Christiern

HAPPY BIRTHDAY HOLY GHOST!

Very sorry to hear that, Joe. I have suffered the same violation and, quite apart from missing property, it is the very act that pains the most. Material thing? Well some--like your wedding bands--go beyond that designation, and I have also suffered that kind of loss. I hope they catch the bastard and that you at least recover the irreplaceables.

Allen has hit a new Lowe!

There is a nasty rumor going around that these actually are not Bill Evans performances, just another Dick Hyman emulation.

This is how mine looks today--I don't see any changes since I got it, about ten years ago.

I think that had more to do with teaching them to project an image Berry Gordy had in mind. Catering to white middle/upper-class audiences, Gordy wanted his acts to be polished and 1960s Vegas ready. Sometimes that turned out to be a miscalculation--I recall hearing the Supremes at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel where the audience was 95% white and 100% bored by a repertoire of decidedly white songs, including "Swanee River." Towards the end of the set, the Supremes got down to Motown fare and it woke the audience up. They had not come to hear Stephen Foster.

Thanks, MG, now it makes sense, which is what I expect from Larry.

Never seen that one before,but if I may guess: You Make Me Vomit? Having since gone back and read the posts, I must be dead wrong!

One mistake that most of us make is to place artists in narrow boxes. Herbie Hancock was a jazz musician in the ears and mind of most people, so he was severely criticized when he went "commercial." Had he not come to Rockit via V.S.O.P., Miles, etc., he might well have avoided the pointed fingers. Let's face it, Kenny G comes under heavy attack from listeners who listen to his music with jazz expectancy--think of him as a pop artist and there will be far less to find fault with.

I think it, loosely, was an accusation that the artist/work caters to a broader, non-jazz market. In 1958, George Shearing told me that he found it amazing how jazz critics labeled his music "commercial" only after his records started showing impressive sales. The music he was playing/recording prior to that (i.e. prior to being given the derogatory label) was no different. Success can be a curse, I guess. I really don't know how far back the term, as applied to jazz, goes. It might stretch back to the big bands--they were certainly as close as jazz ever got to being pop music.

I lived through that period and was active in the business during part of it. Was there racism within jazz? Definitely, but I never sensed that it had anything to do with a coastal divide, neither musically nor geographically. There were people on both coasts who thought the West Coast variety of jazz to be somewhat anemic. It often was. There were also people who saw the gospel-tinged, decidedly black "soul jazz" (don't confuse it with "soul music"--a derivative label) as bordering on pop. "Pop" was a derogatory term in jazz circles (almost as horrifying as "commercial" had been n a previous decade), and with more musicians having a conservatory education, it was almost inevitable that jazz would spawn a less finger-snapping style. I recall Jimmy Giuffre, having just given a college concert, being asked where the rhythm was. "It is understood," he replied. Well, not everybody understood that explanation, but this was a wonderful period in jazz that offered an eclectic bag of approaches. I don't recall ever hearing a musician degrade the opposite Coast's music, and this was a time when I had casual conversations with many of the top players (including Cannonball) on a daily basis. I do, however, remember the late 50s-early 60s as a time when many black musicians began to voice their political grievances--some scared the pants off the white people and sometimes brought out dormant racism among my white colleagues. Many did not understand the surfacing militancy, but that is because their ignorance did not prepare them for it.

My "you" was a general one. Sorry, I should have said "one." In other words--as it were--I don't find the phishers to be so tricky, but, sad to say, there is no dearth of prospective victims. While simply deleting such scam mail is easy, I usually bring up the long heading and forward it all to the alleged source--in this case: spoof@paypal.com. In fact, I did just that this morning and received the automated acknowledgment. BTW, your sample is rendered particularly "un-tricky" by the bad English in which it is written. My favorite spam is the desperate letter from some poor soul who is in dire need for a place to park his/her millions.

Dan, if you didn't immediately see a zillion red flags go up on the above, you are in trouble.

Too bad, Rostasi, that one cannot buy a sense of humor. Looks like you could use one.

If you have read Ratliff's NYT stuff with some regularity, as I have, Larry's assessment should come as no surprise. I have said this before, he is undoubtedly the worst jazz writer the paper has had.

