Kevin Bresnahan

If you still own a reel-to-reel machine, you can actually get a clone of several master tapes: https://tapeproject.com/jazz/. I'd actually love to hear one or two of these master tape clones on a good setup. Maybe a nice tube amp?

8 track car players were ubiquitous in the late 70's in New England. Nearly every one of my friend's cars had one. One of my friends had a 1972 Buick Skylark that he put one in. He got the Doors debut album stuck in it and it would only play track 4, which was the song "The End". It would ONLY play "The End". I went on a 2 and a half hour drive in that car and he kept playing it & playing it... with Morrison droning "This is the end" and all of us in the car screaming, "NO IT ISN'T!!!!!!!"

But then CDs came along and it was a win-win-win (better than LP, better than reel-to-reel & better than cassette) so a no-brainer actually.

Oh without a doubt!! I probably couldn't afford one back then even if I wanted to. I only came close to buying one well after I was out in the working world and only because I was offered the deck with a bunch of tapes - mostly classical. I just couldn't fit the damn thing into my listening room. It was huge. I was also not a huge fan of the rewinding process.

I've heard that reel-to-reel was more popular in Europe than the US. I can say with certainty that I did not personally know anyone with a reel-to-reel deck back in my early audiophile days. It wasn't until well into college that I met a few older music fans with one. I don't even remember the last time I heard one. I seem to remember an equation back then where reel-to-reel typically = tube amplification. No matter - I am 100% sure that I never saw/heard one.

Well I'll be... so this "4-track" tape, or Stereo Pak tape, only had 2 tracks that had to be switched manually? Were they the same size as 8-track tapes? I used to have an 8-track recorder. The biggest PIA was that the splice couldn't be recorded on, so when you recorded something that jumped across the tracks, it had a glitch in it. I remember recording Jim Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" and the track changed right after Jimi sang, "All along the watchtower" and before "princess kept the view". To this day, when I hear that song, my mind expects that little jump. I also had the Cadillac of car 8-track decks, the Pioneer TP900:

Um, Jim... is this a Texas thing? Because where I'm from, all "8-track tapes" only had 4 tracks. We never had "4-track tapes" or "8-track tapes" with 8 tracks. Ever. And FWIW, I almost bought a used reel-to-reel machine but I didn't have the room for it. Those suckers were huge! I hate to admit it, but I almost bought a DAT recorder several times. Thank god I never pulled the trigger as I've read the horror stories of people's entire collections becoming unreadable with time.

From the web: 'K7' was an abbreviation often used for tapes. The origin is the French pronunciation; 'Kah-set'.

As an LP buyer in the late 70's and through the 80's, I welcomed CDs with open arms. No more paper thin LPs, off center spindle holes, chunks of paper embedded in the vinyl, warble, skips in brand new records, crackles in brand new records... the list went on & on. In the beginning of CD, a lot of people jumped in with both feet. And while I still prefer CD for my listening, I find myself buying more vinyl because many modern CDs have been digitally manipulated to sound like crap.

Making them in Hanover meant that they had to import them, so yes, they were more expensive. The prices didn't really drop until quite a few pressing plants came on line - supply and demand at work. Also, in those early days, the buyers were mostly audiophiles and the prices reflected that. It's funny, but the record store I mentioned in that link above, the Capitol Record Shop in Hartford, Connecticut, became a sort of mecca for hard-to-find CDs. I was lucky in that I lived only about an hour from there. I vividly recall one trip there where I bought the first Beatles CD made, "Abbey Road", as well as Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" & "The Wall", Simon & Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and quite a few more. I paid big bucks for these discs, as they were only available in Japan at the time. I went there about once a month when they got in their latest shipment. I never understood why they closed as they were always packed when I went there.

