Not sure where to post this

[papsrus]

... In that study, it was found that someone having a poor customer interaction with a service provider, retail or otherwise, was seven times more likely to tell someone of their poor experience than if they had had a satisfactory one. ...

Does that mean that we can give 7 times the weight to positive reviews vs. negative ones?

[John L]

If we were making those posts because we love Chuck and want to support him, that would be one thing.

If we were making those posts because we genuinely love All Music, that would be another thing.

...So it is both things, and that makes it OK.

[Big Beat Steve]

When it comes to something like recordings, or movies and the like -- I find it's best to ignore negative reviews, and see if the content of the positive reviews can win me over. Negative reviews of music, especially, seem more often to come from people with axes to grind.

This "axe to grind" thing had me wondering in the opening post, and now again. What do you mean by that exactly? Do you really infer that there are that many people out there who have an "axe to grind" (or a bone to pick or whatever) with a specific label, producer, artist or whoever? What for? On that Amazon platform of all places? And totally unrelated to something that really bugs them about a published work by their OWN (SUBJECTIVE) standards?

I hardly ever bother to even think about writing an Amazon review (though that automatic mail comes in every time I buy a book or disc there), and yet ... I remember once I wrote one (relating to one of those "record guides") where I specifically faulted the author for getting himself far, far out on a limb by making assumptions about the non-availability of the recorded works of certain artists, and all this only because this (U.S.) author evidently was glaringly unaware of the existence of widely and internationally distributed reissues on (non-U.S.) collector labels. Something that can mar the overall trustworthiness of the recommendations in such a book. Did I grind an axe there because I stressed the weaknesses? I don't think so.

Or how about that case when I complained about the abysmally poor photo printing quality in a music book (that did rely on these photos for its overall message) and left a lukewarm review and relatively low rating? And this for a book for a niche target audience on a niche subject by a niche publisher? Did this mean I had an axe to grind because I would rather have been obliged to leave a glowing review in view of the fact that it was such a niche item? I don't think so either.

So ... ???

Edited May 9, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

The negative review seemed entirely/exclusively focused on the bass player in every regard, and how the man's sheer existence ruined the record.

Not my favorite bass playing on any Warne record, but the guy don't suck, and he doesn't ruin - or really even factor into - what is ultimately a spectacular recorded document of on of jazz' truly great players.

Sure seemed to me that the review was fixated on the bass playing to a degree far beyond anything rational, both in terms of the bassist's performance and its impact on the record.

There's a time to call bullshit, and this was one of those times.

[Larry Kart]

Further, bassist Fred Atwood was part of a working rhythm section with Lou Levy and Jake Hanna (that of Supersax), and their familiarity with each other (in addition to their skills) is what led to one of the glories of the album -- those improvised rhythm section choruses, in which Atwood was a full participant. If you don't care for Atwood as a soloist, go ahead, but those rhythm section choruses are exceptional.

[Dave James]

I know I'm running a serious risk of being censured when I say this, but I've never heard All Music. However, what Jim said about the bass player could end up resonating with me and in a big way. If I recall correctly, the fellow who posted the negative Amazon review complained about bringing the instrument forward in the mix and that there were too many bass solos. Well, I'm from the School of Rock that says even one bass solo is one too many. So, if this gentleman happens to row in the same boat as my own bad self, then I guess I can see where he's coming from.

[seeline]

I agree with Hans - it is at the very least bad form and could backfire.

Very much agreed.

[Tom 1960]

After reading the many positive comments here and after listening to the 30 second snippets, I've now placed this on my wish list. Hope to get it soon.

[jazzbo]

Alright Tom!

[neveronfriday]

You can whitewash it all you want, but it's unethical.

I was very surprised to see something like this on this board.

I guess the only thing that makes the people who posted those reviews different from a horde of Justin Bieber fans is, what, taste?

Yeah, right.

And all of that from the people who love to yell, scream and throw a general fit when some European release doesn't adhere to American copyright law?

Personally, I think you just helped turn Amazon reviews into an even more unreliable system.

Note: I have the CD and like it.

