crisp

Don't worry. Made me laugh (somewhat ruefully).

Ha ha! What i want to know is, if I ordered it, would have been sent to you? Don't ask me. I don't even understand how you got redirected to my wish list. Damn you, Amazon!

If only I had been 22 in 1970 instead of 2...

Ha! I'm Chris Pearson. Must be something to do with the link I created. Feel free to buy me the Herbie Hancock box, David. I won't mind.

I was a pre-schooler in the early Seventies so didn't develop any prejudices about the Peddlers or fondue sets. Indeed I didn't discover the Peddlers until about five years ago. I own this album and highly recommend it. JSngry's analysis is spot on.

Breathe out (if only to allow for sharp intake of breath): £157.99

Thanks for the clarification. I'll certainly be getting this.

Which boxes are you thinking of, David? I was presuming it would just be old masterings of his Impulse albums repackaged -- although he appears of have done 7 albums on that label, not 9.

Another of those budget boxes from European Concord/Universal has just been released. Nine discs, no track listing yet. Details here.

Beatles CDs weren't remastered very well the first time round. I'm expecting the new version of the 90s set to be much better. I can't get used to this being on Universal, though...

That's it. I have pretty eclectic tastes and hope that when my son is old enough to find his own music he will introduce me to stuff I haven't heard before. I mostly want him to be inquisitive and form his own tastes.

I'm pleasantly surprised that the USB stick has FLAC files as well as mp3. I don't recall seeing a major label release anything in FLAC before. Hopefully a sign of things to come. Edited to say I also notice that the USB stick is $100 more than the box of CDs! Hopefully NOT a sign of things to come.

Volume One coming in November.

It's frustrating that, having acquired all of Armstrong's recordings up to 1933, Sony doesn't take advantage of it and remaster the lot in a coherent box but instead repackages the messy old CBS/RCA volumes. I mean, this is the 20th-century equivalent of Mozart we're talking about here...

Perhaps I should take cih's advice and play my son dub reggae. Then I can get him to sleep and he'll think I like it so won't play it when he's in his teens!

I've got a few jazz recordings of Goffin/King songs. Off the top of my head: Natural woman Go away little girl (2 or 3, maybe more) Will you still love me tomorrow Hey girl MG Well I've probably got a few -- that's still not many. I have dozens of jazz versions of numerous Rodgers & Hart songs on the other hand. Still, I appreciate the discussion -- just what I was hoping for. I've been guilty of ignoring rock'n'roll for years just as Hot Ptah says jazz musicians once did. Now I'm collecting Ace Records releases of this material and finding it a treasure trove -- there was great skill and craftsmanship in these sides. Can any musicians here chime in on what they feel about playing Beatles and other post-rock'n'roll songs? I'm still suspecting that they resist jazz interpretation for some reason that as a non-musician I can't figure out.

I saw that article earlier. It's quite pertinent to me now as I've just become a father (six weeks ago). My son is being continuously exposed to all kinds of music, as he was in the womb. I've noticed that it makes no difference to him what's playing and that he prefers music to silence (probably because he was conditioned in the womb -- he kicked a lot during drum solos!). Music doesn't play any part getting him to go to sleep, unfortunately -- that secret remains a mystery!

I notice that jazz musicians didn't touch pre-Beatles rock and roll (an area I'm developing a taste for right now). There aren't any (or many) jazz versions of Goffin and King, for example, and those songs are just as melodic as Rodgers and Hart (with better lyrics). I've often wondered if there is something about rock'n'roll songs that resists improvising -- lack of syncopation perhaps? Or did jazzers just not listen to that music?

I got into jazz 25 years ago partly through Woody Allen films and wanted to buy Louis' version of Stardust as heard in Stardust Memories. But I couldn't bring myself to buy the disc pictured above -- the cover art was just too revolting!

Why is there a difference between jazz musicians playing Rodgers & Hart songs and jazz musicians playing Lennon-McCartney? I think there is one, but why? Are Beatles songs inherently inferior to those earlier pop songs?

My guess is that Mosaic was so far down the road with this set that by the time the problem became apparent to either postpone or abandon the project would have cost the business dearly.

I initially misread the thread title as "Bing Crosby's lifelong love affair with jazz". Ironically, Crosby as a casual comedian was much funnier than Cosby who supposedly specialises in it. For a while in the UK they ran a show called The Cosby Mysteries. I assumed these would be: Why is he famous? Why is he employed? Why did The Cosby Show run for so long? etc etc.

I agree. Somehow I just can't identify with a singer getting emotionally overwrought over the revelation that a chair is not a house. Although it's a sloppier lyric, Elvis Costello's variation on the "empty house/home" theme with Bacharach is much more effective:

Wow. One of Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer's very best, which is saying something.

I wouldn't put it quite so strongly but you are right. As Time Goes By is a rather clumsy piece. But it suits the overrated bore-fest Casablanca perfectly! We've had a thread like this before, though. I remember posting my four bete noirs: Summertime Darn That Dream Old Folks Willow Weep For Me I still haven't heard a reason why jazz musicians persist in playing these depressing tunes.