Larry Kart

Oh, Jim -- yes, yes, of course, but when you're at a carnival and approach a small table upon which three walnut shells and a small rubber ball rest, is it that "complicated" (or merely almost certain to be vindicated common sense) to grasp that one is in the presence of an ongoing con game?

Re: Mark Stryker's wise remarks about oral histories and interviews -- It is now close to gospel that Art Blakey visited and spent a fair amount of time in West Africa in 1947 (this trip being something Blakey spoke of in numerous interviews, on the recording "Ritual," and IIRC in Art Taylor's "Notes and Tones"), and then revamped his style of drumming accordingly, taking off on what he heard and learned there. But even though this "fact" has led to at least one would-be scholarly article, Ingrid Monson's "Art Blakey's African Diaspora," and though it's hard to prove a negative, the preponderance of evidence/testimony from any number of sources (Blakey's lawyer, Horace Silver, etc.) is that Blakey was a habitual fabulist and that in particular (this from the lawyer) Blakey left the U.S. for the first time in 1957, for a European tour. A subsidiary point: That musician X said such and such about himself or musician Y is at the least under some circumstances what musician X believed or remembered at the time he made that statement. But some figures (Blakey apparently being one) just made up a lot of stuff, and much of what they said is evidence mostly that they chose to/felt it was worth making up that stuff when they did so. Big difference.

I did read or tried to read the Green book once upon a time. I'll look for it and try again. P.S. A nearby library has a copy: I'm there.

Yes -- but Bird at Minton's in 1960? And what's with that 'White-Male-Jazz scholar's" thing? If I were an African-American jazz biographer, I'd be pissed at the implication that as an African-American jazz biographer I shouldn't be expected to be more than anecdotal, nor should I be expected to have much background in the music as a whole or get certain basic facts right. Or would an African-American jazz biographer who proceeded otherwise be imitating/beholden to 'White-Male-Jazz scholars"? Eeesh. Tell it to Robin D. G. Kelley.

I recall reading (maybe here or on the BNBB) that that Grant Green book was chockful of Bix-ing. One reference to that effect, I'll look for more: http://fretterverse.com/2011/02/10/the-worst-musician-biography-ever/ Another: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2004/jan04/Green_book.htm and another: http://www.jazzhouse.org/library/index.php3?read=hale10

I suppose any gig is or should be a performance. And every performance one gets paid for (or even if you don't get paid, if you feel that why about things) is a gig. I'm reminded for some reason of an old LeRoi Jones remark: "I knew a man back in Newark who could whistle with peas in his mouth, but nobody every said he was hip." As for Allen deserving "wider popularity in his native country," why? There are plenty of players around who are more individual and inventive, even within the style or styles he favors.

Ah, yes -- here it is: "But that's a priceless Steinway!" "Not any more."

The best scenes in "The Return of the Pink Panther" never fail to make me laugh: E.g. and the following scene where Sellers questions a group of suspects.

Remember it well. I'm in the car on the right. And he backed into you? Now I get it. No I smashed into him. Speaking of Asherie and Allen, while I like Asherie, Allen's solo with Ehud here exemplifies the creepy predictability of Allen's thinking IMO: that's a fair observation, but harry has mastered his craft more than well. If it's fair to say that Allen's thinking here is creepily predictable, in what sense has he "mastered his craft more than well"? Again, I think of what used to be called "hotel tenor." The craft that such players ply is indeed a craft, but it's not the same craft, I think, that just about any jazz musician I can think of aspires to master. Seems to me that you're setting the bar very low -- not much above the level of "he can play the instrument." That I'll grant, but is this what we've come to settle for?

Allen and Alexander -- strychnine and arsenic. I can't decide which to drink.

Remember it well. I'm in the car on the right. And he backed into you? Now I get it. No I smashed into him. Speaking of Asherie and Allen, while I like Asherie, Allen's solo with Ehud here exemplifies the creepy predictability of Allen's thinking IMO:

Remember it well. I'm in the car on the right.

