If you collect jazz LPs from the 50s and 60s, you have surely noticed the flood of new reissues by labels like DOL, Doxy, Jazz Wax, Green Corner, Jazz Images, Jazz Time, and many more. In the past ten years or so, these new EU labels have begun offering repressings of often hard-to-find classic jazz albums at bargain prices. They offer hundreds of brand new LPs originally issued on Blue Note, Prestige, Riverside, Columbia, Verve, and many other labels, pressed on 180-gram vinyl with beautifully reproduced jackets, all for around $15.
In a previous post I talked about a trip to Spain where I bought a few of these EU repressings. My preliminary reaction was that they look great and sound pretty good, especially for the price. But there has been so much debate about these releases in the various online music and vinyl discussion groups, I thought it might be useful to take a closer look.
The first thing to understand about all these new labels is that they were created to take advantage of EU copyright laws which (at the time) said that sound recordings entered the public domain 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which the recording was originally released. Which is to say that a record released in June of 1950, for example, would become public domain on January 1, 2000. The reason that all these jazz reissue labels began to pop up around 2010, is because the late 1950s were a golden era for jazz music. Countless classic albums from Take Five to Kind Of Blue were released during this time. European entrepreneurs quite legally seized the opportunity to release new pressings of these recordings without having to pay a licensing fee or getting permission from the rights holder. Which meant that they could sell their albums for very low prices. And as each new year rolled around and new LPs entered the public domain, they could offer more and more classic albums. It looked like a gravy train that would never end. 
But alas, no. After intense lobbying from the US recording industry, record labels, artists, and other rights holders (and because everyone realized with a shock that the first Beatles recordings were about to enter the public domain), in September of 2011 the EU parliament in Brussels voted to amend the law to increase copyright protection to 70 years. But the decision was not retroactive and only applied to sound recordings originally released after January 1, 1963. As a result, any sound recording originally released by the end of 1962 is in now in the public domain in Europe. The Beatles' first hit single, "Love Me Do," which was released in October, 1962, is now in the public domain. The Beatles' first album, Please Please Me, released in March, 1963, was saved for the time being.
Despite the fact that these new public domain vinyl releases are completely legal, a number of online commentators have opposed them on moral grounds, comparing them to bootlegs because artists and their heirs will not benefit from sales. However, it is worth noting that only a relatively small percentage of artists own the rights to their albums. The vast majority of rights holders are record labels, licensees, or other corporations. And as this article in the UK's Guardian newspaper from 2011 reveals, the EU decision to extend copyrights will actually harm some artists. The reason is that a lot of artists who signed away their rights in one-sided contracts in the 50s and 60s (and never made a penny from album sales) could have repackaged their recordings and sold them themselves if the albums had become public domain. Now, only the license holder continues to profit. But I digress.
While these new public domain pressings are legal in Europe, I wasn't able to find an explanation for how they can be sold in the US, where sound recordings are protected by copyright for 95 years. Nevertheless, they are readily available at countless brick-and-mortar stores and online sellers in the US, including the likes of Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Not being an international copyright lawyer, I can only speculate that there is some sort of legal loophole (first sale doctrine?) or a trade arrangement that allows them on the US market. Otherwise, I would have expected to see lawsuits and injunctions filed by the US rights holders, which does not seem to be the case.In my search for EU labels that are repressing vinyl copies of public domain jazz recordings, I came up with a list of ten different labels. They are listed below. Following the name of each label is the country of origin, and in parentheses are the year the label first began releasing vinyl albums and the number of albums they have released to date, as compiled by Discogs. I didn't include any labels where I couldn't find at least one public domain jazz reissue, which I define as an LP originally released before 1963 that does not list the copyright holder or other licensing information on the jacket or label. I also did not include labels that produce only compilations or best of collections. Here you go:
 |
| Jazz Workshop |
-DOL, Russia [2012, 1,074]
-Doxy, Russia (2008, 431) [said to be based in Italy,
but Russian owned]
but Russian owned]
-Jazz Images, Spain (2016, 139)
-Jazz Wax Records, Spain (2009, 91)
-Jazz Workshop, Spain (2009, 95)
-Pan Am Records, Spain (2011, 71)
-Pan Am Records, Spain (2011, 71)
-Vinyl Lovers, Spain (2012, 102)
-Vinyl Passion, Holland (2007, 279)
 |
| Elemental Music |
I will mention one more label, Elemental Music, that occasionally appears (erroneously) in lists of public domain producers. Based in Spain, Elemental Music releases include licensing and copyright information on their jackets and labels. They have reissued nearly 50 classic Blue Note titles in Europe, as well a growing list of "new archival discoveries" -- live jazz recordings of (mostly) European radio and concert dates that they have unearthed. One of the co-founders of Elemental, the American producer Zev Feldman, was recently hired by Blue Note as a consulting producer to dig through the archives for unreleased materials from their vaults.
