Christiern

I don't associate any particular smell with Mercury records, but I have always liked the smell of acetate discs--even my 50 year old acetates have retained a prepossessing fragrance. Then, of course, there is Victor 22493, which was better than Woolworth's Evening in Paris, and should have been bottled.

You have been at the typewriter all evening and into the early morning hours. You are ready to collapse into bed, but you decide to have a snack first, so you grab a blueberry yogurt and a spoon, and dig in. You are half-way to the bottom of the cup when you bite down on something crunchy. It's a thin piece of glass. You turn on the light and check what's left of the yogurt--the bottom looks as if someone had crushed a light bulb into it. You know that you swallowed some of that glass, so you hope to pick it out of your gut by drinking a lot of water and eating a loaf of awful Wonderbread. The following day. you write a letter to Colombo Yogurt, recounting your experience, and include the largest piece of glass. Well, you think--not feeling worse for wear, they will probably ship me a case of their yogurt. NOT! But I did get the following letter in which the owner acknowledges the legitimacy of my complaint. Friends told me to sue and that the letter would assure me a victory. I wasn't raised to sue, so I didn't. I just came across the 35 year old letter and thought I'd ask my O friends: what would you have done?

You're still 4098 short of 10,000! Get cracking....

For a rotten BBS, infiltrated by egomaniacs who spit on leitmotivs and rudely, routinely beat a side-path, I would say that this is a great place to be, a great place to learn, and for the non-myopic jazz lover, a pixel pulpit beyond compare. Thank you Jim, O Guys, and fellow habitués!

Is my memory playing tricks on me or was there a horny Havana glee club known as the Insertionistas?

I had no idea that you were a Shiite!

The Green Frog nails it. This is the place. More later.

:tup Clem. Oh, that again.

Having written for several publications over the years, I am happy to say that none made advertising a condition for reviews. When Dan Morgenstern was the Editor of Down Beat, I wrote a concert review in which I complained that the band was miked for the recording and not for the Carnegie Hall audience. I thought it showed a warped sense of priorities when an audience had to shell out additional money for an album in order to hear what went on in their presence. This produced a very long and nasty letter to the Down Beat from Bob Thiele (whose concert/recording event this was). He threatened to withdraw all advertising from the magazine. Dan did the right thing, he told Bob that no advertiser was going to make editorial decisions at DB. Thiele was not heard from again, and continued to advertise. I spent 28 years writing for Stereo Review and the magazine did not carry ads for records. After many years, I found that a music editor was allowing his judgement to be made by the way record companies treated him. I doubt if they actually gave him money, but some labels went out of their way to buy expensive lunches, drinks, etc--in other words, to establish a personal relationship. One such company was Columbia. The label's PR people were very happy when I was giving Wynton favorable reviews, but there came a time when I noted that he was not living up to expectations, so I noted that. I don't know whether it was somebody at the label or simply the music editor not wanting to displease the label, but I began to notice that my unfavorable reviews did not get published. There had been pressure from Columbia a few ears earlier,before I came to the magazine: Gene Lees wrote an amusing fable about a fine French restaurant and described how its menu gradually changed until it ended up as a hamburger joint. It was clear to anyone with a modicum of perception that this was a satirical take on Columbia Records. Gene was fired. Finally, I should add that industry trade publications like Cash Box and Billboard have--as far back as I can remember--based their music charts on the amount of revenue generated by the label's advertising. One editor--who shall remain nameless--was also a sporadic record producer. He always made his own records pick of the week. I think everyone knew this, but it was rarely talked about. Getting back to JazzTimes, I think the following paragraph from the Sonicbids site is outrageous. Preference ought to be given to meritorious performance, whether the artist has or has not established a name. To put name recognition before performance or musical quality is not only unfair, it is preposterous. It reveals how warped priorities really have become. Preference is given to core or established jazz artists. The appearance of these core artists (someone like Jack DeJohnette, Christian McBride or Kenny Barron) on a CD by a relatively unknown artist can be helpful in pushing a CD above the hundreds of other releases from local jazz groups. It is preferred that the group or artist has performed and gotten airplay in areas other than its home city or region. Note: The bolding in above quote is mine.

Haven't the foggiest, MG. Looked around the site to see if it is explained, but found nothing. Given the music involved, it could well be named after Holly. I can relate to a fascination for odd names...one of my favorites being Dudley Fosdick, another musician of that era.

If, as I do, you get a kick out of occasionally gathering around the Victrola for an earful of really old pop--1920s or 30s--you'll love Radio Dismuke. It's a great trip back in time--event beyond my time! Conrad, you just might stumble across the Boswell and Annette Hanshaw here. Here's the link: http://www.dismuke.org/Electric/August99.html

Why can't you just drop it? This entire bit of nonsense could have been avoided if you had simply voiced opposition to the off topic aspect of my post. Hey, it could have been avoided if you had shown even a slight sense of humor. Don't kid yourself into thinking that my feelings can be hurt by someone who, quite literally, to me has never been more than a bunch of pixels arranged to spell out "couw." Apologies? For what--showing an ugly side of yourself? Pleeeeeze! Too late for that, anyway. You seem to relish this sort of thing. I don't, so--having wasted far too much time on it, I am off this thread. If you have further complaints, I suggest that you PM me, which is what you should have done in the first place.

Civility works!

