Larry Kart

Have and enjoy "Eastern Exposure," but don't think I ever ran across Kaz except at Second City, where I heard him quite often (I reviewed at lot of shows there in the 1980s for the Chicago Tribune). A Kaz story. There was a terrific Second City skit titled "Walnut Room," set in the Marshal Fields department store restaurant of that name. Mary Gross played a flaming bitch of a mother, Lance Kinsey was her young son, and Jim Belushi was a bystander at a nearby table. Kinsey wanted to go to a movie, Gross was giving him a brutally hard time, and Belushi was taking this in until he decided to play Robin Hood. Oozing macho charm, he approached Gross with a sub rosa offer to leave the restaurant with him and indulge in an afternoon quickie, and after some coy byplay she agreed. Then, as Gross and Belushi get up to leave, he takes Kinsey aside and whispers, "Here's fifty bucks, kid -- run away from home." I did a story for the paper about how that skit was created. About six months before the show, Gross had observed a mother behaving at the Walnut Room much as Gross does in the skit. She, Belushi, and Kinsey worked on the skit for a long time before getting it onstage, mostly because Second City's Bernie Sahlins hated skits with kids in them; he thought they got cheap laughs. (Belushi also had a hard time getting into his part because it was almost all reactions, while Gross was having a grand old time playing a kind of suburban Lady Macbeth.) What clinched it for the skit was the "Here's fifty bucks, kid" line. That was Kaz's contribution, something he'd once actually said to a kid at a party when Kaz saw him being beaten up emotionally by his parents.

This conflation seems fundamental to your argument but I can't actually see any evidence that you preesnt to support this conflation, unless I've missed something upthread. and the interviews then tend to be about the supposed paradox, or whatever one calls it, between 1) and 2). Also, these interviews typically allowing Atzmon a good deal of room to expound on his arguably extreme views. Really so? Can you link to such articles? I only ask as I've read many articles about Atzmon over the years in the UK music press and rarely are the two elements of his life given equal measure. In the music interviews there may be passing reference to his political activism but not to my knowledge to the detail of his beliefs. I'd go as far to say that anyone who'd read the music press in UK about him would be surprised by depth his political activism. Such a lack of explicit conflation may well be editorial decisions of the publications not wanting to have their content politicised. It may be that Atzmon doesn't expouse his more extreme views in these interviews precisely to prevent potential listeners being turned off by such unpalatable views lovely playing......... Some more of Atzmon's greatest hits (sorry, but I can't find one of the interviews in the general press that gives Atzmon the musician a chance to go on about his "views" because he is a talented musician, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some): http://www.sott.net/...th-Gilad-Atzmon Robert Faurrison who is sympathetically to say the least interviewed by Atzmon in the long clip linked to above, is among the world’s most prominent Holocaust deniers.

Again, just to be clear, censorship/banning, etc. is not my view of how Atzmon should be responded to -- not only because I object to censorship/banning on much the grounds you do, but also because such acts tend to fan the rhetorical fires that guys like Atzmon seek to stir up.

This conflation seems fundamental to your argument but I can't actually see any evidence that you preesnt to support this conflation, unless I've missed something upthread. Don't know how Atzmon behaves at performances, i.e. whether he alludes to his views in that setting, but he has been interviewed by journalists many times on the basis that he is 1) a notable native Israeli jazz musician and 2) that he holds the arguably extreme views he holds on the Holocaust and the Jews, which have been outlined and linked to above; and the interviews then tend to be about the supposed paradox, or whatever one calls it, between 1) and 2). Also, these interviews typically allowing Atzmon a good deal of room to expound on his arguably extreme views. This, I think, is where the conflation lies, and while I don't know whether Atzmon set out to engineer it, he certainly has to be aware that it exists and that he is fairly often acting within or on that basis to a considerable degree. Further, a fair number of Atzmon's interviews are for general interest publications; and if it were not for 1)-plus-2) framework that Atzmon embodies those publications scarcely would be devoting a fair amount of space to such Holocaust-denier arguments as, e.g. the Jews were willing participants in so-called "death marches," etc. A parallel to the Atzmon conflation, as I see it, might be the subject of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children on the grounds that vaccinations cause autism and other diseases. This movement has been much in the news recently, as outbreaks of measles, etc. are on the rise in areas where the anti-vaccination movement has been strong; and a fair number of well-known entertainment figures, movie stars and the like, are in the vanguard of the anti-vaccination movement. Thus, the media being the media, a good many stories about the supposed evils/dangers of having one's children vaccinated have been wrapped around the fact that famous figure Jennie S. or Mary Y. holds these views, which those figures then typically expound upon in the story. Again, censorship is not the answer, but you do see how the 1)-plus-2) principle can work.

