The Magnificent Goldberg

Visited the second hand shop in Cardiff this morning and picked up a few things I already had on LP and something I didn't have before This is a 2 CD set, which includes 3 LPs issued (apparently only in Britain) on the DIP label in 1975: The Mighty Upsetter - Kung Fu meets the dragon Lee Perry & the Upsetters - Return of the wax Vin Gordon (aka Don Drummond Jr) & the Upsetters - Musical bones All very pleasant stuff, without being afire. MG

Yesterday's post brought a few more OJCs MG

I only bought this set for the one and a half discs with Les McCann (I like Les a very great deal). I've listened to the other material a few times, but find it a bit too musicianly for my taste. To my mind, Pass was fine when he was playing with people like Groove Holmes, Les McCann, Earl Bostic and Clifford Scott; on other recordings, he seems to take himself too seriously. MG

Hm, I wasn't talking about the top 40. No Cobblestone, Muse, HighNote or Savant albums have made the top 200, and only one has made the top 100 R&B. But you're quite right about the top 40. Excepting vocals, Botti & G - and Christmas records - the last instrumental jazz album (I think it was instrumental, I don't know it) I can find on the pop top 40 was Earl Klugh's "Low ride" in 1983. And I DO agree with you that signing for a major is not likely to be productive for most artists, for the reasons you adduce. I think I posted something to this effect earlier in this thread, or it may have been a different thread. While that's true for most artists; there's always the possibility that the type of person who would be needed to really push things along won't be the same as "most artists". In fact, I'd guess that one is looking for a fairly extraordinary person. Such people do come along, once in a blue moon. MG

