Keep Punchin

Everything about the swinging music we love to DJ

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#16 Post by julius » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:35 pm

Eyeball wrote:I have seen major record companies issue tunes where they could not find the composer credits for. They simply issued the song knowing fairly wellthat no one was going to come after them....mega-decades after the fact.

Reference - "Harlem Chapel Bells" - broadcast by Glenn Miller, issued by RCA and listed as 'composer unknown'.

Yoo are probably quite safe.
On the other hand, RCA has a pretty ace legal department who could do research before releasing the record and also defend it afterwards. It would suck for Solomon if he released an album and had to pull all of it just because one song on it didn't get enough research done.

But yeah, I agree with you. It's unlikely anybody would come after him.

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#17 Post by Bob the Builder » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:01 am

Solomon wrote:That's pretty cool. What are the title and composer's name that they use for the song?
John the band leader, just transcribed it. He does it all the time.

Brian
Image

User avatar
Solomon
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:16 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

#18 Post by Solomon » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:19 am

Bob the Builder wrote:
Solomon wrote:That's pretty cool. What are the title and composer's name that they use for the song?
John the band leader, just transcribed it. He does it all the time.
Yes, I understand that. That's where I got the music too: from the movie clip. With most old swing music that's the only source of authentic arrangements - transcribing them from the recordings. But that doesn't answer my question: I'm curious about the title and the composer's name that John uses for the song?

Solomon

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#19 Post by Bob the Builder » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:53 am

Solomon wrote:
Bob the Builder wrote:
Solomon wrote:That's pretty cool. What are the title and composer's name that they use for the song?
John the band leader, just transcribed it. He does it all the time.
Yes, I understand that. That's where I got the music too: from the movie clip. With most old swing music that's the only source of authentic arrangements - transcribing them from the recordings. But that doesn't answer my question: I'm curious about the title and the composer's name that John uses for the song?

Solomon
Sorry, now I understand

I don't know the answer, and John (I don't think) would know it eather yet.
It would be a mater of APRA deciding how they want to work the composer song rights. I have however often seen "Unknown" on Liner notes for the composer.

Brian
Image

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#20 Post by Eyeball » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:50 am

There may be some 'good faith' provision that comes into play where afetr a diligent search you cannot find the composer, but if someone comes forward, they get some loot of they are genuine heirs or whatever.

As far as RCA issuing something as "Composer unknown" - yes, they have deep pockets, but why even bother to take the chance to issue some totally obscure broadcast tune "Harlem Chapel Bells" that likely no one had heard since 1941 until it was issued on LP in the 1960s....unless they felt fairly comfortable that nothing much was going to happen. Rules were even more exacting back in the 60s.

The tune from KEEP PUNCHIN' may never even have been copyrighted.
Last edited by Eyeball on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Toon Town Dave
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
Location: Saskatoon, Canada

#21 Post by Toon Town Dave » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:01 pm

I can't speak directly for historical U.S. copyright law but currently in Canada, a copyright is implicit when you create an artistic work. On the other hand, it's common practice for composers and performers to transfer their copyright to someone else (like a record label) who will then own it, that is usually more explicit. In this case, the studio may be the owner if the contract with the coposer and/or performer addressed copyright.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#22 Post by Eyeball » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:18 pm

The reality of this particular situation is that the song is totally obscure and forgotten. Viirtually no one in the world knows it, noi one remembers the band, does anyone even know the name of the song? Most people in the world wont buy the CD, few will recognioze the tune. The composer is likely long dead and so are his kids. His heirs if any will never even know the song has been recorded, etc.

Sure it is a gamble, but a very low level gamble at that. Just list the song as "P.D." Some people think that "Blues In the Night" is a PD song. If people thiunk that, they will think nothing of some almost 70 year old totally obscure and 99.99999% forgotten tune is not PD.
Last edited by Eyeball on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Solomon
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:16 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

#23 Post by Solomon » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:50 pm

kitkat wrote:Hmmm. In high quality, that might sound annoyingly late 40's / white big band / new testament Basie in its timbre, which isn't at all how it comes across in the video.
Hmm... if by "annoyingly late 40's / white big band / new testament Basie in its timbre", you mean over-produced and artificial-sounding, then that's definitely not the sound I'm going for on my album. But if you're saying that you would rather hear a tinny, scratchy 78-rpm record rather than a high-fidelity, full-dynamic-range acoustic recording, then I must disagree with you! (But don't get me wrong -- I'll always prefer to hear a scratchy 78-rpm record of a swinging band than a hi-fi recording of some whitewashed watered-down studio band that just doesn't get it trying and failing to recreate the same performance.)

It is tricky comparing, for example, new-testament Basie recordings of the late 1950's with swing-era recordings because both the musical style and the recording quality had changed. If on the swing-era stuff that I'm doing my drummer is willing to sound more like Jo Jones or Chick Webb and if on the new-testament-era stuff he's willing to sound more like Sonny Payne or Butch Miles then I think the band will swing the way it should. (And my drummer is a bad-ass, I think you'll be pleased!)

Solomon

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#24 Post by CafeSavoy » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:33 pm

Solomon wrote: Hmm... if by "annoyingly late 40's / white big band / new testament Basie in its timbre" [...]

Solomon
That's quite a broad brush. Good response. I really enjoyed your rendition of the song in Portland. It was a great night of music. Thanks.

User avatar
kitkat
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 10:34 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#25 Post by kitkat » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:20 pm

Solomon wrote:Hmm... if by "annoyingly late 40's / white big band / new testament Basie in its timbre", you mean over-produced and artificial-sounding, then that's definitely not the sound I'm going for on my album. But if you're saying that you would rather hear a tinny, scratchy 78-rpm record rather than a high-fidelity, full-dynamic-range acoustic recording, then I must disagree with you! (But don't get me wrong -- I'll always prefer to hear a scratchy 78-rpm record of a swinging band than a hi-fi recording of some whitewashed watered-down studio band that just doesn't get it trying and failing to recreate the same performance.)

