Dan Gould

Alex, why are you so harsh on this story and the particular reporting of the article? Everytime something like this happens, there are descriptions of how "perfect" the wife/husband was or how wonderful their relationship was. It was clearly an enormous shock to the people who knew them; are we to simply reject their descriptions because of the final marital act? Something happened; why we may never fully know - but to act all so superior because obviously they weren't the "perfect" couple is just ridiculous. IMO, the only thing you should criticize is the dingleberry cop with the helpful explanation of first degree murder.

Whatever. And speaking of bluster and bs, nice of you to acknowledge that your statement that "Bronson Arroyo resigns with the Red Sox for less $ than he could have gotten elsewhere" was completely factually inaccurate. I imagine you're a big fan of loyalty because Steinbrenner has the money to buy as much of it as he desires.

Number one, Arroyo knew that he had no guarantee of "loyalty" being reciprocated, because he didn't receive a no-trade clause. He knew precisely what he was getting himself into - his own agent told him so - and even he acknowledges that there was no handshake agreement or guarantees about not being traded. The fact is the Red Sox made a perfectly reasonable offer to Damon - the same they offered to Renteria and Varitek. Damon calls it "flat out disrespectful" because the Yanks trumped it? Who cares? Why should anyone expect loyalty to exist in today's baseball environment with free agency and a powerful, essentially undefeated player's union? The fact is that players were only loyal before because of the reserve clause. Now, loyalty is defined by players like Damon as "pay me as much as the highest bidder" to prove that you love me. If he had a sense of loyalty, instead of a vision of dollar signs, he'd have accepted the ten million a year for four years. He'd have said, "well, the Yanks offered more money, but money isn't everything. The Red Sox offered more than enough to keep me and my family happy and of course I love the city and the fans. So I'm staying put. George can keep his money." This whole loyalty discussion is a load of crap.

First of all, you're just learning now that players should maximize their salaries (if that's the single most important thing to them) and that teams should maximize their roster? Secondly, Arroyo absolutely did not accept less money than he "could have gotten elsewhere." The facts are these: 1) Arroyo has three more seasons to go before he will have the service time to become a free agent. There was NO money to be gotten "elsewhere" because the Red Sox controlled him. The only way any team could have "bid" for his services would have been if the Sox had released him. 2) With a strong performance, he may, MAY have earned more money by going to arbitration three straight years. On the other hand, if he had spent this season in the Sox bullpen, his value both in arbitration and as a trading chip would have gone down. 3) He recognized, correctly, that locking in $11.5 million over the next three years isn't a bad deal for a guy who was put on waivers in 2003 and was nearly out of the game. The Red Sox took an opportunity to spin someone who, while valuable, was going to be a sixth starter/long reliever, for Wily Mo Pena who, if he were in Triple A where he belongs, would be an untouchable monster of a prospect. Instead, largely because the Yankees signed him to a major league contract when he was 17, he's had to develop his skills in the major leagues. He has tremendous upside potential, and the Red Sox control him through 2008, giving them ample time to see how he develops before commiting huge dollars to him. I expect that in a couple of years, Yankee fans will be bemoaning the fact that they had Pena and traded him for Drew Henson. Personally, I feel bad for Arroyo because he really loved playing in Boston and accepted a lower salary than he might have earned in three years of arbitration to stay and now is off to Cincinnati. But the Sox took advantage of a moment in time where his value is high (because he isn't coming off a year spent as a reliever/spot starter and before the league had a chance to continue to catch up with him (while he led the team in quality starts and won 14 games last year, his peripheral stats declined markedly, particularly his strikeout rate and especially the way lefthanders lit him up)). The Sox made the right move at the right time, and its what front offices are supposed to do. Arroyo took a calculated risk but the upside is that he will be a starting pitcher, in a league with weaker hitters, and is guaranteed 11.5 million before he becomes a free agent in three years. Life could be a helluva lot worse.

Brownie, thanks and I'll send a PM shortly. Dave, with the Yankee pitchers dropping like flies (Small, Pavano, Wright, Ericson) and the healthy ones getting shellacked (Moose) while the Sox spin one of their surplus of healthy arms into a 24 year old slugger who in his past 650 ABs matches the homer production of both Papi and Manny (around 45 bombs), I'd be a bit less cocky about this year and downright frightened about your rapidly aging roster going forward.

