Rooster_Ties

...Jim

Thanks...

Not to sidetrack things, but I'd kill to hear an Organissimo tribute album to Larry Young, particularly doing Larry's BN material. Lots of interesting tunes, and several from his last four albums that NOBODY ever covers. Not every tune, but there's two or three real gems on every Larry Young disc (just looking at them from a "tune" standpoint). OK, I'd better say something to get this back on track. Still listening to the album (I'm up to track #4 now), and I still think Sam's really got this thing nailed. Any more 'out', and the date would have been tougher to keep together. Any less 'out', and it would have been much less interesting. For years I had the TOCJ issue of this, and didn't know the alternate of Ritha (with Sam, vs. the version they used on the LP, with just the trio). Sure glad that was on there -- since we get to hear Sam on so few organ dates. Is this the only one?? (Certainly the only one in the 60's, I'm betting.)

Good one!!!

They don't exactly bother me, but I do understand what you're saying a bit, akanalog. When an album has a sort of schizophrenic feel to it, sometimes it hangs together less well, as an album. Though this is entirely dependent on the album in question. For instance, I think Booker Ervin's "The In Between" does a little too much of the "outside tune" / "inside tune" switch-off, every other tune. But there are plenty of other albums where I think it works -- as long as the overall nature of the material seems to still tell a story. (Meaning the album has a sort of musical "story arc" as it were.) I think there's probably a fine art to sequencing albums, and having them really hang together as a cohesive unit. Some albums are just a collection of tunes, and some are really something quite more than that. And what that difference is, is hard to pin down, in a concrete way. I’d be interested in hearing other thoughts about this, particularly from Jim Sangry. But also especially from others here who have sequenced albums. Chuck?? Allan?? Jim (b3-er)?? Plenty of others here too, step right up!!

OK, I've got the date on now, and maybe everything I just wrote (above) is all bullshit. Cuz Sam's mostly goin' for broke. Not as much as he was totally capable of, but he's not exactly holding back either. (At least based on his first solo on "Tyrone".)

I think Sam holds back a bit too. But then what kind of session would it have been if he had really gone for broke?? I'll have to give this one a spin again soon. My guess is that by keeping things a little more "inside", Sam probably helped the date gel better (maybe even a lot better) - given the more straight-ahead nature of the date (what with Grant Green on board). Still, a tiny part of me wishes maybe he'd gone the other route -- even if the date wasn't as successful or cohesive as a result. Imagine what an incredible (or maybe incredibly interesting!!!) date this might have been, if it had been too "outside" to be released at the time -- and only snuck out of the vaults a couple decades later, warts and all. ( A little like the two recently "previously-unreleased" Andrew Hill dates that Sam plays on, from 1967. Or maybe even more like the two John Patton dates that Harold Alexander plays on!!! - "Understanding" and "Boogaloo". ) Don't get me wrong, the date's wonderful just as it is. I'm just playing "imagine if..." again.

Whaddya mean the boards aren't rivals??? THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!!!!

"Wally" versions???

For the record, my post above was just my reposting of a cover of the set from another thread around here. (I'm not takin' the credit for it. ) That Nabors / Jackson Five thing is da bomb!!

Hasn't Mosaic said that this material is scheduled for a future Mosaic Select box? I could have sworn someone posted this recently. Kevin I thought I'd only read that Mosaic was interested in the idea, but that since Harold Land's MAINSTREAM material was off-limits --- that without those MAINSTREAM sessions, the project was (much?) less likely. Or maybe, and this memory is pretty foggy, was there some sort of other Hutcherson 70's SELECT line-up that was talked about (with info from Mosaic???), that was kind of a scatter-shot representation of some of Bobby's 70's material?? Could have just been a suggestion from somebody on the board, though. I'm not at all familiar with the HEAD ON material. What do others here think of it?? Sangry?? Kevin?? Anybody else??

I'm a bit ambivalent about all this, because I see this whole thing in shades of gray, on all sides. Though maybe my judgment is clouded a bit by the fact that I still haven't yet seen the original anti-Semitic incident (update: king ubu has sent me a PM with the link). But enough people were offended (people with opinions I respect around here), that I don't have a lot of doubt about the criticisms of Che's specific anti-Semitic opinion in that one thread. From my own personal observations, I find Che to be a perplexing character. He often contributes in fairly productive ways (or benign, at worst) -- though he is a little heavy-handed with the multiple postings in rapid succession within the same thread. But then at other times, he does seem to really want to stir the pot around here -- something that has definitely bothered me too, as I think it has many of us. Che is still relatively new here, and he sometimes appears to have a strong agenda of some sort. Or, at the very least, he has had LOTS of strong ideas about how this board "should be" vs. how it "has become" --- which ordinarily wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact he hasn't really been here for all that long. Che, you've demonstrated some ability to be a productive member of this board, and probably a majority of your posts support this. (And I genuinely appreciate some of your contributions to the board, particularly those that are jazz-related.) But, IMHO, there have also been a good handful of incidents where I and some others think you've been a serious troublemaker. My advice would be to chill out, and avoid the urge to act like a bull in a china shop. That kind of occasional behavior is maybe better tolerated from old-timers (who are more easily given the benefit of the doubt), but is otherwise rightly looked at with much suspicion when it comes from a relative newbie. A double-standard, perhaps. But in cyberspace, all one has to go on is the past experience of interacting with someone -- and absent that track record, the bar is set higher (by default). And cut the crap with the anti-Semitic stuff (which I assuming did happen, at least to some degree). And tt wouldn't hurt to attempt some statement of reconciliation about the matter. Maybe the reaction to your statements was somewhat out of line, but maybe your original statements were out of line too – something to think about. And until you demonstrate at least some measure of contrition about the incident, it will probably haunt you on this board from now until doomsday. (That's meant to be some friendly advice, and I'm not specifically taking sides at this point, because I still haven't seen the original discussion that fuels this negative opinion of you. But I can't help but think that where there's smoke, there's usually fire.) ===== Couw, I agree with most of the content of your post (up above) that was highly critical of Che, though maybe not to quite the same degree. I do disagree with the tone of your post, which I don't feel is being helpful to the situation. Then again, I never have (yet) seen the anti-Semitic stuff from Che, so I suspect that's probably driving a lot of this. And depending on that content, you might well be acting absolutely appropriately. And everybody, let's all chill out about things, and figure out how to get past this without another pseudo board-implosion like last week (or was that the week before?). That was some of the craziest shit I've ever seen on any board, and how we allowed ourselves to go there - I'll never understand. Lets all be civil, and not fuel the fire. Thanks!!

