Hot Ptah

I think that is a really good idea. I am going to start with Nonaah this afternoon.

This happened to me once about fifteen years ago. I was visiting Madison, Wisconsin on an infrequent trip there. I made arrangements to meet my old professor, bassist Richard Davis, on the Memorial Union Terrace, where they have tables and chairs set up along the lake shore. I had not seen Richard in person in about 15 years. About a minute before he arrived, a massive amount of bird poop landed on my bare arm and shirt, from above. The shock of the massive splat quickly gave way to efforts to appear minimally presentable, quickly.

I'm thinking that apparently no one understood that my previous post on this thread referred to a hilarious episode of the Andy Griffith show, titled "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.", in which Gomer is punished by having to sit alone in a quonset hut with a bucket over his head. The dialogue between Andy and Gomer when Andy discovers Gomer there, is among my favorite in all literature.

I see the difference. In addition to the other reasons why it would be unethical to sell the data base, it would amount to your representation that we are a group of "upper class, intelligent" people. How could you say that and live with yourself?

I knew that #13 was "Happy Trails", but I have no idea who is playing it. The first time I heard your BFT, I thought, this is the first time I have heard a collection of songs end with "Happy Trails" since this album: I love #11, by the way. I just love things like this, with twists and turns and unexpected variety, all played with jazz feeling. I have no idea who it is, but I want to get it.

I just went back and checked the Amazon listing for this album, and saw this: "Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." If the positive reviews did in fact boost sales of this album, I am glad. I am glad when any great jazz album sells.

I think that the fact that several members spontaneously and independently added their positive reviews of the album shortly after reading Chuck's post, reveals the innocent nature of what was done, and the fact that the reviews sprang from the members' genuine love of the album. If on the other hand, several members had started a Private Message round robin, to set up a coordinated schedule for when each member would add their genuine impressions of the album, so that the reviews would be spaced apart over time--that type of coordinated effort would indicate that there was some type of deliberate collective strategy going on. Nothing like that happened here. As I said, it may be best for a musician or producer to not post anything about their recordings on the board. Just by mentioning your album here, it may be seen as a conflict of interest, and negative discussions may develop. Perhaps there should be a rule on this board which prohibits anyone from posting anything about a recording which they were personally involved in.

No one banded together, that I know of. I read Chuck's first post, which did not ask for Amazon reviews. I went to Amazon, posted my honest impression of the album, and later in the day, when my work schedule permitted, went back and read all of the reviews. I did not contact Jim Sangrey or any other members here to "band together." If an old friend emailed me, or if someone posted here, that Sun Ra's "Jazz in Silhouette" has only two Amazon reviews and that one is very negative, I would be over there in a moment to add a positive review, just because I would want to add my honest positive impression of the album. That's just a quirk of mine, and part of my love and great interest in jazz. I do not spend hours scouring Amazon for albums I can add my reviews to, but if I feel motivated to add a review, I do it. The fact that I have exchanged some thoughts with Chuck through this forum (I have never met him in person or spoken to him), makes it unethical when I add an Amazon review after learning from this forum that an album which he released, and which I love, has a similar low review count with a negative review? I do think it would be somewhat questionable if someone came onto the forum, described an album that had not been released yet, by an artist no one had ever heard, or heard of, and said that they were fervently soliciting favorable reviews at a particular website, even though the person knew that none of us had heard the music. I would find that to be more weird and obxnoxious, and incompetent marketing, than unethical, but I would not be interested in that. I am only going to state an honest opinion about an album that I really know, before I post anything on Amazon or any other review site. I think that part of my point of view comes from having to market my services in a tough market for years, and seeing all the ways that good, honest people struggle mightily to attract business to their quality product or services, and all of the marketing ideas they try. What happened here just does not strike me as that big a deal, in the continuum of marketing and promotion out in the private sector. I guess a lesson to be learned here is that if you are a musician or producer, communicate by private message to a small group of members about any of your recordings. If you post about them on the board, you invite the possibility of negative discussions.

You were doing it to me, and the others who posted positive opinions on Amazon. You raked us over the coals. I was thinking that one issue is whether the Amazon reviews are bound by journalistic ethics. I do not think so. They are not reviews by professional reviewers. The Amazon site and its opportunities to review, are not set up to be professionally regulated. Most of the reviews are clearly amateur enthusiasts babbling in pixels. I have never thought that they had much credibility--in fact, most of them have little or no credibility in their content. The motivations of most of the writers seem to be to argue for what they like, from whatever motivated them, not to adhere to the customs and practices of a trained reporter on a newspaper. Look up any well known album with a lot of reviews, and in reading the reviews, you will quickly lose any sense that there is a code which the reviewers are bound to. When I have posted Amazon reviews in the past, it has never occurred to me that there were any standards that I was bound to. None are posted on Amazon, that I am aware of. So why should our reviews of Warne Marsh be judged by what the New York Times would find acceptable? This thread reminds me of a thread on another music forum board, where a member asked about the procedure for finding and hiring an attorney. Within a few pages a raging debate had broken out about whether the originator of the thread had committed a crime and whether he was immoral in his actions, with much intense controversy over side points. It seems that nothing can be simple online. Everything turns into a controversy over ethics or various members' views on morality. It seems to be the nature of the medium.

