Big Beat Steve

Would those who listen to some Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman or Louis Armstrong All Stars qualify as being "a little into jazz" by your yardstick ? I used to know a couple of those among the older generation. Actually they did listen to those "name" bands relatively frequently but never ventured beyond that (even Woody Herman etc. was already off their radar).

When his version of "Mama Inez" came on from the "PA system" inside Mole Jazz during one of my shopping sprees there in the 90s I just had to find out what it was. Not wanting to invest into a CD at that time this set me off on a hunt for an (affordable) vinyl copy, but eventually I settled for a CD some time later and haven't regretted it. Jazz is all about fun and entertainment and as long as it swings - to heck with essential, as somebody else said above. (In many cases "essential" is a question of "one man's meat is another man's poison" anyway, or waaaay too much intellectual put-on in what one is "supposed" to listen to instead of just following one's very personal taste)

Why?? :D Actually I had fancied this series at some time in the past myself - the not exactly hi-fi sounds on "Bird Is Free" on the "Charlie Parker Records" label had been my introduction to "live Bird" in my VERY early collecting days at school so that would not have frightened me away - but never really followed it up because I figured I already had a fair cross-section of Bird snippets and except for diehard Bird cultists it would just have been tooo hard to tell which is which.

Sorry, Jazzmoose, but I am afraid you either didn't quite understand me or we seem to be talking different languages: If a seller charges outrageous shippping charges (or if is nebulous about giving shipping quotes beforehand) then you better not bid, sure ... But if he charges you priority/expedited/special delivery/airmail (or whatever) rates and then ships your items book rate/surface mail etc. then he - just plainly speaking - is a bum out to rip you off for some extra bucks to be made by overcharging on shipping. And this didn't happen THAT rarely if you kept an eye on it. And this deserves negative feedback. And if he promises loudly and clearly he will ship "at cost" and then you find out by looking at the envelope he spent way less on shipping than he charged you then this isn't that much better either. At least it's not what I'd consider a fair deal. No buyer likes seeing his 100% positive rating undermined for no good reason at all by some unscrupulous seller. This is not a matter of having separate accounts for selling and buying either. The way things used to be it was HIGHEST time this was abolished. And seeing how things used to be for a very long time at eBay such unscrupulous practices (or other unsavory feedback practices triggered by sellers) must have happened on a very, very large scale, or else eBay never would have bothered changing their rules in the way they did. After all they had turned a deaf ear on many buyers' complaints for quite some time. I agree that in recent times the site has degenerated more and more into listings by pro or semipro sellers unloading overstock stuff on the buyers who have to wade through dozens of identical Buy It Now new "clearout" items when in search for older/collectible items under the same keywords. It seems to be better among record/CD sellers (by the very nature of these items) but elsewhere ... ho hum ... Like you, I am glad I don't have to go there very often anymore.

