Big Wheel

Hey, come on, that's not fair; they're only doing their job, they didn't make the rules. Funny, that was also the excuse given by most of the....never mind.

Amazon has this as a lightning deal until 6 PT. $79.99. Weird that the Amazon page no longer says "discontinued by the manufacturer"...

This was actually deleted in a previous round (December 2008).

I don't think the single CDs have significant reverb. They are 24-bit McMaster jobs though so they are likely not the same as what's on the Mosaic. Edit: this old thread appears to confirm that the reverb is gone from the most recent issues. They are a nominal investment if you are curious, though it looks like Central Park North is starting to get harder to find on Amazon. Pretty sure Monday Night hasn't come out in the US at least. Not certain of the debut but don't think it has.

Well, the initial sale of UA/Liberty to EMI in 1979 was about $9 million in today's dollars. Of course, they were buying a company that had debts of about $93 million in today's dollars...

No. The email is sent by Facebook's system, not the random person who initiated it. They don't have any way of telling that you opened this email any more than you can tell that your aunt opened the email when you use a newspaper's "share this article with a friend" button to email her an article. They also have no control over how that link is built, just as you have no control over how the link is built in the newspaper article you emailed to your aunt.

It doesn't even have to be confrontational. What's wrong with asking in good faith, "Hey, can you elaborate on the value you offer to buyers beyond your prices? I saw X at J&R for $8.99, so I'm trying to make an informed decision about whether I should buy it from you at $18.99 instead." That's the kind of request for information that is not only well-intentioned, but is genuinely useful to all potential buyers (which is why it's better than doing everything via PM). It isn't all about price to me; in some cases I'm fine with paying higher prices if a seller can demonstrate to me other reasons I should buy from them instead of a major retailer.

Yeah, that's obnoxious. I remember wincing at a few threads like that from time to time. But you know what? I think tolerating a little of that is an acceptable price to pay for having more open discussions on the subject of sales. How about the converse case - someone who shows up asking ripoff prices for easily found items in the hope of snaring a few newbies who are enthusiastic about the music but aren't aware of the basic resources we use to gauge the market for it? I mean, we tolerate people who are in effect saying "I don't have any interest in your silly music discussions; my only interest in your community is that I can get free advertising here so you buy my shit." I don't have any beef with that attitude, personally. But are we really that concerned about bending over backward so as not to offend those people? Something tells me that if they have zero interest in getting to know us before selling us stuff, their sensibilities aren't all that delicate. Or how about what BM did? He didn't call the poster greedy. He just expressed a desire to see lower reserve prices. Now, maybe BM's gauge of the market is wrong and there really are plenty of buyers at that price level, but if he's right then now the seller knows what level he should think about lowering his reserve to if he wants BM's business. I hardly see how communicating your qualified intent to buy someone's stuff counts as gauche. More information in the marketplace = more efficient selling = better for everybody. Just be polite about it.

And that's fine. I have no problem with people coming here to do that. The problem is with the expectation that the board then becomes protected space for them to post their auctions without any meaningful discussion, criticism, etc. by potential buyers. That's crap. If you want that, set up some affiliate links, post them to threads that are automatically locked to other posts, and use the links to give Jim a healthy kickback on the sales you make in exchange for allowing you completely unfettered advertising.

Given those circumstances (auction, relatively new poster doing the auctioning*, and the fact that you were communicating your intent to possibly buy if the reserves were lower) deleting your post seems like really the wrong call. *In fact, a search for that member's posts suggests that their only participation on the boards is to hawk their ebay auctions. So it's OK for sellers to use this discussion board as their personal advertising for their ebay account, but it's not OK to discuss the aspects of their auctions?

Wait, this was just a link to an auction? If that's the case, deleting your post is bullshit. You aren't just helping other buyers, you're giving useful information to the seller that could help him sell his stuff faster.

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.