Unreleased songs from Sun go digital in The Blindman's Blues Reviews Forum

0 Points

Add Reply New Topic New Poll

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Unreleased songs from Sun go digital

Author

Comment

RadioJonD

Unreleased songs from Sun go digital

Lead

[-]

Posts: 204

Jul 1 06 4:39 PM

Tags : None

July 01, 2006

From the Tennessean Newspaper, 19 previously unknown and unreleased songs on the Sun label from artists such as Charlie Rich, Rosco Gordon and Bill Justis.

E-music's Sun Records page.

Somebody bring me a box of Depends!

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#1

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 1 06 6:05 PM

"Once we find this stuff, it doesn't cost anything to put it up. We don't have to manufacture it and put it out as part of some box set. The Internet has allowed this to happen. . ."

Uh-huh. . . and the surviving artists and/or deceased artists' estates will get WHAT percentage of the royalties from these "no-cost" activites????

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

catnadja

#2

[-]

Posts: 1388

Jul 2 06 8:34 AM

I have just downloaded the Howlin' Wolf songs,from the e-music Sun Records collection,I do not know how the financial side of things is sorted, re royalties,what I do know is that these songs are amongst the best that I have heard from Howlin' Wolf and I have quite a few of his recordings and would highly recommend them.

www.live365.com/stations/catnadja

http://www.myspace.com/catnadja

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#3

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 3 06 3:47 PM

I don't want to start any trouble here, but I must respectfully --yet very sharply-- disagree with this notion of blithely downloading stuff when one doesn't "know how the financial side of things is sorted, re royalties."

Artists deserve --and have fought valliantly for (just ask Ruth Brown)-- the right to control their own art, and this includes the profits and proceeds that derive from it. Very likely, any contract Wolf signed with Sun back in the early '50 was highly unfavorable to him. No slam intended against Sam Phillips! That's just the way the biz worked in those days. But old contracts can be revisited and re-negotiated in light of modern-day terms -- that's one of the important victories that Ruth Brown's Rhythm & Blues Foundation has won.

Both of Wolf's daughters are still alive; they're hardly poor, and they won't go broke if they don't see any money from these newly-"discovered" tracks. In my opinion, though, this is simply a matter of respect and honor for the man's legacy, and for his family. If the money ain't going where it should be, I don't care how valuable/rare/groovy/peachy-keen the new music is. It's ethically and morally wrong to participate in something that rips off artists.

Maybe in previous years we could claim innocence, idealism, or collectors' fervor in purchasing unauthorized bootlegs. Maybe we didn't know any better (I, for one, certainly didn't; it was only after I moved to Chicago and began attending too many funerals for too many artists with substantial and lucrative back catalogs, whose families couldn't even afford to bury 'em, that I realized the importance of this issue). But now we do.

Okay, flame away. . .

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

bluescliff

#4

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 2336

Jul 3 06 4:38 PM

I agree completely jazzman.

Cliff

Loughborough, UK

Reply Quote

jba

#5

[-]

Posts: 639

Jul 3 06 5:05 PM

The Wolf stuff isn't previously unavailable tracks as far as i can tell from a quick look. He recorded for Sun before he went over to Chess and it looks like the familiar tracklist from those sessions.
Otherwise you have a very good point Jazzman. I shall hold back. . .
Jon

My all new and all groovy podcast - Mixed Messages
http://jonsmixmess.blogspot.com/

Reply Quote

Rats in my Kitchen

#6

[-]

Posts: 390

Jul 3 06 5:37 PM

When would you say these 50+ year old recordings belong to the public domain, then? It is just an accident of current law that the term is so long, in my opinion, and I think it should be changed, perhaps for moral reasons as well.

I don't consider this a flame, just being on the other side of an issue.

--------------------
Nurse: Was there blood?
Patient: Yes
Nurse: Blood, bile, piss and vinegar, and phlegm?
Patient: Worse. There was blog!

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#7

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 3 06 5:49 PM

Yes, "public domain" is a valid point -- I hadn't thought of that.

I wonder -- is it possible for an artist (or his/her heirs) to "recapture" something that has fallen into the public domain? And is the law the same for songwriter's copyright/publishing as it is for mechanical royalties on the recording itself?

