Jim R

Marc Bulger Ray Bolger a blogger

The Joker Jerry Lewis

Whoa... serious deja vu. I started this (almost) exact topic once on the BNBB. I forget how that discussion went, but yeah, I think there was definitely a beer bottle immortalized on that recording.

I think you should buy as many as you can, asap. I agree with what Chuck and brownie said re the original JM's recording... and yet I decided to cast a vote for Horace Scope, because it's a personal favorite that tends to get overlooked.

Fred "The Hammer" Williamson Sonny Boy Rice Miller hopefully this didn't take too long... I'm using my son's new Wii system to post this.

Murray the K Murray Abraham, F. Scott Fitzgerald, F.

I want to say Kevin W... Kevin Walter(s)? (Btw, just because I want to say something, that doesn't mean it will make any sense)

Interesting. I tried using Google to search for my profile page, but no dice. So, I played around with the numbers at the end of Claude's url (which represent the person's BN member #), and in the process of finding my profile page, I found some people I had forgotten about, such as: member #33

Carl Radle Bobby Whitlock Jim Gordon

Alan Hale Skipper Barbie

75? Without a link, I didn't bother to... ah, I'll take your word for it.

Are there any really good films about the Japanese occupation? I'd love to see one! Look, I'm not saying "Japanese: Good; Americans: Baaaaad." I'm saying that the film offers a very unique perspective, and that it calls for a little HUMILITY in our assessment of America's victory in this battle. I'm not saying we were wrong to fight and try to win, just that THIS particular victory should stir some sober reflection. We seem to have this attitude that war is like a football game. It's not. There are human beings on both sides who lost their lives. Frankly, I don't understand how anybody can live through that and keep their sanity. The old Hollywood films are one thing, but I would think that anyone who has seen documentaries about Iwo Jima would already feel that way to some extent. I have, and I do. Anyway, I'll probably see this film eventually.

25 + 15= 36?

I don't understand... why post newspaper articles here (and this one from a year ago at that) if you have no comment about them?

Harrington and Jackson were too selfish down the stretch. I'm not sure if it's what Nelson intended, but it was clear that they were going to try to make most of the plays at the end of the game, and they were way too predictable (and in Harrington's case, sloppy). Harrington was having a bad night from the get-go, which only made the approach seem more foolish. Between the two of them they had ten turnovers. Jackson did hit some big shots, but as you say, his percentage wasn't that good. Monta should have been more involved in the offense toward the end of the game (but I'll admit that nobody was shooting very well, so it might not have made a difference). The l-o-n-g scoring droughts came back to haunt us again. Oh well, overall I'd say it was a decent effort, considering all the new faces, and the fact that we were going without JRich and Baron. Davis would have made a big difference in the offense, obviously.

I just noticed a couple of recently-uploaded videos of Louis at YouTube. Nothing I would call ideal, but perhaps a nice taste for anybody who might be interested. First, the older one, from a Dublin club in 1990. Just a snippet of Louis blowing, but pretty good picture and sound quality... This one is obviously much more recent. Louis gets a chance to stretch out more on this one. I wish the sound quality was better, but it still displays some of Louis' skills and tasteful phrasing... Enjoy.

Pistol Pete Peter Gunn Peter Duel

Yep, that's one of the things we'll need. Another is 8 people who can suit up.

Tom Coughlin Julius Sneezer Bobby "Wheezer" Hutchins

I turned on the Pistons/Wolves game this evening, about half-way through the 3rd. The score was like 48-43. Anyway, it was pretty dull at that point, but I hung in. Good thing. I got to see a couple of overtimes, and a couple of ejections. 'Sheed had gotten his 13th T of the year, and with Mark Madsen banging everybody in the paint, I guess tensions were running pretty high. Madsen got his hands all over McDyess (I'm not sure if I'm spelling that right), who proceeds to drop him with a high elbow. He gets T'd up too, but KG decides to come over and vent in his face. They start pushing, and KG throws the ball at McDyess (and then runs away a al Carmello). Pretty lame stuff. Both of them got ejected, and deservedly so. KG showed me very little intelligence... sure he was standing up for a teammate, but he could have just kept it verbal. It's lucky that there were enough cool heads to prevent another brawl. Pistons won, primarly due to a bonehead defensive lapse by Minn... leaving Billups alone at the top of the arc, coming off a screen, when they were UP THREE with a few seconds left. You have to defend the damn arc in that situation, not guard everybody that goes into the paint.

