Not sure where to post this

[seeline]

Not really.

I think you enjoy stirring the pot.

Disagreement doesn't = hostility in my book, but you seem to feel obligated to diss people who entertain different views than yours.

Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline

[Big Wheel]

Let's put it this way: it's reasonable for an Amazon customer to expect that 70% of the reviews for Led Zeppelin III are going to be from diehard Led Zeppelin fans. It's reasonable for them to expect that 70% of the reviews of All Music are going to be from diehard Warne Marsh fans. It's not reasonable to figure that they're going to expect that 70% are from Organissimo forum members who happen to interact with Chuck all the time. Obviously there are lots of shades of gray here, but this does make a difference in credibility IMO.

[JSngry]

The "professional music press" is so incestuous that even when "full disclosure" is in place, it hardly ever really is.

And I'm not sure that it needs to be either. People have lives and lives cross. To think that something as piddly (in terms of critical legitimacy) as reviews on an online retail site should be treated like "real journalism" and all the implications thereof is really, really anal as far as needing/expecting "control" over what one is exposed to.

Cows shit in the pasture, dogs in the grass, birds everywhere. Fact of life, and totally natural. If that's a problem, stay inside.

[seeline]

Let's put it this way: it's reasonable for an Amazon customer to expect that 70% of the reviews for Led Zeppelin III are going to be from diehard Led Zeppelin fans. It's reasonable for them to expect that 70% of the reviews of All Music are going to be from diehard Warne Marsh fans. It's not reasonable to figure that they're going to expect that 70% are from Organissimo forum members who happen to interact with Chuck all the time. Obviously there are lots of shades of gray here, but this does make a difference in credibility IMO.

you put it more clearly than I did earlier in the thread. Thanks!

[JSngry]

Not really.

I think you enjoy stirring the pot.

Disagreement doesn't = hostility in my book, but you seem to feel obligated to diss people who entertain different views than yours.

Going forth, please try to display an understanding of the difference between dissing opinions and dissing those who hold them.

Let's put it this way: it's reasonable for an Amazon customer to expect that 70% of the reviews for Led Zeppelin III are going to be from diehard Led Zeppelin fans. It's reasonable for them to expect that 70% of the reviews of All Music are going to be from diehard Warne Marsh fans. It's not reasonable to figure that they're going to expect that 70% are from Organissimo forum members who happen to interact with Chuck all the time. Obviously there are lots of shades of gray here, but this does make a difference in credibility IMO.

It is Amazon's responsibility to screen their reviewers for online affiliations before posting their reviews in order to maintain a representative balance pof the online community therein, not mine. That job would best be held by somebody for whom it matters enough to take the time.

Apparently there are those who would be interested. Amazon, are you listening?

[seeline]

According to some posters who wrote earlier in this now-long thread, amazon.com has pulled reviews due to conflict of interest in the past.

[Chuck Nessa]

According to some posters who wrote earlier in this now-long thread, amazon.com has pulled reviews due to conflict of interest in the past.

and...

[Matthew]

What's the BFD anyway here? If you like the cd, post a good review, if not, pan it. People are losing the forest from the trees here -- among other things.

[Noj]

What about when some non-music fan posts a negative review of Bob Dylan's Nashville Skyline, leading Noj to want to hunt the reviewer down and laugh maniacally as I choke the life out of him to keep him from polluting the gene pool with bad taste in music?

[seeline]

The negative review was poorly written, but the guy has a right to his pov.

If you folks had held off for a while instead of posting all at once...

But what's done is done; I think this thread has been going in circles for a while.

Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline

[Hot Ptah]

According to some posters who wrote earlier in this now-long thread, amazon.com has pulled reviews due to conflict of interest in the past.

and...

There is no conflict of interest here, not even remotely. I feel no special close relationship with Chuck Nessa. I don't know if he has children, what his house is like, what his voice sounds like, how tall he is, anything about him. I read his posts here. He knows nothing about me or my personal life. None of you do.

To say that the fact that we interact on this forum makes us such close friends as to imply that a conflict of interest could be present if we review each other's CDs--I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but that strikes me as deluded in the extreme. To call what we have here "close friendship" is to confuse actual. flesh and blood, real world personal relationships with something which is far less than that. There are probably two people on this board who I consider personal friends, but those are very unusual situations. Chuck Nessa is not one of them.

[seeline]

Ptah, I was responding to a post where conflict of interest in another review situation (on Goodreads.com) was discussed.

That's all.

and this, from Jsngry

It is Amazon's responsibility to screen their reviewers for online affiliations before posting their reviews in order to maintain a representative balance pof the online community therein, not mine. That job would best be held by somebody for whom it matters enough to take the time.

Apparently there are those who would be interested. Amazon, are you listening?

Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline

[Hot Ptah]

The negative review was poorly written, but the guy has a right to his pov.

If you folks had held off for a while instead of posting all at once...

But what's done is done; I think this thread has been going in circles for a while.

But the fact that we posted all at once shows that it was a natural, unbiased outpouring of real opinion, not part of a combined effort. If we had "held off for a while" it would have been an unnatural, planned, manipulative scheme.

What's the BFD anyway here? If you like the cd, post a good review, if not, pan it. People are losing the forest from the trees here -- among other things.