In this case, I recall reading that Shelby Singleton [who owns the Sun catalogue] was "waxing" eloquent on how wonderful it is that Sun will be reaping royalties from these sides. So the company, at any rate, has retained its share of the ownership.

Any legal beagles around here know exactly how this works?

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

tanta07

#8

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 9133

Jul 3 06 7:02 PM

Jazzman - Emusic is on the up-and-up. It's a pay-per-download service that pays out royalties to the artists (or to their estates, whatever the case may be).

I'm thinking they were referring to the ease with which they can post new songs (instead of like the old days, when you had to produce a record, distribute it, and promote it). There are plenty of bad guys out there in the music downloading business, but Emusic is actually one of the good guys.

The Buzz Brothers Band

Reply Quote

tanta07

#9

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 9133

Jul 3 06 7:04 PM

As far as their unreleased Sun stuff, Emusic also has 3 exclusive James Cotton tracks (of the 4 he recorded for Sun). I'm definitely going to be downloading those.

The Buzz Brothers Band

Reply Quote

Tom Rushen

#10

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 4476

Jul 3 06 8:08 PM

tanta07, or anyone else who sees this question:

Are all downloads from the likes of iTunes and this Sun source mp3s?

I rarely encounter info that specifies what these sound files are, and I've been pretty reluctant to bother getting into the legal download world for a variety of reasons, including the compressed, compromised qualities of the sound.

This from a guy who listens to Charley Patton records!

Reply Quote

tanta07

#11

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 9133

Jul 3 06 8:17 PM

QUOTE (Tom Rushen @ Jul 3 2006, 08:08 PM)

tanta07, or anyone else who sees this question:

Are all downloads from the likes of iTunes and this Sun source mp3s?

I rarely encounter info that specifies what these sound files are, and I've been pretty reluctant to bother getting into the legal download world for a variety of reasons, including the compressed, compromised qualities of the sound.

This from a guy who listens to Charley Patton records!

I don't use Itunes, but speaking for Emusic, yes, all of their music is in mp3 format. I've never noticed a huge sound quality deficiency with mp3's, but then again, I tend to listen to music that's 50 years old, and of fairly poor sound quality anyway. LOL

The Buzz Brothers Band

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#12

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 3 06 10:39 PM

S'good to know, Tanta -- many thanks . . .

. . . I'm still curious about that "public domain" query, though, if anyone has any answers --

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

Les Forgue

#13

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 6205

Jul 3 06 11:02 PM

I'm curious about the P D too. (I just can't get my brain around the fact that 50 years ago does NOT mean pre-war anymore.)
But just because something becomes legal, that does not make it ethical, moral, the right thing, etc. If a property goes public domain and the heirs of the artist are still around, should they still get something if money is made? and shouldn't a cover artist still give credit to the originator? Going P D would be like neighbors walking thru your land against your wishes, if they kept cutting across your land for generations, it could create an easement. Or like if the University of Illinois At Chicago wanted your land, you'd be a dead duck. Perfectly legal but far from ethical.

Les from Chicago

"Nobody sits on a rolling stone".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMRWhmqJwHc

Reply Quote

Rats in my Kitchen

#14

[-]

Posts: 390

Jul 4 06 12:36 AM

QUOTE (Les Forgue @ Jul 3 2006, 07:02 PM)

I'm curious about the P D too. (I just can't get my brain around the fact that 50 years ago does NOT mean pre-war anymore.)
But just because something becomes legal, that does not make it ethical, moral, the right thing, etc. If a property goes public domain and the heirs of the artist are still around, should they still get something if money is made? and shouldn't a cover artist still give credit to the originator? Going P D would be like neighbors walking thru your land against your wishes, if they kept cutting across your land for generations, it could create an easement. Or like if the University of Illinois At Chicago wanted your land, you'd be a dead duck. Perfectly legal but far from ethical.

No, I don't agree that the heirs should necessarily make money on the creatvity of their parents. It does not work that way with a patent, for instance, which expires in something like 5 years, if I recall. This is a complex issue of course. I personally benefit from having inherited land, i.e. real property from my parents, but there are good reasons why the law should not permit me to inherit their intellectual property except for a short period of tme, good reasons why their intellectual property should be handed down to the public as a whole.

