• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Carol Kaye and why we need help protecting our stuff....

Oh, please tell me you're not dragging that old dead horse out again. It would be nice to stick to the subject. :rolleyes:

Sorry! There was no way to word it without making me sound like I was trying to stir things up, but I was actually surprised this went for 4 pages with no mention. And, to be fair, it is more related to this subject than the other Kaye threads, considering that there are many in here harping on "piracy."
 
I have done a bunch of work in the Hip hop world and one of the trends over the last 5 years or so is less and less sampling because of the rising cost of getting tracks cleared,replay's are very common as they have a different royalty structure than sampling the master recording.
Yup. Even if it sounds obviously lifted from an old hit, chances are higher and higher that it's not sampled (unless it's a vocal hook).
 
Yo, CNB77, my NJ brother, Carol has records that show she played on many Motown recording sessions when they began the move west to LA LA land. I am sure that many of the songs she claims to have played on she did, however which Motown artist version I am not sure. Babbit loses credit to Jamerson a lot as well, as in the early days Motown tried to sort of hide the fact that many of the Detroit studio cats were actually white. I am sure that there are several songs we still credit to Jamerson that are probably Babbit or someone else. Not necessarily Carol, but in Detroit someone else. Not a good image for Motown coming out of Detroit at that time.

In LA it is hard to tell the difference at times between Joe Osborn tracks and Carol Kaye tracks, as both used a pick, both used essentially P basses (I know, Joe used a '61 J but he himself says he never used the bridge pickup) and in many ways the lines are similar. Since they didn't get credited, it is very likely that Joe and Carol played on tracks for, say, the Monkees, and in the end the producer just chose the track they liked better. Could have been Joe, but maybe they thought it was Carol. And vice versa.

If it is a Motown track toward the end of the '60s-early '70s, odds are it ain't Jamerson. By that time he was already starting to go downhill and the dead bass sound he played was going out of favor. So, once you shift to LA, who knows.

As for bit torrents, yes, I know how they work. But I also know that most people just set all their stuff up to be "shared". I don't know anyone who uses them who takes the time to make sure anything they upload is not shared.

As for the comment about people who are sharing it wouldn't pay for it anyway, if there wasn't this digital realm they would have to in order to get it. Or they would have to take it on loan from the library. In either case, you had to buy it to get it. I have yet to ever hear that people are too poor to buy it.

I have a new step-son who I got into a heated argument last week with this, as he tried to load Frostwire onto my computer so he could get stuff. I threw him out of my mancave/studio, almost smacked him hard. He began to argue wth me that it was no big deal. Then I reminded him HE has a roof over his head because I make and sell music and also I am a journalist. Everytime someone "shares" my stuff without permission the roof over his head is getting smaller.

He proceeded to tell me how he only makes $9 an hour part-time, and he can't afford to buy ALL the movies and songs. I had to tell him that he CAN afford it, he just has to save for it and not want everything now. He doesn't need a gazillion jigawatts of stuff on his computer, nor does he need to download every new movie he can find. I reminded him also that his girlfriend is a manager of a movie theater, and that everytime they get a "shared" copy of Thor, the need for her job is less and less, so he is helping put her on the bread line.

I have now locked my computer from him permanently. One of the reasons he wanted to use my Mac is because it has more storage then the universe and 8Gig of Ram. That way, he thought, he could get more stuff quicker.

Okay, back to topic....
 
A career in music? A pro bassist? Makes us wonder, doesn't it? How prestigious the name Carol Kaye is! Nearly everything from Richie Valens' LaBamba to up through the early 70s. Lost her house and home! So sad! It ain't fair!

More and more the music industry just makes me SICK!

(several years back, perhaps she should've moved to Illinois like Brian Wilson did! California!!!!!)
 
Yo, CNB77, my NJ brother, Carol has records that show she played on many Motown recording sessions when they began the move west to LA LA land. I am sure that many of the songs she claims to have played on she did, however which Motown artist version I am not sure. Babbit loses credit to Jamerson a lot as well, as in the early days Motown tried to sort of hide the fact that many of the Detroit studio cats were actually white. I am sure that there are several songs we still credit to Jamerson that are probably Babbit or someone else. Not necessarily Carol, but in Detroit someone else. Not a good image for Motown coming out of Detroit at that time.