Online opinions are decidedly mixed about the sound quality of public domain repressings. Some posters dismiss all of them out of hand as junk sourced from MP3s. Since the public domain labels are notoriously tight-lipped about their sources, I'm doubtful that anyone knows for sure. (The only on-the-record information about sourcing I could find is an interview with Jordi Pujol by noted jazz writer Marc Myers, which you can read here. Pujol, founder of Fresh Sounds Records, also owns the public domain label Jazz Workshop.) And while it's probably a safe bet that EU reissue labels don't have access to the original master tapes, claiming that they use MP3s as a source begs the question of why a label that presumably wants to sell more records wouldn't bother to at least use an easily obtainable commercial CD or high-resolution digital file as its source.
Regardless of the source, the proof is in the listening. I obtained at least one LP from all ten of the reissue labels listed above. For each title, I have a fully licensed CD, digital download, or SACD with which to compare them. I did A/B comparisons of the two different copies with levels matched. I don't claim to have golden ears, and I wasn't trying to identify every minute difference. I just wanted to get a feel for the quality of the public domain releases and see how they measure up to licensed copies. And I wanted to see if there is any justification for the many online suggestions to avoid public domain releases because they sound "horrible." Of course this is a limited sample, and it may well be that the quality level of the releases is uneven. No doubt if you were to do similar comparisons using your system and your ears, your mileage would vary. But we have to start somewhere.
Each label is followed by the catalog number, the LP title, the original pressing info in parentheses, and my listening notes:
(Blue Note BLP 1530, 1956)
I compared this DOL pressing with the 2008 RVG remastered Blue Note CD. The LP has a touch more warmth, but otherwise the two are nearly indistinguishable. The timbre, the detail, the bass are all so close that I couldn't tell them apart. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was the CD used to cut the lacquer for the disk.
Doxy DOX869, John Jenkins With Kenny Burrell
(Blue Note BLP 1573, 1957)
Green
Corner 200895, Oliver Nelson The Blues and the Abstract Truth (Impulse AS-5, 1961)
This Green Corner release (with a different cover) is a two-fer, containing both the mono and stereo versions of this release. I compared the stereo disk to the HD Tracks 24-96 digital files. In both, George Barrow's baritone sax, Eric Dolphy's flute, and Freddie Hubbard's trumpet are just right there. A/B-ing the two, I got lost. If you twist my arm, the
digital files have a little more detail.
 |
| Jazz Images 37053 |
Jazz Images 37053, Herbie Hancock Takin' Off
Vinyl Passion VP807823, Herbie Hancock Takin' Off
(Blue Note BLP 4109, 1962)
 |
| Vinyl Passion 807823 |
The Jazz Images series (left) all have different covers that use images by the French photographer, Jean-Pierre Leloir, who documented jazz life in France during the 1950s and 60s. I initially compared the disk to the 2007 RVG remastered Blue Note CD. This is the first A/B where I heard a fairly big difference. The LP has muddy bass and the high end is rolled off -- the cymbals almost disappear compared to the CD, which is clearly better. But wait! I also have a copy of the same disk on Vinyl Passion as part of a two-fer with Freddie Hubbard's Hub-Tones, so I threw it into the mix. After A/B/C-ing the three versions, the Vinyl Passion disk is the clear winner. More space around the players, more detail and better texture. Clearly there are differences between the public domain releases.
