Big Beat Steve

Carl Perkins and Carl Perkins. I know I never did, but I remember one or two (who were familiar with the guitar-playing Carl only) who were really baffled to "find out" he "also played piano" and recorded on a DOO-WOP R&B label.

What Dave says ... Buyers who say they would be willing to pay only so much for shipping IMHO are just full of you know what ... Allowing the seller to recover his FULL shipping expenses would only be fair, but NOT more than that, except maybe a $ or so for extra packaging, padding or whatever. Some sellers really go overboard in what they would charge for "handling" (hey, funny ... I guess nobody would mind receiving their LPs in used SECONDHAND record mailers if this helps reining in shipping costs, and proudly boasting some blurb like "all LPs will be shipped in a BRAND NEW mailer" ... hey, big deal ... especialy if this means shelling out separately). And as long as some sellers are not even afraid of shipping their records in secondhand 12in PIZZA BOXES (!!! happened to me more than once with sellers from the U.S.) there are a lot out there who would need to clean up their act too. Not to mention those who charge airmail but ship sea freight, those who go wildly overboard in stating shipping prices beyond all reasonable limits and are NOT EVEN WILLING to listening to pleas from buyers (who tend to gain much experience with what shipping rates would be best) to go for the most economical (and tried and tested) airmail rates. Beats me every time, for example (when buying printed matter), how often I have to tell U.S (NOT "domestic only") sellers that they DO have something like Global Priority Flat Rate envelopes which are FAR more cost-efficient than any airmail or weight-sensitive rates. Under what pebble have these fellers all been living all these years, I wonder???

I have the one with the "expanded globe" cover as a 10" U.S. pressing (Capitol H 460) that ONLY has "This modern World" on it.

Like I said, Sidewinder, that system has its incongruencies. Or could you imagine a system where a situation could very well arise where you could be obliged to pay into it but will definitely NOT get anything out of it because you don't qualify? But again, that could easily occupy a topic of its own. And I hope it will work out far more straightforward to Mike.

Such a thing would be regarded as the downfall of civilization in the United States. The situation isn't quite as clear-cut as Mike describes it and there are a HUGE amount of snags and injustices (not necessarily concerning musicians but other professions lumped in under "artists") in that system but that's an entirely different story.

By ALL, ALL,ALL means!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Somehow I can't find that all that funny ...

Also check out the recordings made for the MOLE JAZZ (yes, of the record shop fame) label. It also seems that some recordings released on Doug Dobell's "77 Records" label at least were made "in cooperation with Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club". No doubt an internet search will yield many trails. Good luck!

Just in case it is of further comfort to you ... earlier today I placed it on my Saved Items list through my national Amazon site. Though recordings from that period are a bit outside my key area of interest I got sort of curious ... All the fuss and a possibly overdone bass man notwithstanding ...

Sorry to disagree again, but that would be carying things far too far in my humble opinion. What's wrong with making like-minded music lovers and/or collectors aware of items that have been released/reissued? Especially in a minority niche market like this. All the readers and forumists are mature people (aren't they? ) to decide for themselves if they want to follow it up or check it out. And even if there was such a rule it would be oh so easy to bypass it by having such items mentioned by third party "straw people". I still feel the gist of this thread is that however noble the intentions were, the way it all hnas been handled (or rather the way it has evolved) it has been overdone and therefore took on an outward appearance where the risk that it looks somewhat dubious has risen disproportionately. Now what good would that do? But that's been said often enough so let's leave it at that ...

I for one did not use the term "unethical", I just find it unreasonable to handle this thing the way it has been handled and then enthuse about the outcome the way it has been done here through a LOT of earlier posts. Which is why I had my concerns about it all backfiring too. Like I said earlier, it would have been VERY wise to spread out the "remedying" reviews over a much longer time span - and cut out that "helpful" nonsense which in the way the ratings have been heaped up the way it happened makes it all look less than credible. Or can you show me any other reviews (of a real niche item) that are just one or 2 days old at best ANYWHERE on Amazon that have already amassed 10 or more "helpful" ratings within these 1 or 2 days? Amazon just don't work that way ... Sorry to be quite blunt but if there are those who claim that one is being "cheap" if one has reservations about this whole APPROACH then all one can say in return is that the way this review and rating affair has been handled COLLECTIVELY really is nothing but childish. Sorry for the well-intentioned individual contributions but the overall picture is just that IMHO ...

I guess nobody would have mentioned this "how come nobody wrote a review earlier" if it hadn't been for this reciprocal shoulder patting and "hey, we're going to rub this really in" attitude that had sprung up here in no time at all - THAT'S where the clucking started and that's what just MIGHT be considered just as cheap, you know. But again you missed the point IMHO: Nobody would have been required EVER to "hover" over that Amazon review section for years and years just to see if any sort of RE-action had been called for. NO - the point is: What was it that PREVENTED others (who bought that disc and were utterly pleased) from just writing a genuinely positive review at the time they bought it to let people know that this is something that they might want to give a try too? After all THIS is what the review section is for in its essence. Not for attempts at "making up". And such reviews would have helped the product during the entire time span, not only at this (late) date, especially since any poor review (such as the one that triggered this) would have had far less of an impact if it had been up against 4 or 5 glowing reviews right from the START. So much for what friends really can do to help a deserving cause ... Yet even these attempts at "making up" would have been understandable, but going overboard like it happened with everybody pushing and shoving at getting their say in there both in the reviews and this "helpful" nonsense really - now really ... is the risk of backfiring (again, that cumulation of identical review dates looks exceedingly strange) really worth THAT?

