mikeweil Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 It seems you guys really don't have anything to do... I decided I don't give a f..., I have the Mosaic box and spend the money on some music I don't have. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 It seems you guys really don't have anything to do... Well...we DO have stuff to do. We just don't want to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted September 16, 2003 Report Share Posted September 16, 2003 couw Posted: Sep 16 2003, 11:04 AM  QUOTE (mikeweil @ Sep 16 2003, 05:59 PM) It seems you guys really don't have anything to do... I decided I don't give a f..., I have the Mosaic box and spend the money on some music I don't have. So THAT's where they put Larry's head! Them damn mothership critters, them! Now that must have been a REALLY LIMITED EDITION box... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkertown Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Thanks couw! That's EXACTLY what I had in mind. Very cool. I think I'll make that one MY cover for this disc. BTW, I'm on the fence on buying this, because I have the Mosaic, but if everyone raves about the sound, I might get it. Though I'm real happy with the sound on the Mosaic. Is it just me, or does the sound on the Mosaic on the "Talkin' About" session just kill the 20bit remaster or what? I prefer the earlier mastering job over the reissue. That guitar on "People" just stands out to me more. Love it...puts ME in that "other place". B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 One idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Another good one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 .:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 .:. good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 If you look real carefully at this picture, you can see Lee Morgan faintly in the background, and I believe...YES! HE'S WEARING A SURGICAL BANDAGE AROUND HIS HEAD!!! Bertrand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Those are cool covers, impossible!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 OK. Here's my attempt. Nothing new - just a different "angle". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Cool BFrank! Here's mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 One idea That's a great one! One of the problems I have with Patrick Roques -- and I don't have many, he does a fine enough job -- is that he employs too many fonts. If you look closely at Reid's designs, you'll notice he seldom combines more than one font and often sticks to only one. I like that kind of uniformity. That said, I very much enjoy what he did with: Jackie McLean - 'VERIGO' Tina Brooks - 'MINOR MOVE' Grant Green's first session. This one's pretty great too. All in all, the only thing getting in his way is that fact that a number of them look too 'Photoshopy'. Very very digital. And by this I don't mean that the resolution is bad. Look at 'SIX VIEWS OF THE BLUES' for example. Well....alright.....here..... ....it's a situation that could have only been arrived at by digital means and it really takes away from the original point, which is too look 'old'. I don't know. Just one man's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Whoa, B3-er - Larry buttin' heads with himself! Wild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 You and I know that's true Jim. But in general terms, for the layman, they are exactly the same. Let's not confuse these poor folks! Speaking of different organs, a relative of mine just gave me a Gulbransen Rialto from the 60's. Cost a whoppin' $6900 when it was new back in 1967 I believe. I only took it because it had a Leslie with it. Alas, the Leslie is a model 100GK. It was specifically made for the Gulbransen and is not compatable with Hammonds at all. It LOOKS just like a 122, but it has no top rotor. It was three stationary 6x9 speakers mounted behind the front louvre (and no side louvres) and a Rotosonic bass speaker (which is where the speaker itself is actually rotating, not just the baffle). I'm hoping I might be able to convert it into a 122 by finding some old parts. That would be SWEET! The cabinet is gorgeous. The Gulbransen organ, by the way, sounds like complete crap. It's out of tune (Hammond never went out of tune!!) and the sounds are really cheesy. It weighs a damn TON and it's all transistorized. Sounds like poo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 You and I know that's true Jim. But in general terms, for the layman, they are exactly the same. Let's not confuse these poor folks! Speaking of different organs, a relative of mine just gave me a Gulbransen Rialto from the 60's. Cost a whoppin' $6900 when it was new back in 1967 I believe. I only took it because it had a Leslie with it. Alas, the Leslie is a model 100GK. It was specifically made for the Gulbransen and is not compatable with Hammonds at all. It LOOKS just like a 122, but it has no top rotor. It was three stationary 6x9 speakers mounted behind the front louvre (and no side louvres) and a