Big Beat Steve

OK, I am going to get back to Art Farmer. As I explored modern jazz more or less chronologically (I had developed a liking for bebop early on so started from there onwards) when charting (for me) unknown territory (artists) I tended to start with the "early works" of 50s "name" jazzmen. My first Art Farmer record therefore was "The Art Farmer Septet - Plays the Compositions and Arrangements of Gigi Gryce and Quincy Jones" (Prestige P-7031). What did the trick for me in this case, I think, was that I had already owned the Clifford Brown Paris sessions 3-LP set of 1953 for a long time and had always liked the compositions and scores of Gigi Gryce. And I wasn't disappointed here either.

If only they (i.e. the reissuers) always knew who owns what among the collecting fraternity and would be prepared to make it available ... I'd bet they often are up against a "No, nobody is going to listen to my pristine copy except me - can't let everybody out there benefit from 50 years of carefully cherishing my exceedingly carefully played copy" attitude Don't we all know one or the other selfish collecting hermit of that kind? BTW, I have no real complaints about Fresh Sound and similar "niche market" reissue labels but as mentioned above, it indeed is odd that the disclaimers often found on reissues in the past are now increasingly dispensed with, as if they all adopted a sort of "take it or leave it" attitude. That said, maybe some of those who complain about LP needle drop reissues ought to listen a bit mroe often to 78-rpm era vinyl or CD reissues to get their ears tuned in to some real hiss, pop and crackle. Not everybody is (or was) a John R.T. Davies, not every reissue project can be given the full treatment (as in the case of those hot Five box sets, so one hears) and very, very often the music warrants even a bit of effort to "listen through" that "period noise".

If I'd stumble across that one (or the like) in one of those clearout bins it would probably make me say "UGH" :D So it might as well be in that thread over there ...

Though these were U.S. pressings, "Archive of Folk & Jazz Music" (produced by Everest Records) was not a rare label at all in the "budget price" bins of record stores over here in the 70s/80s. I remember passing up a lot of these releases because their track compilations seemed to be rather random to me and the production (including artist credits) rather sketchy but among those that I did pick up were "Foundations of Modern Jazz" (FS-229, Period masters feat. Osie Johnson's Orchestra, The Jones Boys, The Birdlanders, Charlie Mingus) and "The Birdlanders" (FS-275, actually featuring the Henri Renaud-Al COhn Quartet, HEnri Renaud All Stars and Duke Jordan Trio all recorded in NY for the French Swing label and later released on Period in the U.S.). Obviously they picked tracks largely from the Period catalog; a Django Reinhardt LP I have (FS-230) includes scattered post-war tracks for the Blue Star and Swing labels whose only common denominator is that they were released on Period in the USA.

Please be careful. This is a door that VERY MUCH swings both ways. If it were so that each and every seller always gives 100% correct information about the item for sale and prices them exceedingly fairly then your statement would be totally true. But are all sellers always 100% fair and accurate? If somewhat doubtful practices aren't occasionally commented upon (which doesn't happen very often anyway), would this be fair towards those who are not aware of all there is to be aware of in this buying? I do realize that you may very well have been unduly targeted but all this isn't a totally clear-cut black-and-white affair where the sellers always are the innocent and the commentators are the bad guys. Like I said, some sellers being the way they are, some kind of corrective isn't the worst thing in the world in those cases where it is clearly called for. BTW, (and this is just a question, not any kind of reproach), didn't you - in the case you invoked - add your own reply to set the record straight (e.g. about actual non-availability of the record elsewhere) in good time before your sales chances were "killed"? I know I would have done so.

bump .... what's still available is listed above.

May I respectfully disagree on several counts? 1) Quite to the contrary, I find it rather advantageous that forumists other than the thread starter (seller) state, for example, that they have PM'd the seller about this or that item. If this place here really is as friendly as it is made out to be (and as the rules about not criticising a seller, as above, are apparently intended to underline) then it can only be beneficial for the mutual understanding of forumists to not get unduly in each other's way when they see that an item has already been spoken for by somebody else (and this also avoids them extra hassle if they know an item has been sold or reserved before thy got around to contacting the seller). Otherwise sales might degenerate into a "behind the curtains" rat race of who's been there first, who might offer more than the asking price in order to secure an item he wants badly (and sellers in those cases might in fact back off from the first come, first serve principle or only invite bids for their items - who knows?). 2) Being able to post extra info about items for sale (e.g. by those who own the same item) is something I also like about that place because it often does provide a clearer picture of what is actually up for sale. And as seen here, these comments really aren't trying to detract all that often, anyway - quite to the contrary. And not least of all - what is wrong with other forumists asking questions about an item (or maybe shipping terms or other required info) that the seller answers PUBLICLY so that everybody can benefit from that extra info? So do think it over, otherwise the end results might really backfire in a big way and lead to results that were not really intended and would do more harm than good! As you surely know, the road to hell is plastered with good intentions! And besides, generally speaking, what is the point of invoking new rules only in order to CLAMP DOWN on everything instead of changing rules in order to give more leeway? Has this section (or others) been working that poorly, really? "Stifling" might fast become the word, you know ...

