Lazz

eye-eye chin-chin

Oh my goodness! I have a fan club?

Cool. Great going Finn.

Don't know enough to make recommendations for you. Sorry. What I do know is that her mum, Martha, was one of the Clara Ward Singers, an early gospel group that toured with Aretha's dad when he was preaching on a circuit. Fontella started playing piano for 'em when she was nine until the age of sixteen (I would have been around ten at the time she stopped doing that and just getting into discovering music). So that helps explain the solid roots background and musical upbringing. Later on she played piano for Little Milton's band. And then the first time she impinged on my life was in 1965 with the release first of "Don't Mess Up A Good Thing", a duet with Bobby McLure, and a few months later with her big hit "Rescue Me" and it's driving signature bass figure. Her M.D. at that time was Joseph Bowie, whose brother Lester she married. Heven't heard much from her since, except the occasional parasitic sampling of her big hit for dance re-mixes. She had kids to raise in the meantime. I even missed her time with the Art Ensemble in Paris and the album she made with 'em. Didn't even know about it 'til I googled for her in response to this thread. Always knew about her family connections somehow, though. Don't think you could go wrong checking out her early R&B stuff. Still that recognisable deep dark rich velvet sound. I want to find the later work now. She's 65, by the way. Amazing. Yeah - this is great.

Wow. Cinematic Orchestra very cool, very hip, and very groovy. Thanks for the introduction. A definite "must-have". But it has f*ck-all to do with hip-hop, n'est-ce pas? And the only thing "jazz" about it is the players and their taste and technique. Fontella Bass still in great voice, she has to be in her 60s by now, big musical family she comes from, lucky woman. Yes, the good doctor, Lester Bowie, is a famous jazzer. Also a very amusing cat, great to hang out with. Did great work for black US culture.

Help me. I want to try and understand. I can see that pop isn't necessarily rock. But isn't rock pop anyway? What does it all mean? And why am I so insignificant?

I thought it was a very "pro" article in that it provokes some controversy - which is regarded as a sign of journalistic success. The length didn't bug me - always tough to be concise, often impossible, especially dealing with any topic that has depths - and I like to read. I found it amusing in style and content. But it's true the content is wildly off-beam and the central plank of their platform is unerringly free of context. In other words, it's almost complete bollocks. The big money boys have considerable and increasing interest now vested in the international regime governing the ownership of intellectual property. While this state of affairs continues (and I see no likelihood of change) there is no chance the future will ever involve "the end of copyright". There are developments and changes taking place, of course, especially to do with evolving accomodations with the spread of new media technologies. They occupy the fringes of copyright rather than its core, however, like considerations of exactly what it is that can constutute a "fair use" of otherwise copyright material. The other thing I have found interesting is the way a number of recent actions for breach - i.e. the pursuit of illegal down-loaders and file-sharers - which have foundered in face of other laws and principles that have been framed to protect privacy and individual rights. But then it's probably only wierdo-s like me who find that stuff remotely interesting.

Thanks, Didier. I think this article, with a few minor changes of detail, could have been written five years ago.

Me too...

Gee. Feels like I've been getting a lot of compliments around here lately. Thanks, Steve. Sometimes It seems an enormous struggle to make any sense at all, so I try and limit communication to when I have something to say. I must admit, an earlier sentiment of yours regarding the lovely and talented Tracey Emin was not far from my mind when tossing in that reference to nihilism. (And it's good that if I think you are reading I can feel more confident about the lack of irony emoticons at my disposal.) Ah, John... Soundclick didn't respond well to me, so I didn't get to remind myself of that song of yours. But I did get to read the lyrics again. And it seems to me they are also the product of care and attention. Different from rage per se. Even though your rage is what it's about. Plus, without wanting to come across as too w*nkily pretentious, I was trying to reference "the art of music" - accumulated centuries of profound work and tradition from serious heavyweight artistic giants as opposed to the disposable culture of Billboard's Top 100. There is a difference. Rage has a purpose and a message and a consequence, alright, but that don't make it art. Has to have passion. Has to have meaning. Got to have love in it. For me, see, art is all. Ok. So it is w*nkily pretentious But I don't see a point otherwise. Personally.

