Give me a break with the "Should music be given away for free?" talk. It's old and tiring.

Yes! It should!

To the musicians (which I am): If you don't like it, get out there and play...in other words, sell tickets!!! Promote yourself so people buy the tickets!!! That's where you get your money. YouTube and sharing mp3's is free advertisement!!!

Do you think a ragtime player from back in the day was worried about whether or not someone was sharing his music? No! He was all about PLAYING.

Agreed... Performers get paid when they perform... Once you record - it belongs to the Universe...

Tell you what: Write and produce a jazz DVD at your own expense. Pay for all rights and permissions, make sure everyone is taken care of properly. Release the DVD in hopes of 1. Gaining a wider audience for this music; 2. Hopefully make some of your money back. Then log onto YouTube and see postings of your entire project at no charge to anyone, and absolutely without any credit given to the source, writer, producer or even where you could buy the thing.

Bruce Klauber

You're right Bruce,

This culture of "giving it away for free" has gotten out of hand. Many young musicians don't understand the connection between having a product on the market and promoting that product. It's not enough to just play. Many choose to play and they end up playing for free anyway. Once a product is reduced to being a product that can be seen or heard on youtube/myspace/etc., in my opinion, it becomes devalued. Many also fail to understand that it costs good money to put out a presentable project. A ragtime player back in the day only had to worry about playing, but this is clearly not the reality today. That's a recipe for disaster. I guess that the best thing that you can do in the case of youtube Bruce is to get together a team and start flagging the videos as inappropiate. "Once you record-it belongs to the Universe....for purchase :-)

Jason Palmer

Thanks for your comments, Jason. What too many folks seem to ignore is that many of us in various areas of the entertainment industry do this for "a living," with the key words being "a living."

Regarding flagging videos as inappropriate, I remember Hudson music hired two, full-time people to pull videos off of YouTube and the like. It was impossible to even make a tiny dent in it and we all just gave up.

YouTube does have its place and I think it presents a wonderful opportunity for artists to advertise their talents. But was specifically galls me is the fact that virtually no one who posts these things thinks to give credit to the source. Crediting the source, at least in my case, would be a marvelous thing for JazzLegends.com, in that the clips would serve as "teasers" and entice viewers to visit the JazzLegends.com site and hopefully consider purchasing the entire program. As mentioned, "The Jazz Video Guy," a.k.a. Bret Primick, does a wonderful job on this.

Be aware that the actual posters are only possible to blame. It is more than obvious that no one at YouTube monitors these things. As a specific example, one of the most posted film clips, and one that frequently turns up at the top of search engine listings, is something titled "Gene Krupa Having a Good Time." Naturally, there is no source credited, no date, no nothing. In reality, the footage comes from a film called "George White's Scandals," filmed in 1945, and owned by Turner Entertainment. The song being played in the clip, which we licensed from Turner for our video, "Gene Krupa: Jazz Legend," is a song entitled "Leave Us Leap."

If any one within the YouTube offices even fewed this, wouldn't they have wondered just where it came from?

The Krupa/Buddy Rich drum battle is probably the second most popular YouTube posting. This came from the Sammy Davis, Jr. television program of 1966, and was licensed by us via NBC Television and The Library of Congress. This was a part of the DCI Music Video entitled "Buddy Rich: Jazz Legend." And yes, we paid dearly for all this material.

Again, was there any one at YouTube who thought about a source?

Stay tuned.

You guys are too uptight... It's not about the $$$ it's about the music. How much $$$ does the typical artist see from an album sale anyway? People will always buy DVD and CD's regardless of youtube. I just can't get any sympathy for the artist on this one. Make it simple - when you perform for an audience - you get paid. When you record something - just be glad if you see anything back... ...and it IS an avertisement for your performance anyway.

Nobody in the "Generation Me" gives a damn about NBC, rights, library of congress, or the other. We just want to witness great performances. ...and in person - we'll pay whatever it takes...

