Organissimo reviewed in Downbeat

[Soul Stream]

Just wondered? Got my subscription copy of the new Downbeat and Organissimo is given a prominent review which is damn good and 3 stars!

[Dan Gould]

Jim mentioned that it was coming up but no one has reported on it. Any chance of a scan, Mike?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Proper stuff! Hope this means some sales.

MG

[7/4]

  Dan Gould said:

Jim mentioned that it was coming up but no one has reported on it. Any chance of a scan, Mike?

At least wait until it's off the news stand.

You know...copyright issues are so important here at the forum.

[GA Russell]

Congratulations guys!

I wonder if Downbeat has reviewed other self-produced privately-issued albums. It's been a long time since I've been to a store that carries it.

[bertrand]

The review is positive in every way, but does not explain why they give only 3 stars, not that it really means much. But the tone of the review suggests that it deserves one of their 'four-star' ratings.

Bertrand.

[Dan Gould]

  bertrand said:

The review is positive in every way, but does not explain why they give only 3 stars, not that it really means much. But the tone of the review suggests that it deserves one of their 'four-star' ratings.

Bertrand.

Must have got dinged a star for not advertising in the same issue.*

I think I'm kidding, but I'm not sure.

[bertrand]

You may be onto something there.

Normally, I would say 'who cares', but we all know that in this shallow, instant-gratification society, people look at the star rating, and ignore the text. So a non-inquisitive jazz listener will see the three stars, think 'never heard of them' and move on. Had he read the text, he might have been curious enough to seek the record out.

Downbeat is doing musicians a great disfavor by this inane star rating. Drop it altogether. If a reader can't be bothered to read the text, so be it, but don't give the lazy reader extra tools encouraging his laziness. My two cents.

Bertrand.

[GregN]

  Dan Gould said:

  bertrand said:

The review is positive in every way, but does not explain why they give only 3 stars, not that it really means much. But the tone of the review suggests that it deserves one of their 'four-star' ratings.

Bertrand.

Must have got dinged a star for not advertising in the same issue.*

I think I'm kidding, but I'm not sure.

Root Doctor got a very nice review from Downbeat, and we took out no ad. And while they have contacted me since, it has been very low pressure.

I can't say that about every magazine out there. But the ad sales person at Downbeat has been very cool with me.

[GregK]

I wish they would drop the simplistic star rating system.

[papsrus]

  bertrand said:

You may be onto something there.

Normally, I would say 'who cares', but we all know that in this shallow, instant-gratification society, people look at the star rating, and ignore the text. So a non-inquisitive jazz listener will see the three stars, think 'never heard of them' and move on. Had he read the text, he might have been curious enough to seek the record out.

Downbeat is doing musicians a great disfavor by this inane star rating. Drop it altogether. If a reader can't be bothered to read the text, so be it, but don't give the lazy reader extra tools encouraging his laziness. My two cents.

Bertrand.

The star system is meaningless. In my book, three stars should signify a mighty-fine record. For others it means: "meh." Four and five starts should be reserved for top albums of the year and essential albums. But that doesn't seem to be the way it comes down, so I try to ignore the whole star thing and read the review, or better yet, listen.

[bertrand]

If all potential buyers had the same attitude as you, then there would be no problem.

Bertrand.

[Jim Alfredson]

Hey, at this point in the game, considering this is our third record, I'm just happy to finally have a review. Three stars, four stars, I don't care. It was a good review and if people read it, hopefully it will pique their interest.

[Chuck Nessa]

[Ed S]

[GregN]

:tup

I give it three out of five thumbs up.

But seriously,

totally concur with you brother Jim. It is a proud moment, me thinks.

g

[Jim Alfredson]

The review is up on our website, for those who are curious.

http://www.organissimo.org/press_pages/downbeat.htm

I finally got a real copy of the magazine today thanks to Jenn Ruban-Gentile, their ad person. I could not find the Dec. issue at any of the local bookstores. They had the November issue, then went straight to the January. But she kindly sent me one.

[.:.impossible]

That is the entire review? Wha???

Strange.

[GregN]

  .:.impossible said:

That is the entire review? Wha???

Strange.

I have to imagine that sometimes reviews get edited for space.

I don't have the magazine handy, but imagine there are a lot of reviews

about that length. Could be standard for many releases?

Anyhow, any press is good press eh?

g

[Ron S]

  GregN said:

  .:.impossible said:

That is the entire review? Wha???

Strange.

I have to imagine that sometimes reviews get edited for space.

I don't have the magazine handy, but imagine there are a lot of reviews

about that length. Could be standard for many releases?

Anyhow, any press is good press eh?

g

I DO have it handy, and Greg is correct. In fact, the review of Michael Feinstein's "The Sinatra Project" (from Concord, incidentally, so label size isn't determinant) right next to the "Groovadelphia" review is actually one line shorter than our boys' review (although, the "Groovadelphia" cover depiction is a bit larger and takes up more space ).

Edited January 10, 2009 by Ron S

[7/4]

We count words.

Copy it and paste into Word. There's a function to count words.

dB

[.:.impossible]

Its not so much the word count as it is just an incomplete thought. It reads like the rest of the review is on the next page or something...

[Ron S]

  .:.impossible said:

Its not so much the word count as it is just an incomplete thought. It reads like the rest of the review is on the next page or something...

I think you're right, and I also think that Greg's right that it was probably crappy editing for space.

[Aggie87]

  Ron S said:

(although, the "Groovadelphia" cover depiction is a bit larger and takes up more space ).

I bet the reason the cover is larger is because you sent Downbeat a little payola after successfully lobbying the band for the album name.

[Ron S]

  Aggie87 said:

  Ron S said:

(although, the "Groovadelphia" cover depiction is a bit larger and takes up more space ).

I bet the reason the cover is larger is because you sent Downbeat a little payola after successfully lobbying the band for the album name.

Excuse me--it's called a promotional expense.