Not sure where to post this

[JSngry]

No.

[JETman]

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.

If never on Friday, how 'bout on Tuesday??? I believe you meant "moot" and not "mute".

Seriously, though, why all this debate over a cd that will be lucky to get one or two views over the next quarter??? It's jazz after all. It doesn't sell, and nobody likes it. I know we'd like to believe otherwise, but the music industry, as we once knew it or now fantasize about it, is DEAD.

[JSngry]

I don't get this "how come nobody bothered to write a review before now" silliness. I mean, hell, other than a few people who are into it, who the hell has the time and/or inclination to cruise all the freakin' online retailer sites looking for spots to write a review? I know i sure don't.

Look - at Chuck's request, I wrote some updated liner notes. Compensation, some copies of the CD. It was a labor of love to do so, and I was heartened by the universally good reviews the release got in the "jazz press". You think I'm going to hover on Amazon for 5-6 years afterwards to make sure that a release that's gotten outstanding reviews in the real press doesn't get sullied on Amazon or any other online retailer? Not then, not now, not ever. For all I knew, everybody who really wanted it already had it, and those who came to it later wouldn't have any reason to be dissuaded.

So Chuck posts this here, because, OOPS, guess not! Me and some other people responded, again, as a labor of love. And now there's some people clucking and finger-wagging because...I still don't know why, other than maybe that's what they live for, the opportunity to cluck and finger-wag.

Well hey - I got your cluck right HERE, and you can guess what finger I'm wagging right now.

People are just so....CHEAP sometimes.

Edited May 10, 2011 by JSngry

[Big Beat Steve]

I guess nobody would have mentioned this "how come nobody wrote a review earlier" if it hadn't been for this reciprocal shoulder patting and "hey, we're going to rub this really in" attitude that had sprung up here in no time at all - THAT'S where the clucking started and that's what just MIGHT be considered just as cheap, you know.

But again you missed the point IMHO: Nobody would have been required EVER to "hover" over that Amazon review section for years and years just to see if any sort of RE-action had been called for. NO - the point is: What was it that PREVENTED others (who bought that disc and were utterly pleased) from just writing a genuinely positive review at the time they bought it to let people know that this is something that they might want to give a try too? After all THIS is what the review section is for in its essence. Not for attempts at "making up". And such reviews would have helped the product during the entire time span, not only at this (late) date, especially since any poor review (such as the one that triggered this) would have had far less of an impact if it had been up against 4 or 5 glowing reviews right from the START. So much for what friends really can do to help a deserving cause ...

Yet even these attempts at "making up" would have been understandable, but going overboard like it happened with everybody pushing and shoving at getting their say in there both in the reviews and this "helpful" nonsense really - now really ... is the risk of backfiring (again, that cumulation of identical review dates looks exceedingly strange) really worth THAT?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[Hot Ptah]

No one banded together, that I know of. I read Chuck's first post, which did not ask for Amazon reviews. I went to Amazon, posted my honest impression of the album, and later in the day, when my work schedule permitted, went back and read all of the reviews. I did not contact Jim Sangrey or any other members here to "band together."

If an old friend emailed me, or if someone posted here, that Sun Ra's "Jazz in Silhouette" has only two Amazon reviews and that one is very negative, I would be over there in a moment to add a positive review, just because I would want to add my honest positive impression of the album. That's just a quirk of mine, and part of my love and great interest in jazz. I do not spend hours scouring Amazon for albums I can add my reviews to, but if I feel motivated to add a review, I do it.

The fact that I have exchanged some thoughts with Chuck through this forum (I have never met him in person or spoken to him), makes it unethical when I add an Amazon review after learning from this forum that an album which he released, and which I love, has a similar low review count with a negative review?

I do think it would be somewhat questionable if someone came onto the forum, described an album that had not been released yet, by an artist no one had ever heard, or heard of, and said that they were fervently soliciting favorable reviews at a particular website, even though the person knew that none of us had heard the music. I would find that to be more weird and obxnoxious, and incompetent marketing, than unethical, but I would not be interested in that. I am only going to state an honest opinion about an album that I really know, before I post anything on Amazon or any other review site.

