Christiern

It was a perfectly innocent poem--a bit too patriotic for my taste, but certainly not in any way offensive or to be taken personally. It apparently induced hysteria and an over-reaction (to say the least), but only in that one poster. Regardless of what you think of DEEP--and he has gone way over the line, at times--this was simply a perfectly understandable expression of his feelings in the wake of the attack. Reporting this to the FBI and ISP was uncalled for. Sorry Moose, but that DEEP was the victim does not alter the fact that what she did was senseless and vicious. There is no "feud" here, but when the subject is cyber civility, the rainy handle inevitably pops up.

JC Update: JC's "Should I close Speakeasy" thread has been re-named "Should I close The Alley and Politics." It would appear that at least one poster to this thread has had his post removed. Now all they need is one disparaging comment on Wynton and pop-up apologist Damen will come trolling through the tangled mess. Personally, I hope it gets straightened out, but--like Moose--I think it would be nice to have the good guys (of both genders) come over here.

Sorry, Chaney, hadn't come across it.

Check it out!

Interesting JC thread, Chaney. I left that board because of Lois herself, but she was really only the last straw. There are a couple of regulars at JC whose posts are chronically offensive and almost always without substance. I think toning them down or banning them altogether would make that board more palatable, but she also needs to work on herself and stop pandering to the Lincoln Center crowd. That said, I think the majority of JC's regulars are great people who would be an asset to any board, so Lois should mend rather than eliminate the Speakeasy area.

I am not mnytime anytime, but I could be Leonard Quill.

Can Jeff B AfricaBrass? B-)

This is a lie and we both know it. You are a perfect example of why people choose to be anonymous. You have hounded me for years to identify myself and you have tried to out me when you thought you knew my real name. People are free to call themselves whatever they choose but I think it is particularly dangerous for women to identify themselves online. I don't mind people using psuedonyms. What I find annoying is people who engage in an obvious alter ego online. I'm surrounded with enough phonies and poseurs in my "offline" life. Yes, I do know your name and, a few years back, I used it on another BBS when you became particularly offensive and reported a fellow poster to his ISP and, I believe, the FBI. It was right after 9/11 and he had sent you (and many of us) a patriotic poem, inspired by that tragedy. Perhaps I shouldn't have dropped your mask (anyway, you say that I didn't), but your cyber behavior became so outrageous that I thought dropping yourt mask might stop you--obviously, it didn't. I have never called you "Whiny Day," as I have seen on JC, but I have to be honest and say that it fits you well. I have never hounded you, much less "for years," but you are a paranoid sort. In fact, I once sent you a PM suggesting that we not make our differences personal. That olive branch was received with a frosty remark, and you obviously took it and chewed it up. If you (or anyone else) went back and took a good look at your various outbursts, I think it would be plain as day that you periodically fly off the handle (so to speak) and have a hissy fit that only you seem to understand. I remember well what caused your first barrage of epithets aimed in my direction, it was when someone had started a thread asking for lines overheard from an exiting concert audience. Explaining this this was not something I personally had overheard, but that I thought it might be interesting, I related a story told me by Lil Armstrong. When King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band (of which she was a member) played a California concert, in 1921, the wife of one of the musicians overheard a black member of the exiting audience say to his wife or girlfriend, "Calling themselves Creole, they ain't nothing but niggers!" Well, my dear, you hit the ceiling and called me a racist and whatever else you could think of. And when our fellow posters thought you were over-reacting, your eruptions escalated. Was I a racist for telling Lil's story? Was Lil a racist for telling it to me? Was the audience member a racist for making the remark? Sorry about the above, but I really think you asked for it. And my apologies to you, Jim, the board has enough of this sort of thing without me contributing to it--but sometimes, you know, some people.....

Claude: "But if the same person participates elsewhere in a discussion on marriage problems, what does it add to the discussion if he is identified as a famous jazz musician?" It could have added a lot to the discussion if that musician was Artie Shaw. __________________________ I think it's okay to use a handle, but I hate it when posters use the actual name of a well-known person--I don't see that as a tribute. "Gene Harris Fanatic" was fine, I thought, but if a poster is going to insult or call fellow posters names, I think they should do so under their true identity. I also was a disc jockey for several years, and a radio station manager after that, so I have received my share of venomous letters--they were almost always unsigned and sans return address. That made them easy to disregard, I feel the same way about posters who spew their venom from behind a pseudonym. Here, at O, most people who use a handle are not hiding. When I began posting--years ago on a board far, far away--I called myself "Chris A," but only because I thought "Chris Albertson" was too long. However, I never tried to hide my identity; I knew that--the board being devoted to jazz--some posters might have come across my name, but I didn't want that to limit me when it came to expressing my opinion. I only changed it to "Christiern" (the actual spelling of my given name) when Organissimo went down and I no longer could sign on as Chris A. In short, I feel that some instances call for using one's real name (if one wishes to be taken seriously), and others where it really doesn't make a difference. When I know someone's name and see that they never use it in a post, I respect that. Fred Nurdley

Try This

Thanks, I just hope my notes will do justice to your trumpeting.

