Big Al

E-mail sent! I can't wait! WHEEEEE!!!

Ohhhhhh, that brings back a VERY bad memory. Back in my pizza delivering days, my assistant manager had a big box of 78s that she loaned to me for a couple of days. One of the 78s was Ellington’s “Perdido,” which I got to listen to on my parents’ record player. I lost track of time and realized I was running late. I grabbed the Ellington record off the turntable and ran it over to the box. I SWEAR: the record was maybe one or two inches above the other record when I plopped it into the box. The next four seconds seemed to last a lifetime as I watched the record land and shatter into about 800 pieces. I called in late to work so I could stop crying. The assistant manager was very forgiving. However, I was never allowed to even LOOK at her record collection ever again. -_-

Yes, I took it a couple of days ago. Nice!

Can I get BACH to you on that? I tell ya, after reading everyone's posts, I guess I'll inform BMG of the error. Heck, maybe they'll send the correct disc and forget about the "error!" Worth a shot, and either way, I get some prime Monk out of it!

That's a nice picture to stare at while listening to the song. Not being from NY, is that Central Park?

I loaned my parents' copy of Simon & Garfunkel's BOOKENDS to a friend. When I got it back, I noticed that the inner sleeve was missing. When I asked him about it, he said, "Oh yeah, sorry 'bout that; I spilled bong water on it." Oh well, at least the record wasn't IN the sleeve when it got spilled on!

I am SO glad I'm not the only one who was dumb enough to do that at one time (wait a second: I wasn't the one who showed you this, was I?) -_-

Got my first shipment today, only to discover that they sent me Monk's UNDERGROUND instead of IT'S MONK'S TIME (which I ordered). Not that I'm complaining! I mean, at least they got the artist right: they could've accidentally sent me MARSALIS PLAYS MONK instead!

That's a great point, one that I'd never considered before. I think I hear what you're saying, that music doesn't necessarily have to be "melodic" to paint a picture. I'll have to try and listen to this with the ears attuned in that direction. Your whole post was terrific, BTW. Thanks for jumping in here!

Heh heh.... oops!

Happy birthday to a fellow Texan.

Very sweet, very greeeeazy! I would love it if you guys did a whole CD of Christmas & holiday tunes!

JSngry, did you get my e-mail? I hope it's not too late to get a copy. (I just tried to PM ya, but got the "PM Box is Full" message). Thanks!

In between the time I announced that Out to Lunch would be the AOW and now, I checked out the RVG from the library. I have owned this album in various CD incarnations previously, and have traded them away after getting too frustrated to keep them around. I’ve listened to it nonstop now for about five days; not so much with the intent of TRYING to like the damn thing, but just to try and listen with new ears, and maybe perhaps in documenting it, can find out what it is that rubs me the wrong way. Before I start, I want to make clear two things: one is that I highly respect all of the opinions supporting this album, even though I likely disagree with a lot of them; second, I hold no animosity towards those who champion the avant-garde because, letsfaceit, jazz is/was avant garde to begin with; I just wonder about the ferocity with which some people champion it. Now, after quite a few listenings, I’ve come to find a few things I like about this album: -The heads. I like Dolphy’s writing and arranging skills. He has a very unique way with melody and counterpoint, and uses harmony in ways that still sound fresh all these years later. It’s the “free” parts that I have trouble enjoying, which will be discussed in further detail. But I enjoy the melodies; heck, some of them are even whistle-able. -Freddie Hubbard. It constantly amazes me how well he fits in on ANY session, be it hard bop, post bop, or free. And this album is no exception. His solos are melodic, almost to the point of redefining the song in which the solo is played. -Tony Williams and Richard Davis. Individually and together , these guys were a powerhouse of subtlety (if such an contradiction is possible). Their telepathy, especially on “Hat and Beard” is unreal. (And I’d like to stop here for a second to point out one of the gripes I have against this album: what I perceive as the mistitling of some of these songs. “Hat and Beard” is allegedly a tribute to Monk, but nothing in this track reminds me of ANYthing Monk may have conceived; and granted, Monk was as individualistic as they come. BUT, Monk was also melodic, and Hubbard’s solo notwithstanding, there’s nothing that I find melodic in this tune. ESPECIALLY in Dolphy’s solo, where at some points he sounds as though he’s strangling a cat (which leads me to a thought that scares me about Dolphy: I don’t question his technical brilliance for a second. What scares me is the thought that every single one of those “notes” was planned. So when it sounds like he’s trying to dislodge the reed from the horn via a crescent-wrench, that’s PRECISELY the sound he was aiming for. And that scares the hell outta me!) “Something Sweet, Something Tender,” as another example, features some beautiful playing for the most part, until Dolphy starts soloing on his bass clarinet, and turns it into something far darker than the title indicates. Again, if that was his intent, than that scares the hell outta me. AGAIN!) But getting back to Davis and Williams: as with Hubbard, was there any genre these guys COULDN’T play? Y’know, I’ve always dug Ron Carter and Tony Williams as a team; y’ever wonder what the Miles Davis Quintet might’ve sounded like with Richard Davis in place of Carter? Something definitely worth pondering. “Gazzelloni” is probably my favorite track, but I think it’s by default. I enjoy Dolphy’s flute playing, but his solo here (and all over the album) makes me question why Dolphy never held any notes longer than a sixteenth note! There’s beauty in pacing, y’know. Most of the solos on this album, he sounds like a man possessed, or at the very least, very pissed off. Now, I know some people dig that. Someone please tell me WHY! I really fail to see anything remotely “musical” in any of this (and again, if this was his intent…..) I guess what really irritates me about this album is that it seems like there’s a joke going on here, and the joke’s on me. And I’m not laughing. This manifests itself in the liner notes, where the intent (or at least the picture) of each song is explained. I’m sorry to say that the explanations don’t help me; fact is, any music that needs explaining isn’t “music” to me; it’s art, with a capital “F.” (To borrow a phrase from Andy Partridge) And I guess if we’re gonna be visual, I’m reminded of a story I read in a medical journal years ago in a doctor’s office. It seems that there was a playoff game, two outs bottom of the ninth, and the batter hit’s a routine fly ball. If the fielder catches the ball, the game is over. So the crowd wills the ball into staying in midair. And it never comes down. And as long as the people will the ball to stay in the air, the game cannot end. Meanwhile the fielder stays in his position, daring the crowd into taking their focus off the ball so he can catch the ball, end the game, and get on with life. Well, I’m the fielder, the crowd is the fans of this album, and as long as that ball continues to hover up there where I can’t grasp it, I’ll probably stay put until I can. [Okay, that was a bit of a stretch. I’m going to bed. Hopefully, I gave y’all enough fodder to debate while I sleep. I’m sure I’ll remember more stuff as the week goes on. Fire away!]

