Rooster_Ties

Hell, I almost wonder if this could ending up being THE(?) most historically significant Mosaic yet. Hard to tell, not having heard it yet — but on paper, it does seem to have that potential. Maybe? (Cart before horse? Check!)

Good point. Nobody has to pre-order. In fact, this is the very first Mosaic set I’ve ever preordered — because for years I normally would wait until something I wanted got on the “running low” list — at which point I would order every single thing they had that I wanted (then), in order to save a ton on shipping. So I’d only order anything at all from Mosaic about once every 4 years or so, but they were pretty big orders ($400-$500, once even more than that even, iirc) — for which my “per item” shipping costs were about $1-$2 per item. I just wanted to get in line quick as I could, because I’m pretty damn excited about this set — as much as any Mosaic ever, save for the Andrew Hill Blue Note Select (which is my all-time most anticipated Mosaic ever).

I don’t know what else to say. Real-world implementation of stuff doesn’t always result in an ideal system. And even decent systems might still not handle everything equally well. “Preorders” might by this system’s Achilles’ heel — and even then, maybe only in the language (boilerplate) communicated to users used to the cues generated by the former system. And resources (money and/or time, where time=money) aren’t always in enough abundance to test and or train for every circumstance. Also, there are often two or more ways within a system to handle the same function — but often with different pros and cons — and they may be trying a couple different ways to process “preorders”. Or a prior configuration decision made before go-live, may have had unintended consequences, and they might be needing to having to handle preorders differently now. Yes, yes, yes — a ton of conjecture on my part — guilty as charged. Back circa 1994-2003, I used to work doing software implementation for a company of several thousand (with a dozen factory and engineering locations throughout the country). I at least used to know a thing or two about this stuff.

The Museum I work for — and I’ve been working in the Museum Shop now since we reopened to the public back in April — just got a new point-of-sale system in October. And I can tell you that the training doesn’t cover everything, and the more “out of the box” the system is that you’ve bought into, the less “beta-testing” there’s probably going to be. You might have LIKED to have a lot more specific training, and user-acceptance testing — but it can be a lot more learn-as-you-go (and more than a bit of trial-an-error) that anyone would like. That’s the reality of how a lot of these things go.

I think the fact that it’s a pre-order is the difference. Plus this is the first time they’ve ever done a pre-order under this new system too, and Scott and Michael are kind of still learning some of the ropes (or at least the parts of the system that take orders without running the credit card, but still capturing the cc and shippjng info).

The email confirmation I got had what I imagine is boilerplate language from the software, for an order that hasn’t been charged yet… Thanks for your order. It’s on-hold until we confirm that payment has been received. In the meantime, here’s a reminder of what you ordered:

I’d bet their new web-store has a slightly different terminology for handling “pre-orders”. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they’re having to put these pre-orders into an “on hold” status for now, since they don’t want your credit card to be processed until right close to the actual shipment date. The software might have been configured a little better to handle pre-orders — but that just as easily could have required a software customization Mosaic (rightfully) didn’t want to pay for. My guess is the Tristano release is currently set to require manual approval on each order, and then “putting them on hold” is the best or easiest (or only) way they have to collect pre-orders (addresses, and credit-card info, etc) — even if the status language doesn’t entirely match our expectations. (Honestly, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.)

Ordered!!

Absent anything new to post in this thread (and still hoping someone will consider my prior post right above this one)… …here’s some ‘shredding’ on “Wow”

Which store in St. Louis?, and about when? (I grew up outside of St. Louis, but my jazz interest didn’t hit until late in my college years, ~1989) And where in KC? (but I didn’t live there until ~1994). But I’m assuming Music Exchange and Pennylane. Or maybe Recycled Sounds?

Nailed it.

Could be, I really don't know. That's why I'm going to pose the question to my doctor a good 2-3 months before she (or even I) would actually want/"need" to get any sort of other shot. Also, in the coming months, there'll hopefully be a small study -- or at least some data (beyond a handful of anecdotes) about actual infection rates -- and/or antibody levels -- among "J&J + one other non-J&J booster shot" people (like myself). WHICH is why I want to get this on my doctor's radar now -- in case she or any of her collogues happen to run across any such data, or if they start to get inquiries similar to mine. I agree, Moderna's results have been proven to be the most robust -- and even their "half-dose" booster seems (if I've read right) to be slightly stronger than Pfizer's full-strength shots (which is why I decided to get a Moderna booster anyway). BUT, what that Moderna booster shot that I got in November, was 'boosting' a "good for two-months" J&J shot that I'd gotten 6½ months earlier. And for the record, I'm NOT bitching about the strength and efficacy of the J&J shot. The FDA determined it was safe, and effective to the extent that could be tested at the time -- and longer-term effectivity was impossible to know at that point. As a nation, our marching orders were to get whatever you could get first, and I did -- with no regrets. Maybe my idea doesn't have merit. Maybe the Moderna booster I got was plenty. I'm no medical expert. It's just a reasonable idea that may or might not have merit.

So, I got the one-shot Johnson & Johnson back the end of March (which, we know now, seems to diminish in protection enough after 2 months so as to qualify for booster-shots that you otherwise have to wait 6 months to get after either your initial Pfizer or Moderna double-shots). Then I got a Moderna BOOSTER shot the week before Thanksgiving -- which is only HALF the dosage of a regular Moderna shot (and which, even at that half-dosage level, it still seems to be slightly stronger and/or longer-lasting than Pfizer). I knew fully about the "half-dosage" thing about Moderna boosters before I got it, so my concern ISN'T about it being only a half-dosage. All that said, I think I'm going to discuss with my primary care doctor about either getting a full-dosage Moderna shot (not a booster) -- or else a Pfizer booster (which I understand is the same as the initial Pfizer shots). NOT immediately or anything, but in a few months -- whenever she feels would be safe and appropriate (and ethically sound, at least mostly). I'm not loosing any sleep over all this -- but I just don't feel like I've gotten as fully inoculated as folks who got 3 Pfizers -- or what is effectively 2½ Moderna shots. I probably couldn't go into CVS or Walgreens and get it, but my doctor's office also gives shots (only from your own doctor, so you have to make a special appointment -- you cant just get one of their nurse/techs or NP's to do it). But with her blessing, maybe in February or March -- I'd like to "top off the tank" so to speak, since I'm not sure I ever got much more than half-a-tank to begin with. I'm pretty sure they only do Pfizer shots, but that'd probably be OK (even if I'd prefer a full-strength Moderna), especially if I could get one in February. Anyway, a conversation I think I'm going to introduce soon. Any thoughts on this idea?

Not sure when it was added, but I just noticed the introductory explanation of the set on the Mosaic page is now 2-3 times longer. Wouldn't say it has lots of new info or details, but it's very nicely written and sure whet the appetite to hear all this new material. https://www.mosaicrecords.com/product/lennie-tristano/ One phrase in particular... "While to some ears Tristano sounds remote or mechanical in his long runs of even eighth notes, a more careful listening reveals the playfulness and passion in his approach on piano." ...instantly made me think of Gary Thomas (of all people) -- who plays hard, and ALSO strings together long, long runs of non-swinging, 'even' notes (eighth notes, sixteenth, or whatever they are). I'm not suggesting Tristano is necessarily a direct influence (though I'll have to ask Gary the next time I hear him around DC eventually), but I can say that this common metrical aspect of Lennie's and Gary's playing tickles the same part of my brain. (Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes! Right there. THAT's the spot. Ahhhhhh...) Trane's "sheets-of-sound" stuff during his Prestige years does the same thing to me too, though it's flying by so fast I'm not sure if I could say it's truly "even" or not -- but it sure doesn't "swing" (in terms of the conventional meaning of that word). Some of Dave Holland's 80's and 90's ECM output also does that to me a bit -- ALTHOUGH, I know that stuff swings like mad. But there's something about it that also seems to get me in that same particular spot. That one Steve Coleman/Dave Holland duo album especially -- Phase Space (1991, DIW) -- REALLY pushes those same buttons for me. (Are any of my oblique connections here making any sense?) I'm trying to think of "why?" Maybe is it a similar sense of what I might call "relentlessness forward momentum", particularly on faster tunes? Whatever it is, I love mainlining that stuff, and it can instantly take me into another world.

“Carol Tristano -- Co-Producer Note” (essay) from the liners is now posted in full on the Mosaic page for the new Tristano box — right under the 5 audio samples (when the discography isn’t displayed). Dec 20 is still the “expected” release date (or did it perhaps say “estimated” before?). In any case, the date — however it’s termed — is still Dec 20.

Jason Moran studied with Andrew Hill and Jaki Byard — though of the two, I’d ascribe more influence to Hill (especially for Moran’s first 10-15 years of recording). Hill is certainly moody, and much of his music is dark — but it’s quite a variety of heavy and lighter textures, and a murky middle especially (all while still being dark). I wouldn’t want to pin a disproportionate amount of credit to Hill, but he was certainly operating in that realm.

Except maybe if someone says they hate jazz — and then the first artist they mention is Kenny G (and they think you like Kenny G, because you said you like “jazz” — because that’s what jazz sounds like, far as they know). I’ve had both happen — though admittedly a good 20 years ago, give or take.

It’s annoying as can be to know that — for many — Kenny G is the “face” of jazz. That may or not may have anything to do with Kenny G himself — but never the less, it’s a widespread inaccuracy which pervades (perhaps less than it once did, but it really was a big thing 10 and 20 years ago). Years ago I had coworkers I barely knew (when I worked for a very large company), who assumed I liked Kenny G because I liked jazz — and/or who assumed Kenny G was emblematic of jazz (because he came up in conversation from time to time). It’s annoying, especially if people are silently making those assumptions about my tastes — but not giving me any reason to correct them.

It’s because his name has become synonymous with “jazz” for a relatively significant portion of the masses. Perhaps not a majority of a generation, but maybe a plurality. Absent that, nobody would really care.

That’s really the key to all this. Nobody here gives two shits about any of the top-10 best selling New Age artists, or who their audience is, or what their motivations are for liking said artist(s). It’s only because the term jazz is somehow ascribed to the G-man — when his music has virtually nothing to do with jazz. Since arguably, he’s feather-light-weight smooth-jazz (at ‘best’) — basically a watered down version of an already watered down version of another genre — and therefore has little to nothing to do with jazz. But it’s crap music that a bunch of ill-informed people (fans) mis-associate with “jazz” — and an even larger bunch of even MORE musically-illiterate mass of people (the general public) then THINK of as the first and maybe only name they know when they hear the term “jazz”. There’s a good analogy in the documentary that it’s like if Michael Jordan and all the very best and upper echelon skilled players in the entire history of the NBA were barely known, and were all living hand to mouth (or maybe just scraping by, at best)… …and the ONLY people in basketball who ever got “paid!” big time (also in terms of cultural notaries) were the Harlem Globetrotters. One of the music critics specifically analogizes Kenny G’s single-note held for 10 minutes (circular breathing) — with the “ball-spinning on their index finger” antics of the Globetrotters, and rolling the ball up one arm, over the shoulder, and back down the other, and the like. It’s all stuff ANY player in the NBA can do. It’s cheesy, and maybe fun in the right context — but is it worthy of millions of dollars of remuneration?? — in some bizarro world where also the very best of the best in the NBA are barely getting by (if that even).

Doesn’t Kenny have more in common with Yanni and Zamfir, and perhaps even Vangelis and Jean-Michel Jarre — than jazz? Semi-serious question. Kenny’s really more “New Age” than smooth jazz, imho.

My wife and I watched the doc last night. Many telling nuggets. I think someone already said he assembles his recorded ‘solos’ (is that even a relevant terms here?) from dozens of takes, and he demonstrated that. Not even takes really, but maybe a handful of takes, and then several dozen overdubs (per song) of just a phrase here, or a couple notes there. Maybe 60-80 or even 100 edits per song, I might imagine. He’s obsessive about making every note sound perfect, so he builds up the tracks that way to ensure perfection (or as close as he can get). And he writes songs by recording bare solo melodies (demos), and then works with a keyboard player to piece together the chord changes, one by one — the keyboard player playing what I think Kenny literally said was like as many as 3 dozen chords PER change, until his keyboard player stumbles on chord Kenny likes (just what hits his ear right) — and then they move on to the next chord in the sequence. He supposedly practices 3-5 hours a day (and maybe he does), but he doesn’t know anything at all about chords or how to even begin to write tunes from a harmonic perspective — he’s 100% a melodist. And it’s not that he just needs the help of an arranger — no, he doesn’t seem to know anything whatsoever about basic intro-level chord theory, and he seemed proud of that too.

Mr. G might be a nice enough and inoffensive guy, generally speaking. I think most of his detractors wouldn’t be bothered by him so much if what he played wasn’t termed “jazz” in any way, shape or form. If smooth jazz was, instead, just (and only ever) called instrumental pop — I suspect people would still roll their eyes at the music itself, but no more than plenty of music that offends their (and my) sensibilities and tastes. It’s the casual association of his music with jazz that wrangles so many, admittedly myself included — though the older I get, the less I give a shit.

I’ve thought that a time or two myself. Joe Henderson too, re: the cover of Mode For Joe — who also struggled with emphysema over his last few years too.