I read your site weekly, and usually find it to be entertaining.  Your "Diatribes" and the feedback section are interesting and enlightening.  However, there have been several points made that are rather naive and poorly researched.  I have decided to respond with the following:

After several years as a professional trumpet player, I faced a future of Miami Beach cornfests and late night Latin marathons.  I had always been a student of jazz and an avid record collector, and felt that if I made the proverbial "deal with the devil", and signed on with a major record label, I could find a way to advance my agenda within the existing structure of the business.   Bucking the system, though a bold thought, was an impractical and futile proposition.

In my current position, I am paid to run a division of the Warner Bros. Records label, which is a division of the Warner Music Group, which is a division of Time Warner, Inc., which is owned by thousands of stockholders.  The Jazz division is secure if the overall operation is profitable and the stockholders are happy.  Taking a "pledge of allegiance to consumerism" is required to be a part of a public-owned company.

Many people in the jazz community show a lack of practical sense by denying the realities of the record business and personally attacking a group of people who are actually in a position to help them.  Unless you are rich enough to fund your own company, there is no other alternative. 

It would be impossible for me to address every item that has been brought up relating to recording contracts.  You and those who check out your site could easily clear up many misconceptions by reading a terrific book by Don Passman titled All You Need To Know About The Music Business. 

However, I will make one critical point.

Record companies invest large amounts of capital in recording and marketing artists.  In addition, a large record company's overhead needs to be covered.  It has been pointed out in previous "Diatribes" and feedback that the economics of the jazz record business paints a pretty ugly picture.  I agree.  With a "straight-ahead" jazz artist, you spend $30-60,000. "all-in" for an artist's advance and recording costs, and another $30-60,000 in marketing costs.  In most cases, a jazz record sells fewer than 10,000 copies.  No amount of creative accounting can make this look like a smart business. 

Why do we do it?  Although in the short term, it is difficult to make any money, there are two obvious benefits.  First is the cache that Joshua Redman, Kenny Garrett, Brad Mehldau, Kevin Mahogany, and Mark Turner bring to us.  The critical raves and poll standings are nothing to sneeze at.  Most important is the long-term value of a jazz catalog.  Over time, these recordings will be re-released and re-packaged several times, eventually becoming valuable assets.  But these are strictly business concerns.  On a more personal level, the two reasons why we are in this business are to work with music that we are passionate about, and to further the cause for jazz.  Because of the overall profitability of our operations, we are allowed this luxury.

A lot has been written about executive compensation and perks.  Salaries and T&E (travel and entertainment) account for approximately 13-15% of a company's overhead.  The two basic items that determine executive compensation are the same as those that determine how much money an artist is worth to a company: value to the company and value on the open market.  In addition, we are responsible for keeping our overhead in line, and if we are not profitable because we've spent too much on limos and Le Cirque, we lose our gigs. 

And now, in more specific response to the latest "Diatribe":

The Pariah's assertion that "there is but one African-American major label executive, and no women", doesn't take Warner Bros. into account.  Although our people are in their positions strictly based on talent and merit, 

I present to you the following: 

• Matt Pierson (white male) Senior VP, Jazz
• Marylou Badeaux  (white female) VP, Product Management
• Randall Kennedy (white male) VP, Sales & Marketing,
• Chris Jonz (black male) Senior Director, National Jazz and Urban; AC Promotion,
• Deborah Lewow (white female) Senior Director, National NAC,
• Erma Byrd (black female) National Director Jazz Publicity,
• Dana Watson (white male) Director of A&R,
• Kynama Wald (white female) Jazz Marketing Coordinator,
• Susan Daily (black female) Executive Assistant,

Two of the "Record Boys" goals are generating profits and assuming more power.

1. We are paid to generate profits.  No profits, no job. 
2. The most basic definition of power, according to Webster's, is the "ability to do, act, or produce". Sounds cool to me.  The issue is, what does one choose to do with ones power.  To expose great artists to as many people as possible, expanding the audience for jazz beyond its traditional base, and building a loyal, younger following for the future is the best use of this power.

When it comes to royalty statements, in the seven years that I have worked at Warner Bros., I have never gotten a call from an artist complaining that he/she has not gotten a royalty statement. 

You state that you do not intend to "personally demean the Record Boys".  If you take into account that we are very passionate about what we do, and we pour our hearts out standing up for the same cause that you do, the writing of "Diatribes" (def.: a bitter, abusive criticism or denunciation) asserting that you understand what we do, how our business works, and what our intentions are without understanding our position very plainly shows your intent.  The drum-beating of this particular Pariah (def.: Any person despised or rejected by others; outcast.) may cause your self- imposed title to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Now for the most significant issue that you have raised: the concept of a Jazz Industry Organization.

Throughout the mid-90's, a group of jazz record executives met on a regular basis to discuss forming an organization for jazz similar to the Country Music Association.  Spearheaded by the efforts of Kevin Gore, and with a core group including Bruce Lundvall, Tommy LiPuma, Chuck Mitchell, Mark Wexler, Steve Backer, Richard Seidel, Tom Evered, and myself, among many others on an on and off basis, we discussed the purpose of the organization and how to fund its start-up.  We went as far as meeting with candidates to run the organization, and discussed a fee structure that would allow all record labels, and eventually members of every faction of the jazz community, to be a part of it.  (An attorney from the R.I.A.A. was present to insure that there was no collusion.) 

Unfortunately, the committee stopped meeting over a year ago.  Why?  Since we were all becoming more and more busy with our day to day responsibilities, we didn't have the time to dedicate to the setting up of the organization.  However, lately it has become more and more evident that this type of organization could serve a very key role in the future of jazz.

I am planning to get this group together before the end of the year.  Our meeting will center on determining whether or not we can still help launch a Jazz Industry Organization.  However, there is one key question that must be answered to determine whether or not the organization can exist and hopefully thrive. 

What is jazz?  If this organization views jazz as only "straight-ahead", acoustic-based, improvised music, our scope will be severely limited.  The power base that exists through the "Smooth Jazz" radio format and the value of the more credible commercial jazz artists cannot be underestimated.  Not only is this an ever-expanding audience for instrumental music that could develop into a large fan base for "straight- ahead" jazz, the "Smooth Jazz" format is a major success story that we can all learn from.  Can you imagine if the Country Music Association excluded all non-traditional country music, feeling that Garth Brooks, Shania Twain, and others were not "in the tradition"? 

At the Grammy Jazz Screening Committee meeting last month, we had a heated discussion about whether or not Kenny G is a jazz artist.  I asserted my belief that not only is he a jazz artist, but in my estimation, he is a terrific improviser.  Although this comment inspired some giggles from the esteemed panel, I feel strongly enough about this opinion to sustain the wrath. 

Kenny G improvises melodies over chord changes.  Every time he plays a solo, he tells a different story.  Most importantly, he tells an honest, heartfelt story that millions of people connect with emotionally. Wouldn't it be great if we could find a way to expose the honest, heartfelt story told by the other Kenny G (Garrett, that is) to millions of people, and a couple of hundred thousand of them were moved enough to buy his records? 

For those of you with thoughts about the Jazz Industry Organization, please feel free to E-Mail me.