neveronfriday

Aaah. I misunderstood you. It's from the introduction to The Best American Sports Writing 2002. Thanks! I'll check it out. Cheers!

Why do you think we need more adverbs? I disagree. There are better ways to describe verbs. In one of the best introductions to a book I have ever read, Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated listed ten ways to for aspiring sportswriters to improve. One of them was to avoid adverbs: I didn't say we need more, I said the few which are used should be used correctly. Small but important difference! Love that excerpt you posted. Any more info on that? Sounds like something to check out. Thanks! Cheers!

I had no idea that a thread like this one would develop after my initial post. Let me add some things that are bugging me. Mind you, I'm a teacher and don't get irritated much because I spend at least half of my day with language mistakes (and I'm certainly not above making mistakes myself), but some things do bug me: a) The use of progressive forms when none are (grammatically) allowed. Stative verbs used dynamically make everything sound like a rap song. But, English developing as it is in the States, I wouldn't be surprised if after a while, such usage will become commonplace ... and then enter the mainstream. I'm not loving that at all. b) The demise of the adverb. It's almost like some people don't know it ever existed. Or maybe they are just doing things too quick, so to speak. c) Making uncountable things countable. I thought it was a specific German problem to always want informations, but it isn't. There are more areas, but they are mostly covered by othere people's psosts in this thread. Cheers!

Possibly maybe [...] But otherwise you're OK, right?

huh? where is the double "r"? Err ... double "l" is what I meant to say. Too much rum. That one always gets me. English "gallery" is German "Galerie" which, of course, I always spell "Gallerie". Cheers!

Yes, and you spell "gallery" with double-r. Strange language.

Now, I know my English sucks, so don't throw stones at me, please. Lately I've noticed an overabundance of "definately"s floating around the board (just search for the word). Is that the way it's going to be spelled in the near future, or is it still "definitely"? The reason I ask: the other day I came across two of these on the NYT site ... must have slipped through, I thought. Then I saw it on cnn.com, etc. Just wondering. Cheers!

I voted for Something Else as well. Me too. Yep. Whenever I'm asked for recommendations as to where to start, which albums to listen to, etc., this album always makes the list. It's got it all, wonderful music and a great sound, to boot.

I was an avid reader of four major audiophile mags for years. One day I just stopped. The reasons were actually quite simple. I was satisfied with my system (more an entry level system with somewhat audiophile qualities) as it is now and would have had to invest a lot more money to get to the next level. Also, I would have had to move, because my apartment's acoustic "traps" would have demanded a major investment to be overcome. Secondly, reading too much of that stuff leads to an addiction which is just too expensive for me. Thirdly, I started investing in music again. It's often been said, but not often enough: many of these audiophile people buy CDs just for some (sometimes assumed) superior sound ... they try to develop a taste for what they bought afterwards. It's something I've often seen and I can still check out regularly at my two fave shops which I visit when my cold turkey decision bites me in the butt. People drooling over the latest in ultimate sound quality ... and the music just sucks. Nothing against Chesky, for example, but a lot of their stuff is - from what I can see - an aquired taste for many. I've spent quite some time comparing CDs and SACDs on everything from entry level to top-notch systems and, yes, there is a clearly audible difference (and also some real SACD botch jobs). But, my question has to be: is it worth it? Not right now, I think, not for me. Although my speakers are quite good, when I compare them to others which are way beyond my financial capabilities, they "subtract" half of the added SACD sonic quality, if not more. My amp would have to go as well, because it adds "warmth" where none would be needed anymore. Or I would have to rewire the whole setup for tons of money to achieve a more neutral sound for SACDs. And then there's the surround sound angle. I just don't want to build a house around 5 miles of cables. I'll just wait for the next generation surround sound headphones. I just decided that I was happy with what I have now ... and that's it. Plus, I mostly listen to recordings from the 30s to the early 60s. I don't think I need those extra 10% of added audiophile quality. There are a lot of good-sounding CDs out there, and I think we will see a lot more popping up these coming years. So, I'll just wait, buy the occasional playable-on-anything SACD and enjoy my Granz Jam sessions. They sound good enough to me. And once in a while I buy one of the aforementioned mags and laugh about pages of charts that I used to drool over. Cheers! P.S.: My ears aren't exactly improving with all that loud drumming I'm doing either. Already now, although tests do not substantiate this, I can probably not even get as much out of an SACD as other people.

