Larry Kart

More from the same gig: And more: All this is two months to the day before Warne died on the bandstand.

Having heard Jamie again last night with Nick Mazzarella and friends and been very impressed, as is usual for me, I'm trying to guess at what Allen Lowe and Jim Sangrey dont like/don't get about her. As for Allen, I'm pretty sure I know -- it has to do in part with his own stance between (if "between" is the right term for his sense of where he stands) "free" and more traditional ways of playing and his feeling that a lot of today's generation of would-be "free" players are just blowing off steam/don't know what they're doing, etc. As for Jim, I just don't know. But for them and anyone else who's curious, here's some more and perhaps somewhat different evidence -- Jamie in action, from a Dec. 2017 performance. "Orthodox" it's not, but I don't see how anyone who responds at all positively to, say, Peter Evans or Tyler Ho Bynum wouldn't find it worthwhile.

Looks promising.

Me, too.

IIRC, that Roger Carbury is a bit of a prig is crucial to effect of the novel. When you think about it, a good many of Trollope's novels have to do with the emotional/moral education/expansion of vision of its initially rather circumscribed central characters. I'm thinking in particular -- title will come to me in a while (it's "Can You Forgive Her?") -- of the one where the at once rather priggish but romantically minded heroine rejects her dutiful and suitable suitor because he's not quite dashing and ambitious enough to suit her vision of what a suitor should be. It's the one where the guy she is drawn to instead -- a financially needy cad -- at one point breaks his sister's arm because she won't renounce her legitimate claim to family funds he wants to get his hands on. In context, it's one of the most shocking scenes I've ever encountered.

Good luck on your slinking...

Always loved the Dorham (some fine Adderley there), and DeRose for me probably is the best female jazz vocalist of her vintage (though I can't think of all the others at the moment). Caught her several years ago at Smoke in NYC with this rhythm section IIRC and was impressed -- fine pianist too.

The album arrived yesterday. Whoa! The band plays like it's at once scared of and in love with Nelson. And thanks again for the notes.

My cables are Rapunzels, made from golden hair.

A track from the album:

Album of the year for me. Here's a modified version of an email I sent this morning to Neumeister: I have yet to listen to all of it but wanted to relay some of my no doubt rather hyperbolic thoughts because my head is pretty much bursting with them. Just amazing music! In particular, you’ve solved a problem (not that solving this or any other so-called problem was your goal) that many listeners probably didn’t even know existed as such — namely that in a good deal of actually or would-be sophisticated contemporary writing for large jazz ensembles (big bands, if you will) there is, so it seems to me, often a disjunction between the actual or would-be sophistication/complexities (timbral, harmonic, formal, etc.) of the writing for the horns and the playing of/writing for the rhythm section The latter typically more or less has a “swing” feel (i.e. sense of fairly steady punctuated forward propulsion, with occasional passages where the rhythm section is asked to interact more forthrightly with the rest of the ensemble) or the rhythm section works in a modified/scaled up version of the more oblique and liquid “prose-like” time feel that probably came into the music with the Evans Trio at the Vanguard recordings. The problem IMO is that neither of those rhythm section time feels/approaches really fits that well with what’s going on orchestrally, the result being that neither level of the music (orchestral work, rhythm section accompaniment/activity) seems to talk to/interact that much with the other. Thus one feels far too often (or at least I do) that the overall and often otherwise quite attractive results are finally rather inorganic — as though the rhythm section and the ensemble that has been assembled and been written for with, again, a sophistication that approaches that of a high quality piece of modern “concert” music, exist in two different worlds, and their musical interaction, such as it is, almost verges on the arbitary. (Think, to pick one imaginary example, of what Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste would sound like if its rhythmic activity did not pervade the entire orchestra but were instead a matter of the orchestra playing what it does and a rhythm section responding to it. Yes, with players of brilliance and a lot of luck, one might have something, but the piece was conceived organically and needs to be played as such.)If you’re with me at all so far — I could cite examples of what I’ve been talking about above from a number of contemporay large-ensemble jazz recordings, but why bother? — you blow all that out of the water, both in terms of conception and execution. First, one might say that you write for the horns as though THEY were the rhythm section, and you do so not only, or often not even primarily, by upping the ante of overt rhythmic activity on their part. Rather, the strong sense of meaningful rhythmic activity in the ensemble (i.e the horns) seems to me to be largely the byproduct of an almost unprecedented fragmentation of timbres, sections, of the rapid and unexpected arrival and departure of specific ensemble passage work, and of the intervention of soloistic episodes that fly through what one assumes at the moment are or are going to be essentially ensemble textures, with these fluid soloistic interventions also twining around more upfront solo work by other more upfront horn soloists. (BTW, who is the trumpeterer [Dave Ballou?] who ducks in and out of Rich Perry’s solo on “New Groove”? And who, in the ensemble, is that terrific bass clarinetist? (It's Adam Kolker, I've learned.)In any case, the resulting feel of an orchestra that is filling the entire musical space with lucid melodic-rhythmic-harmonic speech (albeit, again, much of this achieved by a fragmentation of timbres, sections. etc. so intense that it might be, but never is, bewildering) percolates quite naturally down to the alert actual rhythm section, which is then not given the role of mere accompaniment but is always in dialogue with, and/or an organic part of, the already rhythmically active orchestral fabric. BTW, speaking of execution, if your writing per writing were not as organic language-wise as I feel/hear it to be, I can’t imagine how any band, no matter how technically adept, could ever play this music. Talk about patting you head and rubbing your stomach at the time -- this is like making love to Marilyn Monroe on a unicycle while translating Marcel Proust. Personnel: Reeds: Mark Gross , Billy Drewes , Dick Oatts , Rich Perry, Adam Kolker Trumpets: Tony Kadleck, Ron Tooley, Dave Ballou, Jon Owens Trombones: Keith O’Quinn, Larry Farrell, Marshall Gilkes, David Taylor Rhythm Section: David Berkman - piano, Hans Glawischnig - double bass, Steve Cardenas - guitar, John Riley - drums, John Hollenbeck - percussion.

