Aggie87 Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happened to the other Getz thread? I'd hate to think it was deleted - the first person stories and anecdotes were worthwhile.
T.D. Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happened to the other Getz thread? I'd hate to think it was deleted - the first person stories and anecdotes were worthwhile. I thought it was in the Artists forum, but it seems to have been deleted. No comment (as a matter of policy, I never get involved with the controversial threads).
oneofanotherkind Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happened to the other Getz thread? I'd hate to think it was deleted - the first person stories and anecdotes were worthwhile. Just a guess , but perhaps Bev Getz threatened a libel suit ? I'm not an attorney, so I'm not sure exactly how that would work since SG is deceased ... does the law ever consider relatives to be indirectly slandered ? The problem I had with that thread was that in the original discussion people weren't saying "Let's learn something important about life from the following SG anecdote ..." , instead they were saying "Here's some juicy SG gossip ..." , which is fine I guess since Getz was a public figure and is no longer around in any event ... but then later when BG showed up , the same people are getting righteously defensive and acting like they meant their stories as high-minded education. Hmmmm ....
Jim Alfredson Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happened to the other Getz thread? I'd hate to think it was deleted - the first person stories and anecdotes were worthwhile. Just a guess , but perhaps Bev Getz threatened a libel suit ? No.
JSngry Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Seems like an act of common courtesy and respect for one of the "family". A fine line to walk, indeed, but in this case, walked properly, in my opinion.
Larry Kart Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 As the person who started that thread, I have no problem with it being deleted, given the way things developed.
JSngry Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 Exactly, oh Talmudic-Scholar-In-Waiting. It's one thing to "tell the truth", quite another altogether to tell an immediate family member whose feelings were bruised by said truth that they had no right to neither feel nor express the bruise.
Beverly Getz Posted May 20, 2009 Report Posted May 20, 2009 What happened to the other Getz thread? I'd hate to think it was deleted - the first person stories and anecdotes were worthwhile. Just a guess , but perhaps Bev Getz threatened a libel suit ? No. Thank you for the definitive and straight ahead clarification Jim! A libel suit?! Something like that is simply not my style and would serve no useful purpose. I really didn't sign up here to be combative or contentious. That isn't my way either. I just responded to (what I felt) were some over the top exaggerations and ugliness written about a person that I care about and have 1st hand experience with. Today I'm questioning my saying anything, as it seems it probably fell on ears and hearts that don't care to hear what is real as opposed to what has been blown out of proportion or what is plain fiction. In any case... I am a firm believer in our 1st amendment rights, and respectful of the personal opinions of others except perhaps when it comes to writing cruel stories with no facts to back them up. Don't misinterpret... I'm in no way saying that everything that was written is fiction or without merit. But much of it was. I can't say I know why the thread was deleted. But if I'm honest, I'm not sad to see it gone! This forum seems to be very well run and organized, interesting and educational.
DMP Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 And with all that out of the way, I'm pulling out "Stan Getz at the Shrine!"
AndrewHill Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 At the Shrine and Sweet Rain are two great records
Chuck Nessa Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I for one wish the thread was alive. Removing it was a mistake by my standards. YMMV. Bummer.
oneofanotherkind Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) I don't mean to hijack this thread ( which after all is in the "Recommendations" section ) ... but didn't we lose something by deleting the other thread ? ... something more important than determining which SG stories were true , false , or somewhere inbetween ? In my opinion, the ( surprise ) hidden value of that thread was that it was catalyzing people ( well, at least me ) to do some serious thinking about the attraction of transendental art vis-a-vis the human failings of the artist ... It may be hip, but is it virtuous to dig the art while reviling the artist ? What is the true connection between artist and audience , and is it possible for the audience to influence the artist ? My own thoughts are that true artists are skilled at conveying the fantastically impossible *conception* of a *potential* beautiful/meaningful/thrilling reality we all maintain inside, which exploded within us when we were young ( and dumb ) , and which we courageously maintain despite age's proferring up of an ever-growing evidence of its impossibility ... But skill in conveying inner conceptions to an audience via an art unfortunately has little to do with creating a commensurate reality in the real world of relationships , economics , and the omnipresent greyness which surrounds. In fact , for some it might even serve as an ultimately debilitating distraction. Nevertheless , we must study those who found the courage to endeavor to poignantly convey a strikingly better reality and in doing so potentially change others' boundaries of the realm of the possible. I know that in my study of 3 of jazz' most tragic figures ( Woody , Jaco , Lee ) I have ultimately found that understanding the real man behind the public persona made the music more meaningful and a better teacher to me ... not a worse one. Edited May 21, 2009 by oneofanotherkind
7/4 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I guess I missed the last messages to the deleted thread. Too bad it's gone. Knowing a bit about addiction and recovery behavior, it all sounds very familiar.
jlhoots Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I'm not sad it's gone because (as usual) a few members can't or won't separate their own personalities & vitriol (in a few cases) from what's important. As always IMHO.
Cliff Englewood Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I'm not sad it's gone because (as usual) a few members can't or won't separate their own personalities & vitriol (in a few cases) from what's important. As always IMHO. Well said, an excellent point expressed perfectly.
jazzbo Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I think it's sad for the board the thread is gone. That's all I'll say.
Cliff Englewood Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I think it's sad for the board the thread is gone. That's all I'll say. Then you really shouldn't post anything in the thread, unless it's recommendations for Stan Getz recordings. If you're not willing to say anything on why you think it's sad for the board the thread is gone, why post that you think it's sad for the board that the thread is gone in the first place??? If the person who started the thread has no problem with it being deleted and the owner of the forum saw it as correct to delete it, then the matter is closed. Now back to discussing the many recordings of Stan Getz that some of us have or may wish to get.
