Larry Kart

Johnny Mandel is a fine composer, but I'd be a happy man if I knew I'd never hear "The Shadow of Your Smile" or "Emily" again -- the latter especially because you don't hear the former as much as you used to, and also not often from people who can play, while the latter does crop in the repertoire of reasonable people. What a nagging melody.

Miles at the Blackhawk set, a terrific 3-CD set of great-sounding '46-'47 Ellington transcriptions on Hindsight (I love that edition of the band), and Boulez conducts Varese on CBS-Sony. Took two stores to come up with those; don't think I saw another jazz or classical disc in either place that I would have wanted if it had been 70 per cent off. Oh, maybe Nonesuch's Steve Reich box (at one of the stores) but just for documentation.

Amusing response to this YouTube TV performance of "Goody Goody" by The Hi-Los: "this is a perfect example of a race record. white people were afraid of what would happen if their children were exposed to black music and as a result a perfectly good song was murdered." Apparently "white people were afraid of..." is a reference to Frankie Lymon's popular recording of "Goody Goody."

The band toured, mostly playing concerts IIRC. This would be a Mosaic possibility, but I believe Cuscuna balks at the more novelty-like SF material. I find all of it that I've heard to be at the least amusing/clever, while the best of it is quite remarkable. Also, if original masters could be obtained, these were the best-recorded big band albums of their time, maybe ever. Webster Hall, I believe. In fact, the cachet of the SF Band was inseparable from the early days of "hi-fi" mania; thus some of the band's cuter material was designed to test/show off your sound system. Also, IIRC the band traveled with its own sound engineer, in an attempt to make sure that it sounded just as good live as it did on records. Some marvelous players in that band.

Sorry for the shorthand. I meant that Ross's fervent endorsement of the music of those particular contemporary composers means that he thinks that their "answers" to what is really the "Please, God -- is there some kind of modern concert music that good-sized audiences will like, this side of Lowell Leiberman or a string arrangement of Radiohead, 'cause if there isn't, I'm out of a f---ing job here" question are the right answers. God, how naively I read the original passage. Ross counts on that.

So what's the answer?? Nobody seemed to know! Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ross is selling us a piece of bullshit here. On the one hand, unless a poll were taken of everyone in who happened to be in that railway carriage and overheard Mahler's question, the only somebodies literally present who could have replied were Alma, and Rosegger, assuming that Mahler's question was sincere. That they didn't have an answer means ... what?? On the other hand, that last sentence really exists to create the expectation that Ross himself has or will eventually come up with the answer. To the degree that he does, it seems to be Thomas Ades, John Adams, and Osvaldo Golijov. Hold on. Ross's answer to the question 'Does the poet mean the voice of the people at the present time or over time?' is 'Thomas Ades, John Adams, and Osvaldo Golijov'? Can you give me a semantic bridge to cross here? Well, there was that one guy on Amazon whose one-star reviews of Schoenberg (early or late) likened the whole equality-of-the-tones thing to communism. Sorry for the shorthand. I meant that Ross's fervent endorsement of the music of those particular contemporary composers means that he thinks that their "answers" to what is really the "Please, God -- is there some kind of modern concert music that good-sized audiences will like, this side of Lowell Leiberman or a string arrangement of Radiohead, 'cause if there isn't, I'm out of a f---ing job here" question are the right answers.

So what's the answer?? Nobody seemed to know! Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ross is selling us a piece of bullshit here. On the one hand, unless a poll were taken of everyone in who happened to be in that railway carriage and overheard Mahler's question, the only somebodies literally present who could have replied were Alma, and Rosegger, assuming that Mahler's question was sincere. That they didn't have an answer means ... what?? On the other hand, that last sentence really exists to create the expectation that Ross himself has or will eventually come up with the answer. To the degree that he does, it seems to be Thomas Ades, John Adams, and Osvaldo Golijov. Another Ross gem (p. 371): "In truth, there had always been an element of arbitrariness, of automatism, in atonal and twelve-tone music. When Schoenberg wrote 'Erwartung' in seventeen days, he could hardly have known in advance exactly what each of his nine- and ten-note orchestral chords would sound like; he, too, was throwing paint on canvas." What possible grounds could Ross have for saying that? If he thinks 'Erwartung' sound arbitrary, he's deaf. And the "seventeen days" thing! That S. wrote certain pieces, especially this one, at a white heat, is well known, but to assume that he must then have been "throwing paint on canvas"? And that "In truth..."! Finally, from p. 197, about S's "invention" of twelve-tone music in 1923: "In that mad year of hyperinflation, Schoenberg offered a kind of stabilization -- the conversion of a chaotic musical marketplace to a planned economy."