ejp626, though I think I can see both sides (as I've said before) I disagree with your statement that the rules are skewed "too far in favor of buyers". It may look like this in Dan Gould's case (since apparently his view wasn't considered adequately) but again, I feel what is happening now overall is that that the pendulum that for VERY LONG has been swinging OUTRAGEOUSLY in favor of the sellers now just seems to swing back. Do you realize that the fact alone that the buyer ADVANCES the money before receiving the goods is something that leaves him more exposed to abuse by the seller than the other way round? How many sellers do you think would accept escrow, for example? And then there are those sellers who overcharge for shipping in the most abominable way possible, often not even stating alleged "handling fees" in their terms but leaving it to the buyer to find out upon receipt he shelled out quite a bit more than what the actual cost of shipping was. Charging priority, shipping economy, etc., and I don't even care to remember those instances where I received an item through surface mail that I had paid AIRMAIL for (which isn't just a matter of sizable differences of cost but also of exceedingly longer delivery times and potentially larger damage risks). But you try to enforce reimbursement of that across the pond ... As for feedback: How would you feel about that (plainly abusive) practice that has been raging for a VERY long time at ebay, i.e. that sellers bluntly insisted not only on leaving feedback ONLY after feedback had been left for them but also REQUIRED the buyer to leave feedback "as part of the buyer's duty". Which of course is plain b.s. because if the buyer has responded quickly to emails and invoices, given all the shipping info, paid up promptly within the time span required, what else for heaven's sake could he possibly be required to do? He has done EVERYTHING on his side of the deal up to and including paying up. So an HONEST seller should OF COURSE leave feedback once he has received his money in a propmpt manner (which is what such a transaction is all about - raking in the dough, isn't it?), no questions asked, no nothing. Holding the buyer hostage by leaving feedback for him only after the buyer has left feedback is unfair, to put it mildly! Combine this with the above situation of abusive overcharging for shipping (which should be reason enough for a buyer to leave neutral fedback for the seller AT BEST) or other substandard performances on the seller's part in the transaction (shoddy packaging such as LPs floating around in USED pizza boxes with NO additional padding, to name just one bizarre example) and you will be able to imagine how buyers have been at a constant risk of being left RETALIATORY feedback for no objectively valid reason at all. And these are just a few aspects of an overall policy that could (and did) weigh heavily in favor of the sellers. This HAS been discussed in public in the past, and there have been reports in the media more than once that eBay seemed to be going on a "sellers first" route (because it is the selling commissions they live on and the buyers at times seemed almost like a necessary evil), and this seems to have gone on on such a large scale that buyers' discontent got larger and larger, up to the point of seriously undermining the reputation of this selling platform at large, or else eBay certainly would not have acted the way they do now, because it clearly took a long time and severe pressure to force their hand to change their policy. (I've been on eBay for close to 10 years now so I've seen a few things come and go, but this change more in favor of buyers did not occur that long ago so you can imagine what it was like for a very long time). Again, and I am sorry to say this - cases like that of Dan do show something is going wrong in the other direction now (and more equitable solutions ought to be found) but overall it seems to me that some sellers seem to be paying the price for those (not so rare) sellers who followed plainly abusive practices in the past. So if there is anybody to blame, it is your fellow sellers at least as much as the auction platform itself. Good luck anyway with straightening out unfair practices.

It's too long, that's for sure. Otherwise, is the discussion board on eBay itself still in existence? I remember reading quite a bit there 6 or 7 years ago, and IIRC topics such as selling practices, buyers tricks etc. to sneak the party concerned out of their proper responsibility were discussed there quite a bit, with lots of pros and cons in all directions. So, Dan, it might perhaps be useful to describe your case there, maybe to get some input on how to proceed, maybe to get ideas on how to really enforce the "as is/no refunds " selling policy (this policy is used often enough so there GOT to be somebody there who has additional input to offer) etc. OTOH, if eBay really does not take any steps to help sellers enforce this "no refunds" policy it just MIGHT be that you will get hell from other sellers who so far have been living on the principle of just frightening buyers into NOT complaining on account of that "as is/no refund" principle and might now start to fear that all this is going to change once buyers catch up to this "new" eBay policy of literally undermining those terms of sale. Mind you, I don't sell on eBay (for good reason, and your experience reinforces my opinion about this), but I do see both sides, I think. And yes - I am glad I got most of my key collecting projects covered pretty good and completely (often thanks to past finds on eBay) so do not need to bid there all that often anymore.

I sympathize with you all and unfortunately I cannot offer any real constructive advice (overseas Paypal accounts and THEIR bank account setups are a bit different anyway) but those of you who complain about eBay being geared too much towards buyer protection and not enough towards seller protection, please remember this: Only a scant few years ago (and even more so in earlier times) it was very much a one-way street in favor of SELLERS. Just some examples: - Sellers insisting on leaving feedback ONLY after feedback had been left for them and even pretending buyers had not done their full part of the deal until they left feedback (which is just stone crazy because buyers ALWAYS have done THEIR part of the deal IN FULL once the'y paid up BEFOREHAND as this leaves them only hoping they will receive their goods OK). U.S. sellers were particularly stubborn in this practice. This more or less amounted to the buyers being taken hostage by sellers in the feedback game and in case of justified buyers' complaints left them extremely vulnerable to RETALIATORY feedback. - Or if I remember that bitch (term's been used here before so that should be fine here too especially since it's an apt description of that character) who - in 2002 or so - tried to pull a fast one on me when I won 2 or 3 of her auctions which said "shipping to the US only". OK so I am from abroad but I had immediately given her an address in Ohio to ship to (which had worked perfectly well with U.S.-only sellers in numerous previous cases). But she flatly refused, calling me names in her mails, accusing me of violating almost any rules to think of etc. And then on top of this she not only refused to accept my payment but even filed a complaint with eBay for NONPAYMENT!!! Howzat for a really rotten way of thinking?? It took me countless mails to get through the automatic mail inbox at eBay to at least get a reply from them that was not some standardized blurb and took care of my particular case. In the end I was cleared and her account was barred but it was a major hassle! - Not to mention that jerk who took my money for a set of 4 78rpm auctions (and that of many others) but never ever delivered but who was barred way too late (within a few days he had accumulated some 30 negs at the time of those phony sales!!!) but needless to say was never made to pay back - despite Paypal. Sorry to say this to you who are among the honest sellers, but all in all it seems that with the current practices you are paying the price for numerous incidents such as those above where the buyers were just plainly screwed. I understand you are sore and would be so too if I were in your place but it just goes to show this "eBay rule" door does swing both ways after all and now it just seems to be swinging back. Best of luck anyway