Even (or perhaps especially) this from a Grant Stewart album that's dedicated to Rollins speaks of the IMO significant differences I mentioned above:

An IMO revealing (and I think not unfair) comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRWw_GouRmU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RiPImaH9ug&feature=related

What I've heard of Allen's playing almost makes me physically ill. At least initially, he was a straight cop of "Long Island Sound" Getz, with a fair bit of what used to be called "hotel tenor" thrown in, the Getz model being denatured a good deal and significantly "lickified" (my coinage). It's not that Allen is not original that mostly bothers me; it's that even granting him his models, he is, by comparison, so bland and miniaturized. I probably can't, and have no great desire to, convince otherwise anyone who likes Allen. All I would hope that those who have an understandable fondness for older styles on particular instruments be aware of (what I see as) the difference between players on those instruments who are significantly inspired by those styles and proceed to invent in a personal manner (Grant Stewart for example, IMO) and those who do what IMO Allen does. To borrow the title of movie I saw a few days ago, his solos are like "tiny furniture." Hearing Allen live once with Randy Sandke, I could pretty much tell how each phrase would go before he played it. This is a good thing?

I'm planning to do that myself.

Time seems to have been very kind to her.

I like this one a lot: http://www.omnitone.com/physique/index.htm

FWIW, because these moderator-behavior matters keep cropping up, I sent this as a PM to someone a few weeks ago: I now realize that the overriding/general moderator principle is not so much to take note of past injuries and/or to punish the guilty/administer justice (if indeed the latter were even possible) but to do one's best to keep things functioning as smoothly as possible here.

Garbage site? Twat mods? Things must be poppin' at Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Yes -- one Quaalude margarita, coming up.

FWIW, the somehow missing or perhaps never sent PM to Blue Train that he mentions above read IIRC as follows: "What difference does it make how rapidly I responded to your post, and that I myself posted below it in the thread? I don't always read or absorb every phrase of every post in a thread, and in this case I was alerted to what you said by a complaint from another board member. I'm sorry about what happened to your brother." There I meant to say "your cousin," and that's why my next PM began as it did.

I don't agree that the fact of Goodspeak's occupation qualifies that as a "personal attack." If questioning others' choices is verboten, that closes down lots of opportunities for engagement/discussion. Assuming, as I do, that the passage in parentheses alludes to Paterno but essentially refers to Goodspeak -- because he is the one who teaches children (Paterno taught young men) -- it strikes me as a personal attack because of the phrase "somehow allowed," which implies that if Goodspeak holds the views that he does in this case (views with which I happen to disagree), then he ought not be allowed to teach children. To me that crosses over the line.

OK -- At Blue Train's request and for anyone who's interested, here is "the unnecessarily hostile, threatening and rude" PM (it was headed "Stop it") that I sent to Blue Train, "who was never even previously warned that he did anything wrong": 'Your personal attack on Goodspeak below (the part in parentheses) was way out of line: "Would anyone want their kid/grandchild, or even their worst enemies kid/grandchild having to depend on anyone (especially anyone who is somehow allowed to teach children and thus legally required to do so.) who thinks 48 hours to a week after being informed of a kid being fondled/sodomized, or anything sexual happened between a minor and adult?" Don't do anything like that again. It's a violation of forum rules.' Some admittedly testy back and forth between us followed, which I'd also be happy to print verbatim--- again, should anyone care. P.S. The reason I judged the part in parentheses to be a personal attack is that Goodspeak had mentioned several times on the thread that he himself was a schoolteacher who had reported several cases of sexual abuse during the course of his career.

My reference to Sanchez was mostly just an aside because she was in one of the two Malaby-led groups that Steve Reynolds heard that night. Other than that, though, based on the one Sanchez album I know, she seems to me (differences in instruments granted) a significantly "freer" player in the good sense than her former husband. As far as that goes, then, I guess I was just trying to nail my flag to the mast by indicating that if anything my mixed feelings about Malaby's own music were coming from (so to speak) the left rather than the right. I know -- who cares? But OTOH why not say so, especially when I imagine that some who don't care that much for Malaby might have as a key reference point, say, Eric Alexander?