I decided to ween myself off the Org starting at the end of January. I've lurked a bit but haven't posted til now as I have tried both to recharge my batteries and maximize the time that I do have for things that I decided need to come first. At first I didn't think I'd keep it up but its gotten easier as time goes by. PJ sent me a PM so I had to log in to read it, so I did take the opportunity to post in the Horace Silver autobiography thread ... but at this point I am going back into lurking mode. I may come back as an active member, I may not, but thanks to Jim Sangrey, GoM, Peter Johnson for noting my absence and inquiring about it. Dan

[lurk mode off] I have not yet finished Horace's book but I'll share the following observations: Its nice to get Horace's memories and observations, and for that the book is valuable. But I find the writing to be pedestrian at best with a lot of banal comments, like how much he misses his old bandmates. The last two books I read were the autobiographies of B.B. King and Ray Charles, both written with the assistance of David Ritz, and the difference is staggering. It sounds like Horace simply remembered what he felt like remembering/sharing and wrote his life story, while with Ritz as co-author, B.B. and Ray's life story truly to came to life and you felt (as both subjects have said) that you were listening to their voices telling their stories. That is what is missing in this book. There is at least one very poorly edited section: P. 97: "Some of the musicians who worked with my quintet back in the first couple of years but never recorded with me were drummers Alvin Queen, Harold White, and Jeff Brillinger; tenor saxophonists Ronnie Bridgewater and Vincent Herring; bassists Chip Jackson, John Burr, Mike Richmond, and Will Lee; and trumpeters John McNeil, Dave Douglas and Barry Reese." Unless Horace has had both Vincent Herring and Dave Douglas SENIOR in his band in the early years, this is a major "senior moment" that wasn't caught by anyone. I am not familiar with Horace's post-Breckers bands, but I am also wondering about Chip Jackson, and could Barry Reese actually be trumpeter Barry Ries? I seem to recall that he was in Horace's group, though again I could be wrong. Bertrand, the gist of the Tyrone Washington commentary is: He was humble at first but his head got big when he started getting compliments. He would take the music "out" and that wasn't what Horace wanted. He'd tell him to play some funky stuff and he would but by the second or third time, he'd be taking the music out again. He was very anti-white and would make anti-white comments out loud in clubs. Horace got tired of it and when Tyrone and Woody and the drums and bass took the music out one time too many, he decided to fire the whole band. Horace realized afterwards that its best to fire the one guy who is making trouble instead of everybody.

Well, color me stupid. I'd seen this at Blue Note Records in Miami for years and years (a 1998 P-Vine version) but would never pay their $33 price. So I swung by there today for the first time in ages, picked up some vinyl and decided to add this in, if they'd give me some consideration. He knocked it down to $22 and I walked out pretty happy, until digging up this thread and discovering from Lon's post that Collectables has put it out.

I missed this thread originally but learned about the site last week when it was written up in the NYT. Anyway, if you search by B.B. King, there's a two-song Playboy After Dark appearance. Best of all, my audio software allowed me to record the download as it played, so I added it to a compilation disc I've made of rarely heard/seen B.B.

Did you read some of the more militant defenses of burning/downloading? That's exactly where some of those people think there are.

True, but the prior discussion showed clearly that there is a subgroup within with "Do" who feel that they are in the vanguard of a revolution in the law of intellectual property rights, while another, larger group, "does" but they have at least some qualms about it.

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=23240 Originally, Randy was going to do BFT 32. He had some distractions, and switched with Stefan. Above is his original signup thread. I don't know what his schedule is for sending discs out. But I hope Brownie gets started on his sign-up fairly soon, since he'll be shipping from France, and February is a short month.

I have to say that this reminds me of the classic Phil Hartman Sinatra sketch when he tells Billy Idol that he's "got chunks of people like you in my stool!" and then tells Steve Lawrence to fight for him.

Can't find the forum. Got a link? I'd pay somebody $25 to ask him why he fired Tyrone Washington. In the middle of this page is a link: http://www.horacesilver.com/fanfeast/index.php (there are also two video performances under "video" - both look to be early 70s, I wonder if anyone can identify the other players?)

No time now, but this looks very interesting. Thanks.

I'm serious. What are you guys seeing that I don't? All I get is a redirect to the Verve site. I had trouble navigating before but Ron's link to the $50 t-shirt got me into the site.

I'll pay Allen $5 if he posts his Horace story there. Anyone else?

Was this broadcast live? Does the station have a website and archived concerts?

I said it is AT BOTTOM about behavior. It surely has nothing to do with the artist impact of purchases from yourmusic.com or paying for bootlegs. The topic is burns and downloads and whether you accept them or not. PERIOD. Why this is such a problem for some people is completely beyond me.

Yeah, I didn't expect that the only music available would be a CD that was put out as "Re-entry" and I wouldn't be surprised if it can be tracked down still, instead of anyone paying $35 for the original Silveto disc. Unless of course the Silveto disc comes autographed.

You don't have any private tapes, Dan?? Or receive or distribute Blindfold Tests?? Your poll questions make no allowances - for anything. How about taping things in the past? I'm not claiming these exceptions are justified. I'm simply asking about behavior. I would be surprised if anyone on this board could answer #1. I got private tapes that would blow your mind! And I voted accordingly - I don't think what I do/have done is right, but I do it and am at least somewhat conflicted. And I think 4 or 5 people have voted #1, presumably honestly. Maybe they should step forward and explain how it is that they are purer than the driven snow.

define "questionable" is that really necessary? In this context, questionable: dubious legally, morally or ethically.

Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law.

That's not so; the questions on which we were polled are chock full of ethics. MG Ethics, yes, ethics of receiving or giving free music via burns or downloads. Since you PAY for your music at yourmusic.com, it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic of this poll.