I think that part of my point of view comes from having to market my services in a tough market for years, and seeing all the ways that good, honest people struggle mightily to attract business to their quality product or services, and all of the marketing ideas they try. What happened here just does not strike me as that big a deal, in the continuum of marketing and promotion out in the private sector.

I guess a lesson to be learned here is that if you are a musician or producer, communicate by private message to a small group of members about any of your recordings. If you post about them on the board, you invite the possibility of negative discussions.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[JSngry]

Yeah, "banding together" is a poor choice of words if it's taken to mean a coordinated formal effort.

"Spontaneously & independently responded" is then more better, but DAMN that's too much typing....

[Big Beat Steve]

I for one did not use the term "unethical", I just find it unreasonable to handle this thing the way it has been handled and then enthuse about the outcome the way it has been done here through a LOT of earlier posts. Which is why I had my concerns about it all backfiring too. Like I said earlier, it would have been VERY wise to spread out the "remedying" reviews over a much longer time span - and cut out that "helpful" nonsense which in the way the ratings have been heaped up the way it happened makes it all look less than credible. Or can you show me any other reviews (of a real niche item) that are just one or 2 days old at best ANYWHERE on Amazon that have already amassed 10 or more "helpful" ratings within these 1 or 2 days? Amazon just don't work that way ...

Sorry to be quite blunt but if there are those who claim that one is being "cheap" if one has reservations about this whole APPROACH then all one can say in return is that the way this review and rating affair has been handled COLLECTIVELY really is nothing but childish. Sorry for the well-intentioned individual contributions but the overall picture is just that IMHO ...

Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[Hot Ptah]

I think that the fact that several members spontaneously and independently added their positive reviews of the album shortly after reading Chuck's post, reveals the innocent nature of what was done, and the fact that the reviews sprang from the members' genuine love of the album.

If on the other hand, several members had started a Private Message round robin, to set up a coordinated schedule for when each member would add their genuine impressions of the album, so that the reviews would be spaced apart over time--that type of coordinated effort would indicate that there was some type of deliberate collective strategy going on. Nothing like that happened here.

As I said, it may be best for a musician or producer to not post anything about their recordings on the board. Just by mentioning your album here, it may be seen as a conflict of interest, and negative discussions may develop. Perhaps there should be a rule on this board which prohibits anyone from posting anything about a recording which they were personally involved in.

[Matthew]

My two cents after reading this the first time:

1. There are only ten reviews of the cd up -- that's hardly overwhelming the cd with positive reviews.

2. Darn, Chuck is putting his hard earned money into this, and other reissues, we should support him. I mean, if jazz lovers can't get behind him and Wayne Marsh, what are we supposed to get behind? Another Kind Of Blue reissue?

Flame away...

[Big Beat Steve]

As I said, it may be best for a musician or producer to not post anything about their recordings on the board. Just by mentioning your album here, it may be seen as a conflict of interest, and negative discussions may develop. Perhaps there should be a rule on this board which prohibits anyone from posting anything about a recording which they were personally involved in.

Sorry to disagree again, but that would be carying things far too far in my humble opinion. What's wrong with making like-minded music lovers and/or collectors aware of items that have been released/reissued? Especially in a minority niche market like this. All the readers and forumists are mature people (aren't they? ) to decide for themselves if they want to follow it up or check it out. And even if there was such a rule it would be oh so easy to bypass it by having such items mentioned by third party "straw people".

I still feel the gist of this thread is that however noble the intentions were, the way it all hnas been handled (or rather the way it has evolved) it has been overdone and therefore took on an outward appearance where the risk that it looks somewhat dubious has risen disproportionately. Now what good would that do? But that's been said often enough so let's leave it at that ...

Edited May 10, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[Hot Ptah]

I just went back and checked the Amazon listing for this album, and saw this:

"Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)."

If the positive reviews did in fact boost sales of this album, I am glad. I am glad when any great jazz album sells.

[Big Beat Steve]

Just in case it is of further comfort to you ... earlier today I placed it on my Saved Items list through my national Amazon site. Though recordings from that period are a bit outside my key area of interest I got sort of curious ... All the fuss and a possibly overdone bass man notwithstanding ...

