Incredibly important jazz collection found

[Tomasso]

Either the museum is pulling someones chain giving an excuse for not distributing them..... or a reporter is speculating.

Did you read the article? The reporter sought out expert opinion.

“The short answer is that ownership is unclear,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “There was never any arrangement for distribution of copies” in contracts between performers and radio stations in the 1930s, she explained, “because it was never envisioned that there would be such a distribution, so somewhere between the radio station and the band is where the ownership would lay.”

I doubt Harry wold have signed the rights to his music over.

You're right, that's never happened in the record biz......

 

[Aristaeus]

Did you read the article? The reporter sought out expert opinion.

Yes I read the article.

“The short answer is that ownership is unclear,” said June M. Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at the Columbia University School of Law. “

If June was an expert then she would know, so she is speculating, which means there would have to be a precident set (there has been), she knows nothing by her own admission other then "somebody owns them".lol

“There was never any arrangement for distribution of copies” in contracts between performers and radio stations in the 1930s, she explained, “because it was never envisioned that there would be such a distribution,

This is what I stated in my previous post. Since no arrangements were made for future dist I doubt the radio stations would own them, plus most if not all of his broadcasts were done from clubs or restaurants who were paying him to play not the radio station.

so somewhere between the radio station and the band is where the ownership would lay."

As I stated in my previous post ownership would probebly lie with the band or in this case Harry James. So the record company got the blessing or paid money to the H.J. estate to release this music, since I doubt they contacted every radio station, club, restaurant from the 1930's and 40's that were involved over a ten year period, many of which no longer exist. The point I was makeing with regards to the H.J. box set is that there obviously was no doubt as to ownership or right to distribute privately recorded radio broadcasts.

You're right, that's never happened in the record biz......

If this were the case then ownership of the broadcasts would have been with Harry James before he could have signed them over.:eusa_doh: You just answered the right of dist by your own theory. It lies with the estates of the band leaders and would not be that hard to find their estates and ask permission to dist.

Either the museum is pulling someones chain giving an excuse for not distributing them.....

My point is that right now they have (to some people) priceless recordings that no one has heard in 70 plus years. If they allow them to be put on CD and sold all they will have are orig recordings of music you can buy at Wal-Mart.

"At 70 years’ remove, however, the bands, and even some of the radio networks that broadcast the performances, no longer exist, and tracking down all the heirs of the individual musicians who played in the orchestras is nearly impossible."

This paragraph should be an indication that the reporter is just adding words to paper since I DOUBT they would have to ask permission from every single musician in every band. They do not own the rights to music they perform while being paid by their boss the Band Leader. As I stated before privately recorded radio broadcasts have been dist without the above mess.

 

[Miss Moonlight]

Never been brought so high and then so low by one thread ever before.

Still... :sigh: that this is out there... be still my heart.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There have been small reissue labels putting out bootleg material for many decades -- and sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. It all depends on how high the profile of the material is that they're issuing and how much attention they attract. Several years ago, a reissue label put out a widely-distributed boxed CD set of Benny Goodman band remotes from the Madhattan Room of the Pennsylvania Hotel, recordings which had been first released on LP by a one-man-in-a-garage label in the '70s -- basically bootlegs of bootlegs. But they got shut down by the Harry Fox Agency, the organization that administers "mechanical rights" for the music industry, and that was that.

There's reasonable legal precedent for record labels to claim that broadcast recordings belong to them and not to the performers or the heirs of the performers. In the case of Harry James, for example, he was signed to a Columbia recording contract at the time Savory was recording his broadcasts -- and it would be entirely possible for Sony, Columbia's corporate successor, to step up and say "Hey, he was our artist, and his recordings belong to us, no matter who made them." And then we run into the issue Fletch pointed out of whether reissuing the recordings would be economically viable for the company.

