Tom Storer

Fixed.

That's the point! It was a harmless joke--but one that lots of women wouldn't find funny at all. So it intersects the point that had been made (be careful with casual comments because you might be pressing someone's button) and the question that had been asked (wonder why more women don't hang around here). And Chris, I'm not saying you're a despicable misogynist driving women away from Organissimo. Rachel, for example, took it as a joke and replied in kind. But that's just it--anybody can toss off a joke or a little bit of sarcasm without bad intent, you or me or anyone, and it's no big deal for most people, but there might be collateral damage. Maybe I'm being too earnest.

Now here's an illuminating series of posts, presented here slightly out of order: One: Two: Three: Food for thought, catesta!

Old posters never die, they just fade away. It won't be the same without you, brownie, but I know how to get in touch. And we are both in Paris, after all. So give me a call when all your admirers pass through town looking for wine and second-hand CDs!

Very insightful comment. It's the "insider" problem that often happens with successful forums. Posters get to know each other (or at least each other's online persona, posting style, and general opinions) very well; it becomes easy to joke around, and sometimes it turns to needling. Friction can turn nasty when there's that degree of familiarity. "Familiarity breeds contempt" as the old saying goes. When viewed from the outside by newcomers, a forum at this stage seems full of a strange combination of aggression, silliness, and inside jokes, which is an obstacle to getting new blood. And yet new blood is vital. EDIT: On the other hand, I agree with Old Don Clementine that if your feelings are easily hurt on message boards, or if you are truly disturbed by people being rude and childish, then you are destined to be truly disturbed and have hurt feelings forever, for people are just like that, especially on the net. On a message board there are no real consequences to flaming, acting out, being insulting, etc. so anyone who doesn't mind other people frowning and disapproving will just go right on doing it. Unless they get no response, in which case they stop. I think a message board is like a bar: if somebody is going overboard, chuck 'em out and don't let 'em back in until they're sober.

I'm basically with you, as I say in the edit I added to my post while you were writing your last one. I appreciate civility and it's my natural mode, but you have to have some neurosis and weirdness and associated rough edges for a forum to really be interesting. As a matter of fact, I think it's possible that I started frequenting Organissimo as much as JC only when Org. started sliding down the path of looser conversational morals. What everyone seems to be complaining about here now seems to be what many Org. posters don't like about JC--and are now producing themselves! I think the real problem, not just here but anywhere these all-too-common message-board crises occur, is not the bickering and flaming, but the proportion of bickering and flaming. There are two ways to change that proportion: reduce bickering and flaming, or increase substantial discussion. One way to do the latter is to ignore flames, avoid long sequences of one-line silly exchanges, and just generally talk about other things than each other. Easier said than done, for all of us.

Personally, I'm surprised that there seems to be a consensus that the Organissimo forum has become such a terrible, uncivil place that it requires moderation as a matter of urgency. I've never seen a long-lasting message board that does not descend into bickering and flame wars from time to time. I've been living the message board life for years and years, and Organissimo is among the best behaved I've ever seen, including right now. Some random thoughts: it is true that moderators need to have rules they can point to, or else it is 100% certain that they will be accused of favoritism, arbitrariness, and tyrannical censorship. Even with rules in place, however, they will be accused of enforcing them for some people and not with others (since 100% consistency is impossible), and the rules themselves will be the object of regular criticism from people who want them to be more general, more specific, include this one but not that one, etc. Also, moderation takes a lot of time and is a commitment for every day of the week, which is a lot. Volunteer moderators typically start with enthusiasm and good will and are quickly burned out. My two ideas to throw into the pot are these suggestions of the most effective way to stop flaming and rudeness: 1. On the part of the board administration: throw out or suspend the worst offenders if clear and public warnings go unheeded. Usually when the general atmosphere of a board is felt to be worsening considerably, there's an unhealthy synergy going on among a few people who can't control their animosity to each other. Nip that in the bud and flaming will decrease to livable levels... for a while. It will always start up again eventually. 2. On the part of posters: DON'T FEED THE FLAMES. Use the Ignore function. And when you no longer believe that good faith debate with someone is happening, simply stop--let the other party have the last word and move on to another thread. It's the only sure way to stop a fight on a message board, but one that is surprisingly hard for many to do.

