Michael Fitzgerald

Well, I've never been a blind man and never hope to be one, but once you've played an instrument for any length of time, there's nothing to look at. The most difficult, I think, is vibes, and I've even watched Gary Burton stare down flash photographers while playing a burning solo and not miss a note. Didn't we just have the eyes open/closed thread? Just negotiating getting around outside of the studio is a whole nother story. I wouldn't want to trivialize what blind people have to deal with. Mike And shoot, if you want remarkable, try checking out Evelyn Glennie.

Some more clarification would help (what does "out there" mean?), but perhaps Tony Williams Lifetime with Larry Young would fit the bill. Mike

Wasn't Todd Rundgren doing one-man-band stuff at the same time as Wonder? Of the hundred folks I know, none have Wonder's compositional skill - and I still think it's a matter of personal temperament. A lot of people enjoy playing music *with* other people (and can't afford the studio time to overdub all the stuff). I certainly agree that Wonder was an important pioneer in synthesizers. He and Townshend, Emerson, Sun Ra, and others. But I don't know that his contribution is any greater than what W. Carlos and Tomita were doing - their stuff was far more complex and the timbres used were much more sophisticated and involved. Wonder seems to have used three or four tracks, mostly melodies with pretty basic patches. It works very well for what he was doing. And let's please not even get the idea that I'm not a fan of Stevie Wonder's stuff of this period. As suggested, I just listened to Superwoman/Where Were You When I Needed You - wonderful stuff, and definitely something I'd present as an example of how good pop music can be. Mike

The "he plays everything" line doesn't hold any weight with me. I know hundreds of people who can do this. Also, it's his choice to do this on his records. Others (even those who CAN play everything, like say, Pete Townshend) choose to have the interaction of several musicians. What I would say really sets Stevie Wonder apart are his compositions and arrangements. Mike

Roker was born in 1932. He definitely was playing with Gigi Gryce in late 1959. Discographies list him as playing drums on a Paul Williams record date in 1954. That is an isolated session - nothing else until 1960. I haven't tried to confirm the date of the Williams session or Roker's presence on the date. Mike

My definition of popular music places it in a category that is not classical music (music composed in a strict tradition) and not folk music (anonymous music of the people). Jazz is a difficult proposition since it originated as folk music and has now become something between classical music and popular music. Anyway, what I keep trying to get at is that musical genius is a rare thing. If it isn't, then the term has been devalued. Just thinking of the 1970s and who was still around then: OK, so Stevie Wonder is a genius. Charles Mingus is a genius. Bob Dylan is a genius. Igor Stravinsky is a genius. Paul Bley is a genius. Stephen Sondheim is a genius. Joni Mitchell is a genius. Bob Marley is a genius. Paul Simon is a genius. Johnny Cash is a genius. Elton John is a genius. Elvis Presley is a genius. Elvis Costello is a genius. Bruce Springsteen is a genius. Jimmy Page is a genius. Marvin Gaye is a genius. James Taylor is a genius. David Bowie is a genius. Tom Jobim is a genius. Miles Davis is a genius. Sun Ra is a genius. Elliott Carter is a genius. Ray Charles is a genius. Milton Babbitt is a genius. Leonard Bernstein is a genius. Duke Ellington is a genius. Yehudi Menuhin is a genius. Ravi Shankar is a genius. Ned Rorem is a genius. Paul McCartney is a genius. Charles Wuorinen is a genius. Muddy Waters is a genius. BB King is a genius. Pete Townshend is a genius. Ornette Coleman is a genius. Brian Wilson is a genius. Louis Armstrong is a genius. Frank Zappa is a genius. John Lennon is a genius. Aretha Franklin is a genius. Gil Evans is a genius. Andres Segovia is a genius. Wayne Shorter is a genius. Glenn Gould is a genius. Keith Jarrett is a genius. Joaquin Rodrigo is a genius. Benjamin Britten is a genius. Burt Bacharach is a genius. Your five personal choices for genius intentionally omitted. What was in the water that created such an incredible concentration of GENIUS!!! at one particular time in a very limited area (because this almost entirely omits Africa, Asia, huge portions of Europe, South America)???? Why is it that soooooo many geniuses are around in this small period/area and the rest of history is comparatively devoid of them? Or were the contributions of those older geniuses forgotten - and if they have now been forgotten, were they really geniuses??? Mike

Well, that could well be true, but I don't think it's as simple as that. However, I suspect that if someone thinks the audio clips are OK, then the full album probably won't be any big disappointment. In the end, what I was trying to point out was that because of a fairly wide disparity between various periods of Springsteen's career, it isn't all that easy to say whether or not you a Springsteen fan. It's like whether or not you are a Miles Davis fan - well, maybe not that extreme. Mike

I don't think it's as easy as whether one likes Springsteen or not. I would be more specific. It depends on *what* one likes about Springsteen. I haven't had any use for him for about 25 years, but I do *very much* like quite a bit of what he was doing before that - which is completely absent from his post-1970s work. I have heard the new record in bits here and there on radio and TV and it hasn't changed my opinion of his recent (which is no longer recent) efforts. Mike

