All Activity

CBS D 88529 - V.S.O.P. The Quintet Live Under The Sky - rec. 1979 at Denen Coloseum, Tokyo

Anne Mette Iversen: Marbles (BJU CD)

Days of rain here, so I decided to listen to albums that work with the sound of raindrops blending into them

Oh, being from STL area, I’ve been to Euclid Records probably close to 1,000x over the years (especially me going back to visit my folks/dad several times every year over the last almost 40 years since I went off to college in 1987 — to say nothing of weekly visits when I was late in my high school years, and summers in college). My dad still lives there (in assisted living the last few years), and we’re visiting him for his 99th birthday next week (on our way to KC to visit my wife’s folks for a week). It’s the vast expanse between STL and DC (now PGH) that I barely know — and that I’m looking forward to exploring on our frequent driving trips to STL (and to KC via STL). I also have a couple cousins in Chicago, and we plan to drive there every couple years now — thru the upper parts of Ohio and Indiana (with cities we’ve never been too as well).

Dylan bootleg series binge continues.

Whoa, wait a minute. You don't like Miles' second quintet? Somehow that surprises me.

Superb. So much musical magic happened at Montreux through the years...

This note reminded me of the Tiberi tapes: From the Bill Myers column “Mile High Jazz” published in The Mile High Underground [an “underground” newspaper from Denver, Colorado], April 1967, Vol. 1, Number 2, p. 14: “Wes Westbrooks sez that John Coltrane had some of the best tenormen in N. Y. walking away muttering to themselves after a recent session at Slug’s in the Village. Wes noticed several tape recorders in operation so maybe someone will release an album of Trane’s wipe-out.”

Yes, absolutely. Clear monkisms in Griffith's playing, IMO. It is interesting because Cecil also sounds quite monkish on this excellent album.

Rabshakeh, it's not one of my favorites. It's OK, but I don't think it's very exciting. And Michael Brecker is one of my favorites.

I hear some Monkian mischief in the vibes playing of Warren Wolf.

Jackson's approach to the blues could be pretty Monkish at times. See also: that Prestige quartet date with Horace Silver. I'm thinking specifically of the way Hutcherson uses space (or silence) on those records. I would agree that, by the mid-60s, his playing had become something a bit more conventional. Dickerson ... I thought of him as well. Maybe inasmuch as he translated much of what Coltrane was doing to the vibes, and Coltrane incorporated lessons from Monk. Earl Griffith, who played with Cecil Taylor, may be another. But the recorded evidence is so scant (that one record, LOOKING AHEAD!, IIRC).

Walt Dickerson

I went only a few times when I lived there, pre-Internet. Bought quite a bit online over the years and I do agree, excellent shop. Vinyl Fever in University City (where Washington University is located) was my go-to when I lived in St Louis. Or was that Vintage Vinyl? I always get the one located in Tallahassee mistaken with the one located in St Louis.

Isn’t Euclid in St. Louis? Great record store.

“Miles in France – Miles Davis Quintet 1963/64: The Bootleg Series, Vol. 8” disc 1

Quite true, but there is another aspect to it. Regardless of how "great" a given jazz performance or recording is - not many are likely to jump head-on into areas (or "styles") that are FAR removed from one's own home ground of preferences. So if it is not anywhere near the style(s) of jazz that someone prefers, then he is not likely to all of a sudden be enamored of it just because "general wisdom" has pinned down this or that record as a "great" performance. The point here is that anyone who just happens not to like that particular "style" or category of jazz (not even by a long shot!) is perfectly entitled to state that he simply does not like it and that it doesn't do much for him. However, this does not detract from the qualities of that performance. The point is - don't call it a "bad" performance just because you don't like it. Not liking is does not say anything about the "objective" quality of the music. But liking in almost any case is not about objectivity at all. Besides - how else but by "styles" (or categories or subcategories) of jazz (or in fact any style of music that DOES have subcategories, for that matter) would you be able to describe what you like in jazz to OTHERS? To give at least some kind of orientation of what you are talking about? Particularly since jazz IS such a wide field and includes so many subcategories. One example: I have about all of the pre-Columbia Miles Davis studio recordings (bar half of one LP for the time being) plus a solid sampling of live recordings and like them a lot, but overall the most "recent" or "modern" Miles Davis recording I have is "Seven Steps to Heaven". And from all I've heard elsewhere I have no urge to expand this into later periods. So what would be the point of telling someone else (whose preferences I don't know) that I am "into Miles Davis", only to find out he is all into "Electric Miles" or "Jazz Rock Miles"? Not much common ground that you COULD force onto people for them to like - one way or the other ... So I've found that going at least by broad categories or styles is about the only way to tell people what we're talking about. I've two Eurocrates full of jazz records that I take along when I set up a fleamarket stall. They are marked by a panel that says "Jazz: Swing - Bop - Cool". You'd assume those who browse the jazz bins are interested enough in jazz to know what this means. Yet I've found some ask about stuff that is way, way outside anything that ever is likely to end up in these bins as duplicates or surplus items from my own jazz collection at all. So some time ago I added a second line that says "No Free, no Jazz Rock, no Fusion!". And this DOES bring a smile to the faces of some. Mission accomplished ...

I find it interesting that some people seem to make a particular effort to define their taste in jazz by "styles" that they like. Certainly, there is a close relationship between taste and styles. Still, great jazz and not so great jazz can be found in virtually all styles. You can miss quite a lot by not keeping your ears open. I used to draw that line at smooth jazz. I categorically rejected that style. Now I realize that even smooth jazz can be great jazz, certainly not all of it and maybe not most of it. But I no longer reject something out of hand because it is "smooth."

No problem. We visited Rome from April 29 till the 3th of May. We walked 45 kilometers in 3 days. Visited the Saint Peter, Vatican Museum, Sistine Chapel, Villa Borghese, Castello Saint Angelo, the Pantheon, The Colosseum plus 4 very impressive cathedrals. And on our way of course the Spanish Steps and Trevi Fountain. It was an amazing experience. The whole city is one huge open air museum. Every piece of sand, rock breathes history. The Galleria Borghese I probably enjoyed most. I’ve also enjoyed the atmosphere, people and food. Every single product seams to taste three times as good in Italy as in the Netherlands The only problem: way too many tourists but of course I realize I was part of that very problem…. Ive visited two record stores: one of the Radiation Record stores which wasn’t very interesting. Mille records had a nice stock but was expensive and most of the records not worth the price to me.

Words can’t describe my jealousy

Sorry I missed the date of your trip. Hope you had a good time in Rome.

I guess of course it depends on how we define a 'clear' influence(!), but for a vibraphonist (though this sells him way short - multi-instrumentalist, electronic musician, producer etc.) who knows this music on a really deep level - the amazing Corey Mwamba.