"The Darkest Hour" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4555426/ Saw it last night -- very good and quite close to the facts as I know them. It's breathtaking to realize how close to total disaster things got in those few days in May and June 1940, not only in purely military terms but also how close the Brit political establishment was to sheer surrender-monkey behavior, with Churchill the new PM being pushed on almost all sides to seek peace terms from Hitler, this while the entire British army was encircled at Dunkirk and there were as yet no plans to even attempt to bring any of them home. One point I'll have to find out more about -- the entire War Cabinet, including all the top military men, is just paralyzed at this point, and it is Churchill alone who insists that some attempt at a rescue operation must be mounted, making use of private civilian craft because British naval forces are inadequate to the task. That significantly civilian rescue, called Operation Dynamo, is of course what happened, with some 300,000 members of the encircled 400,000-man British Army eventually being brought back to England. But can it be true that this operation was solely Churchill's idea? While that's not impossible, I'll try to find out more. BTW Gary Oldman is terrific as Churchill. I also liked the fact that the film is almost literally claustrophobic -- scenes of figures hurrying down tight dank underground corridors to meet in tight dank underground rooms from which almost all parties would like to escape but cannot perfectly mirror the actual emotional state of the times and the participants. BTW, another turning point that I suspect is quite true -- the King (the stutterer of "The King's Speech"), whose best friend is Lord Halifax, the weasel-like chief advocate of asking Hitler for surrender terms, suddenly tells Churchill one-on-one when everything seems about to go totally black, that he will stand behind Churchill's "fight them on the beaches" stance all the way.

There were plans several years ago to reissue it with additional tracks/alternate takes, and I was asked to write the notes, but things came up on the home front that forced me to drop out, and IIRC Sunnenblick then began to think of modifying his initial plan to include (again IIRC) other material from Joseph and from other somewhat related figures like trombonist Milt Gold. I'm no longer part of the project; perhaps a message to Sunnenblick would yield more info.

Not to mention the people who work there. In my other favorite story from my brother in law, a fairly young woman comes in, her new Hummer parked outside, and pays for $10 of gas and a bunch of junk food with a dumped out batch of coins, then hands over a credit card for some lottery tickets "because I sure do need to hit a winner." How, one wonders, was she able to buy the Hummer? There are some other good ones too, but because they mostly concern extreme lack of customer hygiene, I won't repeat them here.