I totally disagree with the posters who find this unethical. It is no different than a restaurant employee, a doctor, an accountant, a shop owner, asking someone they know to be a satisfied customer to "please mention us to your friends!" It happens all the time in business of all types, and if the customer is truly pleased with the services, they may in fact recommend the person to someone else. Or not--it is their choice, just as we had a choice here. Chuck is not our employer and has no other control or "pull" over us, unlike some of the examples cited. If I did not love the album in question, I would have read Chuck's post and ignored it. I often post my opinion of an album on Amazon, good or bad, especially when my opinion differs from some of those posted. I see no difference here, except that Chuck pointed it out to me--which to me is like a dermatologist setting up a practice giving me his card and asking me to have my friends call him if I am happy with his services. There is nothing wrong with marketing or promotion in business. Chuck is a small businessman. This is how small business operates in the United States. What happened here is by no means unethical, in my humble opinion. I find the comments of those who are calling it unethical to be rather smug and judgmental, I must say.

It strikes me that we may be overthinking this a little. Chuck Nessa reissues an album, bravely taking a risk with not unlimited personal resources, and then it gets two customer ratings on Amazon, one of which is very low and seems to be written by a rather ill informed person. That one low rating may kill the chances of it getting any Amazon sales, which seems unfair, and the real world impact on Mr. Nessa would be significant. So a few of us posted our honestly felt, high ratings, so that the consumer quickly and casually browsing the jazz section of Amazon, or the Warne Marsh listings in particular, might give this album a chance. Such a person is very unlikely to get caught up in many details other than the overall star rating. What more is there to think about? When I posted my five star review, I knew that I wasn't solving a mystery of quantum physics or striking a great blow for social justice. I wanted to help Chuck, and I am glad if I did.

I'm thinking about how good I can think with this bucket on my head.

Chuck's first post reminded me to post my true opinion of the album. I don't feel any moral qualms over that. Now if someone contacted me and said that I should get involved in an internet campaign to improve the online status of some new teen pop star I have never heard, and I did it just to rig some result, with no knowledge of the singer or the music, that would be questionable to me. To me, this is an important distinction.

...seems pretty damning to me (with or without the IMHO). If it's that bad it should be possible to say clearly why. Otherwise 'Perahia doesn't really move or engage me' gets the same point across. I know neither Perahia's version or Gould's; I'm making a more general point about the way we amateurs discuss music, largely aping the approach we've picked up from more combative critics. Some of them have the technical insight (and have devoted some intensive study into the music they are reviewing) to at least partially excuse their disdain. I'm not convinced most armchair critics do. Good points. I like Angela Hewitt's recordings of Bach very much, by the way. To get back to the earlier discussion, I simply like Murray Perahia's "Goldberg Variations" much more than Gould's. I must confess that I seem to have a blind spot for Gould. He is a critic's darling, and many listeners praise him highly. I have many of his CDs, and have listened repeatedly to them, and I just do not get why people are so intensely enthusiastic about him. Your points are well taken. I lack the musical background to state what it is about Gould's interpretations that do not particularly move me. All I can really say is that I don't like his work all that much. I get tired when I hear once again that Gould is so great, and any other pianist pales by comparison. If Gould speaks to a listener, that is just as valid as my preference for Perahia. As Perahis's recording of "Goldberg Variations" has been ridiculed in this thread, I would point out that it has received much favorable critical acclaim, from critics with much more musical background and understanding than me.

Have you heard Gould's versions of Goldberg's? Perrahia's recordings was my first exposure to Goldberg's, and I liked them, but once I heard Gould '55 (and subsequently, any other "major" version of Goldberg's), I grew to regard Perrahia as a pretty but shallow salon version, Goldber's-lite, if you will (IMHO, of course). I respectfully disagree. Gould's version does little for me, and I find Perahia's to be much more full of substance and depth. To each their own.

Have you heard "Silent Tongues"? It has been my experience that it is the one Cecil Taylor album that many people find immediately accessible.

Mark, As you have studied and written on the subject of orchestras and their finances, I wonder if you have come across information on the age of those who buy tickets and/or subscriptions to the orchestra concerts. I wonder if the audience is largely over 60 years old and dwindling as the age group dies off or becomes disabled with age. Whenever we have gone to classical concerts in Kansas City, we have been struck by the advanced age of most of the audience members. I wonder if that is a common situation in other cities.

My wife and I love Bach and we have a great many albums. My favorite is Murray Perahia's recording of the Goldberg Variations. I find a emotional content in his version which I do not find in even other famous pianist's recordings. We have many different recordings of the Brandenburg Concertos, and my favorite by far is the version by the English Chamber Orchestra conducted by Phillip Ledger. This would come in 2 CDs. I will show the cover artwork for one of the CDs. The other CD has similar artwork. These 3 CDs are among my favorite music, by anyone, in any genre.

Good idea, as the Detroit metro area has about 5 million people, and many square miles of upper middle class to upper class suburbs.

Happy Birthday

#12 is Ry Cooder's version of Blind Blake's "Diddy Wah Diddy", from his 1974 "Paradise and Lunch" album. Ry Cooder plays guitar and sings. Earl Hines is the pianist.

Very interesting to read this Reveal. I thought that #7 sounded "Glenn Miller-like" but couldn't actually be Miller himself. Once again I am kicking myself because I have the Fess Williams CD for #2 but did not recognize it. Much new stuff for me to check out. The Chick Webb is a must get. Thanks for a most enjoyable listen all month in the car! I will be keeping this one handy for future playing in the car as well.

Hey, are American Old Codgers excluded? Is it UK only, like one of those exclusive rich men's clubs you see in movies about England? If so, we American Old Codgers will have to press our noses against the glass and wistfully try to gaze inside, wondering what tremendous fun must be going on in there.

I can't remember--did I, or anyone else, mention that you might like "Cosmos"?