Jim R

(88) Jackie Brenston (77) Efrem Zimbalist Jr. (66) Bobby Troup

Jackie Brenston (88) Efrem Zimbalist Jr. (77) Bobby Troup (66)

Me? I like it- even some of the choreography, and I've never been much into that. I can't decide if I've never heard of these guys until today, or just forgot about them. I think it might be the former, which is a little surprising to me. I wonder if they had a "short run" on U.S. variety shows... I suspect so.

Guess I missed this on the first go-round. Like I just said on the "Greatest '60s Pop Music Movie Scene EVER" thread, that second one is really impressive- reminiscent of Os Cariocas in their prime (they may have borrowed an arrangement, even... not sure). Anyway, muy bueno LHC!

Impressive! Very reminiscent of Os Cariocas in their prime years. Yeah, in fact I almost said "Sgt. Saunders" doing an impression of Jerry Lewis. Uncanny resemblance. Right- there was something about his expressions during that brief sequence.

WTF? Go to the sequence from 2:46 to 2:50 elapsed time, and tell me that's not Vic Morrow doing an impression of Jerry Lewis.

Not at all- I was (jokingly, of course) referring to the idea of having imparted some (actually, a LOT ) of that spirit into the new blurb!

My only regret now is that nobody took full advantage of the opportunity for some good (I mean really good) mad-libbing!

We interrupt this discussion with an important news bulletin: After getting a nice pm, and coming back here and reading this thread again, I was on the verge of doing the deed. I went to the DG page to copy the url for use in my message to DG, and lo and behold... The dreaded blurb has been edited!! (and quite well, I might add): http://www.dustygroove.com/item.php?id=n7bd6bw3zb Ah, such relief. Now... who to thank... could it be someone here? Will that person step forward, or do I have to guess? (and I do have a good guess chambered ). At any rate, big props in advance! Well done.

Wait around. They'll top themselves. Won't be long. I believe it, Joel. That may be one reason why I still haven't mustered the energy to write to them. Maybe if we all bombarded them at once? A co-ordinated strike? They'd still probably soon top themselves...

Dan, I might have suggested that you and I offer to get together on a re-write for them, but... clearly we could not be trusted. Ah, I miss those mad-libs. Did we do some of that here, or was it all on the BNBB?

I almost wrote to them last night, but held off. I may take your advice. Btw, this was a blurb written for a used copy, and they list it as OOP. Combining that with the fact that this recording was made 43 years ago, I kind of felt like it was a waste of time. Maybe not... I still feel like ignorance of this magnitude needs to be stamped out (delicately, of course) wherever and whenever possible.

You're right, of course. I was too worked up to get that sorted out.

On the heels of seeing Chuck's thread, "Stupid review on the AAJ site", I just stumbled across this review of the Sonny Criss album "Rockin' In Rhythm" at Dusty Groove... One of the best Sonny Criss albums ever – and a record that, despite a stupid (and possibly misleading) title, is a warmly lyrical session that features Sonny supported by the incredible rhythm team of Eddie Green piano, Bob Cranshaw bass, and Alan Dawson drums. Like some of Sonny's other Prestige sets from the time, this one has him playing tracks that should sound stupid, but which are turned into completely new works through Sonny's masterful approach to soloing. Case in point are the versions of "Misty Roses", "Eleanor Rigby", and "The Masquerade Is Over"! This reviewer thinks that the album title (which comes from the Carney/Ellington/Mills tune- which is one of the tunes on the fucking record!! ) is "stupid and possibly misleading"...? And... why is that? Uhh, geez, I dunno- because it's not a "rock" album? Some of the tracks "should sound stupid"... (btw, who the hell says this in a review?) Cases in point: "Misty Roses" (well, sure, obviously ); "Eleanor Rigby" (of course- why would they have chosen a Beatles tune... in... 1968?); and "The Masquerade Is Over" (why would a jazz saxophonist select an over-recorded Leon Russell song? (Just to be clear, I know that Leon Russell wrote "This Masquerade"... I'm just trying to get inside the mind of an incompetent hack here.) Stating that "(I'm Afraid) The Masquerade Is Over" should sound "stupid" on a jazz recording... I mean, that would be a foolish comment even if the tune in question WAS "This Masquerade" (and even if that tune existed in 1968, when this session was recorded). Dusty Groove's reviews can be a little goofy at times, but not usually asinine. This is beyond just being the goofy Dusty Groove review, with the wacky adjectives and such. This may be the most idiotic review I've ever seen on their site (maybe anywhere), regardless of the positive spin (the backhanded compliments). Heavy sigh...

