Edward

For what it's worth, AMG lists this as a 5-star session. How does this date stack up against Brubeck's other albums from the same period? How is the sound quality of the CD? (I believe that the CD was released in 1989 as part of Columbia's Legacy program.) Thanks!

I received one e-mail today confirming shipment of 7 CD's (5 Verve LPR's and 2 Howard Rumsey OJC's), and another announcing the cancellation of the remainder of my order (5 OJC's - 4 of them highly recommended by fellow board members). I wish that I had ordered the Al Cohn and the Yusef Lateef LPR's.

My set was actually numbered 3066. Unfortunately, I won't have time to properly listen to it until this weekend.

Sounds like the license is expiring significantly short of the 5000 limit. ← Anyone remember when it first went on sale? Since they're talking about the number they havae left, it could be that they don't "press" ("burn"?"print"?) 5000 copies at once and if they're getting low just before their license expires they don't bother to manufacture more. Just guessing. ← I believe that the Byrd/Adams set was released at the beginning of 2000, but I'm not sure. I know that Mosaic doesn't press all of the CD's for a particular set in one run; but it does print all of the booklets at once due to cost considerations (i.e., paying for more than one printing pressing would be prohibitive), which is why there are almost always booklets left over once a set goes OOP. If I remember correctly, the set that I ordered last Thursday was numbered in the 3600's.

I think that the fact of the matter is that JRR probably had light stock on most Fantasy titles and a lot of jazz fans took advantage of its great sale. My still un-shipped order includes 7 OJC's, all of which are now listed as usually shipping within 7-14 days. When I placed my order, only one or two of these titles had this inventory status.

At the very least, the Spurs, Wolves and Lakers (possibly the Kings too) were better than the Pistons last year. Sometimes the best team in the NBA loses due to bad luck (the Spurs against the Lakers last year), and sometimes it's an attitude thing (why the Lakers lost in the finals). Guy ← Agreed. Bad luck, of course, also includes injuries; and, unfortunately, that's just part of the game. The '04 Lakers were not a very deep team, and Karl Malone's injury suffered in the Conference Finals against the Spurs made him quite ineffective against the Pistons. Karl Malone's presence meant a lot to the Lakers, especially on the defensive end; and, yes, the Lakers seemed to implode after they lost him. It's a shame, because it would have been very interesting to watch a full-strength Lakers squad play an excellent Detroit team that was clicking on all cylinders.

I highly recommend: Sir Roland Hanna - "Duke Ellington Piano Solos" on MusicMaster

As already mentioned by others, it would probably be smart to focus on acquiring the limited edition OJC's before the regular OJC's; but considering alldirect's prices, the regular OJC's presented a far greater bargain. At any rate, I ordered the following for $92.33 delivered: Shorty & Doc - Harold "Shorty" Baker/Doc Cheatham Sweets - Harry "Sweets" Edison Together Again - Teddy Edwards/Howard McGhee Sittin' In - Gillespie/Getz/Hawkins Snap Your Fingers - Al Grey The Green Leaves Of Summer - Hampton Hawes Plays Gerry Mulligan Arrangements - Gene Krupa Maggie's Back In Town - Howard McGhee Joe Newman Quintet at Count Basie's In The Solo Spotlight - Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse All-Stars Volume 6 - Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse All-Stars Blue Stompin' - Hal Singer/Charlie Shavers

Combined Record of Western Conference Teams: 646-584 Combined Record of Eastern Conference Teams: 584-646 Regular Season Records Against Opposing Conference's Playoff Teams Dallas Mavericks: 12-4 Phoenix Suns: 11-5 San Antonio Spurs: 10-6 Detroit Pistons: 8-8 Miami Heat: 7-9 Indiana Pacers: 6-10 The Pacer's regular season record would have been good for 9th place in the Western Conference. Obviously, Indiana's record would most likely have been better without all of those suspensions that were incurred early on.

I agree on all points.

As an attorney, I realize that you are tehnically correct regarding the use of the word "Esquire". Nevertheless, I think that people pay a lot more attention to complaints received from attorneys. Your rights should not depend on having earned such a designation, but problems seem to get resolved much more quickly if you have. That said, I agree with Chaney that Ebay is unlikely to give much more than a slap on the wrist to PowerSeller UniversalMusicGroup. IF this is your best chance, then I wouldn't hold your breath. As Ron and kulu se ma both pointed out, the Evans set was sold many times (exactly 15) for $99.99 by UniversalMusicGroup over the past couple of weeks, strongly undercutting any prospective defense of unilateral mistake. I think that the best chance Daniel and Weizen have is to hound UniversalMusicGroup through every possible channel of communication. Kurt at customer service does not seem able and/or inclined to lift a finger for your cause. Brad, I hope that you get your set - please keep us updated.