One more thing... Branford Marsalis released (on his own record label) a DVD of his quartet playing "A Love Supreme..." It's on youtube... I don't hear him complaining. There is hardly a finer musician on the planet - and those people that are collectors and true fans will purchase the DVD anyway. How much does it really cost to mass produce DVD's... Let me tell you - almost nothing... and look at the price...

I'll even bet that there has been instances where someone has viewed the youtube version and purchased the DVD later...

If the artist is so 'worried' about profits don't make the DVD and why be a jazz musician in the 1st place? Like the old adage - how do you make a Million dollars playing jazz? First you start with 2 million.

So sorry, no sympathy for the corporations who don't get their 'logo' on there and it is just the price one pays for being a popular artist. How long have record companies been ripping off fans and artists alike - and no one complains about that...

Besides - how are you going to police the entire internet anyway. That is the beauty of it.

~T

You don't get it, Theo. In the case of Branford, due credits are given on YouTube as to the source and/or where viewers might purchase the complete product. In my case--and hundreds of others--posts of film clips are not carrying credits of any kind, when they are clearly listed on the DVD.

When you comment that "if the artist is so worried about profits...why be a jazz musician in the first place?" you are in effect saying that one cannot make a living from jazz. Sadly, that's becoming more true each day.

What do you do for a living, my friend? Let's say you were a house painter, and someone walked on your gig one day and offered to do it for free and said, "Hey, man, if you're so worried about profits, why be a house painter in the first place?"

Bruce Klauber

I've heard many artists say they could care less about youtube and file sharing. I'm sure you yourself, have copied CD's for somebody. It's the same thing in essence is it not? If not perhaps I'm arguing agains the wrong topic...

I think a real artist will always create because they're compelled to - not because they need to make the mortgage.

No one else can play like Branford - (so no one is going to 'take' his job) and he will always be able to make a comfortable living - even if he recorded nothing else ever. Perhaps this issue should be addressed with different artists thru out your magazine for a particular month. I'll bet at least half the artists would have no real issue - just going by what I've heard from their collective lips on youtube and in print.

Most people don't care about the 'credits' either. How many peole read the credits on a DVD or commit to memory what the see prior to the footage? I do - but I'd venture to say most do not.

I went to the New Orleans jazz fest - spent gobs of money at the festival and in the city - it was sponsored by Shell - but do I think to fill up at shell over Exxon? No. I go where the gas is cheapest.

Maybe I'm not addressing your concerns - but I just can't see where the artist is losing any real money. In any business there are counterfeit products, cheats, stealing of ideas, etc. As Bruce Hornsby elloquently says, "That's just the way it is..."

It is as it is because it can not be otherwise. Let's embrace it...!

I enjoy your column, btw...

In the particular case of DVDs that focus on vintage jazz, YouTube and its clones are making film footage available for free what viewers used to have to pay for.

The reason that viewers had to pay for it is that the writers and producers spent thousands of dollars tracking down vintage film, getting permissions, etc.

We didn't pay these fees and go to extraordinary lengths to relese these productions so they could be given away.

We did it for two reasons: To contribute something to jazz scholarship and history, and to make some kind of a living at it.

Bruce Klauber

Speaking of movies on youtube.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ohTvOYwuc

