Yanow Is Here

[Big Al]

I don't think this thread should be deleted so much as locked. This thread says more about Allen than Scott.

And really, if Scott wanted to be a troll about this, he could've made his letter public. As it is, he sent it in private. Where it should've belonged.

[Jim Alfredson]

I absolutely agree that there is nothing in this thread that warrants it being deleted. Scott's e-mail to Allen was uncalled for and he deserves to have it brought into the light. I also think that deleting the other thread, as John Tapscott apparently did, was a mistake. Why are we being protective of Scott Yanow? Because he might write a bad review? I don't doubt that he would, but I do not praise him simply because he has reviewed my albums favorably--it works both ways. If Scott allows criticism of himself to dictate how he will view someone's work (and I am not saying that he does, just that it is implied by his protectors here), then, in my book, he does not deserve to be shielded from criticism.

Jim expressed concern that Scott might allow what he reads here to determine how or if he reviews the Organissimo group. That, IMO, may well be a bigger slap in Scott's face than anything posted by the rest of us. Think about it, Jim.

My concern was a general one and it has already happened, not with AMG or Yanow, but with at least one other publication that I know of. Does that mean that I will censor people who speak badly of critics? No... in fact, the thread that caused the magazine not to review us is still here. I did not delete it.

But it doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about it. Right or wrong, that's the way it is with some people... they can't distinguish between organissimo the band and organissimo the forum. And right or wrong, it affects MY GROUP, which is woking very very hard to make it.

My problem with these "criticisms" (and it's not just about Yanow at all) is that they tend to be rude and disrespectful. I have no problem with someone not liking a critic's writing, or not liking this band, or not liking whatever, but the thread that was deleted (not by me) was just ugly.

I'm sure Yanow can defend himself and will do so when he sees this thread.

[Randy Twizzle]

Private notes from one's wife, nasty emails from jazz critics, it's all Entertainment!

[John Tapscott]

I absolutely agree that there is nothing in this thread that warrants it being deleted. Scott's e-mail to Allen was uncalled for and he deserves to have it brought into the light. I also think that deleting the other thread, as John Tapscott apparently did, was a mistake.

Jim expressed concern that Scott might allow what he reads here to determine how or if he reviews the Organissimo group.

Yes, in a way it was a mistake for me to delete that thread, but I did it because Jim was uncomfortable with it. I think we need to respect Jim's feelings on the matter. I am a bit surprised by the the amount of power a critic seems to have. It's only when we can "criticize the critics" that their power is kept in check. BTW, Scott's email to Allen, private or not, was hardly said in jest. It was a sarcastic little missive, designed to provoke a reaction. Perhaps the thread needs to be deleted for that reason alone.

[AllenLowe]

I do hope nothing that I say here is seen as reflecting opinions other than my own, and I understand Jim's concern - but, in a way, the more public this is, the more difficult it is for anyone to do anything unethical or out of general sight, in the spirit of revenge. And I'm willing to bet that, had Yanow NOT seen my posts about him, his opinion of my set would be more positive - therein lies the difference between us. I, for example, have publicly praised Gary Giddins's writing, even though Giddins has been quite harsh about some of my work. I think it's called intellectual integrity -

Edited September 20, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Free For All]

Yanow Is Here

Isn't that a Horace Silver tune?

[sheldonm]

I absolutely agree that there is nothing in this thread that warrants it being deleted. Scott's e-mail to Allen was uncalled for and he deserves to have it brought into the light. I also think that deleting the other thread, as John Tapscott apparently did, was a mistake.

Jim expressed concern that Scott might allow what he reads here to determine how or if he reviews the Organissimo group.

Yes, in a way it was a mistake for me to delete that thread, but I did it because Jim was uncomfortable with it. I think we need to respect Jim's feelings on the matter. I am a bit surprised by the the amount of power a critic seems to have. It's only when we can "criticize the critics" that their power is kept in check. BTW, Scott's email to Allen, private or not, was hardly said in jest. It was a sarcastic little missive, designed to provoke a reaction. Perhaps the thread needs to be deleted for that reason alone.

...so send him a big "fuck off" and get on with life! I don't know much about Scott's writings and am not throwing stones at Allen or Scott; I genereally don't buy/see/read/listen to something based on a critic's reveiw....but I wouldn't post an email sent to me on any site....just my 2 cents!

m~

[Guy Berger]

Why are we being protective of Scott Yanow?

