Larry Kart

The greatest drummer was either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Goodman_(percussionist)

I'd offer the suggestion (just to kick around, to to advocate for) that as important as Riverside was in its time, Milestone (and Galaxy) might have eventually been more important in its, fully stipulating that they were completely different times and that "importance" doesn't mean any one thing, really. Or not, maybe.But a lot of chapters in a lot of careers exist because of that label, and I wonder what those chapters would have looked like otherwise (or in the case of Sonny Rollins, would they have existed at all, which I know to some would have been the preferable outcome, all things considered?)? Regarding Grauer, I have no bone to hunt in either dog here, but what part of the "yes, beautiful soulful cat, unlike Keepnews, but, also unlike Keepnews, was pretty much responsible for the demise of Riverside by irresponsible financial practices" picture am I not getting right? A key chapter in Sonny Rollins's career would not have existed without Riverside? What? "Freedom Suite" and what else? "The Sound of Sonny"? Am I missing something here? Prestige was the key label is establishing Rollins as the great tenorman of the late '50s, and IMO the best of his work for Prestige (e.g. "Worktime," "Saxophone Colossus') leaves "Freedom Suite" in the shade. Hey, if we're talking about Rollins and labels other than Prestige, I'll take Contemporary snd "Way Out West" and "Sonny Rollins and the Contemporary Leaders" or Blue Note and the album with Philly Joe and "Asiatic Raes."

"Writing is an exercise in power, and I'm pleased when something has an effect. Even the reaction here means I touched a nerve. Of course, this is how I play music too." Gee, I think you have a great deal in common with your image of Buddy Rich. As for '"these" in "these attempts" refers to "Baraka, Crouch, Early Wynton (or Ken Burns JAZZ), Nicholas Payton" etc., were you too not being "rather shrill" for calculated effect? What else could your "And making some of the language almost too strong helps the rhetoric, helps the message travel" mean?

Ethan writes: 'Larry said why do a "general lob"; why have two sets of opinions. I always change what I say to reflect who I'm talking to. If I'm talking to Billy Hart or Tootie Heath, I would never riff like I do on DTM. If I'm teaching, I can be ruthlessly authoritarian figure.' Changing how you say something to reflect who you're talking to is not the same thing as changing the content of what you say, i.e. stating different opinions to and for different audiences. I would hope that if the subject is, say, a particular musical performance, you don't tell Tootie Heath or Billy Hart it's mediocre and then a student of yours that it's great when you at heart think it's ... what? Ethan also writes: "And making some of the language almost too strong helps the rhetoric, helps the message travel.... These attempts to reframe the dialogue tend to be rather shrill." Well, Ethan's view of the rhetorical-communicative process sure isn't mine, for several reasons. First, IMO there's a difference between simplifying what one has to say in an attempt to better reach a non-expert audience and "making some of the language almost too strong [to help] the rhetoric, [help] the message travel." But if the language is "almost too strong" (love that "almost"), then what is the message? Given this view of what's needed "so that non-musicians could feel the fire," isn't it more than likely that this pumped up-for-rhetorical-effect "fire" is most of what most of this audience is going to feel? A lovely level of discourse that you're reaching for here -- "First, let's all get angry; treats afterwards." Second, if I may cast myself as a mind-reader a la Ethan, people who speak in a "rather shrill" manner (love that "rather") for calculated effect are probably also getting a nice personal kick out of these "justified" opportunities to speak shrilly, pound the table, etc. -- all, of course, only on behalf of deserving others and/or the general good. Oh, I almost forgot -- love the "these" in "these attempts to reframe the dialogue." No, Ethan -- they're your attempts.

This may be comparing an orange to nectarines, but if you can't tell the difference -- in melodic-harmonic inventiveness, overall subtlety of thought and swing, etc. -- between OP and, say, Duke Jordan or Al Haig or Dodo Marmarosa, you're fucked.

"Shorty George" from Rich's "This One's for Basie" Solos: Bob Cooper, Bob Enevoldsen, Harry Edison, Frank Rosolino. Jimmy Rowles on piano. Marty Paich arrragement. Whole album is on YouTube.

Jim -- Did you catch Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson in "The Guard"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1540133/ Very funny, wry movie, with a terrific trio of villains.

There is Miles' famous quote about Sonny Payne: "At least he looks good, and that's half the battle." Also, there's the long stick employed by Freddie Green to poke Payne whenever (you should pardon the expression) he started to rush.

I think that the movie is a crock on internal psychological-dramatic plot points grounds, which I went into in a post on another thread here. I won't go into all that again because it deals with the final few scenes of the movie and thus involves spoilers, and someone chastised me for doing that.

Further Ethan: You write "The other thing I'd add to this group of experienced listeners is that my piece is intended as a lob to the general world, not to experienced listeners like Organissimo. I must say that most of the responses I've gotten so far from other professional musicians has been gratitude. Everybody's mom is asking them about WHIPLASH." Whenever I address "the general world" about jazz, I say or try to say the same things I would say to "experienced listeners," both in terms of substance and tone, if not in detail -- not only for moral reasons but also because I'm not clever enough to have more than one set of opinions. I certainly don't use "a lob to the general world" as a reason to make blanket accusations, a la ""In light of the Whiplash phenomenon, I have no problem saying that if you think Buddy Rich is the greatest jazz drummer, you are racist." (BTW, if one thinks that Rich is a great jazz drummer, but he is not one's personal favorite, where does that leave one on the racism scale?) Again, we both agree that "Whiplash" is a crock. But do those "responses .. [of] gratitude" you've received from professional musicians refer to what you said about "Whiplash" (if so, we all agree on that) or to your disparagement of Rich and your statement that those who intensely admire Rich's drumming are racist? If the latter is so, perhaps you'd share some of those responses, with names unattached.

Ethan: I agree that "Whiplash" is an ugly, silly (certainly in psychological terms), and arguably pernicious piece of B.S., albeit I can't tell those who find it entertaining not to be entertained by it. My objection is, first, that you don't seem to have much of a clue as to who Buddy Rich was as a musician -- historically, stylistically, and aesthetically, if you will -- rather than as an icon in one corner of the stage-band community (e.g. historically and stylistically, your statement that Rich's drumming owes a big debt to/significantly springs from Krupa's: the two men don't sound a bit like each other, nor does Rich's "Traps, the Drum Wonder" child-prodigy-in-vaudeville upbringing leave room, chronologically or logically, for him to be a Krupa disciple). As for the claim that admiring Rich's drumming to some degree and in some settings -- I do, but he's not my favorite drummer -- makes one a racist, you are familiar with that noted racist Philly Joe Jones' intense admiration for Rich? Further, I would suggest that you track down Rich's late 1956 album "This One's for Basie," which is among other things a heartfelt and elegantly minimalist tribute on Rich's part to Jo Jones. More to be said here, perhaps, but I must leave the computer for a while.

Here's my review of Keepnews' book "The View From Within," which has some memoir material but no secrets, no intimacy at all: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/02/books/in-short-nonfiction-in-short-nonfiction.html I'm very grateful to him for the Riverside, Milestone, and Landmark sessions he supervised. But I wish a more careful person had produced the Fantasy reissues beginning in the 1970s, and I wish a more careful person had produced the Bluebird, Decca, and other reissue series Keepnews produced for CDs. Thanks for this, John. Was reading this thread thinking that those feeling sentimental for Keepnews had not read his book, which is mostly awful and evidence, were one curious, that Orrin's biggest fan was... certainly Orrin and not-- by all evidence to date-- the musicians his association with Bill Grauer first enabled him to work with. Yes, OK's name is on some swell records and I'm happy that, say, Johnny Griffin's varied Riverside dates exist but... sidenote: been going issue by issue (at the library) through "Kulchur" magazine and it's great to see you there! I've got a near complete run of Kulchur, which I read avidly at the time. Had a big educational effect. Quite a turn it gave me to meet John L. at the time and realize that he lived in the same neighborhood I did (Hyde Park in Chicago) and was a just year or so older than I was. I'd assumed from what I'd read that he was very mature, learned gentleman -- not that John wasn't learned, but I'd been thinking maybe, pipe and slippers, and an Irish Setter in front of a fireplace, kind of Whitney Ballet image. BTW, it was darn strange when Kulchur, originally a Black Mountain School offshoot by and large, underwent a near total conversion to the work and the viewpoints of Ted Berrigan's crowd -- this I assume because the magazine's bankroller, Lita Hornick, changed allegiances herself. I'm sure that the literary and personal politics involved have been written about somewhere, perhaps in the autobiography of LeRoi Jones' first wife, Hettie Cohen.