I am a huge supporter of the arts. I have been on every pay music site in existence. The major problem I have encountered is there is music seen on Youtube that you can't purchase anywhere anyhow. (Azymuth or Seawind early recordings)There is music that is out of print and the only way you get to hear the music is to see or hear it on Youtube. Regarding artist making money....I have supported artist live performances, however...what happens when there is a once in a life time colaboration.(Metheny -Brecker "this masquerade") The moment and music is gone forever never to be replayed anywhere or anyhow. Example of how bad it is. The non-jazz artist Bruce Springsteen has removed the better live videos of his song Brilliant Disguise from Youtube and yet he doesn't have a live production of this song(whole band) on CD or DVD. So if someone posts the live version how is this stealing from the artist when he doesn't even want to make money off of the future listening of the live performance himself? And what about artist that never even play in certain towns. There are tons of artist that play on the west coast and never come to cleveland. I guess they really don't want my bucks so Youtube is the only way I get to see them. If somebody made a Jazz concert pay site. or any music concert pay site. They would make tons. Look at porn for goodness sake. Even with tons of free stuff on the net. They continue to make money. I just want the music and so do most music fans. Bootleg concert albums became big because artist didn't make the concert music available themselves. I have purchased many CD's because I have seen the artist on Youtube. I also have wanted to find out who other artist were because of seeing them play for someone else on Youtube. Yes there are those who don't pay. There are many of us who do and are very displeased at the lack of availability.

The point is this: If you CAN purchase the films and if the films are available for sale and if the producers paid thousands of dollars to make these films, then they SHOULD NOT be available on YouTube for free. And at the very least, because the practice cannot be policed, please give credit as to the source material. And bootleg concert albums did not become big "because artist didn't make the concert music available themselves." Bootlegs, by and large, consist of material that the artist DID NOT want to make available, because of quality or other issues.

Bruce...I have spent thousands on music of all types in all genres. I am a huge fan and feel artist should be compensated especially those dependent on this for income. However...Look at the artist who are starting their careers off on Youtube. You made my point in your own words. If a consumer is not concerned with the quality but only concerned with the content and is willing to put up with a subpar recording, how does that hurt the artist? Especially if he is literally throwing that particular performance away. I saw Holly Hoffman in D.C. a few years ago at the Mary Lou Williams Jazz Fest and she did a killer version of "You don't know what love is" the bassist was Nikki Perrot. I've never seen a woman or man play the bass with such feeling or heart. That colaborative effort is gone and I doubt will ever be done again. Look at the colaboration in the movie "Kansas City". Once in a lifetime but it is available. That's all I ask. Make it available so true music fans who are willing to "Purchase" can buy. If it is on the backs of consumers that careers are funded, then why can't we have the music we want? I kind of think we are arguing different points but anyway. If not for Youtube I would never have known who Esbjorn Svensson is. He is no longer with us so how else would I get to hear his music if
not for Youtube. He's not marketed. I have purchased his music only through exposure from Youtube. If his concert footage were not available, his estate would never have gotten a cent from me.

YouTube and its clones are very, very valuable in the cases of new and/or emerging artists. Regarding the bootleg issue, I think the artist has to retain at least some type of control as to what gets out and what does not (though that's pretty tough these days). Just in terms of my personal taste, I'd listen to anything by Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra but truthfully, some of the boots that have come out through the years have been terrible. Gene, Buddy and Mr. Sinatra, God rest their souls would--to use a Yogi Berra phrase--"turn over in their graves if they were alive."

Maintain control of what gets out. Why? Sales would go down if somehow we saw an artist make a mistake or heard a mistake in the music. Ann and Nancy Wilson of heart opened for the Rock and Roll hall of fame in Cleveland. They started a song and stopped and started all over again. A special moment in time that was incredible. Music fans don't want perfection that's why we love the live performance where the bands push it to the limits and strings and drum sticks break and singers push it and voices crack. If we wanted perfection we'd simply stay home and listen to a studio version. The live performance is all about the moment. I remember watching a horn player with Bob James back in the early 80's with condensation pouring out the front of his horn with spit dripping from his spit valve. Pushing it to the limits. Or how about moments never to be seen again with Hiram Bullock running out into the streets with no shoes playing his solos. These are moments I wish were caught on camera so that I could PURCHASE them. If all I have to see is grainy cell phone footage of these moments then so be it. But I think it is so inaccurate to say wanting this footage and watching for free takes away from the artist especially since the artist is no longer with us and we can't go see them play ever again.