Rooster_Ties

Couldn't agree more. The original version of Tommy, while it certainly does have it's charms, seems like "demo"-quality material to me, often. I even prefer the live version of Tommy from the '89 tour, which I know from the "Join Together" double-CD release. I know "Join Together" gets panned often, and the 2nd disc is kinda hit-n-miss for me, generally. But there's something about that original version of Tommy (the one in the studio), that never seems finished to me. AND, I should go on record as saying that it isn't that I've got anything against demos, per se. I love quite a bit of the material Pete's released on the various "Scoop" releases, which are all demos. I don't know, then, quite what it is then about the studio "Tommy" that just seems kinda 'limp' to me. Hate to admit this, but I've never heard the other live version(s?) of Tommy, which I do know exist, and I think even one or two have been released legally, correct? (Isn't there one from about '71 that's out as a legit release??) I like The Who and Townsend's solo work a fair bit each, but they just haven't been much of a $pending priority for me for several years.

Yes, this is the CD I have - same cover and everything. Sound quality is reasonably "OK" (though NOT great by any standard), though I recall the piano being the most difficult to hear. The horns are pretty clear, and that's what's most important (at least to me).

I have the "America" one on CD, as an French import if I remember right (not sure where the disc is presently, I'll dig for it - and see if I can find it). I found mine used about 8 or 10 months ago (in St. Louis), and I've seen it at least once on eBay - maybe about 4 or 5 months ago. I don't check for rare Ornette on eBay all that often, so I have no idea how frequently it appears there. But the one I did see on eBay went for chump change, like $7 or $8, plus postage -- if I remember right Keep your eyes out -- it's out there.

Sun Ra: Solo Piano, Vol. 1 - (IAI, 1977): 2-stars IMHO, it's quite a bit better than the measly 2-stars they give it. I'm not saying it's a 5-star album, but I'd probably at least give it 3 or even 3 and 1/2 stars. And then they give it's companion volume 4-stars (from a different reviewer). Sun Ra: St. Louis Blues (Solo Piano, Vol. 2) - (IAI, 1977): 4-stars

I hear some Wayne in Ravi, but I also hear quite a bit of Joe in there too. Ravi also covered Joe's “Inner Urge” (on his first album: "Moving Pictures") - although I realize that doesn't necessarily prove anything. In any case, the point is clear that Ravi has certainly taken influences from a number of other players besides his father. Gary Thomas is another guy I think has some serious Joe Henderson influence (at least in terms of tone, but also some in terms of playing too), who I think is a very underrated player. Though he isn’t always as consistently good as I’d like, sometimes I think Thomas is a monster!! And another odd name to mention here is Don Byron, who mentioned Joe as an influence when I heard a pre-concert lecture with Byron about 2 years ago. He was specifically asked about his influences, and the first non-"clarinet-player" name to come out of his mouth was Joe. I can't hear it, personally, but that's what Byron said - for what it's worth.

Yes, major congrats!!!

Thanks AB!!!! Never heard of David Sylvian before, but I'll keep my eyes out for some. Always good to see you posting on the board.

My wife and I both were in high-school in the 80's (me graduating in '87, and her in '86), so there's an automatic fondness for more "New Wave" pop-music in our household, than I probably care to admit to. Going back now, and looking for bands and albums I missed the first time - I just stumbled on the british band "Japan" for the first time today. Where should I start?? The AMG would seem to indicate any of these three... 1979 - "Quiet Life" (Caroline) 1980 - "Gentlemen Take Polaroids" (Blue Plate) 1981 - "Tin Drum" (Blue Plate) Are there any good compliations available?? ("Greatest Hits" packages?? - or maybe a good 2CD set with deeper album cuts too??) There are several comps listed in the AMG, but it's a little hard to tell what's what. ( And searching for music by a band called "Japan" is like next to impossible to do on eBay, let me tell you. There are like 4-million hits on the search key "Japan", even when just used in the 'title', and not the 'description'. )

Go to http://www.barnesandnoble.com, and do a search on "Roland Kirk Domino". Or click HERE (AMG Entry), and then click on this box within the review...

Go HERE, and click on the sample (RealPlayer) of the very last tune (track 25), called "Time Races With Emit". The sample is the entire tune (only 22-seconds long), as it was originally recorded. Programmed on the disc after a lilting ballad (the Koehler-Arlen tune "When the Sun Comes Out"), "Time Races With Emit" smacked me upside the head like nothing I've probably heard since I heard Larry Young's "Mother Ship" for the first time, sometime in early 2002. Yeow!!!!

Dewey's more "inside" playing is some of the best tenor playing I've yet encountered - right up there with my favorites like Joe Henderson and Wayne Shorter. Not to say that his more "outside" stuff is anything to sneeze at --- it's just that I think Dewey's "inside" playing is WAY underappreciated. Same thing with Sam Rivers, though there's less "inside" Sam Rivers on record, it seems.

I won't argue for my own choice until like a dozen or more votes come in, but I'm curious to hear what other people here think about this topic. In effect, I'm asking who is the father of "modern tenor playing", in terms of influence on the younger players of today.

By the way, I really appreciate Joe Henderson's name even being included in this poll. I realize he's not going to be a big vote-getter, and I couldn't even vote for him (nor has anyone else), but I do absolutely consider him to be in the same ball-park with all the great tenor players. He may not be the "objective best" tenor-player ever, but I suspect he will always be my personal favorite tenor player.

Actually, personally I think that review of "Smokestack" is really pretty much the same way I would review it -- and you all know I'm a HUGE fan of Andrew Hill. I've never gotten into "Smokestack" as deeply as many of his other albums. I don't think it's a bad album, but there's something about it that has always been difficult for me to really wrap my ears around.

Then I think it might be fair to say we agree more than we disagree (you and I, DrJ), at least on the important part of this issue - which (I think) is the part about reaching out to a racial group different than one's own. I think the "getting paid $5 to go to church" thing is just a publicity stunt (and a pretty creative one at that), and the fact that they might actually pay a few people here and there, is really far less important than the gesture being made in the name of fostering more interaction between people of different races. Actually, it was just that -- the "reaching across the racial divide" thing -- that made me start this thread in the first place. Yeah, $5 to go to church (but only if you're white) is really weird, and probably 'wrong' on a number of levels. But since the offer is only for one month only, and the monetary amounts are relatively small - I can overlook much of the 'weirdness' of the 'getting paid' part. Would this whole thing be any easier to take, if the Bishop had offered to donate the same amounts of money to a charity of the white person's choosing??? This would remove the "direct payment for going to church" aspect of the offer, and still be a gesture that might say something similar (about "welcome"-ness) to the target audience the Bishop is trying to reach?? Then again, if the Bishop had done this (the "donation to a charity" suggestion I just made), then would it have gotten nearly the press coverage it's gotten?? And would we even be talking about it now?? For that reason, I think the "publicity stunt" aspect of the gesture -- the outrageous notion of paying anyone to go to church -- is nearly justified.

I think I've bitched about this one before, back on the BNBB... But Greg Osby's "Symbols of Light (A Solution)" only get 2-stars, whereas I think it's easily one of the most amazing jazz albums of the last 20 years. Obviously the reviewer didn't have any "fun" listening to this album, but I certainly do. I still hear new things in "Symbols..." every time I put it on. I should mention, however, that a couple of Osby's very earliest albums only get 1-star each. Still, "Symbols..." is way better than a 2-star album.

And if the thread doesn't turn up, might I suggest... http://www.hookedonphonics.com

Actually, just after I started the thread - I also looked at Patton's AMG entry too, and they only give 2 stars to Patton's "Understanding" - which is totally whack!!!!! Hell, "Underststanding" and "Boogaloo" (both from 1968) are my all-time-favorite John Patton albums. Harold Alexander (who's on both of those albums) is da bomb!!! B) B)

What does it sound like??

