danasgoodstuff

"A definition is a definition. It can't be right or wrong." This is the most lame-brained thing I've seen on this board in a while. A definition most certainly can be wrong in all kinds of ways. It can be dishosnest, misleading, inaccurate, half-baked, self-serving, conclusionary bullshit just like any other form of bogus argumentation. Plenty of evidence of that on both sides of this debate. On the whole I find the argument on the con side better reasoned, but I still think SW is a genius by any even-handed definition: In the peiod in question he matured from a mere child prodigy to an artist of startly originallity whose work just flowed out of him and changed the contest of, at least, American popular music (in the broadest sense) so that the meaning of everything that came after was affected whether it was directly influenced by or not. (In many ways the direct influence was pernicious, most mortals have no business trying to do it all themselves). for what it's worth I think there has been much grade inflation, so no I don't think that Steely Dan or my homie Joni are geniuses, just people who did some very nice, interesting, distinctive work that influenced some and not others. So, now that I've pissed everyone off (not that you don't deserve it), to ansewer the original Q: I's love to hear me some unissed Stevie, whether on deluxe editions or otherwise, 'cause despite thinking he's a genius I don't think he's the best judge of the quality of his own work...

I think the negative connotation of hook-laden comes from people who do in a cheap way where there is nothing else to a tune than some little fragment of melody or riff, often not v. original and based on obvious basic harmony, that just gets stuck in your head and you can't get rid of it...I think most here, as evidenced above, have an appreciation for original/unusual memorable melodies that are easy to appreciate if not easy to write (otherwise everyone would do it). Part of it is also some jazzers defensive attitude towards 'pop' which is a whole 'nother can of worms', much more in evidence over at aalaboutjazz.com than here...

I picked '66 since, as someone who was around then albiet quite young, it was the last time that had a sense of endlessly expanding possibility to me. Maybe it's 'cause I was just listening to Nuggets, but to me there were a lot of possibilities that were never fully explored. And no, I'm not much of a fan of later things inspired by that period, you really can't go back. At the time, I probably thought like everyone else that '67 was even better, a further expasion into new realms, but in retrospect it seems like the begining of the new orthadoxy, one I didn't care for, something I remember thinking by '68 however inchoately. Of course things don't come in neat bundles clearly demarkated by calender year, but... And while it may seem strange to pick a year often seen as transitional between more more easily identifiable 'styles' (I think style fixated criticism is a huge mistake), for me the transitoriness of this period is part of the glory of POP, which I use here in the broad sense that includes rock, R&B, C&W, etc. Or maybe it's just that when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south...

JSngry: You did notice, didn't you, that the "For Your Love" included on this fine album is NOT the G. Gouldman-penned Yardbirds hit as credited, but rather the Ed Townsend tune of the same name from the '50s which was a hit for him and several others subsequently? I was disappointed initially, but in retrospect it does make more sense as material for this bunch... Dana

Both The Look of Love and its companion poece Always Something There are well worth hearing if you dig Stanley T and don't have an aversion to orchestration and '60s pop. Sure the're kinda Austin Powers dippy/cheesey but to me that's part of the fun. (Compared to them, Rough & Tumble is the straight & narrow.) Bought at least one of those two at a now defunct store in Drumheller Alberta, either on the way to or the way from Saskatoon. I think both mine copies are on the dreaded applause. I think they'd both fit on one CD (maybe I'll check). It would make sense to do them that way if they did fit and market them beyond the core jazz audience... Myself, I'd like to see a dbl CD of some of the still only partially issued 'mid-sized' band sessions immediatley preceeding these two; what I've heard on Ain't No Mt. High Enuff, etc. is v. tasty w/ v. little cheese. And, yes, the fact that the're on BN does have something to do with it...

Green is Beautifull and Alive have been reissued on vinyl by BN domestically, unlike Final Comedown, Visons and Shades of Green. What BN would do well t reissue and what you happen to have or not have are two different things. They would do better to reissue Visions, which was his biggest seller when he was alive and/or some as yet totally unissued stuff.

As a sort of Retrospective, pt II, I guess think kinda make sence. But not too much to me given that there are GG sessions from this period that are either completely unissued (Live @ Club Mozambique, and a studio date with the usual suspects) or unreissued domestically (Shades of Green, etc.). Oh well, maybe some day. Not to mention unissued outtakes from Carryin' On! Oh, in case nobody else answered, there are two recordings by Grant of "Don't Want Nobody to Give Me Nothing" - the one from Carryin' On and the one one from Shades of Green that's a medley with "Cold Sweat". Both good, neither one as hot as the version of "Ain't It Funky" from Green is Beautiful. More than enuff from a BN play JB antho if you include Lonnie Smith's "I Can't Stand It", miscredited tho' it is.