Valerie said "if true". Chris is saying there is no "if" (or "are no ifs") about it (he's asserting that what he said is true).

In his hands, the pen is mighti... er... ah, never mind.

Oh shit, you may be right... I just hope he doesn't come over wielding a pen!

Maybe, but the fool didn't include his address! Props for penmanship, though.

I have to admit, I've always avoided "American Idol" and all other contemporary "talent" shows to the fullest extent possible, but I've found it impossible to go completely without hearing references to them or seeing clips and ads. From what I've seen and heard, it's all about the idea of being contemporary and in tune with the latest sounds and fads. So, apparently it is indeed true that things are very different in the UK, and probably in other places as well. Increasingly, the stars and idols being emulated on the U.S. shows are still the talentless kids that the media have hyped to the point of brainwashing. It seems to me that as kids here are getting into their late teens and early twenties, many of them begin to realize that there's no substance in pop "music", and they go looking for whatever is seen as cool among their friends (and probably their friends' older brothers)... indie rock, etc. That's fine, and it's nothing new. This has been going on for decades. The problem is, the era of music with some sophistication (melodic, harmonic, rhythmic) is fading so far into the past that most kids are completely unaware of it, let alone seeing it as outdated and unhip. Fortunately for me, my son (although, as I said, doesn't seem to seek out much of anything from the past on his own) seems very receptive thus far to the things I've been showing him (jazz, blues, vintage pop and rock, bossa, etc), and I'm looking forward to the possibility of being able to sit down and play guitar duets with him for many years to come. He has a pretty good ear and some natural talent, so that's a blessing. Well, personal bias is probably unavoidable here, but I wonder, when looking at the "big picture", if some of this can be explained with logic. The more time that passes, the more difficult it gets for me to try to compare my experience and behaviors as a youth with those of my kids. The music recorded in the 1960's is going on 50 years old (if not there already), so I do have some understanding of why 20 year olds are not listening to it. When I was 20 (in 1976), I wasn't listening to music from the 1920's, but then again (and here's where the big picture logic kicks in), what sort of quantity and quality- and variety of popular music existed in the 1920's? I'd say it's pretty clear that the 50's to the 70's really was something of a golden era in terms of quality and quantity. When I was growing up in the 60's, I was definitely more interested in contemporary music than what was in my parents' collection, but I did listen (voluntarily) to their music, and I did not turn up my nose to good quality "adult" pop of the day. It was all music to me, and I was curious about and open to as much as I could get my ears on. The supply seemed overwhelming and never-ending, whether I was getting it from the radio, or from tv, or from listening to records. My kids just do not have that curiosity, nor do they have the benefit of that much exposure to that quantity of musical common ground. As popular music declined in the late 20th Century, and as music video and video gaming came along, I think a greater percentage of young people gradually began to lose interest (at least as compared to what went on in the 50's, 60's and 70's) in exploring.

Thanks Bev. It occurs to me that "pop culture" must certainly have its regional pockets, and this may cloud things somewhat in terms of being able to make broad generalizations. The thing that surprised me the most was your comment about your students being interested in their parents' music. I'll admit that I've done no serious study here, but from what I've observed in general, I'd say this would be the exception to the rule for young people in our neck of the woods.

