Michael Fitzgerald

It seems to me that there is no longer "in between sports seasons" - they all have been extended so there is instead considerable overlap. Mike

Nothing in that fits with my memory, which is why I mentioned that Ordeal By Innocence is likely NOT the film. Further digging in my memory brings up thoughts of ghosts, the supernatural - something like that in this film. Mike

Tangent - I was looking in Meeker yesterday trying to recall a film that had a score by Dave Brubeck. It's not in there - and it's not what's coming up on cursory websearches. It was a mystery, set in New England. I'm almost positive it's not "Ordeal By Innocence" although that *is* an Agatha Christie film (and it's certainly not "All Night Long"). Something I saw on late night TV maybe 15 or so years ago. Anyone? (no, I haven't checked the Yanow book.......) Mike

My GOD - and you'd rather have the Pablo ORIGINALS!!!???? Pablo - the label that would issue things with some large-sized text as the cover? I think they saved money by not using a photographer, nor even an art director! Mike

Apparently he is currently living in San Francisco. In the early 1970s he founded the group Mark-Almond with Jon Mark. The drummer was Dannie Richmond of Mingus fame. Mike

Agree with Allen. Yanow is (yet again) creating a book that is about EVERYTHING - but from all that I've read of his, he doesn't seem to be an expert on ANYTHING. Mike

Yes - this is on Timeless called "The Charlie Parker Memorial Band". The poem is by Walter Bishop, Jr. Alto player is Harold Jefta. http://www.timelessjazz.com/shop/product_i...126&language=en Mike

Come on, people - $13 used via amazon. Bite the bullet. It's a great book. I paid full price when it was new - yeah, I'm a sucker, I know. Mike

Wes Montgomery died suddenly in 1968, very shortly after his "prime" - while Grant Green died in 1979, well past it. So it could be that Wes immediately became a dead legend and has had that kind of aura building for 35 years, while Green was kind of forgotten at the time of his death and nothing much ever changed. Agreed that Green's reputation has benefited from the reissues. Mike

And writing about writing about music is like.................. (Sometimes we even get into writing about writing about writing about music here) Mike

Again, I have to point to the distinction between criticism and other writing. If you are saying "Do we even need jazz writers?" that to me is a very different question - because you've now eliminated all historians, biographers, theoreticians, analysts, reporters, as well as the liner-note-writers, reviewers, in addition to the true critics. Hey, even the discographers - a friend is preparing a presentation and will be making the case that discography benefits *everyone* in jazz (not just the total nerds....). Are there some people who look to get their viewpoint handed to them by a critic? Apparently yes. I've met some on the Internet. These are the people who are not open to listening, reading, or thinking for themselves. Some here have talked about how great criticism sends them back to the records - well, some people never bother to listen to the records. They just know the party line. That, I have a problem with. But one can't really blame the writer for how their work is being abused. Writing on jazz can supply insight - one person's insight - which should never be taken to mean "the only insight" or "the true insight". Get your *own* insight (which still isn't the only or true insight) by experiencing things yourself. Then when you read something you'll be better able to appreciate it. And I like what Chuck wrote about being challenged - but I think some folks don't put up a fight. They're not challenged, they just live and die by the Penguin Guide (or whatever). When I read some of the works in the collections of Balliett or Kart or Morgenstern or Schuller, I have my own perspective on the subject that let me say, "Yes, I agree" or sometimes "No, but I understand that view" - but I am especially sensitive to what the writer's strengths and weaknesses are, and musical knowledge is an area that too many writers try to bluff their way through (so sometimes I say "What an idiot - he's out of his depth!"). Even someone who *does* know music like Schuller has faults because he's not a jazz player. Having done the research work, I have a pretty good idea of whether or not a writer did his homework, and in some areas I can spot sources because I spend so much time with those materials. A mediocre writer is unlikely to surprise me because the research will be shallow. What I appreciate is NOT hearing the same old story, but instead getting fresh perspective - thoughtful, reasoned perspective that has solid backing. For a start, I want to find someone who's done at least as much listening as I have - not less. I also put a lot of value on primary sources - let me hear from the folks who were *there* - not godawful Wynton Marsalis talking out his ass pretending he was there. There are plenty of times when I will hear *about* someone before hearing that person. I don't make any judgement at that point other than to say, "Hmmm - sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out." Then, when I get the chance to experience whatever it is, then I form my own opinion. Like Larry Kart mentioned Anita Brown recently - I'm interested in checking out her record. I don't know that I will agree with him (particularly with regard to Maria Schneider, which was the context of the mention, since Larry hasn't heard Schneider's latest album - which I would say could very well change some of the views he expressed), but I know that Larry has ears and gets a lot of things. He doesn't have *my* ears, which is why *I* need to hear the record. An aesthetic experience cannot be second-hand. What works for me might not for him and vice versa, which is great. Now, once I check it out, I might want to discuss it further with him, and with others who have heard it. Mike

