The Making of the Artie Shaw Mosaic

[Dave James]

Post deleted

Edited November 10, 2009 by Larry Kart

[Mark Stryker]

Sorry to play the role of the board's policman and tattle-tale, but copying and pasting entire articles from any source -- newspaper, blog, whaterver -- is both a violation of copyright law and board rules. Please tease to the story with a couple of paragraphs and then provide a link. If you can't link directly to the blog post, get us to the site and have us scroll. It's the fair, honorable and lawful approach.

Thanks

[Larry Kart]

Per Mark's post, here's the link:

http://www.JazzWax.com/2009/11/how-remasters-are-made.html

Behave yourselves. I can't delete the original post, etc. at this point but will try later on.

[Dave James]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not. Instead of just blowing off the post, why not ask me to edit it? I would have been more than happy to do so.

Up over and out.

[J.A.W.]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious

Edited November 10, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Adam]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not. Instead of just blowing off the post, why not ask me to edit it? I would have been more than happy to do so.

Up over and out.

Sure, no problem. It seems to me that Mark did politely ask you to edit it. Were you the one who deleted it, or someone else?

[J.A.W.]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not. Instead of just blowing off the post, why not ask me to edit it? I would have been more than happy to do so.

Up over and out.

Sure, no problem. It seems to me that Mark did politely ask you to edit it. Were you the one who deleted it, or someone else?

See the small print in the first post - Larry Kart, who's a moderator here, deleted the content, not the post, otherwise the whole thread would have been gone.

Edited November 10, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Larry Kart]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not. Instead of just blowing off the post, why not ask me to edit it? I would have been more than happy to do so.

Up over and out.

Your original post, which IIRC only quoted the interview in entirety, was not in my view blown off but merely replaced by a link to the Jazz Wax Blog interview -- this in the name of simple efficiency and to ensure that those interested would travel to Jazz Wax. No slight to you was intended, though I can see where you might feel that way. If so, I apologize, but I thought that taking care of things like this was among a moderator's tasks.

[mellowT]

I don't have an issue with the policy, but if it's going to be enforced, it needs to be done on a consistent basis. Someone needs to better moderate the Politics forum because whole articles are quoted there all the time.

[Larry Kart]

I don't have an issue with the policy, but if it's going to be enforced, it needs to be done on a consistent basis. Someone needs to better moderate the Politics forum because whole articles are quoted there all the time.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's literally the case. Yes, at least one frequent poster on that forum does include a good deal of the article to which he's drawing attention, but to read the whole thing one needs to click on the link that he supplies. If that fellow notices this post, I would kindly suggest that his "teasers" be a good deal more brief from now on. If he doesn't see this post or chooses not to heed it, I'll follow up more directly.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't have an issue with the policy, but if it's going to be enforced, it needs to be done on a consistent basis. Someone needs to better moderate the Politics forum because whole articles are quoted there all the time.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that's literally the case. Yes, at least one frequent poster on that forum does include a good deal of the article to which he's drawing attention, but to read the whole thing one needs to click on the link that he supplies. If that fellow notices this post, I would kindly suggest that his "teasers" be a good deal more brief from now on. If he doesn't see this post or chooses not to heed it, I'll follow up more directly.

Oops - I think I'm guilty, too :blush2:

MG

[gmonahan]

Well, getting past all this stuff about posting, I found the ARTICLE very interesting. I had never actually given much thought to what a "metal part" was even though I'd read the term a zillion times over the years. It's good to know RCA did such a good job storing their material. Wish all the others had.

gregmo

[paul secor]

Yes - Interesting article. Thanks to Dave for bringing it to our attentions.

[Matthew]

Yes - Interesting article. Thanks to Dave for bringing it to our attentions.

Great article that got past me when it was first posted. Thanks a 1,000,000 for the alert on this one Dave. I'm trying to make up my mind on getting either the Artie Shaw or Oscar Peterson Mosaic for Christmas. Decisions, decisions.....