It is tricky comparing ... because both the musical style and the recording quality had changed.
I don't have the musical & recording studio vocabulary you do, so I'll have to say that I think "overproduced" and "artificial-sounding" are the words I meant.

I'm not good at listening to records I do and don't like and figuring out every detail about what's right or wrong with them. However, I have figured out one thing about later big band recordings I don't like:

-There's lots of "unison." I put unison in quotes because it could actually be a complex harmony, but it's still a bunch of sections pretty much playing the same thing. I wonder if a lot of the swing is in the "hole" a brain perceives when a melody is split between sections--the same way rhythm lies to some extent in actual rests between notes.

No matter what the actual dynamics of the band are, piano or forte, I always perceive "loudness" or "sappiness" and get bored when I hear more than a few monents of this not-quite-unison in a song.


If you say that this falls completely under your adjectives "overproduced" and "artificial-sounding," then yeah, I meant what you said! If only partly, then, well, I somewhat meant what you said, and to some extent, I'm adding to it. :|



Afterthought: You said there's a lot of what I just described in the Keep Punchin' song. I suppose that means that I'm more averse to clearly hearing lots of "unison" than to its presence in an arrangement.
And now we're back to the question--does it sound good in its original arrangement with modern technology, or does the arrangement have to be changed now that it's actually apparent? Since Bob thinks it sounds good in Australia, and Rayned thinks it sounds good with your band, I'm guessing not--but I made the suggestion anyway.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#26 Post by Eyeball » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:37 pm

Kitkat-

Could you pick 2 well known swing recordings, one you like and one you don't like, and tell us which are the things you like or don't like about them?

I only ask b/c I am not sure of what you are describing and I am interested.

Thanxxxxxxxx.....
Last edited by Eyeball on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kitkat
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 10:34 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

#27 Post by kitkat » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:11 am

Well...I believe I just said that I couldn't do that.
I said I've really only picked out one element ("thing?") so far.

Still, I intend to go back & edit my post, inserting links to sound samples, as soon as I get the time.
-Katie

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#28 Post by Eyeball » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:16 am

I may have misunderstood-

"I'm not good at listening to records I do and don't like and figuring out every detail about what's right or wrong with them."


I thought that you meant you just didn't like to do it, not that you couldn't.

I look forward to the linx.
Last edited by Eyeball on Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
caab
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:40 am
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

#29 Post by caab » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:34 pm

I talked to Solomon about a month ago and he relayed this issue to me. I am a law student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and am currently taking a class on copyright, so I thought it would be a neat project to undertake to try to find this obscure copyright. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about copyright in the US, and rightly so, as the laws have been revised many times over the course of our nation's history and still contain many flaws. It strives to meet the world standard for copyright while clinging to old fixtures of copyright law, like registration.

This film is an especially interesting case, as it was governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Today we are governed by the 1978 Copyright Act (with several subsequent additions/revisions), where any work, on creation, gives its "author" an automatic copyright in the work. Under the dual system of the 1909 act, creative works were governed by state copyright law until they were "published." In the case of a film, any public showing of the film was considered publishing for copyright purposes. After publication, a work would no longer be governed by state law, but would either 1) go into the public domain, or, 2) if prior to publication the author complied with the guidelines for registering a copyright with the US Copyright Office, then the author obtained a federal copyright and would thereafter be protected by federal law for a period of 28 years. The author had the option of renewing the copyright for another 28 years after the initial 28 year period was over. After the renewal period the work would then pass into the public domain. Doing the math under the 1909 act, assuming the film had a copyright and that the holder renewed the copyright, it should have passed into the public domain in 1995, but the 1978 act was retroactive, extending all existing copyrights for...I don't have my statute book in front of me, but for a number of years that would have extended the copyright well beyond 2006. Thus, it is possible that the film has a valid, existing copyright.

One of the essential requirements for copyright protection under the 1909 act was the posting of the copyright notice, with the © or the words “copyright,” the year of copyright, and the name of the copyright holder. What made me think the film “Keep Punching” was protected by a federal copyright was that notice was posted in the opening credits of the film, crediting M.C. Pictures, Inc. as the copyright holder.

If the film in question were protected by federal copyright, the composer would not hold the copyright to the song because it would most likely be considered a “work for hire,” with M.C. Pictures holding the copyright by virtue of this doctrine. Thus, in terms of copyright protection, the composer does not register and would not benefit from any exclusive rights.

All copyrights registered after 1978 are available on the U.S. Copyright Office web site, but all prior copyright records live in an extensive set of book volumes, grouping works by type and by year. After visiting these volumes at UNC’s Davis Library, in the nethermost basement of the nethermost section of dusty government documents, my search turned up no registered copyright for this film in the 1939 records. Normally one could stop the search there, but with the nature of this film and lack of information on the composer, production company, etc. and also the nature of copyright law at that time, I inquired about the film with a distribution company and with a copyright attorney who specializes in old films. They confirmed that this film was in the public domain.

Perhaps M.C. Pictures, Inc. intended to register for copyright, evidenced by compliance with the notice requirement, but for some reason it did not or its registration did not comply with the federal requirements. The film was “published” (I am assuming premiered) in Harlem on December 7, 1939, without being registered, and was then no longer protected by state copyright law and passed into the public domain.

I’m excited to have an answer to this puzzle and I hope it was OK to share it here…I thought if anyone would appreciate this information, you all would.

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#30 Post by Eyeball » Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:20 pm

Interesting!

Locked