I know exactly what you're talking about, John. Dig it: I loved the Sex Pistols and punk as a whole in all its brief blossoming; It had a power and honesty; It had a huge "f*ck-you" quality that was just right for the times; It was the authentic expression of broad popular alienation; Revolutionary aspects (however short-lived and impotent) were made more refreshing for it; It had an enormous impact on the broader areas of comunications arts; It was culturally significant. Where we probably differ is that I cannot stand listening to it. I sincerely dig it being there and having happened, as a genuine and valid art-movement in and of its time and place - but I see no reason for subjecting my ears and tender sensitivities to the actual sonic experience. Early 20th century Dadaism had a ferocious energy about it, too, just like punk. The other profound similarity from where I'm standing, is that the destructive motivations of nihilism at its core, just like punk, means essentially that it can never leave behind any artifacts of beauty. Its value and impact issue from the making of the statement pure and simple and not from the making of anything concrete of any intrinsic merit. The intent and the shock is all there is. And the rest is empty. I mean, I love the fact that some Italian dada guy used to exhibit and sell "Merde D'Artiste" - but there's no way I'm really interested in actually owning a matchbox size package of the man's poop. Like punk, it'a one of the great triumphs of concept and over content. Alienation and anger make strong statements alright - but for me, rage has zip! to do with the art of music. Now - nobody wanted to hear any of that, did they?

I wholeheartedly concur with the mentions of Nat Cole, Ray Charles and Aretha. Each an epitome of taste and style and tone. They carry a stamp of unique identity and artistry that's able to convert even the weakest material into something special and uniquely their own. Alistair - My newly re-discovered daughter brought some Eva Cassidy with her when we met. Hadn't heard her before. One CD I found pretty ho-hum, very "white" sound, with no perticular identity or focus to speak of, but the other live recording showed she really has what it takes - totally on top of her material, very happening performaner, powerful swing and drive, powerfully authentic and soulful. Happy I heard her. I'm a believer. Just for what he could invent vocally and make perfect musical sense with the sweetest swinginest sound, I have to put in another huge plug here for the totally unrecognised late and great Richard Boone. Among the most admirable contenders today for my money are a few characters with supremely stunning chops and technical ability, yet with the discimination and good taste not to let that interfere unnecessarily with the sheer guts and integrity of live performance.... Will Downing - great soul singer even better when he sticks to jazz. Rachelle Ferrell - so good she's frightening. Out of the guys in the U.K., there's the excellent Ian Shaw. Kurt Elling who makes his style of perfection seem so easy. And Bobby McFerrin, of course - what other singer could sustain a couple of hours pure sole? - just one voice - doesn't even need a band. Wow. Also need to add Tania Hancheroff - the woman who demo'd some of our tunes so brilliantly. And the even more unknown Ann Schaefer - with whom I hope to be working in the near future and who I could describe as vaguely like a Norah Jones or a Joni Mitchell, only much much hipper. No, wait.... there are more... I better stop now.

And, sadly, there is also a bad side to the business.

Hi John. Not that I've ever explored them too much, but I thought they all charged fees. Maybe just the ones I've thrown a cursory glance at. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with you listing the ones that don't. Might also be helpful if you could name those few that are worthwhile, that don't overly exploit, and where a starting competitor sees tangible benefit. As someone who has obviously evaluated the logistics of running your own contest for all the best reasons, it must have been salutory to realise all the legal bollocks you would have to get sewn up to make it happen effectively. Basic rule is to follow the sage advice of the great scot George Wiley and "be suspicious". And Steve - the whole point of these contests - perhaps with John's ambitions and the BBC excepted - is to make money. Lazz

