Larry Kart

Haven't read through the thread, so I apologize if it's been mentioned before, but among the most successful latter-day Hill recordings IMO is this somewhat obscure one, which he made with Danish and U.S. musicians (Scott Colley and Nasheet Waits) in conjunction with Hill's being given the JazzPar prize: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=18113 It was recorded at concerts on a tour, and it sounds like everyone has settled into the music. Also, these Danes not only can play but also play with more zest and boldness that some of Hill's latter-day younger U.S. sidemen.

It's here, as "Red Rodney 1957" (the original title) from Amazon U.S., but it's rather pricey: http://www.amazon.com/1957-Red-Rodney/dp/B...4163&sr=1-6

That Jaspar essay is fascinating. Two other interesting examples of early Elvin are the trio album "Tommy Flanagan Overseas" (the J.J. rhythm section of the time, rec. in Sweden, with Elvin on brushes throughout but often very aggressive and well-recorded), and half of Red Rodney's "The Red Arrow," a terrific record. The front line is Red and Ira Sullivan, mostly on tenor and in superb form; the drummer on the other half is Philly Joe (interesting contrast), the pianist is Flanagan, and the bassist is Oscar Pettiford! Originally on Signal, has been reissued on LP and CD, and I hope it's still availabe. Here's a link to a UK site that has the original cover: http://www.amazon.co.uk/1957-DVD-AUDIO-Red...y/dp/B00005YC5N

Lincoln Kirstein?

Mitchell played with Elvin Jones? Yes, at an afternoon jam session at a club on Wells St., north of the Plugged Nickel, between that club and North Avenue. At the the time, Roscoe was known to virtually no one I believe, and IIRC he stepped onto the stand of his own accord in the middle of a tune that already had been going on for a while. I'm sure that what he played had quite a impact on everyone. At the time I thought of it as being kind of Dolphy-esque, with a lot individuality and power and some of that special "objective" quality that is one of Roscoe trademarks -- where you feel that it's explosively hot but he himself is not being carried away, or that his being carried away is not the issue. BTW, on second thought, the drummer with the Coltrane Quartet that I heard at the Sutherland in Aug. '60 was not Elvin but Pete LaRoca.

Most interesting encounter, perhaps, was when Coltrane's first quartet (Steve Kuhn, Steve Davis, Elvin) was at the Sutherland Lounge in Chicago in Aug. 1960. We (my friends and I) knew "Giant Steps," but the "My Favorite Things" album had not yet been recorded, so even though that was the style in which the band and Coltrane were playing, it was all shockingly, thrillingly new to us. Also, one night between sets I saw Trane talking to his old boss Johnny Hodges at the bar -- the raised bandstand at the Sutherland was surrounded by the bar IIRC. In any case, Trane was showing his soprano sax to Hodges, who was examining it with interest -- Hodges of course having played the instrument himself for some time but not for several decades. Later on, 1962-3 and I think '64, there were quite a few Coltrane Quartet appearances at McKie's Disc Jockey Show Lounge on Cottage Grove Ave. just south of 63rd St. Every one of those was ----ing incredible, beyond anything on disc AFAIK, if only because no recording could capture the dynamic range of Trane and Elvin in live performance, especially if, as was typical at McKie's when you were seated at the bar (which again butted a raised bandstand), your head was about six feet or so from Elvin's bass drum, and Trane stood about four feet away from you. As I once wrote, one night I looked to my right during a set because I heard an odd thudding sound coming from there and saw the late David (Daiv) Rosenthal (son of poet-literary critic M.L. Rosenthal and eventually the author of the book "Hard Bop") beating his head on the bar with a fair amount of force and roughly in time to the music. Daiv was a strange guy, but what he was doing seemed like a reasonable response. Finally, Coltrane with Pharoah Sanders at the Plugged Nickel in '65 or '66 or both. I have to admit that my main recollection is being put off by Pharoah -- the way he seemed to heat-up instantaneously, as though he were plugged into a socket, while Trane had to "climb the mountain" so to speak (and IIRC Trane was showing signs that the "climb" was literally, physically becoming laborious for him, which was distressing to see and made me that much more inclined to be put off by Pharaoh, because it seemed like his instaneous heat was forcing Trane to match him along those lines). Also, I associate all this with the first time I heard Roscoe Mitchell, at an afternoon session with Elvin Jones during one of these gigs -- a performance that made it fairly clear that there was another way in the wind.

Gee -- what a surprise. Did you think before this that Mr. Baldwin was such a nice guy, like the rest of his dysfunctional siblings? I mean there has to be reason he's so often cast as an an intemperate ---hole, even though I think he has some gifts as an actor. You surely don't mean that his vile personal behavior is supposed to, in and of itself, invalidate the political positions he has taken? Or do you?

