Rooster_Ties

New request for a couple hours help unloading a moving truck, on 1/28 -- anybody available??

Does it have any bonus tracks?

There's also this Naxos CD, though I'm not certain if it's the same trio or not... Schifrin/Schuller/Shapiro: Piano Trios I think most Naxos CD's can be streamed through their own website too.

Very few of the images were showing up for me last night. All I saw was the phrase "posted image" where about 75% of the pics should have been. Lots more (but not all) are visible (to me) this morning. Kinda weird.

I was wondering about that John/Johnny Williams thing. I'd never heard that before (that the film composer had started as a jazz pianist). Somebody needs to set Mosaic straight about this. If it's true that Johnny Williams isn't THE John Williams, that's just embarrassing. Surely the liner-notes for the set itself don't/won't reflect this, do they?? Seriously, can somebody more in the know contact Mosaic about this??

From the "sexy" album covers thread.

Yeah, that seems to ring a bell with me too, as to what I've heard in the past. The lack of such discussion around such places as the Steve Hoffman board would also, anecdotally, tend to support this as well.

Why would the writer call MJQ one of the most controversial groups of its time? 'Its time' spanned 30 years, and I wouldn't call the music controversial.. As far as fading, before the end of the record store era [i.e. the closing of Tower and Virgin] MJQ titles were always quite well-represented in the stacks. Perhaps I misread the Mosaic write-up.. I'm assuming that's a marketing department dog-whistle for folks like me who might otherwise assume the MJQ is just some sleepy outfit who only played "nice and pretty music that was easy on the ears". (In other words, I read that "controversial" with positive connotations!) Note: I never had quite that impression of the MJQ (or at least not for long), but I am aware that it is out there. They did something similar with the initial marketing of the Denny Zeitlin Select (and it worked, cuz I bought one!). The on-line description of the Zeitlin currently on the Mosaic site doesn't reflect this, but I'm just sure I read something (from Mosaic) that piqued my curiosity, and I could swear it was along these same lines.

"Now" is an amazing date. I think the vocals are definitely off-putting in a couple spots (where McDaniels yodels like a damn screaming banshee for a good minute or more - yes, 'yodels' is the word), but otherwise his contributions are indeed a FINE and unexpected ingredient to one hell of a fine album. The symphonic bonus tracks are nice too, kind of a more 'square' version of some otherwise completely 'unsquare' material. In some ways, "Now" might be one of my all-time favorite Bobby Hutcherson leader dates -- certainly co-equal to one or two others (I'd have to give that some thought as to which ones). "Now" is like nothing else in the entire BN catalog. Great writing and arranging on the date too. Really unique to the cannon.

Have been meaning to get Saxophone Masters for some time, and been eying this one too... Up to the Minute Blues (Disc-Union/DIW) Anybody know it? -- according to the AMG it has 40(!) more minutes of material from the very same session(s) as Saxophone Masters. (Of the 6 tunes, the first and last are from another (unrelated) session -- but the 4 tunes in the middle are from the Sax Masters session(s).) Of particular interest to me is them doing Joe's tune "Afro Centric", the 2nd track off "Power to the People" (1969) -- a tune I not aware of ever having been covered before (at least according to the AMG). That Joe's actually ON the tune too, is all the better. I really should move on getting these sometime, have wanted both for ages.

As Chuck would simply say... They were cheap to do, that's all.

The cover with the chick is the original Reid Miles cover. Covers for it, and 8 other sessions were prepared for release, but never actually got released back in the day. The original production materials were lost, but some pre-production materials were found -- which only had b&w versions of what the covers would have looked like. The EMI art department folks took it from there, colorizing them to what we know today. It's all in this thread, though no one post covers it succinctly. If you only read Chuck's posts there, and the things he quotes from others -- that's probably everything.

Yes, let me echo that.

The LT covers don't bother me either (I actually like a number of them). I'm just not used to seeing a bunch of them all together at the same time in one place. Not sure what prepares one for that.

