couw

and... where to start with Warne Marsh? I'm not much of a big band guy I'm afraid.

Okay, I think I understand. Maybe. now, about 2-9 and my request above

this one (CD issue) was once available from walmart, I downloaded the pic for saving.

I don't have these but have others you might want. I promise nothing but think I can spiff up the 5066 and 1540 w/ photoshop. Give me some time. What are the covers you are looking for?

there's a compilation album out there: AMG link I don't have this one but do have some Weill pieces by Breuker scattered on various disks.

Now, in light of the recent discussion on playing Monk tunes, where both you and Jim stated that "it's about the melody, forget about the changes" or something in that vein (I have probably skewed the meaning of your words, forgive me -_- ), how does this all add up? I mean, I hear a melody or some derivation thereof throughout Iapetus, and it's Nature Boy, and people seem to agree on hearing that. But you tell me it's about the changes and not about the melody. Then some one else tries to play a Monk tune and it doesn't work out all that well and you tell him to play the melody and not to bother too much with the changes. Monk defines his songs by melody and not by the changes is what I read there. And Cecil Taylor seems to be on the Iapetus side by defining his song completely on the changes and not on the melody at all. Yet blues songs are never defined on the changes 'cause they're all the same. Are there examples of musicians who change the changes but still call the song by the melody? Can you guys understand that that's a bit too much for a simpleton like me? Playing the devil's advocate here of course, but still I'd like to know how this stuff works.

searching online discographies should make the right info available for a copy/paste job. I'd have done it myself, but have no access at home. There are limits to what I can allow myself wrt to time spent online at work.

The opening phrase of Caliman's melody IS lifted from "Nature Boy", but that's all. If you can't hear how it goes off after that first phrase, the only suggestion I might make is to try singing the rest of the melody of "Nature Boy" over what is being played on the record. It just doesn't fit. If that doesn't do the trick for you, then all I can say is, "Trust me". I trust you (as long as you don't want to pretend to be my doctor) I'm not very familiar with the rest of the song and believe you that it doesn't fit, but I do hear a lot of references to the theme line throughout the song. That sorta makes it a version of Nature Boy for me. I mean, if Cecil Taylor can do a version of Love for Sale that doesn't even allow you to hum anything, why call his something else? Maybe I'm being naive, I know there's money involved, but still.

A short search showed that this has been released as a region 1 DVD as well. Seems to be OOP or at least OOStock now though. The music is available on CD as well.

pity that mp3 link is malfunctioning...

the thing that really changed in Pepper's playing is that he is no longer afraid to paint himself the naked truth in his music. That's the crux of the Coltrane influence and it makes for a darn involved and involving music. But it's Art Pepper of course, 'cause no-one could play the naked truth that was John Coltrane, but Trane himself.

I wanted to use this one, but my wife wouldn't let me... , anyone interested?

Like your work Swede! I have at one point decided not to take this too far and inlcude the logo and the fine print on the back. It does look very spiffy of course.

It works for me. It may be the empty spaces in the filename. I have uploaded a new version without them here

I'm just now listening to Ronnie Ross - Cleopatra's Needle (1968) I recently dicovered Ross on a concert performance included on a way obscure Polish LP. He seems to go largely unrecognised as a jazz artist, in spite of his rather large output. AMG lists near to nothing, but there's a nice homepage out there.

