johnagrandy

But why can't you look ahead to what's coming ? Empiricism only works in the hard sciences. When I first contacted Susan Scofield years ago about getting Sco to join the ranks of the few (at that time) who make some forms of their music available for free (or at reduced cost) , she thought I was a bootlegger and I had to convince her that I wasn't. Then, a very interesting thing happenned: Sco went on the jam band circuit ! I know Dead/Phish/Galactic heads who all of a sudden are asking me "Who's this guitar monster "Sco" ? " They totally dug him. One guy even thinks he's Jerry reincarnated. Whatever. If it spreads the vibe, that's cool by me. And Sco also switched his policy on taping and trading. In an interview I can't find right now, around the time of "Bump", he said he wasn't sure where he stood on that issue. But today he is for it ! Miles always had good taste in bandmates ! Each may have their own opinions on Sco, of course, but my opinion is that he's the greatest living jazz musician in terms of how well he's playing. Wayne or Sonny may have more legacy, but Sco is on fire like no one else right now. He brushed the dust, dirt, and grime away, talked to the young people, and correctly saw that the only really revolutionary trend that's going on today is the trend against ownership of ideas. And he wanted to get on the right side of it. Fuck ownership of ideas. "I always say it's not my Arkestra, it belongs to some other force which wants certain things to reach people." Sun Ra

That's the obvious thing to say. The obvious bores me. Doesn't it bore you? Do you think being close to Miles would have given someone an "in" on predicting where he was going next ? I say not a chance. No one could predict where he was going in that manner. Miles never stopped evolving. He innovated in and mastered each form in its societal context , and when that form exhausted its ability to communicate the message relevant to the world as he now saw it, he tooks risks and he moved his music forward. There were no guarantees the people would like the next Miles, that they would understand the next Miles, that they would appreciate the next Miles, that they would pay money to support what he was doing. There were no laws about that. The man saw where he had to go to be relevant to the next wave of perception, and he went there, and it was full of risks every time. Just because he pulled it off doesn't mean it was destined to be that way. Extrapolate his trend of seeing the future before others' saw it, and it's a very strong case he would have been one of the first to see the next giant wave in society : the wave against ownership of ideas. Ownership of ideas was on the rise in the late 19th and most of entire 20th century. Today, that concept has already peaked and is in decline. Ownership of ideas is bullshit. Because where did the ideas come from? From hundreds or thousands or millions before you. And every one of those before you owes a huge debt to those before them. Jazz has been very ill for over two decades. Jazz fell into a cyclical trap and became irrelevant to societal change. But the world is only cyclical for those who become afraid and reverse course and live in the past ... The seeds of the emerging next wave in jazz have been sown for two decades now as those who would manipulate all of our institutions and resources stealthily rose to power and stole society from us. Their power orders of magnitude larger than their numbers. And this societal revolution against a corrupt and decaying power-structure will merge with the stronger and earlier wave of the revolution against ownership of ideas. Look how far behind jazz is in comparison with the vanguard of the revolution, in fields such as computer science, and in the open source movement, and in the free trade of information on the web. Fuck ownership of ideas. The universe owns the ideas. A million minds before led to what is now. What right do I or you or any man have to claim ownership of what was built upon a billion thoughts before? Most of jazz no longer leads the way in radical thinking. Most of jazz has become irrelevant to society. But jazz will react against itself, as it always has, and jazz will become revolutionary again.

Miles didn't allow taping ← He would if he was alive and playing today. Miles was a very hip cat. He caught every societal trend before it got goin' big and got way in front of it musically and experientially. Miles left us before the enabler (the internet) really got goin'.