OK, you are "perfectly capable of listening to and appreciating his music and being able to make a judgement on his 'political' stance seperately." But I do have doubts about the ability of Atzmon's audience in general to do this, because Holocaust deniers are practiced flim-flam men. Larry, I wonder if you would suggest that certain books should be censored or banned because certain people have to be protected from reading what's in them. Paul -- This is part of what I said in post #22 above: "And again ... I don't think that banning or censorship is the answer, just a cool, calm expose of what I think Atzmon's game is....." Does that answer your question? Also, as I tried to explain in that post, I believe that Atzmon, a musician of talent, is conflating his musical gifts with his batshit Holocaust denial views in an attempt to lend legitimacy to those views. That's not a situation that seems to me to run parallel to your "[should] certain books be censored or banned because certain people have to be protected from reading what's in them. What might be closer to parallel would be a situation where buying a ticket to a particular concert meant that one's name would be placed on a mailing list of a publication devoted to hate literature. And even so, I would still take the cool, calm expose route. A Lark Ascending -- Yes, Atzmon is a Holocaust denier. See the interview with him that Erwbol linked to in post #26.

Thanks for that link. I didn't know he had gone THAT far.

OK, you are "perfectly capable of listening to and appreciating his music and being able to make a judgement on his 'political' stance seperately." But I do have doubts about the ability of Atzmon's audience in general to do this, because Holocaust deniers are practiced flim-flam men. BTW, I don't mean to suggest by this that Atzmon is insincere or cynical (a la the title character of "The Music Man") in his apparent conflation of his views and his music, even though I referred above to Holocaust deniers as "practiced flim-flam men." Rather, I think that for whatever reasons Atzmon has drunk deeply from this well and become practiced in promulgating its dark rhetorical ploys, even though he may well believe them with all his heart and soul and thus may not see the practiced promulgation of those ploys as acts of flim-flam at all. But acts of grim flim-flam is what they are. Again see the link about David Irving in my post above.

A thought from a another direction: From YouTube clips, it's clear to me that Atzmon is a real player, and that a good many people would want to go hear him for just that simple reason. But it also seems to me that Atzmon has made his political stance such a foreground aspect of both his identity and his presentation of himself in the public arena, and that this stance goes far beyond pro-Palestianian/anti-Zionist views (again, many people share those views) into the realm of hard-core (is there any other kind?) Holocaust denial -- e.g. there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, the whole notion that there was a Holocaust is a conspiracy cooked up by the Jews in order to paint themselves as victims so they could get their way in a post-WWII world, etc. -- that one wonders (I wonder) whether his music has come to serve a more or less calculated pied-piper function. That is, if one digs my music, which of course springs from and expresses my soul, does that not serve to legitimatize, on a similar "this too springs from the soul of a soulful talented artist" basis, the I would say pernicious by any standards Holocaust denial/international Jewish conspiracy stance that Atzmon typically places in the foreground of his presentation of himself in the public arena (or am I mistaken in my belief that he does that?) If so, I suppose it's not unlike the plot of the musical "The Music Man," except that Atzmon's underlying goal is not to use music-making to sell band instruments but to use his music to sell ... well, I don't to repeat myself. And again, if so, I don't think that banning or censorship is the answer, just a cool, calm expose of what I think Atzmon's game is (assuming I'm right about what is). Above all, though, in all this one ought not to get into a so-called "dialogue about the facts" with guys like this, because that only gives them a rich further forum for to sell their wares. On this, see (for one) the career and the fate of David Irving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

