Ted O'Reilly

Vocal "cords", surely. LOL! Thanks, Ted! In fact, I typed "cords" and changed it because it didn't look right. Of course, you COULD have been thinking of The Mills Brothers, or The Singers Unlimited, or even the Chordettes...

Adds some more veracity to Randy (sorry: 'Randall') Sandke's interesting new book "Where The Dark And The Light Folks Meet".

Vocal "cords", surely.

Ted, I don't know what you have in mind. I've looked up nauseous at dictionary.com, and here is what it says: 1. affected with nausea; nauseated: to feel nauseous. 2. causing nausea; sickening; nauseating. Merriam-Webster.com lists the two definitions in the reverse order: 1 : causing nausea or disgust : nauseating 2 : affected with nausea or disgust I hear many people use "nauseous" when they have nausea. Merriam-Webster lists the first definition for "nauseous" as causing nausea. Of course, the whole dictionary definition, "language is a living, changing thing" discussion gets tedious very quickly. Oh, and just to get the thread back on track: Boy, what about that divorce settlement? $750mil sure is a lot of scratch! Yup, DukeCity, I'm witchoo... The diaper pail is nauseous/nauseating. When helpful grandpa opens it, he is nauseated. Believe me, I know from experience.

I try to keep those straight in my own pea brain by relating "nauseous" to "noxious." You know, something that would make me "nauseated." It's one of those, whatyacall, pneumatic devices, to help me remember... I think you mean "nomadic" devices, where you wander around the house looking everywhere until you remember where you left it.

That's the one I'm listening to at the moment (bought from you-know-who) -- in the jazzcity series. I also have a needledrop CDR from a prime original Keynote LP -- the Fresh Sound version is equally good... [The recording date for CD 1, 1 - 8 (the Fantasy LP "Nat Pierce and the Herdsmen") is wrong, according to Lord, and I agree. Not Hollywood in 1950, but San Francisco 1954/01/27.]

...and yet, I'll bet it was Tiger who suggested they marry, not Elin. Just sayin'...

They're more porous because people either don't know that there's difference or don't care that there's a difference. Don't think I'm just being cranky or schoolmarmish about this because, to quote from "Garner's Modern English Usage," "'disinterested' captures a nuance that no other word quite does." Garner adds: "A 'disinterested' observer is not merely 'impartial' but has nothing to gain from taking a stand on the issue in question." What I especially don't like is the use of "disinterested" where plain old "uninterested" would be right. E.g. "Losing in straight sets, Agassi looked disinterested." In those cases, it usually feels to me like the writer has chosen "disinterested" because he or she thinks it sounds classier, that it's not a matter of writing casually but pretentiously. Damn, it's good to read someone for whom the meaning of the words they use is important. To me, being grammatical and using the right word is the equivalent of playing in tune, with good time. Thanks, Larry. (Now, please take on the task of explaining to people why they're not "nauseous", but "nauseated". It makes me sick...)

Those two albums were supervised by Harry Lim so they qualify as genuine Keynote recordings Agreed, as far as the Pierce is concerned (don't know the Leonard). I hadn't listened to it for a while. Thanks for making me take it off the shelf and remind myself how delightful a Jazz Romp it is...

You can buy cartridges that have interchangeable styli. These are excellent quality: http://www.stantondj.com/v2/cartridge/facts_playback.php

Yes, but the music becomes less flavourful after a couple of plays.

Hmmmm....why can't I make the Reply work today? I can't make it accept these comments: Toronto Raptors were damaged by Chris Bosh in exactly the same way as James hurt Cleveland. No sign-and-trade, meaning The Old Team gets nothing in return. Bosh and James make up the difference in lost income by saving on taxes in Florida. Thus, in effect, FLK taxpayers make the collusion possible...

I liked this quote: “His brand is [bleep] now,” one high-level NBA official said late Thursday. “He’s destroyed everything.” Well, winning changes almost everything. If the Three Muskateers can bring a ring or two for Miami then the sport-writers will be all at their feet again. And most people outside of Cleveland will eventually "get over" whatever it is, so long as they were entertained during the Finals. Frankly, I am amazed at how personally people are taking this. I'd say 90% of all athletes are ridiculously pampered individuals who have (unjustly) been put on a pedestal by society and are basically just a bunch of man-childs (many of the women as well). From a game theory perspective, it is actually pretty interesting watching what happens when collusion is allowed on one side but only partially allowed on the other (trades must be worked on for some contracts, not others). I'd say the Cavs and the Knicks are the biggest losers, NJ didn't seem to improve itself (maybe an opportunity cost there), the Bulls are marginally better and the Heat are heads and shoulders above the rest (simply speaking about free agency).