Sorry bro. Ain't gotta be smoking shit to figure out what's comin'. Who do you think's gonna kick Microsoft's ass ? A Microsoft clone ? No. Microsoft is gonna get its ass kicked by open source. The trend is firmly in place. The money is made providing the experience not the commodity. Even Microsoft figured this out and has released a .NET codebase as open source. Sco's audience is 10x what it was before he hit the jam-band scene. And how do you think so many young people got hipped to what's he up to? The answer is: Live shows and trading of tapes of live shows. Infinite experiences. Not finite commodities. And Sco's vastly increased audience will support him in many ways, seen and unseen. Friends Seen And Unseen. You're livin' in the past man. But it ain't too late for you ... You always gotta pay close attention to how the young people perceive the world. Otherwise you get old. Miles knew that very well.

Not long-winded for my ears. At the first level of depth, the problem with artists attempting to protect the quality of their legacy is, as you point out, even those who are opposed to live taping and trading know that there is nothing they can do to stop it. Therefore the potential "permanent record" becomes whatever an artist performs in public. This gets back to my earlier point regarding music as finite commodity vs an infinite experience. Attempting to compartmentalize music as a finite commodity is an artificial construct that began with the advent of the first recording techniques. Before that time, it was only possible to experience music live. Therefore, for most of human history music was strictly an infinite experience. Perception of music as a finite commodity is a modern-day aberration of the natural harmony of the universe. For serious music, it is paramount that this perception be discarded. Irrelevant of how a listener experiences a music, all potential impacts on the listener are possible. Differentiation between modes of delivery of a music is largely irrelevant to the potential impact on the listener's soul. Multiple listenings to a more carefully crafted work may indeed increase probabilities of a specific neuro-cerebral impact occurring. However, improvised musics have as their intrinsic natural potential that the most powerful vibe can and will eventually be created at a non-temporally predetermined instance of creation.

Doesn't have to be someone with a large collection of live recordings. The best example is I want to hip someone I know to an artist's music but they aren't convinced enough to buy a CD. I have five choices: (a) hang out with them and play the CD. This is not realistic because of distance, schedules, other things to do when you see someone, desire to listen alone, etc. (b) go to a live show. That's kind of pushing the person because it's expensive. Plus all the reasons above. © buy them an official CD. Costs me $. Only in certain relationships is gift-giving appropriate, etc. (d) burn them a copy of an official CD , but then I'm breaking the law. (e) give them a copy of an unofficial taped live show of the artist that the artist is cool with. Costs me next to nothing. Easy to do. There's no time obligation on my friend's part: if they don't like it they can just turn it off and say nothing to me. Nobody feels like their time or money got wasted. Another example: I learn about an artist and based on other people's opinions, they seem right up my alley, but I don't want to shell out any money without hearing a least 30 mins of their music. I can either download or seek out an unofficial tape of a live show , or I can get my hands on a bootleg of an official CD. I don't want to break the law or go against an artist's wishes (if they're still alive). So it's way more likely I become a fan of this artist if there are free easily-obtainable tapes available. Then once I'm a fan, I start spending money on their music on some kind of regular basis. They gained a long-term fan.

I think financial suicide is very realistic for most. What happens when's there not just a few CH style jazz artists ? What happens when 50% or more artists sell their stuff from their own websites and allow taping & trading of live shows ? It's getting easier and easier to create and host high-quality e-commerce websites. No question that the talent will be split on both sides, because musical talent is not representative of views on this issue. But music buyers always have to make choices. You can't own everything. Right now, I have to decide if I want Nicholas Payton "Sonic Trance", or do I want Dave Douglas "Freak In". I can't really afford both, but I want to get into this wave of music. I have no idea what those two particular artists' policies are on live taping and trading. But if one of them is definitely for it, and one of them is definitely against it, and I've got a live tape of one of them, and not for the other, and it's obvious to me that the music is incredible, then I'm going to go with the artist whose live tape I have.