Okay, back to topic....
That's curious I have always, well from the documentary heard that the Funk Brothers were faceless. Meanwhile over at Stax at least in the early days they played up the integration of Booker T. and the M.G.s. I do know Motown hid Teena Marie's race until after her breakout hit with Rick James.
 
That's curious I have always, well from the documentary heard that the Funk Brothers were faceless. Meanwhile over at Stax at least in the early days they played up the integration of Booker T. and the M.G.s. I do know Motown hid Teena Marie's race until after her breakout hit with Rick James.

Yes, to a degree the Funk Bros were "faceless", however the core unit played around the local area as the "Funk Bros." Earl and the boyz, minus several of the guitar players, who, as you can see in pictures and other writings, were white. Musicians by and large didn't care, but the image Berry and Smokey were fashioning did have to be careful about all of that.

The other reason Motown studio guys were more faceless was because just about every act coming out of Detroit were singers. Not players. So the band behind them didn't matter. That is why Jamerson and many other regular orchestra guys played on the "Motortown Review" tours.

Everyone still thinks that Jamerson played thru the B-15 on the recordings. In many places it is stated by Jamerson and the producers that most of the time they took him direct. Its all about the legend....
 
Yo, CNB77, my NJ brother, Carol has records that show she played on many Motown recording sessions when they began the move west to LA LA land. I am sure that many of the songs she claims to have played on she did, however which Motown artist version I am not sure. Babbit loses credit to Jamerson a lot as well, as in the early days Motown tried to sort of hide the fact that many of the Detroit studio cats were actually white. I am sure that there are several songs we still credit to Jamerson that are probably Babbit or someone else. Not necessarily Carol, but in Detroit someone else. Not a good image for Motown coming out of Detroit at that time.

In LA it is hard to tell the difference at times between Joe Osborn tracks and Carol Kaye tracks, as both used a pick, both used essentially P basses (I know, Joe used a '61 J but he himself says he never used the bridge pickup) and in many ways the lines are similar. Since they didn't get credited, it is very likely that Joe and Carol played on tracks for, say, the Monkees, and in the end the producer just chose the track they liked better. Could have been Joe, but maybe they thought it was Carol. And vice versa.

If it is a Motown track toward the end of the '60s-early '70s, odds are it ain't Jamerson. By that time he was already starting to go downhill and the dead bass sound he played was going out of favor. So, once you shift to LA, who knows.

As for bit torrents, yes, I know how they work. But I also know that most people just set all their stuff up to be "shared". I don't know anyone who uses them who takes the time to make sure anything they upload is not shared.

As for the comment about people who are sharing it wouldn't pay for it anyway, if there wasn't this digital realm they would have to in order to get it. Or they would have to take it on loan from the library. In either case, you had to buy it to get it. I have yet to ever hear that people are too poor to buy it.

I have a new step-son who I got into a heated argument last week with this, as he tried to load Frostwire onto my computer so he could get stuff. I threw him out of my mancave/studio, almost smacked him hard. He began to argue wth me that it was no big deal. Then I reminded him HE has a roof over his head because I make and sell music and also I am a journalist. Everytime someone "shares" my stuff without permission the roof over his head is getting smaller.

He proceeded to tell me how he only makes $9 an hour part-time, and he can't afford to buy ALL the movies and songs. I had to tell him that he CAN afford it, he just has to save for it and not want everything now. He doesn't need a gazillion jigawatts of stuff on his computer, nor does he need to download every new movie he can find. I reminded him also that his girlfriend is a manager of a movie theater, and that everytime they get a "shared" copy of Thor, the need for her job is less and less, so he is helping put her on the bread line.

I have now locked my computer from him permanently. One of the reasons he wanted to use my Mac is because it has more storage then the universe and 8Gig of Ram. That way, he thought, he could get more stuff quicker.

Okay, back to topic....