I know his work best from the "Phil and Quill With Prestige" LP but discographies show him on 10 sessions - 3 with Woods, 2 with Eardley, the Sunkel you mention all between 1954 and 1957, then 4 with Dick Meldonian in 1980-82. Mike

Back before the world heard of her (November 3, 2002) she sang some Gigi Gryce tunes at Smalls in NYC with the Chris Byars Octet, who are good friends of hers. It was a celebration kind of thing after the book was published. Mike

Not all writing about jazz is criticism. Not all jazz writers are critics. I love this piece by Dan Morgenstern (not included in his recent book as far as I can see): ============================================= The Role of the Jazz Critic By Dan Morgenstern [Originally published in 1984 in the program for the twenty-sixth annual Notre Dame Collegiate Jazz Festival] Criticism is properly the rod of divination: a hazel-switch for the discovery of buried treasure, not a birch-twig for the castigation of offenders. — Arthur Symons The role of the critic in jazz is the same as in the other arts: to serve as a bridge between artist and audience. At its rare best, criticism enhances appreciation and understanding and facilitates the development of perception and taste. Music, the most abstract of arts, is perhaps the most difficult to criticize. Words are not equivalent to notes, but frequent use of musical notation and technical terminology-aside from restricting the critic's audience to those familiar with them-is not a substitute for insight. Before discussing the critic's role, however, it is necessary to briefly distinguish between criticism and other forms of writing about music. In the jazz world, unfortunately, almost anyone who writes about the music is reflexively called a critic, though only a small percentage of the published words about jazz can legitimately be defined as criticism. A record or performance review in Down Beat or a college newspaper, for example, is almost always just that — a review. Which is to say, a reflection of the writer's personal opinion, without reference to a larger judgmental framework and bereft of historical or aesthetic context. Such writing is useful only insofar as it contains specific information, such as how well a particular artist is featured, how good or bad the recorded sound is, when the music was recorded, etc. Everything else depends on prior acquaintance with the writer's work, which enables the reader to determine to what extent his own taste overlaps with that of the writer. Nor is the kind of interview with an artist that makes up the bulk of articles in jazz periodicals representative of criticism. It is a species of reporting, in which the writer/interviewer's voice and opinions are secondary to those of the subject. Reviewing and reporting are facets of journalism, not of criticism as such. True criticism is as rare in jazz as in other fields. It is a discipline that requires thorough acquaintance with general principles of aesthetics and the specific nature and history of the music, as well as the writing skills necessary to clarify and explicate the critic's ideas. And these ideas need to be original and stimulating. Clearly, it is impossible to become a critic overnight. It is impossible to take seriously the opinions of a writer on jazz whose listening experience begins with John Coltrane, or even with Charlie Parker. The bulk of writing on jazz, even in books, is not criticism in the sense I'm defining the term. Much of it is biography and history, some of it is musicology and analysis. Many jazz fans are acquainted with at least the outlines of the life of Charlie Parker; few have any genuine understanding of his contribution to the art of improvisation. A book like Bird Lives!, which tells you plenty (much of it untrue) about the former and next to nothing about the latter, is fairly representative of the bulk of jazz literature. What, then, is a true work of jazz criticism? The list is not long: Andre Hodeir's Jazz: Its Evolution And Essence, Gunther Schuller's Early Jazz; Martin William's The Jazz Tradition (recently revised and enlarged) and The Art Of Jazz (a collection of essays by various writers, edited by Williams); some of the pieces in the many collections of Whitney Balliett's New Yorker essays; Albert Murray's Stomping The Blues; Gary Giddins's Riding On A Blue Note; the pieces on jazz and jazz musicians in Ralph Ellison's Shadow And Act, and a few more. The writers represented in this admittedly personal selection by no means always agree with each other, but they share a solid knowledge of the music's history, an understanding of its nature and aims, and — not least — good ears and writing skills. They also share the ability to distinguish between the timeless and the ephemeral, and a sense of the place of jazz in the artistic and social scheme of things. No one who reads these critics can fail to come away with an urge to hear or re-hear the music they write about, and with an enhanced appreciation of that music. That, in a nutshell, is what the role of the critic should be: to guide the listener (who of course may also be a player) to the best the art has to offer, and to make the listener aware of what to listen for — and why. Hearing and responding to music is not a passive act, and should not be only an emotional and visceral reaction. The true critic must have an intense commitment to what he writes about and be able to transmit his sense of its value. This is not to say that other forms of jazz writing have no significance. We want to know what musicians think about their own (and others') music and what motivates them. We want to read about the lives of the great jazz creators, just as we want to read about other extraordinary people. And we need the day-to-day reviews in the jazz and general press as a guide to keep up with what is going on and coming out. The duties of writers in these areas are clear and simple: to report fairly and factually and not to misquote or misrepresent. Do your research diligently and present it clearly if you're writing a biography or biographical essay; be fair and keep in mind what the artist's intention is when reviewing a performance, live or recorded. And never patronize your subject (or your reader) or assume the mantle of omnipotence. In fairness to the jazz journalist, it must be pointed out that a critic has the advantage of selectivity; he can concentrate on masterpieces and draw on years of leisurely listening, while the reviewer must deal with what he is assigned to cover, be it good, indifferent or bad, and has to write against a deadline. But that is good discipline and training. Most critics began as journalists, and the best journalists are careful and conscientious craftsmen. Ultimately, it is the fault of critics and reviewers that the term criticism has acquired essentially negative connotations. To criticize is not synonymous with pulling apart or finding fault — to the contrary, as I have tried to show, it ought to be synonymous with discovery or illumination. The true role of the critic is to lead the listener to the best, and to explain why it is the best —to be a guide, not a judge. ============================================= For myself, I use my own ears and my own background - as a player, listener, composer, arranger, reader, consumer - I'm a record-buyer just like the rest of you. When I do write, I write something that I would like to read. Mostly it's toward the goal of sharing information and as Larry Kart recently put it, "complete contextualization" - knowing the big picture and the place of whatever or whomever in that picture. Mike