Preventing taping and trading is all going to be proven to be nonsense in the long run. You can't stop audience members from making reasonably high-quality recordings of live shows. The devices are small enough to be hidden anywhere and the fidelity is becoming amazing. Live shows are frequently much better than the studio sessions which originate the tour. People are going to trade the recordings for many many different reasons: philosophical, mercantilism, efforts to spread the word, etc. People are always going to figure out how to do it no matter what crap the recording industry and technology providers come up with to stop it. No one can shut it down. Any artist who tries to shut down taping and trading of their live shows alienates potential fans whose numbers are many times that of their established fan-bases. Jazz musicians must be on the vanguard of the movement against corporate control of music as a finite commodity. Jazz musicians must alter their approach to making a living at music. They can not view music as a commodity and fans as consumers of that commodity. Instead they must view their fans as partners in their music, and approach the financial question differently : how to gain the trust of as many "fan-partners" as possible ? In the long-run, those jazz musicians who make efforts in this direction will prosper. Those who do not (except for highly-publicized and marketed "icons" of labels) will suffer economically. I have almost everything John Scofield ever did officially. I also have dozens of bootleg recordings, many of which are just plain better than the official stuff. Why did I and why do I continue to buy every new official piece of Sco music at full price from a channel he promotes (Amazon) and never trade for it or download it from a pirate site ? Because I view myself and other fans as partners in what he is doing for the world, and Sco has financial needs just like the rest of us, and so if I benefit from his music then its my obligation to financially support what he is doing. Why do I trade for unofficially recorded live shows? Because it's music I want to listen to and there's no other way to get it and I believe that my total purchases of official CDs & tickets to concerts adds up to a fair financial contribution to what Sco is doing. How many $ is a personal decision every fan must make on their own. So, paradoxically, those artists that just give a thumbs-up to the floodgates of taping and trading will ultimately do much better than those who don't. Why? Because they greatly expand their fan-partner bases and probability theory says the more people who interested in what you're doing, over the long-run the more shows you will play, the more money you will make at each show, and the more official recordings all of your fan-partners are going to buy. The best example I can think of is Charlie Hunter. Hunter knows there are literally hundreds of bootlegs of him and his various jazz units, and him with various jam bands such as GAT, being traded all over the internet and mail and in person. He doesn't try to stop it. But he does have an elaborate website with a huge variety of merchandise. Fans like me are more motivated to buy various interesting stuff directly from CH because we know the $ are probably going to those people who actually created something, and not those who are disinterested providers of capital to finance ventures and distribute the product. Some of those providers are great human beings, but some of them are not. I'd rather get my money more directly to the artist. I don't buy a particular piece of Sco or CH music because I want to "own" that music. I buy it because both of them almost always create something very worth listening to. And so I financially contribute to their endeavors.

Definitely not Trane. Chris Potter is perhaps the biggest name today under 35 ... Chris is not exactly a Trane sound-alike. Potter lists his influences as John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins, Joe Henderson, Eddie Harris, Wayne Shorter, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, Ornette Coleman and Charlie Parker. So, basically ... everyone. But Chris Potter is nearly 35, so he almost isn't on the list for this poll. The best young tenor on the scene today is John Axson Ellis, who sounds nothing like Trane or Potter. To me, Ellis doesn't sound like anyone at all for very long. He's unique. I'd point to him as the next great on tenor. Check out "Chalmette Shawarma" from "One Foot In The Swamp" ... I see the talent in the newer school of players tending towards partial immersion in the groove jam-band side of things. These are guys who are bored of trying to sound like the greats. Charlie Hunter started it all. Tell me which guitarist he's copying ... Today's most influential great ... ok, it's gotta be Joe. Not because young guys are directly copying him, but because he continued to innovate until the very end and there's so much to absorb. So many sounds, so many genres, so many twists and turns, stuff out of nowhere. And ultimately he played so simple and sparse ... a uniquely profound statement ... he decided the message was the most important part of the music ... and the message only required a few notes. But Joe Lovano and Steve Coleman both have huge influences heard in the younger cats. 10-20 years ago, Brecker and Shorter, in their fusion periods, but not today.