Swinging Swede Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I think it can still be restored. It has happened before with deleted threads (I think).
7/4 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Part of that addictive behavior is wanting to play god, to control things. A control freak gets upset when things don't go their way. . Edited May 21, 2009 by 7/4
jazzbo Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) I think it's sad for the board the thread is gone. That's all I'll say. Then you really shouldn't post anything in the thread, unless it's recommendations for Stan Getz recordings. If you're not willing to say anything on why you think it's sad for the board the thread is gone, why post that you think it's sad for the board that the thread is gone in the first place??? If the person who started the thread has no problem with it being deleted and the owner of the forum saw it as correct to delete it, then the matter is closed. Now back to discussing the many recordings of Stan Getz that some of us have or may wish to get. One reason I didn't say more. . . .Maybe I was being polite and didn't want to say something bad about you. You were rubbing your hands with glee that you felt Allen was chided by Bev. I didn't like your attitude. I haven't liked the way you provoke Allen. ? Other reasons: I felt that it was a bad precedent for the board and that it may be a deterrent to real discussion. I think I agree with oneofanotherkind and I think Chuck. There was much to learn on that thread. I am sad Bev felt the way she did, and she had the right to say why she did, and there was a lesson to learn in there that is now gone, not to be learned by new others. And there was the sort of discussion there that can't be found elsewhere, and it's sad that that type of discussion, open and gloves off, may be limited by the thread's deletion. I did not see (I don't think) the complete thread, the final posts. Edited May 21, 2009 by jazzbo
jazzbo Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 Yesterday I listened to Mickey One yet one more time. I like that one, it gets panned, but there's great music there.
clifford_thornton Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I don't mean to hijack this thread ( which after all is in the "Recommendations" section ) ... but didn't we lose something by deleting the other thread ? ... something more important than determining which SG stories were true , false , or somewhere inbetween ? In my opinion, the ( surprise ) hidden value of that thread was that it was catalyzing people ( well, at least me ) to do some serious thinking about the attraction of transendental art vis-a-vis the human failings of the artist ... It may be hip, but is it virtuous to dig the art while reviling the artist ? What is the true connection between artist and audience , and is it possible for the audience to influence the artist ? My own thoughts are that true artists are skilled at conveying the fantastically impossible *conception* of a *potential* beautiful/meaningful/thrilling reality we all maintain inside, which exploded within us when we were young ( and dumb ) , and which we courageously maintain despite age's proferring up of an ever-growing evidence of its impossibility ... But skill in conveying inner conceptions to an audience via an art unfortunately has little to do with creating a commensurate reality in the real world of relationships , economics , and the omnipresent greyness which surrounds. In fact , for some it might even serve as an ultimately debilitating distraction. Nevertheless , we must study those who found the courage to endeavor to poignantly convey a strikingly better reality and in doing so potentially change others' boundaries of the realm of the possible. I know that in my study of 3 of jazz' most tragic figures ( Woody , Jaco , Lee ) I have ultimately found that understanding the real man behind the public persona made the music more meaningful and a better teacher to me ... not a worse one. 49 posts in and that's a very well-thought series of statements. The kind we need more of on the board. For me, I am sorry that the thread died though it was getting a little hard to read.
JSngry Posted May 21, 2009 Report Posted May 21, 2009 I think it's sad for the board the thread is gone. That's all I'll say. Then you really shouldn't post anything in the thread, unless it's recommendations for Stan Getz recordings. If you're not willing to say anything on why you think it's sad for the board the thread is gone, why post that you think it's sad for the board that the thread is gone in the first place??? If the person who started the thread has no problem with it being deleted and the owner of the forum saw it as correct to delete it, then the matter is closed. Now back to discussing the many recordings of Stan Getz that some of us have or may wish to get. One reason I didn't say more. . . .Maybe I was being polite and didn't want to say something bad about you. You were rubbing your hands with glee that you felt Allen was chided by Bev. I didn't like your attitude. I haven't liked the way you provoke Allen. ? Other reasons: I felt that it was a bad precedent for the board and that it may be a deterrent to real discussion. I think I agree with oneofanotherkind and I think Chuck. There was much to learn on that thread. I am sad Bev felt the way she did, and she had the right to say why she did, and there was a lesson to learn in there that is now gone, not to be learned by new others. And there was the sort of discussion there that can't be found elsewhere, and it's sad that that type of discussion, open and gloves off, may be limited by the thread's deletion. I did not see (I don't think) the complete thread, the final posts. fwiw - that particular thread being deleted did not really bother me - as a "special case". Things were drifitng out of control and off-subject pretty quickly last time I looked in. And I did not get to see the final posts either, so who knows... I trust that it will not set a precedent whereby anybody who objects to an honest discussion of a historical figure's life & time becomes grounds for thread deletion. But in this case, I believe that whoever deleted the thread was acting in good faith at the time. The loss of serious discussion was unfortunate, but hey, life ain't perfect and neither are we. There's ample proof of that everywhere you look... Perhaps the best course of action going forth would be a closing statment by a moderator explaining why a thread is being closed (not deleted) and a subsequent editing out of any too-far-gone posts coupled with the closing of the thread. That ain't perfect either, but if you can find a better deal, take it.
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts