Hot Ptah

He made the Live At Baker's Keyboard Lounge album with many guests sitting in, and an organ trio album, and that's all I have heard from him lately on the recording front. Live, I am disappointed at what I have heard. In the spring of 1996 I saw him with an acoustic piano trio and he was nearly great. He was a torrent of energy and played with a lot of ideas and spark to his playing. When I have seen him in recent years, he has been much more routine, playing pipe and slippers acoustic jazz, with an occasional special effect thrown in to make everyone shriek with surprise. What a bringdown.

ABC had a late night weekend show called "In Concert" which ran from about 1972 to 1973, perhaps a little longer. It featured live performances by rock bands of the time. I remember seeing Mott the Hoople, T Rex, Emerson Lake & Palmer, J.Geils Band, Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks, and many others. I also remember that the show presented the Mahavishnu Orchestra (the McLaughlin/Goodman/Hammer/Laird/Cobham lineup) and Miles Davis. (I remember that the Miles performance featured a soprano sax solo by David Liebman, two percussionists playing an extended duet, and otherwise sounded weird to my inexperienced ears). My question, does anyone remember any other jazz or jazz/fusion artists on that show, other than Mahavishnu and Miles?

So with the events of last night, how does the entire show wrap up so quickly, with just a few episodes to go? I can see that with what happened last night and in the last few weeks, that Paulie, Christopher, Bobby and Phil may get whacked, A.J. may become emeshed in the mob through his new friends, perhaps for a time without Tony knowing about it, and something more may come of Tony's turning in the suspected terrorists. But how else does it end in a satisfactory way, so that a viewer says, "Tony has been destroyed--the show is over, and it really worked as a story." If Tony is merely arrested on a RICO charge, that is not a satisfactory ending, as such a case would go on for years and as Uncle Junior's case showed, anything can happen. It would almost take Carmella and Meadow being killed by either the suspected terrorists or the New York family now headed by Phil, combined with A.J. secretly joining the mob, for Tony to remain alive and for all of us to feel that he had been crushed. Question--The mobster who wears glasses, who is so proud of his collegiate son for running a gambling ring at college--I can't remember his character's name--haven't we been allowed to know in past shows that he is cooperating with the FBI and that this is not known by Tony?

I find Mr. Cuscuna' quote troubling in that he is taking an event, the opening of Studio Rivbea, and grafting onto it a broad, very generalized historical context which it may have had nothing to do with. It could have been just Sam Rivers opening up a new place to play. It did not necessarily "stand for" any grand historical sweep. It reminds me of people who write things like, "with the breakup of the Beatles, the stage was set in America for the resurgence of the conservative movement which arose out of the ashes of the Goldwater defeat in 1964. Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 sprang from this period of doubt and dissatisfaction of young people with their music as they realized that the Beatles were not going to get back together and they were left with such noisy charlatans as Grand Funk Railroad as the soundtrack to their political and cultural lives. Many became brutally realistic about the world and the end of the 1960s revolutionary ideas, and found the Republican party a hospitable place to rekindle the excited spirit they had once felt from the release of each new Beatles album." Such writing takes an event, the breakup of the Beatles, and links it to broad historical trends--all written about long after the fact. Actually, the breakup of the Beatles and Reagan's election have nothing to do with each other, or at best there is only a faint linkage in a very limited number of people. I find Cuscuna's quote to be like this.

Murray's recorded output is massive, and like some other artists with a massive recorded output, some of his albums are better than others. He has recorded in a lot of different contexts and with a lot of different people, and some of these projects have worked better than others. I like his playing, find it interesting, but never thought I was listening to the greatest thing in the history of mankind. But then again, there are very few artists or albums which are the greatest things in the history of mankind. I listen to all kinds of music which falls short of that standard.

Antelope/Eric, I wanted to comment again on the telephone messages. I have heard the album over 25 times. I would only say that for me, hearing the messages did not wear well after about the seventh or so listen. I was pretty much tired of them in listens eight through 25+. That's just me. I have heard spoken word passages on albums and enjoyed them to varying degrees. Frank Zappa's "Lumpy Gravy" is an example of one that I like. Those were not real messages on that album though. After about listen #7, I was straining hard to hear all of the instrumental parts and trying to block out the messages. That's just me, of course. Others may love the messages always. I would definitely buy a mix of the album without the messages, if you were so inclined to make one available.

It is, indeed, strange.

I guess that Christopher, Phil, Bobby and Paulie all get whacked before the end of the season.

Charlie Rose on PBS is the same way. He had Jan Wenner of Rolling Stone magazine on last night and it was a love fest. Rose gets visibly excited when interviewing Mick Jagger or Bruce Springsteen. I can't remember a jazz artist ever being interviewed on his show--except Wynton Marsalis.

That was one of the "certain recordings" that I was thinking of. There are others.

I saw that too. I recall that Joe played an impassioned solo, but that it was awkward afterwards. Jay Leno had Joe come and sit down, but then couldn't think of a thing to say to him. I distinctly recall Joe nodding and looking uncomfortable.

I find the idolization of Jaco to be just too much, and the interest in what is by all accounts a lousy musical experience tops it all. Whenever I saw him live from 1977-80 with Weather Report, there was very little musical content in what he was doing. His solos consisted of disjointed flashy bits designed to make the rock and roll fans in the crowd start screaming. As he played these bits of rock cliche, he hopped or slid around the stage in a calculatedly wild and weird way--again, to make the intoxicated rock and roll fans, who were checking out the weird jazz band with the hot electric bass player, go wild. I thought at the time that he was wasting the talent he had shown on the 1976 Weather Report tour and on certain recordings. Why does anyone want to hear his worst moments?