[JSngry]

Wayne Marsh

:g:g:g:g

(it's a running joke in some circles....)

[Jim Alfredson]

I don't see anything unethical. Chuck is not offering any incentive for people to write a review, negative or positive. That would be unethical. He didn't ask for anyone to go there and write anything. That would be in poor taste, but not necessarily unethical. As far as we know, all the reviewers own the disc. It would be unethical to write a review (positive or negative) for music you've never heard. There was no coordinated, organized effort to solicit reviews. That would be unethical.

So exactly what is unethical? Since I personally know Chuck, is it verboten for me to ever write a positive word about his recordings? Since he hangs out here, no other organissimo member can speak positively of his recordings without there being a conflict? If he mentions a shitty review, we can't respond if we genuinely think the negative review is out of line or if we genuinely love the recording in question? That doesn't make any sense.

Y'all are some of the most musically informed jazz fans on the planet. Why not use that for good?

Writing reviews of tiny, independent label releases (such as Nessa Records) to hopefully help sales (after all, if these discs don't sell they will not be produced anymore) = good and perfectly ethical

Selling the database of member email addresses to various marketing firms that specialize in products for "upper class, intelligent clientele" (yes, I've gotten offers to do just that, many many times for quite a bit of money... but I never have) = bad and unethical

See the difference?

[Matthew]

Wayne Marsh

:g:g:g:g

(it's a running joke in some circles....)

Oops! I did it again...

[JSngry]

Perhaps there should be a rule on this board which prohibits anyone from posting anything about a recording which they were personally involved in.

Yes, I agree. There is no room for people in the music business, not these days!

Y'all are some of the most musically informed jazz fans on the planet. Why not use that for good?

Because it's BAD to do good, that's why!

[RDK]

Interesting thread, and I'm glad to see the open and frank discussion that it's generated. I can actually see both sides of the issue. I'm not sure that I'd call it "unethical" to solicit good reviews for one's product, though I can also understand that such a thing might seem a bit "spammy" and could backfire in regards the credibility of said reviews. On the other hand, I see no problem in simply asking or reminding those who have purchased the CD to post a review of it. Heck, after nearly every Amazon purchase I receive a follow-up email asking me to review the product. Sometimes I do, but most of the time I don't. To be honest, I have a copy of the disc in question somewhere, but I've misplaced it and haven't heard it in a while. I remember it being quite good - not surprisingly as I dig most of Marsh's work - but I don't feel comfortable "reviewing" it until I can find it and give it another listen or two. When that time comes, spurred by Chuck's request, I'll post a review (whether good or bad) on Amazon. I don't consider that unethical at all.

[Hot Ptah]

Selling the database of member email addresses to various marketing firms that specialize in products for "upper class, intelligent clientele" (yes, I've gotten offers to do just that, many many times for quite a bit of money... but I never have) = bad and unethical

See the difference?

I see the difference. In addition to the other reasons why it would be unethical to sell the data base, it would amount to your representation that we are a group of "upper class, intelligent" people. How could you say that and live with yourself?

[RDK]

Selling the database of member email addresses to various marketing firms that specialize in products for "upper class, intelligent clientele" (yes, I've gotten offers to do just that, many many times for quite a bit of money... but I never have) = bad and unethical

See the difference?

I see the difference. In addition to the other reasons why it would be unethical to sell the data base, it would amount to your representation that we are a group of "upper class, intelligent" people. How could you say that and live with yourself?

Yeah, Jim's also met some of us so he should know better!

[GA Russell]

I think both that Steve and Ray make good points. May I suggest that the many Nessa Records fans make the effort to go to Amazon and post their candid views of what they already own, and keep in the back of their minds the idea that from now on they will do so when they receive their next order?

I don't give negative reviews on Amazon of what I have bought from them, though I can't think of an example when it would be justified. I like to write short reviews with an attempt to make at least one point that none of the previous reviewers has made.

