Hot Ptah

Also, MG, in the U.S., the professional sports leagues share broadcast revenue among the teams, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the sport and league. That is where the huge money is. The local sales of tickets is a small part of the revenue of the sport. A team could be not that profitable from local spending and still do great financially due to the multi-millions of dollars of shared broadcast revenue. Also, each sport and league has differing rules on how much of the parking, concession, memorabilia and other non-ticket sales are shared among all of the teams in the league. This is also big money. This creates a type of fraternity of owners in each sport, who are linked together in their business ventures (with some day to day disputes among them to be sure). There is no loyalty to a specific city except to the extent that it can help the group of owners maximize their broadcast and other revenue, and provide a stable enough platform for the operation of the team so as not to be troublesome to the group. There are a few exceptions where an owner feels an emotional bond to the city in which his team is located, but those exceptions are seen as the quirky, warm and fuzzy human interest stories of the sport. So whether a franchise is in Seattle, Oklahoma City or Kansas City, matters not at all, as long as the location can maximize broadcast revenue to the league as a whole. The Kansas City Kings of the NBA were moved to Sacramento, California in the mid-1980s as a new owner wanted to make a basketball arena the center of his new shopping center development in Sacramento, and needed a team to play in the arena. The Kansas City fans were outraged and felt betrayed. The league didn't care, as the new city promised to make the league money. The new stadiums and arenas, for which the cities are shelling out huge taxpayer subsidies to the teams, are not just places for the teams to play. They are entertainment complexes, carefully designed to make it easier for the fans to part with greater chunks of money with each visit. These palaces have lots of expensive restaurants and shops. Some have hotels built in. Thus the team, and indirectly all of the other teams in the league who share in some of the facility's revenue, gets a ton of money every year unrelated to the games themselves. If an American sports team is not playing in one of these entertainment mega-complexes, in which the sport itself is just a small piece of the revenue puzzle, that team cannot compete any more in a financial sense, or in the sport itself. Also, the team without a mega-complex to play in is seen as a weak sister by the league, a "problem" franchise which is not pulling its weight. As other cities want the supposed prestige of being "major league", there are other cities willing to build a billion dollar + mega-complex for the team, if the current city is unwilling to do so with taxpayer dollars. Thus even Green Bay, Wisconsin, with a population of under 200,000, and a team owned by a publicly held local corporation, not by a wealthy owner (a vestige of the establishment of the Packers in 1919), was willing to pay much more than 100 million dollars to rebuild Lambeau Field into an entertainment super-complex, to generate much more revenue for the team, and thus the league. It was widely seen in Green Bay as necessary for the Green Bay Packers to continue as a team.

Me too. I have always loved them. But then I collected baseball and football cards when I was a kid.

It strikes me that it would be virtually impossible for Muhal Richard Abrams to be on a stage without music of interest and enjoyment being created, for virtually anyone who likes any form of jazz. I have seen Roscoe Mitchell live several times, in a solo alto sax concert, and with more than five different types of ensembles. There was always a high ratio of interesting music. George Lewis once appeared in a solo concert I attended and mostly played minmal synthesizer music. Then he took out his trombone, said, "I feel like swinging", and played an amazing trombone solo. The point is, the risk of the concert being boring is extremely slim. Most jazz concerts these days, including those of mainstream jazz artists (or perhaps especially those of mainstream jazz artists), are not spellbinding from start to finish. I think the standards being applied here by Bol are just a mite high.

Side One of "Out To Lunch." I overheard it in a music store and stayed much longer than I expected, as I had to hear the first three songs.

Brubeck has so many albums that any list will be subjective to some extent. I have not heard all of his albums by a long shot, but here are some that I have really liked. Brubeck Plays Brubeck (solo piano--a real eye opener for me as to what Dave is capable of) Jazz at Oberlin Jazz Goes to College Jazz at the College of the Pacific Park Avenue South: Live at Starbucks (despite the Starbucks connection, this is my favorite of the several albums I have heard by his recent quartets) Brubeck and Rushing Brubeck and Desmond: The Duets (1975)

I have about 10 of his CDs. They are all very interesting and enjoyable. "The Sultan's Picnic" is a really good album. "Blue Camel" may be my favorite of all.

I traded my 1,000+ rock and blues album collection in 1976 for the beginnings of my jazz collection. I don't regret it a bit. The rock albums included many original pressings with complete artwork and gatefold inserts, but it was all worth it. I could not have moved my initial jazz enthusiam forward, and could not have afforded any jazz collection, without the trade.

One example is the guitar section in the middle of "Status Back Baby," from the "Absolutely Free" album. ("I'm losing status at my high school.")

