Larry Kart

I heard you with that band and wrote something about it. Lord -- 25 years ago.

That is a lovely album.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKcdWYvZB-E I heard a version of that quartet (I think a different drummer) at The Brown Shoe in Chicago. After a would-be virtuosic (IMO just show-off, rubber-bandy) solo by Scotty Holt, Jackie said pretty much to himself (I was close to the bandstand) "ridiculous shit." From that moment to this, I'm not sure in what sense he meant that.

Fats is SO pretty here.

IIRC, Fats isn't in great shape here. Agree with Jim about the live date with Bird, Bud, and Blakey.

That, too, though my memories of it are dimmer (that was a long time ago -- maybe 40 years?), but what I loved about the other one was the degree to which Jodie and Wilbur locked into what Lee wanted to do and carried him more or less beyond his "tenth level of paraphrase." And Rodby wasn't just along for the ride. I could/should add some performances by Warne, but they're a blur of the marvelous. I did hear some of what's on "All Music" as it was recorded, but it was recorded.

Lee Konitz and Al Cohn at the Jazz Showcase. Also at the Showcase, Lee with Jodie Christan, Steve Rodby, and Wilbur Campbell.

I vas dere, Charley. Also, at a club on Stony Island Ave., Roscoe, Maurice McIntyre, Ajaramu, and Claudine Myers.

That band recorded for Delmark. Oops. And I've got the record, too.

Thousands I'm sure, starting in 1955. For more than ten years, 1976 to 1988, I was reviewing regularly for the Chicago Tribune, so that helped.

This band almost recorded (different bassist IIRC) but not like on this night at the Gate of Horn in Chicago, circa 1957: Ira Sullivan, Johnny Griffin, Jodie Christian, Victor Sproles, and Wilbur Campbell. What made it so special is that on several tunes, particularly an unreal "Night in Tunisia," Ira played trumpet and then after he and J.G. had soloed, picked up his tenor and engaged in an intense friendly battle with J.G.

I hate it when chord changes get "ticky."

It goes on forever?

Three volumes of Buxtehude's harpsichord music, with Lars Eric Mortenson, and the Complete Mingus Town Hall Concert.

About Tebow's flaws as a QB, this is pretty devastating: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sports/football/a-gifted-athlete-tim-tebow-has-plenty-of-flaws.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=tanier&st=cse As for "judging him by the results," football is a team game, and the team around Tebow was a pretty good one. The teams around Bradford and McCoy were not. As a Bears fan, I witnesssed the same effect when Kyle Orton took over from an injured Rex Grossman several years back and "won" a bunch of games not because Orton did anything other than not make horrendous mistakes (not that he was allowed to by the coaches) but because the team had a fine defense that often gave the offense the benefit of turnovers and a short field to work with. Thus we win 10-9, or 13-10. And yet Orton was felt by many fans to have "won" all of those games. What Orton really is as a QB is now clear; he's mediocre at best. Too bad he wasn't on a mission from God.

About Tebow being a winner, I see I confused you with GA Russell. Elway felt that Tebow had to be removed because he could only be somewhat effective in an offense tailored to him, and that that offense could not win a championship. Manning solved the Tebow problem, in the short run Manning might win a championship, meanwhile a better option for the future than Tebow could be found, and control of football operations could be returned to Elway et al. from the true believers in Tebow. Is it impossible that Tebow could be great? Yes, in the opinion of almost all the football people in the NFL. Is it possible that Tebow could be decent? Yes, but only in an offense that's tailored to him. Again, though, "decent" doesn't win championships, and why, unless one cares about Tebow personally, should one invest the fate of your team in him rather than any number of other potentially decent QBs? Instead, hope you can get a better than decent one down the road.

Exactly. Denver is not going to win a championship with Manning; they just don't have the offense. By the time the Broncos develop an offense (if they can; this whole thing gives me doubts about their ability to accomplish anything with the current team in charge), Manning will be out of the game. As far as Tebow goes, I am NOT a Tebow fan. However, I think it's quite possible that he could develop into a decent quarterback IF he is put in the right situation. New York is NEVER the right situation for such things; Denver could have been with a little patience. If Elway dumped Tebow because he was sick of dealing with the fans, fine, but let's admit that he did it for his own comfort, not to help the team. If he felt that Tebow would never develop, then I can understand getting rid of him, but the signing Manning for a team like this makes no sense, either from the team's standpoint or Manning's. I guess what I'm saying is that I think Elway is in over his head in the front office. If Manning is and remains healthy and the Broncos add some receivers he feels comfortable with (I believe they're doing that already), then the Broncos will have a much better offense right away. As for Tebow, the notion that he's a winner because he was the QB when the team won some defense-dominated, fluky games is silly, unless you believe in divine intervention. Remember Kyle Orton? He was the winning QB in a lot of games for the Bears when he was thrust into action by an injury, but that was for a team that had a fine defense and not because of much that Orton himself did. And we all know the QB that Orton has since proved himself to be. As for Tebow perhaps developing into a decent QB, why waste the time and effort and the fate of your team on this quest? Why not, if Manning's health holds up, buy two or more years of likely superior play from a Hall of Fame player who might lead you to a Super Bowl while you also acquire down the road a young QB who could be better than "decent." This side of Trent Dilfer, Super Bowl-winning teams don't have decent or below decent QBs. As for GA Russell's points -- Yes, pretty much no one wanted Tebow, unless they have a coach who digs the Wildcat (like the Jets' new offensive coordinator Tony Sparano) or an owner who really needs someone who can put butts in the seats, like the guy at Jacksonville. And I don't know anyone who thinks that the Broncos needed to get Tebow out of town to make Manning feel more at ease. About Tebow being a winner, see the first paragraph above.

