JETman

That last statement is so damn ironic coming from a working musician who'd like to make money in a free marketplace! You are in.correct in almost everything you state here. Schaap is a Columbia graduate and so is Ashley Kahn who also worked at the station. Given that Columbia offers no degree in communication, what would "students who have nothing better to do" be getting partial credit for? How do I know all this, you ask? I am a graduate who volunteered at the station for a short time.

I bet Tony Tarasco has been having nightmares for the last (almost) 17 years about b.s. like this which indeed could've made all the difference in the world on whether or not the hated "Gringos" go on the run they went on over the ensuing decade and a half. We'll never know.

Harvey womps Strasburg, 1st to 4 wins in majors. There might be a new king in town.

Surprising, considering I was told by the good folks at Dusty Groove that Chicago's postal service is known to be among the worst in the nation. Better you should speak from experience. With mail, experience is both dispatch and receipt. As I mentioned earlier, I've had some packages dispatched from Chicago that ended up taking ridiculously circuitous routes to me in NY. So now we're about taking insults against our post offices personally?

Surprising, considering I was told by the good folks at Dusty Groove that Chicago's postal service is known to be among the worst in the nation.

I wasn't there, no. But this is certainly a unique twist on fandom -- jazz fans worshipping another jazz fan. Yes, I realize that we all have our own take on worshipping those who have given a lot to further the music -- the Chris Albertson's, the Dan Morgenstern's, the Michael Cuscuna's, etc. But this may border on being quite the reach for those who refuse to acknowledge the complete picture. I avoided usage of the terms "groupie" and "jazz ho" for this very reason. I knew that there would be people out there who would take all of this a little too personally. Whatever she was, or whatever her motivation, let's all just agree on the fact that her efforts were appreciated within the jazz community. If those efforts translated to furtherance of the music, then we're all better off for them. So what's the 'complete picture' regarding her abandonment of her kids? I don't think it was simply a case of 'see ya, I want to hang out with jazzers and smoke weed, be good for your father'. By your reckoning, dereliction of one's familial obligations connotes promiscuity. It's not about jazz fans 'worshipping' anybody. I can't recall anyone close to Monk or anyone else in that milieu even alluding to her having sexual liaisons with Monk or Bird or those she supported. I don't think it's wise to insinuate just because someone else's views on parenthood don't chime with yours. If you have anything that sheds more light on her motivations let's hear it. So far you've given us nothing. First of all, I stated what I had heard. Secondly, you're taking this personally which might indicate that you know more. If that's the case, why don't you educate us instead of railing against what you think my views on the whole situation might be? In other words, if I've "given us nothing", make it your point to give us something. That might serve the board and general interest better than another round of personal attacks. But what did you hear? All you stated were the vaguest of opinions from person or persons unknown. I may as well say 'people I know think the earth is flat'. You carefully avoided anything factual, you didn't even comment on whether you believed that what 'people you know' said about her was based on firsthand information. To say you have nothing isn't a personal attack, it's a mere statement of fact. You made the claim, via these 'people you know'. Have the courtesy to at least be clear as to what 'you' think. If you have to rely on hearsay then it's pointless me taking this any further. Why would I take personally an opinion that cannot even reliably be said to come from you? I'm all for enlightenment and find this board to be a rich source of knowledge and informed opinion on all manner of things jazz and non-jazz. If you've got anything on this topic that adds to that then I'm all ears, all I've got so far is that you are a parent that wouldn't abandon his kids and you know people who think that Nica was a tart. Don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. You're just repeating yourself. Like you've already stated, I've got nothing. Why do the why's, where's and from who's matter if that's the case? What are you trying to achieve by this? If you want me to hang my head in shame, I'm afraid you're out of luck. If you want to turn this into a constructive resource, enlighten us.

I wasn't there, no. But this is certainly a unique twist on fandom -- jazz fans worshipping another jazz fan. Yes, I realize that we all have our own take on worshipping those who have given a lot to further the music -- the Chris Albertson's, the Dan Morgenstern's, the Michael Cuscuna's, etc. But this may border on being quite the reach for those who refuse to acknowledge the complete picture. I avoided usage of the terms "groupie" and "jazz ho" for this very reason. I knew that there would be people out there who would take all of this a little too personally. Whatever she was, or whatever her motivation, let's all just agree on the fact that her efforts were appreciated within the jazz community. If those efforts translated to furtherance of the music, then we're all better off for them. So what's the 'complete picture' regarding her abandonment of her kids? I don't think it was simply a case of 'see ya, I want to hang out with jazzers and smoke weed, be good for your father'. By your reckoning, dereliction of one's familial obligations connotes promiscuity. It's not about jazz fans 'worshipping' anybody. I can't recall anyone close to Monk or anyone else in that milieu even alluding to her having sexual liaisons with Monk or Bird or those she supported. I don't think it's wise to insinuate just because someone else's views on parenthood don't chime with yours. If you have anything that sheds more light on her motivations let's hear it. So far you've given us nothing. First of all, I stated what I had heard. Secondly, you're taking this personally which might indicate that you know more. If that's the case, why don't you educate us instead of railing against what you think my views on the whole situation might be? In other words, if I've "given us nothing", make it your point to give us something. That might serve the board and general interest better than another round of personal attacks.

