Al Kooper related SACD's are done....but.......

.....a snafu has occurred. From the man himself at Alkooper.com;

"The 5.1 SACD Surround Sound versions of SUPER SESSION and CHILD IS FATHER TO THE MAN are completed and ready for release. There are many difficulties in the world of Surround nowadays. The latest is thus:
SONY wants to release a hybrid disc with a:
1) two track remastered stereo version plus a
2) two track remastered SACD stereo version plus
3) a 5.1 SACD Surround Sound version.


Music publishers are balking about this and demanding to be paid three times the normal royalties because of the three “versions” This has put our babies on hold until all this greediness gets sorted out. Its COMPLETELY out of my hands when these masters will be released. When I know for sure, I will post that info up here ASAP. Soooo, no need to ask about that anymore, okay ?"

 

As excited as I am to hear remastered Kooper on SACD, and I am, what I really long for is ANY kind of domestic CD release of I Stand Alone. I cannot for the life of me understand why this has not made it to CD when we're talking about the third and fourth reissue of these other albums. Don't get me wrong, they are both tremendous records (especially Child Is Father Of the Man,) but how about showing a little love for Kooper's debut solo effort after BS&T? There have to be other fans besides me who'd pick this up on CD if it was available...

Gary

 

Gary does not stand alone in his thinking.

 

Nice move by the music publishers. Having to pay triple royalties for a (let's face it) BS&T release of marginal potential commercial appeal in a format that, thanks to the wonders of trickle-down economics, is already on life support, will really motivate Sony and others to stick with SACD. Now I understand why the flow of high rez releases has become a trickle and MoFi has to charge 31 bucks for the SACD of a half hour-long, 34 year-old Lennon catalog album that I can buy for a third of that as a CD. Or, if I was so inclined, just play my vinyl, download or copy from a friend's for nothing. Makes the decision of whether to buy it again on SACD and pay these weasels rather easy, if one gives the matter a bit of thought.

Wonder why the hybrid SACD/DVD-A 5.1, stereo and normal stereo Beatles releases that are reportedly prepared and sitting on a shelf are being held up? I suggest we need to look no further. Remember the multi-year delay of the Fabs catalog on CD, and then the additional pause before the skimpy and overpriced Red and Blue collections finally came out to allow the tough guys at Apple and EMI to do their hardball dance with each other?

Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

Gary and Craig, look no further:

http://redtrumpet.com/software/item.php?item=20947&sid=1040256008

(No commission was received or promised for the making of this posting.)

 

Doesn't surprise me. They'll have to come to grips with it. I was a strong supporter of stereo-only non-hybrid SACDs in order to see them roll out faster at lower cost, but I was in the minority and it seems the public has spoken - multichannel hybrids are a requirement. I sure hope they sort this out. Al Kooper is a big favourite of mine and I'm so excited about the SACD of "Child..."

 

How was this stupid legal issue solved with music DVDs, which often have stereo PCM, 5.1 PCM and DTS sound?

 

I have long been a supporter of putting Al's solo records out in some form (CD, vinyl, or SACD). The expensive imports sell REALLY well on eBay. It seem to me if they put them out as a budget series they would have a winner.

I talked to Marshall Blonstein at Audio Fidelity about it and he though that Al Kooper had a deal going with Sundazed, so I contacted them and was told they have no plans to release anything by Al Kooper. Al claims he has no say in the matter either.

Confusing................

 

This seems like poor business to me. Would it not be better to accept 1.5x the royalty or not do the project? For instance, 1.5X is better than 3X on a project that does not happen since it is not economical.

I'm sure they will work this out. It may be that Al Kooper demand may be viewed low relative to incremental costs and profits...

Lee

 

SNAFU is right. In these days, I see this as self-destructive politics. Spanner flying right into the works of what could be a nice, sucessful release package.

Did they have such a problem with similar Dylan releases?

