I made the grave mistake of working as a contributor for All About Jazz for roughly 90 days. Thanks to "artistic differences" I opted out. I'll be the first one to admit I do not work well with anal retentive editors or publishers that live simply so that they may get the last word in.
Tonight I received an email from the editor advising me on what he felt was a minor correction, a factual faux paus if you will. An editor with All About Jazz that I no longer work for, with nor do i have the slightest desire to exchange even the simplest of email pleasantries. The problem is no such error existed and considering the fact I no longer work as a volunteer publicist his overwhelmingly desire to essentially stick his shovel in where it does not belong was laughable at best and potentially legal in nature depending upon the enforcement of harassment laws in certain areas. For a "former editor" to take it upon themselves to offer a critique that was not asked for and not factually accurate takes ego to a dimension previously unheard of.
Both the editor, publisher, and two bit lounge lizard "singing star" Richard Siegel tag teamed to put out a vicious hit piece where the only factual bits of information included the correct spelling of my name. I issued the appropriate rebuttal with links to back up each and every position and charge I leveled against their publication. Allow me to be clear, as a critic I have a right to my opinion of Siegel's talent or lack of talent as the case may be. Readers can make up their own mind. To steal and post a review not mean for public consumption in an effort to give the impression you have an endorsement you do not have is ethically questionable at best. To the credit of All About Jazz - only when I applied force and promised legal action did they come to my aid in removing my review from their publication.
According to the editor and publisher, I have a diminishing self life and would gradually fade away. Two sponsors later and with a readership up 30% here I am. Looks like All About Jazz was wrong (again) but there is a bigger question that comes into play.
Why mess with yours truly? Am I a threat? As an Independent writer that is not under the thumb of any major label do they cringe when they see the truth printed? This is the root of my expansion and why I am accepting paypal donations. Real jazz fans deserve better than mass produced commercial pablum that caters to the top 40 on the jazz charts and nothing more. I break releases and stories long before A.A.J ever gets around to them and only after I break them do I then see them reprinted days later in A.A.J.
Publicly I would like to appeal to John Kelman to simply work his side of the jazz street as I work mine. If you are a publicist and need a one sheet to get in print then A.A.J is the publication for you. If you want an honest review with no bias and the possibility of cutting edge talent and stories then I am a viable alternative. I actually wish A.A.J all the best, I figure if you have to resort to reviewing David Bowie and Bob Seger much like Blue Note and Verve - you bailed on real jazz along time ago.
I am currently carried by Gannett - a publication that is roughly 10 times the size and scope of A.A.J - somehow I think I will get by just fine.
I subsequently placed John Kelman's email in my spam folder to be deleted permanently. Much like an angry girl that was felt up at the prom, Kelman is addicted to getting in the last word and his fixation on my site is now bordering on the creepy to say the least. Hopefully this stops Kelman from further communication, if not then God made lawyers for a reason. Currently I am fighting a somewhat rare form of cancer, Kelman knows this yet his obsession continues. Speaks volumes on the integrity of the individual.
***Note - You can find Rich Siegel listed under the worst of 2012....