I wasn't there, no. But this is certainly a unique twist on fandom -- jazz fans worshipping another jazz fan. Yes, I realize that we all have our own take on worshipping those who have given a lot to further the music -- the Chris Albertson's, the Dan Morgenstern's, the Michael Cuscuna's, etc. But this may border on being quite the reach for those who refuse to acknowledge the complete picture. I avoided usage of the terms "groupie" and "jazz ho" for this very reason. I knew that there would be people out there who would take all of this a little too personally. Whatever she was, or whatever her motivation, let's all just agree on the fact that her efforts were appreciated within the jazz community. If those efforts translated to furtherance of the music, then we're all better off for them.

Were any of the people you spoke to people who knew Nellie Monk or Bird or Gigi Gryce or Sonny Rollins or Art Blakey or Barry Harris? Go ahead and call her a 'groupie' if that's what you think she was. Is there any other way that one could even come close to justifying leaving FIVE children behind? As a parent myself, I can't see it.

People I've spoken to have always considered her analogous in the jazz world to the originator of the "plaster casters" in the rock world.

FAB Trio - Live in Amsterdam

You seem to be getting all hung up over the tax implications of pre-funding pensions as if the USPS were a normal company, when it manifestly is not. It is also very clear that governments have routinely not contributed enough for their state employee pensions (and health care plans), and this is a huge problem. Regardless of what any law says, many states face a huge gap in pension funding. Illinois is one of the very worst. So in a sense, it is good that USPS is clearly making payments towards these future medical costs, but it isn't clear to me that the numbers that the GOP came up with and put into the law are appropriate. They may be far too high, esp. as the USPS is downsizing the number of postal employees, so the required pension and health care costs may be vastly inflated. And, fwiw, downsized employees who have accrued vested pension benefits are STILL entitled to those pensions. So the inflation in the numbers that you're imagining does NOT exist. Also, fwiw, excess monies already contributed to the USPS defined benefit plan CANNOT be willy nilly taken out and placed into the post-retirement medical pre-funding ridiculousness.

You seem to be getting all hung up over the tax implications of pre-funding pensions as if the USPS were a normal company, when it manifestly is not. It is also very clear that governments have routinely not contributed enough for their state employee pensions (and health care plans), and this is a huge problem. Regardless of what any law says, many states face a huge gap in pension funding. Illinois is one of the very worst. So in a sense, it is good that USPS is clearly making payments towards these future medical costs, but it isn't clear to me that the numbers that the GOP came up with and put into the law are appropriate. They may be far too high, esp. as the USPS is downsizing the number of postal employees, so the required pension and health care costs may be vastly inflated. The USPS must fund its pension plan just like any other company. When a pension plan falls into "debt", annual contributions are increased. Debt does NOT mean that contributions have not been made at all. If this were to occur, the pension plan becomes disqualified. Debt in this case means that plan experience does not match up well with the assumptions being used to calculate the liabilities. It just so happens that the USPS defined benefit plan currently has a huge surplus, which means that the USPS can decrease its annual contributions to the plan (possibly to $0 in any given year). The medical costs to which the USPS is being held accountable are not REQUIRED medical costs. Post-retirement medical benefits are a huge privilege for anyone to have. These benefits are not guaranteed in any way, shape or form. In other words, the USPS does NOT have to provide them, and should surely consider reducing them, if not eliminating them all together. At this point in time, since companies have finally realized that these types of benefits are a huge hit to their books, most people in America do not receive such benefits. Maybe its time for the government to realize that it's biting off more than it can chew by continuing to provide them. So, contrary to what you think, it is NOT a good thing that it is prefunding benefits that they are not required to provide. This is a BAD thing which is putting them further into a hole from which they'll never be able to escape.

Did you actually read my post above? You cannot "prefund" a defined benefit pension plan, private or governmental. Pension calculations done in an "accounting sense" only apply to publicly traded companies. I just read that the 75 years of prefunding applies to projected post-retirement medical costs. The postal service is required to fund health benefits for the next 75 years within the next ten years. This is ok since the same stringent laws that apply to pension plans do not apply to health benefit plans, which are never required to be "prefunded". Pension plans ARE required to be funded. Each year an actuarial calculation is done for pension plans where the employer MUST make an annual contribution within the funding corridor (a number which is between the minimum funding requirement and the maximum tax-deductible contribution). If this is not done, the plan is at risk for disqualification under current pension code (ie., other than massive fines, any contributions made are no longer considered tax-deductible). Given all of this, it would seem that one way for the USPS to save boat loads of money would be for them to effectively chuck the post-retirement medical benefits as most private employers have already done. These are hugely expensive to provide, especially if the employee share of the cost is 0.