Another Odd thing is that fantasyjazz.com says this will be the first live one since Don't Stop the Carnival, but both G-Man and the solo album are live and later than that.

Yes, but unless I imagined it, I think they did list a studio one and then it disappeared...?

For what it's worth, I don't find much to get excited about in Joss Stone, or most of the other young singers mentioned herein, but then again I don't find any of them as bizarely affectated as Madeline Peru (I've largely avoided her new one on the basis of my strong aversion to the first one).

I see on the Fantasyjazz.com site the're talking up a live labum from a few days after 9/11, to be issued this fall. But wasn't there a studio date from last fall that was schedualed for relaese substantially before that? What gives. Anyone here know anything?

Saw the whipped cream lady at a record convention awhile back, thought it was kinda sad/creepy myself. Not that I don't have my own gettin' old issues but I try to keep moving on...

I was thinking at one time of making a mix tape &/or CDR of jazz pipes for someone my wife used to work with who knows trad piping, is there anyone who should be on it besides Rufus and Ayler? Maybe someone coming from the folk side to jazz? As someone who plays C-melody, I love to see unusual instruments getting jazz usage. Scotland, the rave...

I voted for RW, not because I think he's better than the rest but because sometimes he's just exactly what I want and that's worth recognizing any day.

Al, Do you like their work behind Otis and other singers? Dana

And as good as the MGs, and various variations, were on their own, I think they were often better behind singers. My favs their would be a v. ong list...

Jazz Kat: sorry to not reply sooner. "sing a simple Song" is on The Booker T Set, "Boot-Leg" on various greatest Hits things, and "Dock of the Bay" only on the box set or the 1000 Volts of Stax import VA collection. I think if their "Dock of the Bay" was issued as a single and/or used in a movie it could be a major hit...

I may actually prefer them doing covers, slightly, but there's really no need to choose. some favorites: Sing a Simple Song, which is actually a sort of Sly medley since they work in bit of other songs of his; "dear James Medley" from the Mar-Keys Memphis Sound (Mar Keys= MGs + horns by this point); and for an original Bootleg. I kinda like the naive-ness of their earlier work... And if y'all haven't heard any of the originally unissued stuffs thats come out more recently, check their version of Dock of the Bay!

Got it out of the shop last night (new master cylinder and brake adjustment) and went to my first drivers club meeting last night. People actually cheered when I said I drove my Lark to the meeting! I may have been the youngest one there at 50! As I told the wife, the Studebaker is insurance in case being a jazz fan isn't boring enuff...

Am I the only one disappointed by this album? I like Harold Land and I like folk tunes too, including many jazz renditions, but I found this one to be, oh how shall I say, "condescending" isn't quite right but it's the best I can do... No offence to those who do dig it, different strokies for different folkies.

Who wouldn't want an Avanti? I missed one here that had been in storage 25 years for $7,000 (that's half what a good one is worth). Of course 25 years in storage still means it was 16/17 years old when it went in and the base engine had 10.25 to 1 compression so it would probably run ok on modern premium...but it's a rolling work of art. My consolation is that I paid less than that for what's almost certainly a more practical daily driver and Avantis are basically tweaked Larks under the fiberglass. Maybe we could start a car/jazz band analogy thread: If the Miles Davis quintet is a ferrari, then what band is the equivalent of an R3 Avanti?

I picked up the Lark and drove it home about 100 miles from Astoria this last Sunday. Still trying to figure out what I'm going to do for insurance. Collectors limited insurance would be cheap but I'm pretty sure I'm going to drive it too much to qualify. The drive home went fine: 50+ psi and zoomed right up the hills. I've taken it to work once. want to get the brakes looked at since the're only adequate for modern traffic if the're working perfectly. Noisy, slow, ineffiecient; what more could you want?

If I play Tequila v. slowly and v. rubato (basically the way I play everything), it sounds kinda like Coltrane.

Fixed first post, hope it's clear(er) now.

In the notes to the Holy Ghost box (hours of fun that is) they refer to one of the selections by the quartet with Don Cherry as "tune Q" and go on to say in a footnote: This compostion has been mistitled regularly heretofore as "Saints" and as "Spirits", though both names already belonged to different recorded Ayler compositions by the time they were appended to it. What we refer to as "[tune Q]" is the same composition that appeared as the first track on side B of Spiritual Unity, ESP 1002 edition I, as distinct from the piece that replaced it on edition II. WTF?! Has anyone heard the Spiritual Unity edition I version of this tune and whyohwhyohwhy hasn't it been included in any of the CD reissues (or has it)? On a related note, is there someplace that explains generally about all the tune/name confusion in Albert's work? I love Ayler but this all getrs kinda confusing...