Great!  Dan Wilson's rejected review (16 Aug 97) gives me an opportunity
to quote Lewis Carroll -- as the Dormouse said at the Mad Hatter's tea
party, " 'I say what I mean' is not the same as 'I mean what I say' ".

I've not heard the CD in question but have heard Erles playing the piano
they recorded, and on the radio, and am sure Dan's review has misfired
quite badly.  As a member of the Billy Mayerl Society I feel I have to
say something to correct the impression it gives.

Editing the PPG's bulletin, I have to look for the worst possible
interpretation because you can pretty well guarantee someone will read it
that way! (I learnt by bitter experience.)  Mischievously rephrasing bits
to give them the most negative slant perhaps shows why this review wasn't
published.

"There are three tracks that I suspect have been in Erles's repertoire
long enough to have received plenty of polishing" could be taken as "he's
a slow learner and a bad starter".  Did it mean something more like
"three tracks in particular stood out as excellent"?  And why fit for
issue as a "budget" roll -- not good enough for the main roll series, or
a reference to short tracks making for lower-cost rolls?

"EJ never offends the listener of even 1921 with his harmonies." -- so
what?  When you're copying 1920s music, is it wrong to sound 1920s?  The
point is at best irrelevant, or shows the reviewer is hostile to the
fundamental point of the project.  Either way it's going to offend.

"a big Steinway, I'd guess" -- more likely the Lorenzini's 7'6"-ish
Seiler.  Facts, facts...

"he absolutely can't give ballads any distinction.  They seem flaccid and
halfway to banal." -- this isn't constructive criticism, just insulting.
More diplomacy needed.

"The really big disappointment on the record ... is five Billy Mayerl
numbers ..." -- difficult this, as probably true, but a well-researched
reviewer would discover that Erles normally avoids playing Mayerl, and so
must know he's not so good at it.  Invited by the Billy Mayerl Society to
make a record, politeness dictates he adds a few BM tracks.  It seems
unfair to be picky about this when he's so good elsewhere.  Why not a
more conventional "seems less comfortable with BM pieces" which would
convey precisely the same caveat to the purchaser.

"including some harmonic tuition" -- that tags him as a musical klutz,
and a fully-trained professional is going to be REALLY offended by that!
More positively, this could have said his arrangements would be
strengthened by incorporating some Billy Mayerl touches.  Even so, it's
presumptuous to expect an artist to change his style to match your
personal tastes -- imagine reading "I was disappointed that Horowitz
showed little awareness of Zez Confrey or Art Tatum during his Chopin
recital, and found that he spoke the introductions with an unconvincing
Russian accent" ;)

There are dangers in an ambiguous, casually-worded and off-target review.
In the case of Erles Jones, we have a fine artist who lacks the
self-confidence to perform in public.  For his friends, for no fee, he
makes a recording for their enthusiast society.  A review like this could
destroy his self confidence completely or annoy him so much that we never
hear from him again.  It would surely be irresponsible to print it.

My review of Erles Jones would be along the lines "Most impressive on
Raie Da Costa transcriptions and new arrangements in her style --
probably the best modern day exponent of the style, possessing the rare
talent of playing with simultaneous finesse and verve.  Perhaps puts too
many simpler and slower arrangements of material such as Andrew Lloyd
Webber in his programme because he's not confident of the reception of
the more obscure material.  Not entirely at home with the edgier style of
Billy Mayerl.  Enthusiasts of syncopated piano should encourage him to
give us more of the stuff we adore and he's so good at providing".  And,
do you know, I could be charitable and read that in Dan's review as well?

Julian Dyer

 [ Editor's note:
 [
 [ You say that it would be irresponsible to print a review because
 [ it could destroy the artist's self-confidence.  Isn't a review of
 [ a performance _supposed_ to be a critique of the _performance_,
 [ without regard to the artist's personal problems?
 [
 [ Robbie Rhodes