AllenLowe

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 -

Just finished watching part one last night - wanted to mention that that's the way Samuel Jackson talks - he wasn't adding much in the way of inflection -

there was a lot more than a "hint of personal rejection" in the tone of your posts, and it got personal in a way that was completely out of line.

I will add that, as a musician, I can attest that Larry, in his way, gets much closer to the process than nearly anyone else. And it's not the fact of the disagreement with Larry that bothers me, honestly, but the nasty and contemptuous tone of some of these posts -

well, they are precious because jazz has so few critics of his stature -

I love Meade Lux Lewis - the problem with any album by a musician like him is that it's going to be, by nature, repetitive. This is one way in which social changes have altered perception and understanding of musicians like Lewis - I really think this music is best listened to on a juke box, as a random selection coupled with others of it's style, or in-person in a living room or juke joint, up close and personal, or in concert - anybody whose ever seen any of the blues greats like Muddy Waters will know what I mean - listening to recordings is great, but pales by comparison to hearing it in person. Of course this is true of any kind of music, but I find it particulary relevant with these kinds of players -

Just to clarify my clarification - there's nothing wrong, of course, with disagreeing with Larry, as I do in more than one instance - it's the tone of Cornelius and Goulds's posts that bothers me - instead of engaging one of the country's finest jazz critics (and I am not exaggerating in that assessment) they seemed determined to prove that his whole approach is symptomatic of some kind of hyper-intellectuality - which is a lot of crap -

DAVE! I was referrring to the prior posts by Gould and Cornelius - sorry -

what's your probelm? Did Larry give you a bad review somewhere? If you get nothing out of Larry's book than chances are you get nothing out of the music. This is the problem with jazz, audiences and musicians alike - a lack of intellectual background or perspective, a decided anti-intellectualism and a failure to understand that jazz is like all art forms and deserves the kind of sophisticated analyses that other forms receive. The failure to perceive this is why there is so much bad writing about jazz. Shame on you two for being so willfully dense -

and let's not forget Mingus calling Eldridge, Hines, Hawk, et al "old ni**ers"

Sorry, Cornelius, to call Duke Jordan a "hard bop" player means you have not been listening to the music real well - name one recording of his that qualifies as such -