Some good brand names? How about Colgate-Palmolive, Amana, Lego, Nehi, Hushpuppies, Dentyne, Rolls Royce..... Why, I could go on and on!

I thought that the topic referred to something I've never heard of: an Armstrong recording of "It's All In The Game". I remember that as a pop hit by Tommy Edwards, and I always liked it. (He did it twice, actually -- in 1951 and 1958). I later learned it was already 40 years old, and it was just that lyrics had been added (by Carl Sigman) to "Dawes' Melody". The interesting thing was that the Dawes was Charles Dawes, who had been Vice President of the USA to Calvin Coolidge. I wonder if Joe Biden is working on a rap career. Edit: I do remember LA's recording of the tune -- had a blank spot for a minute!

I've heard today of the passing of both these fine players, the great trombonist Benny Powell, and the joyful clarinetist Chuck Hedges. No further info yet...

What are they saying about the mix quality on the Hoffman board?

It isn't a miracle (after all, he IS Roger Federer) but he's through, with a convincing 6-0 final set. Wimbledon has a good, and up-to-date website at www.wimbledon.org/

Since jazz (or any art) isn't a contest, there can't be a "Winner". But on the other hand, it's nice when people who know acknowledge contributions. You have to dig deeply to find such at the JJA website: http://www.jjajazzawards.org/2010/06/jja-jazz-awards-2010-team-and-jazz.html#more

I'm surprised that Don Brown hasn't contributed to this topic. He's an expert on both jazz and comic art. Perhaps 15,000 CDs and hundreds (if not thousands) of books of-and-about comic art. How about it, Don...anything to add?

I wonder if there are players who are better as a sideman than leader? As if the player thinks "It's not my name on it -- it won't 'cost' me anything to take chances..." When it comes to his own name, he plays it safe: "Don't want to scare anyone away..."

...and John! The composer/arranger/trumpeter/bandleader: http://www.johnlabarbera.com/