Also, Iverson says that Rich's drumming sprang from that of Gene Krupa. Has he done much listening/have any ears? That's nonsense. And by that I don't mean that Krupa wasn't a fine player in the right settings, any more than Rich was not amazing in the right settings -- though neither is my favorite drummer; I just mean that the way Rich played owes little or nothing to the way Krupa played, other than that both often were in the solo spotlight.

http://dothemath.typepad.com/dtm/the-drum-thing.html Pull quote: "In light of the Whiplash phenomenon, I have no problem saying that if you think Buddy Rich is the greatest jazz drummer, you are racist." Fortunately Iverson asked Mark Stryker to add his thoughts on Rich, and Mark does his best to restore some sanity to the proceedings.

The premise for this 1969 Capitol album (how did Ella land on a non-Granz label?) is a bit odd: have Ella sing six medleys (36 tunes in all, six of them instrumentals). In the event, it's a gem. Ella is in great relaxed form, the tunes are all tasty, though some are a bit out of the way (e.g. "Elmer's Tune," "I Never Knew I Could Love Anybody," "Maybe," "Thinking of You"), and the backing septet, led by Benny Carter, is ideal: Harry Edison, Georgie Auld, John Collins, Jimmy Jones, Bob West, and either Panama Francis or Louis Bellson. An especially good sign -- Sweets doesn't play a single one of his patented licks. Carter does a gorgeous "I Got It Bad and That Ain't Good" and "Ebb Tide," and Auld is lovely on "Spring Is Here." As for Ella, I'm not all-stops-out fan normally -- her scat singing, for one, usually leaves me cold -- but she is totally committed here, so at ease rhythmically, gliding, swinging, creative, and obviously having a very good time. First time through for me, but right now this is one of the best jazz vocal albums I've ever heard and a delightful surprise. http://www.amazon.com/30-Ella-Fitzgerald/dp/B00000JCGI/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1425245035&sr=1-1&keywords=30+by+ella

Went for the Jamal.

Some of my favorite JR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jzV74AtFYk&spfreload=10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYAu7CQt1R0&spfreload=10

It's a fine point, perhaps, but I think that "comping" as it's normally understood grants to the instrumental soloist the key role in reacting to/reshaping as he deems his needs be the structure he is playing on, while the "comper" reacts to/effiiciently supports/suggests potentially fruitful future variations on the path that the instrumental soloist has embarked upon. Monk, by contrast, in effect "sees" the entire structure of the piece (whether it it his own or someone else's) as structure and responds to that structure in performance in an attempt to further and/or comment upon its "structure-ness." What he then actually plays alongside or underneath an instrumental soloist is based on the expectation/assumption the soloist will more or less share the same orientation (heightened? compositional? orchestral?) toward the piece's structure that Monk does. Some soloists -- Lacy, or course -- so thoroughly incorporated that musical ethos that they proceeded along those lines even when Monk himself was not present. Others -- like Rollins, Lucky Thompson, Milt Jackson, Thad Jones, et al. -- pretty much fully grasped the message and gave us, with Monk at the piano and wielding a pen, collaborative masterworks. Miles also did so, of course, on the "Bag's Groove" date, but the experience apparently pissed him off. Others, like Rouse IMO, functioned like Monkian wallpaper for the most part -- making more or less decorative (but not structure-enhancing/elaborating ) Monk-like sounds. And so it goes.

