Larry Kart

I can make that happen. No need.

I'd rather have my teeth drilled.

Don't have an interest in my "ratio," but Wynton after a certain rather early point is IMO a train wreck (aesthetically, both as a player and a composer, and as a social-musical figure, but perforce someone whom one has to keep track of to a certain degree, if only to be aware of how bizarre it all is/has become), while Branford in my experience is pretty much a cipher musically -- OK at best, but so what? -- though he is capable of saying some really stupid things in a jive ex cathedra manner.

This is a quaintly outdated warning. Satire is satire, whether topical or not. But less poignant if not. MG The out-of-dateness -- using an ancient phrase of grumpy complaint -- was part of the satirical thrust, no?

Let's get Lee Konitz a gig in Saudia Arabia! And Harold Danko, too!

The wisest man in this field IMO is the historian Saul Freidlander, author of "Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vols. 1 &2." In the name of fairness, I'm linking to a passage in which Friendlander both supports and steps away from my previously stated views on Wagner's anti-Semitism: http://www.zupdom.com/icons-multimedia/ClientsArea/HoH/LIBARC/LIBRARY/Themes/Policy/Friedl2A.html "Whereas ordinary racial anti-Semitism is one element within a wider racist world view, in redemptive anti-Semitism the struggle against the Jews is the dominant aspect of a world view in which other racist themes are but secondary appendages. "Redemptive anti-Semitism was born from the fear of racial degeneration and the religious belief in redemption. The main cause of degeneration was the penetration of the Jews into the German body politic, into German society, and into the German bloodstream. Germanhood and the Aryan world were on the path to perdition if the struggle against the Jews was not joined; this was to be a struggle to the death. Redemption would come as liberation from the Jews -- as their expulsion, possibly their annihilation.... "Various themes of redemptive anti-Semitism can be found in voelkisch ideology in general, but the run-of-the-mill voelkisch obsessions were usually too down-to-earth in their goals to belong to the redemptive sphere. Among the voelkisch ideologues, only the philosopher Eugen Duehring and the biblical scholar Paul de Lagarde came close to this sort of anti-Semitic eschatological worldview. The source of the new trend has to be sought elsewhere, in that meeting point of German Christianity, neromanticism, the mystical cult of sacred Aryan blood, and ultraconservative nationalism: the Bayreuth circle. "I intentionally single out the Bayreuth circle rather than Richard Wagner himself. Although redemptive anti-Semitism derived its impact from the spirit of Bayreuth, and the spirit of Bayreuth would have been non-existent without Richard Wagner, the depth of his personal commitment to this brand of apocalyptic anti-Semitism remains somewhat contradictory. That Wagner's anti-Semitism was a constant and growing obsession after the 1851 publication of his Das Judentum in der Musik ( Judaism in Music ) is unquestionable. That the maestro saw Jewish machinations hidden in every nook and cranny of the new German Reich is notorious. That the redemption theme became the leitmotiv of Wagner's ideology and work during the last years of his life is no less generally accepted. Finally, that the disappearance of the Jews was one of the central elements of his vision of redemption seems also well established. But what, in Wagner's message, was the concrete meaning of such a disappearance? Did it mean the abolition of the Jewish spirit, the vanishing of the Jews as a separate and identifiable cultural and ethnic group, or did redemption imply the actual physical elimination of the Jews?" Etc. [My emphasis]

I don't read Ross as "normalizing" anything, especially not Wagner's views on Jews. He's pointing out the irony that even the grandfather of the Jewish state drew great inspiration from Wagner's work, yet it's still off-limits in Israel. Your last two sentences appear to be suggesting that Herzl, who was 23 when Wagner died, couldn't have possibly been aware that Wagner was, personally, a raging anti-semite. That appears to be very much false: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/19/opinion/editorial-notebook-wagner-israel-and-herzl.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm I stand corrected, in part: "Herzl admired Wagner's music but abhorred his racist opinions." http://www.herzl.org/english/Article.aspx?Item=515&Section=491

