Brad

I had it but now it seems to be gone. Perhaps it's in the settings. Not sure. BTW, did you get my pm? Yes, I did get it and typed a reply, but when I hit the send button the board was down. Thanks for the heads up, but I'd already seen the set. I'm watching it. By the way, the music's still there... Sorry about the other day by the way

I had it but now it seems to be gone. Perhaps it's in the settings. Not sure. BTW, did you get my pm?

Jeez, that's unbelievable and there those dunces in Citifield just sit with their hands up their your you-know-what.

Well, looks I'm ok now. Trust me, I'm not start enough to know how I figured this out!

When I go to post, right below style choices (like bold, italics), there's a box where I assume you post bit I can't type anything in there.

I'm having trouble posting through my computer. I'm doing this through my blackberry. Any advice?

I made that same discovery you made a while ago; I was looking at a cd and noticed that some the outside area were blank. An eureka moment! I think we assume that the cd will be like a lp: outside to in.

Let what go--being a lawyer? Sad to say but I'm stuck with that the rest of my life After all the hoopla, the article was quite interesting and I thank Dave for bringing it to our attention.

They were really swingin'; thanks for the link. The dancers seemed to be operating at half speed however. There was also an adjoining clip where Lockjaw really hit it on Cherokee.

Sorry, sometimes I can't help being a lawyer and it seemed pretty obvious to me what you were trying to say, but I'll let it go.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview. Please read his post carefully - he first asked if it had occurred to anyone that he was unaware, then he said he was not, ergo: he said he was not unaware. I'm (now) guessing that's not what he meant, but it's what he said. I read his post carefully and here it is: "Has it occurred to anyone that I was unaware that this was a violation of board policy? The fact of the matter is, I was not." Although the point is moot because Dave says otherwise (although that's not what he intended), a reasonable reading of the first sentence is that he was unaware of the policy. However, the second sentence seems to trip him up: "I was not." Or does it? When I read that (since Dave said he was unaware of the policy in the first sentence), the logical interpretation is that the second means he was "not" aware of the policy, not that he deliberately violated it. Otherwise, the use of the term "the fact of the matter" doesn't make sense.

If you were not unaware that it was a violation of board policy, then why did you post the whole interview? Just curious Dave said he not aware of the policy. Accordingly, how would he have known that he couldn't post the interview. I, myself, am only aware of the policy becacuse someone mentioned it in a post. I haven't bothered to check but I assume somewhere this policy is available.

Thanks for the tip. I may opt for Worlds Records.

Near 40 today in NW Joisey and the malls are crowded!

These appear to be available now on Amazon but not CDU.

In your opinion, maybe; I strongly disagree Well, other than mine, in whose opinion would that be? I assume you're a big Santana fan; it just didn't have the same magic for me. The Springfield was not bad. Liked some things I heard. I always get an uneasy feeling when people are expressing opinions as facts, which I thought was the case here. No, I'm not a big Santana fan, but I still like their first few albums. I am a big fan of Buffalo Springfield, and have been ever since their first album. When Abraxas first came out, I loved it, as well as later albums. I recently picked up Abraxas in re-mastered form and it just didn't do it for me unfortunately. OTOH, the Beatles sounded fresh more than 40 years later. None of this could hardly be fact as music is very subjective. Just my opinion

In your opinion, maybe; I strongly disagree Well, other than mine, in whose opinion would that be? I assume you're a big Santana fan; it just didn't have the same magic for me. The Springfield was not bad. Liked some things I heard.

I've mentioned this before on this thread, elsewhere and to friends, but listening to their stuff again after all these years is almost listening for the first time and enjoying it all over again. It still sounds to me as great as when I was a teenager. On the other hand, some other stuff that I've listened to recently (Buffalo Springfield, Santana) seems boring and dated.

Years back, I was able to pick up from Mosaic some incomplete sets from Mosaic: a nearly complete McLean, one disc from the Quebec Hardee set and a couple of discs from the Buck Clayton set. The McLean and Clayton sets came with box and book and the Hardee with book.

Can't disagree with that MG. When you don't like something, no use going back.... I love soul jazz myself and would have loved to been interested when these guys were recording.

I believe so

Thanks for the heads up. Order will be put in soon.

Regarding MG's point about not listening to rock after the mid 60s more than he could help it, I had the same attitude but after the Beatles box came out I started going back and listening to things and enjoying it, almost hearing it for the first time again so I wouldn't necessarily sell it short IMHO

Wholeheartedly second Brownie's recommendation. That is some amazing playing. I'm going to pull that out today.

At least you're honest