Based on my visit to Orleans in Apr and Dec 2002, and listening to numerous Orleans based musicians, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Preservation Hall ..... yes, a boring tourist trap on Bourbon Street. But so what? Bourbon Street in its entirety was a completely worthless souless experience. Huge mistake to judge Orleans on the basis on Bourbon Street (and surrounding area in the French Quarter). But Preservation Hall wasn't where Orleans music was at. It was guys like Nicholas Payton, John Ellis, Stanton Moore, all the jam-band guys, etc. Plus, most of all, it was all the unknown scraping-by pros who had to play other types of gigs to survive, but still played jazz late night. You had to go to the after-hour places, sometimes restaurants, or the clubs that weren't sit-down jazz clubs, to check the incredible music that town was producing. And of course don't forget Jazz Fest. I heard jam sessions with really young players that were mind-blowing. For whatever reason, these guys were in Orleans and not NYC, or L.A., or Austin, or the Bay Area. I'm not saying Vegas is cool, but Vegas always had its fair share of serious jazz men playing in the pit orchestras (James Moody, etc.) And, by analogy, Orleans, being the tourist economy it was, also had this economic sustenance in the background enabling lots of younger guys to survive playing tourist gigs, and then working their own stuff out elsewhere. Figure in NYC, so much talent, you gotta be one of the absolute best to get a real jazz gig. And all the top talent ends up there eventually, so it must be quite intimidating. Orleans, Vegas, maybe these scenes are an alternative to that kind of pressure -- and those kind of living expenses.

I figured someone would mention Pete Cosey, so I just kept on going page after page after page ... Definitely my favorite Miles guitarist, and he's still alive and doing very well apparently. Anybody know the story on how Miles discovered him (or was it the other way around) ?

Sorry. Can't resist .... http://www.thedeadkennygs.com/ And these cats can play. Skerik and Dillon ... can you say sick ? Don't look at the t-shirt ... that is, unless hearing one bar from Kenny makes you puke up your stomach, intestines, liver, kidneys, spleen, colon, etc. Then you might find yourself actually appreciating it .... as I somehow strangely did.

Nice diatribe, but maybe you chose the wrong guy to unload on ... ? I could be wrong, but I don't believe you know some important aspects of the Woody story. I think you know quite a bit, but apparently you don't know the specific details of Wood's final years. The man didn't end up the way he did in his final years directly because of sustained habitual drug abuse. He ended up that way because of an indirect consequence of drug use: a very specific and very unfortunate random outcome of drug use and society at-that-time's ability to assist in dealing with that condition. It wouldn't have matterred if he got 100% clean or not. The man was living under a death sentence. I've never been there and I don't think anyone who hasn't been there can really comment on Wood's ability or inability to save himself. I also continue to doubt your information on Wood's level of use of coke or crack. I personally saw another famous trumpeter's crack-fueled explosions and meltdowns on more than one occasion, and I have heard nothing from anyone to indicate Wood ever acted in public in a manner consistent with abuse of that specific drug. As far as assigning blame to society, the system, or specific people, that's all relative isn't it ? Wood certainly blamed certain people, and indirectly said so in interviews, and he knew all the specific details, while we do not. As you said, he was a very strong man. A very strong man doesn't blame others unless the situation is massively unfair and has become intolerable and is doing severe damage to one's ability to continue creating and contributing day-to-day. Wood also indirectly spoke in interviews about being a lifelong on-and-off junkie -- he wasn't trying to hide it. His music tells me the man was the absolute rarest of geniuses of human communication. For whatever reasons, not many have figured this out. At least not now. I didn't figure it out myself until I went through some insanely rough times. It could be generations before Wood is recognized as being on the same level as Trane. And consequently, until that time, not many are going to understand the man in the proper context. If Trane had lived into 1968 and beyond then went into some horrible tailspin in which the agony came to the surface and was exposed for all to see, do you think he would be perceived in the same way that you perceive Wood ? I highly doubt it.