 

After this episode I've totally lost any respect for music publishers whatsoever. I'm a longtime Elvis Presley fan and it was them who held up the video release of the complete Burbank (1968) and Aloha From Hawaii (1973) material for essentially a decade by insisting on atrocious amounts of money for a few songs that appeared in those programs (and those weren't even Elvis hits but such clunkers as Johnny B. Goode or I'm so lonesome I could cry). The complete sessions are now due to be released in a few weeks, but, man, was it worth for the publishers to wait for ten years to finally come to an agreement with Elvis' estate? As much as I like music some of the practices in the music industry are outright despicable!
-wolf

 

At least someone has explained why the almost sudden stop of SACD releases of "classic rock." Put music publishers on my most hated list next to Allen Klein and whomever is holding up the remastering in hi-rez of the Beatles.

 

The irony is that Sony, through its ATV subsidiary, is a major music publisher.

 

There might be a point to this. Sony may have felt that SACD multi-functional product is letting go several opportunities to collect for publishing. Was Dylan product more costly than mere single-ended publishing to Sony?

But that wouldn't explain why Sony will master your product to DSD for next to nothing for the sake of market dominance.

Sounds like the tiger that eats his own tail. Even though Sony publishing, electronics and music are all separate....

 

Aren't you beginning to hallucinate at this point?

 

Thanks Bill, but we are looking for a domestic release. I've had the Japanese discs in my hands several times in stores, but don't want to pay that much. There is no good reason his solo stuff isn't out domestically now that he seems to be on better terms with Columbia.

 

I was trying to put myself in their shoes. If I were a songwriter, would I feel "robbed" by not getting paid for each version on a single media? Well, I wouldn't complain if I got it, but I wouldn't demand it. Then, if I were the publisher, would I feel "robbed" if not compensated for each version? Again, I'd answer the same.

I really do not understand this. Who actually loses money here? Who is harmed? I just don't get it.

Claude has a good point. A movie DVD can have a stereo, DTS, DD soundtrack, plus soundtracks in multiple languages, plus the potential to have a widescreen and a P&S version, plus an alternate version if it exists, yet this DVD may cost the buyer LESS than a DVD-A or SACD.

WTF am I missing here?????

 

Look at it this way, if these titles aren't released on SACD/DVD-A then no one gets any royalties. I think expecting 3x royalties for 1 disc is greedy.

Sean

 

Bill, Craig hit the nail right on the head. I was talking about a domestic release. I managed to pick up a CD of Act Like Nothing's Wrong on One Way Records (Cema Special Markets) back in 1996. It sounds pretty good considering its vintage, but it is also worthy of a technical revisit.

Thanks much for the Red Trumpet link. I appreciate it. After reading Kooper's remarks in the album description, I am beginning to wonder if maybe the reason this album has not seen a domestic release is because Al does not appear to be particularly fond of it...

Gary

 

Gary,
Did you ever see my WEB PAGE?

It's been there for almost three years.

-Craig

 

The issue of multiple royalties has also forced Beyonce's "Dangerously In Love" multi-channel hybrid SACD (on Sony Music) to be only distributed in Europe (or outside of the US). So why the problem of multiple royalties only in the US??

The full story of the Beyonce SACD can be read in the following link

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=12618871

And I just discovered the Beyonce SACD can be had for only US$13.85 at the following Hong Kong website

http://www.layoyo.com/cgi-bin/ncomm...r=3210254&prmenbr=152&CGRY_NUM=251&LANGUAGE=1

Doesn't look like the royalties are raising the price of the SACD....

Since I am going to HK in 2 weeks, maybe I should pick this up. And most other "imported" SACDs.

 

It seems like the royalties issue only exists in the US, as the Beyonce SACD will be released in Europe too. I'm sure this US problem will be solved through negociation. It's not normal to have more royalties per disc just because it contains the same music in several sound formats, but if the contracts can be interpreted that way the songwriters will try to squeeze out a few % more royalties out of the record companies and settle the matter.

This reminds me of the recent court case in Germany where the violonists of a symphony orchestra asked for a higher pay than the other instrumentalists because they have to play more notes in most compositions.

