Michael Fitzgerald

New Brunswick has The Raritan River Club, The Old Bay, Delta's, The Court Tavern, The Corner Tavern, maybe a couple of other even lesser things. The last two bars can probably be ignored as they are almost exclusively rock when they book anything and jazz at The Court Tavern was an upstairs thing paying nearly nothing. But the first three are restaurants which might be possible. Mike

The above post brought to you through the courtesy of money.

In looking over the Mosaic webpages for these, I was a little disappointed to see several small errors - Alberquerque Social Swim (Twardzik) - unless there's a good reason for this: the city is spelled Albuquerque That session is listed as December 1954 but Dan Skea determined it was recorded on October 27, 1954 and it's even listed in the Lord CDROM 5.0 that way. Crepescule With Nellie (Monk/Coltrane) - this is a long-standing error. The correct spelling of the word is Crepuscule! Hoping that perhaps these won't be wrong in the actual issues. Mike

Not that I know of.

I simply think that *you* believe something and to give it more credibility you've made the decision in your head that *Miles* (a famous dead guy you probably never met) would have believed this too. If you wish to make your point, leave the "what would Miles (or Jesus) do" out of it. There's a whole lot of taping going on. As best as I can tell, it's NOT being done out in the open like at a Grateful Dead show. Some groups, yes. Most, no. It's being done secretively. I've witnessed artists confiscating recordings from the taper. I strongly suspect that if asked *ahead of time* a large number of artists would NOT allow taping. After the fact, now that a recording exists, they may turn a blind eye because they don't want to persecute their fans (and that's reasonable). So just because an artist hasn't come right out and said, "Do not tape or trade" doesn't mean the artist is encouraging this. The other thing is that there is a generation of listeners out there who DO NOT buy music. Everything is free to them. And you know what else? They DO NOT attend live shows. Music - whatever form: commercial or private - is just one big buffet that someone else paid for. And they throw away the dishes afterwards. From a scholarly perspective, private recordings are wonderful because they allow another view of the artists, the repertoire, the concept. What we know about certain artists and certain periods relies heavily on private recordings to augment and enhance the existing commercial issues. I think the private recordings are important. BUT I don't believe they are being used in this way, particularly as duplication and distribution has gotten easier. What I have seen of the trading community shows me that there are a whole lot of people who DO NOT own every album already. These people DO substitute live tapes for commercial issues. They collect and collect and don't even listen in some cases. They build their trade lists so they have currency to get more. And no, I don't believe that for every CDR they burn that they're out there buying something that will support that artist. Heavens, if that were the case, the record industry sales would be skyrocketing! A good portion of the traders DO have good intentions. They're against the buying and selling of private tapes. But see above - a huge number of people are simply against paying for music, full stop! Some of them DO try to avoid the trading of commercial material, but many do not. I see frequent open trading of out-of-print items where instead of tracking down something that might be harder-to-find, they treat said item as *equivalent* to a private recording. This deprives the artist and the label that invested the money from possible income at a later time. The reissue folks aren't going to produce a legit issue if a huge portion of their target market has already got the item. And PLEASE do not give me that line about how "as soon as a show becomes available legitimately, we solemnly swear that we will destroy our CDRs and purchase it" - that's rubbish. And yes, at times I have exceeded the posted speed limit while driving. Mike

Yes - see the blues issued on "Summit Sessions" listed as "C Jam Blues" (incorrectly because there is no melody and it's not in C) where Brubeck and Monk play together. Mike

Boy, you must have really known Miles. Mike

What would *really* do it would be to add some of the best moments from the Monk big band rehearsal tapes, recorded by Eugene Smith at his loft. There are some amazing things to be heard. Mike

How about this for a great discovery - soon to be issued on Japanese CD: Steve Kuhn, Scott LaFaro, Pete LaRoca - recorded 1960. I await further details. Mike This is what I've got at this point: http://www.jazzdigger.com/l/Pete_LaRoca/Ku..._B000AU1JYQ.htm

Your mention of Curtis Counce makes me think you have confused Frankie Dunlop with Frank Butler. Mike

I'm a fan of Frankie Dunlop with Monk - and most every other place I've heard him too. One thing I like about him is his approach to soloing, which is very much about melodic reference. I love Blakey with Monk, more for the groove because a Blakey solo is about Blakeyisms, not about the tune. I was definitely impressed with the Shadow Wilson on the new issue - would love to hear more of that. Ben Riley - totally agree that he's the most boring of the lot. Mike

I also plead ignorance - quite surprised to find my name on the list. I'll have to figure it out with the search function. But, truth be told - you're not one of the people on my "ignore" list so it couldn't have been that bad! Mike

Ira Gitler told me that he tried to get Atlantic to include the unissued session when he was pushing Atlantic to reissue Tony Fru's other album. There are several copies of the unissued session still in existence, some better quality than others. Mike

I was going to send this privately, but what the hell - I have much to disagree with on the 25 + 40 list, but I don't wish to spend my time discussing this kind of thing on a choice-by-choice basis. It comes down to opinion, not fact, and my version of a list isn't any more worthwhile than this one. The idea of rankings is particularly distasteful to me - Tristano is "more essential" than Dizzy, etc. and doesn't help either because these are so very different. What is there on the list would make a decent collection - but what are the assumptions? Is someone supposed to purchase ALL of these, SOME of these, ONLY these - or can someone veer off and purchase something not on the list? I've never met anyone who wanted to build a serious collection this way. In my experience, people start with a germ, *something* that catches their interest and then they follow paths that radiate out. They get more by that same artist, or they follow the paths by getting albums by the sidemen, or on the same label, or with pieces by the same composers, or by someone mentioned in the liner notes as an influence. Or else they find another germ. What I have seen is that this works from the radio, or from the experienced listener teaching the novice. Books work too, but I don't mean books like Penguin, Allmusic, Jazz For Imbeciles, etc. but rather biographies, histories. I think the ground rules make things especially bad. To say right off the bat effectively that say, Miles or Ellington didn't have one of the very most important recordings in two divisions isn't allowing for the truth to be told. I also have problems with the time divisions and how the choices fit in there. Ornette Coleman is not the END of the era, he's the Shape of Jazz TO COME! I'm not disagreeing with the choice of Ornette or that particular album, but rather the place it's taking up based on the divisions. Chronological things like that always have problems because life and art don't work by the calendar. Just because January rolls around doesn't mean someone isn't still working on "last year's" concept. Or the opposite, in the case of Ornette. I also think that making these as whole CDs is counterproductive. Head Hunters is one damn boring album. The concept is important - but giving up something else to get 40 minutes of sameness isn't a good thing. "Chameleon" would do the trick (I might even suggest the edited single version rather than the album track!). Now that the world (not me personally, but the rest of the world, apparently) has entered the single-tune download marketplace, I would strongly argue that a TUNE-BY-TUNE essential list would be far more practical and could be done without so many sacrifices. This is the idea of the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz (which I'm told is going to be issued in a revised edition in the near future). As I said, I'm not a single-tune person. But I'm not the target for a set like this. But if the purpose of this is to be a *start* not an *end* - then a tune or two or five could be enough inspiration for someone to go out and purchase the 3-CD set. You don't need to have an ENTIRE album to get the point (the point being "Hey, I like this and want more!"). You don't need to have 2 CDs of 1983 Jarrett Trio when you could have 3 or 4 well-chosen selections from across the band's 20+ years. If someone likes those, THEN perhaps he'll want to purchase EVERYTHING by that group. With the idea of keeping things as free of redundancy as possible (and without the constraints of label restrictions and previously established issue programming), I imagine that a set of 65 CDs *WORTH* of material (does an iPod hold this much?) could be programmed that would do things in a way that would not feel so much like being handcuffed while making the choices. If you've got that much, I imagine that you could get just about *every* choice that gets debated. And as I said, the track-by-track concept isn't just fantasy. Mike

I'm not a Bennett fan, but this album is up there with Coltrane & Hartman in terms of pairing a singer and an instrumentalist. Mike

I don't own the second one, but the Fantasy one is sublime. It's stunning how well it works. Mike

There is a rumor that a copy of that Fru & Brew session survived. When Jonathan Kutler did the Fruscella discography that was the predecessor of what's on my website he told me that. I'll try to find out more. Mike

Chuck - I know that in the world of Kenton, you're partial to the c. 1953 stuff. I like that stuff too. But I kind of think you don't go for his more ambitious overblown things. And I think you place a lot of value on the soloists. The good thing about the Neophonic not being the Kenton band to me is that he was more hands-off (and I swear to God I did not mean that in the sense of a Kenton anecdote you once told, but it's damn funny now that I do think of that), with the intent to be a resident orchestra for new music. I am a big fan of modern wind band music and I see the Neophonic as something along those lines - but instead of having classical composers with some interest (but almost never any real experience) in jazz doing the writing, the Neophonic had jazz composers with some interest in classical music. The bad thing about the Neophonic not being the Kenton band is that it didn't have the longevity and popular appeal to keep it going since it wasn't touring around on a bus playing The Peanut Vendor for the billionth time. But the Neophonic, to me, is not about the soloists (which to you isn't good) and it is amazingly ambitious (which to you isn't good). The Neophonic doesn't have arrangements of Wagner and Chicago either (which to you is good - and to me is good, too, now that I think about it). Am I close? Mike

That Capitol Neophonic record was reissued in 1998 with bonus track of that Clare Fischer piece. Mike

I'll go along with that too - but probably not the way you intended. Mike

The L.A. Neophonic AIN'T the Stan Kenton band. Mike

But the presence of the alternative takes is an incentive for previous purchasers to buy the whole set again, thereby generating additional revenue in terms of royalties and mechanicals for the artist, composer, publisher. I know that's how it generally works for me - give me something new extra and I'll buy the whole damn thing over again. And I would imagine that the labels have more support from the artists if they tack on the "free" tracks as bonuses to existing albums as opposed to creating "new albums" that consist entirely of "free" tracks. Although I imagine that even when that is done (Blue Note Japan did this quite a bit), they do still pay the artists, composers, publishers as usual. Mike

Sure - when a bandleader could promise a sideman months of work (and the steady weekly paycheck), that was a JOB. Because no one is booking long-term jazz (6 days for a gig is about the most), and because there isn't a circuit anymore, it's every man for himself. Maria Schneider has good loyalty - most of the same musicians for over a dozen years - but she doesn't work enough for those players to survive. They're all very much in demand and do other things when MS isn't working. Which makes the Arkestra guys all that more remarkable. Mike

The W. Eugene Smith collection, not yet issued. http://cds.aas.duke.edu/jazzloft/ Mike

Snake: Gator: