Big Wheel

Obviously it doesn't only hurt the seller; this kind of information is very useful to less-savvy buyers. I agree that there is a line in there somewhere where good taste is crossed, though.

Not a BN date. The Jones/Lewis big band records were made for Solid State. That one appears to have been issued on Blue Note, not Solid State, after Solid State was closed down by UA. Reissues from UA labels are segregated from the BN own sessions in the discography. Same applied to Jimmy McGriff's "Black pearl". MG If we're going to get that arbitrary about it we might as well just throw in all the Pacific Jazz/Roulette/Jubilee sessions in there that were reissued by EMI in the 1990s (and thus count Frank Wess). Consummation was produced by Sonny Lester, not Alfred Lion or Frank Wolff. It was given a Solid State catalogue number and Mosaic put it out on the The Complete Solid State Recordings of the Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra. Saying that Kamuca "recorded for BN" because of the way Solid State's ownership was transferred is a stretch.

Not a BN date. The Jones/Lewis big band records were made for Solid State.

Gene Ammons?

Benny Golson?

Thanks, BW. This message really didn't seem to originate from an individual, based on the address. Also, another thing I didn't mention is that they addressed me as "Jim" in the body of the message. Not sure I can make sense of that, if they only harvested my e-mail address from other members. If it happens again, I'll be more careful about saving more details. So, I got one of these myself for the first time just now. My best guess is that the person who is sending these things through Facebook is either just sending out a huge number of requests through lots of bogus profiles and is randomly guessing emails, or is nabbing them from people's compromised email accounts. They could be vacuuming up email addresses off the Web too, but my email address isn't too many places on the Web (doesn't appear to be indexed by Google) so that seems a little less likely. This email definitely confirms what I was told: Facebook's system is putting together that "other people you may know on Facebook" gallery in the email from the address books of people who have your email address. Jim Alfredson was in that gallery of the email I got, but Jim isn't connected to me on Facebook and the email address of mine that Jim (and the spammer) have isn't even the same email address associated with my existing Facebook account. So the only way Facebook could have connected me to the people in the gallery was through all of their address books. BTW, I noticed that the bottom of these emails carries the following message:

News flash: Every large website tries to do the same thing - and so does every traditional media outlet; why do you think people have trouble going without their TVs? The whole endeavor of making money on the Web falls apart without lots and lots of pageviews, so boosting "stickiness" (read: addictiveness) is always a primary concern regardless of whether you're Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo Fantasy Leagues, etc. Facebook has just gotten better at it than most (partly because their UI design and infrastructure are better, partly because the very nature of their product is highly conducive to it).

This appears to be very common in the restaurant business. Maybe less prevalent among top-end places, but still definitely not unheard of: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/319864

Right. My personal feeling on bullfighting is that glorifying the killing of animals is at best pretty morally problematic. But I find it pretty hard to swallow when people proclaim their outrage about bullfighting one minute and tuck into their veal parmigiana the next. The bull in the ring leads a charmed existence for all but the last 30 minutes of its life, whereas your average calf raised for veal has a life that's entirely miserable. Having seen giant feedlots, I don't think it's all that much better to be a steer that's destined to be someone's porterhouse.

Why, how utterly barbaric of them! More seriously, who in this thread is defending bullfighting? All I'm saying is that if you're going to attack it, you should probably at least not display a basic misunderstanding of what you're attacking.

I didn't say it was theater, I said it was closer to theater than a sport. When you watch a soccer match or baseball game or swim meet, the ultimate outcome is totally unpredictable. Anyone has a "fighting chance" to win the game. Hence bookies make tons of money on these things. No bullfight aficionado thinks the bull has a "fighting chance" against the torero any more than you'd think that Tybalt has a "fighting chance" against Romeo. But that's not why you go see Romeo and Juliet, of course - you go because you want to see actors put on an excellent performance that evokes the pain of the star-crossed lovers and their families. That is why bullfighting is closer to theater than a sport - yes, the whole thing is framed around a "contest," and a dangerous one at that, but that isn't the fundamental thing that draws people to it.

Unless you see both as nothing more than humans torturing animals. Obviously, if you see both that way that is going to be how you see it. Point is, the Spaniards don't see it that way, and they are the ones doing the bullfighting. Whatever our opinions on bullfighting I think we can all agree that a large chunk of the Spanish population isn't into bullfighting simply because they're a bunch of sadistic monsters.

And in a bunch of Latin America as well: http://blog.therealcostarica.com/2006/01/06/festivals-bullfighting-and-stuff/ I am not going to try and mount a moral defense of bullfighting, but it's a misconception to think of it as a sport or a contest which either side can "win". In Spain it's seen as closer to watching great theater a la Shakespeare- man and bull are actors in a tragic drama whose outcome is preordained, and it's the quality of their performances that matter, not who "wins." So comparisons to dogfighting are kind of inexact, too.

And I'm sure that's exactly how Sony likes it. I now have the freedom to choose - between shelling out $40 for an import of Flood, or $200+ for the pleasure of buying all Herbie's '80s crapola.

Most of the mp3 albums I've seen on BS/SN are much cheaper than $9.90. My thinking is that the mp3 route is preferable for these titles.

Resurrecting this one because I heard a guy yelling for about 10 minutes on the bus today to a female companion (who also looked like she'd seen better days) and some of it was pure gold. (Why do all my best stories about drunks involve public transit?) Most of the rant was about how he can tell a lot about a person's character from their shoes. So a couple of the choicest quotes were: "Jesus didn't even wear SHOES. He wore sandals. But he was JESUS." "I can tell so much about a person from what kind of shoes they have. For instance, if you wear jogging shoes...that tells me you're a jogger." At one point he also started singing the theme from "Secret Agent Man" at full volume in response to a fellow passenger who he apparently thought looked like a secret agent.

Please. You asked a clearly loaded question and now you're calling me bigoted without the slightest bit of evidence. What - actually knowing what the fuck I'm talking about now counts as bigotry? Why do I suspect that one of the reasons musicians liked working with you was that you knew that it wasn't your place as a writer or producer to attempt to meddle in things you barely understood, like which upper extensions they should be playing on that F7 chord in bar 9? That same attitude would better serve you on threads like this.

Where have I defended them besides the one post in which I speculated that the Palestine thing was probably a coding error? For someone who's 79 years old, sometimes you need to grow the fuck up, man. I worked in customer support at a major tech company (not Facebook) for years. When I was there, I saw how frequently users who had only half-learned how our product worked and were misusing it immediately jumped to thinking it was behaving in all kinds of ways that...it wasn't. Usually ways that involved us being malevolent. Because they knew deep down that they didn't have the foggiest idea of how our product did what it did, that made them feel very insecure, unlikely to trust us, and likely to lash out whenever something happened with it that they didn't expect. Sometimes that was our fault for not doing a better job of explaining it. Sometimes that was their fault for being pains in the ass who had no interest in learning about what they were using. Point being, they needed someone to EXPLAIN IT TO THEM to be able to even make an informed decision about what they were doing. This thread alone has a lot of good information in it, and a lot of people who are still confused about the details of how Facebook's product actually works. I'm posting because I think maybe people would benefit from having some of it explained to them.

Who knows where the bot got your first name? If one of your contacts ever had their email account hacked or turned over their contact list to someone they didn't intend, there you go. Or a spammer could have already had it (or guessed it if your email address already contained "jim" in it). Sounds like the email Facebook is sending out does basically the same thing as the webpage I assumed you might be taken to - Facebook's system takes your email and name from whoever supplied it in their form, says "oh, we have this guy's email already - all these members know him", and personalizes the email you see so it contains a bunch of people Facebook already knows you know. But the bot or malicious person or whoever triggered the email has no knowledge of exactly how Facebook's system is going to make it look when it hits your inbox.

Thanks, BW. This message really didn't seem to originate from an individual, based on the address. Also, another thing I didn't mention is that they addressed me as "Jim" in the body of the message. Not sure I can make sense of that, if they only harvested my e-mail address from other members. If it happens again, I'll be more careful about saving more details. The distinction here is that the email you received is user-triggered. The bot or whoever it was likely put your email address AND name in the form that sends the email, which is why the email was addressed to "Jim". Whereas the landing page that you were brought to with all the people you know is not user-triggered - Facebook is building that page on its own from data that it has about your email address, without any immediate input from a user. It should be easy enough to confirm this with more details next time.

Yes. I would have to see more details of your specific case to hazard a good guess at what happened with the person you didn't know, but it's definitely likely that Facebook is storing non-members' email addresses somewhere, the same way they do with people they identify as Facebook members. If you appear in 8 Facebook members' address books, when clicking a link from your email to a "join Facebook" page, the system is probably going to point out to you that joining will allow you to connect with those 8 people.

One of the commenters on the Youtube clip says this was a regular act Red and Benny used to do. I guess it makes sense that you don't see more mention of this particular "meltdown," then.

It looks like Norvo was pissed that the band came in with backgrounds behind him (or maybe that the backgrounds were too loud and he wanted another chorus?). Though from what I've heard about the Goodman bands there was probably always something simmering under the surface waiting to boil.

Wait, wha?? Are we talking about the Larry Young record or something else?