danasgoodstuff

You're not wrong there, but unless you do that it's hard to get a historical perspective. Also, if you say, "well, jazz is just this big mess of stuff that's been played for a hundred years or so and there's not much difference between King Oliver and Willis Jackson, so let's just think of them all together," then it's fairly undeniable that the focus is going to be on the relatively few geniuses among those guys and people are going to pay little attention to the people who may have played a key role for a time in keeping jazz a real career prospect for black youth. And if young black kids don't think of jazz as real music that they can use to pay rent with (and pull birds with), then the whole music dies/is dying/has died. MG As far as Acid Jazz is concerned, that was a term started in England in the early eighties. I guess the magazine 'Blues & Soul' may have been where it originated, or maybe it was someone down on a dancefloor. MG Thanks for the thoughtful response - of course you're right that music of any sort doesn't happen in an economic or social or political vacumn as some sort of pure abstract thing. i guess it's just a matter of where you choose to focus your attention. If I were to focus a little better on this discussion, I might say that there are at least two overlapping but distinct streams of influence - musician on musician v. musician-public-musician, etc. Some figures loom larger in one than the other. And, to be fair, the latter stream isn't all about commerce, it's about self-image too. But it's still more interesting to me to hear King Oliver as funk, despite or maybe even because nobody else hears it that way that I know of.

So being labeled as "Soul Jazz" doesn`t necessarily requiere the artist to play "soulfully"....just curious..... btw if remembering correctly I didn`t state that Dexter Gordon Live in Montreux is "Soul Jazz" but tried to describe the impact of Junior Mance`s playing on other artists and/or recording sessions - this actually in order to answer a question by "The Magnificent Goldberg".... and I was commenting on what I quoted that JimR said - so, no, playing soulfully is apparently not necessary to be 'Soul Jazz', but that's not something I worry 'bout 'cause playing soulfully, i.e. with feeling whether it be expressed in a particularly churchy manner or not, is important to me; contributing to the codification of a marketable genre is not...

Joni is Wheatfield Soul, to borrow a phrase from the pride of Winnipeg. "Playing jazz "soulfully" (e.g., Junior Mance on the Dexter album) does not automatically indicate a "Soul Jazz" labeling." And this is exactly what's wrong with genre centered analysis...

I've worked in two of what I consider the best: Music Millennium here in Ptld, OR and the Electric Fetus in Mpls, MN.

I think it's "Old Joe Clark" but I'd have to dbl check to be sure.

I think there's some meat there, it's just sliced very thinly. I thought that was the way you were supposed to slice meat, if you want a good sammich.

Loved what I've heard, but it's all older, any recent things I should check out? RIP

Marty did some auto racing, IIRC, not sure which inspired which...

Art Peppers' "Blues Rock" & "Rock Blues" (from the Omega tape sessions, on the Andoran issue) are kinda parody and pretty good, mostly 'cause you get to hear Carl Perkins play some blues. Led Zep's "D'yer Maker" is fall on the floor funny,as is the Stairway/Gilligan's Island parody of them. IMHO I get a 'your computer may be at risk' message here.

Great title!

I generally prefer almost any BN I can get that way in mono...no distracting re-positioning of instruments in the mix from the head to the solos and generally better balance and presence.

I thought the contrast in styles nice...

Sad part was that some of those defending jazz in the comments were just as clueless....but what is it with no good parody/satire being written, is it the writers or the times or what?

These's a degree of shtick that's not to my taste, but he could certainly get around the horn...

