JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Do what works, if you can do it without lying. Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 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. Pick the card that you wish to be the color of the last sky you will breathe to see. And then have your survivors post their review on Amazon. Quote
neveronfriday Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 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. Pick the card that you wish to be the color of the last sky you will breathe to see. And then have your survivors post their review on Amazon. Don't you have any with Ronald Reagan on 'em? Would fit better .. Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Ronald Reagan is dead...and never wrote an amazon review. Ho 'bout some Lee Dorsey? Lee Dorsey say he'll write any damn thing he wants to when he writs an amazon review, and oh by the way, Lee Dorsey LOVE him some Warne Marsh and Lee Dorsey WILLl shoot a chump right up in the kneebone who wants to try to stop him from saying so. Don't fuck with Lee Dorsey's Amazon reviews, not if you want to walk and live at the same time. Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Here comes Eric....There went Eric...So Long, Eric. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGStgRfuxI Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Welcome back, Eric! Samn Damn, that was quick! Edited May 10, 2011 by JSngry Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Funny how this thread has evolved. I wouldn't be quite as harsh as seeline and neveronfriday but essentially I tend to be in their camp too. So maybe those who NOW (of all moments) wrote such glowing reviews in one single, straight row would like to comment on THIS point raised by neveronfriday (and rightly so) - and by others (including me) before? None of the people who wrote a review (besides the one rather negative one) had previously thought of writing one. How about it, gents, how come you hadn't thought of giving that release and its producer a push in good time? Might have helped sales ever since the first review appeared several years ago on Amazon (maybe more so than it does now when most of the fans have been served). Lots of time to act ... You know what? If you want to help an endeavour that you consider deserving of every plug it can get, then do like it has been done here: I would not want to make my own post a role model for cases like this but the urge to give this a push literally the minute I got my copy was there. Quite honestly ... Doing that several years later would be a bit ...what? ... yeah, half-lame ... BTW, that book above being self-published and therefore NOT being on Amazon does us tell what? That there may be cutthroat resellers discounts at work for those items to be sold directly by Amazon? Makes it all the more deserving of a plug ... (Which reminds me of another post I gotta make on a related topic ) P.S: @ Mr Nessa, lots of luck with selling as many of your productions as you can. No doubt they will be able to stand on their own merits to those who are into that music and do not really need something like "swarm ratings". Quote
John L Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 I don't really understand what people are upset about. The reviews contributed were not spam. The opinions were genuine. Quote
David Ayers Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 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. Chuck thinks its unethical and he isn't thanking you. So go figure. Here's what happens. First they read Nate Dorward's review - which mentions some Jim Sangrey character as having written the liner notes. Then they read the puffs, including one by the cryptically so-named JSngry. Then they notice that all the other positive reviews were posted about the same time as the mysterious 'Sngry'. With codebreaking skills worthy of Bletchley Park they connect Sangrey and Sngry, and figure that the label itself is behind the puffs. And they'll tell their friends. Or post on other boards about it. Or just read it all here. Quote
seeline Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) anyone who does a little googling will find this thread with no difficulty. Edited May 10, 2011 by seeline Quote
Big Wheel Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) I don't really understand what people are upset about. The reviews contributed were not spam. The opinions were genuine. Not spam if you use the strict definition of "purely commercial, dishonest and unsolicited garbage communication used to sell more garbage." But if you use a more flexible definition that encompasses stuff like advertising clickspam, such as "using organized means to abuse or take advantage of systems that rely on crowdsourced data," then things start to look rather dicier. When I worked at Giant Megacorporation™ back in the day, there was once a magazine article critical of Giant Megacorporation making the rounds that we all agreed was factually inaccurate and unfair to us. One of my stupider coworkers wanted us to all visit Digg and give this article the thumbs down so it would be "buried" and Digg users would have a harder time seeing it. In my book, that kind of manipulation, however heartfelt and just, is clearly a form of spam. One other point is worth making: -Those of us who think spamming Amazon reviews is a bad idea are also on Chuck's side here. David's original post didn't say "this is categorically evil and wrong", it suggested that we keep this kind of thing to a tasteful minimum because going overboard may well backfire on Chuck. As an independent label, it seems like Nessa probably wants to position itself as the little label that puts out great, impeccably and honestly produced music in contrast to the majors for whom filthy lucre is everything. If that reputation is tarnished, that can have serious repercussions on Chuck's bottom line just as much as any stupid Amazon review can. Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Wheel Quote
.:.impossible Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Anyone who reads that far into the reviews, then finds this thread in a google search isn't likely to buy the disc. Unless their computer has a sound card, in which case they can listen to the samples and decide for themselves. This discussion is absolutely goofy. Quote