We left the forest long ago to wander for 40 years in the desert.

[seeline]

My views on why "swarming" is a bad idea were stated much earlier in this thread.

No offense, but I think I want to get off the bus right here... no sense rehashing things.

[JSngry]

I want to get off the bus right here.

Well, make sure that bus stops in front of your friendly local music retailer. And when it does, pop inside for a cool refreshing copy of Warne Marsh's All Music on Nessa Records. It's a musical treat that can't be beat, and you'll want to taste it early, long and often.

And while you're in there, tell 'em the O-Board sent you. You'll get a free gift wrapping courtesy of Nessa Records (as will your CD!) and be signed up for an Amazon Visa card at no extra charge!

Remember, that's Warne, not Wayne, and All Music, not pain.

And now m'aam, here's your stop. Enjoy!

[Hoppy T. Frog]

I MISS NATE

[.:.impossible]

Chuck Nessa gave me a ride one time, which negates my opinion of Warne Marsh.

[AllenLowe]

personally I dislike Chuck Nessa (he killed my auntie) but I think every one of his CDs is superb.

[Christiern]

I don't think any of the very recent reviews are insincere—mine, brief though it is—reflects my admiration for Warne Marsh's music, which I have known and laude since I first heard him.

Is what we did unethical? It would be if our words were contrary to our feelings. It would be if Chuck put cheques in the mail. It would be if he sent us a free album. None of these conditions apply, so I see nothing wrong.

Writers are routinely sent products for review. Should we only regard the negative ones as honest? We were not paying Chuck empty compliments, we were disagreeing with someone whose bias was showing. Nothing wrong with a negative review, but this one had agenda written all over it. I have had that happen to me a couple of times (as when "hardbop" (remember him? He hated me because I didn't like Wynton's playing) posted a venomous piece on Amazon (re Bessie, I think). Bringing it to the attention of Amazon quickly got it purged. I should note that the review criticizing Chuck's album was almost favorable by comparison to Hardbop's.

[JSngry]

Amazon in general is about one thing only - commerce. Pure, raw, unadulterated commerce.There is no "sanctity" to the Amazon reviews, no agreed-upon standards, no mandate to be representative of any demographic, they're just there to draw people in and hopefully buy something while they're there.

To that end, hey Mr. & Mrs. Music Loving Public - Amazon offers you, yes, you, the opportunity to place your honest and sincere love/knowledge/whatever about the music you know/love/whatever in the service of pure, raw, unadulterated commerce. No some overpaid/underclued PR team, not some lying pimping jerkwads, not some elite prissy screening committee, but you. Yeah,you, right there with your fatass sitting in front of god knows what. You. You got a chance to pimp the system and be honest about it. 100% honest, 100% pimping.

Ask yourself - how often in life does an opportunity like that come along? How often in your life to you get to get in the Whore Game and maintain your integrity, maybe even enhance it a bit? Does your job let you do that? Does our church let you do that? Does anybody or anything let you tell the truth, not lie, and then stand to make a profit of it? You, not some hired hands who all have roles to play, but YOU!

It's a rare opportunity in this world, it is. Carpe Diem when/if (and only when/if) the mood strikes, no matter what the reason. But dammit, bust a move when you do, because Corporate Capitalism usually don't work that way.

[jazzbo]

Jim, just a side (non-snide) remark. . . you have a very interesting way of thinking.

[JSngry]

It is what it is...and it works best when it works.

[Lazaro Vega]

The bass sound isn't that kind of direct mic, over exposed fret board sound that the 1980's engineers went to the mattresses over. And, much more importantly, what Larry said about the rhythm section's performance is on the money and isn't the music, ultimately, why we listen to recordings? Or is it all about the technology? That's where the first negative review at Amazon misses the boat. And, no, whatever sound is on the record should not take away from the music being played. "All Music" is not on an acoustical recording from 1923 and generations of listeners and critics managed to tease out the brilliance of King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band despite "technical limitations" (a relative term which seems more appropriate to Mozart's time than Armstrong's).

If anyone did any careful listening to "All Music" they'd have noticed the piano, not the bass. It was a war, according to the war stories I've heard from Chuck, between the heat and humidity of the studio and keeping an already troubled instrument in tune. Levy makes the junker sing, which is a miracle in and of itself, let alone Warne and Lou able to stay as closely together as they did throughout the heads with the freakin' wires gradually changing pitch. Chuck and the engineer also captured the sort of textural dynamics of Warne's sound in all it's subtle gradations allowing us a close to live experience.

As far as the music is concerned, Marsh's "Subconscious-Lee" should be hailed as one of the greatest captured performances on "What is this Things Called Love"-changes ever.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Lazaro Vega

[Dan Gould]

I can't remotely comprehend why people are opposed to the actions taken by some members to post positive reviews of All Music, when

• no one is posting on a record they don't own or don't enjoy and recommend
  
• Chuck is offering no compensation for "helping" him
  
• Very few people here have any true "relationship" with Chuck - he is, to 99.9% of the membership, an occassionally gruff bunch of pixels on a screen
  

[doneth]

I've published several books and I've kept all the reviews. There aren't many bad ones but they are the ones that make me laugh: in every case the reviewer has an agenda which makes no sense to anyone but him. Don't forget that Ted Brown likes All Music!