The following website provides a pretty good summation of the concept of "mistake" as it applies in California: MISTAKE Whatever conclusions you may draw from browsing this site, I submit the fact that (at least in the case of Daniel and hopefully also Weizen) Universal actually accepted funds (despite the fact that these funds were later returned) is significant and distinguishes it from Donovan (noted in the previously mentioned website). It has been a while since I have really studied contract law, but I do not see how, in these particular situations, Universal can back out of its contracts after accepting payment in full (and hence complete performance) from the other parties to the transactions. I think that it would be a different matter entirely if Universal had refused to accept payment after the auctions had ended. At any rate, anyone who successfully made payment to Universal for this set should pursue the matter vigorously despite receipt of notification similar to what Daniel received. In my experience, it seems to help a lot if you follow your name with "Esq." in any correspondence that is sent. I do not see why someone who is not a lawyer could not follow this tactic - I doubt that the bluff would be called.

Thanks for the tip!!! I can't gripe about shelling out ~$110.00 for an 18-CD set (with a soon to be rusting box!)

I think that you missed Ron's earlier point about elasticity of demand. The demand for oil is fairly inelastic since it has few substitutes. My hat's off to you, though, for arguing about basic economic principles with somebody who earned an economics degree from Wharton. I agree with Dmitry's assessment below: Some people (not necessarily anyone participating in this thread) appear to have some fanciful notion that no one should have to pay much more than original list price for a Mosaic, no matter how long it has been OOP. I recall someone once visiting the old BNBB seeking advice about how to best dispose of numerous Mosaic sets left to his mother by his father. Despite his revelation that his mother had few assets, many board members were urging him to sell the sets at "reasonable" prices. Unbelievable - I really wish that I had said something. There was a moral responsiblity there, but it was for the son to fetch the highest price possible for those Mosaics.

Ditto!!! I envy you Aftab - those are great photos!

I hope that you have a great day, Jeff, and I wish you all the best in the coming year. I sorely miss bumping into you at record stores - Orange County has not been the same since you left.

Those of you who are interested in completing their Sony SACD collection might like to take advantage of the sale currently underway at the Sony Music Store. A search for "SACD" reveals SACD's being sold for $10.98 each and double-disc SACD sets selling for $19.98 each. Shipping is free on orders totaling over $25.00 - I haven't placed an order yet, so I do not know in which states sales taxes are levied. CD's are also on sale: $11.98 discs for $8.98, $13.98 discs for $9.98, and $29.98 sets for $19.98. Larger, multi-disc sets also appear to be on sale.

Happy Birthday, Moose! Over the last few days I hope that you received everything that you wanted.

I'm with you, Kevin! I wish all of you a merry Christmas and all the best in the coming year.

Late, try here: Bill Evans SACD reviews I have close to 100 SACD's, about a 1/4 of them being either Bob Dylan or Rolling Stones ABKCO reissues. The original Rolling Stones ABKCO releases had been around for some time, and I was more than willing to shell out a little cash for hybrids with much improved sound. Indeed, Tower has sold these reissues for $9.99 each at least twice during the past year or so. Hell, if EMI were to ever reissue the Beatles catalog on hybrids for $18.99 list, I would gobble them up. As it is, Beatles CD's currently list for $18.99 even though they are early generation masters. Sony-Columbia would have done well to sell their Bob Dylan hybrids for a few dollars less and forgo the CD-only remastered series. I lot of people were looking forward to Dylan's catalog being remastered, but now there seems to be little reason for anyone other than the committed to purchase the more expensive hybrids. I well understand the sentiment of those reluctant to purchase the same albums yet again on the SACD format. Fortunately, I have been able to purchase a number of SACD's (particularly Fantasy jazz and classical releases) that I never owned before on another format.

Thank you all very much. I wish that I had overslept, Catesta - I have not been getting enough sleep lately and I have no one to blame but myself. I was able to take the day off, though, and so it has been far better than last year when I had to work all day and then attend an evening class and take an examination. I have not made time to listen to much music lately, but I did play Van Cliburn's 1958 performance of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 (on SACD) this afternoon and I am looking forward to digging into the Nuggets boxed set (finally! - what a great gift) over the weekend.

I believe that the only factor that has not been addressed is how easy/difficult it would be for your wife to find a good job in Seattle. Of course, if she is the one who is determined to move back to the PNW come rain or come shine, then I suppose that it is not much of an issue - she should find something sooner or later. Unfortunately, I have not lived in either city (in retrospect, I wish I had gone to law school at Penn). I agree with Johnny, though, that Seattle seems a much easier place to raise a family. I also agree with PHILLYQ that there are tremendous advantages to raising children in the proximity of an extended family. Moreover, spending time with your parents will become increasingly more important as they grow older. I did not vote, but if I were you, I would take the job offer in Seattle and try to push back the start date as close to June as possible. If you are correct about the legal market in Seattle being very tight (and I have no reason to doubt you), then you may end up kicking yourself a few years down the line for not taking what appears to be a great opportunity to relocate now.

Bruce, Yeah, I suppose that you are right. I guess that the bad music of the 70's has left a stronger impression on me than the bad music of the 80's. After a little thought, it is clear that there ARE a hell of a lot of great rock albums that were made in the 1970's. My top 10 rock albums of the 80's does not quite match up to my top 10 rock albums of the 70's. My favorite album on the Rolling Stones list is Reckoning, one of my favorite albums of all time.