Let me echo MG's thanks to you for posting this, Conrad. With all the negative talk about earmarks on the Hill, I do think there are times when they serve a useful rather than self-serving purpose. If money is donated for one thing it should not be accepted is that purpose is found unsuitable by the recipient. I used to run a non-profit radio station and there were times when we received sizable donations for specific programming, one foundation gave us $10,000 (it was a good sum in 1965) with a request that it be used for civil rights-oriented programs. I bought wireless microphones (very state-of-the-art, back then) and sent two guys to the South. The result was a a highly acclaimed series of programs. The foundation (it asked us not to identify it, and we didn't) was happy, the listeners were happy, and there are tapes in the Pacifica archives that still attract scholars. Had I found the earmark politically objectionable, and, say, decided to spend the money on children's programming, the result would also have been positive and commendable, but the foundation would have had every right to demand back its money. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Meet terms or don't accept them.

I don't think they needed to fire Santa, just stick a warning label on his belly and shift their marketing focus.

Amazing. Well, I recommend Ubu Couw and Dan get it all out in the course of this thread, so that civility can be restored. Apropos civility, Ubu, please go back and read the posts that sparked this infighting. You will find that the name-calling aimed at a fellow poster began with couw. Yes, "couw" is a handle with which I am familiar, but that's all I know about this poster--I guess I was never interested in much of what he has had to say, so I never looked up his profile when it was there. The fact is that there was no profile when I finally found a reason to check. As I have had to point out before, I have no problem with handles and I understand full well why some posters feel a need to hide behind them. It when they launch personal attacks from behind their handles that I find anonymity to be abused. I also don't buy the European speak-no-good-English-have-different-mentality excuse, which has been hinted at here. I came here from Europe myself and I did not undergo an Americanization treatment--I learned to adapt, but not at the sacrifice of what was already there. And as for the language and use of same, even when I landed here, in 1957, I did not have a problem expressing myself in English, even though I had to drop out of school at age 15. Oh, sorry, I must be on one of my dreadful, shameful ego trips. Mea culpa. I ask, once again, that this fabricated contrarian theme be laid to rest so that we may all properly enjoy O's rebirth. Those who deem this to be a "rotten" board populated by bitter old (and young) egotists can surely find a place that meets their requirements. I doubt, however, if they will find one that contains as many interesting, knowledgeable, and helpful posters, so my advice to them is that they engage in a bit of self-examination, shelve their animosities, and weigh the positive qualities of the Big O against what is out there.

Chris, you like to pull out the "I don't know who or what you are" card whenever someone who doesn't use their full name as their handle calls you on something. But have you considered the fact that anyone who hasn't been here for a long time wouldn't necessarily know who "Christiern" is? It is equally 'anonymous' as "couw" (which happens to be a shortening of John's surname and rather similar to your use of your given name). Really, Dan? Equally anonymous? I was going to leave this thread, but your bogus argument begs for a correction. Now does it sink in why I don't know couw's gender or anything else about him/her? Not that I care, this poster has his or her own reasons for disliking me, and anonymous hatred has never bothered me. If you are going to call people names, I think your chances of being taken seriously are greater if you identify yourself. I have nothing to hide, hence I post my name and even my picture. My handle here, Christiern, is my actual first name, which I used because Chris A was already taken (by me, as it turned out). Now, can we stop this childish idiocy, or are you going to continue going down (and I do mean down) the couw path?

I don't know what your problem is couw (nor why you hide your identity, sex, age, etc. hmmmm.), but itsems to me that you are not so much upset by an off-topic post (those are common and can, admittedly, be annoying) as it is with me, personally. I have no idea who or what you are and I'm sure we have never met, but your venal personal attack seems rather strained and definitely uncalled for. You obviously went to great length to find out what many years ago transpired between me and Peter Nero--was it worth it? Do you really believe that I was trying to settle an old score? Gimme a break, lighten up and rejoice in the fact that Organissimo has just witnessed an extraordinary display of loyalty. I don't think my Nero post put a damper on that, but I also don't think your overblown outrage is becoming. I am curious to find out how you figure that my post was ego driven, and I would really like to know what it is that gives you the impression that I am a bitter old man. Old? I'll grant you that 76 ain't no spring chicken, but bitter? Not in the least bit--in fact, I have much to be thankful for and bitterness was never in my nature. Now, much as I would like to hear your answers to the above, I would much prefer that you let this non-issue go and allow us all to get back to celebrating a memorable Organissimo happening.

Nero, the software, is a new one on me--we don't have it in the Mac world. Oh. well. at least we got to see that Mr. (Mrs.?) Cow-with-a-u has an unfortunate problem--no sense of humor Seriously, "bitter old Chris A" has to wonder just who the bitter one is and why name-calling was resorted to. If the anonymous poster really thinks there is something "rotten about this BB," I beg to differ and remind him/her (which is it?) of the wonderful thread that so splendidly proves him wrong. Let us hope this poster overcomes the problem that appears to surface in his post #9. That said, on to more pleasant things (Dan's question having been answered to his satisfaction), I sent in the pledged check this afternoon.

First, Conrad, let me post the trailer...

Yes, she's a beauty, Barak, and how time flies--it seems like only yesterday....

Brownie, you will definitely be missed. I understand your need to free up personal time, but I hope you will leave the door open for the occasional visit. As the various reactions make clear, we will certainly keep it ajar for you.

No, Chris, these were staff robots.

Bernie Nierow--yes. He hates me! I love that!

Dan, I thought you were talking about a prick who performs under the name of Peter Nero--I had problems with him (or he with me) several years back.