From: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2013 #71 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Website:http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe:mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Sunday, February 24 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 071 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Does she actually hold a copyright? [jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com] Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 [shadows and light ] Fwd: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 ["Jim L'Hommedieu" ] Safe Habor Law [Jim ] Re: Litigation [Catherine McKay ] RE: Litigation [jamiezubairi ] Re: Kate McGarrigle and Joni [Catherine McKay ] Re: Litigation [Michael Flaherty ] Safe Harbor provisions [Jim ] Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 [Les Irvin ] RE: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 ["kbhla" ] RE: JMDL Digest V2013 #262 [Mary Morris ] RE: Wizard of Id vs Suzanne ["Robert Sartorius" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:03:04 -0500 From: jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com Subject: Does she actually hold a copyright? List discussions have always been Joni Content. Has this woman actually given proof that she has copyrights? Jim L ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:14:41 -0800 From: shadows and light Subject: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 yesterday kakki wrote: > But there is a question rattling > around in the back of my mind that perhaps there could be a separate claim > for the infringment itself, regardless of improper use, sale, profit, etc. > Can it be argued that the availability of the material alone could have > caused it to be used by other unknown persons for sale, profit, etc.? At > any rate, I do find the whole matter personally distasteful and unfortunate > that Les has to be embroiled in it. > > Kakki > and here is what's on burns' site: "People... you can't eat a credit line (attribution). Every time an image of yours is posted, someone is making money off it. Maybe the blog runs ads so the blogger is; Google almost assuredly is (just about every time); but the point is, no use should be permitted without PRIOR permission and, when the artist chooses, payment. You are being naove if you think that most of the "sharing" isn't 1) causing your work to be devalued; 2) making it impossible for you to license your work later (no way you can ever grant exclusivity to previously "shared" work); and, 3) making money for someone else." so, shoot. it's so good to hear from you les. but not like this.. so sorry this burr is under your skin. lesli ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:49:41 -0800 From: shadows and light Subject: Re: Litigation on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count unless you have a copyright agent. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi wrote: > Hello All > > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed > upon notification of infringement."B > > > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in > copyright, and quotes: > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a > claim." > > Hurrah! > > Jamie Zubairi > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative > > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:44:10 -0500 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Fwd: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Les should resize them to 72dpi. I said, >If pictures are posted at 72dpi, > Jim L'Hommedieu On 2/22/2013 9:25 AM, Anne Sandstrom wrote: > I hear what you're saying, Jim, but actually the file itself can have > a higher resolution, like 300-600 dpi. However, computer screens only > display at 72 dpi. So if you right-click and select Save Picture As, > you could download a higher resolution image than what appears online. > > An easier solution for someone who wants to maintain their copyright > and keep people from copying/printing their work is to put a watermark > on it. > > Lots of love, > Anne > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of > jlhommedieu@insight.rr.com > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:56 PM > To: JMDL > Subject: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 > > I don't know anything about the law but I know a little about pictures. > > Screen resolution is 72dpi but it takes 300dpi to make a good print. > > If a web page has a picture that is the size of a Post-It note, it > will look lousy at that size as a print. In theory, I could make a > 300dpi print from it, but the length and width would shrink to 1/4 of > the original dimensions. The print would be about the size of a > postage stamp. > > If pictures are posted at 72dpi, in my opinion, there is no danger > that anyone is going to be able to sell prints. There just are not > enough pixels. > > Jim L'Hommedieu > This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may > contain privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for > the use of the addressee(s). If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, > dissemination, distribution, copying, forwarding or other use of this > message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately > and delete this message, all attachments and all copies and backups > thereof. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:42:26 +0000 From: Garret Subject: Re: Kate McGarrigle and Joni Thanks for sharing this Catherine. I saw Martha Wainwright in concert last week. It was a solo acoustic show in a church. She was fantastic. There was a moment when she started singing Proserpina that was chilling as she sounded so much like Kate. It was very beautiful. Garret On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > I'm as much of a fan of Kate and Anna McGarrigle (and Bonnie for that matter) > as I am of Joni. I'm on a Facebook group dedicated to Kate and Anna and also > another group for a doc made about them called "Sing Me The Songs That Say I > Love You ~ A Concert for Kate McGarrigle." On the "Sing me..." group, Rufus > Wainwright says the following: > b I know my mother wanted fame. She was > jealous of Bonnie Raitt and Joni > Mitchell. Part of her was aching for that > kind of acceptance b and letb s face it, that kind of money. She struggled > with that. But she wasnb t > able to handle fame emotionally, to navigate it. > She didnb t have the > steely will to keep all the ducks in order. So she had > to just focus on > her songwriting. But the end product is incredible: She was > able to > experience and translate the full gamut of emotions women go through > without any filter, without any ulterior motive, without trying to get > anybodyb s pants off. Her catalogue was the best gift she could have > given > her children.b > > - Rufus Wainwright on his late mother, singer-songwriter > Kate McGarrigle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:38:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Subject: Safe Habor Law Here's whatB Ms. BurnsB is referring to and note in the provision it says, "by providing" and not "hasB provided?.B So as long as he submits the info timely to the Copyright office, I think he has complied.B B Here's the exact text she is referring to. B "(2)Designated agent.b The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information: (A)the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent. (B)other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory." For full text, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ________________________________ From: shadows and light To: jamiezubairi Cc: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:17 PM Subject: Re: Litigation here is what Leslie Burns posted 15 minutes ago. A little legal lesson (but NOT legal advice... just for your education): in order for a "service provider" to be protected by the DMCA "take down" safe harbor, the provider must have a copyright agent registered with the US Copyright Office. No "designated agent" means they are liable, even if they remove/take down the work when asked. See 17 USC 512(c)(2) we have to focus and make this go away.B love to all, topanga lesli On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, shadows and light < cloudhidden101@gmail.com> wrote: > on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count > unless you have a copyright agent. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi >wrote: > > > Hello All > > > > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of > > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in > > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be > removed > > upon notification of infringement."B > > > > > > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home > > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically > in > > copyright, and quotes: > > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any > > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe > > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is > a > > claim." > > > > Hurrah! > > > > Jamie Zubairi > > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative > > > > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until > 9th > > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:53:30 -0800 (PST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Litigation I don't even get that. It sounds like BS to me. If that's the law, then there must be some reason why it's in there (otherwise, the law is a ass.) Why would any website or webmaster have a copyright agent, unless it's for their own work? It's not as if Les, or anyone else, can hold a copyright on someone else's work. And what do they really mean by "agent?" Can an individual not be their own agent? I don't necessarily expect anyone to be able to answer those questions, but something does not compute for me. As well, I've had a look at this person's websites and s/he sounds like a flake to me. I believe L. Burns is a woman and yet she has herself listed as Leslie Burns, Esq. which is a BS pseudo-title that some people (generally men, that I know of) have used (like a century ago) to suggest they have some sort of higher status than the hoi polloi, but really signifies nothing. Don't know if it's a weird attempt at humour (do lawyers have a sense of humour?) or more evidence of flakiness. I truly wonder whether these people somehow think that Joni Mitchell is personally invested in the site and that, by shaking down Les, they're going to tap into her money. >________________________________ > From: shadows and light >To: jamiezubairi >Cc: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:17:54 PM >Subject: Re: Litigation > >here is what Leslie Burns posted 15 minutes ago. >A little legal lesson (but NOT legal advice... just for your education): >in order for a "service provider" to be protected by the DMCA "take down" >safe harbor, the provider must have a copyright agent registered with