Crouch on Rollins

[Dmitry]

Re: SR being uncomfortable in presence of recording equipment. Is this something that happened to him gradually, as he gotten older? 'cause he sure was in fine shape on all those 1950s studio Lps.

[JSngry]

The dichotomy between the recordings and the live performances is too dramatic and too ongoing to be coincidental (and btw, anybody who thinks that all the recordings are equally poor or totally without high points hasn't been listening, but that's another story...). It should be obvious that leaving a trail of "classic" recordings is no longer where his priorities lie. But if this was an artist who had lost "it", the live shows would be at the same level as the recording. Clearly this is not the case.

The point is not that Rollins is not playing the game, it's that he's playing it on his terms, which is what I've been saying all along. Attempts to "rope him in" to the traditional market paradigm have failed, and to me, that's a tremendous triumph of the individual over the marketplace.

Would I like to have a string of consistently strong, beautiful albums from the last 30 years? Hell yeah. But I'd rather have a strong, healthy Sonny Rollins still walking the planet playing (usually) at the peak of his powers in personal appearances. And that, we still have, and that, I suggest, is what matters most to Sonny Rollins himself.

It does seem to me that the nature of live playing vs. recording carries with it some pretty fundamental differences of intent, concept, approach, etc. For most people, it's a question of degree, but for Sonny Rollins, it seems to be a question of the very nature of what you do and why you do it. He's not the only great player who's questioned the basic concept of recording, btw. His conclusions might seem unfathomable, naive, or even anachronistic to those of us for whom recording opportunities are rare, or for whom recordings and other "hard copy" documentation matter for personal and/or professional reasons, and, especially, those for whom jazz is a music mostly (or exclusively, and that too is another matter entirely...) enoyed through recordings. But Sonny Rollins is not one, or any, of those people.

As I said earlier, the manner in which he's handled his overall career over the last 30 years makes perfect sense to me, and the "plan" is so obvious I can't understand how it can be overlooked. Play the "record game" just enough to stay visible, and keep the real stuff for playing live. It infuriates me probably as much as it does anybody else, but why is it so hard to see that this is the plan, has been, and most likely will continue to be? And why is objectively confronting the issues raised by such a plan from the performer's POV so difficult?

I sense that many people (and I'm no exception) feel "owed" by their favorite performers. But what do they owe us? If the only plane we can think of is that of immediate material self-gratification, that they what they owe us above all else is a good record or two...

Never mind. NOT gonna go there. If you have to ask...

[AllenLowe]

Sonny plays the game continually, but I don't think his plan is as conscious as you think, Jim. I think he thinks (or thought) he could be more contemporary, hence electric bass and lots of rhythm section activity, and than thought, well, this is easy, I can phone it in and still make more money than I used to. Well, more power to him, because he had clearly reached some kind of psychological impasse with the whole CONCEPT of recording, and had thus decided he would function in that sense but not thrive. In that way I agree with you. But the recordings are still awful, And his live playing is often brilliant, but still tragically lost in all the background mess. So, you see, he has not really succeeded on either level, and the loss is his AND ours - I don't think Sonny owes US anything, but he owes himself some honest and focused work -

Edited May 9, 2005 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

let's change that last answer - yes, he does owe us something - because he has accepted the terms of public performance and the acceptance of public money (the paying public) for performance - so he does owe us some real playing, live and on CD - if he does not want these trms, he should not play in public for a living -

[Dmitry]

...Would I like to have a string of consistently strong, beautiful albums from the last 30 years? Hell yeah. But I'd rather have a strong, healthy Sonny Rollins still walking the planet playing (usually) at the peak of his powers in personal appearances.

...Play the "record game" just enough to stay visible, and keep the real stuff for playing live.

I saw SR 3 times in the last 5 years and would call his playing pedestrian and the concerts as a whole boring and disappointing. These are pretty strong words, I know, but believe me when I tell you that I am the biggest fan of his music from fifities and some sixties albums.

I am not a masochist, so why did I go to see him twice after the first concert burned a hole through my heart? Because, based on comments of connoisseurs like yourself, I was hoping that a diamond would emerge from the ashes and SR would perform a rare gem. Instead, somewhere in the middle of the last concert I started to hope that Sonny would perform a coup de grace. On myself. But, for better or worse, we both survived.

[John Tapscott]

I've got to say this is a fascinating discussion. I will be hearing Rollins live for the first time at the end of June, and I DO have my fingers crossed.