"polite", yes. Fairly often. "Meaningful", no, not really. They always (and this is not just with me, this is with anybody you feel is not seeing things your way, the"right" way, the DOLAN way) lead off with a barrage of HEY BROTHERs rapidly followed by the DEMANDS to justify myself, and dammit, then, no broader possibilities are considered, the beginning and end of the game is the Defending The Dolan Point, THE Point, End Of Game. In this case, even though over the length of this interview, sonny rollins went on at length about how sensitive and irked he was at the general vibe/attitude of the New Yorker piece in the context of how he has experienced the media in his life, and even though, yes, there's a few general statements about, well, of course you can be humorous in and about jazz, the simple math adds up to but not like this. Any fool (well, almost any fool) should be able to see this, it's not "reading between the lines", or "confirmation bias", it's basic looking at something in context and being sensitive to the speaker's history and inclinations. I myself didn't find the piece funny, but I didn't really find it offensive, either, except in the sense that not being funny with something like this is the biggest offense of all! But this is not about what I thought about any of it, it's about gauging Sonny's reaction. If you can weigh a few general, polite "acceptances" against a lot of long (perhaps even rambling, gee, the guy even goes to great pains to point out that he's not in favor of kicking dogs) irritation/agitation and not get an accurate weight of the overall tone and feeling...I've known drug dealers who measured like that... ...very easy to see what's going on, reliving/projecting previous unpleasant and no doubt intense persecutorial experiences you've experienced on to others, refusing to admit anything but, at best, "well you might have a point, BUT I'M STILL RIGHT, always with a "Brother" thrown in, and at worst, there's all these projected images of your haunted past about abusive authority figures, which, hey, that is what it is, and that's your burden to bear, Good luck, brother, I guess. Please understand - I don't want or need, much less crave the respect of people who play the game of Argue With Me Long Enough And I'll Begrudge You Some Respect, I mean, really, that's just Angry Clown bullshit right there. Amusing for a moment, but finally, disposable. I laugh at your "attacks" until I yawn. And then I go to bed, or to the piano, or someplace where there's a real imagination to play with instead of some...repeater pencil. You sir, are a repeater pencil. So tell yourself that this is all about your "defense" of the New Yorker piece. It's not. OMG, thanks.

One of his sessions with Jackie Mac maybe, but Jack DeJ is not really all that 'boppish' in any context.

Who says I can't dance to it? Maybe not well, but...

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/tresgone8 according to the notes here, yes he did.

Sadly, I think this statement probably relates to far too many of Allen's experiences as a musician. No one can deny that he is a very talented artist and a notable musicologist. What kind of rewards has he received for all of his efforts? What must it be like to repeatedly see others who are arguably less talented and less devoted to their craft reap the benefits of large-scale marketing and an audience that doesn't demand enough from the music they typically enjoy? Those of us working in education, healthcare, social services and other underpaid and unappreciated fields surely have had similar ("What the fuck?!") moments like this. In the past, I've been openly critical of Allen's bashing of a few popular artists. Although I don't agree or approve, I'm trying to be more understanding and appreciative of artists like him who strive to create and share something of value, something that can elevate and enhance our experience in life. Yes, Allen can be a smart ass at times and a pain-in-the-ass at other times, and I don't believe in necessarily giving artists a "free pass" regarding their personal behavior. Instead, I'm suggesting that one might want to pause, reflect, and try to empathize before drawing any conclusions. Well said. No, I assume that there is a difference, however poorly I might explain it.

You forget Keith Jarrett and his mumbling. If they were only mumbles it wouldn't be a hot button topic. I love Keith, and have a healthy collection of his trio, but I do at least understand those annoyed by the vocal embellishments. Yeah. Like that Eric Dolphy schtick to play as many notes as he could as quickly as he could. I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here - someone else was wrong about something else therefore I'm wrong about this? Someone else was wrong...therefore be careful about sweeping pronouncements, that I get. Dolphy didn't play near as many notes per minute or per bar as Parker, but he did like big intervals and kinda herky jerky phrasing that emphasized them, I kinda like that but others could legitimately not. Something 'bout Nora just strikes me in a very gut-level way as wrong, but then there are very few 21st century singers I have any use for at all.

As I often do, I was flipping back and forth between this forum and my facebook page yesterday when I saw that local musician Stan Wood had passed. Most famous for his playing 'vibraband' (actually a dental damn), he was one of the first local musicians I saw when I first came to Portland (OR) 40+ years ago and a heck of a nice guy as I found out when I played with him a few times early in this century. He will be much missed, 'round these parts at least.

I think the common denominator (detinator?) in all these hot-button artists is the shtick (sp?) some hear that others don't...

Finally got this from the library where I work, listened to disc one, and while I dug the main part it was the bonus/earlier material that really knocked me out - a bonus disc of that full performance might have been nice but it would have pushed the price up. I guess I feel about Chick and Keith with Miles the same way I do about McLean and Mobley (with Lee or whomever) - either one by themselves is better than the two of them together...the counter example would be Konitz and Marsh - so much more than the sum of their parts, but that's a rather special case...Not sure if I'm gonna buy this, probably but not in any great big hurry.

Totally agree with this and all the other positivity this lovely set has generated. Finally got it from my local bricks 'n motor (Music Mullennium, a great but frustratingly uneven store) just the other day. The music is well worth hearing (and rehearing for years, no doubt) and the packaging is everything that could be hoped for, an obvious labour of love.

Mr. Dunlap, thank you!