Hot Ptah Bud Parusha Nickname Damur

I think that generalizations about Weather Report are not useful. They were not so neat and tidy. I think that later albums such as "Night Passage" and the studio side of "8:30" are excellent. There are some fine things on the albums after "8:30". The first two albums and "Live in Tokyo" are to me, art music of a type. The albums after that are great music which is not so self-consciously arty. The level of quality was there at least through 1981, to my ears, then less consistently until they disbanded. The albums from "Sweetnighter" through "8:30" were not simple, commercialized stuff. They were sometimes fun to listen to, but they were not watered down. There was watered down, commercialized electric jazz around then, but Weather Report was not making it.

Since wise words are being presented, I thought I might mention to trane fanatic that in my experience, if you are approaching life with the idea that you must connect with "a significant other", it probably won't happen. Members of the opposite sex are turned off by desperation or even a whiff of intensity of searching. As others have wisely said, it is better to love yourself, develop an interesting and fulfilling life, and then naturally run into someone who seems to easily fit in with this life you are enjoying. My wise contribution is that IF you meet a person with whom you feel a real connection, go for it. Genuine opportunities of this sort seldom come along. You don't want to hesitate. And don't worry about how the match will "look" to others you know. They aren't giving you a fulfilling enough life to begin with, that is why you are looking for a mate. Also, don't be too picky. If the person is generally acceptable and you feel a real connection, that's about as good as it gets. Since you are probably not one of the ten most physically attractive people on the planet, there is no reason why knockout,gorgeous people should swarm to you. Find the level of easy connection with possible mates, which you are actually on, and stay on that level. It's a lot more fun that way.

Anybody know?? This has to be the most elusive figure in jazz history!

We met when she answered an ad on a bulletin board to sublet part of our student apartment. We have been married for 25 years, with two children. We later figured out that we had attended the same Ry Cooder/Randy Newman concert in the fall of 1974, at the University of Wisconsin Union Theater, which was eight years before we met.

Or maybe they know what they are doing, and think that there is a certain number of people who will buy any Rahsaan product they throw out there.

Weather Report was huge when I was getting into jazz, and I saw them live about five times. Joe was always "on" during each concert, even when some other members of the group didn't seem that involved, or were goofing around too much. He held the group together onstage. Even if he had only been a member of Cannonball's group, or even if he had only contributed to the Miles dates, he would be a jazz giant. And then "Brown Street" is so good. I am glad that in his recordings, he went out on a high note. One small incident which sums up his vigorous spirit to me. Weather Report and John McLaughlin/Shakti played a double bill at the Capitol Theater in Madison, Wisconsin one night in May, 1976. Joe spent the afternoon of the concert swimming in nearby Lake Mendota, coming to shore near the student union. He was 44 years old at the time. When I was 44, and travelling for business, it never occurred to me to engage in vigorous physical outdoor exercise during a brief idle period!

I think a couple of things are intertwined here in the discussion. If we define addiction broadly, then probably all of us on the board would have to cop to it. But when defined so broadly, almost everyone has some kind of addiction. Most people are addicted to TV or surfing the Web. Most people are addicted to food. I think most people in western society have a bit too much time on their hands after work and thus spend it on some kind of addictive behavior and/or hobby. On the other hand, defining addiction so broadly reminds me of the discussion about how everything, water included, is a kind of drug because it induces changes in the body. Is this a useful definition? Not really. Thus, I think more narrowly defining addiction into shades of addiction is far more useful. Does your collecting interfere with work? Does listening to a wide variety music enhance your work experience? Is collecting/reviewing music part of your work (you lucky dog)? Does your collecting interfere with/upset your family? Does anyone else in the family like music, and will you be able to pass on the collection? Do you find that your collecting is putting a crimp into other aspects of your life? Would you be able to recoup some of the money you've spent on music if you went cold turkey? All these are questions that are far more telling (even if they are just a way of justifying your behavior to yourself) than just saying well, it's an addiction. There are people who drink alcohol who are not addicts to alcohol. There are people who buy jazz CDs who are not addicted to it. Eating is not the best example, as all must eat something to keep living. No one needs to buy jazz CDs to keep alive. There are those who eat, or occasionally overeat, and then those who are truly addicted to food, with an emotional component beyond liking the taste of the food. I think that many of those who post here have large collections and there is a "collecting for collecting's sake", "purchasing to fill emotional needs or out of compulsion to purchase", aspect to their buying of jazz CDs. Whether or not they can sell their collections some day, there is an addiction aspect there, I think. An alcoholic who bought and drank a case of rare wine a day, and could actually sell the empty bottles afterwards to wine fanatics, or pass on the collection of valuable rare empty bottles, would still be an alcoholic, to me. The ability to make money off of the addiction does not mean that the addiction is not present. Also, if others around you like your music, or like to drink 36 beers a day just like you, that does not excuse the addiction, if it is present, in my opinion. There are certainly degrees and shades of this jazz CD addiction. For example, in the first few years when I was buying jazz CDs, in the late 1970s, I simply had to learn about all of the great musicians I was reading about in jazz magazines and history books. I bought a ton of jazz albums. I was probably in an intensive learning stage then, not so much of an addiction stage. I think now I am in an addiction stage. With the exception of a relatively few musicians who are rather obscure, I have probably heard most of the leading jazz musicians in jazz history. I have more albums than I could listen to for the rest of my life. But still, I buy more albums regularly. If there is a Horace Silver album I don't have, and it is in the used CD rack, I buy it, even though I have not played most of my Horace Silver albums for a long time, and even though several of the cuts on the newest purchase are on a "best of" collection I already own. But I could not think of letting that Horace Silver gem slip by! Why do I do it? It's not rational.

