lipi

Edmond Hall Quartet, "Petite Fleur". This one: https://www.amazon.com/Petite-Fleur-Edmond-Hall/dp/B000BO87QO

There's this Memphis Archive thing, which seems to be stuff from 1924 to the early thirties (?): https://smile.amazon.com/Swinging-Down-Lane-Isham-Jones/dp/B000003UEF/ And this thing on HEP: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000ECWYDU/ And this Jazz Oracle thing: https://smile.amazon.com/Marigold-Entertainers-Isham-Orchestra-1930-1934/dp/B0018JKFM0/ And a smattering of others. Any advice on where to start? I only have a handful of tracks on compilations, and the 1935 and 1937 transcription tracks on that Centennial Album (on the amusing named label "Vipers Nest Gold").

I think saying that she didn't speak out because of her career is jumping to conclusions. Like I and several others have said a bunch of time in this thread, IT IS BLOODY DIFFICULT TO SPEAK OUT. That should not be such a hard concept to grasp. Is it possible she was emotionally fine and only kept silent for her career's sake? Sure. Should we assume that's the case and vilify her? Absolutely not. Not only because of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but also because that narrative is, basically, "she was a bad victim, she could have done better". The absolutely last thing you want to broadcast to other victims (past and future) is that there is such a thing as a "bad victim" and that there is some fault in their actions. I suspect it will sound to some like I'm splitting hairs. In general, not speaking specifically to Paltrow's case here, there is a misplaced backlash against sexual assault and rape victims not speaking out. Sentiments like "(s)he should report it to the police, or otherwise the rapist will simply find other victims, and (s)he will be to blame" shows a profound lack of empathy. It somehow makes the victim responsible for someone else's future crimes. (Warning, rhetorical hyperbole incoming.) By that rationale, should all parents of criminals be locked up? I'm sure that divorce and growing up in poverty didn't help little Jackie Bankrobber grow up to be an upstanding citizen--throw the mom and dad in jail for not working harder in school and getting better jobs so Jackie wouldn't have had to grow up in such a crime-ridden ghetto! Ugh. Fuck all the Weinsteins of the world. With cactuses. Up their delicate rear holes. Now I'm angry and sad again. Time to play some jazz. I think Isham Jones, maybe. (Speaking of which...anyone have recommendations on good Isham Jones collections?)

I think you're missing a subtlety here: Paltrow was harassed by Weinstein. Had she been an onlooker and seen someone else harassed by him, I'd agree with your "[she] looked the other way" reading, but she was not an onlooker, she was a victim. And what we've been trying to say is that it is incredibly difficult for victims to speak up (and again, speaking to one close friend or acquaintance is a million times easier than speaking to the police, or the public at large). Would it have been better in the long run for everybody if she had spoken up? Yes, probably--I agree with you on that. Can I blame her for not speaking up? No, because I don't know how awful the situation felt for her--I think that's where we are (perhaps) disagreeing.

Ah, so if I do have a clue what I'm talking about, am I allowed to talk nonsense? You certainly seem to give yourself that leeway. This post is so far off the alt-right edge of crazy that I have a really hard time replying politely. It reminds me of arguments we had in sixth grade. What on earth are these "blunt, unfounded allegations" I allegedly made? That you agree with Trump? That you probably like the AfD? Given everything you've written, you seem like you do. If you don't you could simply politely say "actually, I think Trump is scum, and the AfD severely misguided and apparently hopelessly unaware of Germany's political history". Meanwhile, the thread has drifted again. It seems to have become a Steve-vs-the-World sort of thing. Let's try to bring it back where it was.

My dear Steve, I wouldn't lecture too much about Central Europe if I were you. When did Switzerland get universal suffrage again? 1971. And that's federal only. You know when the last canton allowed women to vote in local elections? 1991. Wow. So progressive! No wonder everyone gets along so well! If the women just do as they're told and shut up then there's no cause for strife or concern, right? As for your "influx of real Neanderthals...in recent years"...I'm sure the AfD is pleased to have such a staunch supporter as you. Have you considered moving to the US? The current president has ideas you'd really like.