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Sebesky played trombone on anything past 1960. Mike

Wow - "great pop music" is devaluing the music? Those three words would be very high praise from me. I think that someone somewhere has just overinflated things so that every model is a "supermodel" and every performance gets a standing ovation and if the average is now great, then the great must be "genius". There are so many people out there who have done as much as Stevie Wonder in their own different ways. In my book, that large number CANNOT possibly ALL be geniuses. It devalues the term "genius". See - we're on totally different channels here. Mike

Kind of scary to know that there are folks who are expert in PhotoShop reading this thread. Mike

When I read "I believe Stevie is high quality pop music for a decade," that did not leave me with the impression of someone who doesn't like pop music. However, some people seem to want to define "genius" as "someone who makes music that I like." I appreciated the post that brought in Joni Mitchell and Steely Dan. I agree that they, along with Wonder, did something to advance pop music in the 1970s. There were others as well. Now, just because they did this, does that make them "geniuses"? So, just how many "geniuses" were out there in the 1970s pop music scene? I think being more realistic says that we are dealing with, as Chuck said, good music, maybe great music. I do think it is valuable to step back and look at the big picture. What advanced pop in the 1970s can be viewed in relation to all American music, or all pop music, and in the end, all music - which seems to me to be the vantage point that Chuck is taking. On the radar screen that is so large that it includes Bach and the classical folks, let alone the never-to-be-known folks responsible for the non-Western traditions, is Stevie Wonder a towering figure? A couple thousand years makes a couple of great albums seem not so important. Which isn't to say they're not wonderful albums. Mike

Lord CDROM 5.0 has even fewer details, not naming the studio, and simply saying "Cal Tjader (vib) rest unknown". My Ruppli is at home - will check later if no one else comes through. Just out of curiosity - which Bruyninckx do you have? The little books by style or the full page condensed type 70 YORJ (or 60 YORJ or the single sided 50 YORJ)? The Bruyninckx CDROM doesn't even give the studio - is that really in your Bruyninckx or was that from the LP itself? Mike

Please remember that Stevie Wonder did not get the "genius" title after making those wonderful early 1970s albums. He got it a decade earlier on his very first LP - "Little Stevie Wonder - The 12 Year Old Genius" - so please let's not think that such obvious hyperbole isn't tainted. It was Motown marketing that attempted to hook him into the hype of Ray Charles. Mike

No, the "What genius are you listening to now" thread. Mike

Stevie Wonder's finest music happened during that brief moment when pop was free to dream. Experimentation and even excess were allowed because the folks running the show weren't sure whether or not it was useless to them (financially). Subsequently, they did figure out that creativity did not fit into their scheme of things and we ended up where we are now, i.e., with a b.s. TV show creating the next big thing out of next to nothing and everything being derivative and ultimately primitive and juvenile. Wonder was one of several over the course of a decade or so who advanced pop music, sometimes in huge steps, showing that it was possible to do things - and doing them well. Like many, I would be interested in hearing more from his early 1970s period. Apparently the word "genius" is reserved for the trite labeling of those who make names for themselves in spite of physical disability - Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Ludwig von Beethoven - or am I now drifting into that other thread..... Mike

So, does that mean: "never read it" - that you've never read it, or: "never read it" - one should never read it? Mike

No, the Warwick version came out after the film (almost a year later). The original Bacharach version was with Cilla Black. From the Bacharach boxed set notes: "George Martin, who produced the session, claims the British filmmakers turned down the song (!) for inclusion on the movie soundtrack." BTW, a little websearch brings up the unconfirmed allegation that "the UK print of Alfie has jazz music over the closing credits" with no Cher. Mike

Let's not cut too much slack - a number of the pieces were previously published elsewhere. I recall some in Keyboard magazine and the book notes five other places where articles appeared earlier. Mike

Never recorded by Miles. First recording is Cannonball Adderley: Portrait Of Cannonball on Riverside. Mike

Lewis Gilbert (film director), not Lewis Porter (Coltrane biographer). I am told that the closing credits of the film were different depending on location, etc. So it wasn't always Cher - only in the USA. So, I'm not surprised by the idea of more Rollins. Mike

Was this the Halloween 1965 gig in Copenhagen that has been issued on Magnetic CD? Reportedly from a TV broadcast - band is the late NHOP and Alan Dawson. Mike

Understood. But even if it has, I don't think it's appropriate to say it went "gold". It is interesting to consider Chris's point regarding titles. One would think that would be some incentive in keeping albums as albums, rather than messing around with them when reissuing (a la the Prestige things which have seventeen titles depending on which issue - 10", first 12", reissue 12", New Jazz 12", Prestige 2-fer, complete boxed set, etc.). Mike

I don't see anything in the general discographies that matches the date or the instrumentation you gave. Is this an issued record or something else? Mike

Well, surely whether or not something was awarded a gold record is appropriate to confirm with RIAA since they are the ones who give out the gold/platinum awards. You may well have sold a billion copies but if RIAA doesn't give you a gold record then you can't claim that you got a gold record for it. When Watrous says MFT went gold - what is his proof if not RIAA? Mike