Aggie87:"Out of curiousity, if you had cancer or something, what action would you hope they would take?" Something tangible, like recommending a specialist, helping with the bills, suggesting a good book, visiting me. Nothing that requires imagination. BTW, a very good friend of 30 years passed away in July. He was only 51 and a religious person who attended a Baptist church in Harlem every Sunday, sang in the choir, helped with Bible class, etc. His mother is a Jehovah's Witness and he was always afraid that she would give him a burial according to that organization's customs. I do respect other people's faith and so had no problem contacting his church and arranging for a service there.It lasted 2 hours and went very well--even his Mother attended and stayed until it was over. I added my sincere thoughts to the many prayers that were sent his way that day--it was the first time in 50 years that I attended a church service for other than the music. I feel a lot of intolerance on this thread, and it saddens me to be regarded as having sparked it. I am sorry if I offended anyone, sparked venom, inspired cursing, etc. I guess I wasn't prepared for such sensitivity.

I agreed with Valerie's sentiment but not the proposed methodology. If ever I find myself in a precarious health situation, I hope my friends who wish me well, literally, will take action beyond reciting some religious text. Sorry, but I am a realist. That is all I will add here, except to say that some of the most caring people in this world don't need manuals from organized religion to do good deeds. Conversely, many who resort to religion publicly do so for all the wrong reasons. Am I cynical? You bet, but I also respect those who do believe in deities--if they really[/] believe. I think Valerie really believes and she had only good intentions. I am not outraged by people whose beliefs are contrary to mine, so I had hoped that I could express myself without people climbing the wall and generally over-reacting. Had Valerie not brought religion into her initial request, my response would have been to simply express my strong feelings that George overcomes this obstacle and regains his health. Is there a full moon?

I also gathered from the first post that Valerie wasn't passing on George's request. She could/should have given her own prayer off-line and told us of George's situation. I am sure that no more was needed, most--if not all--of us would not need a prompt to send a prayer or good wished George's way. I agree with J.A.W., religion ought not to have been brought into this, but it is something Valerie often does--meaning well. Dan, I also agree that praying can work, but it is a psychological healing that affects the person engaged in the prayer rather than the recipient, who usually is unaware of the effort. Thus, prayer often becomes a gesture or a self-satisfying feel-good thing. Doctors and good medical care is what really heals, and the knowledge that he/she has support (spiritual or otherwise) can psychologically speed up the process. You may hope that people pray, Valerie, but I would think that to instruct them to do so defeats the purpose.

Political Correctness

I don't know why some of you make such a big deal out of this--PC, probably. Fact is that Valerie believing in prayer is no more valid than me not believing in it. It has nothing to do with how I feel about George Cables--I don't hope any less strongly for his recovery than do those who pray. Funny how one gets chastised for being forthright, for not simply falling into step. I would think that an insincere, cliché-based call to prayer is more offensive than an up-front and truly meant call for healing. I have never been much for the PC trend we have seen escalating in recent years. That said, I reiterate my sincere wishes for George's recovery.

Realistically, prayer won't do it, but I hope George is getting the best of care and that he regains his health.

Sorry Dan, guess I get it all confused with covered WMDs! For the rest of you, that's a 5-year-old inside joke.

Well, what does a legend know?

I am not convinced that we are speaking of "common usage" in this case. The music bulletin boards are visited upon by many novices who--understandably--are glossary handicapped. The same boards are also inhabited by posters who pick up the terms and run with them. Outside of these boards, I don't recall hearing the term, cover, misused. What does "cover" mean? If you think about that you will see how the definition in question came about, and how descriptive it is. Now, having given that some thought, think again. Think about how meaningless it is to call something a cover just because it is not the original recording of a tune--why not just call it another recording of such-and-such tune? Given the illogic followed by some of the posters here, why is Coleman Hawkins' "Body and Soul" not a cover? Why is one recording of the hundreds that exist of "Round Midnight" not a cover? Why are the others covers? Are some of them covers and others not? If so, which are which and how do we delineate one from the other? Basically, I am asking that this be given some thought.

Well, Dan, if the practice that gave rise to its original meaning has virtually disappeared, why continue using the term in this context? As has been pointed out, it's not as if the term fills a void. The truth is that "cover" was a descriptive term when originally applied, and that which it described has not gone the route of darned socks and v-mail. Yes, recordings by black pop artists are no longer limited to airplay on black radio (although I'm not so sure about that), but that was not the only scenario for generating a "cover." When a label goes into full gear to release its own version of a currently successful recording, it is creating a cover. When it simply issues a new performance of a tune that is available by other artists, it is doing just that--nothing more. What is so difficult to understand?