I think you are waaaaay overrating the nature and character of most sellers and items on offer on Buy and Sell sections of forums like this. Some sellers may think of themselves differently (except when it comes to their tax statements, obviously ) but in fact we ARE INDEED talking about an online garage sale, fleamarket, private-stall record fair etc. here IMO, aren't we? And aren't we all haggling and comparing there everywhere? Have you never tried to "negotiate a deal" or told somebody off who tried to offer you items at rates you considered expensive (and in doing so haven't you told him you'd be able to get an equivalent item at so-and-so much less elsewhere)? And then online publicity and visibility works both ways, of course, too. You get more exposure that way but will have to live with the fact that thanks to this increaed exposure more people will be able to call your bluff too (if there is reason to call your bluff). Like most things in life, it's a tradeoff, and you can't always have your cake (more exposure) and eat it (i.e. NOT receive all sorts of just as exposed feedback).

You know as well as I do (I think) that a lot of the comments made here go beyond that particular case in question that started this thread but refer to the question of whether or not to comment on prices felt to be excessive at all and I suppose you also know how discussions focusing on the price levels of certain items on the market tend to evolve every now and then. Name calling and polemics are out, but IMHO pointing out (based on provable facts of what is available out there) that this or that price actually is inflated and purchasing therefore better to be avoided would indeed add to transparency in the sense of avoiding price levels spiralling upward no end just because awareness of the market is clouded artificially by avoiding discussions ... Checks and balances, you know ...

Obviously it doesn't only hurt the seller; this kind of information is very useful to less-savvy buyers. FWIW, I do feel that the above - and all of Big Wheel's further elaborations on that aspect - is the essence of all this. :tup Are those of you around here who so openly advocvate silencing those who find pricing of items offered for sale objectionable really sure you are doing the collecting community at large a service? I am in no position to judge whether the offers in the thread in question really were overpriced but as a general rule I do feel that this "unspoken" policy of considering speaking out openly about excessive pricing being "in bad taste" is waaaay over the top. Isn't it in even worse taste to charge inflated prices? So isn't it a tradeoff of which taste is worse, in the end? Do you really advocate sellers ripping off the unwary? Are you really in favor of letting price levels spiral upward uncontrolledly? (Those who want to push up prices can always find precedents of "that one sold it for so much then" unless the actors in these earlier precedents are called to task where necessary) So how does that tie in with other threads here where other forumists complain about exactly those practices and tendencies? Please note that I definitely would not want to advocate calling allegedly expensive sellers names or slandering them in any way. But what would be wrong about adding some transparency about what's available out there? And in those cases where there is objective proof of shortcomings in offers this obviously would including speaking out about those, for example, who charge excessively for something that IS available at fairer prices elsewhere. Remember just like nobody is forced to pay inflated prices NOBODY is forced to listen to those who say the item is too expensive or available at better prices elsewhere either But it IS reasonable IMHO to make the unwary aware of what, by and large, could reasonably be considered excessive. If you cannot tolerate that open (and therefore open-minded) forums are ONE way of balancing market/selling/pricing practices that often really are nothing short of a ripoff then where did your highly esteemed right of free speech in the land of the free go? All drowned out in the name of P.C.? I stand flabbergasted ...

Don't we all? :g

I understand Louis Jordan was rather sore at Ray Charles because to him it seemed his album produced and released on the Tangerine label was seen more like a tax deduction stunt by Ray than an actual release (hence the lack of promotion).

Well I'm assumerating that you're joking about that! Collectable LPs will retain value, I believe, but with very few exceptions CDs are almost worthless. Uh - I guess I'm not sure what the 'crazy' face means so I'm not sure what you meant... Well, actually I was talking about collectible vinyl, of course. And the crazy face meant you'd still have to be a bit crazy to go that route all the way. So - yes, it's all a bit tongue in cheek, but today's other "investment" options aren't that sane either, after all. )

I am somewhere in between "I'm moving away from, or have moved away from, mad collecting" and "Still buying, still mostly jazz, but I never got into the whole "gotta have it all attitude" so I had to check the "Seven tries" box. Overall, my wildest REGULAR buying days are over (space is getting more and more of a problem but I find it hard to part with any substantial quantities of discs) but I still do get into a buying spree (not only jazz but also other interests I've been collecting all the time, e.g. older R&B or country music styles) every now and then. So my answer really depends on when exactly you'd ask me that question but most likely it is "moving away from mad collecting" in the sense that I NO LONGER am the completist I once was with certain musical styles and artists. OTOH, the way things today are in the world, wouldn't there be much worse investments to protect your savings than record collections so maybe it might be smart to think that decision over once again??

Interesting indeed ... This reminds me of my very early collecting days in the mid- to late 70s when two local record stores here always used to have VERY well-stocked cut-price bins with U.S. pressing cutouts (and it really was virtually only U.S. pressings all the time, hardly any European ones at all). I remember buying cutouts of a few major labels/subsidiaries such as Chess, Prestige and Cotillion there that fell within my musical interest but they also had a LOT of obscure contemporary stuff on obscure labels that I'd never heard about and would not have touched. But somehow the covers on the Badcat Records site look like stuff that might have been in there. Might have been a sound investment picking them up then if we had known what it was all about ... Of coure I cannot be sure there was some (worldwide) connection there but what baffled me at the time (and now does again as I read this and come to think of it) is why there were these (comparatively) HUGE masses of U.S. pressing cutouts available over here in record stores (stores selling NEW items! Independent stores but not really back alley underground shops) in the late 70s whereas this cutout thing somehow disappeared totally here in the 80s. Too bad there is no time machine to go back and find out.

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.