Didn't you get me or did you deliberately go out of your way to AVOID understanding me? Friends do not need to WAIT to have to band together. They will act on their very own in favor of somebody else because they feel the desire to do so no matter what everybody else does. They are just as likely to be there to show their support IN GOOD TIME and do not wait until after the (alleged) damage has been done. Now how's the score here? That clearer now?

Real friends don't need to band together but they show their support on their VERY own and through their own impetus as early as possible after having obtained the object that they feel could do with a helping (reviewer's, in this case) hand. Not exactly unethical either, you know ... (No, I am not going to name examples again but some day maybe the difference between banding together in a latter-day attempt on the one hand and acting on one's own as a person capable of such individual action on the other will become apparent ;) Like I said, that helping hand would and could have helped during the past few YEARS ... Opportunity missed? Maybe, but don't blame it on those who pointed it out ... )

Of course I respect your point of view too. After having had a much closer look at that review section I just felt that all parties concerned were walking a very thin line of overdoing things, right up to the point of the whole affair backfiring. Each review on its own may be genuine but the overall impressions when all the details (incuding posting dates etc.) are taken together just give a picture that might very well run contrary to the original intentions. And what good would that do?

PM sent on some other option on how to go about this.

Funny how this thread has evolved. I wouldn't be quite as harsh as seeline and neveronfriday but essentially I tend to be in their camp too. So maybe those who NOW (of all moments) wrote such glowing reviews in one single, straight row would like to comment on THIS point raised by neveronfriday (and rightly so) - and by others (including me) before? How about it, gents, how come you hadn't thought of giving that release and its producer a push in good time? Might have helped sales ever since the first review appeared several years ago on Amazon (maybe more so than it does now when most of the fans have been served). Lots of time to act ... You know what? If you want to help an endeavour that you consider deserving of every plug it can get, then do like it has been done here: I would not want to make my own post a role model for cases like this but the urge to give this a push literally the minute I got my copy was there. Quite honestly ... Doing that several years later would be a bit ...what? ... yeah, half-lame ... BTW, that book above being self-published and therefore NOT being on Amazon does us tell what? That there may be cutthroat resellers discounts at work for those items to be sold directly by Amazon? Makes it all the more deserving of a plug ... (Which reminds me of another post I gotta make on a related topic ) P.S: @ Mr Nessa, lots of luck with selling as many of your productions as you can. No doubt they will be able to stand on their own merits to those who are into that music and do not really need something like "swarm ratings".

This "axe to grind" thing had me wondering in the opening post, and now again. What do you mean by that exactly? Do you really infer that there are that many people out there who have an "axe to grind" (or a bone to pick or whatever) with a specific label, producer, artist or whoever? What for? On that Amazon platform of all places? And totally unrelated to something that really bugs them about a published work by their OWN (SUBJECTIVE) standards? I hardly ever bother to even think about writing an Amazon review (though that automatic mail comes in every time I buy a book or disc there), and yet ... I remember once I wrote one (relating to one of those "record guides") where I specifically faulted the author for getting himself far, far out on a limb by making assumptions about the non-availability of the recorded works of certain artists, and all this only because this (U.S.) author evidently was glaringly unaware of the existence of widely and internationally distributed reissues on (non-U.S.) collector labels. Something that can mar the overall trustworthiness of the recommendations in such a book. Did I grind an axe there because I stressed the weaknesses? I don't think so. Or how about that case when I complained about the abysmally poor photo printing quality in a music book (that did rely on these photos for its overall message) and left a lukewarm review and relatively low rating? And this for a book for a niche target audience on a niche subject by a niche publisher? Did this mean I had an axe to grind because I would rather have been obliged to leave a glowing review in view of the fact that it was such a niche item? I don't think so either. So ... ???

(Referring to the bold print in your statement:) Indeed, though not new. The after-sales service bulletin stationery of my favorite classic car marque, for example, way back in the 50s read: "A satisfied customer brings 4 more. A dissatisfied customer takes away 10 more." Or like a proverb over here says: "Positive things require proof. Negative things are believed sight unseen." Human nature, I guess too. Which would seem to underline all the more the necessity to counterbalance this by truly felt positive reviews. Agreed 100% - but for the sake of those affected and to avoid it backfiring, PLEASE do it in a SENSIBLE manner. Going overboard in a rush all on the same day, artificially exploding "helpful" markings in a - to outsiders looking on - most unlikely way, etc., is NOT sensible in my book. BTW, and FWIW, where have those honestly felt "full-mark" reviews been all those years BEFORE that dissatisfied review came up? They could have helped all along after all. BTW, if I read those amazon reviews at all, I tend to read those 1 and 2-star reviews atentively too. Mostly to get another impression of the wide variety of human nature, and so far these reviews have hardly ever prevented me from buying any item I had REALLY set my sights on. After all one man's meat is another man's poison.

