AllenLowe

CHICO Freeman? I thought we were talking about BUD Freeman. never mind

it takes a very special person to appear in my signature line - I must be deeply insulted - THAN you might make it.

1) I'll be there Saturday - just please clean up the oil stains and the mouse turds and leave a doggie bed in the corner - 2) I've heard the same about Cummins, who was a genuinely nice guy. His wife is still around, I think - I wonder if she has any stake left in the company (all I can remember about her is that she had a little coffee shop in the Village. But that was like, maybe, 1977).

just back to Lorraine - I used to see her frequently in the late '70s when Jabbo was still around. These do sound like rude remarks, but, that's Lorraine, and, especially with Cecil, who knows what else was going on. And if Konitz took it with good humor, he may understand that she's just like that, and may not feel it's a personal affront. The Vanguard is a club that pays people fairly and has treated musicians well - and sometimes we don't see the other side, of the problems club owners have with retention of audiences, etc - so maybe she was just keeping an eye out for patrons' rights, as well.

why don't we do it on the road?

if was a lousy thing for her to do, but Lee must have felt, given their longstanding relationship, that he could live with it. and that's Lorraine, though on the scale of weirdness for her, it's probably at the very low end -

it's not really played much anymore; and though the changes are not difficult, they don't follow the usual patterns and so a pianist might be hesitant to just jump in. Also it's very possible that if he or she was young enough they just might not know the tune. It has actually never been commonly played as part of the jazz repertoire, even in my 25 years or so of public performance (though I used to call it all the time and my favorite version was Wardell Gray's) -

well, I just give my opinions and try to avoid personal attacks, and I think my record in this forum is pretty good in this way, at least for the past two years or so - I think you'll find that when people agree with me they don't find it abrasive, when they disagree, they do find it abrasive. This is normal human response - kinda like the old statement that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Think also how you tend to respond when you find something offensively misleading or shallow or not what it's cracked up to be. That will often give you cause to respond in a way that others might perceive as harsh (think Kenny G, Najee, and all the other G's here). it doesn't seem as bad, to you, in that case, because you are in agreement with the tone of the review. So there's more to it than just being "harsh." I was worried that my "data" on Chico was old, so I've been doing a little re-listening. Some of it is better than I remembered, but it just has a second-hand feeling to it. As for his credibility with other musicians, I would not necessarily put a lot of stock in it as I've found musicians in general (with exceptions of course, like many people here including JSngry, with whom I frequently disagree but who always gives me pause) to be NOT the best critics. Sometimes, it is true, that my personal response is exacerbated by my sense that certain musicians have no clothes, like the emperor of yore. I think also that our response to forthright criticism may be effected by the jazz and music press, which is so polite and positive, in the worst posible sense. by the way, I digress, but the most hostile response I've ever gotten in my life was when I posted on Jazz Research years ago that I was offended by the song Sheik of Araby because it seemed to me a song about rape - first time I ever got hate email (even Neil Tesser sent me one), though one woman on the list told me privately how glad she was that I said what I said. But people got furious at me - and that one hit me by surprise. (best response was by someone who said "what are you talking about? the Redman band used to sing a version where they said "at night...into your tent I will creep...WITH MY PANTS OFF," as though somehow this was a refutation of my argument). I actually think that the moderators here do not do a good enough job of policing nastiness, though the whole tone of this forum has improved - I mean, at one point I had someone here calling me a thief, quite literally, and when the posts were finally deleted the moderator acted as though we were both equally guilty of internet transgressions. And than I had another moderator close one of my threads simply, as has become obvious, because he dislikes me personally. But I guess that's just the way it is. There are, as I've learned, much worse things in life. and by the way, look at that old kerouac thread that's just come back up - lot's of spirited insults, loud and abrasive opinions - someone wrote:"At the risk of kicking a sacred cow...I've always found On The Road to be tedious, poorly written, rambling, repetitive, irritating, shallow, pretentious, uninsightful, misogynist, narcissistic, pointless pseudo-hipster bunk. And now there's a longer version of it? So... even more tedious, rambling, repetitive, etc, etc." Perfectly proper in its own way, maturely resolved. Tougher than the stuff I write by far. Is it ok just because Kerouac's dead? and by the way, I'd move to Mass. in a minute if someone could find me a nice academic job and a decent place to live that was affordable -

great singers and, from what my friend Stacy Phillips (a great dobroist) has told me, very nice people. This is very sad.

well - 1) I would say great minds think alike, but that would be problematic for me given Wynton and my former disagreements 2) what unattributed source did I use, KH1956, to denigrate Chico? The only unattributed source was that alto player, and that story was far from a smear, only pointed out that someone besides myself had problems with his playing - you need to pay attention to language, especially as libel is actionable and I am sick of being mis-characterized by people who simply don't agree with me. I find it offensive. 3) CLiff - it's not the same as with Ornette, as I am reasonably certain that, when Wynton said that, he was listening to a tune that had actual chord changes written by Chico - 4) As I type this I am on Chico's web site watching him in a video, performing Lonnie's Lament. It just doesn't make it - there's a difference between mannerism and style, and I find him to be mostly mannerism. It's like someone playing in a circle, coming back to himself, and not really having done enough in the process to have earned the right to repeat himself.

not a smear, KH1957, if I give reasons for feeling the way I do. A smear is calling my opinion a smear without any evidence that it is a smear. good work, making this musical disagreement into a personal attack. whoops - did you delete? Or am I having another LSD flashback? well, not sure what's happening or if I'm in another dimension - but I also remember the recording he made with his dad, I think in NYC; he was just not a good and convincing player.

that dog won't hunt.... allright, enough, sorry - I will say that Chico always struck me as the kind of "new jazz" player that the jazz conservatives were always complaining about - one who really was not technically capable on his horn, not good at things like chord changes when he tried, not good at more open forms. Basically one who had learned a little and had faked a lot. He also once almost got into a fight with a very great alto player (who shall remain nameless) - they were playing together in a band (don't remember what band) and they were playing changes, and this alto player, who is not exactly musically conservative, but who leans toward the Konitz/Marsh progressive school (though his own playing is very personal) was getting so annoyed at Chico's bad playing that he started complaining audibly. No brawl broke out, but apparently it was touch and go for a while - and I gotta admit that the first time I heard Chico, not knowing who he was, on an LP, I though it was a student musician.

oy - does this mean a rash of new Gypsy Jazz tributes? Those guys all sound like they just stepped out of a meth lab.

not a good saxophone player. The branch fell too far from the tree. Like father, not like son. a rolling stone gathered no moss in this case. the heating system broke down. The rain in Spain....

I believe that Tom Palmer played electric bass with Ahmad Jamal, many years ago.

they pay those guys? They've been playing the same music since 1801.

I don't think junk is provincial - not a good idea, probably, but definitely a help for a lot musicians. Best music of that era came from junkies, so they must have known something. and I think that maybe the Delta blues players were provincial - but not the music. I hear a fair amount of hip hop - it strikes me as on the way to something that it's having trouble getting to. Like a lot of contemporary fiction.

not really. Unlike other underground movements and odd subcultures, even in their initial stages: delta blues, Lenny Bruce, bebop, Alfred Jarry, Erik Satie, Rimbaud, DaDa, Cocteau... and hip hop is hardly underground anymore.

chocolate cylinders?

I was surprised too that it sounds so good - but than I hit places like Sax on the Web, which have some very knowledegable people. Interestingly enough they put 1967 as the last good year for Buescher/Selmer - which is exactly, by serial number, the year my horn came out. Apparently the manufacturing methods changed after that.

now you have to buy the Ladnier book - they're a set.

I would be happy to help. I find hip hop to be fascinating but strangely provincial.

very interesting - though I have to say that one thing always confuses me - the hip hop world always like to talk about how important certain beats are, like somebody says there how cool it is that she did her beat all by herself - but the beats I hear rarely sound interesting to me, if anything I always think they can use some work - some layering, some variation. just wondering - -the old guy in Maine

I thought about a C melody, just to help me with certain keys (tired of transposing all the time) - I've only played a few and they all were so tough to get a decent sound out of, even with the right mouthpiece. And they always need work, it seems (and the cost of an overhaul these days, I was told, is $750 - ouch.) so i'LL probably just stick with the alto, which I'm loving. I've managed to accumulate 4 of those Brilhart's, which have a nice warmth to them. Selling my three Steve Broadus mouthpieces this week on Ebay (he was a contemporary of Brilhart, fine mouthpiece, just a little too closed up for me). You're right about those Mark VI's - I played once and it practically played itself. The Conn Chu Berry actually has pretty respectable action, and the new Buescher plays very swiftly, which I like. I recorded with Shipp and Rudd with the Conn, and I like the way it sounded, very full, nice edge when needed. Still not as good as the 6M I sold years ago (damn) -

yeah but what happened to the Swastikas - sorry, I forgot, no more Nazi jokes.