Interesting topic, Bev, but I'm struggling to be sure I understand and accept the premise. My concept of "pop culture" (in the U.S., at least) revolves around the increasing trend toward a throwaway culture, where everything is increasingly aimed at teens (and younger and younger teens, it would seem). [Just to be clear, I'm focusing on music here.] The idea that anything new is at a disadvantage (let alone a "huge" disadvantage) seems backward to me. I understand that everything from the past seems to be more available than ever, but it doesn't really seem as omnipresent as ever. Back in the day, you turned on the radio or the tv, and there was a lot of overlap (and people seemed to care more about tracing back the connections and the influences and the history of popular music). My kids (and their friends) range in age from 19 to 23. When I was their age, I was not only up to my eyeballs in a variety of excellent contemporary music, I was also curious and interested in where it came from, and wanted to explore the music of the past to every possible extent. I knew a lot of people who were like me in that regard. I'll make a long story short and cut to the chase: If it were not for my input (and to some extent, the "Rock Band" and "Guitar Hero" video games), neither of my kids would have been exposed much to the music of the past, and left to their own devices (no pun intended), they and their friends would likely not have explored or been randomly exposed to even the biggest names from the past (e.g., The Beatles). I could go on and on about this, especially due to the fact that my son has taken up the guitar, and I'm in the process of trying to establish common ground and some bases to work from in teaching him. I have wide musical tastes and interests, and an open mind, and (obviously) a huge reservoir of music from the past to draw from, but his generation hasn't had the exposure- in terms of variety- that ours had. On the one hand, the author refers to an obsession with the "immediate past" (which makes some sense to me), but the "new" being at a "disadvantage" doesn't necessarily fit with that concept, in my mind. The generalization that pop culture is addicted to its past, unless we're talking about each generation perhaps being addicted to their own (which I wouldn't even necessarily accept as being true) just doesn't make much sense to me. It (clearly) also touches a nerve for me, because I've been increasingly frustrated by knowing how much of our rich musical culture from the past has been stored away in digital form, and marginalized (Youtube is great, but you generally don't enjoy it while driving, or run across it randomly as one used to experience with music on radio and tv). At any rate, I can barely keep up with the idea of trying to give all of this music the respect I think it deserves (and enjoy it all in an ongoing way), just for my own purposes. I don't think today's youth really have much of a clue just how much music has been created in the past, and how much they may miss out on if someone doesn't step in and offer to show them. I don't want to derail the topic by going off on tangents, so I'll stop here for now...

No, just as I can't name every Monk hat when I see it.

Sigh. There was a time when I would have quoted your post, and countered every individual point that I disagreed with or objected to, but frankly, I doubt that it's worth the effort, or necessary. I'll try to be concise... For starters, that was quite a lecture you delivered there. You're sorry you were "hard on me"? What am I, your little pupil? I mean, please. I don't think I said anything that was unfair or not based in fact. I'm "snarky" because I mentioned the fact that George Benson sold out? I think it's you that should be giving me a break on that one. I loved "Breezin" in 1976, and I still enjoy it to this day. That was probably the last Benson recording I got anything out of, though, and that was recorded 35 (thirty-five) years ago! You're right, though- let's not even go there. It's old news, and I'm happy for him. I'd love a place in Hawaii too, and I'd probably have done the same thing he did. Like I said, the website design and the CD cover art and all that... not really a big deal. However, it does indicate to me that somebody may be trying a little too hard on the "image". Oh look, he named his guitar... must be another B.B. King (okay, I'm exaggerating, but seriously, I don't get anything out of that. Nothing at all). The "trying too hard" re the image is kind of a red flag, to me. Not necessarily a deal-closer, but it doesn't make a good first impression. I only care about what my ears are going to get out of the deal. I do not go around giving guitar players the benefit of the doubt. I do not "have their back", simply because I'm a guitar player. I mean, wtf? I'm just stating my opinion about what I've heard from numerous samples of his playing. You expect me to adjust my opinion just because I'm a guitar player? To support all guitar players? Even if I could afford to do that economically, I wouldn't operate that way. If anything, I've become more discriminating and selective when it comes to guitar players, after all these years of focusing on this branch of the music. I said I wished him well, and I even said that I hoped I'd be able to hear some of his CD on our local jazz radio. Not only would it be more fair to judge his playing that way (as I already said), but hell, it might hit me differently a month from now. I'm not condemning the poor guy, for crying out loud. Hope I didn't post too emotional. Time to go eat. Cheers. Oh, and please give us a full report on the CD.

Larry, I for one found this conversation very interesting and enlightening, and I appreciate everyone's contribution. I appreciate hearing the opinions and the civility of the discussion. This certainly isn't a topic that's going to necessarily have a definitive resolution. This kind of stuff is what makes this place interesting! Yes to all of the above.