Rooster_Ties

It's my understanding that upload times to YouTube (or any data of the size of these clips) -- even with highspeed access -- can take an hour or more (even, sometimes, much more - or so I've heard). Not saying that's the motivation or all the editing of clips, but it could be.

Man, now that's hip.

Seems like I had a disc of his made up mostly of Hendrix tunes. as I recall.

Yeah, but I think they're entertaining in their own perverse sort of way.

Only time will tell. I've added the auction to my watch list, and we'll all find out in about a week.

I agree strongly with this statement, and immediately notice some parallels in the visual art world -- specifically with arguments over the value of visual art being intrinsically tied to the idea that it has to be representational of something tangible -- something recognizable -- something "reality-based". There's that old canard* that the only kind of good (visual) art is that somehow represents the physical world, a.k.a. "reality". But clearly, art -- including beautiful and entirely "successful" art (whatever that means) -- can present visuals with no basis in reality, or even complete and total abstraction (though I'd argue that one can find examples in reality that mirror aspects of almost any non-representational visual art, including totally abstract art). So too with musical/auditory "art". Many (including me) have argued that music does NOT have to strongly "represent" (or resemble) existing forms and/or sounds, in order to be interesting, "valid", or good. But the degree to which it ("sound" and "time") is organized/filled with interesting sound events -- particularly where there are discernable patterns or pure expression through the sound(s) it/them-selves -- should determine the value of the music in question. Not the degree to which it "represents" sound in a manner that is comfortable and "recognizable". I'd better quit while I'm ahead (or before I get in any deeper than I can tread!!). One last thing, though... with this discussion, I'm immediately reminded of one of my favorite musical quotes... "Beauty in music is too often confused with something that lets the ear lie back in an easy chair." -- Charles Ives *had to look it up myself, before I was sure I'd used it right.

NO RESERVE

If I might ask, what was the other photo MC came up with? Was it published in the print edition of the article? The on-line version of the article only has this one pic...

Gonna listen to this again tonight...

Seriously.

Seriously.

I may never recover from having seen that clip. Thanks a bunch.

Any comments on this album from anyone? ← It's growing on me. It's the first NIN nails I have ever bought. There's nothing outrageously new or different, but it seems pretty solid overall. Ditto, on all counts (including the fact that this is my first NIN purchase too). Have had the disc for a couple months, and it's grown on me. Mrs. Rooster digs it too (as much or more than I do, actually).

What if something else good comes out later in the decade, and I've already shot my wad on this one?? I think I'd better wait until it gets a lot closer to 1-JAN-2010 before taking the plunge. (And if something else gets the nod, there's always next decade.)

Prediction: Half of it will be brilliant, and the other half will be just pain weird. And everyone will agree that this is the case, but people will get into arguments over which tunes fall in which camp.

WTF??? What's the logic in that?? Only four tunes by the same artist per every three-hours of programming. And that's only if that artist is "featured" and still, no more than four tunes per three hours??? Seriously, what the hell is the logic in that?? No more Miles Davis retrospectives?? (You said not on Columbia.) Can they really have requirements/limitations like that?? That's crazy!! (again, WTF????)

who cares?

Couple other recent purchases. The first one primarily for me... Billy Corgan - "The Future Embrace" and the second one, more for my wife... Michael Hutchence - "Michael Hutchence" I'm liking the Hutchence more than I expected to, and the Corgan is sweet!!

Just reviewing this thread, and completely missed this the first time around. I never bought the album, but "Had a Dream" was one of my favorite singles of that year. It came out right around the same time that Supertramp put out an album without Hodgson, and the single from THAT album, "Cannonball," sounded a lot like "Had a Dream," complete with extended piano coda. I finally pulled the trigger on a used copy of this Hodgson disc, which came in the mail today. "Had a Dream (Sleeping With the Enemy)" is still totally da bomb ( ), and I had forgotten about the tune "In Jeopardy" - which is primo too. Will make a good disc to listen to in the car on some upcoming roadtrips with me and Mrs. Rooster.

What was the seller's feedback score? And did they take Paypal?

I agree. Not as much of a fan of albums that come from different sessions with radically different personel from date to date. Kept my old McMaster of "No Room For Squares" just for that reason - to have that entire session with Andrew Hill all in one place.

Ditto.

I've probably got about 15 or 20 sets, give or take. (They're all of Blue Note material, save for my Woody Shaw and Gerald Wilson sets.) In most cases, buying from Mosaic was the only way to get much or most of the material (at least at the time). And in most cases, the material was of greater interest to me than other puchasing options available at the time. That, and the fact that their availability is ultimately limited -- you snooze, you loose. Can't imagine what I would have done all these years if I hadn't gotten me my Andrew Hill set, though the material in it didn't make much sense to me at first - for at least 2 or 3 years. I had bought it primarily on the strength of the names of the sidemen, and my interest in them. (I knew "Point of Departure" was probably great, but I hadn't ever really connected with it on a personal level.) It's not an "either/or" thing. I buy what I want, and sometimes that's Mosaic sets. And I do tend to buy things I'm interested in that I know will go out of print soon, over other choices that I think will be in print for years and years and years. Buy it now -- or cry about it later.