Considering on top of prefunding for 75-years anyone currently working.....they're setting aside $5 billion a year just to prefund benefits for 75-years for people not even hired, or born for that matter.....the gas bill really isn't close to the issue in comparison. I'd sure be interested in finding out how they're prefunding benefits for 75 years, or for people that have not even been hired yet. This would surely constitute overfunding, which the Internal Revenue Code contains very strict regulations against doing and still obtaining legal maximum tax deductions. Besides that, an actuarial determination of funding requirements can NEVER be based on a projected demographic, and can only be calculated based on current population. Is it possible that what you read has pointed out that the Defined Benefit Plan for postal workers is "so well funded" that it would equate to not having to make a contribution to the fund for the next 75 years?

C'mon! That sounds like a warped LP.

I don't live out of the country - New Mexico is still a state last time I checked. Our service is terrible. Mail delivered at night, mail in wrong box, etc., etc. Maybe it's a local problem. As in a problem to all localities? Maybe, because I experience the same problems. Fewer employees may be the cause. The internet really affected the USPS. Now, one can even send greeting cards directly to email inboxes for free.

I'm guessing that such a gain is more than offset by email and the ability to pay bills via phone/internet. Truth be told, the level of service provided by the USPS has been in steady decline for a few years. About 4 years ago, a package I ordered from Dusty Groove was routed to me in NY via California! I've had a few similar experiences since. Wonder what would happen if, as a previous poster suggested, the USPS does go under.

Fresh Sound put those sessions out previously on two separate cd's. The source is more than likely Pujol's personal LP collection.

You will never see unreleased stuff released by a boutique label before you would see it on Blue Note itself. Given that Blue Note is out of the reissue business, it's time to officially give up hope. i was wondering though, how far this label (Music Matters) are prepared to go re- unreleased stuff. Seen as they are prepared to make their own albums now. Perhaps if the numbers add up and they see a potential release, they might lobby for it? Read my previous post. It will NEVER happen. Time to stop being a "fanboy" and start being realistic. Do you really think a label of origin would allow a licensing label to steal its thunder??????????? Actually. if they think there is more money to be made by franchising the catalogue out, including anything unreleased they probably would, in this day and age. I mean, so much of the Mosaic sets were out a good few years before the previous/latest incarnation of Blue Note prepared their own more user friendly versions. I guess the big point at this stage of the history, is really about whether any more so called 'rejected' sessions or tracks will see the light of day, as the changing of the 'gatekeeper' guard takes place in the future. Will they be made available to 'interested parties' to hear via electronic media, as has been suggested on this board in the past? Probably not. Blue Note and Mosaic are owned by virtually the same people. So, Mosaic releasing "unreleased" BN sessions IS the same as Blue Note releasing them. In the future, if there is a "changing of the guard" as you say, very few people will be interested in hearing the sessions you cite. All jazz fans will be long gone. Give up the ghost. There are literally tens of thousands of other jazz recordings for you to obsess over. good point JETman I'm beginning to feel an extreme need to point out the obvious to those here who let their fetishes shrink the volume of grey matter in their heads to a bare minimum.

You will never see unreleased stuff released by a boutique label before you would see it on Blue Note itself. Given that Blue Note is out of the reissue business, it's time to officially give up hope. i was wondering though, how far this label (Music Matters) are prepared to go re- unreleased stuff. Seen as they are prepared to make their own albums now. Perhaps if the numbers add up and they see a potential release, they might lobby for it? Read my previous post. It will NEVER happen. Time to stop being a "fanboy" and start being realistic. Do you really think a label of origin would allow a licensing label to steal its thunder??????????? Actually. if they think there is more money to be made by franchising the catalogue out, including anything unreleased they probably would, in this day and age. I mean, so much of the Mosaic sets were out a good few years before the previous/latest incarnation of Blue Note prepared their own more user friendly versions. I guess the big point at this stage of the history, is really about whether any more so called 'rejected' sessions or tracks will see the light of day, as the changing of the 'gatekeeper' guard takes place in the future. Will they be made available to 'interested parties' to hear via electronic media, as has been suggested on this board in the past? Probably not. Blue Note and Mosaic are owned by virtually the same people. So, Mosaic releasing "unreleased" BN sessions IS the same as Blue Note releasing them. In the future, if there is a "changing of the guard" as you say, very few people will be interested in hearing the sessions you cite. All jazz fans will be long gone. Give up the ghost. There are literally tens of thousands of other jazz recordings for you to obsess over.

You will never see unreleased stuff released by a boutique label before you would see it on Blue Note itself. Given that Blue Note is out of the reissue business, it's time to officially give up hope. i was wondering though, how far this label (Music Matters) are prepared to go re- unreleased stuff. Seen as they are prepared to make their own albums now. Perhaps if the numbers add up and they see a potential release, they might lobby for it? Read my previous post. It will NEVER happen. Time to stop being a "fanboy" and start being realistic. Do you really think a label of origin would allow a licensing label to steal its thunder???????????

You will never see unreleased stuff released by a boutique label before you would see it on Blue Note itself. Given that Blue Note is out of the reissue business, it's time to officially give up hope.

Let me know if you didn't get the gist of what I was saying. I did not get it. Any relationship between Motian and Mobley? Even I got what he was sayin', and I'm not particularly inclined to... I don't know what to say other than those comments were made over two years ago, and they still apply............unfortunately.

Catfood, baby!