The Heath Brothers The Blues Brothers Curtis Salgado

I generally agree with Dan's assessment. Some players might have picked up on him and extended his tenor work, but he obviously wouldn't have had the wide-spread influence that he's had to date. He would have remained a rather shadowy underground fugure (another name that comes to mind is Tina Brooks). As for the second question, I don't think jazz "styles" would be much different, but they would have a different inflection or a somewhat different color. Jazz wouldn't have the distinctive and pervasive 'Trane sound; maybe it would be more reflective of Sonny Rollins or Ornette Coleman or Miles Davis particular sound. It seems to me that what 'Trane did was to take what others did first and and extend it to its logical conclusion (or maybe to the breaking point). In other words, complicated bop was being played before Giant Steps, modes and soloing with mininal harmonic motion were being explored at length before the Village Vanguard, free jazz was around before Ascension. Jazz was already going in a certain direction and was going there inevitably and Trane grabbed the pieces and went with them full-bore. That's not to diminish his importance at all. In fact, it's incredible that he could do what he did in 10-12 years after he hit his stride. 'Trane was the person in in whom all these threads culminated, and so naturally he's the one people are drawn to and emulate (especially saxophone players to whom "Trane's technique and intensity is awe-inspiring). What I'm saying is that I think Coltrane's is a bigger influence on the sound of today's jazz rather than the styles of jazz. All the above "styles" would still be with us but played with a somewhat different sound. Very well put. I tend to agree with all of that, except for the first paragraph. I think his work with Miles' first quintet would have sealed his place as a legendary player. We can't know how large his reputation and influence would have become, but he (imo) would certainly have remained a much larger figure than someone like Tina Brooks.

I wasn't even taking their salaries into consideration. I'm just saying they're both still good, serviceable players. I expect them to play and contribute in Indiana, and as long as they remain in the league and don't spend the majority of their time on someone's bench, I'll continue to see them as good players. I don't think it's possible to evaluate these guys without taking their salaries into consideration. I agree that for the veteran's minimum, or maybe even for $2M/year apiece, these guys are not a bad value. Neither of them completely sucks and both are capable of contributing something at the pro level. But for $8M apiece, you could hire three or four different players who play at the same level. (Heck, Matt Barnes has been as good as Dunleavy at 10% of the price.) Forwards with average shooting skills, no inside game and unremarkable (or worse) defense are quite replaceable in this league. Guy I know that it's important (and a fun thing for some) to consider the business side of basketball (and all pro sports for that matter). It's just never interested me much. So, yes, it's possible for me to evaluate athletes (as players/performers) without taking salaries into consideration. I understand that economics are a huge part of the picture, but I prefer and choose to try to forget about that as much as possible and focus on the games and performances themselves. Not only do I have less of a natural interest in the economic side of things, but I've encountered a lot of guys who focus so much on salaries and deals and the league financial structure that they can't carry on a good conversation about the actual sport, the games, the players' performances on the court/field. This annoys me. My father-in-law, for example... I can't talk to him about the Warriors anymore, because all he wants to discuss is $$$. Yawn. I'm a sports fan, not an armchair GM. Anyway, I think it's possible (if increasingly rare) to evaluate players as players, without thinking about their salaries. I wanted the Warrilors to dump Derek Fisher for a long time, and never knew anything about his salary (but I do understand that economics plays a huge role in determining who gets moved, and when). Noj, I understand- it's cool, just sports fans bein' sports fans. I guess in some cases I think it goes a little overboard.

I disagree about them being good players. You know more about basketball than Larry Bird, do you? It's not clear why Bird did the trade. It could be that he simply wanted to get rid of Stephen Jackson and/or get his hands on Ike Diogu, in which case acquiring Murphleavy was simply a costly byproduct. Agreed -- they are making the kind of money they're making for a poor reason. Mullin overvalued their talents and gave them bloated contract extensions. Neither showed anywhere near the kind of talent that merited their salary. I wasn't even taking their salaries into consideration. I'm just saying they're both still good, serviceable players. I expect them to play and contribute in Indiana, and as long as they remain in the league and don't spend the majority of their time on someone's bench, I'll continue to see them as good players. I hope they will thrive in their new setting. I think the name-calling directed at Dunleavy is kind of unfair and childish. Mike is a hardworking pro, and by all accounts a class guy. I think the namecalling should be reserved for the crybabies and the slackers (and of course, the criminals) of the pro sports world.

Fisher did hit some big shots when he was with the W's, but for every big shot he hit, he made two or three bonehead plays that cost us games (really dumb passes; bad decisions like trying to be superman and driving into the lane against two shot blockers with seven seconds left; fouling guys beyond the arc with the 24 second clock expiring... etc etc etc). For a veteran to constantly do those things, I couldn't believe it, nor forgive it. I don't pay a lot of attention to contract amounts, it's all about what he did on the floor for me.