as time has returned to its regular beat with the holidays over, I've spent some time with Jim's test and answers: As a general remark, I would like to comment that this was too much music -- although most of it very good -- to deal with in a BF context. I really had my problems keeping track of all the comments and to what piece of music they belonged. The time I took now for listening to the second disk would otherwise have gone into a second listening of the same material and I would somehow have internalised the music to some extent. Not to diss Jim, whom I owe a lot for exposing me to some great stuff, just an opinion. Maybe worth of discussion in light of future BFTs. Then, with respect to the answers, I would have liked to see a bit more discographical information. I am not familiar with many of the players and would like to at least know who's on there, playing what instrument. Even if that seems obvious info to most, it isn't always obvious to all, I think. Also some indication of time frame of recording would have suited me well, just to be able to place the stuff in my personal idea of general musical development. Again, not to diss Jim, just a point I'd do differently because I see advantages there. Right, to the music: To track 2-1 Hadley Caliman: "Iapetus": If this isn't Nature Boy, why not? Jim writes the band has the tune completely internalised; can it not be that they have, simply because they are actually playing a standard? You have to tell me because I don't hear things in terms of changes and whatnot, I only hear melody I guess, and in this case my ears tell me I'm hearing Nature Boy. So, whassupwivvat? The electric piano sounds better after a couple of more listens than it did initially, when it merely struck me as rather dated. As the bass, it's really playing Nature Boy to my ears. The drummer is still really great. To track 2-2: FWIW, on repeated listening, the drumming/percussion reminded me of the Jackson track on the first disk. Are you telling me this is a trombone being played on this track? That's some weird trumpet ass playing there then. To track 2-3: the spoken intro still sounds like it belongs to a Zappa song making fun of the idiom which is supposedly treated with so much sincerity here. Sorry, that really spoils it for me. I appreciate the voice, the music, whatever, but somehow it doesn’t sound as sincere as Jim tells me. Track 2-4 may get many Johnsons pointing skywards, it makes my dinner come up again. Really not my cup of tea AT ALL. To elaborate: Although I can hear some of the musical qualities that make others go all gooey and berserk (I mean: it is well executed and I can even tap my foot to it at times), I cannot dig into it because this immense wall of revolting sounds (as in tone) is there keeping me out of the playground. Sorta like with them strings I guess. In my initial comment to Track 2-6, I wrote I liked the alto. On second listen (only now, with all the answers in front of me) I should rather have said tenor. The alto is nice for sure, it's cool & relaxed. The tenor is WAY cool and far more adventurous in its rhythmic concept of what constitutes relaxing music. You really only notice when paying a lot of attention to it, I find. I am not familiar with Marsh at all; besides some tracks with Tristano on some CD I have not yet played often enough. Track 2-8: I have only recently (well a year ago) started listening to Young and hell, I dig this a lot. I will have to invest 1. WAY more time and 2. WAY more money in the guy's playing. I know he is considered sort of like the basis where to start from where a lot of modern jazz is concerned, but I have done jazz sort of top-down, starting with Out To Lunch and now finally finding my way to the Prez. Track 2-9: okay, who's going to please, please, please offer me a burn of that RCA album?

Here's a page on Daley from the Jazz Institute of Chicago: link

AMG tells me he is also present on a Kenny Dorham Sextet 1970 album. Is this correct?

a pic to illustrate.

the label side reflects the laser, scratch it and the disk cannot be read anymore.

Morganized, this is just a text field with an embedded table. I got the info from various online discographies and wrote it all down. There are some tricky things in the formatting, like for instance the little squares around the track numbers. These are done by drawing a frame around the number and a blank space before and after. These blank spaces dissappear when you copy the thing. I haven't found out why. Sometimes it's really a drag getting them back there. Glad you like how this all looks. another trick when moving the pic around: if you use select the pic by clicking it once (after you went through the format stuff I described above), then you can use your cursor arrows while pressing [ctrl] and the pic will move one pixel at a time instead of snapping to the grid.

Jim Sangrey, I sent you a PM

Thanks to everyone on this board. For keeping this place so darn civilised. Even through the sometimes heated debates and in spite of some misplaced words or nasty remarks, this place has provided an incredibly fertile ground for discussions and a whole lot of fun. And I think we all deserve a little friendly backslapping for that. Special mention of the moment goes to the trio currently sweating to make my BFT work: Dan Gould, Jim Dye, and Tom in RI. And to JSngry for his assistence in my BFT. Thank you very much, you kind gentlemen.