You ignored my two paragraphs explaining how there absolutely *is* a good reason not to go around calling random women "honey" or "sweetie". I disagree with your statements in this thread almost entirely, so the all-caps "thank you" is, at best, wildly misleading. See JSngry and Scott Dolan's posts lower down making my point far better and more concisely. Or this comic, which tries to make the same point:

Assuming this was a serious question, I will try to explain. (Note that this has relatively little to do with the origins of this thread. Weinstein wasn't calling anyone honey--he did (or is accused of, if you prefer) quite a bit more and a lot worse than that.) The waitress did not force you into a sexual act against your wishes. Therefore, there is no case for sexual assault. The waitress is not in a position of power over you. She cannot fire you, she cannot refuse you a bank loan, etc. She can spit in your coffee--that's about it. Therefore, there is no case for sexual harassment. What's left is being offended at being talked to like a child or a love/lust interest. And *there* your equivalency does not hold. If you have lived in a culture where men rape, assault, and generally oppress women on a regular basis, then as a woman you are far more likely to feel fear when talked to in a denigrating fashion. Especially since in all likelihood in your own past you have had someone call you (or if not you, your friend) "little lady" right before they grabbed your butt or other more intimate parts. All that said: if you do feel uncomfortable with your waitress calling you honey (and you're absolutely entitled to!), then would you feel comfortable telling her so? Would you have that conversation? Would you have that conversation with two others at your table? Would you have that conversation if you were in a bar filled with women, all taller, heavier, stronger, and more aggressive than you? What if instead of calling you "honey" she said "I can't wait to tear up that pretty little ass of you, little boy"? Let's not pretend this thread is about people being called "honey".

I disagree that telling a person who might be a personal friend is the same as "getting the word out". The original point still stands: it's hard to talk about sexual abuse in general, and there's tremendous pressure not to. The whole "well, look at all these women suddenly talking, why didn't they talk before?" question is naive and, frankly, offensive. Catesta replied to a post in which page, I believe, was trying to say just this: "it's hard to talk about being sexual abused, and many people choose not to". Responding with "but Paltrow told this one guy and he said something about it to the perpetrator" doesn't negate that point. It merely shows the profound lack of understanding and empathy surrounding the issue. Apologies if I come across as harsh in this thread. It truly is rather upsetting to me to see some of the arguments people are making here. (And for the record, I despise Paltrow. I think she's an idiot who endangers women's health with her silly workshops and "Goop" line of products and her jade eggs and whatever else. And I am not making an argument about whether she spoke up or not, or about whether she was abused or not. This is about the lack of empathy displayed here for victims, or potential victims, of sexual abuse and the trials and tribulations they face.) Rant over. On a different note: jazz is great. I'm listening to some right now and it makes life better. (Right now Ella, 1938 recordings with Webb's orchestra. Great stuff.)

I apologize: I was unclear. I understand exactly what Brad Pitt said. What I do not understand is how that relates to Page's post. Whether Brad Pitt threatened Weinstein or not is not relevant to the point that talking about sexual harassment and abuse is notoriously difficult. That Paltrow told one individual (Pitt) doesn't change that. So I ask again: what is the "So..." supposed to mean, catesta? Are you saying "look, she told someone"? (Because if so, yes, that's true, but you are missing the point entirely.)

I have no idea what you're trying to say, catesta. Could you perhaps explain with more than an ellipsis?

Agreed. I am hoping it is just incredibly poor phrasing on Dmitry's part rather than his actual belief.

This was already asked by an astute reader on the first page. What are your thoughts?

Oh, I like you!

OK, mods, what the hell? This thread turned blatantly political with Dmitry's second post. Does this mean I get to rant about Trump being a lunatic and unfit to even tend my lawn?