Learn a lot from who ? From crap like this : http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:3udtD...y+shaw%22&hl=en You know what I like about these boards, Jim ? I like the fact that there are intelligent , well-spoken , thoughtful , balanced people hanging out here. I read the above-linked thread and immediately a number of thoughts occur to me: 1. Why is Branford using his high-profile website to publicly expose an ancient-history one-time incident that , in my eyes , has a justifiable explanation? 2. How many of those people can really play ? If they can't really talk, I doubt they can really listen. If they can't really listen , they can't really play. 3. Certain people don't even have the basic facts right (the guy who thinks Wood died in Amsterdam). 4. The whole atmosphere and attitude of the thread sounds high-schoolish. People who were still in diapers when Wood left us. 5. There are a lot of allusions to their own drug-use by the participants. In my experience, druggies love to believe everyone else is secretly on drugs to the same degree they are. 6. People extrapolate shaky information into even shakier conclusions (the guy who thinks Wood was mentally ill). Finally, I would point out that in the context of what the challenges they faced in life you simply can not compare cats like Wynton and Branford to cats like Woody and Freddie. W & B grew up in a reasonably well-to-do household in an era in which African-Americans were treated a lot better than in W & F's era; jazz education was on the rise; W & B started making good money very young, and, in Branford's case, huge rock-star money in his twenties; W & B were probably treated very well by everyone (industry people, club owners, audiences, etc) ...... etc. .... basically, they were in the right place at the right time. And they both have this totally non-threatening choirboy look about them, which fit in perfectly what "certain people" wanted to see in jazz at the time.

There's all sorts of crap all over the web insinuating such things, but no one ever states where, when, who, how, or exactly what. I don't talk to too many professional jazz musicians, but I talk to a few every now and then, and no one's every told me any such stories. A certain other famous jazz trumpeter (who is still with us), yes, there's lots of stories, with lots of details, names, places, dates, quotes, and some of it is outrageous almost unbelievable stuff. But all you ever hear about Woody in this regard is allusions like "struggled with" , "substance-abuse induced bouts of illness" , "personal problems", etc. , that sound to me like someone who doesn't know anything threw them into his music review or little bio because he read something equally intangible somewhere else. Who's to say one web biographer didn't exaggerate some second-hand or third-hand bits and pieces, and then a whole slew of other guys copied and extrapolated off of that ? One thing I have read and heard from professional jazz trumpet artists is that they never heard Woody play badly. An off night musically: yes; but technically play the instrument at anything less than high proficiency: no. And this jibes with every recording , legit or bootleg , that I have. The trumpet is an extremely difficult instrument, especially to play in tune on every note throughout all three of the major octaves. Woody had perfect pitch, yes, but that alone is not anywhere near enough to conquer the beast. Until I hear something substantive , I tend to trust my own ears , and the ears of other brass men. If he was that messed up, then how is it that he never played badly ?