A couple of points from a much less elevated level than Jim or Allen.

1) Not all Rollins' Milestone recordings are poor,. There's a couple of decent CD's that I kept which have Tommy Flanagan on piano, which suggests to me that the quality of the sidemen really DOES make a difference to Sonny. Playing with the best generally seems to bring out the best in Sonny (a truism throughout his career, it seems). He does himself a disservice when he surrounds himself with second-rate players.

2) So Sonny has a psychological problem with recording. So what? I'm sure he's not the only one. We wouldn't let anyone else off the hook with that excuse. Like, deal with it. People who buy your recordings deserve your best effort, with the best musicians you can get for the session. Far lesser musicians can go into the studio and make decent recordings which approximate their live performances. FWIW, my guess is that while Sonny is a great saxophonist and musician, he is a reluctant leader. (I'm guessing that if Sonny were a painist he would do little else but solo piano concerts). Actually he probably lacks leadership skills. That's OK, so do I. So do lots of us. But leadership and organizational skills CAN be developed, at least to a rudimentary degree. And you can develop a band and group concept. It seems Sonny has put little effort into any of this. And yes, that is our loss.

[P.L.M]

I saw SR 3 times in the last 5 years and would call his playing pedestrian and the concerts as a whole boring and disappointing. These are pretty strong words, I know, but believe me when I tell you that I am the biggest fan of his music from fifities and some sixties albums.

I am not a masochist, so why did I go to see him twice after the first concert burned a hole through my heart? Because, based on comments of connoisseurs like yourself, I was hoping that a diamond would emerge from the ashes and SR would perform a rare gem. Instead, somewhere in the middle of  the last concert I started to hope that Sonny would perform a coup de grace. On myself. But, for better or worse, we both survived.

Same experience here, but from three concerts I've seen fifteen/ eighteen years ago.

Since, I've stick to his bunch of classic albums.

Even the concept of "Brillant on stage..." escape to me.

He didn't play well in this concerts. Not at all. Why? Because he had nobody around who could challenge him and know it obviously too well.

So he was blowing, blowing, blowing... endlessly.

Edited May 9, 2005 by P.L.M

[JSngry]

Sonny plays the game continually, but I don't think his plan is as conscious as you think, Jim. I think he thinks (or thought) he could be more contemporary, hence electric bass and lots of rhythm section activity, and than thought, well, this is easy, I can phone it in and still make more money than I used to. Well, more power to him, because he had clearly reached some kind of psychological impasse with the whole CONCEPT of recording, and had thus decided he would function in that sense but not thrive. In that way I agree with you. But the recordings are still awful, And his live playing is often brilliant, but still tragically lost in all the background mess. So, you see, he has not really succeeded on either level, and the loss is his AND ours - I don't think Sonny owes US anything, but he owes himself some honest and focused work -

Ok, now we're getting a, sorta, more honest set of evaluations, namely whether or not the individual likes the results.

Myself, I'll strongly disagree that the recordings are awful. Some are indeed that, some are pleasant, some are actually pretty engaging, and almost all of them have at least one cut where the action gets going pretty good. But there's only a handful that I would advise people to unconditionally stay away from, and most of them are from the 70s and early 80s. Then again, I go into any Milestone Rollins album expecting to not hear Saxophone Collosus IV, or East Broadway Rundown Revisitied, if you know what I mean. If that's what you're looking for, well, then, yeah, I guess the records would be awful. An honest difference of opinion, no harm, no foul.

I'd disagree a little stronger, though, about the "phoning it in motivation" about the electric bass and such. In Japan, parts of The Cutting Edge (what a maddeningly inconsistent set that is!), and a video of a performance in France(?) all have that type of rhythm section, and I really don't hear any "phoning it in". Inspiration coming and going, yeah, but when it works, it works superbly (where have you gone David Lee? COME BACK!). Your explanation is easy enough, but the evidence is a lot more complicated. I would say that the 70s probably did find Rollins in a bit of a "confused" state as far as how to put all the elements of that type of a band together. If ever there was a case of good intent being doomed from the start, it would be the ever-quioxtic Sonny Rollins trying to lead a consistently tightly structured R&B-centric band. Oil & water! But there's enough evidence of it working that I do believe the intent was sincere, and in no way a cop-out. As for electric bass, hey - Bob Cranshaw, mostly, a dependable musical and personal anchor for a helluva long time. Can't ignore that. Electric guitar? Big whoop. I prefer guitar to piano myself, so that was never an issue for me. Percussion? Hey - the aftermath of Elvin, simple as that. Who didn't try to get more rhythmic layering in their bands after Elvin (a rhetorical question, obviously...)?