And no, I don't agree that it's like walking across your pasture without your permission. There are good reasons why the law distinguishes between real property (real estate, land) and intellectual property (inventions, writings, art). It doesn't seem right to me to equate the two.

I am not a lawyer much lest an ethicist so I cannot give a satisfactory answer here, obviously. But the little I know about copyright law in the U.S. seems to disfavor long terms of copyright.

When our country was founded, we were so far behind Europe that a scheme was devised to encourage the creation of intellectual property that would be held for 9 years by the creator, then enter the public domain and enrich the country as a whole. I kid not.

Sure, times have changed, but the basic premise of copyright in the U.S. has not, even though 9 years has morphed somehow into the lifetime of a creative person then 75 years after his death. Ok, from 9 years to the lifetime of the author plus 75 years. Well, that is quite a jump.

Obviously the lobbying has been more effective for the private owner than the public, but that may soon change. The term of copyright in some instances is in my opinion working against the preservation of culture and heritage. Oh, maybe not for popular music like blues and popular artists like Ruth Brown and Howlin' Wolf, but I could argue strongly that long copyright terms are damaging the preservation of memory and culture. Cajun culture, for example.

Sorry for the rant but there is more to it than "My daddy created it, so it now belongs to me and descendants forever." That is simply not the case in U.S. law, and I think there are good reasons why not.

Giving credit to an author is an ethical matter of plagiarism, not copyright.

--------------------
Nurse: Was there blood?
Patient: Yes
Nurse: Blood, bile, piss and vinegar, and phlegm?
Patient: Worse. There was blog!

Reply Quote

Tom Rushen

#15

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 4476

Jul 4 06 12:37 PM

Rats, that's a very thoughtful contrary opinion that made me look at this issue a little differently. Thanks!

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#16

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 4 06 2:55 PM

I can see your point, Rats -- but if that's the case, then NO ONE (including record companies or publishers!) should be able to make money from material that's in the public domain. If the artist and/or his or her beneficiaries don't profit, then no one else should, either. If it's "free," it's "free."

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

leftyjm

#17

[-]

Posts: 678

Jul 4 06 2:59 PM

QUOTE (Tom Rushen @ Jul 3 2006, 10:08 PM)

tanta07, or anyone else who sees this question:

Are all downloads from the likes of iTunes and this Sun source mp3s?

I rarely encounter info that specifies what these sound files are, and I've been pretty reluctant to bother getting into the legal download world for a variety of reasons, including the compressed, compromised qualities of the sound.

This from a guy who listens to Charley Patton records!

Tom, I use Emusic a lot too and their material is very good quality mp3s, 320 kb/s most of the time. Once burnt, I can't make the difference with normal wav files. By the way, they have 5 Charley P.'s albums online, but you probably have got them already in original form

Reply Quote

SteveL

#18

[-]

Deepest Blue

Posts: 1205

Jul 4 06 6:01 PM

QUOTE (Rats in my Kitchen @ Jul 4 2006, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (Les Forgue @ Jul 3 2006, 07:02 PM)

I'm curious about the P D too.� (I just can't get my brain around the fact that 50 years ago does NOT mean pre-war anymore.)
But just because something becomes legal, that does not make it ethical, moral, the right thing, etc.� If a property goes public domain and the heirs of the artist are still around, should they still get something if money is made?� and shouldn't a cover artist still give credit to the originator?� Going P D would be like neighbors walking thru your land against your wishes, if they kept cutting across your land for generations, it could create an easement.� Or like if the University of Illinois At Chicago wanted your land, you'd be a dead duck.� Perfectly legal but far from ethical.

No, I don't agree that the heirs should necessarily make money on the creatvity of their parents. It does not work that way with a patent, for instance, which expires in something like 5 years, if I recall. This is a complex issue of course. I personally benefit from having inherited land, i.e. real property from my parents, but there are good reasons why the law should not permit me to inherit their intellectual property except for a short period of tme, good reasons why their intellectual property should be handed down to the public as a whole.

And no, I don't agree that it's like walking across your pasture without your permission. There are good reasons why the law distinguishes between real property (real estate, land) and intellectual property (inventions, writings, art). It doesn't seem right to me to equate the two.