Hey, I hear Mosaic's in trouble!

https://web.archive.org/web/20170801191526/http://www.goodbaitbooks.com/ Quick, someone riff on the words of Mark Twain.

Awww, c'mon. You don't need our help for that. More seriously: you can do a Google image search on the picture, and it will correctly identify it for you.

Different scene. The "electroswing" nonsense came out of EDM and the house world, as far as I can tell. Every serious lindy hopper (swing dancer) that I've talked to hates the stuff--it doesn't swing. (Trev, care to chime in? Maybe you disagree.)

Ah, you're confusing neo swing (the rock-infused attempt at jump blues that fueled the late 90's mainstream interest in swing) with the continued lindy hop scene, which is still very much alive and kicking and frowns upon the musical taste of its teenage years. I'm not sure whether you're missing out, but chances are if you tell us where-ish in the US you live, we can point you to a weekly dance to go check out, and possibly several. Some have bands, though the greater part use DJ'ed music.

PM sent on the last four.

As Ubu pointed out in the previous thread:

Yeah, but what if you remove that post? Better to have someone else mention it...

Re: more control: that's actually an excellent example of the kind of possible misunderstanding I was thinking of when I pointed out that one must truly understand new technology to be able to usefully critique it. I suspect you are mixing issues of DRM and Cloud storage into the more basic difference between CD and download media. A non-DRM-ed download saved on a local disk is just(*) as owned as a CD. It is not controlled by the seller anymore. ((*) It is (currently, in the USA) not re-sellable, so if that's your concern, it is valid. The first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital goods. See Capitol v. ReDigi, 2013.) Re: new not always meaning best: by the same token, old has not always meant best, either. I am not arguing that downloads are better than CD's (regardless of what I may personally believe). I am arguing that most of the arguments given against them in this thread have been baloney. An analogy to annoy and elucidate: to debate landline-vs-cell-phone, one must understand both sides. If you've never used a cell phone, or if the only cell phone you've used is the Motorola suitcase of the late 80's, then you will be unable to provide a whole lot of useful input. (Generic "you".) Re: ALAC: Hah! Guilty as charged? I jumped on ALAC because FLAC support was poor on the Mac at the time, and now I'm happily ensconced in ALAC. The list was obviously not meant to be exhaustive. WMA? AIFF? (Ogg) Vorbis? (Cue discussion about the difference between an encoding and a file format.)

Cuscuna's argument makes no sense--it didn't make sense ten pages ago (or was it in the deleted thread?), and it does not make sense now. "The majors will never give us rights to downloads. It's their feeling that they can take a Mosaic set and dump the CDs into iTunes and put up the downloads for themselves. As long as they don't use the Mosaic name or box it like the Mosaic, they can do whatever they want—it's their material." There is no difference between Mosaic's creating a CD set and Mosaic's creating a downloadable set when it comes to the label's being able to take it all and dump it into iTunes/Amazon/Bandcamp/... after. The same mechanism that protects the label's interests right now (limited number of sales and limited time of sale) can be used for downloadable content. If the labels had any plans to release their back catalogue digitally imminently, then they'd have a reason to not grant the rights to a third party like Mosaic, but absolutely nothing points in that direction. My, incredibly negative, outlook on it all is that Mosaic is, sadly, stuck in the 20th century, and that the people running it are as out of touch with modern technology as the major labels were five years ago (or perhaps still are?), and as most of the people posting on this board seem to be. (And that's totally OK! We don't all have to jump on the new bandwagon. It's OK to prefer vinyl, or CD's, or weird high-fidelity cables made of moonrock. It's OK to not quite know (or care about) the difference between MP3, AAC, ALAC, and WAV. But it's shortsighted to complain that the old ways are no longer working without fully understanding the new. In other words: I don't think any of this is really a business problem: it's a technology/generational one. Here's hoping I didn't just start a massive flame war. I love you all, you're all dear to me, <3, etc. etc.)