What Steve says that hits home to me is that if the many Nessa Records fans had developed the habit of giving a short candid review to each release enjoyed, it wouldn't matter if some goofball disses the release. So let's start the habit now.

[Hot Ptah]

I think both that Steve and Ray make good points. May I suggest that the many Nessa Records fans make the effort to go to Amazon and post their candid views of what they already own, and keep in the back of their minds the idea that from now on they will do so when they receive their next order?

I don't give negative reviews on Amazon of what I have bought from them, though I can't think of an example when it would be justified. I like to write short reviews with an attempt to make at least one point that none of the previous reviewers has made.

What Steve says that hits home to me is that if the many Nessa Records fans had developed the habit of giving a short candid review to each release enjoyed, it wouldn't matter if some goofball disses the release. So let's start the habit now.

I think that is a really good idea. I am going to start with Nonaah this afternoon.

[Big Wheel]

So exactly what is unethical? Since I personally know Chuck, is it verboten for me to ever write a positive word about his recordings?

No, but IMO it's ethical to disclose your personal friendship with Chuck when doing so. Not exactly because I think there would be a conflict of interest, but because reviewers owe it to readers to provide some information about who is doing the reviewing.

A cousin of mine wrote a bestselling novel and I read it and thought it was great. I gave it 4 stars out of 5 on goodreads.com and wrote a nice review, and also disclosed that the author was a family member. What if all 30 Goodreads reviews were from members of my family and none of us had disclosed that fact? It's not like my cousin kicks back percentages of his book sales to me, but anyone who discovered that our family was spamming Goodreads would instantly think that the skewed distribution was fishy and a possible indicator that the book sucks.

A lot of this is just about having a basic level of respect for consumers of information on the Internet. People come to Amazon expecting the reviews to be from an organic cross-section of the public. That's why I'll never buy another Terry McAuliffe book again - NOT because he exploits his friendships and his power relationship over his employees to juice his Amazon reviews, but because the juicing shows he has no respect for his readers' ability to sift through information and decide for themselves whether they should buy his book.

[seeline]

good points.

[JSngry]

Not really.

[Hot Ptah]

So exactly what is unethical? Since I personally know Chuck, is it verboten for me to ever write a positive word about his recordings?

No, but IMO it's ethical to disclose your personal friendship with Chuck when doing so. Not exactly because I think there would be a conflict of interest, but because reviewers owe it to readers to provide some information about who is doing the reviewing.

A cousin of mine wrote a bestselling novel and I read it and thought it was great. I gave it 4 stars out of 5 on goodreads.com and wrote a nice review, and also disclosed that the author was a family member. What if all 30 Goodreads reviews were from members of my family and none of us had disclosed that fact? It's not like my cousin kicks back percentages of his book sales to me, but anyone who discovered that our family was spamming Goodreads would instantly think that the skewed distribution was fishy and a possible indicator that the book sucks.

A lot of this is just about having a basic level of respect for consumers of information on the Internet. People come to Amazon expecting the reviews to be from an organic cross-section of the public. That's why I'll never buy another Terry McAuliffe book again - NOT because he exploits his friendships and his power relationship over his employees to juice his Amazon reviews, but because the juicing shows he has no respect for his readers' ability to sift through information and decide for themselves whether they should buy his book.

I don't believe it is accurate that people come to Amazon expecting the reviews to be from an organic cross-section of the public. I have never thought that was the case, with any well known album that has a lot of reviews. It strikes me that the reviews are instead written by a very unrepresentative sample of the public, people who love the album deeply for the most part. You never read in a Led Zeppelin review something like, "since I am a big band and Baroque classical fancier, this music makes my head hurt." No, literally every reviewer loves Led Zeppelin. That is just one example. I have never felt that I was reading a set of unbiased, reasonable reviews for any album reviewed on Amazon. I have no expectations for the credibility of the reviews.

I don't know Chuck Nessa. I have never met him or spoken to him. It would have been false for me to claim some personal relationship with him as I reviewed the Warne Marsh album. While I have read his posts over the years, we have no idea what each other is really like. So for me to overreach and claim a special bond with him as I submit an Amazon review would be a lie.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Hot Ptah