This has nothing to do with being protective of Scott Yanow, and everything to do with basic internet etiquette regarding private correspondence.

Guy

[JSngry]

His brother Peter was the genius behind Paul & Mary.

[Hot Ptah]

Yanow is literally here. He has just become a member of the board and has posted four times.

[Stefan Wood]

Yeah, this thread needs to be deleted. No need for personal stuff to be displayed out in the open like this.

[Jim R]

nonsense - that was not an email but a flame

Hmm... I'm not positive, but I really think it was an e-mail.

Even a bit of a threat, I would say, kind of Yanow's way of saying that he, the public critic, was preparing a bad review - as a matter of fact, looking at it, the ethics of it are deplorable on Yanow's part - he's basically saying, you don't like my stuff, well here's what's bad about your stuff, so beware -

Okay, so thanks for warning us that you suspect that there's a chance that Yanow might try to get revenge on you for saying bad things about him... ...publicly... ... here... ...on this board...

[Rooster_Ties]

Yeah, this thread needs to be deleted. No need for personal stuff to be displayed out in the open like this.

I'm tending to agree more and more as this thread develops.

Allen, your reaction probably wasn't off base, but posting it publicly probably was (IMHO). If Jim won't delete this thread (he's pretty good about not being heavy-handed like that), would you consider deleting it yourself?? I think a number of us here would appreciate it. (Thanks!)

Edit: Or at some point, I certainly hope Jim will decide to close this topic.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Noj]

If anything can be gained here, at least we know we've got some interesting lurkers.

[AllenLowe]

it's nice to know that the majority here seem to have absolutely no concern about the ethics of a public critic sending a communication to someone, privately, that represents not only a gross conflict of interest but a threat - probably because most of you are not musicians or writers who of necessity have to put their work out for public consideration (interesting that Larry and Chris, who have been in this boat, understood immediately exactly what was going on) - I don't really care if the thread is locked or deleted at this point, just a bit disappointed in responses like Jim R's - and to go on and on about email communication, which is the LEAST private of communications is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the prime issues here. Emails are no more privileged than letters (probably less) and I would have no compunction quoting someone's letter to me -

however, I will wait a bit and might think about deleting this whole thing after lunch -

Edited September 20, 2006 by AllenLowe

[Stefan Wood]

How can the email be construed as a threat?

[Dan Gould]

it's nice to know that the majority here seem to have absolutely no concern about the ethics of a public critic sending a communication to someone, privately, that represents not only a gross conflict of interest but a threat - probably because most of you are not musicians or writers who of necessity have to put their work out for public consideration (interesting that Larry and Chris, who have been in this boat, understood immediately exactly what was going on) - I don't really care if the thread is locked or deleted at this point, just a bit disappointed in responses like Jim R's - and to go on and on about email communication, which is the LEAST private of communications is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the prime issues here. Emails are no more privileged than letters (probably less) and I would have no compunction quoting someone's letter to me -

this only serves to further reinforce this earlier comment:

I don't think this thread should be deleted so much as locked. This thread says more about Allen than Scott.

And really, if Scott wanted to be a troll about this, he could've made his letter public. As it is, he sent it in private. Where it should've belonged.

[Dan Gould]

I do hope nothing that I say here is seen as reflecting opinions other than my own, and I understand Jim's concern - but, in a way, the more public this is, the more difficult it is for anyone to do anything unethical or out of general sight, in the spirit of revenge. And I'm willing to bet that, had Yanow NOT seen my posts about him, his opinion of my set would be more positive - therein lies the difference between us. I, for example, have publicly praised Gary Giddins's writing, even though Giddins has been quite harsh about some of my work. I think it's called intellectual integrity -

where does Yanow say terrible things about your set? Seems to me he's questioning some of the remasters as being inferior to earlier reissues, and would like to see a complete personnel listing. B-F-ing D!

I'll bet that otherwise Yanow would give it a positive review.

[Dan Gould]

Yanow is literally here. He has just become a member of the board and has posted four times.

Which actually gives us an interesting opportunity to engage him regarding the topics that started that other thread. Might be a lot more interesting than the "he's an ethics-challenged hack" that is being spewed around.