Are the players "worthy" of Rollins' talent? Mostly, no. Do they bring the gig down when they solo? Yeah, usually. But they stay out of Sonny''s way when he plays (at least in his ears), and that. I strongly suspect, is why they're there. That's what he's decided that he needs to do what he does on the most regular basis, and all things considered, it's a decision I respect, even if the results often bug me, too (where have you gone Mark Soskin? STAY THERE!). What I want to hear is Sonny Rollins being Sonny Rollins, by any means necessary, and in whatever shape that ends up taking. I can hear plenty of "good bands", plenty of "group concepts", and plenty of "good players challenging each other. But how many "Sonny Rollins'" are there? It's not like a "better band" is automatically going to make for a better Sonny Rollins. For proof of that, go to the Milestone Jazzstars. Or better yet, take my word for it and don't go to the Milestone Jazzstars...

To that end, let's put together a "dream band" of your suggested Jason Moran, William Parker, and, since you didn't name a drummer, let's put Jack DeJohnette in there for grins. Let's take that band out on the road, and let's see how distracted Sonny gets in his playing, and let's see if the distractions prove benefical more often than not. I seriously doubt that they would. It wouldn't be Sonny Rollins being Sonny Rollins anymore, it would be Sonny Rollins being poked and prodded by Jason Moran, William Parker, and Jack DeJohnette, which although it might be more immediately "interesting", at least in a sensationalistic kind of way, may very well not prove to be "better" in the long haul, not if his goal is getting closer and closer to that thing that really makes Sonny Rollins Sonny Rollins (and I suspect that what that "thing" is at root something wholly apart from, yet residing wholly within, himself, which may well be why he goes to such lenghts to avoid being poked and prodded - how can you lose yourself in something that won't let you get lost? It's like my wife constantly waking me up when I snore and then getting upset I finally get up and go sleep on the sofa. And feel free to make the obvious "sleep" joke about that analogy!

Besides, if you're paying the guys, you got to let'em play. You need your breathers (especially if you play like Rollins plays), and they need the experience. And how often did Dizzy Gillespie lead "worthy" road bands from the 70s on, Sam Rivers notwithstanding. You didn't hear a bunch of weeping and wailing over that. Nor for that matter, did you hear a lot of talk that Dizzy's work from the 50s and beyond more often than not pales significantly to his heaviest work of the 40s. Not that he didn't deliver lots of fine playing - he did. But how often did he do what he did in the 40s? Not very often. Realistically, in terms of sheer musical "profundity", not very often. And that even during a time, partially, when it was relatively easy being a "professional jazz musician"!

You want "honest and focused" out of Sonny Rollins? I'll say that honest is always what you get, and that focused is always what you hope for. But geez Louise, the guy's never been focused, at least not in a day-in-day-out Coltrane-like Mission From God manner. For all the talk of the "glory days" of the 50s, there were a [b[LOT of recordings (and from the airshots, etc. I've heard, live gigs) where the focus just wasn't there, in highly varying degrees. You want to put Way Out West on the same level as the trio sides on Brass/Trio? Didn't think so. And the list(s) just begin there. Volume 2 vs Volume 1, etcetcetcetcetc, the list does go on. Yeah, at least we GOT a Way Out West back then, but the point is that "focus" and "Sonny Rollins" are concepts that have always intersected at random, if spectacular, junctures, and the more things change...

Edited May 9, 2005 by JSngry

[JSngry]

let's change that last answer - yes, he does owe us something - because he has accepted the terms of public performance and the acceptance of public money (the paying public) for performance - so he does owe us some real playing, live and on CD - if he does not want these trms, he should not play in public for a living -

Well, if by your own admission,

his live playing is often brilliant

even if it is, to your sensibility,

still tragically lost in all the background mess.

So, what is it - does he not deliver "real playing", or does he not deliver it in a format that is to your personal preference?

If you say that it's the latter, then, finally, I think this particular phase of this discussion will have reached an honorable end. but if you insist that "often brilliant" playing, no matter what the surroundings and/or format, isn't "real playing", then...

Well, then nothing. Finish your argument with yourself before you get into one with me.

Edited May 9, 2005 by JSngry

[marcello]

Sonny can't play solo saxophine ALL of the time!