This is a very broad generalization, but I feel that "society" today has lost most, if not all, of its sensitivity to music as a distinct medium that is best enjoyed with a distinct set of engagement skills. It's just become another "lifestyle accessory", and with things like access to "product" and portability at an all-time high, there's really no need for the average Joe to even be aware that he might want to be curious about something "different", or that he might actually "get something out of" what is traditionally refered to as "serious listening'. Such has always been the case to one degree or another, but I have noticed a marked increase in these tendencies among otherwise intellegent people over the last 5 years or so. How are things in your town? Ours has become a society of total portability and having everything "on demand". The technology itself is beautiful, but if you leave a 50 lb. bag of dog food open and available to a dog, it'll try to eat it as quickly as possible instead of rationing it out. I see lots of people doing the same thing with technology, and they're being relentlessly encouraged to do so. Myself, I think that it's a diversionary tactic to keep people from sitting still in one place for too long, because when you do that, you might actually slow down, sit still, and take stock. That's breeding grounds for upsetting the apple cart right there and we can't have that now, can we. I guess what I'm saying is that music (of all kinds) doesn't "matter" to as many people as it used to. The "functionality" of music in general is changing. Jazz, once, always, and forever being a type of music that has personal communication as/at its core, can't help but suffer as a result. The challenge is rapidly becoming not how to get people interested in listening to this music, it's becoming how to convince people that listening, really listening, to any kind of music as anything other than a soundtrack to their lifestyle might be worth their while. I'm not optimistic about the chances for success right now, not on a scale large enough to really matter to society as a whole, but the one potential outlet for subversiveness might be in the electronica/ambient (and related) field, where you can at least create the illusion of passivity and non-confrontationality. And we all know that the key to successful subversion is the creation of a successful illusion, a "front". Thing is, I'm at an age and of a background where playing music that way is kinda counter-intuitive. So that makes me sorta useless. Oh well. At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked. Things could be worse. Yeah, sure. I think I had fewer and lower expectations in the past, so I'm not terribly worried about what people think of music now. In my experience, few young people in the late '50s/early '60s were concerned about music as an experience; most were content for music to be the soundtrack of their lives. Were it not so, there would be no nostalgia market and, as we all know, nostalgia has been a huge force in people's "appreciation" of music (and many other things) for so long no one can tell how long. Of course, there are no comparative statistics to show what proportion of the population thinks of music as anything other than a background, and whether this changes over time, but I get a distinct impression from talking to young people when I was at work, and even younger ones now I'm retired, that things are no worse now than they were four decades ago; and probably at all times since the beginnings of the popularity of radio. That's as far as the people are concerned. As far as the record industry is concerned, the majors seem to have learned how to control the market a lot better than they could forty, fifty, sixty years ago. That leaves much less opportunity for small firms to break through with something new. And, since everything new for the past sixty odd years has been brought about by small firms, it seems to me that that is where the problem lies. Verve is important because it is a part of a major firm, but a semi-autonomous part, as are Blue Note and Atlantic. All are connected through their respective catalogues to a tradition of entrepreneurial experiment; and note that it's a tradition that made money - these are not catalogues of losers. If there were an opportunity for some serious attempt to change the market, it seems to me that it can really only come from them. MG Small firms have a much better chance of having success today than 40 years ago. Maybe not getting a Top 40 hit, but you mean to tell me it's tougher today, in this age of internet downloads, Myspace, ArtistShare, and the proliferation of artist run labels to get your music, in your vision out in front of people. The whole idea of a "record company" is obsolete, 20th century thinking. The major labels are dinosaurs, and that's why they're on their last legs. Verve and Blue Note are no more "semi-autonomous" than any other divisions of the majors, they all have to turn a profit. By in large their catalogs were bought, not home grown, so that entrepreneurial spirit is not alive and never was alive in these corporations when it comes to jazz. That's why today's small labels are the heirs to the throne of Granz and Lion and Wolff, not Golstein and co. I agree that HighNote, Blues Leaf and other independent labels are the heirs of the old ones. But whereas Blue Note, Pacific Jazz, Riverside, Prestige, Verve, Cadet/Argo were able to produce a fairly continuous string of chart successes in their day, the current crop aren't. Joe Fields has been making good solid jazz albums since about 1971 - I guess he's released 700-800 - and a lot of those are as good and commercial as the best and most commercial of the product of those older labels. But out of all these releases on Cobblestone, Muse, HighNote and Savant, there's only been one that hit the R&B charts and none that hit the pop charts (at least up to 2001 - not quite up to date on this). I think the same is true for other jazz labels. I don't think it's the fault of the owners of these labels; as I posted earlier, I think the majors are much better nowadays at controlling what's getting on the charts - and that's what's making the (air)waves, of course. So I don't think Joe Fields has an earthly of pushing jazz of any kind into a significant position. Of course, the newer independents can make a profit. The older ones did, too, even without the hit records. Those entrepreneurs were taking risks but only small ones, because they understood that the core market for jazz comprised a relatively small number of people who, fortunately for these firms, happened to buy a lot of records, each. And that hasn't changed. So a firm that controls its costs well and concentrates on making good product and making sure that market knows about it can provide a good living for the owners of these firms. Good. But they aren't going to change anything. MG

Yes indeed! Thanks for sharing the good news, Michael! How do you do that? MG

Verve is trying to change the market. that's what they've been doing in collab with Scofield. it's just that i don't think it will work. ( although i also think that as far as sounds with a beat go, guys like Sco can make it into real music better than anyone. ) gotta repeat myself: until jazz once again positions itself as the musical vanguard of the underground of social protest it's not going anywhere. kids today live in virtual worlds. there's are some major pros to that, but the big con is that they can be manipulated more easily than ever. i predict a serious counter-revolution to the "virtual life". jazz-derived musics could frontline this counterevolution ... The record companies can't, of course, do it without musicians who are on speaking terms with what the culture needs at any particular time. But even with the right musicians with the right aims, these divisions can only do it if they have the will to exercise their own initiative. MG

This is a very broad generalization, but I feel that "society" today has lost most, if not all, of its sensitivity to music as a distinct medium that is best enjoyed with a distinct set of engagement skills. It's just become another "lifestyle accessory", and with things like access to "product" and portability at an all-time high, there's really no need for the average Joe to even be aware that he might want to be curious about something "different", or that he might actually "get something out of" what is traditionally refered to as "serious listening'. Such has always been the case to one degree or another, but I have noticed a marked increase in these tendencies among otherwise intellegent people over the last 5 years or so. How are things in your town? Ours has become a society of total portability and having everything "on demand". The technology itself is beautiful, but if you leave a 50 lb. bag of dog food open and available to a dog, it'll try to eat it as quickly as possible instead of rationing it out. I see lots of people doing the same thing with technology, and they're being relentlessly encouraged to do so. Myself, I think that it's a diversionary tactic to keep people from sitting still in one place for too long, because when you do that, you might actually slow down, sit still, and take stock. That's breeding grounds for upsetting the apple cart right there and we can't have that now, can we. I guess what I'm saying is that music (of all kinds) doesn't "matter" to as many people as it used to. The "functionality" of music in general is changing. Jazz, once, always, and forever being a type of music that has personal communication as/at its core, can't help but suffer as a result. The challenge is rapidly becoming not how to get people interested in listening to this music, it's becoming how to convince people that listening, really listening, to any kind of music as anything other than a soundtrack to their lifestyle might be worth their while. I'm not optimistic about the chances for success right now, not on a scale large enough to really matter to society as a whole, but the one potential outlet for subversiveness might be in the electronica/ambient (and related) field, where you can at least create the illusion of passivity and non-confrontationality. And we all know that the key to successful subversion is the creation of a successful illusion, a "front". Thing is, I'm at an age and of a background where playing music that way is kinda counter-intuitive. So that makes me sorta useless. Oh well. At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked. Things could be worse. Yeah, sure. I think I had fewer and lower expectations in the past, so I'm not terribly worried about what people think of music now. In my experience, few young people in the late '50s/early '60s were concerned about music as an experience; most were content for music to be the soundtrack of their lives. Were it not so, there would be no nostalgia market and, as we all know, nostalgia has been a huge force in people's "appreciation" of music (and many other things) for so long no one can tell how long. Of course, there are no comparative statistics to show what proportion of the population thinks of music as anything other than a background, and whether this changes over time, but I get a distinct impression from talking to young people when I was at work, and even younger ones now I'm retired, that things are no worse now than they were four decades ago; and probably at all times since the beginnings of the popularity of radio. That's as far as the people are concerned. As far as the record industry is concerned, the majors seem to have learned how to control the market a lot better than they could forty, fifty, sixty years ago. That leaves much less opportunity for small firms to break through with something new. And, since everything new for the past sixty odd years has been brought about by small firms, it seems to me that that is where the problem lies. Verve is important because it is a part of a major firm, but a semi-autonomous part, as are Blue Note and Atlantic. All are connected through their respective catalogues to a tradition of entrepreneurial experiment; and note that it's a tradition that made money - these are not catalogues of losers. If there were an opportunity for some serious attempt to change the market, it seems to me that it can really only come from them. MG

Someone sent me the text of the NY Times report and told me he was ill. I assumed he'd got worse since the NYT article. MG

And here´s the proof. He played on April 23 (20:00) http://www.kwadratuur.be/agenda.php?detail=8042 http://www.kwadratuur.be/nieuws.php?id=229 Ah good - I see you've got here first. MG

It needs to be the right kind of dancing. No matter how gorgeous the Foxtrot might look and feel accompanied by Houston Person's band, that ain't gonna do it. MG

Johnny Griffin is 78 today. He's ill in Paris, where he's seeing doctors to try to keep what little health he has together. Fortunately, although he retired from playing some time back, he doesn't appear to be short of money. Johnny is one of the GIANTS of the tenor sax and I'm sure we all wish him a speedy recovery. AND A HAPPY BIRTHDAY! MG