The most economical approach would be for the record companies to license a paid-download scheme, and not do a CD version at all, but within a day of releasing them, they'd be all over the Internet as torrents and other unauthorized downloads, and that would kill any chance of profit. And as we all know, the record companies aren't in business to preserve culture, they're in it for the bucks...

 

[Mocheman]

And as we all know, the record companies aren't in business to preserve culture, they're in it for the bucks...

And with the way their business model has been crapping out over the last 10yrs I can't see them letting this go, as small as an audience for these recordings there may be.

Maybe we'll get lucky and someone wil magically release them on to the internets.

 

[Aristaeus]

There have been small reissue labels putting out bootleg material for many decades -- and sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. It all depends on how high the profile of the material is that they're issuing and how much attention they attract. Several years ago, a reissue label put out a widely-distributed boxed CD set of Benny Goodman band remotes from the Madhattan Room of the Pennsylvania Hotel, recordings which had been first released on LP by a one-man-in-a-garage label in the '70s -- basically bootlegs of bootlegs. But they got shut down by the Harry Fox Agency, the organization that administers "mechanical rights" for the music industry, and that was that.

There's reasonable legal precedent for record labels to claim that broadcast recordings belong to them and not to the performers or the heirs of the performers. In the case of Harry James, for example, he was signed to a Columbia recording contract at the time Savory was recording his broadcasts -- and it would be entirely possible for Sony, Columbia's corporate successor, to step up and say "Hey, he was our artist, and his recordings belong to us, no matter who made them." And then we run into the issue Fletch pointed out of whether reissuing the recordings would be economically viable for the company.

The most economical approach would be for the record companies to license a paid-download scheme, and not do a CD version at all, but within a day of releasing them, they'd be all over the Internet as torrents and other unauthorized downloads, and that would kill any chance of profit. And as we all know, the record companies aren't in business to preserve culture, they're in it for the bucks...

I don't think Hindsight is a bootleg company.

"Hindsight Records is a record company based on original recordings from the Big Band era by Wally Heider. Rights to the Hindsight catalogue were acquired from Wally Heider by Thomas Gramuglia in 1979. Through Heider, Hindsight ended up owning over 9,000 copyrights and masters, primarily of performers from the Big Band era."

Yes it is economically viable.

"Thomas Gramuglia merged Hindsight with Michelex Corporation, a company in which he had a majority interest, after which time Hindsight appears to have become a source of capital for the larger corporate entity."

Hindsight has issued a series of releases, distinguished by detailed notes as to personnel and history, from the following artists, among others:

Harry James
Artie Shaw
Duke Ellington
Les Brown
Woody Herman
Count Basie
Benny Goodman
Jimmie Lunceford
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney
Kay Starr
Johnny Mercer
Stan Kenton
Lionel Hampton
Benny Carter
Glen Gray
Eddy Howard
Jimmy Dorsey
Claude Thornhill
Dick Jurgens
Freddy Martin
Russ Morgan
Buddy Morrow
Bob Crosby
Jerry Gray
Helen Forrest
Mel Torme
Frankie Laine
Helen O'Connell
June Christy
Jan Savitt
Charlie Spivak
Billy Butterfield
Sarah Vaughn
Bobby Troup
Alvino Ray
The King Sisters with Frank DeVol
Tiny Hill
Sammy Kaye
Clyde McCoy
Jan Garber
Larry Clinton
Bea Wain
Charlie Barnet
Carmen McRae
Henry Busse
Lester Lanin
Guy Lombardo

 

[Chas]

I'm pretty sure that Hindsight was bought out some years ago. Up until that time they had a good reputation owing to their policy of paying royalties to the artists' estates.

I am hoping that the fatcats in the big media will see the value of the material and release it.

Or perhaps the Europeans will pull it off.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

This is great news - the awesome MOSAIC RECORDS is negotiating the rights to release these performances. They say there are ways around the copyright confusion and Mosaic is in the business to preserve great jazz. If you have any of the great sets, you know Mosaic leases the music, not buys it, and releases it in a limited edition set. Start saving now, this may be a BIG collection.

