AllenLowe

well...I never liked Mulligan; even the writing - I would assume the Concert Band was to his liking - and I find those things somewhat modern-generic. Well written, well played, but disappointing in terms of how highly they are touted - Kahn's writing, on the other hand, has a deep-rooted swing (try Tiny's Blues, eg, from 1949) and a fullness that I just love. I have tried, but Mulligan is on the list of those that do little for me. Gil Evans I find just so much deeper, the little dissonances, the imbalances, the sense that things are unfolding as they are played. Mulligan is just, to me, more of a craftsman. Obvious in his effects -

actually, Brownie was dead by the time Soupy had the kids show - though he did feature Sid Vicious on several occasions -

now that my meds have taken effect again, I'm interested -

Tiny Kahn's arrangements are far superior to anything Mulligan ever did -

thanks -

Soupy, as you probably know, had Clifford Brown on one of his early tv shows -

Larry's dislike of the later Bill Evans actually was refreshing to me because it confirmed some of my own impressions (which I hadn't trusted entirely prior to my reading of his piece). But Evans was a funny and strange musical character, and I heard him, late in the game (1979 at his 50th birthday party) play in a way that I had not heard since the early 1960s; a beautiful version of Stars Fell on Alabama, un-effected, straightforward, beautifully phrased. So he still had it -

is there any chance you can make me a CDR or other type copy of "On a Blues Kick" ? It might work well in my blues reissue project - would also be happy to clean it up a bit in return and send you back a copy-

hey, if we're talking Bill Evans, we'll have to summon Larry Kart - if CPE Bach had been on the list, I would've gone with THAT one -

well, as Dave Schildkraut said: "Bird was great - but Bud had 10 fingers, he could play ten things at once."

Phil's a fine guy, fasstrack (and I've known him from before your George Kelly days) but as an historian I would advise caution, as he really does make things ups - as for Challis, many before Phil have highlighted him (see my own book; Vince Giordiano's Orchestra; Gene Lees; Gunther Schuller) - a great historian went to hear Phil at an Ellington conference and said to me afterwards - "I don't know where he got all that stuff - it wasn't even true!" and this guy has credibility -

"Just because an historical judgement has been made that Armstong is highly significant doesn't mean we have to align our musical preferences to encompass him" yes, in this case it does -

for Armstrong, try his version of Sweethearts on Parade, and listen only to the trumpet - that's the first bebop record -

I do like the early Getz best, if I am forced to listen...great Haig, Tiny Kahn, Rainey on those live recordings - he plays great.....but there is just some weird distance, a false emotionalism, that keeps me away. Admittedly, I am in a VERY small minority here....

well, I wouldn't call Brubeck one of the greats - maybe one of "the annoying" - Getz, to me, is a narcissist as both person and player - as for Armstrong, those of you deficient in this area must make amends before the revolution, otherwise I will not be able to protect you - if it helps, think of the fact that Louis virtually invented 20th century pop music - not only jazz, but rock and roll, and all our ways of singing, would likely not exist if not for him -

Moran is one of those really good musicians whose music just does not get to me - just reading the Slate article, thanks, Jim - one thing I will say about the original recordings, much as I admire both Overton and Monk, I never felt that those arrangements, or the original concert as released, were really distinctive enough to compel me to listen regularly - some very long solos which did not really address the music, great players but not really as deeply in the spirit of the music as I would have liked - very good Phil Woods, however, before he turned into a saxophone machine - about Hodes - I was lucky enough to hear him at Hanratty's years ago in NYC, solo. Nice man, great pianist whose recording don't really do him full justice, There was something about his touch and phrasing which, old fashioned but DEEP as they were, don't translate well. I always thought that the fact that the Lincoln Center crew never recognized him while he was around was proof positive of their stupidity and racialist ideology - here was maybe the last of the prime sources for the music, and he was all but invisible in his last years. Tired of that level of ignorance - about that Slate article, too, should mention that he is very wrong about Bird disciples NOT playing Bird tunes. Many did nothing but - also, interesting how, like more than a few other critics, while describing the uniqueness of Monk, he fails to mention the single thing that set Monk apart - his rhythm - also, Monk was more likely to have some variation of Asperger’s/Autism than bi-polar disease, as Kaplan suggests; his symptoms match a great deal of the current diagnosis –

I like Holdsworth - I do think that some of that reverts to patterns, which is an unfortunate but typical guitar problem - but I do think he's very good -

"what are you chewing, Aric?" peyote would be my guess -

thanks, Rick, good overview - I want to add that I have to admit that I've never been a big fan (except in spots) of the small group all stars. On the other hand, the 1950s re-creations have some of the best Armstrong ever, IMHO -

"you certainly know how to damn with faint praise, don't you" I guess this means I don't think everything is good - yes, nothing wrong (or pathetic) with reaching different musical conclusions - and yes, I think Pops would not have been Pops with "better" arrangers - I find Willett and the band to be a perfect fit - Armstrong was completely at ease with this band, which fit his sensibility like nice but worn suit. Would not have been the same thing with some other setups. He had more than a little schlock in his soul. But his was a highbrow/lowbrow sensibility, an attitude with a great American pedigree. And as Stanley Kaufmann once said about Peter Handke and Wim Wenders (and I paraphrase, but closely), "(for greater artists) it's not the pop dream but what you make of the pop dream that matters." (italics mine) though I do wish Bingie Madison had taken a little time to tune up -

no, maybe, but to see his output as lost opportunity IS to misread a whole generation of African American entertainers and entertainment, which so sublimely balanced all those elements we might call art with those we find entertaining. Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I don't think it's "all good," once again, please don't put words in my mouth - Pops without those bands and arrangements wouldn't have been Pops, that's all. And I think they sound, as a rule, fine, they put him where he wanted to be put and his playing showed it. And the Kenton remark was a trick question, which you unfortunately failed - spend a little time listening and you'll find he had a pretty good if generic swing band. Time for you to put some new things on the CD player - and using the phrase "with respect" doesn't mitigate the use of the term "pathetic," which seems to be of a par with the tolerated tone of argument on this board-

yes, there was a sighting last fall -

well, I have no copies of that one, but I do know where Astrid Gilberto is, in case anyone's looking for her -

they should call it "the tracks of my tears."

mine wants me to sell the whole thing - and I'm tempted, in case anyone wants to make me a six figure offer (and I don't mean $333.000)