Larry Kart

Latter-day Paul Plummer, until he had to stop playing (teeth problems IIRC) was excellent and quite individual. Kiger's work with the Blue Wisp Big Band of Cincinnati was excellent, too.

Does "the *great* Billy Drummond" mean that he is great or that Drummond himself thinks or proclaims that he is or something like that? I've always liked his playing.

I've liked some Hargrove -- he has spunk and energy -- but have problems with his (at times) nanny-goat tone and the way some his lines kind of wander or peter out. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a "young lions" (so to speak) trumpet player who knocks me out, though I've heard a fair amount of OK or better work from Blanchard, Roney (though they both have an "under glass dome" quality), Nicholas Payton, Jeremy Pelt et al. OTOH, they all so far seem to be more or less diminished offshoots of their various models. More impressive and above all individual are IMO Russ Johnson, cornetist Josh Berman, and in a more abstract vein Jacob Wick. In that vein, too, Evans can be stunning, but he also, the one time I heard him in person, kind of wore me out after a while -- a bit too "samey." Also, don't forget our sometime Organissimo mate, the lyrical Phil Grenadier. Alex Sipiagin has his moments. Have been impressed in the past by Scott Wendholt but haven't heard anything by him in a good while. No doubt I'm forgetting a lot of players, but it's less than an hour since I woke up.

That's weird because I do recall that image and certainly recall Dan's remark, which was made to me and struck me as a bit odd. Was there perhaps another photo or photos connected to that album, maybe publicity material? Or am I blanking out entirely and it was a remark he made about some Chicago blues album of the time? In any case, I think that the thrust of Dan's remark was that the image itself was designed to convey an earthy, down home, "working-class" feeling, but that a real working man, etc. Was he perhaps thinking (though I have that milk carton remark stuck in my brain) of the disconnect on Von's album cover between his undershirt and the building rubble (those things being the choice of some art director) and Von's nice shoes?

Von Freeman's "Do It Right Now" I recall Dan Morgenstern objecting to the posed cover shot of Von as IIRC a ditch digger because Von's hands were covered in dirt and no genuine working man would hold an open milk carton he was drinking out of with dirt on his hands.

Finally watched Primack's video, and there is something a bit self-serving about it. OTOH, about the part where he talks about hanging around the kitchen of the Vanguard as a young man and learning from what he observed there how to separate the man from the music, there's a second book I may write -- personal-anecdotal, with some fictionalization around the edges and changing of names in order to protect the innocent -- that will deal with my sense that when a non-musican encounters a musician, especially a jazz musician, the possibilities for real human contact almost go out the window. Of, course, that depends on what one means by "real," and I'm still working on/thinking about that. First draft would be -- "real" as in what we've all experienced from/with good friends and from/with those whom we love and who love us, the relatively unfettered/unfiltered sense that I am I and you are you, and that is the sufficient human framework. With musicians, especially jazz musicians (perhaps the same is true of professional athletes), there is always the "clubhouse" of special knowledge/special experience and the fact that only those who belong to the club by virtue of their ability to do what those in the club can do really belong in the clubhouse. My response to this has always been -- OK, right you are if you think you are; I don't want to be in the clubhouse anyway. OTOH, over the course of the years, situations arise where one does engage in clubhouse-flavored contact, or in contact with musicians that somehow is not that conditioned by the clubhouse mentality. Many of those situations are kind of funny, others a bit odd or even sad, a few even fulfilling in purely human terms -- and one day I'll probably try to write about some that meant something to me and that I hope others will find amusing and/or enlightening. The last one, if I do write this, is different than most i(at least in my experience) in that it was IMO a real and arguably mutually fruitful, evenhanded, I/you human encounter. It happened when I was delegated to take a very infirm Coleman Hawkins to O'Hare Airport in late April 1969 after his grim final performances in Chicago with Roy Eldridge -- at a public television studio taping and then at a concert at the North Park Hotel. The story is told in John Chilton's Hawkins biography "The Song of the Hawk," but I remember it a bit differently and of course felt what I felt, which it was not Chilton's provenance to ask about or go into.

The same three guys recorded a fine album "Unicity" in 2006 and "Poesia," which I haven't heard, in 2009.

But they haven't jumped ship yet. Wonder why.

These stories seem to be based on/to accept without independent verification the claims of Spotify, Pandora as to how they do business, what their costs are, the amounts they pay in royalties, and how they apportion them. I'm not saying they're lying -- I don't know -- but why would one accept their version of the facts as sufficient? They're based on their publicly disclosed financial statements. And we know those can be trusted -- see recent behavior on Wall St. So, they're cooking the books to show they're losing money and hurt the value of the company....and the bottom line of those major investors, CEO, anyone else with shares? If a company is going to fix the books it's to make the stock value go up and make those doing it more money. No one fixes the books to get less money for themselves. P.S. I don't use either Pandora, or Spotify. I'm suggesting -- just suggesting, but again recent corporate behavior in general and the history of the music business in particular makes me suspicious -- that they have if not two actual sets of books a way of calculating/stating the bottom line that allows them to pay less in royalties that they otherwise might, and that savvy investors understand this and proceed accordingly. Given that royalty payments would seem to be the main cost of doing business for Spotify and the like (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting corners in this manner might be worth some risk. As for those in the firms who hold shares, I would assume that they are in it for long haul, and that once the royalties model that works for the firms is established/accepted, there will be time down the road for rewards to be reaped.

