AllenLowe

I've got a few books I'm selling, left over from my internet sales days - here they are with honest appraisals: Goin' to Kansas City - Nathan Pearson's very good oral history of KC jazz - I have three copies I will sell for $10 each, shipped media rate. Paper, excellent condition. Blue Note Records: The Biogaphy. Richard Cook's solidly written story of Blue Note Records. $8 shipped media rate. Hard cover, good condition Hole in Our Soul. Martha Bayles on the state of American pop. She's wrong, but makes her arguments well. Paper. Ok condition. $7 shipped media. Sounds of Reform: Progressivism and Music in Chicago 1873-1935. Derek Vaillant. Another academic takes on early music. Cover is a little bent (probably from when I flung it across the room in disgust). Good research, writes like a term paper. $5 media shipping. Culture on the Margins: The Black Spiritual and the Rise of American Cultural Interpretation. Jon Cruz. Reads like a parody of academic writing - impenetrable, made-up words, blind-man's clarity. Might be fun to get high and than read this aloud, I dunno, but DO NOT operate heavy machinery while reading this book. Paper, fine condition. $6 shipped media rate, your money back if you get past the first chapter (no - let's make that the introduction) - I take paypal, check or money order - thanks, email me directly at alowe@maine.rr.com

it's a little hard to let go when Rachel persists in personal attacks - "Hell, you had to ask B-3er if he played a real B3. I don't necessarily believe this to be true at all, but in your case it might apply: Those who can, do; those who can't, write about it. " Rachel - you can do a little research - I'm in the New Grove dictionary of jazz as well as several of the Penguin guides - I have led recordings that included Don Byron, Doc Cheatham, Julius Hemphill, David Murray, Roswell Rudd. The REASON I asked B3 what kind of organ he played was to make a point (not surprised you missed it as you've missed a lot in this thread) - B3 replied that he would only use the real thing - and this was exactly my point about guitar sound. If you look back over this thread (Joe and Rachel) - it escalated only because you could not merely disagree with my points but had to turn your disagreement into personal attacks; it is one thing to make the point that you don't understand MY point; another to try to turn this into an issue of my coherence and writing abilities - and if you read through, several other posters were quite aware of the argument I was making -

to add - I also like Abercrombie, Frisell, etc. I 've just gotten a little weary of that synthesized sound -

well - I play both solid and hollow body and they both have their very distinctive sounds - the reason those older records sound good, in my opinion is: 1) older speakers (1950s) tended to have less mids and upper mids; the mids are now used as both a sweetener and a way to produce early overdrive - which is pointless anyway with high powered amps and distortion pedals - the older cones on the older speakers tended to produce a sound that had a darker bass, less mid-range, and a nice but very plain sounding high end - 2) lower powered amps - in the 1950s particularly; Wes liked an old Tweed deluxe; some other guitarists like Jim Hall (and I think Kessell) used the Gibson GA-50, high powered but not super clean with a midrange that went well with the kind of seakers they used . Blackfaced Fender amps changed the sound a lot in the 1960s, but rock guitarists did not have digital pedals than, so the sound produced, pushed hard enough, had a very nice natural rising volume and some-breakup - in the 1950s there were a lot of older, low powered amps, raised up off the ground (probably to reduce the bass), giving a nice grainyness, breaking up early in a very pleasant way. Early hollow bodies fed back very quickly, so volume was often kept low. The smaller (second generation of) hollow bodies that we see in blues photos were a little easier to handle; note also that in the later 1950s a lot of the blues guys started using Les Pauls or Les Paul knockoffs; also they loved p90 pickups, which have a lot of dirt and break up quickly and, once more, go pariticularly well with the old-styled speakers. This is just my take on the whole guitar-sound thing. Rachel, I didn't use too many big words, so I hope this is all clear to you -

Skeith - that's EXACTLY what I meant - thank you -

well, the first two books were written in Esperanto - limited audience -

oh-nay. I-ay ike-lay very e-ay itarist-gay in eh-thay orld-way. ank-they ou-yay ery-vay uch-may.

Am I the only one here who finds her decidedly un-sexy?

all future posts here will be entered in pig-Latin to improve clarity -

exactly my point...

I don't think I count 57 of mine - but maybe you're not being clear enough - and I've had many reviews of my writing - not a one has ever complained about clarity -

ahh, good. I'm glad we straightened that out - did they teach you that stuff in debate club?

I love Cleveland's playing - like Jimmy Knepper, though in a much different way, he managed to translate the bebop approach without sacrificing the rich sound of the horn - and he never shot anybody, which is an added bonus. As I recall he was also one of Gil Evans's favorites (somewhere there's an excellent Cadence interview with Cleveland that is a must-read) -

nonsense, Rachel - here's what I was responding to by Metheny: "The guitar for me is a translation device," he answered. "It's not a goal. And in some ways jazz isn't a destination for me. For me, jazz is a vehicle that takes you to the true destination - and here's what I wrote: "Metheny does what a lot of musicians do, which is say that it's not important what the instrument is, but that the instrument is merely a vessel through which to express the music. I think this is very wrong headed - each instrument has it's own qualities that ought to be exploited - now, Metheny is a great player, but his attitude does explain, to me, why I hate the SOUND of most jazz guitar - " quite a logical connection - you might disagree with my conclusions, but they make sense in the context of what Metheny said and what I wrote about it - and I have heard many musicians, partiuclarly jazz guitarists, talk this way. So the connection makes sense AND is logical - many jazz guitarists have spoken of how their inspiration has come from other instruments. I think this is a prime reason why many guitarists have ignored the sonic innovations of rock and roll and country music - and why those who HAVE paid attention to rock and roll and country have simply tended to make the connection through pedals and digital effects -

I like Sonny Sharrock -

she was married to that guy who makes all that boutique audiophile stuff - Mark Levinson - formerly a bass player from New Haven, did some work with Paul Bley -

well, my elf got the better of me last night - and he's still sleeping... to take this one step further, I do see Metheny and Frisell as countering the typical jazz guitar sound - yet replacing it with a kind of digital fog that has come to bore me as well - I'm not a conservative in my larger musical tastes but the best sounding guitars, to me, were probably in the 50's on those records by Sun, Chess and High - ultimately this gets into the realm of not only non-use of digital pedals but also the use of older amp speakers (less mids and upper mids, less power), lower powered amps, and certain kinds of pickups (not to mention real room sound). At this point it's just my opinion and probably more esoteric than something that would interest many people beyond myself, so I will let it go -

I'm not totally anti-digital myelf (wish I could find a good digital plate reverb) - but I would suggest that the things you find important in organ sound are similar to the things I find important relative to guitar sound -

I would like to ask you one question, B3, before you go to sleep - do you play a real B3 or one of those digital synthesized versions?

"I just listen to the music. If it sounds good, I like it. I don't worry about what pedal the guitarist is or isn't using or if his amp has tubes in it." I am in complete agreement -

B3 - I used those words - but not in that order! Come on, you're being disingenuous - you combined them out of context and in the wrong relationship to each other -

Hi Joe - yes, we probably are in much agreement - it's just that what Metheny said has become such a Mantra that I am put off by it - it's one of those homilys that sounds good and makes sense until you really consider it and look at it, and that is, ultimately, insufficient to describe the challenge facing the jazz player. The real enemy, anyway, is SOLID STATE -

"Jazz guitar (and bluegrass guitar) is boring and homogenous, yet pedals are synthetic and non-organic - " B3, you're really being unfair here - if we are going to discuss this, let's discuss it. I never said any such thing or made any such connection - I was speaking about very different points, and connecting them is really a kind of debater's trick -

B3 - I am not making those kind of judgements, you are - I am simply saying that, from an objective standpoint, I hate the sound of most jazz guitar - I am trying to explain it in terms that I feel are accurately expressive of the problem - these are not ideological judgements I am making, but aesthetic. Tube distortion sounds great to my ears because it sounds good - not because I idealize its connection to nature. However, if I try to analyze why it sounds so good, than the answer is probobaly, yes, because it has rich and organically guitar-like characteristics. I find bluegrass playing homogenous and a little dull, its true - but for other reasons (to much codification of the style) -

Joe - I don't disagree with much of what you said, I only felt you were too quick to dismiss my point - I just feel that there is a lot that can be done with tube technology and a good tube amp, a lot that can be done with the instrument and the hands, and I miss the direct SOUND of the tube-amplified guitar. Metheny is a great player, I agree - I just really do not like the sound of it all except in passing. I must say I prefer analog synthesis (is the B3 not an example of this?) and I really do believe a large part of the probelm with digital effects is the various stages of conversion and re-conversion - the truth is, the way many jazz guitarists use effects, they might as well be playing any instrument - I think this is problematic -