You do realize that this sort of commentary discredits the entire - basically laudable - efforts of pushing up the review rating? Calling somebody nuts just because you disagree? You do realize a lot of these listening impressions are a matter of PERSONAL TASTE (which is why "ill-informed" misses the point just as much) and don't deserve to be seen as ANYTHING but that? Even by those who read the reviews? And why would anybody go to the pains of posting a review on Amazon for something he didn't even buy there?

FWIW, and while I do not agree with Hans in essence, I'd like to remind all of you (who chimned in to "push up things") about this for comparison: What does a NON-100% positive rating of eBay sellers say? Negative feedback where a reason for the poor rating is given will always stand out like a sore thumb and will attract more attention than SEVERAL positive reviews. Especially since many positive feedback replies are really run of the mill stuff where people enthusiastically drool about the fact that they got their item at all. No doubt I am not the only one who pays particular attention to whatever negative has been said in places like that. And the same IMHO essentially holds true for ratings on sites such as Amazon (if one looks there AT ALL, that is...). So I can only hope that what ALL of those said who chimed in on the very same day today (what coincidence...) will come across as a really detailed and argumentatively sound evaluation to everybody else out there. This IMHO would be the ONLY way of passably offsetting that negative review. But after having had an even more detailed look at this review section I must say that if I were one of those keenly interested in buying the record but intent on reading those reviews I'd find it EXCEEDINGLY hard NOT to notice the coincidence both of the dates immediately following the 2-star review and of the high "helpful" ratings of all those "subsequent" ratings. Not something THAT common in these Amazon reviews overall, especially since the SOLE previous review is about 5 or 6 years old ... You all would have been really, REALLY well advised to spread out your positive reviews over 1 to 2 weeks as the very minimum! So I have to agree with David Ayers in that this MIGHT backfire if somebody feels it reeks of a concerted action. Otherwise, I'm all with King Ubu. Many, many platter reviews on Amazon are strictly for the birds anyway. What good would it do to me to read (as it happened the other day) a glowing review about a 4-CD box set compilation that has clearly been written by a total beginner who enthuses about the most elementary stuff that is there but fails to note the finer points of why that compilation would be of interest even to seasoned collectors? And the same goes for negative reviews by those who feel that certain tracks are inappropriate on that set - but only so because they have no idea of what that segment of music actually encompasses. Best left to the "Skip" button, most of that ...

May I throw a comment into the ring from another angle? I haven't heard the record so can't and won't comment on whether there is anything to that 2-star "rating" in its entirety - BUT: What struck me in that criticism is how the reviewer complained about the bass being too prominent. Sorry to state this but I have had similar feelings about several "latter-day" (i.e. 70s) recordings by 50s jazz greats that I have purchased through the years, e.g. Tal Farlow, Al Haig, some Basie Pablo session. In each and every case the very prominently featured, oddly resonating amplified "plunkety-plunk, thumpety-thump" lines of the droning, throbbing, plunking bass (electric or overly amplified doghouse?) really marred the otherwise fine recordings for me. Just overdone and too much up front in the mix. Sign of the times, question of what was en vogue ...? Couldn't it JUST be that "too much presence of the bass" was at the core of the gripe of the reviewer here from HIS (subjective) point of view too? A highly subjective matter of taste for sure but maybe something that just MIGHT warrant mentioning? (Though I agree this would not warrant downgrading to 2-point) So do I like Ray Brown's unobtrusive yet felt bass presence? Yes. So do I understand Jimmy Giuffre even better when he - in response to a question of the "Where is the beat/rhythm?" sort - replied "It is understood"? Definitely yes! Just my 2c

Sadly, it seems like we are a bit late with all this: After having signed teh petition and mailed ti out via the site, I received the following mail from one of the German MP's of the EP: However, I cannot support your request. The issue currently discussed in the European Parliament, notably in the legal affairs committee, does not touch upon the copyright extension from 50 to 70 years but is rather a necessary technical adaptation. The European Parliament adopted its position on the term of protection of copyright and related rights already on 23 April 2009 by a large majority of MEPs being in favour of the extension. In view of the transition to the 7th legislative term, the plenary agreed in September 2009 to resume the work on the text adopted in first reading by the Parliament and is still awaiting a Common Position in the Council. Therefore, from a legal point of view it will not be possible to re-open the discussion on a file already reaffirmed by the Parliament after the elections. The request Mr Engström is not supported by the FDP in the European Parliament. I therefore trust your understanding that I will not sign this request. Looks like the "powers" in the Council are the ones to turn to at this point.

Done, Marcel. Thanks for making us aware of this intiative. I will forward this "call for action" to my collecting friends (most of them in the rockabilly, R&B and country music field where there are LOTS of "abandoned" or "orphan" recordings that would definitely NOT benefit from any such extended copyright "protection" initiated by the bigwigs). Hope they will all act really fast too.