[Chuck Nessa]

Sorry, I was just venting.

A similar thing happened with my Air recording - the reviewer thought he was getting a different group and was pissed. The review has now been removed.

I buy lots of stuff on Amazon (never check the cd reviews) and rely on reviews for other stuff like faucets, appliances, etc. This suggests to me negative reviews do matter.

The "ax to grind" thing was related to the attack on Fred Atwood, not the recording (or me).

I wasn't fishing for positive reviews, just letting off steam. This was probably a result of taking Chantix.

[seeline]

It's no different than all the people who ask their friends to review their latest album, hoping for all kinds of positive remarks.

Which is, as stated just above, unethical.

I was surprised to see this thread here, too, but... Amazon.com and other sites like it are full of "reviews" by friends and relatives - and authors and artists as well, hyping their own work under fake names. (There was a glitch a few years back that revealed a lot of embarrassing self-hyping comments in the book "reviews"; I've seen a few myself, but in those cases, the people who wrote the comments are people I actually know.)

Swarming a site - even if in support of a friend - is never a good idea, imo.

Edited May 9, 2011 by seeline

[Chuck Nessa]

It's no different than all the people who ask their friends to review their latest album, hoping for all kinds of positive remarks.

Which is, as stated just above, unethical.

Agreed.

[seeline]

hey, I added to that comment.

see above.

[Big Wheel]

I agree with Hans - it is at the very least bad form and could backfire.

Very much agreed.

+1. While the bad review sucks and is not particularly fair to Chuck, it would also be bad to see the board turned into a conduit for obvious reviewspam.

After reading Terry McAuliffe's hideously written What a Party! I went over to Amazon to see what people thought about it. To my surprise not only were there lots of glowing reviews from McAuliffe's famous buddies like Paul Begala, but there was this one from a guy who looks like a normal reviewer - except that in the book itself, McAuliffe mentions a person by that name who happens to be his own personal driver. Before I realized that, I thought that McAuliffe was just a bad writer - now I think he's a manipulative jerk who encourages his own employees to juice his book sales at the expense of the public.

[Hot Ptah]

I totally disagree with the posters who find this unethical. It is no different than a restaurant employee, a doctor, an accountant, a shop owner, asking someone they know to be a satisfied customer to "please mention us to your friends!" It happens all the time in business of all types, and if the customer is truly pleased with the services, they may in fact recommend the person to someone else. Or not--it is their choice, just as we had a choice here. Chuck is not our employer and has no other control or "pull" over us, unlike some of the examples cited.

If I did not love the album in question, I would have read Chuck's post and ignored it. I often post my opinion of an album on Amazon, good or bad, especially when my opinion differs from some of those posted. I see no difference here, except that Chuck pointed it out to me--which to me is like a dermatologist setting up a practice giving me his card and asking me to have my friends call him if I am happy with his services. There is nothing wrong with marketing or promotion in business.

Chuck is a small businessman. This is how small business operates in the United States. What happened here is by no means unethical, in my humble opinion. I find the comments of those who are calling it unethical to be rather smug and judgmental, I must say.

[neveronfriday]

in my humble opinion. I find the comments of those who are calling it unethical to be rather smug and judgmental, I must say.

Thanks.

Besides the fact that your opinion doesn't really sound all that humble, it's always nice to get one's opinion evaluated by the fine members of this board.

[Hot Ptah]

You were doing it to me, and the others who posted positive opinions on Amazon. You raked us over the coals.

I was thinking that one issue is whether the Amazon reviews are bound by journalistic ethics. I do not think so. They are not reviews by professional reviewers. The Amazon site and its opportunities to review, are not set up to be professionally regulated. Most of the reviews are clearly amateur enthusiasts babbling in pixels. I have never thought that they had much credibility--in fact, most of them have little or no credibility in their content. The motivations of most of the writers seem to be to argue for what they like, from whatever motivated them, not to adhere to the customs and practices of a trained reporter on a newspaper. Look up any well known album with a lot of reviews, and in reading the reviews, you will quickly lose any sense that there is a code which the reviewers are bound to.