John - I would warn against all of them. There are usually two big signals for suspicion: 1. the “send me your money” bit 2. the “sign over (some of) your rights” bit Now, admittedly, without 1 + 2 the business model for all these talent-search-song-contest-promo-stunts falls right over. Even if they have established a reputation for being “genuine” or “a good opportunity” I just can’t imagine them being able to work any other way. Maybe the BBC, being a publicly funded body, may not feel the need to levy an entry fee or a service charge for their contests – but rights have always got to be on the table. Nobody stands a chance of being able to do what they promise with your material without you giving them the right to use it. You have to weigh up the costs and potential benefit for each – see if it’s worth it – and remember that it’s like buying a lottery ticket with the very large difference being that, in the unlikely event that you are a winner, they still need the right to exploit your success from a purely business point of view. And what's your chances of winning the lottery? At the very least, keep your eyes wide open, have your wits about you, and wear protective clothing. Then again, I am a cynical old bastard. Steve - None of those provisions are the least bit unusual. #3 is simple admin policy: they figure to be overwhelmed with entrants and loads and loads of stuff for which they can't be expected to be responsible personally and return every little paper clip and cd and bio to all and sundry – think of the burden - so they state up front that they own the actual physical copies of whatever you’ve submitted – simple – no mention, no suggestion, and no intention to have “rights” in the content – just a reminder you might never get back what you sent ‘em, so better make sure to keep a copy yourself – good advice. #6 – and no, of course they aren’t joking – this is another quite sensible and normal bit of legal bollocks – it means that if you submit something they end up using, but you’ve nicked it or pillaged it or plagiarised it or otherwise sampled yourself into an infringement of someone else’s rights on the way, then the Beeb’s ass is covered – and quite right, too. #7 says nothing about division of royalties or ownership of rights – so that’s the bearing this clause has on those areas – nothing! – all it says is they want the freedom to bugger about with your piece explicitly and specifically for use on their internet services. Who is going to do the buggering? – obviously they are – who else? Will your agreement be sought? – if you sign it, your agreement won’t be necessary. Also perfectly normal. #8 – not that you have to agree to it, but it seems almost everybody expects you to waive your moral rights these days – it’s about being able to bugger about with your stuff again – they just want to be free to do what they, in their infinite wisdom, think they need to do to flog the concept - and they don't want you getting in their way. Expecting you to waive moral rights is perfectly normal. It's the basic belt to support the additional braces for #7 We are right not to like it, and right to expect to be consulted about potentially dodgy usage – but it’s still quite normal to be asked to give it up. So why would Ray Coleman say these provisions are unusual? Beats me. At its worst, my cynicism can also extend to the ISA. Lazz

I have been a Maria Schneider fan for a long time. She's a great writer and arranger who I hope stays around and keeps delivering music for my ears' delight. The ArtistShare concept is not new, however - although this particular business model does look like earning the principal a living. Anyone who's curious enough might like to follow the discussion taking place at rec.audio.pro. Very interesting: <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=40e82e09%240%2421383%244d5ecec7%40reader.city-net.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl3109085418d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D40e82e09%25240%252421383%25244d5ecec7%2540reader.city-net.com> Lazz

Good one, Chris. Looks like John & Songstuff might be getting an essential article, here - I hope so. If that comes off, though, I think it would be useful to broaden the sweep a little more to accomodate jurisdictional variations - i.e. the ways contractual conventions and practices can and do vary between, say, the U.S. and the U.K. Hope you don't mind the suggestion. Lazz

"How are they going to do this? " First, there is a new International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) like a digital fingerprint with which members of the International Federation of the Phonograph Industry (IFPI) now encode tracks for ready identification. Second, the development of Copy Control Technology (CCT) allows companies to specify the type and style of usages allowed. Providing the track has been encoded in the first place, any breach of permissions is readily identified - and you get the message. Microsoft have of course been long involved. "I wonder if it's because the 'people' view the music industry as nothing more than a bunch of rip off merchants!" And yes, punters' perceptions of the "Big 5" as greedy money-grubbing impersonal monoliths has everything to do with the lack of sympathy for their plight. A lot of artists share that point of view. The industry is well aware of this but care less than you or I about it. They just follow-up their information strategies with the loudly public example of pursuing offenders in law whether they be nuns or school-kids. Lazz