AllenLowe

How about, for a title, "Am I Blue"? That shows that you are asking the question of certain singers who would not necessarily, in the conventional sense, be put in that category -

Maybe instead of "overlooked" we should charcterize certain altos as "underlooked" -

I must admit I never liked the Buddy Rich big band - too much bombast, and I found his playing to be very brittle and showy - and than one night I saw a clip with Buddy and a small group from the Playboy jazz Fest and was completely knocked out - he was with an all-star small band that included Dizzy, and maybe he didn't feel like he had to show off or something, but he was phenomenal, really kicking and driving it. Sounding - though I didn't really know it than - a LOT like Dave Tough -

How about "White Noise?" Just kidding - thematically, I've always thought it was interesting how blues began to permeate white pop music in the 1940s and after, through Peggy Lee, et al - and I would look at black singers like Lil Green or Ella Johnson as representative of the beginning of this kind of cross-fertilization. My only problem with your title is that it seems a little old hat, and has been said already - it might be time to come up with a new angle, but damned if I know what it is -

Personally I find Pepper's late ballad playing self-absorbed and maudlin, though many people have disagreed -

Well, let's not forget that the hippies wrote some GOOD comic books. I still love the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, and read them often. Extremely funny stuff. As for jazz versus rock and other kinds of music, well, I must admit, over the last five years my ratio of rock and roll listening to jazz is about 4 to 1, hillbilly to jazz about 5 to 1. It's easy, as a jazz lover, to forget the power of "simpler" forms, but give me Kelly Harrell over most young lions, The Chocolate Watchband over just about any academic composer -

SN WOLFE: Given your feelings about pseudo-bohemianism (which I largely share) you might appreciate Zappa's own distinction between hippies and freaks; he liked freaks and hated hippes for their pretensions. And Frank was a pain in his self-righteousness, but did plenty of good work after 1970. As for that suburban birthright of narcissicism, well, it also makes me think of the anti-war movement of the 1960s - the biggest jerks were always the rich kids, they were the most hedonistic radicals of all, willing to put anyone at risk but themselves, to talk the talk in the stupidist and most destructive and self-deluded kind of way - hence Jane Fonda and other rich kid radicals who, when the smoke died down, had already moved on, to Republicanism or the family business, while everyone else did the real work. But we shouldn't forget that out of these bohemian/political movements came things that liberated many people, and a very golden age of rock and roll, and some good writing and poetry (lots of good Ginsberg, Burroughs and Junky, Kerouac and the Subterraneans, Vanity of Duluoz, and more). Chuck: I spent a memorable day with Art and Laurie in Boston during the beginning of his comeback and know what you mean, I found Art an interesting combination of nice guy/hustler/pyscho/b.s. artist/jazzer. But when he took the stand, all else was forgotten (and presumably forgiven) -

well, if we thought all opinions were equal, we would not have any - because than they would not be opinions but facts -

"As all opinions are equal, right?" no - not really - but it is also, as you noted, a matter of style. And that's not crap -

hey, I never said that - (edited by Allen Lowe at 5:00 to completely distort the meaning of prior posts)

hey Larry - who asked YOU? We were having a high old time just insulting each other - I feel like its the end of recess and the teacher's making us go back to the subject -

hey Cornelius - I think I'll go back and edit those old posts so it looks like I'm only attacking Dan Gould - (edited by Allen Lowe at 4:39 to add more insults)

Hi Cornelius - I think that, in my mind, I lumped yours and Dan Gould's posts together, and this was extremely unfair - my apologies -

I think Dan Gould is a scholar. (edited by Allen Lowe at 4:03) I think Dan Gould is an idiot. (edited by Allen Lowe at 4:04) I think I know Dan Gould. Isn't he Donald Rumsfeld's assistant? (edited by Allen Lowe at 4:05) Dan Gould forgot to take his meds today - (edited by Dan Gould's doctor at 4:06)

I'm glad we're getting back down to business here - and just to kick a dead horse, I'm not going to refresh until I finsih the post I'm working on - so that's irrelevant - I will back up a bit with Jordan, and I do agree that Jordu is a significant composition toward hard bop - harmonically it has almost a modal kind of energy, though it contains plenty of changes - which is a good description of a lot of hard bop writing. It's just in the realm of sound and approach that I think he differs - and, as I mentioned, if you listen, he has a lot of ties to the swing era in his rhythmic approach -

Actually, I was thinking Frankfurt University -

well I gues I'm not done - if I stay on the same page, on my computer, as my post is on, it will not refresh by itself - I will not see the new post unless I go back to the title page - and that post took me a few minutes to do - so don't call me a liar --2:26 is the SUBMISSION time, not the time I began to edit -

and besides you don't need any help looking foolish, and this is getting out of hand, my apologies to everyone else, as I will sign off now -

hey, idiot, don't you accuse me of something like that - it happened because we were both posting at the same time - unless one goes back to the title page, one will not see the new post - so FU

If I tell you that your opinions mean absolutely nothing and are vacuous (which of course I would never say to you, though I'm thinking it right now) - I am being nasty -

see above - you need a little bit of work on the social skills -

This isn't out-of-line personal and nasty? (quoting Gould): "As I read the lengthy excerpt, I was left thinking: What the hell does this mean? and Is there anything here that illuminates a single thing about Mobley's playing that I don't already get from the music itself? The answers I am left unequivicolly with is: Not much and absolutyely nothing IMO, Jazz hardly needs the convoluted meanderings of one man's guesses about what an artist does or what motivates him or how he goes about his work. Its one man's opinion and just because you think its spot-on doesn't mean it isn't utterly vacuous. " give us a break...

I spoke to quickly - yes, he has recorded in those contexts - but by no stretch of the imagination is Jordan a hard bop pianist, in my opinion. His feel is too old school.

yes, I did get little unreasonable, I will agree. Just frustrated, I will admit, at your failure to get Larry - and it was probably unfair for me to lump you with Gould, who I really do think crossed the line in terms of getting personal. I will just question your judgement here; you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Larry's elucidation of Mobley's style is clear and to the point, so I guess you can agree to disagree. I do think you are way off with Duke Jordan, who has never recorded in a context that I would consider to be "hard bop" and who, at any rate, is stylistically miles from that form. And though he is from the bop era, rhythmically he has a deep connection to the swing players -

"all these decades I've been thriving on the music, relishing its details, inspired by its nobility, and I've been getting nothing out of it." yes, thanks, that's exactly my point. Just remember that the first step in solving any problem is the admission that you have the problem -