp626]

We keep going round and round this issue, i.e. whether public domain is legitimate and what are its consequences. I suspect that BN would still issue some items that go into pd in Europe, but perhaps only in the US. Most consumers are not going to go out of their way to get these technically illegal imports, though this may be changing with Amazon.

To me, there is one major difference with the medication analogy and that is BN and other labels don't keep all their items in stock at any particular time. Once it goes OOP, there is no difference from the labels' and the artists' perspective from buying something used on Ebay or from burning it, though you might feel morally better about the first option.

To me there is a major catch-22. BN and others don't have this incentive to keep items in print, but then if they don't keep it in circulation, then I can't reimburse them for their product. And I don't have much incentive to wait and see if they happen to bring it back. I'll go with the p.d. source. For instance, I am interested in acquiring the Gil Melle BN sessions. It doesn't appear BN is going to reissue it at all. Most times it goes for $40-50 on Ebay. But in two years, everything will be p.d. in Europe, so that will probably be the route I will go. I would prefer to get the legitimate items, but that just isn't viable in a lot of cases.

As far as Proper remasterings, they sound ok to me, but when you buy 4 CDs for the price of one, it really isn't quite the same as buying a fancy hardbound book and the expectations need to be kept in perspective. Caveat emptor and all that.

[RDK]

Hmmm.

Comparing BN jazz and drugs.

Hmmm...

[Tjazz]

You could also have a poll on if you would buy stolen goods or not?

Obviously, someone is buying HOT goods and counterfeit goods.

[Stefan Wood]

As for the Gil Melle sessions, anyone who is looking for it please PM me. I bought one (Blue Note Connoisseur Edition) for a fellow board member (still shrinkwrapped) and I know the store I bought it from has a few more.

Edited September 14, 2004 by Stefan Wood

[David Ayers]

To me, there is one major difference with the medication analogy and that is BN and other labels don't keep all their items in stock at any particular time.  Once it goes OOP, there is no difference from the labels' and the artists' perspective from buying something used on Ebay or from burning it, though you might feel morally better about the first option.

A lot of people endorse burning OOP albums but I personally see it differently. If everybody burns an album that is OOP there is no incentive for the company to reissue it. The more burning goes on the less commercially viable reissues become.

On another topic, I think quality of reissue masterings is another matter. There, quite simply, if people want issues remastered from original tapes they will hav to go to the owner of those tapes. That is a market matter. If they don't want that, then they needn't. That is not an argument for changing PD law.

In the end, tapes will get destroyed, not everything can be preserved. And lets remember that the best reissues in terms of sound quality don't always come from the companies that own the masters.

Edited September 15, 2004 by David Ayers

[RDK]

[P.D.]

Clementine....."Stop fucking around, Ayers. Proper does SHODDY goddamn work & I defy you to go through all yr precious little sets-- because hey, more is more, right-- & prove to me otherwise: about their mastering, about their writing, about their presentation."

" In its more modest, though similarily immaculate fashion, Proper is becoming as essential to a Jazz fan's health and prosperity as Mosaic; its latest " Intro" initiative fully maintains the across the board excellence which has become a byword for its larger sets............

Remastering has been expertly done without entirely sacrificing the period feel of the recordings,a plus rather than a minus in my book, and everything else about its preparation has been carried out with Proper's customary flawlessnes. "

Richard Palmer reviewing a recent Proper "Intro to"CD in the recent Jazz Journal

One man's meat..........

Edited September 15, 2004 by P.D.

[wolff]

Remastering has been expertly done without entirely sacrificing the period feel of the recordings,

No offense, but until I find out otherwise, I gotta LMAO at this statement.

These are dubs from a CD. Remastered? Once again, LMAO.

Source? Master tapes? Second or 3rd gen tapes? I think not.

Someone please post what they list as source.

Edited September 16, 2004 by wolff

[tatifan]

 

" In its more modest, though similarily immaculate fashion, Proper is becoming as essential to a Jazz fan's health and prosperity as Mosaic; its latest " Intro" initiative fully maintains the across the board excellence which has become a byword for its larger sets............

Remastering has been expertly done without entirely sacrificing the period feel of the recordings,a plus rather than a minus in my book, and everything else about its preparation has been carried out with Proper's customary flawlessnes. "

Richard Palmer reviewing a recent Proper "Intro to"CD in the recent Jazz Journal

One man's meat.......... 

You've gotta be kidding? The same sentence as Mosaic. What a bunch of crap. "without entirely sacrificing the period feel"!!! Bullshit if ever I've smelled it.

[P.D.]

Simply there for your edification

[montg]

It may be worth noting that Proper is a BIG advertiser for Jazz Journal (at least it was when I stopped subscribing a couple of years ago.) Huge back cover ads--and then, not coincidentally I think, every issue of JJ has some reviewer throwing out the flowers and hosannas for a proper reissue.