Because 1) They knew that Manning, like most topflight starting QBs, is not into teaching/nurturing other QBs; that's the job of coaches, Manning's is winning games; and 2) They thought that Tebow did not have enough of the right kind of talent to ever be a successful starting QB in the NFL. Many but not all people in and around the NFL feel the same about Tebow. Thus, getting Manning and trading Tebow is in Elway's view the obvious right move, because it not only gives the Broncos a decent chance to win a championship (the team have a fine defense, no?), but it also solves the problem they had last year and would have had down the road, in which the fans run the franchise. When Manning runs out of gas, Elway figures that whatever QB they can acquire to replace him will be better than Tebow is now or will be then. Hey, even if Manning's head falls off in game one, they might still be in better shape.

You should check out some Vic and Sade: http://vicandsade.net/episodes.cgi Episode 213 concerns the Missouri State Home for the Tall IMO (and I'm not alone here) Paul Rhymer was a genius. Invented a world (perhaps akin to that of the great Frank King comic strip Gasoline Alley, wrote a script for broadcast every weekday for some 15 years. In my later years at the Chicago Tribune I worked alongside a wonderful woman whose folks came from the same region of north central Illinois where Vic and Sade was set. She had the same sense of dry ironic humor, the same wry tone of voice. Rhymer launched Vic and Sade on June 29, 1932, and between 1932 and 1946, he wrote more than 3500 episodes.

My late wife grew up in Kansas, among people named Clyde Baysore and Delbert Finniger. Then there was Paul Rhymer's great radio show "Vic and Sade," about Vic and Sadie Gook and their adopted son Rush, who lived in a vaguely fictionalized Bloomington, Il. Vic and Sade's best friends were Fred and Ruthie Stembottom. Vic's Lodge acquaintances at the the Drowsy Venus Chapter of the Sacred Stars of the Milky Way Lodge included Hunky J. Sponger, Y.Y. Flirch, J.J.J.J. Stunbolt, Harry Fie, I. Edson Box, Homer U. McDancy, H.K. Fleeber, Robert and Slobert Hink, Hank Gustop, and O.X. Bellyman. Then there was Rishigan Fishigan from Sishigan, Michigan; The Bright Kentucky Hotel; and Sick River Junction, Missouri (where the Missouri State Home for the Tall was located).

Lucid is as lucid does. The guy ain't expressively free form IMO, just careless.

Grammar is also a guide to ways of making sentences that make sense. The part of the quoted West sentence that refers to the Schubert sonata -- "like ... Schubert's tempestuous piano Sonata No. 21 in B flat (D.960) I will not let life or death stand in the way of this sublime and funky love that I crave!" -- can only mean that Schubert's sonata, like West, "will not let life or death stand in the way of [the] sublime and funky love that [it craves]!" The piece is tempestuous, but it ain't tempestuous enough to do that -- though I do recall the time Debussy's "Prelude to Afternoon of a Faun" leaked some semen onto my shoe. Further, as I showed above, while West's sentence can be recast to link up Heathcliff and Catherine to what West feels, I don't see how the Schubert sonata can be stitched into West's "I" -- i.e. in a coherent sentence. Suggestions are welcome. Well, "making sense" is really nothing more than a consensual agreement to convey thoughts in mutually understood terms. As for Schubert, I thought I understood what he meant. Seems like he was projecting his personal drama into Schubert's music and finding relative equivalency therein. Not unlike an emotional synesthesia, hearing music, seeing a life's tale. Last I looked, that was allowed, albeit at one's own peril, some of this music being what it is and all... Seems like a waste of time to me, what with the readily availability of "Bernadette", but to each their own, and besides, who the fuck IS Cornell West anyway, really, that I should care about what he hears in Schubert or any other damn thing? I see your visit to Texas has paid lasting dividends! "Well, "making sense" is really nothing more than a consensual agreement to convey thoughts in mutually understood terms." Exactly. And West's sentence turns the mutual understanding of the link between Schubert's sonata and what he feels about women into a matter of guesswork. What he would have needed to say was something like this, however fucking awkward it is: "My refusal to let life or death stand in the way of this sublime and funky love that I crave is just as tempestuous as Schubert's piano Sonata No. 21 in B flat (D.960)." But then the Heathcliff and Catherine part of it are out the window -- unless, again, one thinks of a sentence as a dugout canoe: pile it all in; the relationships between what's in there are what I think they are, even if i didn't say it. To switch to music, would one say that of Ornette or Ayler? IMO, no.

Or to put it another way -- not every sentence that is ungrammatical by some standard doesn't make sense, but some sentences (like that one of West's) that are ungrammatical by some standard also do not make sense. West's sentence is like a dugout canoe -- as long as he gets A, B, and C into the canoe, he's satisfied that the relationship among A, B, and C that he feels is there will be evident to all. But it ain't. By contrast, the relationship between the singer and what he sings in "Bernadette" -- as you quite accurately describe it -- is not only perfectly, powerfully clear but also, you should pardon the expression, as grammatical as can be.

Grammar is also a guide to ways of making sentences that make sense. The part of the quoted West sentence that refers to the Schubert sonata -- "like ... Schubert's tempestuous piano Sonata No. 21 in B flat (D.960) I will not let life or death stand in the way of this sublime and funky love that I crave!" -- can only mean that Schubert's sonata, like West, "will not let life or death stand in the way of [the] sublime and funky love that [it craves]!" The piece is tempestuous, but it ain't tempestuous enough to do that -- though I do recall the time Debussy's "Prelude to Afternoon of a Faun" leaked some semen onto my shoe. Further, as I showed above, while West's sentence can be recast to link up Heathcliff and Catherine to what West feels, I don't see how the Schubert sonata can be stitched into West's "I" -- i.e. in a coherent sentence. Suggestions are welcome.