What do you expect? They did do a good job of presenting chronoLOgical runs of commercially released master takes, and as you will realize sourcing material from obscure 40s indie labels (that HARDLY ANY other reissue label - vinyl or CD - had ever bothered to resurrect) can be a hassle if mint copies are inaccessible. So for what they attempted to do I found it quite OK the way they handled these items. Ultra-hi-fi fetichists need to look elsewhere with sources from the 78rpm indie label era anyway. Though I have often refrained from buying these CDs as in all too many cases I found I already had two thirds or more of the material elsewhere (on records I do NOT see fit to part with ) I do regret now not having taken the plunge quite a bit more often.

Up! With updated list of what's still available as of today (see opening post)

Not in that one. The "regular" stuff in that shop never has been exceedingly cheap and the owner sometimes does have cutthroat allures but he's got MUCH too much stuff on his hands considering the site where his shop is located is scheduled for redevelopment within the next 18 months. He is shrewd enough to know he is on a slippery slope as it is and does know that selling lots of stuff at 10% of what the price tag originally was on items that remained unsold for 10 years will still yield him substantial money. (Except for top collectible items, of course, they won't be discounted like that ... ) Actually what I wanted to get at, of course, is that it cannot hurt showing that vinyl still is alive and kicking and that there is a market out there.

Lest I forget: Regarding SHIPPING. If you are keen on a sizable number of overseas bids and are actually inviting international bidders to bid, then please do give them the accurate shipping rates beforehand. Please do NOT give them that "For international shipping rates, use the shipping rates calculator" blurb. By and large, these calculators are just crap as they go by weight or by "airmail" only and do not take in "global priority" options (which might be different) or "flat rate" options (which might make a HELL of a difference maybe not in the case of 12in vinyl but certainly if you were to ship magazines or books etc. - which does cover collectible jazz items too). So please do take a moment to pack and weigh a typical LP or CD item (remember jewel cases are really expendable for international shipping of single CDs and most buyers can live without them if this saves them a bundle in shipping - and it often does), check all the rates available and select the best one, see what you can do in the way of reduced rates for combined shipping of multiple items and then please state all this clearly for European, Australien, Asian destinations or wherever you are willing to ship. And please do refrain from giving them the "I have to queue up at a different post office counter for international shipping so I will charge XXX $ on top of the shipping for each item sent internationally" line. Remember many international bidders tend to be willing to bid higher than U.S. bidders (especially in today's economy and for items that might be harder to come by outside the U.S.) so this might earn you extra money so if you are not prepared to go to that little extra effort in compensation of the extra money earned then SAY SO. This will avoid the seller unwelcome hassle and will spare the bidder the feeling of being given the "take it or leave it but don't bother me" runaround. I do realize that in your case I am certainly stating the obvious and preaching to the converted but who knows ... maybe somebody prone to such practices might just read this and think it over. ;) Again - good luck!

