Ladies and Gentlemen...

Re: What Performers Are Paid

live_historian — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:00:15 GMT

Regarding the legal position, copyright is a complex issue and live shows in particular are a legal minefield because a) they rely on contacts and agreements made at the time which may or may not have been specified and if specified may be lost b) copyright law itself is fluid and so legal issues depend on when shows were recorded c) copyright laws have holes and grey areas. All of which means none of us are able to tell whether or not the concert streams are legal; even those who know chapter and verse on copyright law don't have access to the necessary information (eg regarding the contract between King Biscuit and its recorded artists, or the artists and their recording label).

Seems to me we have no sound basis to contribute to this debate, so let's just enjoy the music.

Speaking of which, could you please stream the Genesis Philadelphia 1983 concert you have in your King Biscuit collection, full show please. It's an incredible concert, band are in great form. Thanks :)

Re: What Performers Are Paid

map47 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:41:49 GMT

hi,
i love this site as it gives fans a chance to hear "live" music which is not heard on the radio.i would be happy to pay to get access to more of these shows.would Mr Graham have objected to that? this music should be shared with the fans as well as benefit the artists!map47

Re: What Performers Are Paid

anonymousfhrmubbvxmo — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:33:15 GMT

Dear Friend of Bill Graham and Mr. "Vault" and concert fans:

I just posted a short note re the older concerts that are presented here at the "vault" in order to get an answer as to how performers of the "older" concerts are paid. I did that before reading the post by the Friend of Mr Graham who says it all about the original intention of Mr Graham's archives.

I am amazed to see how those who write in say...good work...you're making the big effort to pay. (Rather gullible)When did that start?? Any testimonials from a specific performer or two who have gotten paid since the first posting of concerts by this website?..or who approves of this website??

I can't imagine any of the people who work at the Vault or anyone writing in here who would work at their job for free. Even a volunteer gets lunch and a thank you. And I assume they pay their doctor or lawyer or plumber or mechanic for services rendered. Yet they expect that those whose music they enjoy (and use to make their paying jobs bearable)....are not entitled to pay for services.

I only came upon this site because of an old friend who was shocked to see one of his concerts from the 70's appear on this site and have no knowledge that it had even been recorded in the first place !!!

Wouldn't it have been only ethical, fair and professional to approach artists whose concerts you acquired and ask their permission or blessing or offer a contract to them for payment on these downloads?? All these people have websites or mySpace and could have been located easily for at least the courtesy of a contact.

It seems to me the whole concept and setup of the site seems to have been done "ass backward". You are quoted in the "How do the performers get paid" section of the site as asking any performers whose concerts already appear here and are offered for listening pleasure or for sale...to please contact YOU as YOU want to talk to THEM...and oh by the way, we've had your concert up on our site and have been selling YOUR concert since we started in 2006. Don't you think the right way to do things ...would be to take down all the concerts of performers whom you haven't contacted and then put them up once you've gotten permission...or at least notified them about what you want to do.

I think the name of this site should be changed from "vault" to "gold mine". It is obvious that the purchaser of all these concert tapes didn't spend $5-6 million from a collector's or music lover's standpoint. This was an opportunity an entrepeneur couldn't pass up. Before spending $$ to repair, re-master and digitize all these tapes...wouldn't a nod to the artists have been appropriate. This would not have taken any great diligence. You can "google" them all. If you can hire tape restorers and engineers to re-master...you can "google". You do know how to google and find people, don't you?

The more famous artists will have the time and money to hire legal counsel to assist them in getting their due. But what an incredibly long drawn out process. What about the everyday musicians just working to pay their rent....they appear to be screwed...because maybe their "contracts" for concerts just happened to be burned in a fire?? Yet, magically the tapes survived. See story of Biscuit Records. Or there was never permission given to record these to begin with...for the old radio show or for your use 40 years later. Hmmmm?

Does the "gold mine" report their numbers to IODA? Can an artist get an audit of the number of downloads of their concert? If they contact you now...will they be paid retroactively since the sites inception and release of their particular concerts?

You say you bought the tapes and all the rights that go with them. I don't think Mr. Graham had rights to record them in the first place or certainly not to use these in perpetuity. So how can you paint with a broad stroke of the brush...that you own the rights to these?