[ghost of miles]

What do those gathered here think of SILVER CITY, the 2-CD distillation of his Milestone work? I picked that one up several years ago and like it quite a lot; have not ventured forth to buy any of his individual albums on the label simply because there's such a withering body of critical response to it.

[AllenLowe]

Jack DeJohnette plays too loud -

[JSngry]

Jack DeJohnette plays too loud -

Yeah, but Sonny plays louder.

Without the mike.

[JSngry]

What do those gathered here think of SILVER CITY, the 2-CD distillation of his Milestone work? I picked that one up several years ago and like it quite a lot; have not ventured forth to buy any of his individual albums on the label simply because there's such a withering body of critical response to it.

That's the one to have if you're at all interested in the Milestone years, which I understand not everybody is, and fair enough.

But there are individual albums that are not without merit, either as a whole, or mostly. Nothing to change the world, mind you, but from about the late 80s on, the records did start showing a bit of energy that the earlier ones often seemd to be fighting to find. They're all sorta "small" in terms of ambition and presentation, but within that smallness, there are often some pretty serious glimpses of vastness.

On the whole, though, I would say that getting into the Milestone catalog on a serious basis is not for "casual" fans, nor for anybody whoe expectations are for the epochal recorded work of the 50s and 60s. But if Sonny continues to hit you where you live, warts and all (and I suppose it's obvious that I fall into that category), then there are several, at least, individual albums worth a checkout.

[alankin]

[...] But if Sonny continues to hit you where you live, warts and all (and I suppose it's obvious that I fall into that category), then there are several, at least, individual albums worth a checkout.

Which ones make your list?

[JSngry]

Keeping in mind that Silver City collects most, but not all of the highlights of the period it covers and is probably the best choice for the "casual" fan of Rollins' 70s and beyond work (and I know a fair number of people for whom the issue of not liking this later work is simply a matter of them not liking Sonny's tone, or not likeing electric bass, or not liking any number of things that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the music itself other than personal taste as to style and such), here's the Milestone albums I keep coming back to and finding new dicoveries and enjoyments . They also contain material is not included in in the Silver City box that I would have included if I was compiling such a set.

Next Album

In Japan (not a Milestone, a Japanese RCA LP/JVC(?) CD)

The Cutting Edge

Nucleus

Don't Ask

G-Man

Falling in Love with Jazz

+3

Global Warming

This Is What I Do

Then there's a few others, like Easy Living, Don't Stop The Carnival, Love At Frist Sight, No Problem, Sunny Days, Starry Nights, & Dancing In The Dark that have either one killer track on them and everything else just falls flat, or else the entire album misses the mark by just this much. Those are the ones that are really frustrating, the ones that tease you into thinking that if you can just figure out the proper perspective that you can get all the way into them, but that perspective never comes (or hasn't yet. By this time, though, if it hasn't happened...).

Also, all of these albums have at least one dog track, and it's usually one where the sidemen are featured at length. There's really no flat-out bad players on them, but when you're in the middle of an album where Sonny is playing quite nicely and for one cut, he just sort of steps aside, it not only drops the level of interest down, but it reinforces the point that Sonny Rollins, even if "studio mode", projects a quality and complexity of personality that is unique. As fine a player as Tommy Flanagan was, to use a "name" example, when, on some of these latter albums, Rollins stops and he begins, there's a noticeable shift (downwards, I think) in the "aura" factor. And that's Tommy Flanagan...

Anyway, that's my opinion. This is a matter that will never be settled, since it is based on, as should be obvious by the previous comments in this and similar other threads, each individual's perception of "who" and "what" Sonny Rollins "should" be, and to what degree he's delivering those particular goods. But consider this - there is no other player, dead or alive, who could play like Sonny Rollins plays today, in terms of technical specifics and also of projection/quality of personality. The guy's tone alone (and the absolutely huge sound with which he delivers it) is more complex than most people's entire musical makeup. Like, love, loathe, or remain indifferent to his work (live and/or studio) of the last 30+ years, I think that that must be acknowledged

[Kalo]

If Silver City collects most of the highlights, I guess I'll stick with that.

I've been listening to it lately, inspired by this thread, and though it has some inspired moments, mostly in Sonny's cadenzas, its a mite spotty for a "best of."