And the fact that Mr. Christian was not limited to dealing only with Mr. Hammond. He was--get this!--an actual social agent in his own right, in spite his situation as a black man in a white-dominated world. And he could well have, if he so chose, gone to other folks in the world of jazz who might have recorded him as a leader. This assuming that Mr. Hammond had some sort of aversion to the idea of Christian recording as a leader, which we have no evidence of whatsoever. The "point" I seem to be missing is that the opportunity to carry out a personal vendetta comes in three furlongs ahead of the facts with some folks. But, anyhow, back to late lunch, --eric Eric: "And the fact that Mr. Christian was not limited to dealing only with Mr. Hammond. He was--get this!--an actual social agent in his own right, in spite his situation as a black man in a white-dominated world. And he could well have, if he so chose, gone to other folks in the world of jazz who might have recorded him as a leader. This assuming that Mr. Hammond had some sort of aversion to the idea of Christian recording as a leader, which we have no evidence of whatsoever." The above raises the strong possibility that you are unaware of the power John Hammond had during the period in question and that you don't know the circumstances under which Charlie Christian came to New York and--for that matter--to be a member of Goodman's band. It has nothing to do with anybody's race. No one has said that John (Hammond) had an "aversion" to Christian leading a session, but he did have a special tie to his brother-in-law and Christian, in turn, had a special tie (perhaps he regarded it as a debt) to John. I'm not sure what you are driving at or whether you are just throwing in arguments for the sake of arguments--that's what it sounds like. Either that, or you are simply too uninformed in this area to draw reasonable conclusions. As for my disavowal, as you term it, I merely said that I don't think John--who had it in him to be vindictive--was showing that side of his character in the case of Charlie Christian. I think John genuinely admired his playing, which is why I always found it odd that he did not arrange as much as one Christian session at Columbia. It was well within John's power to do so. This is why I brought the subject up to John on at least one occasion (FYI, I saw John every day for a few years). He could easily have told me that there wasn't time, or given some other excuse, but he didn't--in fact, he showed embarrassment and avoided giving me a direct answer. That's all.

Chris, Didn't you do the booklet copy for this Mosaic Basie? Guilty!

Yes

But that's not under the Verve label, is it?

I agree, Allen, and I have always liked Lil Green's "Why Don't You Do Right?" better than "In the Dark." I also like Peggy Lee's version a lot.

Nor mine, but I can't believe that Mosaic would license material that is about to be released by the licensee. Conversely, I find it difficult to believe that Verve would give Mosaic a license to issue something they are about to reissue themselves. Deduction: We must be talking about the Mosaic set. B-)

Still clueless and, as Allen said, missing the point. No need to pursue this with you, ratso--believe what you want.

But puttiing out the exact same material, a month apart (Mosaic's box is due in April) does not make any sense (from a marketing point), does it?

Christian wasn't exclusive to Goodman. He also recorded with Ida Cox, Lionel Hampton and Edmond Hall. Exclusive in terms of being a member of a working band. The Ida Cox sessions were John Hammond's. The point here is not that Christian was couldn't work, it is that he--for all his brilliance as a musician--was not given a single session of his own.

As Allen points out, John did have the power and he didn't always use it in a positive way. In fact, he had a bad habit of taking silly "revenge" by preventing gigs. I don't think that was the case here, for he did bring Mary Lou's "discovery" to Goodman, but I have heard him tell artists--over the phone--"I'll see to it that you never record again." Rex Stewart once told me that this was something Hammond commonly did if an artist dared to assert him/herself. Jimmy Rushing said the same thing--then I heard it with my own ears. Again, I really don't think this was the case with Christian.

A rather clueless post, eric. You obviously don't know that 1939-41 was a very different time as far as the record industry goes. Musicians did, in fact, need people like John if they wanted to do a session--especially if they were not well-established, but even then.

I didn't even suggest that Benny exercised "pull," all I did was wonder if the family ties made John decide to let Benny have an exclusive, of sorts. That is very different from what you read into my post.

You are being too kind, Allen, for there was plenty of time. John Hammond could have arranged that, but he obviously did not see Christian as a "genius" until after his death. I once asked John why, given his high enthusiasm for Christian's work, he never gave him a session of his own. It was obviously an embarrassing question and I was never given a real answer. I often wonder if Benny being his brother-in-law had anything to do with it.

Thought you might like this photo from the first Ida Cox session, David.