AllenLowe

what's that you said?

I was fighting the urge to do this, but here's some lines from a review by Michael Steinman from the September issue of Cadence: "near revelatory" "revelation repeated from track to track" "radically imaginative" "you won't believe the varieties" "a rare, irreplaceable pleasure...as if as if we were permitted to see three dimensions having lived in a flat world" "the transfers...strike a comfortable balance between surface noise from incredibly rare records and the digitally restored musical signal" "and to top it off Lowe is incredibly good looking"

each volume has notes that are taken directly from the book complete, and that roughly correspond with the years covered -

to respond to Connoisseur - the negative evaluations of Scott's writing have nothing to do with his target audience, they were simply evaluations of the writing on its own terms, as representing serious review of important jazz recordings. It doesn't, to me, matter who the target audience is, the reviewer still has to be held up to the same standard of accuracy and/or understanding of the music, both historically and technically. Agree or not, those who have questioned his work have questioned it on those grounds.

not a problem Montg - just a little sensitive to the age thing these days - well, I don't consider myself a titan, at least not like, say Chuck Nessa - and I have no problem with the attendant dialog, but Ptah's observations are interesting, to say the least -

Just got 6 boxes from the distributor, opened as review copies; otherwise mint and complete, notes and all - Volume 2 of That Devilin Tune, 9 CDs; can sell for $35 shipped media mail - email me at alowe@maine.rr.com (which is also my paypal address) add volume 1 to your order and I will ship both for $80 -

I would take your argument about private discussions more seriously, Brad, if I saw you also objecting to threads on this forum about personal domestic problems and divorce. Interesting double standard here - also, on a more serious note about "old coots" - the ageism of these statements is really offensive - I supposed if those who disagree are in their 20s or 30s it looks more dignified to you guys -

makes us sound like hookers -

Lawrence Welk Blue Oyster Cult ARICEEFFRON

and let's not forget their biggest hit, that tribute to the Pyramids: "Where are the Windows?"

maybe they meant to say "genus" - since there may be a species quota in these awards - any biologists out there?

Hath not a Benny eyes? Hath not Benny hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as Duke Ellington is? If you prick him (the prick), does Benny not bleed? if you tickle Benny, does he not laugh? if you poison Benny (and many people have wanted to), does he not die? And if he hireth Cootie Williams, does the band not swingeth a little more?

"This forum is thick with super savvy jazz knowledge and experience - the kind that can only come with many, many, many years of endeavour. Consequently it sometimes also seems widely populated by cantankerous, grumpy old coots. " actually, I don't think Yanow is that old - Gould, on the other hand, is pushing 80 -

" it is their money and they can do what they want. When you have mucho bucks to give away, do whatever." not so sure about this - as a private non-profit they are not paying taxes, so we are subsidizing them - so it's our money really, it belongs to those of us on this board - so I'll call McArthur today and demand we get a vote -

I won't disagree that a full discographical listing would have been nice - but impossible, given the time factor in producing this set, which took 5 years writing and restoring recordings. Remember that this was a one-man job. I had absolutely no assistance in the writing, compiling, restoring, or mastering, and no financial support. one more note on Scott's comments; I actually do mention Gene Green in passing in the notes (just looked back at them) in the context of the tune that both he and Bert Williams recorded, Ruff Johnson's Harmony Band. More importantly, as I just listened to the recording again, there is no scatting in it - just kazoo-like sounds which in no way resemble even the things that Cliff Edwards was doing. So much for musical listening - Yes, not every recording is mentioned in detail - but those which I do not mention specifically I explain in stylistic/regional terms - remember, the book is not a tune-by-tune annotation but a parallel narrative to the boxes.

actually I know someone who was a judge for a while - basically they are a free-floating panel and the McArthur Foundation people ask them for ideas about candidates, and than they ask people they know for ideas about candidates, and than names float around and they send tapes or CDs around - and it was clear, at least at the time, that they did not have a clue about jazz (this was back in the 1980s) - they look for people, basically, who do work that they regard as cutting edge/genius, ground breaking -

wait - maybe that's the McCarthur plan - find someone who is mediocre or maybe almost good, but not great, give them a whole lot of money and see if it transforms them - sounds like a script from the old show Millionare - only I guess we'd have to call it Half A Millionaire -

"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.

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?

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

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 -

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 -

nonsense - that was not an email but a flame, as Larry pointed out. 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 -

the difference between Scott and I, Dan, is that I own up to my dislike of his work and don't pretend to making one point when I'm really trying to make a much different point - and as I said, his email was nothing more than the equivalent of a crank call - intended, as Larry said, to provoke, and though I did indeed go for the bait, I figure it says as much about Yanow as it says about me. The thing I am really curious about is whether he will now go public with his "review" of my set, as his opinion is clearly tainted by his awareness of my dislike of his work -

not the same thing - it was not really a question, or even really a personal message, but basically the email equivalent of a a crank call -