Mostly what irks me about these recordings, if not Sonny's occasionally seeming to be pushing at the melodies rather than playing them, is the atrocious accompaniment, especially as it's been recorded and/or produced. I'm not a big fan of the style of recording on many 70s sessions, not just Rollins's, so that may be a big part of my response.

If accompaniment is beside the point in later Rollins, why doesn't he just issue solo records?

I've only seen him once, and I was disappointed enough to never pay for the big bucks to see him again (Sonny don't come cheap).

I tend to agree with Allen Lowe's points in this thread. If Rollins keeps putting out records, why should we buy them if he's giving short weight?

His career is perplexing, to say the least.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Kalo

[Kalo]

Having written all the above, I must add that "G-Man" is an amazing performance which would have been stunning to witness live.

I also liked the disc Global Warming (Stephen Scott doesn't hurt), especially "Echo-Side Blue."

I'll have to check out This is What I Do.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Kalo

[JSngry]

If Rollins keeps putting out records, why should we buy them if he's giving short weight?

Who says you should?

[RDK]

The JPN-only "In Japan" is a particular favorite of mine, including all periods of Sonny.

[epistrophy]

Hey, synchronicity! This morning I stumbled across a transcription of a journalism lecture that references Crouch-on-Rollins:

http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/awards/ruhl/2005.html

Obviously this fellow thinks that Crouch is the cat's meow. Your mileage may vary.

[Dr. Rat]

Hey, synchronicity! This morning I stumbled across a transcription of a journalism lecture that references Crouch-on-Rollins:

http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/awards/ruhl/2005.html

Obviously this fellow thinks that Crouch is the cat's meow. Your mileage may vary.

Apparently a pretty stand-up guy, too:

From the Columbia Journalism Review:

Harris resignation: Widening the conversation

On a July morning three years ago, I sat in Jay Harris's office at the San lose Mercury News and told him a story that Gene Patterson had told me. It was about John S. "Jack" Knight, and an encounter he had years ago with Nelson Poynter, then owner of the St. Petersburg Times. "Jack saw Nelson at a Gridiron dinner in Washington. They were in the men's room, standing at the urinals. And Jack leaned down to Nelson, who was a diminutive guy, and he said, `I've got an announcement coming up next week and I wonder what you think of it: Nelson said, `Well, what is that?' And Jack said, `I'm taking Knight Newspapers public. Whaddya think about that, Nelson?' And quick as a shot Nelson replied, `Jack, I think it'll be just fine - as long as you're alive."'

Jay chuckled about the anecdote I'd offered up, but he responded, "There's no point lamenting the reality of what happened thirty years ago." Then he added: "Increased profitability and improved journalism and public service are not by definition mutually exclusive - although there are ways that you can get to increased profitability that make them mutually exclusive."

A few weeks ago, Harris apparently ran up against some of those ways - and resigned. When I got the word, I thought: This could do for the profits-over-journalism dilemma what Staples Center did for blurring between news and advertising bring it at last to the forefront of discussion. So many people have resigned over the years in frustration; so few spoke out at the time. There are always good reasons. For example, when you speak out, you make things difficult for people you care about.

In 1990, I gave a speech at Gannett's corporate meeting suggesting that this company, which had proven its boldness with the launch of USA Today and its imaginativeness through its leading role in hiring women and minorities, might also lead the industry in proving that public companies can do well by employees, readers and communities even as they, necessarily, do well by shareholders. You'd have thought I'd screamed obscenities. My publisher, Charles Edwards, took the flak.

It was also in 1990 that Gene Roberts resigned as editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer. I called to plead that he would go public with what I knew to be his passionate concern about profit pressures. He said he wanted to avoid poisoning the well for his successor.

When people do speak out, others look for motives that sap the power of it. This editor had presumed too much, that one was a hothead, another had personal issues. Most editors just stick to the job. Partly that's because the money is awfully good these days and tightly tied to the financial performance of the company (as Jay put it in his ASNE speech, those golden parachutes can become golden handcuffs and blindfolds as well). But the main thing is that everyone has high hopes, and there are always some victories, and journalism is engaging work.

What Jay Harris stood before a ballroom full of news executives at ASNE and told us, in a strong and steady tone, is that we have been accommodating ourselves to the unacceptable. He showed us how our collaboration has permitted the construction of a system in which serving the market trumps serving democracy, and profits matter more than anything else.

It's a slow and silent surrender. There are those who will focus on the generous investments made in the Mercury News and those who will speculate about hidden meanings or sympathize with Knight Ridder executives. But the point that Jay's resignation made is far larger. He has brought a long-festering truth to the forefront of our consciences, and most of the people in that room - where nary a cough was heard and people seemed hardly to be breathing - knew it.