Also, Tony and the others the Bing were so worried about the impact on the younger sister of her brother's negative behaviors, but seeing her brother hauled forcibly away by strangers in the middle of the night is likely to cause greater damage to her than if she had just continued to live with her brother. I mean, couldn't he have just transferred to another school--isn't there a private school or alternative public school in every American city with a program for emotionally disturbed children? In our public school district, it's the Behavior Disordered program--get that kid an IEP and let them work their magic. Why were the only alternatives for him going to his particular school or sitting idly at home when he was expelled from it?

The episode guide at HBO says it was a stroke. http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/episode/index.shtml I had some of the same confusion. My take-away is that was a reinforcement of the fact that Tony is business first (i.e. he was glad the debt was settled), personal relationships a distant second (notwithstanding his generally superficial concern for others). In other words, even though we the viewers may find this guy charming or amusing, he is still a cold-blooded pr*ck. Thanks for that information on her death. I wish that the show's script was as clear as the online episode guide. I had always thought that Hesch was one of the few, or perhaps the only, person who Tony really liked. Tony has always turned on a very shallow, superficial charm for almost everyone. Now it seems that he doesn't care about Hesch either.

Another thing--does anyone on the board have a background in working with troubled children, to be able to tell us if Vito's son's behaviors were believable, in a boy his age who has lost his father, who has found out that his father was gay, and who is being bullied at school over it? I can believe that these experiences would be rough on a young man, but does it ring true to form that his reactions would be consistent with what we saw on the show?

I missed something and hope that someone else can clear it up. When Hesch's girlfriend died, was it a hit ordered by Tony, or just due to natural causes? I couldn't tell as I watched the show. If it was a hit ordered by Tony, then Tony's coming by and dropping off the money, with some meager and stilted words of sympathy, seems to have been a very cold message that you don't get pushy about repayment of debt. If it was due to natural causes, then Tony's coming by and dropping off the money, with some meager and stilted words of sympathy, does not seem to fit in with the genuinely warm relationship which Tony and Hesch have had over the several years of the show. Perhaps it was meant to convey that Hesch's insistence on payment had ruined their personal relationship. And then why did Tony look so happy and satisfied as he left Hesch's house? It could have been that he was happy to have the debt paid off and behind him, happy that his order to kill Hesch's girlfriend had such a negative impact on Hesch, happy to have paid an old friend an appropriately helpful visit (showing a lack of understanding on Tony's part). What was it? I can't tell.

PM sent for Koivistoinen, Art Davis, Eddie Henderson.

I appreciate Mr. Sangrey's analysis of David Murray's playing very much. It is difficult to get a concise, clearly worded explanation of anything in jazz which contains credible musical analysis. Too often the discussion of a particular musician is based on either subjective likes or dislikes, or on something more objective but not explained, or not explained well. I am not referring to this board in particular, but to all jazz writing and discussion since 1920. This board, if nothing else, departs from the conventional wisdom about musicians. It is thought provoking to read views which differ from the jazz media cliches about artists. Sometimes a new orthodoxy seems to be nearly building about a particular musician, based on the strong views of a limited number of highly credible posters here, but the new orthodoxy never seems to get set in concrete, because the limited number of credible posters allow for contrary discussion without antagonism or defensiveness. All good.

The value of a jazz board like this one is evident from this thread. Here I was, blithely going along for years enjoying David Murray both live and on the more than 100 CDs and LPs of his that I had gathered, and I never knew that I was listening to someone who is not very good. What was I thinking of? How could I be such a fool? I like "Santa Barbara and Crenshaw Follies" from "The Hill". After reading this thread, that is the only Murray song that I still like.

I have been to two David Liebman concerts where he was just great. He and Richard Beirach opened for the Bill Evans Trio in 1976 and blew Evans off the stage--Liebman and Beirach were consistently creative and inspired. There was much discussion by many audience members in the lobby after the concert about how Liebman and Beirach were so surprisingly great. I also saw him as the featured soloist with Elvin Jones in 1979 and he was incredible--consistently on fire with exciting, interesting, intense solos. I find some of his albums more engaging to listen to than others. I have always enjoyed this one;

Without going through all 17 pages of this thread, has this cover been posted yet?

I have had no luck at all in efforts like this. Usually anything I pick is not appreciated or liked by the people who receive it, no matter how accessible, exciting, or otherwise appropriate it seems to be. I have had the experience of others on this thread, that the person hearing my jazz likes something I never thought they would like.

I have a ticket for the Yellowjackets for this weekend, as I bought tickets for an entire series of concerts. I have not seen them live. Are they worth seeing, or are they fairly dull fusion fare without much interest?

A second vote for "Stone Crazy" for Buddy Guy. This is the only album by him that I am aware of where he is consistently smokin'.

I agree that the 1930s-1940s RCA small combo recordings are fantastic. This is not the first album to buy, but it is interesting, and shows Hampton's versatility as of 1977: November 17, 1977. Lionel Hampton Presents The Music of Charles Mingus. Lionel Hampton, (vibes). Jack Walrath, Woody Shaw (tp); Ricky Ford, Paul Jeffrey, Gerry Mulligan (saxes); Bob Nellums (p); Charles Mingus (b); Danny Richmond (d). LP: WWLP 21005. So Long Eric - Stop - Farewell Farewell- Just For Laughs 1 - Just For Laughs 2 - It Might as well be Spring - Duke Ellington's Sound Of Love - Fables of Fables - Caroline Keikki Mingus - Just for Laughs is "Remember Rockefeller at Attica" from the Changes album. This is one of Charles Mingus' final recordings on which he was still able to play bass.