Rotosonic bass speaker (which is where the speaker itself is actually rotating, not just the baffle). I'm hoping I might be able to convert it into a 122 by finding some old parts. That would be SWEET! The cabinet is gorgeous. The Gulbransen organ, by the way, sounds like complete crap. It's out of tune (Hammond never went out of tune!!) and the sounds are really cheesy. It weighs a damn TON and it's all transistorized. Sounds like poo. How can Hammond B3/C3/A100/RT3s sound so wonderful and all other makes and models (hammond too) suck. If it wasn't for those few models, the history of the electric organ would be very, very horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFrank Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 OK. One more........with a different "bent". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 One idea Let me say again that your 9-16-03 10:21 post (quotes don't include graphics on this site) is really good. Just for the record...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 You and I know that's true Jim. But in general terms, for the layman, they are exactly the same. Let's not confuse these poor folks! Speaking of different organs, a relative of mine just gave me a Gulbransen Rialto from the 60's. Cost a whoppin' $6900 when it was new back in 1967 I believe. I only took it because it had a Leslie with it. Alas, the Leslie is a model 100GK. It was specifically made for the Gulbransen and is not compatable with Hammonds at all. It LOOKS just like a 122, but it has no top rotor. It was three stationary 6x9 speakers mounted behind the front louvre (and no side louvres) and a Rotosonic bass speaker (which is where the speaker itself is actually rotating, not just the baffle). I'm hoping I might be able to convert it into a 122 by finding some old parts. That would be SWEET! The cabinet is gorgeous. The Gulbransen organ, by the way, sounds like complete crap. It's out of tune (Hammond never went out of tune!!) and the sounds are really cheesy. It weighs a damn TON and it's all transistorized. Sounds like poo. How can Hammond B3/C3/A100/RT3s sound so wonderful and all other makes and models (hammond too) suck. If it wasn't for those few models, the history of the electric organ would be very, very horrible. Amen to that. I told my relative before he bought the organ (he got it really cheap, thank God) that it wasn't worth anything. I guess he got a Hammond once for nothing and sold it for $2000 and so he thought he could do the same on this one. He's had it in the paper for about a year and he had to move from his old place so he wanted to get rid of it. I thought I might be able to record some cheesy stuff with it to use as intros on our next record, but it hums like a madman and is horribly out of tune. What a piece of junk! Hammonds are where it's at. I told him if he finds a full-sized Hammond tonewheel organ ("the ones with drawbars, not tabs") to let me know. He goes to estate sales all the time and buys old saxophones and stuff. (Get me one of them, too!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 OK. One more........with a different "bent". CooL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Man, I think I like ALL of the homemade "Mother Ship" covers in this thread, better than the new one they came up with. Not that I hate the new one, but I do like that "contemplative" photo of Patton quite a bit better than the "ultra-happy" one that Roques used. (At least in association with this particular session.) But, I am rather happy with the new Andrew Hill cover (see my Avatar, at least for about the next 30 days). As far as "Sonic Boom" goes, from what I can tell (from the tiny image we've got, so far), it seems like a cover more appropriate for a Lee Morgan album in about 1963 or '64, rather than '67 and '69 (when the two sessions from the new disc actually occurred). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 (edited) PS: All you "Photoshop"-savvy guys need to check out this thread: link: Create covers for albums that MIGHT've been on BN, but weren't. (Tolliver, Shaw, etc...) Thanks!!! Edited September 17, 2003 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 One idea Let me say again that your 9-16-03 10:21 post (quotes don't include graphics on this site) is really good. Just for the record...... Thanks Brandon. That one was my favorite too. I have a couple more ideas, but it was past my bedtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted September 17, 2003 Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 One of the problems I have with Patrick Roques -- and I don't have many, he does a fine enough job -- is that he employs too many fonts. If you look closely at Reid's designs, you'll notice he seldom combines more than one font and often sticks to only one In graphic design circles Reid Miles was famous for mixing fonts. He called it something like "the liberation of type". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2003 Aim for the crossover market, I say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.