I like the hardcore remix. ( schnappi.unz.unz.remix ) That guy must've been on about a kilo of crack before he "composed" that beat. LOL

John, please don't post this shite anymore. Stop. Please! P.S.: I think I might add some delicate drumming to those tracks. Got nothing better to do anyway.

Yep, but only if the fruitcake stays in.

I eat different birds.

Now, let me vent here for a second. Don't get me wrong. I love the stuff Granz did, I love the music presented on these DVDs (most of which I have by now) and I have nothing but respect for Nat Hentoff. And it's great this stuff is out for us to see and it's even greater that it was released at a reasonable price. But. What did these people drink or smoke before/while putting these DVDs together? How about a photo of Montreux with fluorescent-coloured titles to match Eldridge's red/pinkish/purplish outfit and (Milt) Jackson's red checkered jacket? The DVD menu from hell which is about as ugly as the aforementioned clothes? Who decided to put Hentoff into this cutesy poopsy frame, right in the center, filming him reading a script? Huh? Jee-sus. Who do we have to shoot for the distorted sound on, for example, the Basie Jam? Who filmed the N.H.O. Pedersen interview in New York? Blank plaster wall, unmoving camera, full frontal facial shot ... even Niels can't save that one (love his Danish accent though ... made me feel right back at home).. Why is it that everyone seems to think that jazz fans have to put up/are willing to put up with great material in horrendously awful crummy packaging (the only decent thing are the covers) with production quality which harks back to old Sinclair computers (remember those)? I'm pissed. This is Norman Granz. Count Basie. Roy Eldridge. Oscar Peterson. Milt Jackson. Ella Fitzgerald. ... presented on a budget that you couldn't get a bag of peanuts for. You know, anyone with access to a computer nowadays and some decent software (damn, steal it if the company doesn't give you any) could blow these DVDs out of the water. Jeez, any one of my students could make a DVD that is so much better than these ... and they'd probably do it for free. But the material presented is grand, I give you that. I rest my case.

But it could've been ...

"Firlefranz" Sorry about the krauting. Cheers!

Can you send it again, or PM me? I haven't received it yet and wanna include ya! Pm pm'ed! Cheers!

Me, me, me. Mail sent!

Just a matter of practice. Cheers! P.S.: Mount GAY? Eminem's fave brand, I presume.

You guys are just mean ...

Scans aren't all that great ... I just came across it looking for sth else. Blue Note Covers Cheers!

Some thoughts: I often get the feeling that (not only) on Blue Note dates, the cymbals were recorded in a way that gave them that specific "pingy" sound so often audible on many recordings of the time. Is that because of microphone placement, the number and types of microphones used (maybe only overhead), was it the recording equipment, the engineer, or a combination thereof? Or could it be that our "ears" (meaning listening experience, resulting from, for example, simple things like a broader soundstage created by stereo) have also changed a bit since we are being more "spoiled" today by (some) sonically improved recordings (I'm not talking chart material here which more often than not has been equalized etc. to death)? Or was it simply intentional (taste of the person recording/mixing/mastering the stuff)? From a recording 50 years old (and older) I certainly don't expect a sound which is alive and breathing as on many recordings today, but I'm sometimes surprised about how good, for example, some Contemporary dates sound in comparison. Cheers! On a similar but different note: I just had a lengthy e-mail exchange with a drummer who is currently touring with a big band throughout Europe. We were talking about recreating that sound of old big band recordings of the 30s and 40s. If you do want to create that sound, it's virtually impossible with today's quality drums which even in the cheapo range are lightyeras ahead in sonic quality. You'd have to go the electronic way to reduce the sound quality of today's equipment. To be quite honest, I miss that charme of those old recordings, and big band dates of, say, the 70s and thereafter tend too sound to "sterile" and "direct" to me. Yeah, I know. Old fart et al.

Cacique (Venezuela): Pampero (Venezuela): I love these two, although they are very pricey in Europe. Both have absolutely wonderful taste and are so round and smooth that ... ... I think I'll have myself a Pampero right now. Cheers, and thanks for this thread!