[carnivore]

I have the 10CD set (thanks to PeteB) that includes everything from 1936 to 1945 and, listening across the discs I feel that Mosaic made a big mistake leaving out most of the vocal sides. While admittedly many of the songs are quite trite, the singing - Helen Forrest in particular, isn't - they also include some of the best writing and soloing. They also provide a welcome change of pace and really reveal another dimension to Shaw's music. I wouldn't want to be without 'I Didn't Know What Time It Was', 'Deep Purple', 'Day in Day Out' 'Gloomy Sunday' 'Don't Fall Asleep' or 'All in Fun'

Now if I could just get hold of the Mosaic booklet.....

[gmonahan]

I have the 10CD set (thanks to PeteB) that includes everything from 1936 to 1945 and, listening across the discs I feel that Mosaic made a big mistake leaving out most of the vocal sides. While admittedly many of the songs are quite trite, the singing - Helen Forrest in particular, isn't - they also include some of the best writing and soloing. They also provide a welcome change of pace and really reveal another dimension to Shaw's music. I wouldn't want to be without 'I Didn't Know What Time It Was', 'Deep Purple', 'Day in Day Out' 'Gloomy Sunday' 'Don't Fall Asleep' or 'All in Fun'

Now if I could just get hold of the Mosaic booklet.....

Mosaic has been known to sell the booklets separately for $15. You might ask them. I just listened to the second volume of the Helen Forrest vocals last night on Jasmine. The sound was surprisingly good, I thought, and there really is some very fine music there. But Mosaic seems to have decided to keep the size of almost all their box sets at 7 discs maximum. No idea how they came to that number. They have promised that the upcoming Ellington 30s set will be more and will include all the Ivie Anderson vocals. I'm still looking forward to that one!

gregmo

[J.A.W.]

But Mosaic seems to have decided to keep the size of almost all their box sets at 7 discs maximum. No idea how they came to that number.

This has been discussed on this board before. Licensing cost increases disproportionately for sets that exceed 7 discs, that's why Mosaic limit their sets to that number nowadays. The hopefully upcoming Ellington set will be an exception.

Edited December 12, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Brad]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious

Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview.

I, myself, am only aware of the policy becacuse someone mentioned it in a post. I haven't bothered to check but I assume somewhere this policy is available.

[J.A.W.]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious

Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview.

Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said.

Edited December 12, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Dave James]

Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said.

Hans is right. I'm guilty as charged. Blindsided, as it were, by the unintended double negative. I feel shame.

[Matthew]

Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said.

Hans is right. I'm guilty as charged. Blindsided, as it were, by the unintended double negative. I feel shame.

[Brad]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious

Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview.

Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said.

I read his post carefully and here it is:

"Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not."

Although the point is moot because Dave says otherwise (although that's not what he intended), a reasonable reading of the first sentence is that he was unaware of the policy. However, the second sentence seems to trip him up: "I was not." Or does it? When I read that (since Dave said he was unaware of the policy in the first sentence), the logical interpretation is that the second means he was "not" aware of the policy, not that he deliberately violated it. Otherwise, the use of the term "the fact of the matter" doesn't make sense.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Brad

[Chuck Nessa]

Let it go folks. Dave meant well, made an unintended mistake and all is well in the world.

[J.A.W.]

Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious

Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview.

Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said.

I read his post carefully and here it is:

"Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not."

Although the point is moot because Dave says otherwise (although that's not what he intended), a reasonable reading of the first sentence is that he was unaware of the policy. However, the second sentence seems to trip him up: "I was not." Or does it? When I read that (since Dave said he was unaware of the policy in the first sentence), the logical interpretation is that the second means he was "not" aware of the policy, not that he deliberately violated it. Otherwise, the use of the term "the fact of the matter" doesn't make sense.

Good grief, you want to be right, don't you...

I'll take Chuck's advise and let it go

[Brad]

Sorry, sometimes I can't help being a lawyer and it seemed pretty obvious to me what you were trying to say, but I'll let it go.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Brad