Actually, Jamie is an interesting example of the Chicago scene's cooperative/helping you to find your way atmosphere. Just about every good-sized ensemble i've heard her in, where charts are being played, she's taken on/been given the lead-dog role because everyone knows she can do it -- and this has happened in ensembles where she's far from the oldest/most veteran player. Further, it's no secret (been spoken of by her at some length in an article recently) that Jamie has had some significant substance abuse problems over the years -- those days, it is to be hoped, never to return. But the number of people who did everything they could to help her.... Yes, Jamie is not only a terrific musician, but also a loveable person, yet what it took for her friends (my son among them) to try to deal with all that -- whew.

who manages a Kum & Go store (it’s like 7/11, but bigger) in Springfield, Mo.: I'm always amused by some of the reasons people give on their applications for why they are no longer at their last job. One today ranked right up there with the best. She listed her reason for leaving McDonalds: "Conflict of fries."

"just what is in the water in Chicago?" Among many things -- a remarkable degree of community among the players; decent or better than decent places to play (and you can park nearby), many of them run more or less by the musicians, not by traditional club owner types; relatively affordable places to live (compared to, say, almost any part of the greater NYC area); places to rehearse; relative availability of day gigs if that's what you need to keep things together. Much of this no doubt has to do with the example set by the AACM way back when, but later generations have learned those lessons and made them their own. I can't tell you how many reasonably or more than reasonably talented guys have come to town over the years and then developed a whole lot in terms of skill and temperament in the course of several months because they've been welcomed and stimulated by other talented players. Then, when it comes to the actual music-making, the vibe seemingly is non-competitive; even in the "free-est" most spontaneous settings, the unspoken assumption seems to be "Let us make a piece" -- emphasis on "us." When that happens and works over and over, you got it. Finally, it helps to play in places where the audience is listening, not socializing or getting blasted. Indeed, before every set at one of the mainstay places for more than a decade, the Hungry Brain, the audience is told in a direct but friendly manner that if they want to talk there's a patio area in the back. Similarly with The Hideout -- noisy bar for hanging out in the front, listening area behind closed doors in the back.

For some dumb reason, I never heard this one before. Good band (Phil Urso, Hal Galper, Jymie Merritt, Charlie Rice), very well recorded. Chet is in A minus/B plus form, albeit a little insecure on flugelhorn at times. Several Dameron originals ("Soultrane," "Tadd's Delight," "Whatever Possess'd Me," "Gnid," "Mating Call"), two from Galper, plus Duke Jordan's "Flight to Jordan" and "Walkin'" -- Chet sings on "Walkin,'" don't know who wrote the lyric, but doesn't take a solo on the tune. The way Chet plays the melody of "Soultrane" is a bit hesitant but quite lovely. The surprise for me is Urso, never heard him in more vigorous form, not that far removed from JR Monterose.

If I may speak for sgcim, when Schaap comes on like a self-important jerk...

Furry Lewis , too, in some moods? McTell I need to listen to again because I always get him confused with someone else.

I've heard some songsters before -- would Mississippi John Hurt qualify? the so-called Piedmont oerformers? -- but Blind Blake was, as you say, amazing and perhaps sui generis.

Anyone have any thoughts/feelings about his music? I've known the name for a long time but just picked up my first collection of his work, the one on Yazoo, and I'm at once knocked out by it and somewhat puzzled at how he fits into the landscape of the blues and/or black vernacular music of the teens and twenties. Blind Blake (1896-1934) doesn't sound that much like a bluesman, even when he's playing what is technically a blues, but more like, or almost like, his own unique version of a ragtime pianist who just happens to play the guitar -- and play it with stunning finger-picking virtuosity. Yes, there is some resemblance to Rev. Gary Davis, who was influenced by him, but I would never confuse the two; Davis, to use a boxing analogy, hits like a heavyweight while Blind Blake dances like Sugar Ray Robinson or Ray Leonard. Also Blind Blake's vocals, which on first acquaintance seem to me less striking than his guitar playing, do have an attractive flavor that feels new to me -- dancing (again) and at times kind of light-hearted and wry in emotional tone. Little is known about him except that he made a lot of records for the Paramount label, that many of them sold very well, and that the recorded evidence suggests that his health may have been faltering some toward the end.

Not to change the subject, but I can recall several other albums from that time that had that special-occasion feel -- "Saxophone Colossus," "Way Out West," and, for me, "The Stylings of Silver." They all felt like, in addition to everything else, the front edge of the music was moving ahead with a good deal of force.

Me too -- certainly of that period. It never gets old. Also, or so I've always thought, there's a palpable sense of special occasion to the date that seems to have felt by all parties and then by us, too. Finally, and Chuck probably can corroborate, at the time it came out it hit most everyone who cared about the music very hard. Each time it takes me back to those initial moments.