Joni Mitchell Mitch Mitchell Mitch Miller

To me, recorded music collecting is an addiction, when you are in the mode of buying and it is a habit, or lifestyle, or whatever you want to label it--it is a behavior in which purchasing more music is something that you WILL do, without regard to whether you objectively will "need" the music or even listen to it within a reasonable period of time. The fact that it has a cultural component, or the fact that it does not cost much, are nice side points, (or rationalizations), but if there is an addiction there, there is an addiction, no matter how nicely you want to dress it up. The relatively low price of recorded music makes it an addiction that can be managed by many--it does not lead to loss of home, retirement account, etc. If you are addicted to buying American antiques from the pre-Revolutionary War era for example, that is also of cultural benefit but you will quickly run through all of your assets, unless you are very wealthy. To me it is the behavior of the person that determines whether it is an addiction, not the side benefits or price.

The How to Make a Man Happy part has the comic ring of truth about it. The How to Make a Woman Happy part rings false, because what is listed there is insufficient.

Last year I read A Wrinkle in Time aloud to my daughter. I liked it more than she did (she was ten at the time). She found the idea of the evil brain on a slab too distateful. Before reading it last year, I had generally favorable memories of it, without being able to remember much about it. With my recent re-reading, I wonder why I liked it as a kid. It's rather powerful, negative stuff, a bleak vision of the universe. The idea that Earth contains a disproportionate share of the universe's good guys must have resonated well in the early 1960s, during the Cold War (substitute the U.S.A. for Earth and you have the idea).

I have not seen a certain list of the material to be included on the box set. From the predicted contents I have read about, it looks like the entire "On The Corner" and "Get Up With It" studio albums are going to be part of it, and the extended performance "Ife", which was Side 2 of the "Big Fun" vinyl album. "Big Fun" has been released on CD as well, with extra cuts, at least some of which have been listed as predicted contents for this set. It looks to me that about half of the predicted contents have not been officially issued before. I always thought that the mix of "Get Up With It" was muffled sounding, perhaps on purpose. I would welcome a different mix of those cuts though, and if the box set contains a "clearer" mix, it would be reason to get it right there.

Has any artist recorded as much as Zorn while producing as much unlistenable music? If you put all of Zorn's output onto a continuum, Spy vs. Spy is actually on the sheerly enjoyable side of the Bell curve. Is Spy vs. Spy more than a novelty act, though?

Led Zeppelin was huge when I was in high school, the most popular rock band. However, I think that even people who liked them in their heyday didn't take them entirely seriously. They certainly had their many moments of excruciating excess and outright duds in their albums and live shows, and their blues ripoffs were fairly well known even then. Whenever I have heard Page or Plant on recordings or broadcasts of live performances in the past ten years, their performances have ranged from underwhelming to pathetic. Why is this any more exciting than the recent live reunion of Moby Grape? I see any Led Zeppelin reunion at this point as merely another group of worn out, irrelevant geezers climbing onto the stage to make money, and tarnish the memory of what they could once do. I also think that if Led Zeppelin records again as a group, the sales will be disappointing. I find it interesting that the Cream reunion CDs came out last year to nearly no attention by today's music fans or the media. They actually sound pretty good, but the market for 1960s/1970s reunions is not that strong, it seems. If Cream had reunited in 1974, it would have been immense, one of the music events of the year. But now it's too late. Same thing for Led Zeppelin, I think. If they had reunited in 1983, it would have been exciting to many people, but now, it's way too late.

I keep mine in the dry basement too. It's better that way for an addict. The object of the addiction is best hidden away in a dark corner, where unsuspecting do-gooders are unlikely to come upon it, and feel compelled to intervene to save the addict. The addict can wallow in the mire of his addiction in peace, in a remote, black hole.

Oh...I thought maybe a new reissue would have extra tracks. Darn. Yes, I was hoping for some stripped down arrangements, some early acoustic demos recorded in the hallway at the convent.