the >US Copyright Office. No "designated agent" means they are liable, even if >they remove/take down the work when asked. >See 17 USC 512(c)(2) >we have to focus and make this go away. love to all, topanga lesli > >On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM, shadows and light < >cloudhidden101@gmail.com> wrote: > >> on the lawyer's fb page they say removing photos promptly doesn't count >> unless you have a copyright agent. >> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, jamiezubairi > >wrote: >> >> > Hello All >> > >> > This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of >> > 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in >> > infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be >> removed >> > upon notification of infringement."B >> > >> > >> > Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home >> > wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically >> in >> > copyright, and quotes: >> > "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any >> > infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe >> > harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is >> a >> > claim." >> > >> > Hurrah! >> > >> > Jamie Zubairi >> > Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative >> > >> > Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until >> 9th >> > March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:45:22 +0000 From: jamiezubairi Subject: RE: Litigation Hello All This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed upon notification of infringement."B Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in copyright, and quotes: "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a claim." Hurrah! Jamie Zubairi Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 05:44:35 -0800 (PST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Kate McGarrigle and Joni At the tribute concert I went to last year, the entire group sang "Proserpina" and it was one of those moments that gave me a chill (the good kind of chill.) I think Martha and Rufus are also amazing. >________________________________ > From: Garret >To: Catherine McKay >Cc: Joni List >Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:42:26 AM >Subject: Re: Kate McGarrigle and Joni > >Thanks for sharing this Catherine. > >I saw Martha Wainwright in concert last week. It was a solo acoustic >show in a church. She was fantastic. There was a moment when she >started singing Proserpina that was chilling as she sounded so much >like Kate. It was very beautiful. >Garret > >On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: >> I'm as much of a fan of Kate and Anna McGarrigle (and Bonnie for that matter) >> as I am of Joni. I'm on a Facebook group dedicated to Kate and Anna and also >> another group for a doc made about them called "Sing Me The Songs That Say I >> Love You ~ A Concert for Kate McGarrigle." On the "Sing me..." group, Rufus >> Wainwright says the following: >> b I know my mother wanted fame. She was >> jealous of Bonnie Raitt and Joni >> Mitchell. Part of her was aching for that >> kind of acceptance b and letb s face it, that kind of money. She struggled >> with that. But she wasnb t >> able to handle fame emotionally, to navigate it. >> She didnb t have the >> steely will to keep all the ducks in order. So she had >> to just focus on >> her songwriting. But the end product is incredible: She was >> able to >> experience and translate the full gamut of emotions women go through >> without any filter, without any ulterior motive, without trying to get >> anybodyb s pants off. Her catalogue was the best gift she could have >> given >> her children.b >> >> - Rufus Wainwright on his late mother, singer-songwriter >> Kate McGarrigle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:57:27 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Flaherty Subject: Re: Litigation That's great, Jamie. Any chance your friend would be willing to write that to the photographer's lawyer? Just asking... I think getting something from a lawyer would help. Michael F. ________________________________ From: jamiezubairi To: lesirvin@gmail.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:45 AM Subject: RE: Litigation Hello All This is also from Neill "I would politely say there is no claim under of 17 USC Section 512(c) because your website was not involved in infringement, and any infringing materials posted by others will be removed upon notification of infringement."B Sent from Samsung MobileJamie Zubairi Home wrote:A friend of mine is American but works in the UK and specifically in copyright, and quotes: "In my view there's a strong argument that if the website took down any infringing materials upon notice then there's like to no claim under safe harbour provisions. I'd politely respond that we do not believe there is a claim." Hurrah! Jamie Zubairi Actor, Painter, Voiceover, Creative Appearing in Why The Lion Danced for Yellow Earth Theatre touring until 9th March. Please see www.yellowearth.org.uk for details ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:39:30 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Subject: Safe Harbor provisions Les, if not already done, note the second paragarph below (fyi): In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above)and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)] Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]. For full text, See http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID127 