Muse was Woody's lifeblood. He broke through with Muse. His greatest non-Columbia session recordings are all on Muse. And Muse stepped in and kept him alive in the final years of his ultimately dark journey. But I'm not sure the 80s Muse sessions constitute a regular label contract -- even in the world of lower expectations jazz musicians expect from such. There were only 3 session dates: 1985 Setting Standards 1987 Solid 1988 Imagination The other post-Columbia Muse issues 1981 The Iron Men 1983 In The Beginning were previously recorded material. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was neither a working band nor tours associated with any of these albums. More importantly, I do not see Woody as a tragedy waiting to happen. Rather, I see him as overcoming potential tragedies many many times -- tragedies that would have broken down all but the strongest. He was from poor background. He was black. He was doomed to go blind from an early age (retinitis pigmentosa). He was diabetic. He came of age in an era during which almost every jazz great fixed or had done so (on a sidenote, it's interesting that relatively few jazz greats have DOA OD'd compared to rock stars). It's hard for me to see this as an indulgence. When most of the world sees what you throw your heart and soul into as "making a bunch of annoying noise" and you can't make the rent because you're a genius, I'm not surprised if you want an out. He refused to compromise his vision of human communication in any manner, and he paid the commercial price for it -- even within the strict realm of serious commercial jazz. As Turre puts it, he invented his own musical language. In the alternate context of fusion which made cats like Turrentine and Byrd and Hubbard and Shorter and Hancock so much bread (at least for awhile), he took a complete pass, and even went on the attack against the trend. Maybe an electric Woody wouldn't have worked anyway ... but as a sideman he definitely could have picked up his fair share of the relatively massive cash floating around. He spoke his mind on those matters he considered uncompromisable, and he made enemies because of it. He was badly betrayed by at least a couple of friends and colleagues (that I know of). He was known as being generous to a severe fault ... an adversity of character that also ultimately must be overcome (as he spoke of in a mid 80s interview). In the final years of his life, is it surprising that perhaps the most brilliant improviser of his era, relegated to wandering anonymity just as serious jazz was recovering and becoming a respected, decently-paying profession, is it surprising that this man, also facing a death sentence, couldn't stay charged-up with the courage of the past ? Some of you who personally knew the man probably know a lot more than I do. I just sat under his bell as a misfit teenager. But it's hard for me to believe that the vast majority of what was going on in his psyche was not the inevitable outcome of what this world has in store for anyone who made the uncompromising spiritual decisions that he did. I wish I could hold myself to the same standards.

How much have you studied Woody's later years? It's not a strictly deductive assertion, such as the type properly used in a court of law, I did not mean it as such. However, Woody being discarded by a major label for very questionable reasons at the absolute peak years of his musical creative and physical abilities had a powerful negative effect on his spirit and self-perception. He never had a regular label again, he never led a regular working group again , he never had real money again. If you dig up all the interviews , and you listen to all the music that followed , including all the bootlegs , and you talk to the right people and learn the real (really really sad) story of what happenned to the man , how his economic and artistic status influenced his pyche and what that led to ....... then you might not think it's such a stretch. It's the saddest story in the history of music. Please note that I wrote "nudged" , not "pushed" or "shoved". It would not be the first time that a clueless dilettante had a profoundly destructive impact on humanity. Take a look at the brain-damaged idiot who leads our country.

This is very depressing stuff. One of the greatest musical minds of the twentieth century nudged into a death spiral by some poser doofus. This strengthens my belief that the future of commercial jazz recordings has got to be artist-centric websites with artist-friendly delivery partners providing the technical and shipping infrastructure (such as Charlie Hunter and Fast Atmosphere). I will never buy a CD from any giant such as Amazon or any chain music store if I can buy it directly from the artist's website. This artist-centric uptrend, if sustained, will keep people like the good doctor out of the picture forever.

All that I've heard is bits and pieces from people that the Jewish religious community is getting involved. Synagogues and other organizations. Also, from yesterday: http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=6454 I do not believe that a match has yet been found. Mike's website says he goes back into the hospital for more chemo on Sep 31. So that's not good news. But I try to keep in mind what Mike said he wants : that it shouldn't be about him; it should be about the disease and everyone who suffers. That got me sending an e-mail about MDS out at my workplace ... to a mixed response. Everyone's got their own problems I guess.

Does anyone know who made the final decision on axing Woody from Columbia .... in favor of a certain younger cat .... Not that I'm going to write the guy a scolding letter or anything ... just trying to add together a few other pieces and this one is causing problems. Anyone got the real story ? I seem to remember that a certain jazz critic or educator was involved in some manner.

Oh, they're back. Never mind.

What happened to the Politics forums ? Is this a temporary thing, or are they gone forever ?