My god, I can't remember the last time I saw so many LT covers in one place.

No idea, but it was one of the 9 titles that didn't come out with their genuine 'Reid Miles' covers until the mid-80's, though that may be a red herring entirely. More on that discussion HERE, perhaps a clue to be found there (though none I can see). Alas, most of the hotlinked images don't work any more, so the thread doesn't make as much sense now (nor as enjoyable to read).

Well, it's the sharpest of the standardized options. Custom work will always develop something even more lethal.

I never thought the use in the song was ONLY literal (homo), but NOR did I ever think the use was ONLY metaphoric (sissy). It's always been open to question (and it could always be some of both). Which, as Jim said, has to do with the dual-nature of term. I mean, growing up, the way the word was tossed around, it's not like bullies cared which. Don't fit perfectly into their definition of "tough"? - you're a homo (a term I haven't thought of in years). Or actually attracted to other guys? - you're a homo. They didn't care, it works great either way!!. The perfect all-purpose slur. 'Faggot' was the sharpest of the various spears that could be thrown at non-"Alpha Male" boys/teens, from the 'sissy/homo/fag' arsenal. It's a pretty ugly word, frankly. It's surprising a song with it in the lyrics (not once, but THREE times! -- that's especially where I cry "bad poetry!!) ever was a big hit at all, let alone number #1. Catchy damn thing it is, though. We probably agree on this point. Keeping words off the radio isn't going to change anyone who needs changing. But I think there are generational implications, though, in terms of defining what society -"officially"- -"broadcasts"- as being acceptable. (Meant both of those words metaphorically there, but ironically, this is all about what 'officials' allow to be actually 'broadcast'.) In terms of real change in any particular CURRENT generation, you're 100% right Jim. Some kinds of progress only happens through generational change, and I think the overall notion of "policing the airwaves" is driven at that aim. The irony in all this, of course, is that really NONE of this matters any more -- cuz kids don't listen to shit on the radio any more (and never will again), and the horse done left the barn on any "broadcast media" having much influence on an entire generation -- so my arguments here are clearly rhetorical at best, in any real sense.

Reddit's great. Great as a lurker or a poster, and you ought to at least create a user-login, if for no other reason then you can subscribe to only the specific sub-reddits you want to. If you want the Reddit YOU see to only be stories about Economics, International Politics, and Antique Typewriters -- you can do that. You can also make it all and ONLY about Online Videogames, Slacker Recipes, and MILF Porn -- you can do that to. Or ONLY job hunting advice, cute pictures of animals, and Battlestar Galactica (just those three, and nothing else). Reddit is EXACTLY and ONLY the content and related discussion threads you want it to give you. It's a brilliant interface, whether you actually post or just lurk. But the real filtering power doesn't even present itself until you create a user-login (which takes only 3.8 seconds, and requires you to share absolutely NO personal information -- not even your e-mail address, if you don't want to.) Plus, the threaded commenting that dynamically sorts all comments based on voting by the entire community (one user, one vote), is amazing. It's good as a lurker, but great if you can tweak it to only the stuff you like.

Because , in the context of the original song, it is not clearly/specifically a slur against sexual orientation. Even then, the word, onlike other gay-specific slurs, had connotations of character that were not accustory of sexual orientation. Just like "act like a man" or "don't be a sissy" refer to quality of character, not sexual orientation, so does - and has - "faggot". It gets blurry with the latter, though, because it is also a word that does have orientation-specific slurdom attached to it. But given the context - a song about some blue-collar know-nothings who would, if given the chance, trade places with that "faggot" who got the airplane, the money, and the hot chicks (when was Prince NOT surrounded by hot chicks?, and besides how is a guy with hot chicks a faggot in the homosexual sense?), it's pretty clear to me that there's no "message of hate" in the song, and that the word is being used in an "artful" sense. And truthfully, I've always thought that the word in that song was used to mock those who were speaking it. I think I agree with almost every bit of that, Jim (and thank you for that). But I would give more credence to your own argument that the word does have an "orientatio-specific slurdom attached to it". That's really what I was trying to get at. Your expert argument about the meaning of the song (which, frankly, I never saw as anything more than a song about some guys bitching about fags on MTV), has probably walked me back from the precipice -- but please do consider that words do have meaning - often a meaning FAR removed from the context in which they're in (even while still in that very context). And that pertains specifically to this whole "broadcast the word, or not" question.

