Pet peeves

[mjzee]

Y'know what I hate?  When personnel listings use the "As" "except" and "replaces" conventions.

Example: from "All Star Swing Groups: The Savoy Sessions" (Savoy LP):

Side A 6-7, B 1-2: Emmett Berry: trumpet, Walter "Foots" Thomas: alto sax, tenor sax, Budd Johnson: Coleman Hawkins: tenor sax, Johnny Guarnieri: piano, Max Shopnick: bass, Cozy Cole: drums.  May 1, 1944

Side B 3-6: As May 1, except Eddie Barefield: alto sax, replaces Johnson and Sid Weiss: bass, replaces Shopnick.  New York, June 14, 1944

I would much prefer they list the entire personnel on the 6/14/44 session, even though it means repeating the names of Berry, Thomas, et al.  Just really bugs me.

[Ken Dryden]

mjzee: That kind of credit shortcut makes it a lot easier to make a mistake when reviewing or airing a release.

My pet peeves:

Labels, artists, producers, liner note writers, etc., who don't bother to do their research to check that all names are correctly spelled and credited (composers, lyricists, musicians), all instruments listed, song titles match their published titles, images of the band match the group featured, using an age appropriate image for a historical release (instead of Benny Goodman in his 70's for a CD of 1930s music), not looking out for mirrored images, graphic designers who choose tiny, hard to read fonts using colors that blend into the background, plus the bozos who design boxed sets who obviously aren't collectors (worst offenders are the Bill Evans Compete Verve set with all that rust and hard to use booklet and flip out CD sleeves, and the complete idiot who designed the 4 CD Charlie Christian set, with the CDs set in a ceramic like block).

Young artists who feel they must feature all originals on their debut CDs right after they graduate or leave school, without realizing that not everyone has the talent to write a full CD of original works.

Issuing a self-titled CD, when the artist already has released one or more titled CDs on the label. 

Labels who use catalog numbers in no logical order whatsoever... Why isn't a larger number used for a later CD by the same artist?

 

[mjzee]

I hear ya, Ken!

[Big Beat Steve]

12 hours ago, mjzee said:

Y'know what I hate?  When personnel listings use the "As" "except" and "replaces" conventions.

Example: from "All Star Swing Groups: The Savoy Sessions" (Savoy LP):

Side A 6-7, B 1-2: Emmett Berry: trumpet, Walter "Foots" Thomas: alto sax, tenor sax, Budd Johnson: Coleman Hawkins: tenor sax, Johnny Guarnieri: piano, Max Shopnick: bass, Cozy Cole: drums.  May 1, 1944

Side B 3-6: As May 1, except Eddie Barefield: alto sax, replaces Johnson and Sid Weiss: bass, replaces Shopnick.  New York, June 14, 1944

I would much prefer they list the entire personnel on the 6/14/44 session, even though it means repeating the names of Berry, Thomas, et al.  Just really bugs me.

Understandable and certainly more convenient in several ways but what would you do in the case of BIG BAND releases/reissues involving multiple seesions with only slightly shifting personnel? No more place for liner notes, then? . 

Besides, I wonder how the magazine scribes would have fared if your approach would have been the norm throughout. How would record reviewers have been able to cope with space constraints if they had not been able/allowed to use the "replaces" shortcut? No more personnel listings at all, or only main soloists? I doubt this would have been more convenient overall.

Besides, your approach can backfire in those cases where the "out" convention is used (a likely but common alternative to what you seem to refer to as the "except" convention). Re-list the entire personnel even if only one or two men drop out from the line-up for specific tunes? Wouldn't this be over the top? But if you conceded the use of "out", why not the others, some will certainly ask.