(thelil) on organissimo?? Hold on to your rodents! Big Al, do you also post on that other site?

Good for you, aloc! As for me--I can't remember what happened to me this morning, let alone all year!

Great post, John.

I'm going to have to check out Craig Taborn--my only real experience was a concert when he was with James Carter's band, and I hated that concert so thoroughly I haven't gone back to either of them. But apparently that was an unfair conclusion to draw, since he gets a lot of love from a lot of people. I'll check this album out.

OK, you're saying if music is from your native culture, so to speak, there are layers of meaning for you that are inaccessible to others. I can recognize that. But how am I supposed to "deal with it", accordingly or otherwise? I don't know what you mean by that.

The only thing that needs beefing up is the "I am guessing that" part of point 2.

To reputedly die--I like that. It's like old soldiers just fading away. I hope that rather than dying one day, I reputedly die.

I don't have a link or anything, but I read an interview with Metheny where he confirmed they'd be releasing (don't know when) the first two Metheny-Mehldau discs in a single package. The interviewer wondered about the wisdom of it: since it's known, wouldn't people just not buy the first two and wait for the double? Metheny said that was short-term thinking--CDs in his catalogue might not sell huge amounts at one time but keep selling year after year. As far as he's concerned, people who bought the first one can just buy the second one, and vice-versa, whereas for years to come, those who haven't bought either will be able to choose to buy them one by one or both together.

I got mine a couple of days ago--one of the best so far, IMHO. 1956 was a very good year.

The government doesn't give a damn about "adventurous music". If they're going to target anyone for scrutiny it will be for political reasons. By the government? Were the jazz police part of the government then? Coleman apparently didn't record between Dec. 1962 and June 1965, but I don't think commercial acts were particularly worried by avant-garde jazz at the time. "BEATLES CONCERT A FLOP; ORNETTE COLEMAN PACKS SHEA STADIUM." Nah, I don't see it.

Good one! Took me a second to parse.

You say Carmeena, I say Carm-eye-na, You say Burayna, I say Burahna, Carmeena, Carm-eye-na, Burayna, Burahna, Let's Carl the whole thing Orff! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Larkin wasn't known for his eager curiosity and open-mindedness. Wasn't it he who said "I loathe abroad"?

I think the ownership of the tail of the queen is something the king and queen need to work out between themselves. And I don't see what whales have to do with it.

Unless you don't have anything he plays on? I beg to differ. You could have several of these selections already and it would still be a valuable summation of Haynes' career. It's a Roy Haynes anthology. I think it's perfectly appropriate for jazz fans who are not serious collectors--me, for example.

This was one of the albums that was a revelation for me in my high school years and just discovering jazz. That something so imaginative and free could be so swinging and work so perfectly together... clearly jazz had very strong juju. This was like blues and funk but in the stratosphere--so sensual and so cerebral all at once. It still kills me every time I listen to it.

Thanks, Frank. I think I have the picture!

In the November issue of the French monthly Jazz Magazine, there's an article in which three French musicians--pianist Guillaume de Chassy, bassist Stéphane Kerecki, and drummer Fabrice Monteau--talk about the Keith Jarrett "standards" trio. The angle is "one trio talks about another that is among their models." Anyway, I was surprised to read some of the things they had to say about Gary Peacock. I'm not a musician, and sometimes we laymen are startled to learn that a musician who has a certain reputation and history also has certain flaws, according to other musicians, that the untrained might not notice. I've always been very impressed with Peacock's playing, but here's what these guys have to say (my translation): It's not like they're putting Peacock down--on the contrary, they're calling him great, authoritative, a poet, powerfully expressive. But they casually mention shortcomings I would never have guessed--he sounds mighty to me, but they speak as if he's clearly far from technically impressive, even if he is impressive in terms of art and feeling. Which is what counts, of course. Musicians out there, are these guys expressing a widespread view? Is Peacock a brilliant poet but not a solid technician? Just curious.