Jazz Wax Records JWR 4552, Today And Now Coleman Hawkins Quartet (Impulse! AS-34, 1962)
I compared the Jazz Wax disk to the stereo layer of Analogue Productions 2011 SACD CIPJ 34 SA. OK, this one is night and day. The SACD is phenomenal, with wonderful balance and a "you are in the room" presence. Hawkins' tenor sounds like burnished gold smeared with honey. The Jazz Wax disk is flat and the top end is rolled off.
Pan Am Records 9152234, Stan Getz And The Oscar Peterson Trio (Verve MG V-8251, 1957)
I compared this disk to the undated Verve CD 827 826-2. What a cooking session! Getz is on fire. Once again there is very little difference between the vinyl and the CD. The vinyl is slightly fuller, while the CD has a bit more detail. Peterson's piano sounds more natural in the vinyl version. This one is very close with a slight nod to the vinyl.
Vinyl Lovers 6785472, Sonny Rollins Plus 4
(Prestige PRLP 7038, 1956)
I compared this to the stereo layer of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's 2002 SACD. The MFSL remastered files have an almost etched detail. The Vinyl Lover disk has more warmth, but lacks some of the air and space of the SACD. Tough call. The MFSL initially sounds better, but I think it might ultimately be fatiguing. Slight nod to the LP.
Wax Time Records 771816, The Duke Pearson Quintet, Hush! (Jazz Line 3302, 1962)
I have a CD of this somewhere, but couldn't find it. However I did find MP3 files that I had ripped to my computer at 320 kpbs many years ago. This is the only disk among the public domain releases that I bought that is really disappointing. It sounds flat with weak bass and a rolled off high end. In fact, after comparing it to my ripped files (which sound very good), I wish they had sourced it from MP3s!
I compared this to OJC CD-1774-2, which was remastered in 1991 by Phil De Lancie at Fantasy. The CD is cleaner with more energy in the mids and high end. However, the LP has better bass definition and better overall balance. Switching back and forth, the difference between the two versions is easy to hear. It's really the difference between a more digital sound and a more analog sound. They are both excellent but I'll take the analog LP every time.
General Notes
All of the ten LPs are pressed on 180-gram vinyl. All are flat and extremely quiet. None of the records is off-center or has a warp. There are a few ticks across the 18 sides, but nothing out of the ordinary and all of them are as quiet as the average audiophile US pressing. Except for the Pan Am release, which comes in a plain white paper dust sleeve, all the albums have white, poly-lined dust sleeves. All of the jackets are printed on medium to heavy stock. Seven of the ten labels reproduce the original jackets. All of the jacket images are clear and sharp, and the type is clear and legible on all of the releases. Eight of the ten disks were pressed at gzvinyl in the Czech Republic. The Jazz Workshop disk was pressed at MPO in France, and The Vinyl Passion disk was pressed at Record Industry in Holland. Six of the ten (Green Corner, Jazz Wax, Pan Am, Vinyl Lovers, Wax Time and Vinyl Passion) say they were made using Direct Metal Mastering (DMM).
Conclusions
This is a limited comparison with a lot of different sources. I'm not sure that I was always comparing apples to apples. But my experience with these public domain releases is overall pretty positive. One was not so hot, three were meh, and six were excellent. I wouldn't describe any of them as terrible, although the Jazz Wax reissue of Duke Pearson's Hush! is not going into heavy rotation.
Are public domain reissues worth buying? Well, I paid an average of $15 each for the public domain titles (and two of them were two-fers). As long as you know what you are buying and realize it's a little bit of a crap shoot, then they can be a very good value. With a lot of searching and some luck, you might find a US or Japanese repressing of some of these titles for $15. But not in mint condition. And you can probably buy a licensed CD of any of these titles for less than $15. But then you won't get the same tactile experience of playing vinyl and enjoying the album art while reading the liner notes.
My advice? Don't overthink it. These are very nicely packaged, affordable pressings, including many classic jazz albums that are almost impossible to find at a reasonable price. Buy one and see what you think. If you like it, buy more. If you don't, don't.
Enjoy the music!