I don't bid or buy on eBay nearly as often anymore as I used to a couple of years ago (somehow the site has run its course for me; sure you can still grab good items, but with too many search tiems that used to yield potentially collectible items there's just too much supermarket junk at inflated Buy-It-Now prices) but there are certain listing details that still make or break the items with me: - I agree with what's been said about 3-day items; good for buyers for snapping up things cheaply but you would have to scan the listings constantly for new items NOT to miss it. So maybe not a wise move for sellers. - Checking the listings extensively at least once every 5 or 6 days usually will give you an overview of what's there as most items are 7-day listings, and I dont mind the 10-day listings one bit and cannot see how anybody finds this too long. Put the items on your watch list, consult the watch list occasionally to see what's happening and that's that. But 3-day auctions will fall under your radar, then. - As for bidding, having been outsniped a couple of times in my very early eBay days about 10 years ago (according to the user IDs it very likely was by people hanging around here, BTW, or else it was a huge coincidence) I made a point of bidding in the very last seconds too on all those items that I really, really wanted. Sorry but this is something the sellers will have to live with; most bidders usually aren't dumb enough or wading in dough just to push each other up in alternately trying to top each other in the middle of the auction. And sniping is the only way to cut out that vicious cycle. Things were a bit different a long time ago on yahoo auctions but thankfully eBy has never latched on to that. - As for the time of ending the auctions, personally I have found on quite a few usual search words that I scan relatively often that many sellers seem to think like a majority here: End your auctions on a weekend (no big difference between Saturday or Sunday). At least I have found there has been a tendency that among the ever-decreasing number of really interesting items the share of those ending on weekends gets ever bigger. So the actual trend among sellers is obvious. - As for the hour of day that the listing ends, the preferences are obvious from a seller's point of view. But if it was an item I really wanted and found rare enough to warrant the effort, I for one hardly ever shied away from getting up in the middle of the night at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to place a last-second bid on a U.S. llisting, sitting in front of my PC for the last minute watching the "stopwatch" as the countdown went on (this was before automatic sniping tools but somehow I do not trust them anyway). It did not always work but often it did. So the "4 seconds before the end" winning bid mentioned above does not surprise me in the least; the key is to place a bid late enough to PREVENT anybody else from raising you after having seen you place a bid (except if somebody else went to his personal limit in the same way too, which does happen). However, if U.S. sellers really wanted to get a maximum of FEASIBLE international bids then they'd be well advised to make their bids end LATE at night U.S. time (a bit before midnight) so they end very EARLY in the morning European time (which would be a feasible compromise for US and European bdders alike). What I've seen, though, is that many U.S. sellers seem to have a habit of letting their bids end at 7 o 8 pm local time which would be a bit early for this aprt of the world . - About photographs: It would be nice and would help sales if sellers placed several and LARGE pictures of their items that showed all teh details that might be relevant. However, it seems that eBay listing practices or options have since been degraded on purpose (by eBay I guess) as these days you often have the kind of listing that GA Russell mentions: One pic that is hardly enlargeable to any significant degree and several others you have to click on to make then display in any useful size 8and then they won't enlarge too much either). Great were the days when pictures were REALLY large or SUPERSIZABLE on a huge part of the auctions. And you even would have been able to download clear pics for other purposes (label scans etc.). Good luck!

I wonder if it was THIS bandwagon that the camera/mike-wielding people wanted to jump on who shot a TV report about that local record store on the very morning the shop held their clearance/special offer sale there last Friday. According to what they said, they did not have a slot in any (local or regional, let alone national) TV channel yet but were all intent on getting the footage on screen. Let's see what happens ... At least vinyl seems to be getting attention in more than one place. Which cannot hurt ...

So I ought to receive one too. Amazon lately seems to have made a habit of plugging items with me that I bought some time BEFORE. A really wise commercial strategy ...

Irony aside, I somehow resent that "dog" tag (pun intended), bull(y)dog. BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, it's been dropped a while ago and the discussion had moved on.

I dont think anybody would need one. Give or take one song, so what?

What for? I am no matrix number fetichist. I'll leave that to the Blue Note geeks around here. But in fact I do seem to remember a CD on the Ace label that had the same song on it twice by mistake and Ace (e.g. through a note in the Blues & Rhythm mag) went out of its way to launch a recall. :D So ...? (But I take it that you have double-checked Vols. 2 to 4 of that package to make sure this doubling up was a sole and single occurrence? )

DON'T!!!!!

Certainly NOT Lionel Hampton. It was only mediocre the other way round ....