[Jim R]

Allen, none of us would have known about your e-mail if you hadn't posted about it here. Whether he overtly threatened you, or said nasty things to you, or offered to send you a fruitcake, it was still an e-mail. I was definitely taking sides in this argument (about the validity of this thread), but I was trying to inject a little light humor, that's all. Don't assume that nobody cares, btw. Some of us simply disagree with your approach.

Oh, btw, Yanow posted here yesterday. Duh.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Jim R

[AllenLowe]

yes, yes, sure sure - and by the way - just wondering, Dan - did the confidentiality issue apply to that note you got from your wife?

[Dan Gould]

yes, yes, sure sure - and by the way - just wondering, Dan - did the confidentiality issue apply to that note you got from your wife?

I posted solely about the implications of the note, specifically stated that I would not share details, and the only details that ended up being mentioned were her off-the-wall reaction to a B.B. King song I played in the car.

In addition to the fact that the contents of the note were not laid out for everyone to see, the purpose was to garner support and advice from concerned parties, not to say "see how much of an a-hole Yanow is".

[Scott Yanow]

Greetings!

I have to confess, I am surprised that my E-mail to Allen Lowe was made public in this forum. I would think he'd be a little embarrassed by some of my criticisms of his set. But privacy issues aside, it doesn't do any harm.

Let me first state that I have reviewed That Devilin' Time for Jazziz, and it appeared in print a couple of months ago. Overall, the review was favorable although it brought up a few of my concerns. I did recommend that lovers of vintage jazz and American music acquire the set.

Personally I love most of the music that Allen chose for the set. I do think leaving out Clarence Williams' "Cake Walkin' Babies From Home" might have been a mistake since that is such a brilliant recording (with Satch and Bechet battling it out). And I think shuffling the chronological order of the recordings from 1916-18 is unfortunate because it hides some of the impact of the ODJB, but overall I found the selection of material quite stimulating, with at least a dozen of the performances being ones I had never heard before. I particularly enjoy Marion Harris' "There'll Be Some Changes Made." I listened to the entire set three times.

My problems with the reissue, which I mentioned in my E-mail to Allen, are that he does not include the personnel listing for the music (which is really a ridiculous omission since this set is primarily for collectors who will want to know who a particular trombone soloist is), the surface noise is often intrusive even on well-known recordings by Jelly Roll Morton, and his interesting and lengthy liner notes often say nothing about particular selections. Many great gems are included on the reissue yet there are no comments about at least 1/3 of them. I would have liked to have learned more, and those who do not listen to early jazz as much as I will come away with many questions that should have been answered in the liners.

I'm really not sure what Allen Lowe's problem is with me. It seems like a lot of random name calling with some kind of hidden agenda that is unknown to me. I've been fair and usually favorable to his recordings through the years and find his writing to be generally thought-provoking. The fault I find is that if someone does not reach the same conclusions as he does, then he brands the person an idiot.

One of our differences I guess is that I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I write. I just hope that my writing helps guide readers towards getting recordings that they will ultimately enjoy.

Ultimately the most significant thing is that we help jazz in our own little ways. It is the music and the musicians that are most important.

[AllenLowe]

hmmm...could I have been wrong? Missed the review in Jazziz; funny how your email to me basically ONLY expresses your objections - especially since you had no hidden agenda - and I guess your email, in which you thanked me for my comments about you on this site - all of which have been negative - was a serious one with no hidden message - sorry I completely missed the point here -

also, there is not a single Morton transfer on the set which is not as good or better than any Morton done elsewhere - surface noise is not the true measure but fidelity is - sometimes one has to increase the noise to bring out the high hand. But I stand by my Morton choices.

compiling a detailed personnell list was just outside of my capabilities and time. It would have been a nice thing to have; I did, however, mention, in the text and sometimes in the personnell listing, key soloists. And the book was not intended as a track-by-track annotation but as a parallel text to be read with the set. I could not put it all in there and still keep it coherent.

and Dan, that's very true about respecting your wife's privacy - after all, only about 10,000 of us here read about your private problems. But I guess that's a small audience in the era of Dr. Phil. You did get her permission first before bringing up the subject, right?

Edited September 20, 2006 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

"if someone does not reach the same conclusions as he does, then he brands the person an idiot."

Well, let's get some citations, Scott. - in which I specifically question someone's intelligence for disagreeing with me.