You say re: the old concerts...no contracts exist. Don't you mean....you don't have a copy of a contract?

Any updates on the pending lawsuits??

Thank you.

ethicsnmuzik

Re: What Performers Are Paid

anonymousfhrmubbvxmo — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:16:05 GMT

The only exceptions to this payment and reporting structure are concerts that were subject to agreements executed many years ago. All new concerts would be subject to the current Wolfgang’s Vault agreement.

What does this mean???

Thank you

ethicsnmuzik

Re: What Performers Are Paid

The Arbiter — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:27:08 GMT

Bill "Wolfgang" (as you refer to him) would most certainly not want any of this to be done in the way it has been done on this website.

These recordings were the personal, private collection of Bill Graham's own concerts that he would have NEVER shared with the public in any way without the FULL blessing of the artists involved.

The artists that Bill Graham worked with (regardless of whether or not they particularly liked him) all respected him. One of the reasons they respected him (and often knowingly allowed him to record their shows) was due to the fact that he was a man of his word. Sure, he could be aggressive and drive a hard deal - but he was not in the practice of routinely f**king over the artists he worked with.

If this was indeed not true, then ask yourself: how could Bill Graham have maintained the close relationships that he held with so many artists for so many years? Why would any of them ever play for him again? Why would so many speak of him with such high regard, even now - some 17 years after his passing? I challenge you to name another concert promoter that has been so beloved, so honored, and so respected by so many artists for more than four decades.

Bill Graham was, and always will be peerless. No disrespect to others in the industry (and there are some great figures) - but there will never be another person quite like Bill Graham. What he overcame, built, and accomplished throughout his career (and lifetime) is absolutely incredible and can never be repeated.

Does the widespread sharing of these recordings make a lot of fans happy?
Yes, of course. I won't even attempt to deny that.
But to focus on this alone misses the point.

The artists who are featured in these recordings - their music is their livelihood.
Do not forget this.
To say that a great deal of the artists featured on this website abhor its very existence would
be a vast understatement. Not all of them do, but a great deal of them do.

A great number of them have had their art exploited without their permission because this website decided to make a business partially founded on creating the illusion of, in some way that is not entirely clear, being sanctioned by Graham and his family. From what I hear, nothing could be further from the truth.

The integrity with which Bill Graham carried himself and with which he treated the artists is not even remotely paralleled by this website, with respect to the personal relationships it maintains (or doesn't, as it were).
As a friend of mine told me, it is exploitation without honor, style without substance.
These recordings are being used for purposes never intended.
It's like reading someone's private diary or journal to the world, without ever having been granted permission by them, or by any to which they rightfully conveyed that authority to.

Is this legal?
Perhaps, but I would venture to say more like questionable, at best.
I'm not an attorney or judge, nor do I have a material stake in any of this.
Litigation is still ongoing, so the jury is still out on that one.

Is this honorable?
Make no mistake: absolutely not.

Many of you probably don't care one bit about this, and may regard my diatribe as mere ranting.
Perhaps you just dig all the free tunes in Concert Vault that you can't find anywhere else. - I get it.
Or perhaps you just focus on the law, and feel that if no law was perceivably broken (as far as you know), then nothing else really matters. You too, are entitled to your opinion.

I can't expect everyone to know what I know about Bill Graham (or care).
But for those of you who do (and I know your numbers are many), know this:

Wolfgang's Vault and Concert Vault are shameless exploiters of the legacy of a great man whom
was never personally known to them. What WV has in its possession carries a responsibility - and it is a responsibility that they could care less about - UNLESS it serves the tandem purpose of driving revenue into their coffers. WV is first and foremost a business - not a museum, nor a charity, nor an educational institution.
Yes it may inform and educate some, and may contribute to charity here and there (hey, it's a tax and PR incentive). I don't fail to recognize this. However, I strongly caution all of those who read this to bear in mind that ALL of this is merely a by-product of their very ambitious and aggressive 'by any means necessary' business plan.

WV has made a very crafty PR effort to persuade the public otherwise, and is flanked by some
of the best legal defense money can buy.