This might fall in the realm of massively obscure jazz/funk trivia. There's a CD out there titled "Brecker Brother Live In New York". I believe Jazz Outdoor is the label. Recording date is given as November-something 1992. The CD has Manhattan skyline front and back of the artwork. It's Randy & Mike plus Whitty, Stern, and Chambers. The reunion tour. However, throughout the performance Randy keeps saying stuff like "Merci", "Merci Beaucoup", "Vous Etes Magnifique" .... leading one to believe it was recorded in front of a French audience. Additionally, the songs are mistitled: 1. Some Skunk Funk 2. Common Ground 3. Spunch 4. Song For Barry 5. Spherical 6. NY Special 3 should be "Sponge". 6 should be "Inside Out". Anybody know anything about these sessions?

If it was true, no. I was joking with the, "that's hot." I can't stand her either. I don't know if she's racist. ← Oh, sorry man! I was in some kind of evil mood when I wrote that. Of course, it is and should just be one giant joke ! That's the only way you can deal with it day-to-day. Apologies. My politics are kinda radical and I see things maybe other people don't see and maybe even things that aren't there. For example, I see many segments of the major American entertainment media addicting the susceptible and impressionable youth of other cultures to shallow soulless crap. Maybe it's ok for our youth, 'cause the kids are all immune to it by maybe the age of 12. But in other cultures there is much more homogeneity and shared values, and these value-sets are necessary to survival in conditions much harsher than those in which we live. I see someone like Paris Hilton as being maybe the worst example today of Hollywood's profit-motivated perversion of foreign cultures. She is buying her way to the top of this bullshit pyramid because she thinks that that's what life is all about -- getting the world's attention for meaningless sexual exploits. And I connect all of this very directly to terrorism. Of course they want to kill us. Wipe us out to the last man. The radical Muslim element is, in many ways, completely insane. But in one way they are quite sane: they are defenseless against their culture being polluted, perverted, and decimated by Hollywood clowns. Having no opportunities for any sort of decent life, they figure why not go out proud and blow up as many of us up as possible in the process. I wish every artist with a incredible committment to the true human spirit, a genius and incredible human being like Sco, clearly saw this connection the way I see it, and saw how you just can't mix the two together in any manner because these people really are the enemy and by even being in the same room or media segment with them you are inadvertently legitimizing their twisted shit in a certain manner. But that's just my opinion and I don't really expect anyone to see things the way I do. At least not now. Maybe in 10 years.

Hmmm ... Buddy Rich ... Maynard Ferguson ... When I was in HS & college late 70s, 80s, those were the two #1 attractions almost everyone wanted to check out. High tempos, wild solos (Menza), screaming trumpets. And I seem to remember almost everyone in both those bands was white. Could be wrong. Hard to remember. Never got into Buddy's earlier stuff. For me, he was a guy who played all these HS and college festivals. Sure, clubs too, but no matter where, he generally had this really young audience. Which meant that the music didn't deal with any of the serious issues in life. It was all about youth. Kind of like owning a Mustang or a motorcycle. Nothing wrong with that ... except how old were Maynard and Buddy at that time? In their mid 50s I think. They didn't wanna grow old. As for any comparisons with Blakey , Elvin , Roach ... these make no sense to me. My knowledge is limited because I never listened to all those old Rich sides, but I just can't imagine Rich and Blakey existing in the same plane. A drummer like Blakey is propelling the improviser into realms they didn't dream possible. Bu was transendental. Hubbard said it "After you play with him, it feels empty playing with most other drummers. He gives you so much support." As for Elvin, I saw him at his final concert. The man is staring at imminent death with a huge beautiful smile on his face and you completely forget he's about to die because even though he can barely play and still he's giving so much warmth to you. More than you can possibly give back. Another thing ... wasn't BR known for treating his employees like toilet paper ? I could have a complete misinterpretation of the man, but he's always been a kind of Sinatra character to me. Yeah, you listen to Frank to learn how to phrase a ballad, because maybe no vocalist was better at that, but the guy was all twisted up inside. At least Maynard was/is a genuinely cool cat.