I am not a lawyer much lest an ethicist so I cannot give a satisfactory answer here, obviously. But the little I know about copyright law in the U.S. seems to disfavor long terms of copyright.

When our country was founded, we were so far behind Europe that a scheme was devised to encourage the creation of intellectual property that would be held for 9 years by the creator, then enter the public domain and enrich the country as a whole. I kid not.

Sure, times have changed, but the basic premise of copyright in the U.S. has not, even though 9 years has morphed somehow into the lifetime of a creative person then 75 years after his death. Ok, from 9 years to the lifetime of the author plus 75 years. Well, that is quite a jump.

Obviously the lobbying has been more effective for the private owner than the public, but that may soon change. The term of copyright in some instances is in my opinion working against the preservation of culture and heritage. Oh, maybe not for popular music like blues and popular artists like Ruth Brown and Howlin' Wolf, but I could argue strongly that long copyright terms are damaging the preservation of memory and culture. Cajun culture, for example.

Sorry for the rant but there is more to it than "My daddy created it, so it now belongs to me and descendants forever." That is simply not the case in U.S. law, and I think there are good reasons why not.

Giving credit to an author is an ethical matter of plagiarism, not copyright.

A few thoughts on this if I may.

Aren't patents renewable? I'd welcome correction if this isn't the case.

I would be interested to know what the good reasons are for distinguishing between real and intellectual property. Isn't the argument really about the benefits that accrue to succeeding generations from inheriting such property, real or otherwise? Doesn't placing a time limit on intellectual copyright discriminate against the descendants of authors, musicians and artists?

Look at it this way John A is a real estate dealer. He builds up a valuable personal portfolio of real estate which he wills to his offspring. That land can pass through endless generations. John B is an author his books are recognised as major literary works but he makes little money in his lifetime. All he has to leave his offspring are the proceeds from the copyrighting of his work. That isn't going to last for many generations. Unfair? I'd say so.

I would also be interested to know how copyrighting is damaging the preservation of memory and culture. Are the terms so draconian that they prevent public access to some things? I wasn't aware that this was the case, but again I stand to be corrected.

Steve

Reply Quote

catnadja

#19

[-]

Posts: 1388

Jul 4 06 6:19 PM

For an artists response regarding royalties,payments from emusic we could find out from Son Henry,his CD has just been made available today and after reading post on here I will wait to see if Son actually benefits from me downloading or if I should try and get his CD 'Glenn Highway Blues'from some other source

Geoff

www.live365.com/stations/catnadja

http://www.myspace.com/catnadja

Reply Quote

jazzmanchgo

#20

[-]

Posts: 1222

Jul 5 06 1:44 AM

Personally I've never liked the term "intellectual property." I think art cuts deeper to the human essence than mere "property" does.

Yes, I realize that much (most?) of what's recorded/written/filmed/photographed etc. doesn't qualify as capital-"A" "Art;" I realize that much (most?) of it is, in fact, nothing but pap cynically aimed at lowest-common-denominator tastes to rake in the dough for flinty-eye'd bastards on both sides of the recording booth; and I'll even acknowledge that -- hell, maybe Elijah Wald is right and Robert Johnson was nothing but a "pop" singer who inserted all that weirdo-bizarro-cool "Devil" imagery into his music simply because he thought it would sell a bunch of records (which it didn't). . .

. . . but DESPITE all this, I think that there is something other than mere "ownership of property" going on when we insist that an artist (or whatever you want to call him/her) has the right to be duly acknowledged and compensated for his or her work, AND that that individual (or his/her rightful designated heirs) has first dibs on any ongoing revenues that might be ascribable to that work. There's a bit of a person's heart/soul/psyche/essence at stake when that person puts his or her words, voice, visions onto a piece of paper or onto a disk -- even the shmaltziest songwriter or hammiest performer imaginable has to "feel" something when s/he writes, if s/he wants the listener to be able to feel anything at all.

That, in the last analysis, is what I believe is honored by copyright -- even more, perhaps, than the very real and human right to reap the financial benefits of one's own labor.

"Put all your money in a hair bank and you won't draw nothing but a wet check and a slick bill of ladin'!" (Sunnyland Slim)

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Unreleased songs from Sun go digital

Unreleased songs from Sun go digital