Despite this, a significant population of the artist community that is featured on this website has deep resentment towards it. Some have sought resolution legally - I'm sure many of you know about the lawsuits.

The fact is that WV has extremely deep pockets, and is apparently willing to go pound-for-pound, dollar-for-dollar via its legal team to fight back.
These recordings were not "discovered" in a "vault".
The lineage of these recordings is far more complex than most people realize (and WV wants to keep it that way). The more they can spin the facts and romanticize their role, the more they can influence the perception of the fans who flock to their site and spend their money there.

All the money in the world can't change the truth.

Returning to the original point - that is, what Bill Graham would have wanted, I will conclude by saying that
no amount of money in the world would ever have tempted him to do that which is being done by this site.

If this post is deleted, I will not be surprised.
If it remains, I hope it inspires a great deal of discourse.

Cheers,

A Friend of Bill Graham

Re: What Performers Are Paid

BlowinBlues — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:54:43 GMT

My greatest music experience were at the Fillmore East. And everything I know about BG is that he loved what he did and loved the music and the vault isw an extension of that. Having the opportunity to listen to all these concerts is awesome and I must throw in my appreciation and love for it all. The quality is fine, if not perfect, and let's face it, the sound from a master from these venues still tops anything you hear in the huge venues of the 80s and beyond.

I trust (okay there's some faith here) and take WV at their word that they are working to keep things up front and fair. I'm sure there are also those in the music biz who don't like anything offfered that they don't have their hands in everyone's pockets on their own terms. I fail to see how free streaming does anythnig but promote greater exposure and interest which will lead some to purchase from these artists.

Thanks for all your hard work and making this site available.

As one who had a great trip on the Last Public Night of the Fillmore, it would be great to hear the night of the 26th - rather than the 27th when the Allmans were burnt out. Any chance???

MB

Re: What Performers Are Paid

connectartists — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:02:37 GMT

It's wonderful Wolfgang's Vault recognizes its legal responsibility to pay performers for concerts that are downloaded from the site. But what about the many free streaming concerts that the site offers - are performers being paid for those as well?

Re: MP3 VS lossless

rocky — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:00:03 GMT

I'd like to second the motion for having lossless downloads available. Like most audiophile music lovers, I am trying to reproduce as accurately as possible the sound of live music in my living room. That's what the powerful amplifiers, full range speakers, and large subwoofers are all about. An Ipod will never do that. Wolfgang has great performances available but they don't sound like live music, and they won't, even if you play mp3 files through the best stereo equipment available. I am dying to be a dedicated download customer, but can't be without lossless downloads.

Re: MP3 VS lossless

GURU — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:03:52 GMT

MP3 just as good as CD? You guys must really be insane.

MP3 256, or 320 (someone actually thinks they can hear a difference from 256 to 320? come on ... he must be hearing things) is lossy, much of the audio data is disposed of, mostly in the lower frequency, giving a very simulated, generic thump bassy sound of low quality.

It's not like the MP3s that they sell came from thin air. If you know anything about MP3, you would know they start out as WAV or AIFF files. So, making FLAC or SHN, or any other lossless format available wouldn't require much work. This would provide a huge increase in audio quality and a true audio CD could be burned with no loss of quality from the original.

I believe lossless downloads should be offered.

Cheers.

Re: What Performers Are Paid

dwnwrdsprl — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:11:33 GMT

this just makes me laugh( actually scream), y can`t people leave things be, don`t u think WV

have made every attempt according to law, to make things "right "..."legal" ..."fair"..so every one

involved, would be compensated.....i don`t even know, i just believe that these people have

all people in mind, at all times............................

please, paul c. do not stop diong what bill "wolfgang" .....would want you to do.....

"carry on"........let`s go .....n.y. giants.....

Re: What Performers Are Paid

MrPaulCaruso — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:24:29 GMT

Dear FZDolfan,

By no means will we remove your post. We're sorry that you misunderstand what we are doing at the Vault, and what rights we have to this material. Let me attempt to clarify a few things.

First, we are not selling downloads of any King Crimson shows, including the one you mention. They are available for free streaming only.