I'm not proposing a ban on anything, no book, no song. Market place of ideas, baby! I *am* in favor of the Canadian FCC banning the use of that word (on the radio), which is essentially what they've done -- which allows the song to be played if the offending word is fuzzled out (or dropped, if the multi-tracks are still available), or play the single edit (lots of solutions there, take your pick). Now, without really tying to, I have also explored what I do think about the song, more than I had ever intended or expected (and frankly I wasn't sure what I thought going into this). Now those explorations have taken some interesting turns here, haven't they. Those HAVEN'T been to suggest that ANYTHING be banned or rewritten.

Probably not, though as a theoretical point, I think it's a useful idea to think about. I get that 'faggot' doesn't have the same sting (or history) as 'nigger' -- but I don't accept that there aren't people for whom 'faggot' is also VERY offensive, and that it's also just not acceptable in normal societal parlance (as a slur, which the term IS used a slur in the song, how is that not relevant?) I think to say otherwise, is to suggest that 'those people' who are worried about it, just need to "man up". Attitudes like that, after all, are the source of the problem in the first place. Seriously, the term is used AS A SLUR in the original song (by the character in that verse). How does this get a pass (in terms of broadcasting the term), and similar uses of other slurs are different (deemed not acceptable). I do not see the difference. Plus "faggot" has been banned in SEVERAL other instances cited in the original ruling, so why shouldn't it apply here?

I get that, and agree. Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock have also said the similar things about not all African Americans being... ...but it's impossible to have public broadcast standards that pay any attention to any of this in any meaningful way. The term 'gay' has been successfully re-appropriated, as the concept of homosexuality has become more acceptable in general society. I don't see 'faggot' ever going the same route. It's got too much spite in it. It seems to me to be too much like nigger, or cunt, or the very 'ethnicity-specific' ones of which there are dozens. If somebody re-records the song today with nigger in place of faggot, should radio stations across the country be able to play it?? Truth be told, 10-15 years ago with the content of MTV then, it's TOTALLY plausible that somebody could have re-recorded "Money For Nothing" with those EXACT lyrics. (Well, maybe not "politically" plausible, but I think you see my point). There's people all across this land who felt that was EXACTLY what MTV was 10-15 years ago. Many of them were those same characters in the song.

Serious question. Should this be allowed to air on public radio today? Yes, or no.

I get that. What I'm saying is, where's the (supposedly) mitigating part of the plot that makes the broadcast of that term acceptable here?? -- where it's CLEARLY not acceptable in numerous other settled cases (as cited in the ruling). On album, I'm fine with it. It's a good song, but with bad poetry as far as I'm concerned (and I mean that). I hear (and have heard) the argument that it's not in the singer's own voice (so nobody's really accusing Mark Knopfler, and neither am I). I've not criticized Knopfler or the song itself particularly (as a song). My bringing up the lyrics before only was to ask where the justification was in allowing the slur to stand for broadcast. The song itself is decent, catchy, I like the descant Sting sings at the beginning and especially over the end on top of the chorus (anytime I can get some decent counter-melody from a pop tune, I'm there! - you dig?) But it's a pretty flimsy argument if all it takes to make the use of a gay slur acceptable (for broadcast), is that the slur isn't in the 'voice' of the singer, but rather one of the characters in the song. If that were the case, then why don't we hear N----R every day on Rap Radio today?.