Article here:http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-likely-to-hold-more-surprises-for-jazz-fans/

Here is the Mosaic site: http://www.mosaicrecords.com/

 

[Fletch]

There's reasonable legal precedent for record labels to claim that broadcast recordings belong to them and not to the performers or the heirs of the performers. In the case of Harry James, for example, he was signed to a Columbia recording contract at the time Savory was recording his broadcasts -- and it would be entirely possible for Sony, Columbia's corporate successor, to step up and say "Hey, he was our artist, and his recordings belong to us, no matter who made them." And then we run into the issue Fletch pointed out of whether reissuing the recordings would be economically viable for the company.

The most economical approach would be for the record companies to license a paid-download scheme, and not do a CD version at all, but within a day of releasing them, they'd be all over the Internet as torrents and other unauthorized downloads, and that would kill any chance of profit. And as we all know, the record companies aren't in business to preserve culture, they're in it for the bucks...

Not necessarily. Spend any time browsing fora where electronic rights are discussed, and you'll find a substantial body of opinion that says Big Media is more interested in keeping its established business model alive than making bucks off any old thing.

Sure, they could license said old thing, but it would compete with everything similar that they already retail. And because it's essentially unpromotable, it does nothing to keep the marketing and promotion departments happy. It's hard to reorganize an entire industry, especially one so long grown calcified and complacent that they've repeatedly turned their backs on the chance to make the information revolution work for them.

Given the current state of things, the only realistic way for Big Media to make this stuff generate revenue would be to use it as lawsuit fodder - essentially, to commit barratry, or repeated legal actions intended to harass.

Sorry to be a bit of a nut on the subject, but I am convinced they are NOT "just in it for the bucks" - that owners of non-commercial works, especially, would sooner throw them all down a mineshaft than figure out a way to make them pay. We already know media will pass up easy money, and even damage their own goodwill with the public, all to retain - and extend - control. Technology gave us private individuals too much control over how we use content, and what content we get to use. All the industry cares about at this point is getting that control back from us. I think they are content to lose millions of customers and billions of sales dollars to achieve that goal. It seems to verge on holy war for them.

 

[Blackjack]

There have been small reissue labels putting out bootleg material for many decades -- and sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. It all depends on how high the profile of the material is that they're issuing and how much attention they attract. Several years ago, a reissue label put out a widely-distributed boxed CD set of Benny Goodman band remotes from the Madhattan Room of the Pennsylvania Hotel, recordings which had been first released on LP by a one-man-in-a-garage label in the '70s -- basically bootlegs of bootlegs. But they got shut down by the Harry Fox Agency, the organization that administers "mechanical rights" for the music industry, and that was that.

There's reasonable legal precedent for record labels to claim that broadcast recordings belong to them and not to the performers or the heirs of the performers. In the case of Harry James, for example, he was signed to a Columbia recording contract at the time Savory was recording his broadcasts -- and it would be entirely possible for Sony, Columbia's corporate successor, to step up and say "Hey, he was our artist, and his recordings belong to us, no matter who made them." And then we run into the issue Fletch pointed out of whether reissuing the recordings would be economically viable for the company.

The most economical approach would be for the record companies to license a paid-download scheme, and not do a CD version at all, but within a day of releasing them, they'd be all over the Internet as torrents and other unauthorized downloads, and that would kill any chance of profit. And as we all know, the record companies aren't in business to preserve culture, they're in it for the bucks...