Second, the show you mention that was released previously was recorded for the King Biscuit Flower Hour syndicated radio show. We have purchased the master recordings of this wonderful archive and the rights that come with them. These rights include the right to stream these (just as they allowed King Biscuit to broadcast and re-broadcast the concert on terrestrial radio).

We pay ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses for each time someone listens to these shows. Some of these license fees will find their way back to King Crimson assuming they own the publishing rights to the material we are streaming.

If we did choose to offer these shows for sale as downloads, we would pay King Crimson in accordance with our Performer Agreement that is summarized in this forum post. We would be happy to put such an agreement in place with them.

I think Mr. Colgan might be misinformed as well if he thinks we are selling this or other King Crimson shows. We are not, and we would be happy to discuss our opportunities with him.

Cheers - Mr. PC

Re: What Performers Are Paid

FZDolfan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:22:49 GMT

Concert Goer:
People who complain about the sound quality must be in the bootleg business,

I tell them Bootleggers suck!!!!!!
W.V. Is The Best Site Ever.

What an amazing contradiction!
WV ARE bootleggers!

They are selling material they are not legally permitted to sell, including OFFICIALLY RELEASED material, and the artists are NOT getting paid for it.

For an example, there is a download for sale on this very site...King Crimson July 11, 1984 from Montreal. There is also an official KC release called "Absent Lovers" which clearly states on the packaging that it was recorded in "Montreal, July 11, 1984".

I wrote to DGM to see if they were aware of this, and this is the reply:

=================================
Thanks for your note to DGM about the shows.

You're quite right - nobody gets paid for these.

Various artists & record companies in the USA are engaged in a lengthy
battle to have this site remove all the live shows they're currently
streaming & selling.

In the interim, it seems they can do what they want. We've asked for
their removal. I don't expect to hear anything soon.

Gangsters' Vault might be a more appropriate name. It's a shame as
there's a wealth of material there that could be done
properly - but that would mean hard work & paying the artists & that's
obviously not part of their business plan.

Kind regards

Declan Colgan
Panegyric/DGM
================================

I'm sure this post will get removed, but hopefully some people will get the message.

Re: MP3 VS lossless

Telemike — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:36:32 GMT

I am happy with 256K mp3, though I'd prefer 320K is possible. Since I do all my listening in the car or on ipod,mp3 is fine.

I hope more concerts are available for download.

MP3 VS lossless

mojorisen — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:26:43 GMT

There is still the loss of the original audio that can never be replaced. You can mask it but it's lost for good. They're not getting any money from me until they go lossless...... and the programs are free BTW for FLAC and SHN so there should be no need for a higher charge for the shows.

BATTLEMAR SAID...

"I just run my mp3's that lack a full PUNCH through the Sony(previously Sonic Foundry) sound editor...Sound Forge.

A simple run through the wavehammer pre-set will re-master the file, and it sounds sonically great.

The version they sell now has noise reduction,which will take out any form of hiss or trash.

Just an idea for people with a lot of live recordings from various tapes,sources and compressed formats.

PEACE

DREADBEAR SAID...

I've been doing the same thing with a similar program for months now, Battlemar. I keep backup copies of any flac or wav I download... and it always makes me smile when I read the complaints about mp3 when SO MANY folks just don't know how much it can be improved.

Re: What Performers Are Paid

FZDolfan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:10:33 GMT

Concert Goer:
People who complain about the sound quality must be in the bootleg business

No, it's the people who DON'T care about sound quality that are in the bootleg business. They are the ones who pollute the free trade community with lossy formats like MP3 and pass them off as non-MP3 and sell them on Ebay!

These are the people who want everything for free,so they can sell it to there dumb friends.

No, just the unofficial live shows should be traded freely (to keep the bootleggers out of business). All officially released material should be purchased.

As for the topic at hand, there's no reason that a show can't be offered in MP3 format like it is now, as well as a lossless format like FLAC for a few dollars more. Every other "official" site that sells CDs in downloadable formats does this. If the MP3 version is $9.98, the FLAC format would be maybe $12.98. It's really simple.

Oh, and the word you used before "dumb" is spelled T-H-E-I-R, not T-H-E-R-E.
Can you spell I-R-O-N-Y?
;-)