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:39:48 -0700 From: Les Irvin Subject: Re: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Kakki, I've thought about that as well. Regardless of how this comes out, I am going to take appropriate steps to bring the site more in line with the law so that the chances of this happening again are minimized. I'd like to protect photographers from exactly the scenario you outlined. I thought about that in the early days, and have always "washed out" the resolution of photos in hopes that anyone who did steal images would find that reproducing them yields unsatisfactory results. Time to take a further step now. On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:19:23 PM, kbhla wrote: > Hi Randy, > > I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of copyright law but have the > impression it is somewhat "codified." There have been a few links on the JM > and JMDL Facebook pages where the process is somewhat discussed. There are > legal statutes/regulations which seem to provide a process for instituting > and challenging copyright infringement claims. You are right about the > notification and request for removal of the material and compliance should > either resolve it or constitute a defense. But there is a question rattling > around in the back of my mind that perhaps there could be a separate claim > for the infringment itself, regardless of improper use, sale, profit, etc. > Can it be argued that the availability of the material alone could have > caused it to be used by other unknown persons for sale, profit, etc.? At > any rate, I do find the whole matter personally distasteful and unfortunate > that Les has to be embroiled in it. > > Kakki > > > notify the webmaster, and if the webmaster fails to remove the photos in > question, then there is a basis for legal action. Since Les has promptly > removed them already, and was not aware of their ownership, and was not > profiting from their use, I doubt Ms. Scam Artist/Photographer has a leg to > stand on. > Hopefully someone on the list (Kakki?) has some legal knowledge that would > help. Maybe send a letter alerting them that you intend to recoup for > damages for any frivilous lawsuit that might follow, maybe they will > fu...uh, back off. > RR>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:21:04 -0800 From: "kbhla" Subject: RE: Joni Mitchell.com 1996-2013 Interesting question, Lesli. Might be at least some kind of safeguard. I hadn't noticed that FB asks that. Most everything I upload is my own but I did upload a "watermarked" image off Google once. Have always wondered if it is alright to upload "watermarked" images and also wondered about Google images having so many seemingly personal photos of people available. I've sometimes searched Google images for photos of places I'd like to visit and end up with many results showing peoples' personal parties, weddings, etc. Eeek. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:29:19 -0800 From: Mary Morris Subject: RE: JMDL Digest V2013 #262 Re: lawsuit I'm sorry to be so dense, but I can't find the emails of any attorneys to send my letter to. Can someone on the jmdl post those ? Thanks. Les deserves all our help. GREETINGS FROM THE TRIPLE M Down a gravel road, where the barb wire meets the sky. MARY M. MORRIS > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:11:07 -0500 > From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org > To: joni-digest@smoe.org > Subject: JMDL Digest V2013 #262 > > > JMDL Digest Thursday, February 21 2013 Volume 2013 : Number 262 > > > > ========== > > TOPICS and authors in this Digest: > -------- > Re: JM.com lawsuit story picked up by boingboing njc [Catherine McKay > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:08:33 -0800 (PST) > From: Catherine McKay > Subject: Re: JM.com lawsuit story picked up by boingboing njc > > I'm happy to read this too. Hurray! > > I sent my email 24 hours ago and just > now, the one to CZ herself bounced (it took 24 hours?) but the ones to the > others have not as of yet, so I'm guessing and hoping they got theirs. > >________________________________ > > From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" > > >To: william burnworth > >Cc: > joni@smoe.org > >Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:28:18 PM > >Subject: Re: > JM.com lawsuit story picked up by boingboing njc > > > >Thanks for that William - > great to see your name again, even if it's in > >the midst of this ugliness. I > do have to say that I feel better about this > >issue today now that I see that > the "plaintiff" is nothing more than an > >extortionist, a scammer, and indeed > a criminal in her own right. It just > >gripes my butt to see someone as > genuinely GOOD as our friend Les > >embroiled in such nonsense. > > > >I wrote my > note yesterday, I'm sure it will be ignored but every little > >bit, you know? > > > >Lindsay, I loved what you said - a bit more succinct than what I wrote. > >Victor, I got a good laugh thinking about the LA Cowboy, lol, I had > >forgotten about that bit of silliness. > > > >Bob > > > > > > > > > >From: william > burnworth > >To: joni@smoe.org > >Date: 02/21/2013 12:57 > PM > >Subject: JM.com lawsuit story picked up by boingboing njc > >Sent > by: owner-joni@smoe.org > > > > > > > >http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/826BFqSS_6E/photographer-w > ants-600000-f.html > > > > > >this should spread the word quickly... > > > >Love,William > in Ft. Lauderdale > > > >------------------------------------------------------------ > >The information > transmitted is intended only for the person > >or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain > >proprietary, business-confidential and/or > privileged material. > >If you are not the intended recipient of this message > you are > >hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > >distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > >this > message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > >contact the > sender and delete the material from any computer. > > > >Any views expressed in > this message are those of the individual > >sender and may not necessarily > reflect the views of the company. > >------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > End of JMDL Digest V2013 #262 > ***************************** > > ------- > To post messages to the list, sendtojoni@smoe.org. > Unsubscribe by clicking here: > mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe > ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:08:39 -0500 From: "Robert Sartorius" Subject: RE: Wizard of Id vs Suzanne Kevin, I am very much only an amateur musician, but in this case "impossible" similarities between TWOI and Judy's version of Suzanne appear in the melodic line (the notes you sing), the harmonic lines [the chordal presentation in terms of both tone (notes) and style (i.e., arpeggio style - picking rather than strumming)], and the rhythm (spacing and timing) of both the melodic and harmonic lines. In short, pretty much everything musical got lifted (apparently) from the Judy Collins arrangement for the first two lines of each verse - with modest varations in melody and harmony appearing in the third and fourth lines of the verses. The words were changed, but even they bear a strong resemblance to the style in which Suzanne was written. I have (long) seen this as a case of imitation being the highest form of flattery. In that sense, it was flattering of Joni to write TWOI, and right of her not to record it. (A cynic might speculate it was self-defensive, too, given the potential for a copyright infringement complaint). Three follow-up questions for the group: 1. Was LC's 67 recording of Suzanne more popular than JC's 66 recording ? I was very aware of JC's, but not of LC's. 2. If Joni had written TWOI before Suzanne, do you think she would have stood by silently/uncomplainingly all these years given the popularity of "Suzanne"? 3. Did she actually publish/copyright the music to TWOI? Or just the lyrics ? Bobsart From: Kevin Foehr [mailto:kfoehr@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:01 PM To: Mark; Robert Sartorius; joni@smoe.org; onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: Re: Wizard of Id vs Suzanne Thanks Rob and Mark for your responses. It sounds like you guys know what you are talking about, and it does make sense too. Joni may have heard Suzanne via Judy and decided to use a similar melodic progression (or what ever it's called -- I'm not a musician) in one of her songs, but then decided not to record it, especially after LC's '67 recording of it became so popular. That's a bit of a shame as W of I has enough of Joni's unique style to obviously be her work, but there are also a few bars repeated two or thee times that smack of Suzanne a little too much and might have tainted the entire song and maybe her reputation too, which would have been an even greater shame! Thanks again for your comments and for sharing your research. Good work! Kevin _____ From: Mark To: Robert Sartorius ; joni@smoe.org; onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Cc: kfoehr@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Wizard of Id vs Suzanne I was just researching some of what is known about Joni's relationship with Cohen. One source, 'Heck of a Guy - The Other Leonard Cohen Site', other being other than the official Leonard Cohen site, said that Judy Collins introduced Joni to Leonard at the Newport Folk Festival in 1967. Copyright on JoniMitchell.com for 'The Wizard of Is' says 1966. That would put it before the two met if what I read was accurate. According to Wikipedia, the song Suzanne was first recorded by Judy Collins on her 1966 album 'In My Life'. The lyrics were first released in Cohen's 1966 book of poetry, 'Parasites of Heaven'. So if all of that is true, it is possible that Joni had heard 'Suzanne' before she wrote 'The Wizard of Is'. Mark in Seattle Perhaps they had collaborated on developing the music and then she decided to let him have it instead of her? Or could she have written it first and then she let LC adapt it into Suzanne with his lyrics? And perhaps that is why it was never released on an album by Joni? Or was it released? I don't recall it on her early albums. Sorry if this was discussed already, but I looked back and couldn't find where it was." I rarely post without doing my homework/research/fact-checking, but I am going out on a limb here. I believe that I looked at this at one point in the past, and concluded to my satisfaction that Suzanne was written before Cohen/Mitchell became an item. That would make W of I something of a knockoff by Joni of an already written LC song. Which might also explain why she had the good sense not to record it. If I am wrong, I apologize to all (including Joni). Bobsart ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2013 #71 ******************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here:mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe