It is absolutely, 100% awful. Sounds like computer blips rather than articulations all the way through. I wouldn’t mind amateur playing, but this is simply poor–bad recording and bad playing.
I now have to risk giving a negative mark on Ebay (on top of this, the seller took one month before even printing a label and sending the CDs) and thus get one in response from this seller and blemish my perfect record–that’s the pattern I’ve noticed the seller follows. Or I could say nothing. Or I could give a back-handed compliment like Twain said of Wagner: “His music is better than it sounds.”
If you haven’t already, I suggest you first try working things out with the seller. Simply tell him you really are not happy with the recording and see if he will refund you the purchase less the shipping (if you ask for both, you will likely have to ship the CD back and that will negate the S&H refund.)
He has had some trouble, but given the attitude of some of the buyers leaving that feedback I think he has tried to make good.
Maybe he’s trying to share the music and not able to make a high quality recording. … maybe it’s just junk … I don’t know, … but civility would be a good first try.
This is very good advice. After I wrote and sent the previous post, it occured to me that contacting the person directly was an option that I ought to follow. I’ll write something clear, but kind, and send it to them.
I would very strongly recommend that you not post negative feedback about this person. There is already so much negative and “withdrawn by mutual agreement” feedback that anyone who looks at feedback will understand that this is a complicated person to deal with. Your negative feedback will not provide a potential buyer any new information about the seller, but it will give the seller a chance to damage your feedback rating with a negative feedback retaliation.
Thanks for the warning , Keith. Unfortunately , I checked the C&F message board IMMEDIATELY AFTER I won a bid on the same CD set !!
The seller lives in my home state , so , if and when it arrives , I’ll be able to update all of the Chiffers on this item. Well , at least I got it for the minimum bid. Guess that counts for something !!
Regardless , it wouldn’t be worth it , to me , to damage my own rating. As Jerry observed , there’s already enough mixed feedback to put folks on their guard. Seemed like most of the complaints were delivery related and the seller was trying to make things right , so I gave it a shot. Never occurred to me , until after your post , that the CD’s themselves might be junk !!
Having listened again to more of the CDs, and having read what one ebayer said in response (CD was unplayable), I’ve noticed that this plays everything too fast–like an old 33 being played at 45 or 78. May be a problem with how they’ve tranfered the music from originals to CD.
I’ve done as folks have suggested and kindly asked for a refund. We’ll see what happens.
I’ve never quite understood the Ebay system of commenting on buyers and sellers so I’m absolutely astonished to hear how it works. Surely no comment should be posted until Ebay has comments from both. If someone tries to comment later, their attempt should simply be rejected. It’s absurd to have a system where the person commenting second can tailor his or her comment to reward or hurt the one commenting first.
I don’t understand buying a CD without listening to at least samples of
the content. Sites like CDbaby.com let you listen to large portions of
the tracks to make sure you actually want the CD. They also have
streams of songs within a genre, so you can discover new music from
unsigned artists. There’s some interesting stuff on there, too. Just
searching at work (I have no speakers, so I haven’t listened to any of
these: don’t take this as an endorsement. YMMV), I found a CD of airs
and slow waltzes: http://cdbaby.com/cd/evenden
An Israeli group playing Irish music: http://cdbaby.com/cd/irishcream
And a CD put out by the lady who taught me whistle in Baltimore: http://cdbaby.com/cd/laurabyrne
All of which have lots of samples. I’d much rather go this route than
buying a CD from eBay sight-unseen (er, sound-unheard…)
On the other hand, for the vast majority of sellers, the potential damage negative feedback can do serves to keep them/us honest.
Even though there’s often a negative feedback retaliation from a seller or buyer who’s gotten negative feedback, anyone familiar with the system can go back and look at both sides of the feedback. When you do that, it’s usually very clear who’s the bad actor, especially when one party has very few or only the one negative while the other shows a pattern of negatives.
But Jerry, couldn’t they have a system that just stored one comment until the other was received and released both simultaneously? Obviously there’d have to be a deadline and a right of reply.
I think that would be good. I know that I have left feedback for at least 100 more transactions than I have gotten it for… I leave it for every one, and only about 3/4 of the people give it. It’s frustrating, to say the least.
It’s supposed to be part of the whole transaction.
I think your suggestions for not posting it till both give it would be good, but it wouldn’t necessarily be fair, in that those who get negative, and expect it, would never get it… cause they wouldn’t leave any themselves.
I only leave feedback if the buyer emails me and requests it.
I had to make a decision whether to make my customers wait longer for their whistles while I was taking time to post feedback or get their whistles done as quickly as possible. I would love to be able to post feedback on every single transaction, but it just isn’t something I can do and still get everything else done. Posting feedback is clearly optional, and I do the best I can with what resources I have at hand.
True. That’s why I think it would be OK to post the one that does come in if the other party misses the deadline. That person would lose the opportunity to ‘pay back’ the other party but would still be able to defend themselves. A much fairer system I think, and not too hard to administer.
When I read your post, I thought of this e-bay listing. Sure enough it’s the same seller. There is a link to a truly scary version of Irish Washerwoman. In this case the seller is expressing selling a product that generates music electronically. It may be that the the cd you bought was created the same way.
And then, there also might be an option (only likely chosen for positives) of not having yours posted if the other person doesn’t also leave feedback. I feel like I have been taken advantage of when I faithfully leave feedback and the other part fails to do so. I have excellent feedback, and would still have if all who didn’t bother to leave me any (over 100!!) had done so. I will continue to do, as it is my responsibility, but I would be happier to if I knew it would be fairer.
The link there is exactly what the whole thing is. And it’s clear to me now, that it is all computer generated. I wish I’d seen that clip before. I knew I wouldn’t be getting Mary Bergin quality playing, but I thought it might be just a decent player who loved what he’s playing and I could enjoy at least that. So my pride’s hurt a tiny bit at being duped (Ill get over that) and I’ve warned others that this is a bad CD.
If you think it’s unfair that some people don’t leave feedback, I would suggest that you compose a friendly reminder letting them know that you have left positive feedback and you would appreciate it if they would leave feedback, too. I get emails like that, and I always leave feedback when it’s requested.