Saw this news on fark.com earlier today. I'd only caught Hedberg a time or two on Comedy Central, but immediately took a great liking to him. In fact, he and Louis Black are/were probably the only two comics I would have ever made a point to see live, if they ever swang/swung through Kansas City. Never did catch Hedberg live (missed him when he was hear last year, and never knew if he was here before that, cuz I never really knew his name -- he was just "that guy" I liked on Comedy Central). 37 is way to fuckin' young to check out. R.I.P.

Don't forget the other thread I started, where the real discussion of the music be happenin'. Anybody mind if I ask Jim to lock this thread?? (meaning this "speculation" thread)

Got a little mad money from a recent trade on the board, and was revisiting old threads as I considered what to spend it on. Also loved this particular discussion, and though I'd pop this topic up again for some more .

When God's looking for a new Pope (gonna hafta happen sooner or later), I sure hope he considers this guy. Links: Interview (part 1) / Interview (part 2) <-- with more specifically about the good Father / source

I like "Dis is da Drum" quite a bit. (Warning to Chuck: I'm about to qualify my remarks ). I do really like it, but I also think the disc runs out of steam a bit, the farther one gets into it. For instance, I'm betting as much as I've listened to the disc, probably 1/3rd of the times I've put it on, I'll stop it about half-way through, in order to put something else on. But the first two or three or four tunes are really great, Wallace Roney's contributions in particular. (I'd have to give it a spin to talk specifically about where I think things get off track --- haven't listened to it in 4-6 months.)

Does that mean I could get up to 7 people banned??? Hmmm.... Let me see...

Jeff, I really think you're one of the most valuable posters on this board. Whether I agree with you or not, you always make sense. Post as much as you like, about anything you like -- and if other people don't like it, well -- that's their problem.

A Living Will is important, BUT, please be aware that it is even MORE important that your next-of-kin (or whomever has your medical-power-of-attorney), that they be 100% sure of your wishes, and that they're prepared to carry them out too. When my mother had a massive stroke early last year, my father and I thought her Living Will would make it clear to the doctors what her wishes were, and how to take action (or not take action). My father took a copy of her Living Will to the hospital, and gave it to the doctor in charge of her case. And yet, for the several days that followed, my father and I were -- time and time again -- asked about her wishes, and we were asked to make life and death medical decisions for her. After the first two days, my father literally stopped going to the hospital, because at that point she was basically brain-dead, so it was just time to let nature take its course. My wife and I insisted on going every day (with or without my Dad), not because I felt any need to "be there" with my mother. But to have the daily conversation with her doctor, where we had to repeatedly make it clear what actions we did (and didn't) want to take place on her behalf. A Living Will is important, but it is equally important that the person (or persons) making your medical decisions, that they follow the directives in your Living Will. Because what they say takes 100% precedent over the Living Will. If my father and I had said, "keep her alive, no matter what", then that's what the doctors would have done -- Living Will be damned. (We even asked about this (as a hypothetical), to get further clarification as to how the process worked.) I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't get Living Wills. But they better damn well be sure they're family knows what to do when the time comes, and it would be helpful to discuss specifics with them (discuss various hypothetical situations with them), so they’re really clear about what you would want, and not want. And also so they don't have to mix up their own emotions in the decision-making process. I've told my wife (and her parents), that if something catastrophic happens to me, by all means – please pull the plug on me (and don't agonize about doing it, either). My mother was that clear about her own wishes, and as a result, it wasn't difficult at all for my father and I to tell the doctors to unplug the machines. Yes, get a Living Will. But also talk to your family about your wishes, and do it once ever 10 years or so (at a minimum). It's important that they know very clearly what it is that you would want, and it's better to have had that conversation once every decade or so (just to reinforce things), than to leave things to conversations that were maybe 20 or 30 years ago.

Quick update. Been a busy, crazy week. I've got 15+ sets of discs burned, and several more left to go (it takes my machine about 40 minutes to burn each set of 4 discs, about 10 minutes a disc), and the 15 are ready to go in the mail ASAP. I've received perhaps another dozen sign-up requests since the first of the week, and have yet to update the master list. Will do so quickly, but am trying to get things mailed as my first priority. Will update things, including the full list of participants, and updated distribution lists for the U.S., by the end of the day tomorrow. I have generally not replied to individual PM requests for my BFT, in the interest of not clogging up my PM box (which is always about 90% full). But rest assured, if you sent a PM, you will be on the list (and the list will fully reflect this for the latest dozen of you, ASAP).

What do you need? A check? How much? Enough to pay for the first batch of CD's, of the next Organissimo release.