Great points. One other factor is that as revenue shrinks to the record companies, the Special Payment and Musician Performance Trust Fund payments to Union Musicians dwindle as well.
For those who don't know, the Special Payment Fund is a once a year payment to Musicians who play on Union Recording Sessions (contracts filed, etc.). It is a percentage of the sales of the Record Industry that year. So, if 50% of all music is not bought but shared or pirated, the percentage of the payment may stay the same but the dollar amount will drop. 50% of $100 is $50 while 50% of $200 is $100. When a session has been licensed again (for a movie, TV show, etc.) this will have some bearing on the Special Payments fund payment.
On a more direct bearing to Bassists in the trenches, the Music Performance Trust Fund (which pays for everything from local Jazz and Bluegrass Festivals to nursing home and school concerts) has also been decimated, as the Record Companies have lost revenue.
In Carol's case, her Union Pension payment is fixed, but those Special Payment Checks for any current sessions (within 5 years or so) including new contracts or licensing on old material IIRC plus the loss of income for file sharing of her educational materials may have been the difference she needed to refinance and get out of her Junk Predatory Mortgage.
Food for thought, anyway.
 
<snip>

Here's my point: "Piracy," more accurately "file-sharing" is simply the duplication of something and sharing with others. This, obviously, does not make Carol's wallet any fatter. It also does not necessarily cut into any profits she would make.

<snip>

You missed something basic. DUPLICATION is the act of copyright violation!!

Any time you make an exact copy of something (duplicate it) in a fixed medium, you are breaking copyright law. The law gets a little more vague when you approximate that "something", but if it's clearly derivative of the of the original, it still is a violation of copyright law.

Personally, I regret how unevenly and irrationally copyright law is enforced. But given Kaye's wide portfolio (regardless of the disputed parts) she clearly has enough material out there that in a cumulative sense, she is harmed by people duplicating parts of it without compensating her.

I see copyright as a problematic law, because it hampers use of material as well as protecting it. Example: I have probably 200 78 RPM discs from the 20's and 30's in my basement, some of which may be among the few which still exist. I'd love to convert them to digital and make them available on the Internet, but copyright law makes that duplication technically illegal. It doesn't matter that most of the original writers and artists probably died 50 or 60 years ago...there's still protection there. Unfortunately it would take a small fortune to track down the rights holders, if indeed they are traceable. So now I'm offering an example that contradicts my comments above. Life isn't simple, is it?

Which do you think the original musicians would rather happened - that their music disappear forever because no one can afford to track down the rights holders 70 years after the music was recorded....or that their legal rights be protected by copyright?

After that digression, I should note that it's a different situation with music from the 40's and 50's on up - in those cases, it's easier to track ownership and copyright, although it's still impractical for anyone not engaged in a profitable enterprise.
 
You missed something basic. DUPLICATION is the act of copyright violation!!

Any time you make an exact copy of something (duplicate it) in a fixed medium, you are breaking copyright law. The law gets a little more vague when you approximate that "something", but if it's clearly derivative of the of the original, it still is a violation of copyright law.

This is a big problem for the music industry since moving into the digital realm... computer-based storage is all about duplication. I know that personal use is distinct, in our minds, from file-sharing, but the problem lies in making that distinction clear in the law. Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and we have different laws than the USA, whose laws I am not all that knowledgeable of.

Canada's government recently introduced legislation that, it seems, will make it illegal to open ANY digital lock for ANY purpose. I don't know if it is their intent with this law, but it seems it would make it illegal to BACK UP anything digital that you bought and paid for, if the creator of that content puts some kind of preventative software on it to stop you doing so.

That's not file-sharing, and that seems wrong to me. But I can see that it is a fine line, as a computer/network doesn't see any difference between making a backup copy, or sharing with another person, or even just defragmenting a hard drive! All involve duplication of files.
 
I got my stuff yesterday. Just reading all her notes about sessions etc. from "back in the day" is fascinating. I spent a couple hours reading that last night. Doesn't matter to me that it's not all relevant to how things are now. I'm a lot more interested in how it was during the glory days. She was there! Honestly I'm a beginner bedroom wannabe bass player (I won't say bassist) and Carol's lessons etc. are way WAY over my head but I don't care. The purchase was well worth it to me.

EDIT: What's the correct protocol to request that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum? I PM'd a mod a couple days ago, no response. I just PM'd another mod.
 

Latest posts