You're partially right. There wasn't a shortage of blanks... there were only 2 CD *pressing plants* in the beginning. One at Sony in Japan and another at Polygram in West Germany. For a while, every CD was produced at one of these pressing plants. All of the first CDs sold in the US, even if the printed material was printed in the US, was pressed in either Japan or West Germany. The first US CD pressing plant, Digital Audio Disc Corp (DADC) opened in Terre Haute, IN in 1984. Check this out: http://www.mh-audio.nl/tips/cdhistory.htm Fun stuff

Looking at the contents of the October 1984 edition of Digital Audio Magazine, I see that they were talking about Clifford Brown's Emarcy stuff coming out. I remember those early West Germany-pressed Emarcy CDs in the plastic blister packs with the booklet in a pocket at the top and the CD case with the CD on the bottom. I cut many fingers trying to get those damn things open. There's also mention of Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West", which would have been the early Japanese CD in the VDJ series.

Flim & The BBs was my first Jazz CD purchase too. They were on the DMP (Digital Music Products) label. Jim - going by this, I assume you were an early adopter too, because I bought this CD circa 1984-85. I bought quite a few of those DMP CDs back then because they were considered "audiophile" recordings in full DDD. I subscribed to Digital Audio Magazine back then and every month they would rate the latest CDs for sound & and music and Flim & the BBs were often topping that list. Back in those earliest days, CDs were scarce and very expensive. The first wave of them were almost exclusively Rock & Classical. I seem to remember paying close to $20-22/disc back then. But I still consider it a magical time, as we were finally able to hear music as it sounded on the master tape with no clicks or pops and without the muted highs of Dolby cassettes.

