Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: The End Of The Red Hot Jazz Archive?
- Regarding 1920s vintage recordings;has anyone done any research of the histories of the long since defunct labels such as Cameo,Claxtonola,Sun Records(not the label Elvis,Johnny Cash,Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis recorded for)who recorded Kid Ory in LA in the early '20s?I am on Gennett's mailing list;what is going on there?I assumed that the owners of the Gennett website owned what masters that are known of such as the Bix,King Oliver and Jelly Roll ones.This was something that has always fascinated me as I saw alot of those labels in junk stores back in the early sixties.As I mentioned before,my friend Al Hendrickson(of Artie Shaw's 1940-41 band:he was his guitarist),told me about finding some of the Paramount masters in a river bed.When I was around ten or so years old(this was in 1961),people were always giving me old 78 and 80 rpm records and I remember some of the labels were truly oddballs:Marathon Records owned by the Nutmeg Record Company as well as the
aforementioned Gennett label(I had a record of the tune "Remembering" on that label but I can't remember who recorded it).Some labels I knew of were ultimately owned by CBS.What comes to mind is the early sixties boxed set "Thesaurus of Classic Jazz" which showed the
Harmony,Domino,Perfect,Pathe-Actuelle and OKeh labels on the cover of the album.I checked out that particular set from the library of the college I attended in Coos Bay,Oregon back in the early seventies.What laws I knew of came to me via the late Wally Heider of Hindsight Records and George Buck owner of several labels such as GHB and Circle.Both told me that while one would get into hot water rereleasing material from RCA,CBS,Capitol or any other major label,air checks seemed to be in the public domain and were "fair game" so to speak.I would appreciate any enlightening on this subject as I frequently listen to the recordings from RHJ's website.The last bit of info I read about was when EMI bought the masters to what was ABC Records.ABC had the Dunhill label as well as Westminster,a classical music label they acquired God knows when and,of course,the recent merger of EMI and Sony.The latter was odd in that EMI,if I recall correctly,came about via the merger of British
Columbia(no pun intended)and the Gramophone Company,the British side of RCA Victor("His Master's Voice" in Europe and India,"Victor" in Canada).It would seem that mast-ers from RCA could be released on Sony and vice versa.As I said,what advice is welcome.
David Richoux <tubaman@...> wrote:
Maybe what he is getting at is this:
Tower Records went bankrupt and as of last year is now only an
In other words: Fat Chance!
On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Patrice Champarou wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Henderson"
>> There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that with redhotjazz.com
>> the internet, EMI, Sony/BMG and Vivendi Universal will RUSH
>> chronologically complete box sets of all the material currently
>> available on the site to your local Tower Records store.
>> July 15th will in deed be a sad day.
> Jack, I've just "approved" your (first?) message but I must say I
> follow you here. If the majors were willing to issue pre-war
> material, or
> even sell it online, they would have done so a long time ago. The main
> trouble we are in is, I think, that tons of archives - that goes
> for our
> national radios an TV's too - are kept sleeping in dark cellars and
> won't be
> revealed unless sufficient audience, from an economical point of
> view, seems
> to be ready to buy them. I consider that part of the activities
> which some
> people call "piracy" (I didn't say all) is just free advertisement for
> actually released material, and that when it applies to unreleased
> it just opens the audience's ears to what may become part of a new
> Scott will probably forgive me if I say that his samples are not
> exactly the
> cream of fidelity, and usually do not reach the quality of an mp3
> you can
> buy from eMusic. They are, actually, a "cultural" media and cannot
> become a
> commercial product. Except that they help music lovers to know
> about rare
> material, and eveyone's normal reaction is to buy commercial
> releases when
> The economical plot we are discussing now is not intended to get
> hold of
> the rights on old records and commercialize them, it is only legal
> racket -
> that is, drawing money out of the online publication of music they
> would NOT
> release any way. The money being "shared" according to the sales of
> completely different types of music, if the pattern is the same as
> it is for
> the laws adopted in France.
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----- Original Message -----
> I'm not 100% sure about it but I think its the servers location that
> counts, not the domain name! Otherwise its easy to create a new domain
> and redirect to it!
That seems very logical, but my concern is : what if... the fact that
http://redhotjazz.com belongs to Scott means that he is responsible for the
content, as an American citizen, whatever the location of the site's files?
I suspect that there won't be any need to transfer them anyway (Neal's reply
and the notion of "weighing risks" seem to me quite satisfactory, all the
more so when I think of some websites which do not only make pre-war
material available, but also have nerves to *sell* pre-1930 sound files for
which they cannot claim any kind of rights!!!) but I've still asked the
question about what defines a website's "nationality", and expect a bunch of
replies from different groups. Even useless efforts in order to save
redhotjazz won't be actually "wasted".