 

Oh no... I can see it now royalties based on $/bit.

 

Exactly. I feel the same way about that argument as I do about radio stations paying double rights fees to stream over the internet. Don't get me started on that.

 

In case anyone is interested, here's the real deal: in the US, royalties for putting songs on a CD, tape or LP is a fixed rate of 8.5 cents per song. In the UK and most of the rest of the world, the royalty rate is 8.5% (or, anyway, some percentage) of the published dealer price in total for the entire album. Thus outside of the US, it makes no difference how many songs are on any album, because the royalty rate would be the same, as it relates to the price of the album, not the number of songs. Let's see what would happen if the US followed the rest of the world: If the published dealer price (in the US, the list price) is more than $1.00 per song, then it costs the record company less to follow the US system than it does to follow the system from the rest of the world. Thus, for example, for an album that costs $17.99 (we'll round up to $18 to make the math easier), if the album has 10 songs, then the record company would have to pay $.85 in royalties to the songwriters/publishers; if there are 20 songs, the record company would have to pay $1.70; and if the rest of the world system were followed, then the record company would have to pay $1.53 irrespective of how many songs are on the album (but you can see that the break point is 18 songs). Thus, in most cases, the songwriters/publishers do better outside of the US, which is why the record companies (the ones who are doing the complaining now) were the ones who have prevented any change to the current US system.

To make matters worse, the US record companies have an insidious practice called a "controlled composition" clause. What this means is that for any song written by the artist (almost all of them these days), the record company only has to pay 75% of the normal 8.5 cents fee. In addition, the record companies have a provision that says that if, for any reason, they have to pay the songwriters/publishers more than 10 times 8.5 cents (i.e., $0.85) per album, that they can charge the excess against the artist's royalties from record sales. Therefore, the record company's maximum cash outlay for any product released in the US is $0.85 (and is often less), where outside of the us, it is 8.5% of the list price, meaning that they manage to screw the songwriters/publishers/artists on any piece of US product with a list price more than $10 (which is most of them). And so you can see that in the US, there is something of a hostile relationship between publishers and record companies because the record companies try to screw the songwriter/publishers in the same way that they routinely screw their artists. The situation, by the way, is different with videos where there is no statutory standard and the video companies and publishers have to (and routinely do) negotiate rates on a song by song and product by product basis.

Now let's review the history of what happened with multi-session disks. Outside of the US, there will never be an issue, because the royalty is based on the price, not the number of songs. In the US, at first, the record companies merely asked for a license to use songs on a particular disk at the customary 8.5 cents rate, and never bothered to tell the publishers that the disks had more than one layer each containing their songs. The publishers discovered this on their own and went back to the record companies and rightfully complained that they were being cheated because by law the record companies are required to pay 8.5 cents for each song on the album, which does mean 3 times if there are three layers. The record companies know (or should know) this, because they routinely get multiple licenses where the same song appears on an album more than once (bonus tracks, for example). When the publishers (on behalf of themselves and their songwriters) complained, the record companies insisted that they wouldn't pay for more than one use. The publishers offered numerous compromises, but these were all refused by the record companies, who refuse to pay more than once (and then often at the controlled composition discount too). Faced with this intransigence, the publishers were forced to be intransigent on their side. One assumes that this will eventually get worked out, but you should know that the side that is showing the most flexibility is the one that seems to be getting the most blame here. Don't blame the publishers as they're not at fault.

To illustrate this, let's examine the Beyonce SACD. I believe that that CD has a UK PPD of £13.99. In dollars, this works out to $24.81. 8.5% of that is $2.11. In the US, even if their position were correct, because there are only 15 songs on the album, at 8.5 cents per song their maximum cash outlay is $1.275 and they'll probably charge Beyonce back for anything they have to pay over 85 cents. So clearly, the publishers aren't the reason why this SACD isn't being released in the US and the problem isn't the publishers trying to gouge the record companies. I think most US publishers would be perfectly happy to settle for their share of the $2.11 that UK publishers get on this title.