Please don't get worked up, Allen, I am NOT AT ALL debating the selection of the music as such and I do realize that eventually it all boils down to a matter of personal priorities. And of course it's "only" the track and artist listings we are talking about, and actually my comments on that aspect are more an expression of regret than of criticism. Those who want more info will have options to look elsewhere and of course will HAVE to look elsewhere. Yet providing that info in a manner that avoids inconsistencies and the spelling issues IMHO would not really entail much extra work and effort and at the same time would raise the buyers' impression of the dedication that went into this project even further. Just MY stance on reality ... This from somebody who - in another field of collecting/hobbyism - has invested countless hours of researching, checking, double checking and cross checking information himself for a final result that was to be as close as possible to a definitive reference work ("definitive" obviously being a goal virtually impossible to achieve), and all this with zero monetary compensation (being "only" the proofreader, and the author certainly did not get rich either) and no outside support except one's own archives and research knowledge. So yes - I have been through unpaid research and compilating efforts myself. But again, it's obviously a matter of one's personal priorities that determine the general approach so we'll leave it at that, at least as far as I am concerned. Again, good luck for the further volumes.

My point is just this: I do see that in most cases a leader's name (under whose name the recordings were first issued and are comonly listed) is indicated and a few soloist's names are thrown in the ring afterwards. So you at least can GUESS where to look up the music for further info. But wouldn't it be easier for the listener who wants to investigate the music further (e.g. the rest of the respective sessions) if this were handled that way throughout? Sometimes rattling off a few names really can get even those fans of the music hung up who have access to the usual discographies (at least in the case of the hardcopy versions or those with no elaborate search function or index). E.g. who or what is Johnson/Nelson/Porkchop? That way of writing leaves it open to guess if this is just a rundown of names of a recording originally credited otherwise (see the "Teschmacher (sic)/Spanier/Sullivan/Krupa" item discussed above) or if they actually appeared like that on the 78s label. The comments on the tracks by these leave you none the wiser as to their actual identities, and the release number in the "discography" is a total mystery as no label is given at all. Why does the interested listener have to go here to AT LEAST get a clue as to the identities of the artists as a BASIC starting point for further research? http://www.answers.com/topic/nelson-rhinoceros After all Lonnie Johnson isnt' just anybody. Again, I really don't mean to slight the overall scope and achievement of the opus at all, just wondering about this aspect that at least in my opinion unnnecessarily confuses things for those interested in further exploring the music. And that's not silly at all.

Of course, the selection of the music is excellent and should offer new insights in the music. But as far as I can see the artist references are not really related to that. Like I said, with a project like this I guess everybody will make concessions in cases where the information isn't easy to come by, but sometimes it is just confusing if only a couple of names are rattled off instead of the name of the actual band "featuring XXX, YYY". BTW, don't know if you picked up this: All the sources I am aware of list country artist "Doc" Boggs as DOCK Boggs. Not to be confused with stages names such as "Doc Watson".

Make no mistake about it, Rostasi ... They do mean quite a lot, at least to me, for example. E.g. if that Rosie Mae Moore tune originally was actually released under (leader?) Charlie McCoy's name then it most definitely should be indicated and referenced e.g. as Charlie McCoy feat. Rosie Mae Moore. Actually the same problem had been discussed here quite extensively in the case the Devilin Tunes boxes where the same thing occurred with quite a few tracks. I find this quite irritating (and unnecessary) as it can be misleading. Now in the case of OTHER (more commercial) producers' boxes I'd be really sore. Take that Guitar jazz box released by Proper. It includes "Floyd's Guitar Blues" credited just to "Floyd Smith" on the box track listing (and website IIRC). Of course it's the recording by the Andy Kirk band. But you would have to look inside the booklet (inaccessible inside the sealed box before purchase) to find out. Now how plain silly is that??? Because as it happens Floyd Smith DID (re-)record that tune with his own combo for an indie label right after WWII. So how is a really interested fan of the music supposed to know what he's getting?? If you e faced with multiple cases like that it can reqally drive you up the wall. So this may explain why correct and unequivocal artist credits are vital IMHO. P.S: Rostasi, can you provide a link to where your corrections are accessible so they can be filed with the info on the "booklet CD"?