So what should we do? For one thing, conduct research that can put meat on the bones of the longtime lamentations. Stephen Lacy, a media economist who heads the Michigan State University School of Journalism, is studying the relationship between short-term economic pressures and long-term value. "Preliminary indications are that the higher the margins," he has said, "the higher the loss of circulation in the 1990s." This, if it bears out, will be invaluable information. So would any substantiation of connections between budget cuts and a decline in journalistic excellence. And - especially promising in terms of reaching publishers - connections between the cuts and the criticisms readers have. For example, readers tell us they hate our careless errors, and charge we're likelier now to misspell words and use bad grammar. Well, copy desks have typically taken on most of the work of composing rooms, and few that I know of have staffed up anywhere near sufficiently in response: these staffing conversions were too tempting a gold mine for hard-pressed newspapers. Little wonder that people putting the newspaper together have less time to go painstakingly over copy - much less to come up with engaging and accurate display type.

Or, take diversity. Figures released at ASNE show that the number of minorities in newsrooms has declined slightly, despite increased hiring. The problem is in retention. In looking at why people of color have left newsrooms, it seems likely we'll find dissatisfaction about acceptance and opportunities. But we might well also find unhappiness over pay, given the low level of beginning newspaper salaries.

Also due some examination are the effects of reduced training budgets. Of newshole cuts and reallocations. Of the fact that we cut off (and don't seek) subscribers not of interest to our advertisers. That we reduce our own promotion budgets even as we preach to others about the power of advertising.

We're told that no c.e.o. could possibly stand up to the quarter-to-quarter profit pressures, lest his stock fall and his company be unable to borrow money - or worse, be taken over. But are we sure? The analyst John Morton told "Grade the News," a Bay area media watchdog group (www.gradethenews.org), that "newspapers are such heavy cash flow businesses even in hard times, that they wouldn't be cut off from capital formation - even if their stock price fell." As for takeover, Morton surprisingly said, "Historically, newspaper companies don't launch unfriendly tender offers for another newspaper company. It's too collegial a business for that." Nor do non-newspaper companies show much interest.

We must widen this conversation, then, to talk to business-- savvy people about the effect of the short-term pressures and what might be done about them. To thoughtful lawyers about the impact on our First Amendment standing when we are seen as just another commodity To board members of media companies to see how they view their responsibility toward journalistic excellence. And, not least, to those who work for newspapers. Whenever I write on these issues, I am swamped by responses.

An editor in the Southwest wrote, "The truth is that in most media companies you can't even engage the corporate bosses in a frank and open discussion. If you have to talk about it, just leave." An editor at a New York Times-owned newspaper says, "We are trying to figure out how to achieve double-digit earnings increases this year without destroying most of what has made us such a powerful force in the community." And a journalist at a Gannett-owned paper cites ombudsman reports that readers ask for "more detail, not less. More national and international news, not less. And more information in general. A couple of them even complained about our fruitless chase for a demographic that doesn't know we're there at the expense of reliable readers who have been buying our product for years." There is so much here to get out to the public - and that, in the end, is the real audience. For it's their right to know that is abridged when shareholder interests dominate.

And who is going to bring all this to the public but us? Jay Harris ended that interview with me three years ago by saying, "It is possible to make a lot of money and do bad journalism and ruin a newspaper. But it's also possible to make a lot of money, build a stronger franchise and do better journalism. It all depends on the people." That remains true. Jack Knight is no longer around. But we are. *

Geneva Overholser (genevaoh@aol.com), a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group, writes regularly for CJR about newspapers. Among the positions she has held are editorial writer for The New York Times, editor of The Des Moines Register, and ombudsman for The Washington Post. She also served nine years on the Pulitzer Prize board.

Copyright Columbia University, Graduate School of Journalism May/Jun 2001

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

--eric

[Kalo]

Just for tonight I think I'll Rouch on Crollins.

Tomorrow, maybe, I'll Couch on Rrollins.

Sorry, but I just have this obsession with names that contain verbs and sound like commands.

Stanley, crouch!

Wade bog(g)s!

And my favorite...

Wait for it....

Dick hymen!

[BruceH]

What about Spanky DeBrest?

[Jazzmoose]

What about Spanky DeBrest?

←

I thought this was a family forum!