Welcome aboard, Selim! From a fellow Texan (I sent you a PM about that, BTW)

Happy birthday, fellow Texan. Hope I get to see you play live again sometime!

12 years to the day. No one's more surprised than the Mavs fans, Icantellyouthat! And they did it without Finley. I'm still not sure I'm really awake yet and this isn't just some weird dream.

Just one? How do I pick between the Hill, the Rivers, and the Byrd/Adams sets?

YUP!!!

With the unlimited $4.99, this is how I did my part to clean 'em out: Cuban Fantasy Jackie's Bag (RVG) Hub Cap (RVG) Miles Davis - In Person Friday And Saturday Nights At The Blackhawk, Complete Total (without freight, which is the best part!): $37.57!!!

Me! Me! Me! I wanna play! I wanna make a disc! Please? I promise it won't be ALL greeeeaze! Or Styx, for that matter!

Very cool indeed! Thanks Guy!

With the $4.99 price tag, that just may happen!

Christmas Day, all day. Our kids are spolied enough..... er, blessed to have BOTH sets of grandparents here in town. So we open presents and have breakfast at our house, go to church, go to my folks for more presents and lunch, go back home to unload the first bunch of loot, then head over to the in-laws for more presents and dinner. So by the time bedtime rolls around, we're ready for a vacation! But I'm loving it, and the kids are DEFINITELY loving it; and as long as the grandparents are still around, we'll be loving it for many years to come!

(Self-edit: I typed all of the following BEFORE reading Leeway's post, which means I've ended up repeating a lot of what he said. But I'm too tired to edit it all over again, and IMHO, I think I've made some points (or repeated some) that deserve some debate. If nothing else, I hope I've given y'all some good flame-bait! ) **************** "Ambivalence" is the word that comes to my mind whenever I listen to Tina Brooks. Y'know, I like Tina's playing; he has a very nice sound. But as a leader, the only one of his sessions that has ever grabbed me is the one that was actually released in the man's lifetime, True Blue. In fact, I have to wonder if the reason Lion couldn't remember if Back to the Tracks was released or not was because he didn't think the session was all that memorable to begin with? This is not a knock against Brooks, BTW. There's lots of players who are good sidemen but don't have the necessary personality to push and draw the best out of their sidemen. And I have to wonder if that's not the case here as well. Some of my favorite players are on this session: Morgan and Blakey, especially. (And I guess as long as I'm blaspheming, I'll say this: I've never cared for Sonny Clark. His playing is just too plain for me. I can't think of any record he's on where anything he's played has reached out and grabbed me, or touched me in some way that makes me wanna go back and listen to it repeatedly. Flames may be sent to my e-mail, or you may bash me here publicly!) I'm sure there are many who will disagree with me here, but I find Blakey's and Morgan's playing on this record particularly uninspired, and I have to wonder if they weren't just holding back, not wanting to completely steal the show from their leader, who was making his debut as a leader? I guess the thing that saddens me the most about Brooks is that he never got the chance (or perhaps never gave himself the chance) to develop as a leader. Like Mobley, f'rinstance. None of his leader dates in the 50's hold that much interest for me; but man, what incendiary work he did in the 60's! In fact, as that decade went on, the further and better he developed! And I wonder, if given the chance, would Brooks have developed in much the same way? Having said all that, I find his work as a sideman particularly inspiring! Especially on Hubbard's Open Sesame. I mean, all you have to do is play this back-to-back with its companion True Blue to hear what I'm talking about. On TB, Brooks sounds a little more inspired than usual, perhaps because he's trying to put aside his uncomfortable feelings as a leader and is slowly trying to challenge himself; but on OS, Brooks lets loose and almost succeeds in stealing the fire & thunder away from Hubbard! Take, as another example, "Street Singer" from Back to the Tracks. This is my favorite track on that whole album, and it's not even a Brooks-led song! It was culled from a Jackie McLean date (note to self: get Jackie's Bag PRONTO!). Once again, the sideman status seems to inspire Brooks to higher levels than what is found on the rest of his album, IMHO. Once again, I wonder if Brooks felt that, as a leader there was more to prove and he got nervous as a result; whereas when he was a sideman, he felt like he had nothing to lose and could allow himself to cut loose and blaze more trails? In the end, it truly is a shame that Brooks never got that chance (or gave himself that chance) to cut loose like that on one of his own records. I think that he had so much more to offer than what he let himself give.