Clem -- I'm afraid Chuck is right here. In particular, most anyone who's spent some time in conversation with Ornette (not that that's necessary, but it probably helps) will tell you that you'd have better chance getting the West Wind to make an annual contribution to the March of Dimes than you would getting Ornette to do any of the things you'd like him to do. About Denardo I don't know, but even if he is, as you seem to suspect, a much different kind of guy than his father is, I can't imagine that Denardo would get very far if he did try to push Ornette in a direction that Ornette didn't feel like going. BTW, I'm not trying to paint Ornette as some kind of child, just as a near-absolute, probably permanent one-off. Given what we've all received from him .. well, we could have gotten much less.

IIRC that set was at least as fine as any Blue Note Smith jam session recording.

MY VPI has been very useful for many years. When you need it, it makes a difference.

Roscoe Mitchell's "Sound," if you don't have it. It's one of the Great Recordings of the 20th Century.

I've had a hiccup or two lately. I place an order and it doesn't get processed; I'm just bounced back to my cart. IIRC I just kept going around the maypole for a while, and finally it went through. Never happened before.

If she needs a date in Detroit, I can be there.

Hart was married to the late playwright and author Moss Hart ("My Fair Lady," "Act One," etc.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Hart I once made the mistake of telling someone that she was married to the late lyricist Lorenz Hart; it was explained to me that that was not so and that it would have been a very unlikely marriage in any case. Seems from Moss Hart's bio that theirs was an unlikely marriage too.

Late to the party, but I just picked up a copy of "Routes" the other day. Either I'm just now ripe for this or it makes a big difference to take in the full opulence of the recording or both, but I'm almost literally intoxicated and also at times am finding myself without warning moved/touched/what have you by the union of her voice, her writing, and her "messages." It's a better planet for her being on it.

IIRC the Muse period, as leader and sideman, was Cook's time of maximum ripeness. Fine music.

Mr. Guthartz -- Braxton is Braxton, su generis IMO in almost every way imaginable. KV says "in his own words" that his penchant for dedications began in the way that he says it did. Well, I guess that settles it then. Threads here go as they will, in a communal, self-regulating manner, with rare interventions by Jim Alfredson, the owner. You don't get to decide that a post is aberrant because it's talking about KV for a while rather than about Ornette; we all decide those things by our responses or lack of same -- and some of the most interesting and fruitful discussions here have stemmed from people taking hard left or right turns. Also, what's with that "s/he" stuff? And speaking of casting aspersions on people's motives -- a lot of people here post using names other than their own and don't chose to reveal what they're doing in life "other than posting messages on this forum." This you find novel and dubious? Seems to me you have the instincts of a cultural commissar.

BTW, I forget to say that my post last night was dedicated to Walter Benjamin and Sor Juana de la Cruz.

Well, if he went that way, I'm sure there'd be folks saying "KV is just stealing ideas from X, Y & Z, and presenting them as his own without giving anyone any credit." The record is out. I have confidence in your ability to listen to the music and figure out the influences for yourself, or not. Who is demanding you care about anything other than the music? If you don't like the music, fine -- stop at "beyond asinine". But to assault his integrity by saying he's "attempting to bask in other's glories" is totally unfair and uncalled for. We all know how omniscient you are, Don C., but I guarantee there are lots of folks who will come across Powerhouse Sound who never heard of Perry, Dodd, et al, do a little digging, and be hipped on to some hip shit as a result. So while it obviously annoys you for some reason, in reality it's all good. ps - please tell us (1) the names of the musicians from whom Ken may borrow, (2) the concepts and traditions you would permit Ken to draw upon, and (3) how much Ken is allowed to talk about (1) and (2). anyway, this is Ornette's thread... It just occurred to me who KV reminds me of, up to a point -- Charlie Barnet. That is, they are/were reportedly very nice to better than very nice guys who put the extra-musical monetary assets that were available or were made available to them (lots of family dough in Barnet's case, lots of foundation dough in KV's) to arguably very good use, but in purely musical terms, neither was IMO a very talented soloist, and/or both were pretty much in the position of having to gorilla stuff out of their horns in the face of less than sufficient musical knowledge -- i.e. less than sufficient in terms of what they were actually trying to do on their horns, not in terms of music as a whole. Barnet worshipped Coleman Hawkins, but while Barnet certainly swung and had a biggish hot tone, Hawkins' harmonic sophistication was beyond him; in fact, Barnet's relative crudity in that realm, combined with his broad-brush rhythmic zest, arguably led him to become a founding father of what became known as "chicken tenor." (Would it be too much to say that avant-garde "chicken tenor" is one of KV's chief modes?) Now Barnet was an excellent bandleader -- in part because he was such a generous, warm-hearted, fun-loving guy; in part because he had fine taste in sidemen and arrangers -- and I believe that KV shares some of those traits, though I myself have seldom found any KV recording or live performance I've heard to be as satisfying as any number of performances and recordings I've heard by some or all of KV's associates, minus KV. Another point of comparison: Barnet was a wholly lovestruck admirer of Ellington's music -- a fair number of his band's recordings were in the Ellington style and of Ellington material, to the point where some observers felt that one might just as well listen to Ellington instead, though I don't think anyone could or should have questioned the sincerity of Barnet's Ellington worship, just the aesthetic wisdom of displaying it too literally (and in fact the Barnet band's most notable recordings have a definite flavor of their own). As for KV's admiration of other musicians and the sincerity thereof, I can't speak directly to the latter point, but I can think of no other musician who has dedicated so many albums and compositions to other figures -- and not only that, to figures who all (or virtually all) seem to have a cachet of a certain sort, i.e. they're arguably not only very good to great (by avant-gardish standards or tastes) but also are more or less ignored or neglected, such that one suspects (or, I should say, that I suspect) that part of what's going on with all these dedications is a desire (conscious or not) to transmit value by association from the one being dedicated to the one who is bestowing the dedication. (This FWIW is a very familiar pattern in the world of contemporary poetry -- the striver poet, if you will, is far more likely to tack on dedications to his or her poems, and these poems are almost always dedicated to figures who are more well-known or well-regarded in the world of modern verse that the dedicating poet; further, aside from the fact of the dedication to, say, Robert Creeley, one either detects little in the poem itself that is related to the work of the poet to whom the poem has been dedicated or little in the poem that is not related to the other poet's work in a fairly obvious manner.) Now perhaps I'm wrong here; perhaps I'm not but it's all rather harmless or beside the point. But that's how it seems to me. In any case, while I have a fairly long record of enthusiasm for the kind of music that KV supposedly produces, I long ago reached the point where his presence on a recording or on a bandstand was, from a purely aesthetic angle, a reason to say "see you later."

