AllenLowe

well, Sound of Jazz was in '57, and there's a nice French session with Prez from '58 or maybe even '59 (would have to grab the CD). Also some live stuff that was released on Onyx from after Sound of Jazz. So he could still pull it off.

well, I can officially report that I haven't had a cough in two days - though mine only lasted three weeks. We're pulling for you, Tom. Throw down those crutches and clear your throat!

depends on whether he's referring to the tv show or the Columbia LP - there was some different personnel -

great story, coincidentally I was just reading that piece this morning - reminded me of when I lived in Connecticut in the 1970s and I got a call; I was teaching a jazz history class, and this woman called to tell me she was interested in coming by, and that "my husband's a jazz musician." Oh, I said, figuring this was another crazy person, what's his name? "Bill Evans."

I loved that show.

whaddayuse tink dis is, a library? I sure hope you paid them a rental fee.

jiust trying to recall - and I may actually call Ed to ask - but as I remember there was some evidence that Joplin was involved in the cutting of the rolls, but that they had been so altered as to make his participation meaningless - because for years they were seen as evidence of how he played his own music.

I don't think so - as I recall, Berlin only made the case (convincingly) that they did not come from Joplin. A few years back Shout wanted me to master these, write notes, and release them as Joplin rolls; they got a little annoyed with me when I told them the truth - apparently I messed up their release schedule. But I couldn't say something I knew was untrue.

just be aware that the provenance of those Scott Joplin piano rolls is extremely doubtful - I think it was Ed Berlin who pretty much proved that Joplin did not make them -

let's not forget "The Boppenpoof Song" -

"Apparently no one's read it yet" well, that's never stopped me in the past - I'll give it an 8.6. Nice cover, good blurbs, readable typeface. I only wish they'd spelled "Klactovedesteene" correctly. and it weighs a lot less than the Ladnier book.

absolutely - look, I get the same thing from a good work of criticism that I get from a good jazz performance - a fresh look at familiar material, or a new perspective, or just plain exhilaration at a virtuoso grasp of language.

it's interesting, because you ask a typical jazz drummer to play a rock tune, and it comes out like Bar Mitzvah music.

it's funny but every time I get into some heavy critical discussion (not just here but on places like the blindmans blues forum) somebody comes in and tells us this is all just b.s. enough intellectualizing by elitist academics, let's just listen to the music. I find it to be a bit of a Sarah Palin technique, a kind of anti-intellectualism. I also find it discouraging and dishonest, because the people who post like this are usually fine until they disagree strongly - THEN it's all intellectual masturbation. As long as it goes their way, everything's fine. but as someone who for years has been engaged on all sides of the arts (performance and criticism) I regard criticism as an INDISPENSABLE part of the art form. Not as some adjunct, but as just as expressive and important. Sure there are bad critics but there's as many bad artists.

"but the US isn't quite like Britain in terms of workers' rights." well, we have the right to remain silent.......

any chance he'll cut it up? I'd like just the Lennon pieces. Don't wanna hear George or Paul; maybe an occasional Ringo vocal.

I'm not too surprised that you're not too surprised.

I'll agree on that one, especially re: Springsteen; sincere but insufferable. Madonna I don't mind.

that's the one.

Gillette? Numerous musical mistakes and really bad writing.

well, I always catch flack for this, but I have problems with Deep Blues. He, in effect, cites many other sources (as far as can be told) but without any notes. I like the interviews, but his musical observations are just a bit too re-hashed (see Paul Oliver, eg). I've always found Giles Oakley to be miles ahead in his blues history, the Devil's Music. But, as I indicated, I am in a tiny tiny tiny tiny minority here (I'm also the guy who doesn't like Charlie Gillette's book).

yes, I'm wondering too. My cough has finally dissipated; took only three weeks -

probably the best way to hear Let It Be without all the ex-Spectorating is to watch the movie.

is it an Emerick re-master? That's how he botched a lot of the Anthology, with No-Noise.

Lees wrote an incredibly embarrassing interview with her a few years back in Jazz Times, I think it was, in which he spent the whole time telling her how good looking she was. It was a very bizarre episode.