Rooster_Ties

What I couldn't believe is that was over 10 years ago!

All real artists universally hate Norah Jones. So, I'm wondering where that leaves you? Do you have any commitment to your craft, or not? You seem far too content with the existence of the plague of Norah Jones to take you seriously. Where's Musicboy when we need him?

Since it was on-line only, I don't think it ultimately really matters -- but I could see where somebody skimming only part of the piece could/would get a false impression of Rollins. But , FWIW, I would expect most people to have only barely skimmed it. It's not like it was anything that drew one in, and encouraged any kind of fuller perusal. Again, that it was on-line only means it's not far from most of the crap that's on-line these days -- but that Sonny saw it, and apparently disliked it, does count for something.

I thought this was well-said. The New Yorker owes Sonny an apology. And the article was definitely not funny (the same can be said of The Onion these days.). Isn't it sad that The New Yorker aspires to the level of The Onion? The difference here -- and it's a BIG difference -- is that the Onion attributes their fake quotes to photo-stock people with fake names. I not a big Sonny Rollins fan (The Bridge is the only Rollins CD I still own, and truth be told, I'm not 100% I even kept that when I moved from KC to DC) -- but attributing that make up crap to a real person changes everything (and with their real photo, even more so). Maybe a lot of people would get that that made-up shit wasn't real -- but what about the person who vaguely knew and recognized that Sonny Rollins was a real person -- but only casually skimmed the text, picking up just he barest of the content, and though "what the fuck is this guy's problem?", and then turned the page (which is what I would have done if it had been about some sports figure). Seriously, this isn't about Sonny Rollins per se, but about misattribution of total bullshit (in a source such as the New Yorker, that usually doesn't make shit up), and presenting as if it was real. MAYBE it might have been funnier with Wynton's photo (in his suit and aall), I don't know. At least there, a whole lot of people have been exposed to Wynton through Ken Burns Jazz (so the joke would have maybe been more obvious). But with Sonny, how many people just through some old (real) jazz guy was totally of his rocker. Rollins is definitely owed an apology, in print, as far as I'm concerned. ============================= PS: I just read that this was in the on-line version of the New Yorker only (not the print version). The strength of my reaction was based on the assumption that it was also in the print edition. Not a huge difference, but that accounts for the degree to which I was offended, FWIW. Especially my statement about canceling my subscription (which I probably wouldn't have made, or done - if I'd known it was online only).

What surprises me is that some editor accepted this submission, and approved it for publication.

Agreed.

If I were a subscriber, I'd immediately cancel my subscription.

"The the fuck was that?" ...was my reaction. And Sonny Rollins isn't very well represented in my collection (to put it mildly), so my reaction had nothing to do with any particular fondness for Rollins. Seriously, though, WTF?

I'm sure not. If not Beatrice, what other Sam Rivers tune is even half as well known?

I think they were on The Tonight Show, or maybe Seth Meyers Late Night within the last week or two. Not sure if I still have on my DVR.

Still hard to believe this tune -- the original, that is -- never appeared on any of the COUNTLESS Blue Note compilation CD's that we're coming out all the time in the 90's and early 2000's.

Just wanted my intentions on the record!

So, who were among the first to ditch the suit and/or tie in the early to mid 60's (having previously been more conservatively dressed, like everyone else). NOT who never wore a suit and/or tie in the first place -- but were there any notable early-adopters of the trend that became pervasive by '68?

Happily married going on 20 years.

I saw that late last night (hadn't had the chance to post about it), but wasn't able to tell if it was some sort of remix, or the original. Full-length track seemed to be available on Grooveshark, but I couldn't seem to get it to play. Anyone know?

And ironically, the Joe Henderson version is on several comps. Ideally I'm looking for Sam's original though.

I met an actual "Beatrice" the other day (African-American, probably in her late 20's, I'm guessing -- a 'pharmacist-tech' at the CVS near where I live) -- and I wanted to pass along a recording of Sam's original version for Blue Note (and a real CD would be preferable, rather than a burn). Short of the "Fuchia Swing Song" CD itself, and the Mosaic "Complete BN Recordings" set -- has Sam's original version for Blue Note ever found its way on any CD compilations? I'm seeing that used copies of various CD reissues (the Conn, and Japanese reissues) are going for kinda stupid money these days online -- but FSS appears to have been one of those "blue and orange covers" Spanish CD issues back in the late 90's (weren't they around that time?). Is that the only way to go to find something more affordable? Hard to believe, with ALL the Blue Note compilations over the years, that the original "Beatrice" never made it on any. The AMG doesn't seem to think there are any comps with it, or am I overlooking some European BN comps?

There are TWO different Sun Ra Quartet double-albums on Horo. "Other Voices, Other Blues" (which I have on original vinyl)... ...but there's also "New Steps" - which I have on recent a high-quality CD bootleg (with superb packaging, including both a new 2009 essay, and also the original liner-notes). If fact, it was only around here somewhere that I read that the "New Steps" CD wasn't legit - though it's far better in almost every way than many legit reissues I have.

The two Horos I most want on CD were/are the two Sun Ra quartet albums -- one of which did come out as a very nice quality CD boot (with really decent liner-notes, and high quality packaging), and the other of which I have on original vinyl (but which I'd love to have on CD). The vinyl I have is "Other Voices, Other Blues" -- and forgetting the other.

I kinda like those Turrentines too. Nothing earth-shattering, but the larger-group context is kinda fun, and the arrangements usually elevate the material.

What would the Plaster-Casters say?

My top five... 1) Animals 2) Wish You Were Here 3) Dark Side (reluctantly, it's overplayed) 4) Obscured By Clouds (most underrated PF) 5) The Early Singles (CD from Shine On box)

Tom Lord's Online Disco has this as: 12 Compositions, Live at Yoshi's Oakland (July 1993). Amazingly, what Lord gives does not correspond to any of the four titles on the product. Is it possible that discographies are not constructed rigorously as are bibliographies? If the release itself has four different titles (on the packaging itself), then why should we expect the actual title to be any of those four titles? Full conceptual continuity would demand another further different title be the "real" one, no?

I've always enjoyed my copy, and probably more than I originally expected (I'm sure I thought it was a little conservative for my tastes at the time).