I have some experience in this thing so let me add something here. The only thing people are interested in when they claim copyright ownership is money. In a case like this it would be so complicated that the worst that could happen is if they would just release it with no licenses paid is someone would say hey you owe me 30 cents a copy or whatever for how many units you've sold. They would also have to show legal proof that in this case they have the rights to collect. I would say that might be damned impossible here. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that that's whats going to happen. They should just pay the copyright license to the songs authors and damn the torpedoes full steam ahead. I really doubt anyone would be taken to court over this.
Also, I deal with Harry Fox all the time and don't quite understand how or WHY they would have a hand in "shutting someone down". Granted you always check with HF agency to see if a copyright exists before re-recording something but I never heard of them having a hand in any legal movements to stop publication of a product.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Also, I deal with Harry Fox all the time and don't quite understand how or WHY they would have a hand in "shutting someone down". Granted you always check with HF agency to see if a copyright exists before re-recording something but I never heard of them having a hand in any legal movements to stop publication of a product.

HFA is used by publishing agencies to clear mechanical rights for song compositions -- and is also used to pursue enforcement of claims against violators. The specific case I mentioned involved a company called "Viper's Nest Records," which got shut down in the late 90s due to failure to clear mechanical rights on its Benny Goodman boxed set. Another victim of HFA legal action was the Stash label, which reissued a great deal of material that it didn't have rights to issue.

Granted, bootleg labels operate all the time, and the odds are that they won't get caught -- but the chance that they will is a pretty strong deterrent to those who don't want to take the risk.

I think if someone wanted to reissue this material, the best way to go about it would be to avoid big publicity articles in mainstream papers -- I'm sure lawyers at Sony and BMG are now well aware of the Savory collection now, and will be combing the files to see what kind of claims they might be able to make. There was very very bad blood between radio and the recording industry in the late 1930s, and some of those old contracts governing the recording rights of long-dead artists might well still have teeth.

A prime example of how old contracts can be enforced against privately-made radio recordings is the case of pre-1940 Metropolitan Opera broadcasts, many of which were recorded off the air by private individuals -- but the Met to this day prevents them from being legally issued in the United States by anyone other than itself. They successfully kept the Naxos label from issuing an impressive series of CD releases of these broadcasts in the US, citing a mixture of common-law copyright and its contracts with the Met artists. Those CDs are available overseas, though -- so perhaps the best hope for a release of the Savory discs is for them to somehow find their way abroad.

 

[Blackjack]

Lizzie, I stand corrected on the fact that HFA will pursue claims against violators in copyright cases, but, I still say in a case such as this where any out and out rights that are owed "to" is so fuzzy and confusing, they could probably get away with it.

 

[cookie]

The Savory Collection - Lost Jazz Archive - from NYT

“The Savory Collection” consists of 975 discs with recordings of live performances broadcast by radio stations in the late 1930s, the height of the swing era, and into 1940. Recorded by audio engineer William Savory, the discs feature Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Fats Waller, Bunny Berigan and Lester Young, playing in the relaxed setting of a nightclub or ballroom, rather than the confines of a recording studio, where songs could not exceed three minutes in length. For that reason, and the quality of the music played, Loren Schoenberg, the executive director of the National Jazz Museum in Harlem, describes the Savory collection as “one of the greatest finds” in the history of jazz.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/17/arts/music/savory-collection.html?ref=arts http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/arts/music/17jazz.html

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's an article that digs a bit into the general legal issues surrounding reissues of historical recordings -- given the preservation aspect of the Savory collection, it's especially relevant in this case.

http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=98

 

[Tomasso]

Nice get Lizzie.

 

[dhermann1]

I don't know what the future holds, but right now the Jazz Museum is holding listening sessions in Harlem, I think every Tuesday evening. Loren Schoenberg, the director of the museum, seems pretty confident about their being able to publish the material.

 

[davidraphael]

Here's a news article/video about the Savory discs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/9046352.stm

 

[Fletch]

Here's an article that digs a bit into the general legal issues surrounding reissues of historical recordings -- given the preservation aspect of the Savory collection, it's especially relevant in this case.

http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=98

:rage: How dare those Germans refer to the USA as a "restricted market"? Don't they understand that we have to lock up recordings from before 1972 to preserve the free market and free choice for consumers?

 

[DesertDan]

What a ridiculous mess.
I just hope that the music will some how be made available to the public.