Mark -- Yes, "there was virulent anti-semitism in Germany before Wagner" and throughout much of Europe as well. But Wagner's particular contribution to the stream (and though it was not exclusively is, his formulations of it were to a fair degree his own and profoundly influential) was this: That there was a political/moral fracture in German society and the German soul, that the presence in German society of the Jews and their influence was the source of this fracture, and that both the solution to and the redemption of Germany's society and soul could come only through the purgation of that Jewish influence. Such thinking, once it entered the stream, gave a peculiar force to German anti-Semitism because its premise was that the volk as a whole were diseased and profoundly threatened by the almost literal bacillus of Jewry (viz. the Nazi's frequent image of the Jews as vermin), and that the only cure for this disease of the German volk was not merely the lessening of the Jews' pernicously un-German influence on the volk but a revolutionary elimination of the Jews. To repeat -- Wagner's strain of anti-Semitism was marked by a belief in the inherently diseased state of Germany's society and soul and that this disease could be cured only by revolutionary means. This was a new flavor, and one that was more or less unique to Germany (other major European and Eastern European nations did not have identities that were anywhere near as fractured along these lines as 18th and 19th Century Germany's was), and it was very influential. As for Wagner's numerous Jewish friends and associates, I've dealt with that before -- Wagner was for himself in addition to everything else and was inclined to look with favor on those who also were fervently for him.

It's pretty simple, I think, but perhaps an analogy would help. Let's say that Albert Einstein was who he was as a physicist and as influence on general Western thought (think of the meaning his theories gave to the notion of "relativity" in many spheres of activity and indeed to our idea of man's place in the universe) but that he also had particular views about the Jews that were identical to Wagner's and had, as I believe Wagner did, a profound influence on the course of anti-Semitism. Now, if someone were talking about the nature and influence of my imaginary Einstein's anti-Semitism, it would be IMO egregious to somehow try to "normalize" that side of the man by citing both Einstein's undeniable eminence as a physicist and the broad influence his scientific theories had on the culture as a whole and on specific members of that culture (a la Ross' citation of Herzl as a Wagnerian) who were unlikely to have any truck with an extreme anti-Semite. But if the analogy doesn't help, I simply meant that while Wagnerism (the music, the syncretic concept of the arts that underpinned it, etc., etc.) was tremendously influential on Western culture in the late 19th Century, the breadth of that influence didn't mean that most Wagnerians of all the various stripes of Wagnerians there were at the time were well-informed about Wagner's dark view of the Jews -- views that again were to be profoundly influential on those who were inclined to be influenced by them. Thus that latter-day virtuous and/or anomalous person X was a devout Wagnerian doesn't normalize Wagner's anti-Semitism; and to suggest that it does, a la Ross, seems disingenuous to me.

Big Wheel: About "There's a difference between having empathy for the victims of persecution and making a persecution complex into national policy" -- sure, but how about the to my mind not unrelated issue of having your nose rubbed in it, which is how some Israelis feel about Wagner. About the political arm-twisting, acknowledging that 'the issue of Wagner has obviously been "politicized" in Israel since pretty much forever,' first, there's good reason for that IMO, as I said/explained in my first post, and, second, making this an issue from the other direction seems to me to be (in part, and on the part of some) an attempt to paint Israel as a uniquely/foolishly intolerant nation. So let the discussions happen to a fare thee well, but allow me to remain suspicious of the motives of some of the participants. Mark: You meant "how elusive" and then, further down, "horrific allusions," no? In any case, about the "complexities and contradictions" of Wagner, when it came to the Jews, I think it's quite clear (as I said above) that he was close to some Jewish musicians who admired and could help him, and that as for the rest he was the among the godfathers of German Revolutionary anti-Semitism. That Wagnerism in one form or another cast a very wide social net in the late 19th Century is obvious, but I think that the breadth of his musical and social influence ought not to be used, as I think Alex Ross did by citing Herzl, to suggest that Wagner himself, in this one particular area of his thought, necessarily was a figure of comparable (i.e. comparable to his influence) breadth, complexity, or, if you will, diffuseness. Finally, speaking as a Jew who finds that he can't not afford to listen to Wagner's music, while I've sorted this out for myself in my own hand-to-mouth manner, I'm unwilling to tell that portion of the Israeli public that feels otherwise that they, by contrast, are inconsistent hypocrites. Should they change their minds on this, fine. Should they not, we'll all survive.

I like Newsome, and I can't say that of many players of the fish horn.

