JSngry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0lhan_Mimaro%C4%9Flu

Well, you know, if you listen to something long enough and intently enough, it gets internalized. You know it's there and you know what it is. It's love of the deepest kind, like that line Donny Hathaway sang, you can't see t, but you know it's there. Which is not to say that, as with any love, you can't grow apart. You can. And you can also rekindle an old flame. But like another one of those old sayings go, if you love something, set it free. If it comes back, etc. Now, if I want to get narcissistic about it, I can claim that it confirms my humanity that I can keep listening to new stuff and keep growing, blahblahbla. What a good boy am I!!!!! Look, everywhere I go, I see ME. But the reality is this - the more I find out I don't know, the humbler it makes me. not less confident, mind you. Just humbler. But it's a humility that brings joy, because instead of "seeing myself" in all these things, I see all the infinite possibilities that spring from the simple, basic fact of being a living human on planet Earth. There's nothing unique about that!

Desi radio is a gas! And I confess, the discomboulation that comes with hearing Beatles songs "out of sequence" is not something to which I can relate. If you want to REALLY get your Beatlhead fucked up, check out the whole Beatles Remixers Group thing, there's been, I think, 6(" volumes. A lot of it is at best, uh...mundane. But when it happens right, it happens. And that's when a parallel universe opens up, all these Beatles records that were never made, yet here they are.

I mean when I'm checking something new/new-ish, I do my best to not buy into the preexisting historical hype. And when listening to familiar music (which I really try to do as little as possible these days, that can actually be unpleasant, to hear the same thing for the umpteenth time, no matter how "good" it is), I try to listen to the musical specifics of the record, the individual players, the production choices, technical things, not personal emotional histories. I do have a few things like that, but I usually have to be in a very dark or very bright place to go there. You know, for some things, reminders are unnecessary. Examples of both types - my interest in "classical" music was wildly kindled by hearing Toscanini's reading of Beethoven 5 one afternoon while walking. I had put it on the iPod at some point for some reason and just decided one day, for no real reason, to check it out, because I remembered Beethoven 5, but hadn't listened to it in what might as well have been forever. I knew all the backstories and afterparties, but, you know, hell, let's see what's here, and WHOA - Toscanini played that fucker faster than was probably appropriate, but for some reason, those tempos made me think of Joe Zawinul's later work, and I go into this thinking that Toscanini makes Beethoven sound like Zawinul, how much more "Austrian" can you get, and then all this other probably completely inappropriate and probably inaccurate ways of hearing classical music, like, you know, Richard Strauss wrote some really hip changes, shit like that, totally not engaging in the narratives about what "classical music" is, was, or should be, at least not at the expense of a real time reaction. Of course, the more I learned, the more I learned, but even so, I can go to a concert or a record and hear it in an "unclassical" way, and that is, for me, a real delight. And it opens things up, because then you can hear other things in other ways too, and that is just plain fun. And then...somehow I found myself having an Oldies CD single of Gene & Debi's "Playboy", a song which I had kinda liked back in the day for it's cheese factor. So one day, I said, hey, let's listen to the POS one more time and UH-oh, this drummer is kinda...unruly. Either he was really feeling it or else he was in a hurry to get the session over and was just driving that sucker to the door by any means necessary. And that fascinated me, because, you know, there are moments like that in some pop records, moments where the players are not well-oiled machines who can reproduce on cue, and this was one of them. and then, Debbi's voice just turned sexy as fuck. There's this throaty thing going on on some of the syllables that is just....delightfully erotic. And then Gene Thomas, there was a backstory there, but I had neither known or cared, this guy came early and stuck around. I now know and don't care about that specifically, but the image of some guy just always "being there", a little more visible than unknown but never really known, that not as much a "narrative" as it is an "archetype". And on top of that, the song itself is a weird motherfucker in terms of harmonies and structure and the arrangement, the way the vocals exchange the leads (solo and harmony) is really nifty. None of that was in my memory and I had been "hearing" that record for, like, at least 25 years without any of that being heard, much less thought about. Now in both cases, yes, it was appealing to me that I was fining relatable things in the musics. But I was not looking for that. I found it, sure, but, you know, why the hell would I listen to "Playboy" at all, it was a cheesy single from my earliest teen years. And why would I randomly reach for Beethoven after spending the better part of a lifetime viscerally rejecting the whole Euro-nationalized concepts of things like correctness, meaning, profundity? In both cases, the answer was simple - it was there, so why not? Nothing to do with "narratives", everything to do with my own congenital musical promiscuity. And although, yes, I did see something in them, I don't think it was the thrill of "finding myself" as much as it was the delight of discovery of life on other planets. In a manner of speaking, of course.

Going out on a limb here, but speaking for myself, I get most of my "fun" and/or "meaning" from music these days from dethatching myself from any "narrative" I may or may not have with the records and just listening to the music like it's all more or less new music. Not the old musics I already know, because that's dangerous, really, doing too much of that. I mean shit that I've either never heard of have heard very little of or have not heard in alooooong tim, just listen to that like we're both (the music and me) just now happening. That's a great way to make friends with musics, friendships that can and often do develop into deeper more meaningful relationships. But you gotta keep making new friends, that the key, gotta learn other vibrational pattens, other voices, other grammers, other syntaxes. I'm not nearly as good at doing that with peoples as I am with musics, but...it's a predicator for any further luck. Same thing with food, gotta keep expanding that palate, no so much as to like more but just to be aware of more. Because when you die, if you're not kinda used to infinity, you're gonna be in for a rough time. Or at least that's what I think. I could be wrong. But yeah, that's what drives me in this life, to be ready to keep going once it ends, to have those molecules aligned to accept more, not less.