jazzbo Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Well, I'll just speak for myself. I've owned the cd since Chuck reissued it. No, I hadn't thought of adding a review to this excellent cd's page. Chuck's email gave me the idea to add one. I did, telling how I felt about this reissue. Personally, I don't think it's unethical to have done so. I'm not going to add a review to the Organissimo cd because I don't own it or know it. I can respect the opinion of Volker, Seeline, Steve et al. I sort of see their point, but I'm not in full agreement. That's my take. Not going to argue about it. I made my decision and my move. Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Well, I'll just speak for myself. I've owned the cd since Chuck reissued it. No, I hadn't thought of adding a review to this excellent cd's page. Chuck's email gave me the idea to add one. I did, telling how I felt about this reissue. Personally, I don't think it's unethical to have done so. I'm not going to add a review to the Organissimo cd because I don't own it or know it. I can respect the opinion of Volker, Seeline, Steve et al. I sort of see their point, but I'm not in full agreement. That's my take. Not going to argue about it. I made my decision and my move. Of course I respect your point of view too. After having had a much closer look at that review section I just felt that all parties concerned were walking a very thin line of overdoing things, right up to the point of the whole affair backfiring. Each review on its own may be genuine but the overall impressions when all the details (incuding posting dates etc.) are taken together just give a picture that might very well run contrary to the original intentions. And what good would that do? Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 This discussion is absolutely goofy. To say nothing of just plain stupid! Quote
jazzbo Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Welcome back, Eric! Samn Damn, that was quick! Damn! I was thinking last week: what if we hadn't lost Eric. Would jazz be different now? One of those things we never can tell. But he had the mojo, the deep mojo. Quote
EKE BBB Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Now the average score is 4.7 out of 5 stars. Let's keep bringing it up! Quote
Noj Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Having seen All Music discussed at length and universally praised here as an outstanding album, despite Chuck's obvious conflict of interest I think this is defending great music more than it is an attempt to boost sales. I have shopped for quite a bit of music on Amazon, and I've seen all sorts of stupid reviews of what in my opinion are excellent albums. My blood boiling, I was tempted to counter those low ratings and offer a properly sparkling review, because clearly some jackass out there has terrible taste. Yet, there's no accounting for taste. Opinions are like bungholes. Etc. So, I can see both sides of this issue, and at the most I hope the guy who wrote the negative review of All Music reads the other opinions, and finds this thread...so his own blood boils. Edited May 10, 2011 by Noj Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 When something sells "only a few copies a year" and is a quality product in every regard, an attempt to boost sales by correcting any possible inaccuracy is, like the work itself, a labor of love, not some Machiavellian manipulation of marketplace machinations. Thos of you who have kids will/should know what I mean. You let them fight their own battles, but when the deck is stacked, you step in to make it right. Quote
papsrus Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Chuck didn't solicit these reviews. That seems to be an important point. What if there was a thread here about a particular album and some of the participants, noting that the album was not well-reviewed at amazon, agreed among themselves that it might be a fine idea to voice their opinions and write up some amazon reviews of their own? They enjoyed the music, afterall. Why not say so? Would that be an ethical issue? PS: the power company came by to fix some problems I was having at the house today. As the fellow left, he asked me -- twice -- to go to the power company website and add a comment about how "we not only found the problem, but fixed it." Now that's something different altogether. Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Even if Chuck was implicitly solicing reviews (and I don't think he was), I've got no problem with that, just as I have no problem with any businessperson soliciting support in a troubled/trying market. No body was asked to lie, and nobody did. Honest testimonials were offered. No lies were told by anybody at any point, nor were any truths suppressed. If a banding together of like-minded individuals that creates such a result "upsets" some people, I really have nothing to say except get over it, and maybe develop some character & learn how to be a friend to something and/or somebody. It's not exactly unethical, you know. Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) If a banding together of like-minded individuals that creates such a result "upsets" some people, I really have nothing to say except get over it, and maybe develop some character & learn how to be a friend to something and/or somebody. It's not exactly unethical, you know. Real friends don't need to band together but they show their support on their VERY own and through their own impetus as early as possible after having obtained the object that they feel could do with a helping (reviewer's, in this case) hand. Not exactly unethical either, you know ... (No, I am not going to name examples again but some day maybe the difference between banding together in a latter-day attempt on the one hand and acting on one's own as a person capable of such individual action on the other will become apparent ;) Like I said, that helping hand would and could have helped during the past few YEARS ... Opportunity missed? Maybe, but don't blame it on those who pointed it out ... ) Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Beat Steve Quote
JSngry Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 Real friends don't need to band together... wow... Whole 'nother world there. Not for me, thanks. brrrrrr.... Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Didn't you get me or did you deliberately go out of your way to AVOID understanding me? Friends do not need to WAIT to have to band together. They will act on their very own in favor of somebody else because they feel the desire to do so no matter what everybody else does. They are just as likely to be there to show their support IN GOOD TIME and do not wait until after the (alleged) damage has been done. Now how's the score here? That clearer now? Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Beat Steve Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.