The really fine Toronto bassist Steve Wallace (maybe best known for his work with Rob McConnell & The Boss Brass) is a real baseball nut, and is proving to be a damn good writer. He sends to maybe half-a-dozen likeminded (jazz/baseball) friends his remarks every couple of days. He gave me the okay to pass along today's musing. It's longish, but fun and interesting... "This morning, I opened a couple of windows, poured myself a cup of the healing hell brew, and sat down with the box scores as usual. I heard a sudden swoosh of air and assumed it was the wind whistling through the trees, but glancing at the Nationals box score, I realized... nope. The swoosh was the collective gasp and sigh of N.L. hitters realizing their lives just got a whole lot tougher with Strasburg now in the league. "He struck out 14 batters in 7 innings - Holy KKKKKKKKKKKKKKhrist!! Even more impressive is the fact that he walked none, as in zero, zilch. Young fireballing strikeout pitchers are common enough to be a cliche, (a la Nuke LaLoosh) but young pitchers who don't walk anyone are a different story. A young pitcher who can do both is about as common as finding an Amish guy in a jazz club (even when there were jazz clubs.) "Further good news is that he threw just 94 pitches, which means he's pretty efficient, and the club has him on a pitch count, which is smart given his age and the fifteen million smackers they have invested in him. Also, as predicted, he put bums in seats - the attendance was a near sellout of over 40,000, which is probably a Washington high. This bodes well because in general attendance is down across the board so far this year. "Skeptics will say it's only one game, and the Pirates are not exactly the 1998 Yankees, but by the same token it was his major league debut and he showed no signs of nerves or discomposure, so give him a break- he's only going to get better. All in all, he may be the most promising young pitcher to enter the game since Doc Gooden or Roger Clemens, but seemingly without the extracurricular downsides of Doc (cocaine habit) or Clemens (C.N.A.S. -Chronic Narcissistic Asshole Syndrome.) All I can say is wow, stay tuned, and enjoy the ride. "Baseball and its fans are awash in statistics. Everything is measured and accounted for, with new stats seemingly added every few months or so. Some of these I call Einstein stats, because they involve complex math, try to measure several things at once, and often have long acronymic handles which make them look like a line on an eye chart. WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched.) BARISP (batting average with runners in scoring position.) GIDPAB (grounding into double plays per at bat.) And so forth, ad nauseum. Guys who love numbers (like my accountant Mike) or are died- in- the- wool stat geeks have a field day with all this, while others find the new stats bewildering and cumbersome, even if they understand them. To some, all this number crunching sucks some of the air and enjoyment out of the game. "For those in the latter camp, take heart. There are still the 'traditional' stats available. E.R.A. is still the single most reliable and complete means of assessing pitching performance. Batting average has been shown to not tell the whole story on a hitter - power and getting on base are important and not reflected in BA. "Then there are what I call 'raw' stats - running totals of things like hits, walks, runs scored, RBIs etc. If you want a simple way of assessing whether someone is a good player or not, if they're doing their job as a hitter, take a look at their runs scored totals - 100 per year being the standard of excellence, 90 being very good. This is not to deny that RBIs are important, but as a stat I think they tend to be overrated and skewed, for a couple of reasons. RBIs tend to favour home run hitters who hit in the middle of the order. A guy who hits a grand slam is credited with 4 RBIs on one swing, whereas the guys who did various positive things to get on base receive no credit, save for scoring a run. You can only score one run at a time as a hitter. Secondly, RBI opportunities are not equally distributed - guys in the leadoff and second spots have far fewer RBI chances per season than those further down in the order. "Runs scored are my single favourite raw stat for a couple of reasons. Firstly, scoring runs is the actual aim of offense in baseball - not hitting for a high average, not hitting home runs or stealing bases - runs are the name of the game, regardless of how they come. If you don't score enough runs, you don't win, even if you have Halladay pitching every day. Mostly though, I like runs scored because more than any other stat, they reflect a diversity of skills in the game, all of which are important. Guys who hit for a very high average will tend to score a lot of runs because they're on base a lot, even if they don't walk much. Guys who hit a lot of doubles will score a lot of runs because they put themselves in scoring position without anyone's help. Home run hitters will score a lot of runs, because every time they hit one, they score (and drive in at least) one run. Guys with speed score a lot of runs - they can put themselves in scoring position with a stolen base, or by taking extra bases on hits, or scoring from first on a single etc. Guys with low batting averages but who hit home runs and walk a lot will also score a lot of runs, like for example Carlos Pena of the Rays ( he killed us last night) who only hits .230, but with 35 homers and 90 walks a year is still a heck of a player. Obviously, combining a bunch of these skills will lead to scoring a ton of runs, like say with Albert Pujols, who hits for a high average, has great power, and gets on base a ton, meaning he averages about 120 runs scored per season. Yikes. "To put all of this another way, take a look at the players who lead each league in runs scored every year, guys with 90 - 120 runs scored usually. In the AL it's going to be guys like Jeter, Ichiro, Teixeira, Cano, Youkilis, Mauer, Morneau, Longoria, Torii Hunter, Pedroia, Michael Young, Pena, Abreu. That's pretty much an All Star team, isn't it? Ditto with the NL - Rollins, Utley, Pujols, Ethier, Kemp, Victorino, David Wright, Howard, Braun, Fielder. The best players score the most runs by and large, and in various ways. It's a simple yet reliable way of loosely figuring out who's really good, without a slide rule, or going blind. Skeptics will point out that runs scored are helped by playing on a good team. This is true, sort of. But that's a bit like saying the Yankees won all those World Series because they had better players than anyone else - it's an inherent absurdity. Good players play for good teams, and good teams are made up of good players. Daah. "Getting back to Carlos Pena for a minute, he's one of my favourite players and many people overlook him because he hits .230 ( .183 at the moment, but that will go up) and plays for the Rays, who are still somewhat overlooked despite their record. It's interesting to compare Pena with say Mark Teixeira, who also plays first base and is a lot better known. Last year they each hit 39 home runs. Teixeira hit .292, drove in 122 runs and scored 103. Pena hit .227 and drove in 100 runs while scoring 91. The edge in batting average maybe led Tex to drive in and score a few more runs, but there's not much difference between them in my opinion. Remember, Tex hit in Yankee Stadium, a much better hitting park than the Tampa dome, and makes a lot more money than Pena, who gives you about the same bang for less buck. The reason Pena is so effective despite the low average, is he has power and walks a lot. "Bill James has come up with a stat he calls secondary average. Happily, I don't recall the mathematical nuts and bolts of it, but basically the concept is as follows. There are two things a hitter can do to help his team score runs: a) hitting for average, and b) everything else. Secondary average is an attempt to quantify everything else - i.e. walks, power, and stolen bases, per at bat. A player like Carlos Pena may only hit .230, but his secondary average last year with 39 homers and 90 walks is probably about .370, which is why he's still a really good player. For me, the fact he scores 90 or more runs a year is a good enough indication of this. It's simple and democratic, like a Count Basie rhythm section. Lots of air and space, and nobody gets hurt as long as they can count up to four. "Cheers, and stay thirsty my friends, S.

I'm with Peter -- just checked my shelves and found I had a dozen CDs by Allen, and he's on others as sideman. Guess I like him! One that might have been missed by some is a nice one co-led with Joe Temperley "Cocktails For Two" on Sackville. Good rhythm section, too: John Bunch, Greg Cohen and Jake Hanna.