When I have posted Amazon reviews in the past, it has never occurred to me that there were any standards that I was bound to. None are posted on Amazon, that I am aware of. So why should our reviews of Warne Marsh be judged by what the New York Times would find acceptable?

This thread reminds me of a thread on another music forum board, where a member asked about the procedure for finding and hiring an attorney. Within a few pages a raging debate had broken out about whether the originator of the thread had committed a crime and whether he was immoral in his actions, with much intense controversy over side points. It seems that nothing can be simple online. Everything turns into a controversy over ethics or various members' views on morality. It seems to be the nature of the medium.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[Rooster_Ties]

Amazon has an upvote/downvote system ("was this review helpful?") -- and over time, the most useful reviews (whether positive or negative) will float to the top.

As my esteemed colleague Mr. Ptah states, I don't think Amazon reviews are bound by journalistic standards. (Hell, anymore, most of what passes for journalism these days doesn't either.) In any case, I wouldn't worry about it. The public's reaction to whatever reviews are there will provide another layer of editorial input to the process.

Crap reviews, good or bad, will basically be ignored in good time -- and only the "useful" ones will prevail -- entirely based on the content of the review, and not the number of stars given.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[neveronfriday]

Hm.

Let's see what happened.

None of the people who wrote a review (besides the one rather negative one) had previously thought of writing one.

They only did write a comment to help someone out (no matter if their review is accurate or not).

That way they pushed a buddy's reissue CD up the voting ladder.

If you don't call that unethical, what is?

Would you like your politicians to work that way (besides the fact that they do)?

Besides, since when is ethical behavior only called for when a site like Amazon asks for it?

Do the rules always have to be spelled out before people abide by them?

But, we've had these discussions here a million times and the trenches have been well-dug.

So, what's the point?

It's a really only a mute one.

[seeline]

Ptah, I do think there is something wrong with the kind of promotion that happens on sites like Amazon (and others) when friends want friends to vote their product up.

If someone is giving an honest opinion - positive or negative - fine, but to start a thread about how someone "trashed" an album (when they actually didn't) and then have people rushing to post positive reviews and vote down the so-called "trashing" ... I dunno.

Call me old-fashioned if you want, but I just don't think it's right. (I will plead guilty to the charge of "former music journalist," though.)

Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline

[GA Russell]

NOF, it's "moot".

[JSngry]

If a jury finds me guilty of telling the truth when asked by a friend, hey - fuck the jury.

Some y'all acting like there's "rules" to this shit. There ain't, other than one's own code of honor. I guess it's unethical to be honest in support of something you believe in.

Nah, it's not unethical, What's unethical is to sit around all whinybitched and do nothing to counter it. Punks.

I can sleep very well telling the truth, wake up in the middle of the night to shoot some fool trying to twink in, and then go right back to sleep.Especially now that I got my CPAP.

Ethical cowards. There's the type of people you want off your property before they even set foot on it.

[neveronfriday]

NOF, it's "moot".

I was actually going to stay silent on this issue, hence the little pun.

Not so sure anymore now that JSngry has saddled his horse, put his cowboy boots on, polished off his water pistols and has started yippie-ki-yeahing all over this issue.

[seeline]

Has anyone seen Jim Alfredson or other members of Organissimo asking for positive reviews on Amazon.com and other sites?

When you put something out there - a book, recording, whatever - not everybody is going to like it. Part of putting the music (or book) out there is learning to live with the negative reviews and comments. They will come along, regardless of how good, bad or indifferent the "product" is.

It's all part of the game - or business.

Same with restaurants, bakeries, clothing companies, and so on.

But people usually don't rush to defend big corporations.

I got one too many requests to review CDs made by friends and acquaintances, and not all of them understood why I declined. Doesn't matter, though i was surprised by those who didn't understand how my knowing them might bias both their expectations as well as my writing.

When people start posting positive (or negative) reviews within a tight time frame, it's kind of obvious that there's something going on, and people can see that... no matter how heartfelt the opinions of the writers might be. it's a strategy used by the major labels on a regular basis, although you'd think they would know better...

Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline