Milestones

Many jazz artists record so much that it is simply difficult to keep up. And do we need to keep up on all of it? For many artists, owning 20 records is scratching the surface. Are there people here who have 20 records by Red Garland? I'll bet some do. Yet his prolific period was relatively brief. I know I don't own 20, but I have quite a few, several due to the selling point of Coltrane as sideman. But the question becomes this: what is essential?

Older style collecting presents difficulty because of the space issue. CDs (as opposed to LPs) are easier, especially if kept in jewel cases of slip covers (if that's the right term). My collections is big (I don't think I can give any kind of reasonable estimate), but it's nothing compared to some numbers thrown around here. but a lot it has gone the ways of files on the computer hard drive (much of which will never make it to CD). You can build up a nice collection that way, with no worries about space. But if we are talking about tangible items, there's a lot of difficulty and complications in being a serious collector--as well-illustrated by Ken Dyden and many others.

I don't think there is any such thing. There were just a few occasions when Lacy was in the band, which was a big band--or more accurately a mid-size band--and Lacy was not a soloist. A rather odd thing. There have been a million records of Lacy playing Monk's music, sometimes solo versions.

That is so cool. I'm actually a bit too young to have many memories of Ed Sullivan, but I'm well aware of the wealth of great musical talent that appeared on the show (the clips of rock artists continue to pop up everywhere). Apparently he was generous to jazz artists. Duke and Satchmo would be one thing--but Kirk, Mingus, Shepp, and Haynes? Good lord. Then you had every musician identified, even the man playing tambourine! What an experience is must have been to see Roland Kirk in person.

Great piece. The man certainly paints pictures of the heat, sweat, mosquitoes, and over-imbibed fans.

Cool. Who knew he was such a handsome young man? Speaking of Pass, I understand he was a mentor to Mimi Fox. I just read a piece by her (largely over my head) in Downbeat. I knew nothing at all about her, but have since listened a bit. She's an outstanding guitarist in the mainstream tradition.

Yes, I love the idea of it being played daily...always another game coming and new chance to win. In football, if your team plays like crap, you have to live with it for at least a week.

For my BFT, I had some well-known names--Ron Carter, Jim Hall, and Randy Weston--who were not as quickly recognized as I had expected.

Pim, if you do it, just avoid Miles, Trane, Satchmo, Prez, Monk, and others that most of us would recognize in 1-second-flat.

Many years ago a professor that I had suggested that baseball is most enjoyed by the very young and those of "a certain age." The youngsters probably because they played it too (though that is less common now) and the oldsters for the intricacies and strategy. Indians are on a 5-game winning streak!

I'm from the Cleveland area and a long-time fan. I think it's important to get to know the guys on the team. The Indians are a pretty talented team, especially in pitching, and there are a lot of entertaining guys and very few basket cases. We we were well-represented in the All-Star Game, despite the fact that we did lost several significant players in the off-season. It's a good team and they stand a good chance of being in the playoffs once again. Get to know the skills and personalities of the players. But of course that's much harder to do with the minor league clubs. But I know they try to get some fun stuff happening.

Kind of a short guy.

By discovery, do you mean things you have heard for the first time in the last few years? Stuff that is new to your ears? Artists you may know, but you keep going deeper into their output? For probably all of us, jazz is like that--always something new to discover, even when not "new" it the usual sense.

I will make a wild guess and say Bobby Hutcherson on #6. The piece has a 70's vibe, and I don't know Hutch's work too well from that period. But I'm totally guessing here. On #7 I'm agreeing with Felser within a half-minute...now listening to more. These may be minor players (or not), but this is a sterling performance on a simple but beautiful melody. Tempo picks up. Crisp cymbal work behind the pianist. Trumpet again, actually would like the tempo to slow down. Tasty bass solo. Really good stuff, very cohesive group. Track 9 has some nice straight-ahead playing. I particularly like the drummer, who sounds like Billy Higgins (or someone quite close in style). Track #10...probably the guitarist is the leader. He does not sound like a major figure in either tone or style. Some good crackling trumpet. The tenor man does not sound very distinctive to me. Guitar comping is pretty cool, and the drum fills are even better. Fairly subtle and very effective drum solo--I'll guess (without much confidence) DeJohnette. Track #11...another group sounding really together. Tenor player is good, a bit like Jimmy Heath in that he never wastes notes, though it does't sound like Jimmy at all. Track #12...basic mainstream quintet but quite good. It has a Blue Note fade... No guess here. All quality stuff, but featuring lesser-known talents (I would suspect). Well, none of us want to include the likes of Miles, Trane, Monk, Dolphy, etc.

Dan, thank god you got them all correct!

Who is looking forward to the All-Star Game? I am for sure, but it's a case of bias since I have always lived in the Cleveland area. We have one starter (Santana) and two others in the game, plus Santana is in the Home Run Derby. And what is up with that, anyway? I think 6 of the 8 players are from the NL, and I believe it was something like that last year. Isn't there supposed to be an even balance between the leagues? Well, clearly not anymore.

Track 3 is "Pithecanthropus Erectus," the Mingus piece. Great composition and performance, but this is not the famous version with Jackie McLean and Mal Waldron, nor do I think it's Mingus. This has me wondering. Track 4 features some fine trumpet playing, and it has that Blue Note vibe. I would guess early Freddie Hubbard, but that is only a guess and I think it's someone less well-known.

Is anyone surprised that Kenny was a professional (I assume) at this age?

I'm seeing in several places that Dr. John has passed away. Certainly an interesting and often enjoyable singer and pianist. R.I.P.

I'm afraid I never heard this name.

Good point, Captain Howdy. The Rock Hall of Fame (I usually don't use the term Rock 'n Roll) has its issues, but the museum itself is not bad. It honors most of the artists from the good days, and I get the feeling that most of us here rarely listen to anyone in the field of rock, however one defines it, under the age of 65.

So rock 'n roll is a very specific form and had died about 1960? Even early Beatles were not rock 'n roll? I know the term "rock" incorporates a very wide swath, but Streisand and Parton? Big Beat Steven, your comments are appreciated, but I would maintain that the earliest pioneering figures in most fields of music are not the ones held in greatest esteem or listened to the most. To most listeners, Chuck Berry is a bit lower than the Beatles--even if certain elements of The Beatles were impossible but for Berry. The greatness of Armstrong, Ellington, Lester Young, Hawk, Bird...are beyond dispute. But how much are they really listened to now? Do they receive the tribute albums and concerts? Do they receive oodles of scholarly analysis? Are their songs being downloaded in big numbers? The tendency is to have the pioneering figures, then the greatest artists, then some shifting to the avant garde, then a lot of retro. You see it in virtually every type of music, as well as in other arts.

I have to say Sticky Fingers is a mighty fine album, probably my favorite Stones record. Still, rock peaked in the 1960s.

The author does say that people tend to favor the music that really hits them when they are teens or young adults. It's the music that speaks to you "when you feel most alive." in Hepworth's case he was 21 in 1971. But he says that there is a difference, and that difference is simply that he is "right" about 1971. Geez. In objective terms, I think you'd have to pick something between 1964 and 1969, if one has to choose a year. The work there is more important, more innovative, and more enduring than all but a handful of works from 1971. Such a debate, no what type of music, is somewhat problematic. But I think you have to favor the peak years of The Beatles, The Stones, and Dylan--just as in jazz you'd favor the peak years of Miles, Trane, and Monk.

Miles had a sextet with Hank and J.J.? If I ever knew that, I've forgotten. Is this documented on record?