Steve Coleman 1 hr · No matter the appearances, I am not attacking or intimidating Maria Grand. I am defending myself from being attacked and falsely accused of wrongdoing. I filed my lawsuit against Ms. Maria Grand, as a very last resort, for two reasons. First, my past relationship with Ms. Grand was a legal, consensual, intimate relationship that spanned the course of 6 years. Second, after our intimate relationship fell apart, Ms. Grand began to covertly spread misinformation as to my character and the nature of our relationship, culminating in a secret seven page letter written by her, in which she deliberately lied about the nature of our relationship and tried to ruin my reputation, by co-opting the very necessary, warranted and powerful #MeToo movement, while simultaneously trying to deny me the opportunity to defend myself. After spending 9 months and considerable emotional energy, stress, and financial resources to mediate with Ms. Grand privately, to no avail, I felt that I had no recourse but to sue Ms. Grand, so that I will have the opportunity to defend myself against her false accusations. I will prove that Ms. Grand's accusations are false, as I have documentation demonstrating the true nature of our consensual, intimate relationship. Anyone who is interested in fairness and the truth should have no problem with both Maria and I presenting our evidence to prove if Maria’s accusations are true or false. Given that attempts at mediation have failed, at this point, the truth can only be proven in a court of law. The positions of both Ms. Grand and I are presented in my public complaint, not in the tabloid news reports with false sensational headlines designed to attract viewership, that are currently being shared. I have included some relevant excerpts from my publicly filed complaint below, to which I have all of the supporting documentation. Steve Coleman —— 11. On or about January 3, 2011, Defendant initiated numerous flirtatious correspondences with Plaintiff, proactively seeking future sexual interactions. 12. On or about June 2, 2011, the parties began to engage in a mutually consensual sexual relationship that lasted until approximately late September 2016. Both the first and last sexual encounters were initiated by Defendant. 13. On or about July 7, 2011, Defendant stated in an electronic chat that she was using sexual intimacy to get Plaintiff to give her "musical information". 16. On or about September 30, 2011, Defendant stated, in a Skype electronic message, that she had been lying to both her aunt and her mother that Plaintiff forced her to have sex with him, in order to make herself look innocent. 17. On or about February 14, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff a message stating that she was attracted to him from the beginning, that she wanted to get into a relationship from the beginning, and that Defendant deliberately "trapped" the Plaintiff because of what she could learn from him, and that she could express her sexual nature (i.e.,”freakdom 1”) freely. 1 “Freakdom” is a slang term referring to the release of one’s sexual inhibitions. The term was used by Defendant in her message to Plaintiff, and is therefore quoted herein. 18. On or about February 21, 2012, at Defendant’s request, Plaintiff agreed to sponsor her for an O-1 artist work visa. 19. In or about September of 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant had an argument and a temporary break-up. After a brief pause in their relationship, the relationship resumed and thereafter continued off and on until 2016. 20. Throughout 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant maintained an ongoing consensual sexual relationship, in which each of them would occasionally initiate sex. 21. On or about May 29, 2015, at Defendant’s request, Plaintiff again agreed to sponsor her for an O-1 artist work visa. 22. In or about late 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant actively engaged in frequent consensual sexual intercourse. Both parties would initiate sex from time to time. 24. On or about September 16, 2016, Defendant propositioned Plaintiff for sex and then asked Plaintiff not to tell her then-boyfriend about the sex, which was described as a "birthday present” for Plaintiff. 25. On or about September 21, 2016, the Parties engaged in sexual intercourse for the last time. The encounter was consensual and was initiated by Defendant, as described in the paragraph immediately preceding the instant one. 29. On or about May 17, 2017, after approximately five months without extended communication, Defendant stated in an email to Plaintiff that he sexually harassed her for three years. She further stated that she was not in a position to deal with it publicly at the time, but that someday she would be, and that she did not"...ntend on being quiet."(Ex. A). 32. On October 25, 2017, Defendant sent Plaintiff the following text message: [10/25/17, 9:11 PM] Maria Grand: I will say what I want to say when and however I want. And yes, you will be held accountable for your actions, one way or the other, especially after you would send me these threatening texts. 33. On November 6, 2017, Defendant emailed Plaintiff’s now-estranged wife indicating she was "going to be public" about her relationship with Plaintiff. Defendant subsequently published her false accusations of sexual harassment against the Plaintiff, and later forwarded the Letter to the Plaintiffs estranged wife, identifying the Plaintiff by name in the forwarded email. 34. On or about November 14, 2017, Defendant sent an email with the Letter attached, to approximately thirty individuals in the parties’ shared music community. The recipients included music industry business professionals. In the email and attached Letter, Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of criminal sexual acts and sexual harassment. Although she did not include his name, other facts, and statements in the publication made it crystal clear to the recipients that she was referring to Plaintiff (Exs. C, D). Defendant requested in her email and letter that none of the recipients forward the email and attached Letter, in an obvious attempt to keep the knowledge of the accusations from the Plaintiff, thereby denying Plaintiff an opportunity to defend himself. 35. On or about November 18, 2017, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff’s estranged wife with the Letter attached, after previously informing Plaintiff’s estranged wife the Letter was describing Plaintiff. The Defendant specifically mentioned the Plaintiff by name, and requests of Plaintiff's estranged wife to keep their communication from the Plaintiff, thereby denying Plaintiff an opportunity to defend himself. Defendant’s request clearly demonstrates that the Defendant knew that her accusations about the Plaintiff were false, and the Defendant specifically was attempting to keep the knowledge of the accusations from the Plaintiff, thereby denying Plaintiff an opportunity to defend himself. This attempt to keep the accusations from the Plaintiff was successful for a period of approximately two months. 37. In all of the written communications Defendant sent defaming Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s identity was so thinly veiled that all recipients knew exactly who was being accused, as the recipients knew both parties well. The recipients also knew the nature of the parties' relationship, Defendant's meeting Plaintiff at his workshop and Plaintiff's providing numerous employment opportunities in the form of musical "gigs" playing alongside Plaintiff at his performances. Separately, Defendant explicitly informed some recipients, including Plaintiff's estranged wife, that the defamatory communications were about Plaintiff. Other recipients, including Plaintiff's manager and another colleague, were able to immediately recognize Plaintiff as the person described in the Letter. 38. Defendant's email, along with the attached Letter, was re-published (forwarded) to many other people. 39. Although Plaintiff was unaware of the defamatory emails and letters at the time, the damage to his reputation was immediate. People in his industry/musical community stopped talking to him, and other musicians canceled on gigs that he had hired them for. The cancellations caused Plaintiff to find last-minute substitute musicians (who were not as capable as the original musicians), rearrange flights, concerts, performance riders, bookings and also rearrange and recopy musical scores. Also, as the previous musicians who canceled had been present on the released recordings, the Plaintiff was forced to complete gigs with an ensemble different from the advertised ensemble listed on the released recordings. 40. On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant had published defamatory information about him throughout his professional community as he was notified by his manager, one of the recipients of the email and attached Letter, who immediately recognized Plaintiff to be the unnamed person described in the Letter. 41. Plaintiff reached out to Defendant to request a retraction and an apology. Plaintiff attempted to resolve the matter privately for approximately three weeks, prior to hiring an attorney for the purpose of engaging in private alternative dispute resolution. 42. Defendant rebuffed or ignored all of Plaintiff's attempts to resolve the matter privately. —— Regarding #32 above, I did not send any threatening texts and emails to Maria Grand in October 2017, and I can prove this in court. What I sent to Maria was a complaint about a Facebook post that she made that I saw as a veiled threat against me. Here it is

If you use Firefox, there are several add-ons for this. I've never heard of a Firefox add-on with malware but I may be wrong about that. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?platform=windows&q=you%20tube%20audio

He said/she said is ugly in the legal system. It is especially so in this case, where the woman admits that it was a consensual relationship but then goes on to accuse him of forcing her into that relationship. His tactics to continue that relationship are disgusting if true, but again, that's still he said/she said. Legally, the only thing actionable in court is what she put into print. It'll suck if he wins, because what she says sounds very believable, but she really doesn't have much of a defense here, especially if Coleman's ex-wife corroborates some of what has been said about her voluntary involvement.

Is Bennie still touring? I was told recently that he was retiring from touring and sticking to teaching.

No kidding!! I missed that until I went back to look at the previous years. I am almost positive that the names are all listed with an option to write someone in. That means that most likely, DownBeat included Phil Woods in their list, even though he was elected the year before. So I wonder who those votes would have gone to if they didn't screw up and include Phil?

2014 2015 2016 2017 So Ray got less than 325 votes in 2014, less than 277 votes in 2015, less than 349 votes in 2016 & less than 378 in 2017. And no one at DownBeat thinks it's odd that Ray got 1,764 votes this year? Tell you what, in preparation for next year's vote, can someone point me to an app or a service to stuff this ballot next year?

I'm sorry if I'm the only one who thinks this is hilarious but I just about busted a gut re-watching this.

I call BS on this year's vote. Ray Charles wasn't even listed in the polls from 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017 and then, all of a sudden, he gets almost double the number of votes that the winner got last year? Something is definitely fishy here. There is no way that all of these voters suddenly woke up and realized that Ray Charles deserved a vote.

Wait a minute... I just realized that Ray Charles didn't even make the Hall Of Fame list at all last year! WTF?? So which group stuffed the ballot for Ray Charles this year?? It's not a "He died this year" thing either. He died in 2004. This is messed up.

Something I don't get is the apparent surge in the overall number of votes this year. They did this on-line last year as well and the winner, Wynton Marsalis, only got 1,062 votes with 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th garnering ~800 votes each. This year, there are 2 artists with over 1,400 votes, and 4 more with ~800 votes. It almost seems fishy. Unless my campaign got all of you to vote for Ray Charles. I know - it's the Russians!

And BTW - anyone who thinks what I did was wrong because it was some kind of ballot stuffing, look at the numbers for the guitarists. Buddy Guy went from something less than 378 to 798 (well over a 50% increase). Alan Holdsworth went from 947 last year to 1,482 this year (36% increase). Mobley went from 618 last year to 798 this year (22.5% increase, thanks somewhat to many of us here), one of the highest jumps by a non-guitarist. You want ballot stuffing, look no further than those guitar fans.

The results are in - Hank is not. Hey, he moved up from 9th place to 6th place. Still got the guitar voting block at play here. BTW, I love me some Ray Charles, but he is not primarily a Jazz musician and certainly not one I pull off the shelf when I want to hear some Jazz. I guess it's time to give up on this.