Why "Shame on us all"?

Thanks, Pristine. Fine work.

Can't add much to what Jim said, but ... the train engineer outfits! Also, that they probably play "Four Brothers" much better than, say, the LCJO sax section could. On the one hand, it's all so Madame Tussaud; on the other, these are real human beings. And when I look in the mirror, the guy I see there sure isn't the image of me that's in my head.

I've ignored this thread for a while 'cause I don't want to offend some friends but checking the current page to get the tenor of the arguement, clementine's above statement caught my attention and prompted a response. UNFORTUNATELY, all scenes suck more than they don't. Never forget to wade thru the ephemera to get to the real deal. Part of the journey and the results are worthwhile. I meant to ignore "the Chicago school" aside, but I do still want to ask Clem: Have you heard one darn thing from Chicago in recent years that wasn't from KVM directly or KVM-associated? If you haven't (and I've named a bunch of names elsewhere) you don't know what you're talking about here.

That's some foxy organ playing.

I'm all for the Starbucks where you can get a latte and a psychiatric profile to go. These days they seem to give me one even if I don't order it.

Check out 1959 Phil Woods on those clips there, with that small group from the Quincy Jones Orch. Woods sure could play then.

Or Langley-Porter Psychiatric Clinic.

Post from Jazz WestCoast, after a Zeitlin concert: Denny has some great news for fans of his music. Michael Cuscuna called him a while back about doing a Mosaic Select issue of the Columbia trios. It turns out the Mike found an hour of previously unissued trio tracks and wanted Denny to approve it. He hadn't heard this music for some 45 years. Some of it apparently was a little too edgy for Columbia of that time. As it turns out, he gave it thumbs up and even played several tunes from it at the concert. Denny told me after the concert that the Mosaic set will be out in August.

Shaw's short-lived 1949 band was superb. Danny Bank said that it was the best sax section he ever was part of -- Al Cohn, Zoot Sims, Herbie Steward and Frank Socolow altos; Don Fagerquist, tpt.; Jimmy Raney, guitar; charts by Tadd Dameron, George Russell, Johnny Mandel, et. al.

To quote Mel Brooks' psychiatrist, Dr. Haldanish: "Stay away from my eyes! Don't come near my eyes!"

Actually, Jim, you and Joe and Randy are perfect examples of what the real difference is -- as is, FWIW, Harold Mabern, whose name came up on this thread a while ago as someone who is/was not a "giant," therefore the implication ( by the person who brought up his name) is why don't we "elitists" dismiss him too, because he's no Bird, Pres, Coltrane, Bix, Louis, etc. The differences are the linked issues of individuality and genuineness. If you've got those things (plus talent) going for you -- as the members of Organissimo do, as Harold Mabern does, as a lot of people who are not outright flaming "geniuses" do -- then the results will (allowing for individual tastes) deservedly capture the mind and satisfy the soul. The problem that some of of us have with some of the people we've been yacking about is that while these guys may seem to be just trying to make a living playing music, there is arguably something askew or even half-broken in them in the place where individuality and genuineness, under prior prevailing normal circumstances, used to meet. That is, we're not just talking about (in some of these cases) about how these guys have been marketed by others but about (or so it seems to some of us) their whole basic orientation toward what they do, one that more or less precludes the possibility of much genuineness ever arising in them. As for the "wouldn't they choose a much easier music to play and make money with?" argument, the answer to that I think is that their approach (if not perhaps their conscious goal) amounts to "I'm gonna be a reasonable-sized frog in a small, shrinking pond." To pull that off is not a snap, but it's an easier route to take than a whole lot of others that come to mind, especially when you've got just the right kind of "reasonable-sized frog in a small, shrinking pond" help, as these guys tend to do.

Laving aside The Bad Plus (never heard them, believe it or not), I've heard some damn fine Iverson on record, e.g. Reid Anderson's "Dirty Show Tunes" (Fresh Sound New Talent). Lump him with Meldau? I don't think so.

Does Don Byron count? I can see where he might not.

Would Monk have hired Charlie Rouse in 1957? Not if Johnny Griffin were available; otherwise, quite possibly.

If they don't change what they fry the falafel in, yes.

I don't get this, & yes I know who Christopher Hollyday is / was. Just a joke, Christopher Hollyday having virtually disappeared. As for the rest of it, I'm saying that without Redman's name and back story, none of this might have been.