OTOH, as thrilling as Boulez's "Bluebeard's Castle" is, I think that Ferencsik's (his second) is the best recording: Bluebeard's Castle by Béla Bartók performed in Hungarian Conductor János Ferencsik - 1970(STU) Orchestra - Budapest Philharmonic Orchestra Black Disc; - Hungaroton LPX 11486 {1LP} (1971)ª;; Hungaroton SLPX 11486 {1LP} (1971)ª Compact Disc; - Hungaroton HCD 11486 {1CD} (1997)ª ª(year of issue or re-issue) Bluebeard - György Melis Judith - Kátalin Kasza ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have and need both Boulez's and this one. Don't know about this video version with the same parties (lip-synched to the recording?), but wow:

Indeed. His recent Philips recording (Uchida) of the Berg Chamber cto omits the repeat again. He should have recorded the Berg cto with a more deserving violinist indeed [e.g. with Kavakos in Cleveland a decade ago]. But these Three Pieces for Orchestra are great. Also, the Columbia box includes the Berg's Altenberg Lieder with Lukomska - one of his great records not to be missed I've heard that the Altenberg Lieder with Lukomska are great, but I've never found a copy of that recording. Also, I'm deeply attached to the Beardslee-Craft Altenberg Lieder, the recording that began my long romance with the Second Viennese School some 56 years ago.

IMO, most of the DG Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern) recordings are rather antiseptic compared to most of the Columbia recordings, although not the the later Ensemble Intercomperanien (sp?) ones,which are beginning to veer toward antiseptic/detached territory. Boulez's terrific Vega "Pierrot Lunaire" with Helga Pilarcyzk doesn't even sound like the same work as the EC one with (I think) Yvonne Minton or the DG one with Christine Oelze either. OTOH, the Columbia Berg Chamber Concerto, with Barenboim and Gawriloff, is a mess on both performance and textual grounds (Boulez doesn't take the first movement exposition repeat because he thinks it's only of numerological, not musical, significance). Even worse is the Columbia Berg Violin Concerto with Zukerman. OTOH, that disc does include a fine Three Pieces for Orchestra. As for Bartok, the Columbia Boulez "Bluebeard's Castle" with Troyanas is sensational. As someone one once said, 'CBS should release the last "door" as a single.'

Thanks -- all I could think of was "string quartets," and I knew that didn't apply.

Maybe I'm losing it, but what does "SQ" stand for?

Contents of the Accord box: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2006/Dec06/Boulez_Domaine_4769209_4768862.htm Chuck -- either it is Boulez's fault (I assume you mean both as composer and conductor), or there are two of us who have cooled to him for good reasons, though I find some of his later-day recordings of Mahler interesting. Can't think, though, of a single Boulez remake of any of the core modern repertoire that he didn't do better the first or second time around.

I guess I need to re-read the Chambers-Twardzik bio and compile my own list, but I'll say right now that after a while I began not to trust many of Chambers'"hits"; and since there are, as you say, little or no countervailing accounts of Twardzik's life, where does that leave us -- trusting Chambers if one feels he is a significantly dubious guide or left in the dark? As for the Chet and ballads thing ("...effectively kept Baker on a musical diet of ballads for the rest of his days"), Chambers is not speaking for the public at large here; he is the one making that assertion, saying that it is fact, when plainly it is not. Again, I'm at a loss as to what his thinking was. Did he not know of the nature of Baker's abundant latter-day work? Or did he just feel like making a sweeping and erroneous assertion for the sake of coming on as a know-it-all, thinking he could get away with it? Whatever, it sure doesn't inspire trust.