I should add that I use Spotify (don't have Pandora) more or less the way the artists (I think) would hope. I hear of a recording I might be interested in, I listen to enough of it to make up my mind, and then very often I buy the CD. "Listen to enough of it" is the key for me; the clips on Amazon and elsewhere usually aren't long enough for me to make up my mind. Further FWIW, I don't use Spotify for any other reasons -- listening to any music via computer for pleasure doesn't do it for me; the sound quality isn't good enough compared to what I've got elsewhere. These stories seem to be based on/to accept without independent verification the claims of Spotify, Pandora as to how they do business, what their costs are, the amounts they pay in royalties, and how they apportion them. I'm not saying they're lying -- I don't know -- but why would one accept their version of the facts as sufficient? They're based on their publicly disclosed financial statements. And we know those can be trusted -- see recent behavior on Wall St.

These stories seem to be based on/to accept without independent verification the claims of Spotify, Pandora as to how they do business, what their costs are, the amounts they pay in royalties, and how they apportion them. I'm not saying they're lying -- I don't know -- but why would one accept their version of the facts as sufficient?

Good (I think) primer on the tangled web of music royalties, with an emphasis on Spotify: http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/how-do-music-royalties-work-and-why-does-everyone-complain/ Those who know more, please weigh in; I/we need to know as much as possible.

Hey -- I've got that one, too, but forget about it. Need to pull it out and listen again. IIRC it's quite good.

OTOH, here are LaVerne and Richmond with Billy Hart and Billy Drewes from 2012 concert, a more satisfying occasion IMO: Some really nutty, perhaps Marsh-influenced Drewes here, from 1992:

Here are two examples of LaVerne the accompanist stepping all over Stan Getz and Bob Brookmeyer (IMO). Mike Richmond is also culpable here, but that's mostly because of the way he's amplified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok4ZJ5dS4N4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUUV2ti8zy0

I heard Frink play lead in person with the Gerry Mulligan band that recorded "Walk On the Water." She and the band sounded terrific, and her contribution was crucial because, a la Artie Shaw, Mulligan wanted his trumpet section to pretty much sound like violins, and that ain't easy. The band's recording of "I'm Getting Sentimental Over You" from that album is a fine example. Here's another, "A Song for Strayhorn," from a live concert (in grainy video): BTW, I hope Chuck doesn't cringe or want to throw things, but whenever I see Mulligan of about this vintage in action, something in his speech and demeanor reminds me of Chuck.

I'm not always a LaVerne admirer -- when he was sideman with Getz, his comping could be quite intrusive/insensitive at times -- but this 1993 LaVerne quartet album is stunning: http://www.amazon.com/Double-Standard-Andy-Laverne/dp/B0000057Q8 It's five standards and five contrafacts on them (the latter all LaVerne's work), and the only horn, quirky tenor saxophonist Billy Drewes, plays his ass off. Don't know if Drewes counts Warne Marsh among his inspirations, but it sure sounds like it. If so, he takes Marsh to some wild and crazy places -- rhythmically and harmonically.

What does that mean? She's playing dumb. As a "character," so to speak, or as a harpist? If it's the latter, why was she the first-call harpist in the L.A. studios for so many years?

What does that mean?

Picked a copy of Hale's "Plays Gershwin & Duke" yesterday at a garage sale. It's a 2001 CD reissue on her own label Lass-Hale Productions of her 1957 GNP album "Modern Harp." Nice band (Buddy Collette, Howard Roberts, Larry Bunker on vibes, Red Mitchell or Bob Enevoldsen on bass, Chico Hamilton or Don Heath on drums). Roberts is in especially fine form, and Collette takes a gorgeous half-chorus solo on tenor on "I Can't Get Started." Hale herself (then only 19) has a striking harmonic imagination, and her piano playing on several tracks is quite nutty at times in the best sense, kind of Tristano-esque. Hale grew up in Freeport Il., and studied at the Chicago Conservatory of Music, so perhaps there was some contact there.

Haven't listened to Rattle in a while, but I should add that both Maazel's version and John DeMain's are very good IIRC and that Rattle's approach doesn't sit well with a lot of P&B admirers.

Probably. Given the shape of his head and his protruding ears, the young Lee looked a good deal like Howdy Doody.

Clips sound great.

I'm with you, except that Jay Beckenstein of Spyro Gyra has much better control of his instruments.

I'd never heard of that title. Has it ever been issued on CD? Apparently not: http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-marches-i-played-on-the-old-ragtime-piano-mw0000936982