Ok, Allen, then let me put it another way. I definitely did not mean to be aggressive. What I did mean, though, was to point out that I really cannot quite see what purpose this list would serve ON ITS OWN and in its present form. As far as I can see and like I said, the information might have been included just as well at the end of each "header" line (giving the title of the tune and the artist credits as well as the recording date) in the file that includes your individual comments on each track (which - let me repeat that - I do find VERY useful!). This would have kept all the info in one place and the info would have been where it belonged, i.e. with the respective title. Actually, don't you feel that doing things that way would have made things EASIER for you because you would not have had to compile that file all by itself? Especially so since those who consult that file would probably be doing so because they want to know about the original release of a particular tune. Now if they had been given that info right after the artist credits and recording date in the listing that includes your comments it would all have been there (because this would be where they would have STARTED their search anyway if they were interested in that info on any particular tune). No need to look up another file, no need to go down an alphabetical list (a longish one as it covers 36 CDs), no to and fro, no nothing. Now about inconsistency: The two examples I mentioned are just two examples that I happened to notice when taking a VERY superficial glance at that list. I take it, then, that you took that Pete Lewis track from a Gusto LP and that Boots & The Buddies track from that reissue on the Tax label. Nothing wrong with that; who would be able to take such a huge amount and wide variety of music from original first pressings throughout? However, I did understand the meaning of this "discography" (your statement on what would suffice as constituting a discography in the stricter sense of the word is noted ) to provide information on the ORIGNAL release of the tracks (just like it is done with MANY other reissues as some collectors might find it useful to know which label a given recording originally appeared on, e.g. because some labels may evoke certain artistic or stylistic connotations). If this is so then I find this sort of inconsistencies a bit confusing. However, if that list actually is meant to indicate only where you took the individual tracks from for your particular project then I stand "corrected" and will take note of this. As for "wrongly-named tunes", well, referring to that Boots & His Buddies track again: To me at least, the misspelling - Wamp vs Vamp - looks fairly obvious as the title sequence for the session that this tune came from is exactly the same both on the Tax LP and in Rust's discography. So the spelling error on the Tax LP looks fairly obvious to me, especially since Rust's spelling (Vamp) is also found in other sources (but NO, I do not have a label scan of the original Bluebird on hand ). That's all I meant to say regarding the release info. And like I hinted at, of course personnel details (where known) would have been nice (sort of extra icing on the cake) but indeed I can live perfectly well without that on a reissue of this calibre. BTW, why should I doubt the artistic merits of the tracks included in any way? Who am I to judge that across the entire field covered here? I'd be the first to encourage anybody to look beyond predefined stylistic "boundaries" and explore cross-influences and will be eager to do so myself. Which is why I will be looking forward to the upcoming volumes, the above (minor) criticisms (which I prefer to see as suggestions for further improvement) notwithstanding. Good luck with your further work

Received my box set through Amazon yesterday and am looking forward to giving it a listen (though for the time being my find at yesterday's local record clearout sale - some 60 platters - will be given priority ). Had a look at the CD "liner notes" booklet too. Nice booklet, an introductory chapter that looks very interesting and useful comments on the individual tunes. I guess I will print that one out before giving the CDs a closer listen as I hate having to scramble from my music room to where the PC is each time I want to read up on the individual tracks. I cannot qute fathom, however, what the "Four-volume discography" is supposed to be. It sho' ain't no discography. Looks more like a release number listing to me, and one of inconsequent methodology: Some codes - such as GD - seem to be missing in the abbreviation list, and other releases seem to be incorrect if the listing is supposed to give the ORIGINAL release: e.g. was "The Wamp" really unreleased at the time or was it rather "The Vamp" on Bluebird, as borne out by Rust's discography where the track sequences of that session is the same as on the Tax LP quoted. BTW, that "GD" code is a case similar to that "Tax" example as it refers to a much later reissue of a track originally on Federal 12066, according to Leadbitter/Slaven. And the listing by track name isn't really very convenient to this user either. A listing in the order of the CD track sequence would have been much logical IMO if such a listing were to be established at all. Anyway, if no discography in the proper sense of the word (i.e. session details) is to be included, then so be it (it's understandable all in all), but wouldn't it have been much more convenient to just give the original release number right behind each title and artist credits in the list of comments on the individual tracks? That would have kept all the relevant info in one place. But no, overall this is no big deal, really, just a bit irritating.