Andras Schiff, Chicago, Orchestra Hall http://www.kirshdem.com/artist.php?id=andrasschiff&aview=cal&cid=21183

Now that's what jazz is all about. Big guy in the undershorts is baritone saxophonist and the band's resident funny man Butch Stone. Other guy is Les' younger brother Clyde "Stumpy" Brown. Again, nice rhythm section IMO. Whenever I look at Brown himself, I think of Richard Nixon, minus the paranoid nastiness. Wonder if they were classmates at Duke. (Upon checking, Les was a band-leading undergrad when Nixon was in law school there.)

BTW, that graceful trumpet soloist probably was Dick Collins.

If the following goes beyond the bounds of the “no politics on Organissimo” rule, I'll delete it. While I too hold no brief for censorship, it should be said that Atzmon is not just pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist — lots of people are — but he has gone so far as to ally himself with French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, who claims that the Holocaust never happened, that that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FoEy3joW5o&spfreload=10 http://hrp-historicalreviewpress.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-gilad-atzmon-in-his-turn-becoming.html

Picked up this compilation the other day: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Capitol-Years-Brown-Renown/dp/B000TDFMKG/ref=sr_1_9?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1425669253&sr=1-9&keywords=les+brown and was particularly pleased by the precise delicacy of Brown's rhythm section, his drummers in particular. It was also a kick to hear again Skip Martin's iconic chart on "I've Got My Love To Keep Me Warm." The Capitol version (they sure knew how to record big bands) is more relaxed and hip than the 1948 Columbia recording that was a big hit for Brown:

Silver didn't single out a specific pianist. Rather he said, in Down Beat in 1956, "I can't stand that faggot-type jazz," by which it was understand that he meant the predominant West Coast jazz style of the time. As for Newborn, it's my understanding that he always was a psychologically fragile person, though the "mere virtuosity" putdowns of his playing probably didn't help. I was getting that quote from his autobiography, "Let's Get To the Nitty Gritty". I'll have to check it to see if I got it wrong. Newborn definitely had nervous system issues, but I've never heard his diagnosis. Those West Coast critics didn't help things out, though. He's worthy of a biography. As for those criticisms of Newborn for being too flashy or too indebted to Tatum and what all, I don't recall that they came from West Coast-based critics at all -- if so, they certainly weren't criticizing Newborn from any "West Coast Jazz is the thing" perspective; there was little or nothing about Newborn's playing that was akin to the styles of either coast -- but, IIRC, from guys like John S. Wilson of the NY Times and, maybe even, -- oh, the horror! -- Nat Hentoff. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Nat hadn't compared Newborn unfavorably to that earthy unflashy paragon .... Horace Silver. BTW, whatever happened to Adam Makowicz, who in the '70s received much the same response that Newborn reived in the late '50s? Interestingly, one of Makowicz's chief critical advocates was the typically stern and insightful Max Harrison.

Silver didn't single out a specific pianist. Rather he said, in Down Beat in 1956, "I can't stand that faggot-type jazz," by which it was understand that he meant the predominant West Coast jazz style of the time. As for Newborn, it's my understanding that he always was a psychologically fragile person, though the "mere virtuosity" putdowns of his playing probably didn't help. I was getting that quote from his autobiography, "Let's Get To the Nitty Gritty". I'll have to check it to see if I got it wrong. Newborn definitely had nervous system issues, but I've never heard his diagnosis. Those West Coast critics didn't help things out, though. He's worthy of a biography. Horace remembered it one way in his autobiography written many years later, but the printed in DB back in 1956 quote was what he said, assuming that he was being quoted accurately. Not a huge difference between the two passages, I suppose, but the actual quote seems to me to have an extra edge of off-the-cuff disdain to it. Also, and most important perhaps, it wasn't aimed at a particular pianist but at an entire style.