Mostly yes, but sometimes no. For instance, Filles De Kilimanjaro is divided between the 65-68 box and the Silent Way box. So is Water Babies, if you care about that one. Sorcerer is split with one track on the Gil set. Mike

There's quite a bit - Floyd O'Brien, Chuck Mackey, Jack Teagarden, Flip Phillips, Rosy McHargue, Merle Koch, Marvin Ash, Allegheny Jazz Quartet, etc. Not sure if this is the same label that issued Rebecca Kilgore, Marty Grosz, and Keith Ingham. It may be. There's also another unrelated Jump label from Italy. Mike

Chuck's point (if I may) is that with almost 400 issues on the Pablo labels, buying a discography would be in your interest. Chuck owns one, I do too. So do a number of other folks here. If you care enough to ask the question, you care enough to buy one. If you can't do the most up-to-date, you could pay $99 for the version 3.3 Tom Lord CD-ROM. It would answer a lot of such questions. Maybe not everything, maybe not everything entirely accurately or correctly, but it's a big start. No, I will NOT be undertaking the Pablo catalog any time soon. Uptown is the current one and I'm still waiting for folks to step forward with the rest of that info. If you have a question about a specific Pablo item, I could probably help you. Mike

Agreed. I make the distinction between a standard and a jazz standard. Only a few composers have written both. Mike

Thanks! I like that research a lot - is it possible to contact any of the participants and ask? Or if it's Jones, even the "non-participant"? http://www.cosmicsounds-london.com/DUSKO/goykovic.html - seems he's often in Palermo. I would think that Kleinschuster might recall this. Any Austrian folks here who might be able to help? Mike

OK - now online. Please check timings on side b. and confirm FF is out on a-02. Related to our "too much stuff" thread, I find it fascinating that How I Spent The Night here received its SECOND recording. The first was back in 1954 on Foster's Blue Note 10" LP. Don't think anyone since has recorded it either. Mike

Yeah, but you gotta have two standard thoughts per post. We don't want to be overwhelmed with original thoughts. Mike

And I got 15 for either "Ralph" or "he" (meaning Ralph). Mike

Nefertiti isn't a standard (and *certainly* wasn't in 1971) but that's from the same album as "There Is No Greater Love" (which is, and was then) - so same difference. Mike

Well, I guess the live "There Is No Greater Love" with Circle was the first time Braxton recorded a standard, then there was "Come Sunday" from 1971, then the album on America with "You Go To My Head" (and "Donna Lee") - but for several years there were no standards included. In fact, it was a principle of the AACM to play "only our own music - original compositions or material originating from the members within our group" (Muhal Richard Abrams - from the George Lewis piece on the AACM in "Current Musicology") Mike

In a lot of cases, I think new jazz pieces ARE being written/recorded unnecessarily. And I don't think that there is enough familiarity with the repertoire that exists already. But I don't know that "two standards per album" is going to solve this problem. Does the world need *another* version of "On Green Dolphin Street" or "Stella By Starlight" - probably not. But there are a lot of original jazz pieces that were written 50 years ago that could stand to be recorded and performed more. But I'm not going to mandate this kind of thing. Those artists who have a keen sense of repertoire will seek these pieces out and hopefully will do creative things with them. Would be nice if there were some added guidance out there - qualified producers with musical backgrounds who could suggest some things, for example. And then there are plenty of cases when two standards just don't BELONG on an album. Mike