Ok, what has happened over the last 30 years of popular music to "indict"? Please be specific, and please provide counter-arguments to any specific indictments. And no, the context of the record does not evolve. A record made in 1969 will always be a record made in 1969, and if you heard it in 1969, you'll always have heard it in 1969. You might have changed a lot since 1969, but that record hasn't. And won't. 1969 is over. 2018 is almost over. Are we still "looking for ourself" in a record from 1969? That seems sad to me. Hell, I watch those NPR Tiny Desk concerts every once in a while just to see a piece or two of what's maybe going on today. A lot of it seems silly to me (no more emo strumming folkies and or coy ukulele singers, PLEASE!), but that's a normal-enough old guy reflex. But the other day I saw Ill Camille and it was delightful. And it also had nothing to do with me personally, musically or lyrically, other than it seemed to be an honest and forthright exposition of somebody else's reality/truth. And that is something I hope that I always enjoy, not always the music itself, but the recognition of honesty. Really, "liking" music is a game, oftentimes a silly game by the time it's over. It's ultimately not about the music, it's about the people, the humans doing this thing/these things. At some point, the music is just a transient delivery system for the intrinsic humanity. You don't have to like everybody to love everybody. Actually, it's probably best that you don't.

And yet...immaculate programming and sequencing, each of the four sides essentially an album in itself with beginnings middles and ends, and never any doubt that it's a Beatles record by the end of each side. See, this shit is so over, and we're still talking about it like there's still progress to be made, evolved opinions that will make the records sound different, be different. Not gonna happen. This mirror will get older and might crack or get dirty or something, but it's still the same old mirror.

If you even get so inclined, you can have a lot of fun looking for - and then finding and listening to - Ilhan Mimaroglu's music. It goes back quite a way, actually, and always stands out.

fwiw, the American & UK version of both Rubber Soul and Revolver are totally different records in terms of impact of concept. and to fuck the mind a little further, Yesterday... and Today make for a whole other experience that existed only because of proprietary formulations of the marketing laboratory. If you lived in those times and then only years later heard the official history as opposed to the manufactured history, hey...who knew that Rubber Soul was actually not a "folk-rock" album? I guess the rest of the world!

That 1966 NL race was one for the ages, going down to the last week or so of the season, Dodgers, Giants and Pirates, could have gone to any of them. It was tense, and made more so, in retrospect, by the total absence of any option other than winning the league and heading to the Series, period, or not winning the league and going home, also period. Nowadays we get drama out of division and even wildcard races, but after that drama ends, here come the post-season dramas, and then, finally, the WS. There's just too many teams to run it like that now, but just sayin', that was a kind of macro-drama then that we don't have now. "Season" meant something different then than it does now.

Of course it speaks of somebody and to somebody. But the question is - how does it impact beyond that group, and that to me seems to be a function of how open an individual is to things not like themselves. That's very much a function of the individual, do you welcome difference and unfamiliarity, are you willing to be exposed to it and explore it (and maybe even eventually decide that you really don't care for it, but you've given it a more than fair look and evaluation), or do you just want to leave it alone and get back to further refracting the mirror in which you see yourself?

I like how his face filled out as he got older, because when he was young, I thought he had the longest head in the history of the world. But my god, those 66 Giants were killer. If there had been a playoff system then...the Orioles were magic that year, but if they had gone up against that Giants team instead of that Dodgers team, hmmmm...maybe they should have kept Cepeda? Club Wins Losses Win % GB Los Angeles Dodgers 95 67 .586 – San Francisco Giants 93 68 .578 1.5 Pittsburgh Pirates 92 70 .568 3 Philadelphia Phillies 87 75 .537 8 Atlanta Braves 85 77 .525 10 St. Louis Cardinals 83 79 .512 12 Cincinnati Reds 76 84 .475 18 Houston Astros 72 90 .444 23 New York Mets 66 95 .410 28.5 Chicago Cubs 59 103 .364 36

and then all the Elmo Hope albums! and then all the Bertha Hope albums!

who's the drummer?

Interesting to hear it in real time as opposed to how it reads in print.

The much maligned in-house search function often enough works better than might be thought. I always start here and have luck more often than not. Google is always Plan B, at best. YMMV. Of course, as with any search function, results are dependent on keywords. Since I remember making that post, and since I know that any combination of Parker/Gillespie/Town Hall could yield too damn beaucoup many possibilities, I went with Nessa & Town Hall. That seemed like it would significantly narrow the range of possibilities, and sure enough, #7 on the hit parade!

believe it or not, the board's search function worked just fine for this one. Searched by nessa town hall and it was hit #7.

I guess I'll not ask about the implications of a whole ginormous bunch (several generations) of white kids seeing themselves in black music so much so that they evolved it (in their minds and in their practices) to they point that it "became" theirs...and to the point where further developments in black musics could go so far as to cause open hostility in older generations even as younger generations went though the same things, albeit seemingly with gradually lesser degrees of imperial arrogance.

Not necessarily. There's a lot of musics that I find intriguing precisely because I don't "see myself" in them, I see somebody else, something else, something I don't really know but wouldn't mind finding out more about.

fwiw, that Hi-Lo's cut was from their Starlite period, which for me greatly excelled what they did on Columbia. Not that the Columbia stuff was bad or anything, just that the Starlite stuff was at time nothing short of audacious. There were four albums and to get them on CD might require some hunting. Here's some of it: https://www.amazon.com/Musical-Thrill-Hi-Los/dp/B000FVQPVC/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1541006613&sr=1-1&keywords=hi-lo%27s

w/Raymond Burr as a drug kingpin. Not great, but much better than expected, much better.