Rooster_Ties

I grown to really like the later studio material, discs #5 and #6 of the set, a lot more than when I first heard them. Not the very best material out of the whole set, but too easily overlooked.

Damn, that's a good response too. Especially liked this quote (re: jazz abandoning lyrics and vocals)... >> What Moyer seemingly can’t hear is the beauty and individuality of horns, pianos, guitars, basses and even drums applying themselves to melodies, along with the intention and personality that drive instrumental musicians. That’s almost pitiable, especially from an admitted instrumentalist.

Just killed 30 minutes of my lunch hour doing Google searches using the modern catalog numbers of the new SHM issue of Unity, i.e... Catalog No. UCCQ-5049 JAN/ISBN 4988005850881 That did bring up a whole bunch of other Japanese websites that have the title listed, and I then cut-n-pasted the Japanese string of characters (in Japanese) for what appeared to be the phrase "Unity + 4" into Google, and that brought up even MORE Japanese-only sites... ...a few of which had track-listings (with Japanese titles), but only for the regular 6 tunes on the original release (none of the bonus tracks were specifically listed). Eventually some of these search techniques might bring up something useful (and I figure it's not hard to then see what the bonus tracks are, even if they're listed in Japanese only) -- but, for now at least, the info doesn't appear to be out there yet (not even in Japanese). There are plenty of translators online, or the characters will probably just match the regular titles (if they are just alternates, which I'm sure they probably are).

Do you mean Chris Richards' piece? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/08/11/all-what-jazz-or-how-to-declare-something-dead-without-listening-to-it/ THAT'S the one. Been a crazy week -- my wife's in-laws have been in town, and it's been crazy at work too -- so I only heard her read it to me Monday night (while I was making dinner), and I haven't had the chance to go back and look for it. There were also several letters-to-the-editor in the last day or three (or at least that's when my wife mentioned them to me, and read a few choice quotes). Good to see some great rebuttals in print in regards to some of this nonsense.

Can't wait! Some more raw/energetic/sloppy delight with Woody Shaw is the Andrew Hill session with Sam Rivers from disc #3 of the Hill BN Select. And lord knows there are spots in some of Larry Young's latter BN leader-dates that were kinda rough, but spectacular for their energy ("Contrasts" especially). Between a greatly expanded "Unity", and also "Out To Lunch" -- some of this is turning into a real and surprising wealth of new and important material.

This (above) is post #689 (which I was directed to above) -- and nothing I'm seeing about Unity, let alone the Unity bonus material. Searching within this thread on "Unity" didn't turn up anything specific either (that I could see/find). Nothing in the 2001 edition of the Cuscuna-Ruppli book either (which I do own). Nor half-a-dozen Google searches for the last 15 minutes. Any specifics that someone could point me too would be greatly appreciated, re: the specific bonus tracks to be included on this new, expanded reissue of Unity. Many thanks!!

Do we know yet what the Unity bonus tracks are specifically? I looked on the CDJapan website, found the Unity+4 listing, but could not find any specific track listing. Many thanks in advance!

Fantastic rebuttal piece in the Washington Post this week, Monday's Style section (maybe). Will try and post a link later when I have the chance (and when I'm not on my phone).

Hot damn on more Unity alternates!!!

I enjoyed his serious roles best of all. I think Moscow On The Hudson might be my very favorite, and it my mother's favorite Wiliams film as well. RIP.

My Dad lives in the St. Louis area; perhaps I could buy some (enough to make it worth the hassle), and arrange for him to come get them, or get them from you at some convenient meeting place that he can get to (he's 86, but still drives all over, and is in the best of health, thankfully).

Thank you. That was also a big part of my beef; you don't (or shouldn't) fuck with old people like that.

Jack D might be my all-time favorite Miles drummer (even over Tony). Maybe. Or if not, it's a damn close race. I mean, I *LOVE* Tony's playing with Miles (absolutely love it) -- but Jack just knocks me over on a deeper, maybe more 'emotional' level (mileage may vary). Jack's playing with Joe Henderson in the early 70's is another favorite... Power to the People (1969)Black Is the Color (1973)Multiple (1973) Also with Joe Henderson... With Miroslav Vitous Infinite Search (1969)

And that's the worst part, craw. Sonny said the exact same thing. See, I don't understand your whole online only rebuttal. I'd be willing to bet the majority of New Yorker readers ONLY read the magazine online. That's the way all publications, and their readership, have gone. So you'd cancel your subscription if it were printed on paper, but it's OK if it's only online? Can you explain that line of reasoning? I encounter lots of crap on-line (and have come to expect it). In fact, probably a majority of stuff on-line is throw-away (though, come to think of it, print too - if one considers the wider world of everything that's actually published on paper, even these days). My initial reaction was based on the notion that this actually got into print specifically in the print-version of the New Yorker (where, I think, the bar is and should be a lot higher). I'm not a regular reader, but I've come to expect at least a certain level of quality with any monthly print publication of that sort. Sure, the bar should be higher for online-only material too -- but it clearly isn't, so that's a battle not even worth considering. (Then again, my expectations of print media are probably out of sync with reality, as I find even print copies of Time magazine to be a pale comparison with what they were as little as 10 and 20 years ago -- so what do I know.)

Me too. I'm not so focused on sound-quality issues, but this new issue was a big improvement. And the bonus material was an amazing surprise, and well worth the upgrade (for the new material alone).

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.