This is a tasty thread! I generally like African food, though I think few westerners would. My wife, on her last trip to South Africa, found a new food to try out, called Bobotie. Apparently it's an Africanised version of some ideas brought over by Malaysian immigrants. It's mainly a stew of minced beef (or lamb), with a few veg like potatoes, plus fruit - pineapple, sultanas, mangos etc - plus egg custard. We love it! There's something incredibly hot in West Africa. I didn't catch what it was called when I came across it when I ate with a family of traditional musicians I'd hooked up with on my first visit. I was told not to eat it if I found it in the bowl from which we were all eating. But, unlike all the other incredibly hot things I've come across, it wasn't brightly coloured; it looked a bit like an piece of potato. But it was solid fire! And neither water nor beer would put it out! I hate rice pudding but, when offered a bowl of rice pudding with assurances that it would put out the fire, accepted gratefully. And it worked! I did once have something in West Africa that made me very ill for a few days, but I don't know what it was. It was partly my own fault as I'd visited several African families around lunchtime and had been persuaded to join them, so ended up having bits of three lunches. Actually, the most objectively awful thing I have ever had was brought back from Zimbabwe by a former colleague who was a part time missionary. This was a handful of dried pupae of some caterpillar-like creature. He DARED me to eat them. So I did. They were a bit dry, but all right. MG PS Restaurant food from the Francophone areas of Africa is wonderful; sensational; delightful. The French influence. Food in restaurants in the former British colonies shows the influence of English cooking at its most disgraceful.

WoW!!!! MG

Thanks - I'll put "Resistance is futile" on my list. MG

I'd have liked that to have happened. I should get some of that stuff. Any recommendations? MG

And one from me, too, Steven. Plus a big "Merci". MG

Stan Getz, Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smiff. MG So you agree with Chuck - Verve should stick to the reissues? No - I'd like it if the company found exciting musicians (even ones who've been around for a while - there are plenty who don't record much). But I don't know what kind of jazz (real jazz, not Smooooth Jazz) could ever sell again in the way those musicians sold. There was a period when jazz was what popular music was - the thirties. Then it tailed off in the forties as the big band business failed, for a number of resaons. In the fifties, jazz, mainly Swing or the former big band singers, represented "quality" in the mind of the public and a lot of that kind of albums were selling big; they represented 42% of the albums getting onto Billboard's LP charts in the late fifties. After another hiatus, Soul Jazz became a big seller, then Fusion. What seems to be needed for big sales is a MOVEMENT and that isn't what there is in jazz at present, or in the foreseeable future. So, in the end, since catalogue sales make up nearly half of all sales at present, the sensible thing to do is hit the reissues business. MG Edit - You need a movement in order to market music (of any kind) to a wide non-specialist audience. But a movement has to have roots in at least a significant element of US society.

Stan Getz, Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Smiff. MG

I think he was probably unlucky. The doctors said no one's been known to live with so many things stuck in his head. I thought you could pick up real guns dead easy () in the US. MG

The other logical alternative is not to survive. Maybe he won't. MG

I used to have this on Crown. The CD sleeve note tells me that there were TWO versions of the LP, with the same catalogue number but different tracks. I didn't have the original one. Glad to get it again. MG

Shopping this morning with the Stanley Turentine box discs 1 & 2. Very soulful. MG

Not really funny, I guess, but... MG

There are a couple of threads around about the takeover. Sorry, I don't know how to find them; I'm not very good at this stuff (yet). For your most immediate need, I had an e-mail yesterday from True Blue music listing a sale of deleted items. There were quite a lot of Prestige LPs in it. Go onto the True Blue site or Mosiac and you can find your way to that, I guess. Also looks like Wes Montgomery and Art Tatum boxes are going, too. Outlook poor. I have big OJC list which will take me until Summer 2007 to buy. Fingers well crossed. MG