A side aspect of this: The Pulitzer music award requires that a recording be submitted (and this is true of at least one other such major music award, too -- the Pulitzer is a prize for a specific work, not a career award (supposedly), and a score is not enough, probably because in recent years, not every member of the music juries is a score reader. In any case, as this article explains: http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=50tp01 it's difficult to impossible, for contractual/union reasons, for a composer whose work is premiered by an American symphony orchestra to get even a so-called "archival" recording of his or her piece.

About the sound quality -- not everything is perfectly in balance, but the presence on Pres and Sarah and Roy Haynes is very good. In fact, I can think of few studio recordings of the time that capture Pres's sound more vividly. In part that's because Town Hall was a good space acoustically. For example, check out the sound on the Parker-Gillespie 1945 Uptown Town Hall concert. Another thing that's fun -- both Pres and Sarah are very well received, but she just kills the crowd ... and not I think because they've decided upfront that she's a rising star. It's one of those lovely moments where a major artist in flower is legitimately filling the souls of the people to over-flowing. Sarah uses Pres's rhythm section, but Sammy Beskin takes Sadik Hakim's place on piano -- and thank the Lord for that, I say. Hakim can be fun in a weird way, but the way he comps every tune seems to have the same changes.

Pres and the young Sassy share a Town Hall concert on Nov. 8, 1947 -- both in great form and vividly recorded for the most part. I'm not sure that there's any more vigorous and fresh post-war Pres -- and by vigorous I mean not just energetic but really inventive; there's some moves here that will be new to you -- at least they were to me (and they're both beautiful and very hip too). Roy Haynes is the drummer; he's sizzling. And Vaughan -- this may be the best representation of her early self there is on record. Mostly doing ballads, she reshapes them as though she were Tadd Dameron, and when Pres joins her on "I Cried For You," playing his ass off, she responds with a passage that sounds like a cuckoo clock that could tell time in the Fourth Dimension. Best of all, though, is what may be the most remarkable Pres reading of "These Foolish Things" there is -- and that's saying something. I gasped at times at what he does here. Also, you get to hear a relaxed, happy Pres announce tunes and Sarah interact verbally with her rhythm section -- her speaking voice so high and girlish (though her views are quite firm) that it hardly seems to belong to the same person who's singing. http://www.amazon.com/One-Night-Stand-Town...8830&sr=1-1

Thanks, Herr Wagner, that was handy of you.

I have "Tokyo Live," and in the liner notes Tony says: "On these discs you'll hear half the material that we recorded in Tokyo" (my emphasis).

I bet the members of the Rutgers women's basketball team misuse a priori and screw up e.g. and i.e. all the time! Oh, the horrors! But you can't "peeve-out" on them now, can you? I still think that it's a good idea to know the difference between correct and incorrect usage (and/or the evolution of usage) -- in this case or in any other. At least that allows you to make a choice or even to try to argue that the "correct" choice is not, or no longer is, correct. But what's the point of not caring that there is a longstanding, legitimate distinction when that knowledge is made available to you? And what, aside from the fact that this is an Imus thread, does the Rutgers women's basketball team have to do with it?