vibes

It's definitely. And it always will be.

If you like "Sunday at the Village Vanguard" on SACD, Analogue Productions also put out "Moonbeams," which I highly recommend.

My wife and I drove to Iowa City, IA yesterday afternoon. We're spending Thanksgiving with my brother and his family. The menu is pretty standard: Baked turkey Stuffing (probably Stove Top - fine by me) Green beans with bacon Corn Rolls Apple pie Pineapple upside-down cake (Mrs. vibes wanted to try something new) ...and a bunch of other stuff. I hope everyone has a very Happy Thanksgiving.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on this or any other board. Besides being a vibes player you are biased and probably have so few people to idolize on that instrument that to say anything against him is sacrilege. Everything he plays is mish-mash!!! Very few coherent ideas. He rushes like crazy. And I honestly don't consider him a great player. Often times he hits notes that just don't make sense. With him as with a other vibists like Terry Gibbs, it's all about acrobatics and showiness - never interesting harmonic ideas. I've been very underimpressed by him. The reason he comes to mind easily is because his name is mentioned so often since he was on so many damn recordings in the Blue Note/Fantasy era - not because he was necessarily amazing but he had connections and he could stir up a crowd with showmanship. And he was down with a lotta guys who were recording for BN, so he got the hot ticket there and made a name for himself in historical memory. I'm a vibes player? That's news to me. I found your comment to be ridiculous because not only do I find Hutch to be FULL of interesting ideas both musically and harmonically, but I also believe he's one of the most versatile jazz musicians of the last 40 years. In addition to leading his own groups, look at some of the people with whom he has recorded: Al Grey Billy Mitchell Eric Dolphy Jackie McLean Prince Lasha/Sonny Simmons Grant Green Big John Patton McCoy Tyner Dexter Gordon Gerald Wilson Grachan Moncur III Lee Morgan Andrew Hill Archie Shepp Duke Pearson ...and that's just off the top of my head. If all these great musicians saw and heard something great in Hutch's music, don't you think he just might deserve a closer listen? For me, Hutch is rarely about acrobatics, if ever. Terry Gibbs? Hamp? Maybe....But Hutch? And by the way, before you assume things about people and their biases, you may want to learn a little bit more about them.

Can anyone comment on the music and sound quality of the Dexter Gordon set? I've really enjoyed the recent RVG Dex releases, but am totally unfamiliar with his music beyond the mid-60's. Any comments would be appreciated.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on this or any other board.

This is nothing new, and many, many businesses work this way. There are two main ways this happens: 1. Consignment - the retailer does not pay the supplier for the goods until they are actually sold. 2. Extended dating terms - the retailer does not pay the supplier for the goods until a period of time (anywhere from 30 to 120 days or more) have passed. If you can sell the goods in that amount of time, then technically, you never "owned" them. So, it's not that there won't be any inventory, it's just that the inventory will be accounted for differently on Wal-Mart's books. I assume, based on Dan's comments, that Wal-Mart is pushing all of its suppliers to go to consignment. This actually forces vendors to be more efficient with production schedules, allocation of inventory, etc. I try to get most of my suppliers to go to consignment as well. It helps me do more with the inventory because of the way it's accounted for, and it tends to make the supplier care a lot more about where the inventory is, how it's priced, how it performs, and how well stores are stocked.

But where? As we get more and more efficient, there's less need for the type of production jobs that many folks rely upon. Face it: not everyone has the natural ablilties to survive in anything but a blue collar type job. Not everyone has the abilities to find a place in the high-tech sectors of the economy or as doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs... Tens of thousands of manufacturing/production jobs have disappeared in the last century, and yet the economy has grown and thrived. So, where did all those jobs go? Somewhere else, of course. I agree that not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a lawyer or whatever, but at the same time, I don't see the need for blue collar jobs ever going away. Those jobs just become something different.

I wouldn't worry too much about Wal-Mart. No company is capable of being all things to all people. Wal-Mart's "stack it high, let it fly" model only appeals to certain people. Everyone knows that if you want service, you don't go to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart also has a very "cheap" image which will be extremely difficult for it to shed, if it ever tries to...so, the segment of the population that needs style and name brands won't go there. You get the point. Like I said before, you can't out-Wal-Mart Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean there aren't other things you can do.

Best Buy does have appliances in most of its stores. It's been a relatively tough business for them to crack, however. Best Buy just isn't the first place you think of going when you need a new refrigerator or washing machine.