Really? I think that the music made in the 80's was pretty strong overall. In comparison, most of the music popular from 1973-1978 seems really weak, save for the works of a few. I also cannot say that I have been too impressed with much of the pop music made after the early 1990's.

I can give an immediate explanation. No problem. God distinguishes between nations and individuals when it comes to sin and the punishment thereof. There is also a distinction between the penalty after death administered to each individual, and a penalty on earth imposed on a person - which might be made to carry over to his descendants, for certain crimes/sins. Each individual must bear the punishment, after his death, for his own sin, unless he got saved while still on earth by accepting Jesus as Saviour, of course. Thus (Ezekiel 18:20) the son does not bear the punishment for his Dad's sin: namely being judged as an individual after death and cast into the lake of fire, preceded by a spell in hell. No-one will ever be sent to hell and the lake of fire for another's sins. Then, the scripture in Deuteronomy 24:16 says that no-one is given the earthly death penalty by the country's authorities for a crime committed by another. And we know that no-one ever is (at least, not in a just society). When it comes to nations, God says, in those Exodus verses, that his punishment of the nation in question will sometimes carry on for several generations. Thus, people born later will suffer because of what their ancestors have done. (It's a bit like the comment that rain falls on the just and the unjust.) This suffering is only on earth, not after death. So there is a big difference between the two types of punishment. An example of the national judgment is the Jews in captivity in Babylon, living in a foreign land under the control of the Chaldeans. These Jews had children who were born in captivity, and these children suffered because of the earlier sins of the fathers, even though they were not personally to blame. Another, contemporary, example would be a child born in an impoverished country that is suffering from prolonged drought. God has brought on the drought as a judgment on that nation for its evil false religions (that's why it happens), but the new-born child is not individually to blame, at least, not at first. Another point about this punshment for several generations is that God, being God, knows what each of us will do in the future. Thus, if an individual, or nation, is going to be only evil in the future, then God sometimes makes them suffer right from birth. So, you see, there is a logical explanation of these apparently contradictory scriptures. If one approaches the Bible with a humble heart, not looking for errors, then an explanation will be found. Sometimes the answer is not easy to find, but one can ask God to reveal the answer. When I first saw that king who was 22 and 42 at the same time (!!), I did not know the explanation. But I did not think there was an error. I just wanted to know how this could be explained. I asked my then pastor, who did not know the answer at first. But he did find me an answer, and I will post it "in a future broadcast", as Robert Stack used to say. You provide a strong, yet ultimately unconvincing argument. The problem is that you somehow seem to overlook the fact that when your God metes out punishment to nations, he must, almost inevitably, cause the death of individuals. If your God visits something such as a flood, famine, or drought upon a nation, inevitably people will perish. Accordingly, in such instances people ARE put to death for the inequities of their ancestors. I offer also Isaiah 14:21, which reads: Prepare slaughter for his children for the inequity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. Your claim that God knows what people will do in the future and so sometimes makes evil people suffer right from birth seems to have much more in common with a philosophy based on predetermination/fatalism than Christianity. If God is omniscient and knows all that will transpire in the future, then what exactly is the point of it all? For indeed, it has already then been determined who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, etc., etc. and there is NOTHING that anyone can do to change matters. Actually, I do believe in predetermination. I believe that based upon who an individual is and all of the stimuli that a person encounters, it is inevitable that he/she will act in a particular way at any given point in time. The only variable for which I might allow is chaos, but chaos theory is beyond the scope of this discussion (and something of which I am not sufficiently versed). Still, the bottom line is that depending upon who you are you either are going to believe and subscribe to Christianity or you are not. To think that a god would doom a person to some sort of hell for his/her religious convictions (insofar as those convictions respect the rights of others) is beyond me. There is much to be said for living a just and virtuous life - one does not need Christianity or any other religion to do so. Tell me, Shrdlu, have you ever studied philosophy as an academic discipline? Now, when I refer to philosophy, I do not simply mean to the differences between Christianity and the world's other religions. I mean epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and ethics. If you had, I doubt that you would display so little compassion for those with different beliefs as well as so much arrogance in the primacy of your faith. I really do not have anything against any religion (including Christianity) insofar as that religion preaches tolerance of those with different beliefs. That said, I am extremely wary of organized religion. As for contradictions in the Bible, as I stated before, I know plenty of Christians who accept that such errors exist with unshaken faith because they realize that the Bible can NOT be the literal word of God. Your suggestion that people approach the Bible with a humble heart not looking for errors is ridiculous. There are many Christian theologists who seek inconsistencies in the Bible with an open mind because they are interested in the TRUTH. As Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." You started this thread, Shrdlu, so if you are interested in its vitality why don't you being by explaining all of the contradictions presented in the two websites to which 7/4 and I provided links? I, though, have to agree with CS500 that there are far more interesting things to read.