Have acquired a number of Walker CDs because of that DTM post-interview and your pieces, Mark, and am intrigued by what I hear (I'd heard some Walker before). One of the things about many (maybe all?) of his works that I now know that is most striking and pleasing to me is a quality that's hard for me to quantify: the rhythms of engagement-disengagement in his music and/or the rate at which new material is introduced. Of course, all music does this -- begins somewhere, goes somewhere/someplace else -- but Walker somehow and some way subtly places this process (so it seems to me) in the foreground, makes it a near dominant aesthetic principle. Not that in his works the rhythms with which new material is introduced/move onto are at all blatant/in your face -- it's just that one begins to feel a frequent sense of at once stimulating, challenging, pleasurable and always logical once experienced "Oh, now we're here?" change, with the accumulation of these changes (not quite the right term -- perhaps something in between "changes" and "surprises," though again they don't jump out at you; you're just "here" and then you're "there") eventually becoming the primary language element of the music. I suppose Haydn might be a possible point of comparison.

No -- but if you had tried to play block chords in your bowl of warm oatmeal it might have sounded/felt time-wise like Brubeck does on "C Jam Blues."

Then there was her Jackie McLean interview. What happened there? Just kidding -- bouncing off of the supposition some made from Prestige album covers in the '50s that Jackie was Caucasian.

Then there was her Jackie McLean interview.

Posted link works for me. Like the keyboard is made of something soft and sticky?

Caught the last four or so minutes of this on the car radio and could scarcely believe my ears. Check in at about the 10-minute mark -- it sounds like the keyboard is made of oatmeal. Or am I missing something remarkable here that I'm not equipped to get?

Horace said that, not me. And I was responding to post #69, which brought up what Horace said but got the quote a bit wrong.

Oops -- I need to read more carefully.

Silver didn't single out a specific pianist. Rather he said, in Down Beat in 1956, "I can't stand that faggot-type jazz," by which it was understand that he meant the predominant West Coast jazz style of the time. As for Newborn, it's my understanding that he always was a psychologically fragile person, though the "mere virtuosity" putdowns of his playing probably didn't help.

What we're dealing with partly in this thread is the mistrust of virtuosity in jazz, something both Buddy Rich and OP had in common. While I agree that OP could not achieve the 'overall subtlety' that Haig, Jordan or Dodo had, Haig, Jordan and Dodo could not in their wildest dreams achieve the overpowering swing and drive that OP possessed. Do you really think that the records Getz made with Haig and Jordan could compare in terms of overt swing, power and drive with the records Getz made in the 50s with OP? By the same token, OP would have destroyed the wonderful Getz/Raney quintet recordings featuring Jordan and Haig,with his overbearing lack of subtlety. I love both of them for what they are. This hatred of virtuosity that lacks subtlety in jazz seems to be behind the animosity players like EI have towards musicians like Buddy Rich and OP. But along with that hatred, there is a subconscious envy of the superhuman ability of 'freaks' like OP and Rich. The only way that they can deal with the fact that they can never do what OP and BR could do in terms of the superhuman speed these two artists could create at, is to denounce them (or denounce their followers as racist), or dismiss them, like Fred Hersch and EI did so casually with OP on DTM. Good point, but where does that leave fans of Tatum (I'm one)? As for OP and overt swing, I say Horace Silver, who was not a virtuoso per se but swung more forcefully IMO than OP did. That is, forcefully doesn't involve just sheer force (i.e. speed and percussive intensity), which both OP and Silver possessed, but also a certain sense of judgement as to how that force could be/should be applied. There OP was IMO rather mechanical fairly often, while Silver had a rare sense of space and placement.