It can go on forever, and it will go on forever. Guaranteed. There comes a point where you can't squeeze suppliers any more, so you have to look at yourself. If necessity is the mother of invention, and there is a need to cut costs, then ways will be found to cut costs. Note: bold added Ah, there's the rub. The cult of suicide and cannabalism, eating yourself just to stay alive. Doesn't that creep you out just a little? Cost-cutting is always good, no matter who or how many people it hurts? That's a totally arbitrary value-judgement that has been made, and can just as easily (well, not in practice, but in theory) be unmade. If you need more consumers, you need more jobs. Jobs cost money. But they also create spending power, which means making some of the money back, right? Like an old poker buddy of mine says, "You gotta spend money to make money". Look, I'm all for efficiency, making a good profit, keeping your skills at a level of desirability and all that. That's just good old-fashioned smart. But what I'm not all for is this totally arbitrary decision that "there's always more", that you can cut and cut and cut and never bleed. It defies all logic. It's "true" only because "we" have decided that it is. There's no model whatsoever for it actually being true. In that regard, we're our own worst enemies, victims of a self-induced hypnotic trance. It's time to wake up and restore some semblance of sane balance (hell, even semi-sane semi-balance would be good enough) to the equation. Too skinny can kill you just as bad as too fat. I consider it to be neither suicide nor cannibalism. If creating efficiency requires a reduction in the workforce, then the workforce is reallocated elsewhere. That is always a gradual process, and that process has been going on for hundreds of years. There has never been (and probably will never be) such a drastic reduction in the workforce at any given time that it would hurt the very companies that caused those workforce reductions in the first place. Efforts to reduce headcount and create efficiencies can often go to far. Just like markets, companies will often swing the pendulum too far in one direction, and then correct themselves over time. This happened at my own company: people were laid off in order to create efficiencies, but then we were hiring more people again in six months, and many of those jobs were extremely similar to the jobs that were eliminated during the workforce reduction. However, those resources were reallocated to new projects and initiatives. Companies always do this.

It can go on forever, and it will go on forever. Guaranteed. There comes a point where you can't squeeze suppliers any more, so you have to look at yourself. If necessity is the mother of invention, and there is a need to cut costs, then ways will be found to cut costs. This may hurt people, but that's inevitable and unavoidable. Private companies do it just as much as public ones. The way I see it, it's just another incentive to keep educating yourself and to remain competitive in whatever your field may be. That way, when changes are made and efficiencies are found, a person can still remain valuable in some way or function.

Show me ONE company that does not do this. I can't think of one. Some companies just have greater power to do this than others. People look at Wal-Mart and criticize them for squeezing suppliers, but rarely do people look at the good that this does. It forces everyone from suppliers to transportation companies to eliminate waste, refine manufacturing processes and create efficiencies in their businesses. It's quite ironic that people criticize Wal-Mart for giving them what they want - lots of cheap stuff. I may not shop at Wal-Mart and may have some concerns about certain things they do, but I admire the business and brand they've created.

That pretty much sums it up for me. When I walked into the office the morning the merger was announced, my boss asked me if I'd heard about it. I simply replied: Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think this merger is about beating Wal-Mart. For the foreseeable future, no one is going to out-Wal-Mart. That's why Kmart has had so many problems in the last decade or so. They were on top, got arrogant, got lazy, and then when Wal-Mart passed them by, they went into catch-up mode by doing a lot of "me too" sorts of things. It didn't work, obviously. Target has done a very good job of finding its own place in the market place, especially with its "cheap chic" strategy. Kmart is working on similar sorts of things, but again, it seems more like "me too" than something original. There are definitely positive things about the merger, however: the potential to significantly reduce costs and increase efficiencies by reducing corporate, regional and distribution headcount; leveraging the buying power of two companies instead of one when negotiating with suppliers; expanded retail space for Sears' appliances; the opportunity to create a more efficient supply chain network. If the new CEO and board of directors are smart about this merger, they'll hopefully dump a lot of the Kmart corporate employees and transfer their functions over to Sears. Kmart is widely hated in the industry for being difficult to work with and for always trying to throw their weight around, as opposed to partnering with suppliers.

Thanks..so much for keeping 'LP integrity" I'll stick with the Ocium CDs and my old British vinyls that presented Stompin in one piece with an only slightly noticable stitch. I should clarify my statement. The CD is divided in two tracks, but that division is only noticeable due to a small dropout at the track change. Otherwise, the music is continuous.

It says you save $116, but then it also says it's only one disc. I'm tempted to try it, though.

It's divided in two.

'Copy-protected' or 'NOT copy-protected'? That's the question! Just got my set, and am making mp3's right now. No copy protection.

I saw her in concert a few months ago. She played guitar and sang, no backing band. She's not bad, and her singing style reminds me of Norah Jones. I've been surprised to see her CD's in the jazz section, though. Like Norah Jones, I don't consider her music to be jazz.

My wife and I just got back from voting. We vote at a church near our apartment. No proselytizing or anything of the sort, which was nice. We didn't have to wait in line. We registered at the poll, which was nice. I spoke to one of the election judges and she said the turnout had been really good, and that there had been a lot more "younger" voters than usual, which I think is good. All in all, it went very smoothly - fill in the bubbles and feed the ballot into a machine.

He won't have to worry about getting another one. Sony exited the landline telephone business three years ago.

Don't get a 2.4ghz phone. Microwaves and wireless networks interfere with them. The 5.8ghz phone should be fine, so I think your problem has something to do with the location of the phone or some electrical equipment near it. I gave my parents an AT&T 5.8ghz phone last year, and it worked great. I could walk down the street with the phone and still get clear reception. I've heard good things about Uniden and Vtech models as well. The Panasonic should be OK - they are the dominant player in the cordless phone market, and it's for a reason.

Another donation is on its way! Thanks!

If you're thinking about placing another CDBaby order, check out classical guitarist Eliot Fisk. I just became aware that some of his CD's are sold at CDBaby. I have his recording of Paganini's 24 Caprices and another recording of Italian works called "Bell'Italia." Both are stunning, highly recommended.