My two cents worth: !) Wagner was a great composer -- duh. 2) Wagner not only was a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite but a crucial (as in highly influential) intellectual pioneer in what has been called Revolutionary anti-Semitism -- i.e. the movement that believed that the intellectual-spiritual fulfillment of the German people could be achieved only if and when all traces of Jewish influence, up and including the Jews themselves, were eliminated from German life. (Yes, I know about Wagner's friendly relations with certain Jewish conductors who were among his acolytes -- Wagner, like many people, was for himself on a selective basis, in addition to being passionately for and against other things). 3) Whether Wagner is played in Israel matters to whom and why? If I'm an Israeli music lover who wants to hear some Wagner -- OK; I play my records, turn on the radio, advocate that his music be played in public in Israel. On the other hand, the linkage between Wagner's music and Nazism is not incidental from either direction -- Wagner's views having crucially fueled Nazi ideology, the Nazi regime having used Wagner's music as a virtual theme song -- and I'm certainly not going to tell any Israeli with a long, accurate memory that he/she should just grow up and forget about all that. Further, this whole fuss seems to me like political arm-twisting of one sort or another. As for Alex Ross' final citation of Theodore Herzl as something of a Wagnerian, as though that settles anything -- I've always known that Ross was a toad, but this confirms it..

I agree - worst call EVER!! Burt far from the only really bad call in that game. I'm thinking in particular of the one where a Packer DB was called for pass interference on Sidney Rice when the only possible call, if one was to be made, was that Rice interfered with him. Those officials are way out of their league, and because they know it, they're getting worse and worse.

Danko is still a fine pianist IMO (soloist and accompanist) and a fine bandleader-composer, too --that quartet he had/has with Rich Perry has made many excellent recordings. I note FWIW that the last entry on the Danko Scientology stuff that Moms links to dates from 1991.

Wow. As they say 'that's what makes horse racing'. I couldn't disagree more, Larry. I love almost everything Carmen did, any period. She just ripened like a wine, and played great piano for herself, as did Shirley Horn. I think those 2 may have been the best self-accompanying singers I've heard---especially Shirley. My favorite Carmen is Bittersweet, Sounds of Silence (I think it's called) and Portrait of Carmen. I think the last 2 are on Atlantic. Spring Can Really Hang You Up the Most on Bittersweet is my favorite version of a favorite song. She sings another Tommy Wolfe song, I'm Always Drunk in San Francisco, on one of the Atlantics, I forget which. The reason I love Carmen so much, besides her phenomenal musicianship, is an attitude she projects, or at least that I get, of not self-pity, but sort of 'screw the world or what anyone thinks. I'm telling you how I feel about this.' And there's a sardonic (if that's the right word) laughing-at-life and the stupidity of many people. She sounds like a really gifted survivor, who wants to 'talk' to whoever has ears to listen. Maybe this is in my head. She also can be unbelievably tender. Anyway, the combination of her attitude and amazing skills as a musician make her one of my all-time favorites. I wanted to mention IMO a great singer I've been in contact with, Shawnn Monteiro. She reminds me of (later) Carmen but definitely has her own great style and sound also. I think she's one of the best in the world today FWIW. I bring her up b/c last we spoke she was recording a Carmen McCrae tribute---speaking of tributes. It's probably in the can by now. So Sarah got one and now Carmen has one. Good news to me. Any relation to accordionist Eddie Monteiro?

Don't recall that Konitz, in the period when this might have been an issue (if it ever was), ever had a working band that wasn't very good. If it was Harold Danko that Katz had in mind (if indeed Danko was a Scientologist), Danko IMO was a better accompanist and soloist than Katz.

Well, I knew that the word "string" was involved somehow. BTW, if you buy "String Fever," get this one: http://www.amazon.com/String-Fever-Chuck-Wayne/dp/B00005B7RT with good sound and valuable alternate takes (especially for Don Joseph fans). IIRC, the Spaniards issued the album (perhaps a needle drop?) without any alternates.

I agree that Piano and Pen is by no means a high energy session. However, for me there is a tasty low key elegance that make it quite enjoyable. My recollection is that the Katz Trio date on Reservoir is a more swinging session. As Peter said these are not high energy sessions (recorded in December 1958 and January 1959), but to my ears the guitarists, Chuck Wayne on the former session and Jimmy Raney on the latter, are worth the price of admission alone. I'm one of the world's top Raney fans and like Wayne, too, but IMO Raney fares much better on his own ABC-Paramount albums from a few years earlier, as does Wayne on his marvelous VIK album with Don Joseph and a pocket big band, "Strings Attached." Again, Atlantic engineering tended to be of the ingrown-toenail school, and that, combined with the less than electrifying team of Kay and Joe Benjamin, cast something of a pall over the results. Still, I'm glad I have "Piano and Pen" because Katz-led dates are rare.

I like Dick Katz, but IIRC (and IMO of course) "Piano and Pen" is a rather soporific album, thanks in large part to Connie Kay and the dull Atlantic recording job.

I'm in. Sounds great.

I picked up that one, too, Dr J and like it a good deal. Scott Colley is excellent behind her, as is the whole band.

Whoa

As attractive as many of the bands/dates Rumsey nominally led, the basic problem with most of them to some degree IIRC is that Rumsey was not a very talented/swinging bass player but something of a plodder. They were his gigs, though. To stay within the same general bag of players, say, Monty Budwig would have made a considerable difference.

I will eventually respond to the responses. In the meantime....maybe the "moderator" can explain this particular poster (who has to be the most hostile person on here. Anger Management issues don't even come close describing his problems. He comes off as completely unhinged a good deal of the time.) is even still allowed to be a member? I have been threatened with banning, had posts deleted by the "moderator"....but someone who regularly insults and/or threatens other members for who knows how many years now is somehow still around. I guess there is a rule in the famous rules that keep being mentioned to me that makes it okay for him to do it. The irony is his post describes him exactly....well except his insults/threats are on the elementary/junior high level. I have lost track of how many of posts I have come across which are like this....when he only responds in threads to insult and/or threaten other members. But let's get all over those duplicate threads! The poster has been warned. I really can't tell at this point if you're being serious or attempting humor with that response to my post....and taking into account at this point I can quote countless posts that this member would have been banned pretty much every other place....WTF? knows how many years ago....it could have been from 2003 from all I know....it just got depressing after several searches with him telling people to fuck off, assholes, or wanting them dead....but here somehow he miraculously is still a member....and best I can make out....you were "moderating" for just the time I checked. Even on "the other" board that doesn't have a "moderator"....on which I made clear there should be one (and I also said on here is a Dead BB Walking)...and it took 14-years to finally ban the "troll"....this member wouldn't have lasted. God help anyone that starts a duplicate thread....but tell people to die, assholes, little shits, fuck off....that's all good on your watch, or get's a warning. I was threatened with banning for just using another members job (which he used several times previously as part of his enabling argument.)....you the "moderator" even mocked me when I tried to explain why that one subject bothered me....I also had a post deleted that had 11-14+-years of post on two boards to support. I can't even imagine what you would have done if I posted a single one of those posts this member posted that I can quote on your watch. You want to tell me about this board's rules again? But let's get all over those duplicate threads! I was quite serious; that poster has been warned, by me. But it's nice (irony alert now) that you have been conducting such thorough research into the past behavior of posters whose behavior annoys you ("...at this point I can quote countless posts that [would have led to] this member being banned pretty much every other place"...). And I'm the wannabe policeman here? P.S. You were threatened with being banned because you were behaving like a troll -- saying things that seemed IMO (and I'm not only no novice in this aspect of internet behavior, but this also was not solely my opinion in this instance) to be said not so much to make a point in an admittedly contentious discussion but essentially to provoke that particular poster (i.e. the school teacher), whom you had made clear you had gripe against from your dustups with him on another board. The trollish aspect of this would be, in case you don't already know, that if trolls can provoke someone into a bit of sufficiently angry/bad behavior, the provoked one may get punished and the troll, pleading innocence, can skate free. But onward and upward with your research.

I will eventually respond to the responses. In the meantime....maybe the "moderator" can explain this particular poster (who has to be the most hostile person on here. Anger Management issues don't even come close describing his problems. He comes off as completely unhinged a good deal of the time.) is even still allowed to be a member? I have been threatened with banning, had posts deleted by the "moderator"....but someone who regularly insults and/or threatens other members for who knows how many years now is somehow still around. I guess there is a rule in the famous rules that keep being mentioned to me that makes it okay for him to do it. The irony is his post describes him exactly....well except his insults/threats are on the elementary/junior high level. I have lost track of how many of posts I have come across which are like this....when he only responds in threads to insult and/or threaten other members. But let's get all over those duplicate threads! The poster has been warned.