Jazz, Rock, Pop - pick any genre. Go to the AMG, and sift through several of your favorite artist's/band's bios, and take note of which album(s) of theirs get the very fewest number of 'stars' of any in their entire output. Presumably that would mean that the AMG considers that album (or those albums) to be that artist's/band's "WORST", out of their entire recorded output. (And let's stick with actual "albums", and not mess with compilations ("Greatest Hits" and such) ---- although 'live' albums do still count.) Anything stand out to you as just being plain "wrong"??? - in your own opinion, of course. Or are there any that you really like, even though it appears nobody else does??? I'm sure there are many. Here's one of mine... R.E.M. - Monster (1994) The AMG only gives it a measly 2 stars, the least of any R.E.M. album. And yet, "Monster" really is my all-time favorite R.E.M. album. Do I think "Monster" is R.E.M.'s very 'best' album?? - well, probably not. But "Monster" really is my favorite (and to various degrees, I really like most of R.E.M.'s output). "Monster" seems to me, to be the one that is least full of clichés, and it has the most 'left turns' in it for me, of any R.E.M. album. ========== By the way, the actual AMG review of "Monster" isn't all that bad, really - though it isn't exactly 'glowing' either. So, my guess is that the AMG "star ratings", however, are not solely determined for each album by the critic who reviews each album. In other words - we all know that the AMG "star ratings" are supposed to indicate the relative importance and/or "goodness" of each album within an artist's/band's entire recorded output. And thus, my guess is that there is some sort of editorial review done for the "star ratings" of each artist/band (beyond just each reviewer of each album assigning their own "star rating" for each album they review). The purpose of such a review would be to make sure the "star rankings" truly reflect their opinion about the relative ranking of each album (with a particular artist's/band's output). I have no idea if this is how they actually do it, but it would make sense for them to do it that way, so perhaps they do. IN ANY CASE, it's probably a safe bet that whichever album gets the least number of stars, is an album that certainly isn't "beloved by many", at the very least. SO, the purpose of this thread is to identify who here loves an album that appears to be universally underrated, at least based on the AMG "star ratings", which -- I know, I know -- many of you don't think are even worth two cents each. (And neither do I, which is also part of the reason I started this thread.) ========== One more thing. If an album doesn't get any stars at all - then that doesn't necessarily mean that that really is a "no star" album. I suspect 99.9% of the time (on AMG), "zero stars" just means that an album hasn't been given a star-rating at all, or at least not yet anyway. So, what you should be looking for is the album that got the least number of stars (but still got at least half-a-star).

I haven't heard the "Trumpet Evolution" disc personally, but if this helps any -- I've heard nothing but 'mixed' reviews of this disc, at best. Again, what I've heard is 2nd and 3rd hand, so I'm not personally doggin' it -- but, I haven't heard of anyone really liking it a whole lot either. Anyone here actually heard it??

Man, the posters from this site are amazing!! Some random samples...

I agree with most of what you've said, DrJ -- and yet, I also think the Bishop's idea is an interesting one, and one that appears likely to bring a small but measurable amount of increased diversity to his church -- even if only for the month of August. First, let me say that I don't suddenly think every mostly 'monochromatic' church should suddenly start literally paying people from other racial background to attend their church. I think what the Bishop is trying to do was make a bold statement, that people who look different then him are 'very' welcome at his church. So much so, that he is personally willing to make a small payment to those 'different looking people' who actually will attend his church (in August). And, let's not forget that it appears that a majority of the 'white' people (however they're defined) are not even accepting the payments. (I think I heard this on CNN this morning, or at least they implied as much.) I think where some people are getting caught up in this whole issue (the whole idea of 'paying people to go to church') is that they forget that for the most part, it appears that the payments being offered are really much less important than the statement that is made by reaching out to a race other than what the vast majority of the church is made up of. As a statement -- in effect saying "we really want to have some different kinds of folks join us in worship", and they want to create a little publicity by putting a really rather tiny amount of money behind it -- as a statement, it does a rather good job of pointing out the sincerity of the offer of welcome. Yeah, the literal idea of paying people to go to church -- and only paying 'white' people (what ever that is defined as) -- is pretty weird on the face of it. I think it's helpful, though, to look beyond the literal offer, and see what's behind it.

circa 1982-83, somewhere in there - so their first "farewell tour" was over 20 years ago.