connoisseur series500

or Minew. I have never made this argument. Though Republicans who are jazz fans are such an unusaual minority that they deserve their own moniker, like the Log Cabin Republicans have. Maybe "Woodshed Republicans." Sorry Minew. Did I use a smiley there?

Has anyone in your family ever gone to a genetic reproduction clinic about this? They might even give you a free test once you fill them in on your story. And yes there are reasons for this sort of thing--my girlfriend is the expert, though: she worked in a genetic counselling lab for a few years (not much of that sort of work up here in TC, though). Let me work out the probabilities, here: the 2:1 distribution is normal, so we'll throw that out. So we got 11/15 boys. Normal distribution would be, for our purposes, 7 boys. The chances for next boy is 50/50 or .5 and so on. By my calculations the chances of your family's sexual distribution happening at random is something like 6.25%. Not really so far-fetched, I guess. I haven't actually given this much thought, so perhaps a more math-minded person could correct this. --eric So it's a random chance every time, right? Or are people genetically predisposed to engender a child of a particular sex? Anyone know?

Well this makes sense. Great motivator and someone who elicited respect. How about some of the other great coaches?

BTW, what is that online place with free shipping? I think it's CD UNIVERSE. I've got so many online places saved in "favorites" that I cannot distinguish between them all. I think you can preorder RVGs there as well.

Deus, are you making a mockery of those birthdays? I agree that it gets a little tiresome--all the "happy birthday to------" but it is still important to see whose birthday comes up.

Continuing with specifics: The sound quality of Horace Silver, CAPE VERDEAN BLUES is not the best. I'll probably upgrade that one. Can barely hear the cymbal work on Jimmy Smith, PRAYER MEETING. That's another candidate for upgrading. These three sound fine: Duke Pearson, SWEET HONEY BEE Jackie Mclea, RIGHT NOW Donald Byrd, LIVE AT THE HALF NOTE Still have to listen to Freddie Hubbard...

Wow! Great news! And if they could ever hear you guys live, it would be even better. As mentioned before, you guys have really improved your tunes when I hear them live. Not to say that the studio versions aren't good, of course. But I guess every band does that. They refine them more and more with constant live exposure.

I didn't like it on first hearing, Al, but grew to like it quite a bit. It's got its share of wah-wah guitar work and all that but Jimmy burns on it. I wouldn't give up on mine and you know I'm a little fussy with this sort of jazz. It's a keeper.

I checked my "Reddie for Freddy" (Conn series) and it was remastered by Rudy Van Gelder in 1995. Was that a bad recording? I'll listen to it closely, but could use opinions.

Welcome to the board, Chibiz. Sorry I can't answer your question, but you should pose this question under another forum. Try "miscellaneous music."

Okay, that might make some sense. Does the GROPE agree about this characterization?

Very helpful post, Claude. Which other scheduled RVGs were done in the mid-90s when the quality was okay?

Boy are you in touch with the 19th century! I mean it in a broad way. Still hasn't changed as far as I can see.

Chris has listed the RVGs due out in early March in "Blue Note Reissues." What we're looking for here is not your general philosophy regarding upgrading, but the preference would be a modest analysis of the sound quality of the cds which are to be remastered. I'm in the process of going through the ones I have. I've been listening to Donald Byrd, AT THE HALF NOTE CAFE, VOLUMES 1 & 2, and I see nothing wrong with the sound quality. I can hear the instruments fine, even the bass. This strikes me as good sound quality for a live session. What is there to "upgrade?" Let us know your thoughts on this as well as some of the others. I will add comments as I listen to some of my others. So far, I'm keeping my old version of HALF NOTE. You also might want to state your general philosophy regarding upgrading. Mine: I upgrade a lot but not always.

Be nicer to GROPE, DEEP. Remember, he was confused as being you. SGUD is okay too. You being truculent again?

OK, let's expand the discussion. What made other coaches great? Perhaps Jim Sangry could offer his opinion on Tom Landry (assuming you did think he was a great coach.) Regarding the shotgun formation: is it fair then to say that Landry really made it into a real weapon? Did Landry invent the so-called "flex defence?" What about Chuck Noll? He had dominating teams. Was he a great coach? He sure had the players. Don Shula always won. He had to have been a great coach. George Halas? Marv Levy? Bud Grant? Don Coryell? John Madden? Ted Marchibroda? Just a few names to consider. Tell us why you think a particular coach was "great."

I'm still trying to figure this one out and I'm not drunk.

So in your mind he wasn't necessarily a great coach? I mean, I've got no axe to grind. I'm just curious. My NFL team (NE Patriots) is handled by a great coach. I think that I can see why he is a great coach. 1. He is clever at selecting the right mix of players on his team, which includes dumping star players whom he might feel are either past their prime or whose value doesn't quite match salary cap realities. 2. He is a workaholic who devises masterly defensive plans each week. 3. Loves to place players in multiple roles. This confuses the heck out of opposing offenses and defenses. 4. Seems able to turn rookies and previously-nondescript free agents into very good football players. I've probably left out other reasons, but I'd like to know what made the great coaches "great." Bill Walsh developed the West Coast Offense. What did the other great coaches do?

I wasn't really following football during the Vince Lombardi years. His record in winning Super Bowls is hard to beat, but what I'd like to know is, why was he considered a great coach beyond just winning games? Was he considered great simply because he won so many games? Was he an innovator in any way? Was he lucky by having great players? Tom Landry developed the shotgun formation (I think!) and other great coaches have invented certain formations. What did Lombardi do? Was he just a great motivator?

Well, Vibes, you bring up a point. I've always wondered: are people predisposed to engender kids of one sex? Or is it a pure 50/50 chance every time? I guess I must have been sleeping through my biology classes when this subject came up.

I don't know what to think, but I'll tell you what...if I were a parent who had five boys or five girls and wanted another child, I'd probably look at the technology in a very accepting way.

I still can't believe it. Everyone says Bush is dimwitted. That's top class repartee.

This can't be a true story. No way!

huh?