I cannot quite see an easy and consistent way out.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Big Beat Steve

[Big Beat Steve]

5 hours ago, Ken Dryden said:

1) Labels, artists, producers, liner note writers, etc., who don't bother to do their research to check that all names are correctly spelled and credited (composers, lyricists, musicians), all instruments listed,

2) song titles match their published titles,

3) images of the band match the group featured,

4) using an age appropriate image for a historical release (instead of Benny Goodman in his 70's for a CD of 1930s music), 

5) not looking out for mirrored images, graphic designers who choose tiny, hard to read fonts using colors that blend into the background,

6) plus the bozos who design boxed sets who obviously aren't collectors (worst offenders are the Bill Evans Compete Verve set with all that rust and hard to use booklet and flip out CD sleeves, and the complete idiot who designed the 4 CD Charlie Christian set, with the CDs set in a ceramic like block).

7) Labels who use catalog numbers in no logical order whatsoever... Why isn't a larger number used for a later CD by the same artist?

 

Some comments:

1) True, particularly with major names. But in the case of some artists there just may be conflicting (period) source material or evolving name uses over time. I realize this is probably not what you are thinking of (primarily) but this is a problem too and the boundaries can sometimes get blurred in certain niche releases.

2) What if the song titles deviated from the "published" titles way, way before the reissue was compiled, e.g. on the original label of decades ago? Try to turn back THAT clock too in each and every case?

3) Very true, but 100% accurate images may be lacking in some cases.

4) YES!!! This is one pet peeve of mine, though I have to admit that things have improved a lot since the 70s/early 80s when it was all too common to stick garish recent photographs on reissues from the 40s or 50s. An related problem (and part of my pet peeve, aside from using artwork graphics that don't fit the period of the music AT ALL) is: Don't EVER give in to the temptation to shift some work to some semi-talented "house artist" who just makes a blurred, blotched, ineptly abstracted mess of an existing photograph that those in the know clearly recognize but cannot help wondering what the point of "doing that up" was in the first place.

5) Obviously yes too.

6) Cardboard mini-LPs where you have a hard time trying to extract the CD from the all too slim and close-fitting sleeve are offenders too.

7) Could this logical order always be kept up over time? Just let some sort of change of company strategy happen and things get out of hand and numbering systems may change drastically.

[Dan Gould]

Let me just say that as far as I am concerned, Miles in '70s jacket is Kind of Blue.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken Dryden]

11 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

I'm looking at you, Mosaic.

Other than possibly tray cards that have lots of short tracks over 2 CDs, I can't think of any Mosaics that are all that hard to read.

[Ken Dryden]

On 4/14/2021 at 3:10 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

Some comments:

1) True, particularly with major names. But in the case of some artists there just may be conflicting (period) source material or evolving name uses over time. I realize this is probably not what you are thinking of (primarily) but this is a problem too and the boundaries can sometimes get blurred in certain niche releases.

2) What if the song titles deviated from the "published" titles way, way before the reissue was compiled, e.g. on the original label of decades ago? Try to turn back THAT clock too in each and every case?

3) Very true, but 100% accurate images may be lacking in some cases.

4) YES!!! This is one pet peeve of mine, though I have to admit that things have improved a lot since the 70s/early 80s when it was all too common to stick garish recent photographs on reissues from the 40s or 50s. An related problem (and part of my pet peeve, aside from using artwork graphics that don't fit the period of the music AT ALL) is: Don't EVER give in to the temptation to shift some work to some semi-talented "house artist" who just makes a blurred, blotched, ineptly abstracted mess of an existing photograph that those in the know clearly recognize but cannot help wondering what the point of "doing that up" was in the first place.

5) Obviously yes too.

6) Cardboard mini-LPs where you have a hard time trying to extract the CD from the all too slim and close-fitting sleeve are offenders too.

7) Could this logical order always be kept up over time? Just let some sort of change of company strategy happen and things get out of hand and numbering systems may change drastically.

 

On 4/14/2021 at 3:10 AM, Big Beat Steve said:

Some comments:

1) True, particularly with major names. But in the case of some artists there just may be conflicting (period) source material or evolving name uses over time. I realize this is probably not what you are thinking of (primarily) but this is a problem too and the boundaries can sometimes get blurred in certain niche releases.

2) What if the song titles deviated from the "published" titles way, way before the reissue was compiled, e.g. on the original label of decades ago? Try to turn back THAT clock too in each and every case?

3) Very true, but 100% accurate images may be lacking in some cases.

4) YES!!! This is one pet peeve of mine, though I have to admit that things have improved a lot since the 70s/early 80s when it was all too common to stick garish recent photographs on reissues from the 40s or 50s. An related problem (and part of my pet peeve, aside from using artwork graphics that don't fit the period of the music AT ALL) is: Don't EVER give in to the temptation to shift some work to some semi-talented "house artist" who just makes a blurred, blotched, ineptly abstracted mess of an existing photograph that those in the know clearly recognize but cannot help wondering what the point of "doing that up" was in the first place.

5) Obviously yes too.

6) Cardboard mini-LPs where you have a hard time trying to extract the CD from the all too slim and close-fitting sleeve are offenders too.

7) Could this logical order always be kept up over time? Just let some sort of change of company strategy happen and things get out of hand and numbering systems may change drastically.

1) I don't mind seeing Dave Liebman and David Liebman from one release to the next, but I get tired of misspelled names: Richard Rodgers, Sarah Vaughan, Cannonball Adderley (and Nat, too), Willard Robison (probably the most misspelled composer), and David Raksin are just a few of the most commonly misspelled names. I realize some artists that changed the spelling of their names over time (Stephane Grappelli, though his autograph on an LP I own that he signed in 1989 uses the original spelling, George Brunis, Charli Persip, for example)

Related omissions are not crediting the lyricist on a vocal track, or omitting the composer of the music, again, this seems to happen a lot when Willard Robison is omitted but the lyricist is credited.

Some of the mistaken titles or composers happen on live sessions, where a performer forgets the title. Eubie Blake, on the Chiaroscuro release Jazz Piano Masters, introduces his "Troublesome Ivories" as "Tricky Fingers," both before and after he plays it. Given that he was 86 at the time, that is understandable. Another is when the artist misintroduces the title, like saying "Squeeze Me" (Fats Waller) in place of "Just Squeeze Me" (Duke Ellington). There have also been times when the performer identifies the song as by one composer and it is actually a tune only recorded by that artist. But it gets silly when one sees "Nardis" credited to Bill Evans (though he recorded it many times) or John Coltrane's "Locomotion" listed as Thelonious Monk's "Locomotive." If there are liner notes, the writer should catch those kind of obvious mistakes. It is very possible that in the production of a release that there's a late change in the final playlist and someone forgets to make the change to the track list for the jacket, booklet or tray card.

From the time I wrote my set of liner notes, I have assumed it is my duty to check all of the information. Almost always I have found various errors that I have described. One unusual goof was a Best of anthology that featured a track where the leader didn't even solo; it was removed after I pointed out that odd track choice.

I will say that I did a series of biographical liner notes for a European anthology series and I wasn't given a playlist for any of the CDs. So I had no way to check titles, composers, or musicians to verify that they were correct. Errors are the responsiblity of the label, if any.

3) When I am discussing band images being correct, it is often a problem found on historical releases. For example, don't show Teddy Wilson behind Benny Goodman if he isn't on the release, find a different photo.

5) I have lost count of how many flipped images I've seen with Lionel Hampton's name appearing backwards on the front of his vibes, plus piano images flipped, bassist and guitar images mirrored, plus the infamous left handed trumpet image of Miles Davis on the Columbia/Legacy Kind of Blue in the 1980s.

6) I am in full agreement about those annoying sleeves where you feel like you're going to tear them to get the CD in or out. Then there is always the oddball release where the designer puts the text on the spine upside down, so when you file the LP or CD, it either has to be flipped or appear backwards compared to adjacent recordings. I prefer the top of the text to be beside the front cover.

7) Having logical catalog numbers in sequence for an artist is helpful so one doesn't have to look for the copyright date on each title. But maybe that is overkill...

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Ken Dryden
punctuation fix

[Dub Modal]

Yeah, other than the generic packaging photos used by Mosaic (which I understand is a budgetary decision in order to divert most of the funds into the real contents of the box), my only complaint about their sets would be when CD hub is super tight, making CD extraction a thing requiring almost archeological sensitivity and precision.  

[JSngry]

my pet peeve is when the real cd don't play right but a burned copy of the same disc does. seems like science should do something about fixing that.

[mjazzg]

The new tendency to alphabetise by first name rather than surname. 

[JSngry]

25 minutes ago, mjazzg said:

The new tendency to alphabetise by first name rather than surname. 

Oh hell yeah, THAT one. Freaking iTunes mindfuck, totally evil, and not limited to just music, it affects some corporate naming conventions as well. Yakub at work again, Eve ate the apple, Yakub made it for her.

[Dan Gould]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

my pet peeve is when the real cd don't play right but a burned copy of the same disc does. seems like science should do something about fixing that.

Different processes - extraction vs burning. And anyway how can it be a pet peeve if you can extract and burn a new copy that plays if the real CD won't? That's a hell yeah moment for me.

[JSngry]

pet peeve that i have to do it to begin with. i mean, if there's not a guarantee of performance from the purchased product, they should include a blank with every purchase, kinda like how when you used to buy an American car it would come with this warranty that you could start using, like, in a month or two (or sooner), no questions asked from a reputable dealer, you just pull in and they're all "yep" and that's that. Only now there's no dealerships left for CDs and labels for damn sure aren't going to listen to you complain, Mosaic will, but they've got, like, what, six weeks left to live, tragic case, i saw a poster for a fundraising up at the Dairy Queen, they even charging admission to the petting zoo and the bounce house, they are trying HARD to raise that money.

[Dan Gould]

Apples and oranges. CDs were known very close to the start to be "sensitive" in tracking. How long between CDs getting popular and those discwasher things started being marketed?

[JSngry]

So really, all I should be willing to pay for on most things is a booklet, a back panel insert, and a DL code for a lossless file. Jewel cases, I got, and CDrs I can burn.

Quality control....what a 20th Century concept!!!!!!!

[Dan Gould]

But how often has this ever occurred? I've hardly ever had a redbook CD not played, and when it fails its not extractable either. I think that was 1-2 times ever, if that.

Only slightly more common is the case of a CDR that won't play, but will extract and can be re-burned. 

[JSngry]

Redbooks have begun to fail more than they used to. Could be the player, but A-B of the two discs produces consistent out comes for each.

Perfectly willing for their to be a sconce answer for this one, but it happens more than it should, which imo is never. A bad disc should prove to be a bad disc, period, not the source material for a second, working disc.

[Ken Dryden]

8 hours ago, Dub Modal said:

Yeah, other than the generic packaging photos used by Mosaic (which I understand is a budgetary decision in order to divert most of the funds into the real contents of the box), my only complaint about their sets would be when CD hub is super tight, making CD extraction a thing requiring almost archeological sensitivity and precision.  

I have mentioned the tight hub issue to Scott at Mosaic in the past and I think they solved that problem. I can remember thinking that I was going to break a cd by trying to get it off the spindle.

I have no problem with Mosaic’s outer packaging.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Ken Dryden

[mjzee]

Another pet peeve: On most CDs I buy, I cannot get the booklet out of the CD case without bending the paper.  A minor problem, perhaps, but incredibly annoying.  

[rostasi]

My pet Peeve:

Edited April 14, 2021 by rostasi

[sonnymax]

1 hour ago, mjzee said:

Another pet peeve: On most CDs I buy, I cannot get the booklet out of the CD case without bending the paper.  A minor problem, perhaps, but incredibly annoying.  

 

[mjzee]

1 hour ago, sonnymax said:

 

This made my day.

[mjzee]

Another pet peeve: going to dustygroove.com, clicking on either Used CDs or Used LPs, and seeing every title on the first page followed by Just Sold Out!

[Bill Nelson]

The frequency of DG's entire pages of "Just Sold Out" used CDs defies credulity.  It invites suspicion that a single buyer has worked a deal under the table -- esp. when the they all got 'sold' within minutes of posting.  On a good day, U.S. music dealers can't unload HALF of their listed CDs.