JSngry

BIOS battery, perhaps? https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/why-does-my-motherboard-have-a-battery/ How old is your old computer, and when was the last time up updated anythng on it?

I think that the more specific the intended desired manipulation, the better it is served by science. Really/Real "pure passion" is not a matter of conscious manipulation over any number of runs for any number of different people. And nothing wrong with that, I mean, I enjoy a good film, and a good score will certainly enhance (at the least!) the experience. But hardly ever am I not aware that the whole thing is a constructed product intended to manipulate me into a state of entertained. It in no way mirrors reality, at least not the reality of living from moment to moment in an environment of many knowns and even more unknowns.

Let's also concise the emotion of math/the math of emotion. Pulse, meter, syncopation, all these things bring "meaning" to be processed. To be ignorant of that is absurd! I've lately started listening to music as science, or if you will, "science". That's not an elimination of "emotion", but it is a conscious refutation of the "romantic" notion of "pure passion" and such as a desirable end. If you want pure passion, go watch a murder or a honeymoon (hopefully) or that kind of thing. If you want to make an expression that survives, though, you better get that science in there, because science lasts, passion flames up and then dies. Now, how do I reconcile the desire for science with the suspicion of measurement? I don't. That's an individual's responsibility,to figure out where the line between building and expression and "managing" lies, and good luck to each of us as we go on our own ways with that. You know doubt run with a more civilized crowd than I do, but nothing ruins a good joke better than somebody not getting that it is a joke, or even worse, thinking that it's intended as an act of aggression rather than an attempt to share, the whole "sarcasm is bullying" crowd, I mean how can you take a joke when you don't know even how to laugh?

and there still is. It's not that I'm "anti-word" or anything, I just don't believe they're the end all and be all. And I do think that people run the risk of dumbing themselves down when they don't consider the full scope of communication as part of a whole, rather than as an end unto itself. Let's talk about singers (and then think about instrumentalists), how you give 100 worth-a-damn singers the same song, you're going to get 100 different communications of that song. Same words, but the "intangibles" of timbre, rhythm, accent, enunciation, percussive attacks, rolling textures on held vowels, all that come with being a worth-a-damn singer. So, are they coloring this strictly in response to the words, or are they coming from someplace else and then making the words serve that? Probably both, and it's more than a little intellectual masturbatory to go looking for the answer for too long. But, there's still then the question of what would the singer bring to either the same song to be sung without words or else a song that has no words? And that's where instrumentalists come in, especially with music that veers further and further away from an immediate socioeconomic imperative. Feeling doesn't just disappear because there's no song or no words. Sometimes, actually, it increases, because the feeling and the imperative are at odds. This can be at an individual level or a broader one, a good example being how bebop didn't care if you danced to it or not, if you could, great, but what they had to say was not primarily motivated by a need to get you out there on the floor. So, yeah, there is language beyond words, communication that is not occurring on the immediately obvious plane of a conscious logic. This is not a bad thing at all, if for no other reason than people who are motivated by metricizing every aspect of our behavior are not my friend, and probably not yours either.

Arthur Prysock on American Bandstand. This would be a record to have!

Let's ask a better question - if you have no context for those sounds (i.e. - speaking the language to any degree of comprehension), how can you be sure that the DO sound the same? Believe me, I confronted this when learning "Latin music" and then hanging around in different environments where I didn't speak the language, not past the very most obvious common words, "extra-verbal" communication came into play any number of times, sometimes critically so. Let's not even talk about listening to "foreign language" radio...good lord, tone and inflection can only matter so much if you have zero context as for how they are generally used. I once listened to a Vietnamese station for 30 minutes and had zero idea of what was being said. Zero. they could have been saying the same paragraph over and over, maybe it was a meditation exercise. Or he could have been giving our recipes. Didn't have even have half a clue. So once again, "words" are the trailing end of our thought, not the leading end.

Absolutely! But I think Prysock made better albums for Verve than that one. There's .one, I forget the title, that is one of the best "jazz vocal" records ever made ok, there's two - Mister Prysock and Love Me.

Pondering the desire I would have for a Basie Mosiac covering the 2nd Verve period. Their are highlights to be sure, just not sure how many. Then again, the Woody Herman Mars/MGM/Etc. is not going to be 100% gravy either.

That's easy - by the macro-vibration of context. And before you scoff at that, tell me this, then - where are we, ever, where there are no vibrational patterns going on? I mean, c'mon, do you really need words to be able to tell you if you're standing in front of a general or if you've just stumbled across a dead rat with your lawn mower? And do you need words when somebody who has it in themselves to give you "that look" gives it too you? Survival instinct is that you process the information first, figure out the words later. And besides, if words alone were the most definite medium for conveying an idea, where's the traction for lying, deadpannng, punning, ironyizing, or any of that saying one thing and meaning another stuff?

No problems, eh? I suspicious of a no-friction lifestyle...friction is what keeps any of us/this here. Friction is pretty much what enables life as we know it. Friction more or less is consciousness. And believe me, I have pursued supraconsuciouness in many ways, having never fully achieved it, I now realize what a blessing it is that I didn't!

Oh, I reckon not! How do we decide what to wear, what colors to put together, what to emphasize, how to accessorize? I could go on, but... Words are the trailing indicators of our thoughts, not the leading ones. I dare say that for most people, they're a summation of our thoughts after we have them, and seldom do they communicate the fullness of all that has occurred in the thought.

Ok, i've evolved my definition of "language" to include any means of communication. Body language, color language, sign language, flag language, whatever. In all these cases, the initial language is then "translated" "word language". But something is lost along the way, word language is a reduction of the initial expression, not an expansion. Music is no different, and is perhaps even more so that way. It is all about the creation, transmission, and reception of vibration patterns, That's essentially what any language is because everything is vibration, any sensory experience can be traced to a vibrationary action. "We" like to think of "words" as the ultimate expression, because they give a sense of measure, and with measure comes the ability to control (in ways both benevolent and malevolent). But we kid ourselves if we begin to believe that "beyond words" is the same as "beyond meaning". That's just a denial of just how much is involved in the depth of actions and reactions that come with communication, and perhaps, in some cases, an abdication of the responsibility to confront that and instead just dumb everything down by capping the ceiling of possibilities to a point where control can be maintained/sustained. I don't think it's any secret that any number of "jazz musicians" (or musicians of any kind, really) think in terms of their music as "saying something", not just as a slangy jive-talk slogan, but as a real thing, and well they should. If what they have to say could be adequately expressed in just words, there is nothing else needing to be added. Words are not the ultimate expression or communication, not really. Well, I get that a lot of people love chocolate, but I'll be damned if I'd be so arrogant as to claim that I don't care about the difference between a Snickers bar and Godiva, much less assume that the Snickers bar is better because more people eat it. No, I don't "need" to know the difference, and that doesn't mean that I feel obligated to study the sciences behind each. But if I boast about my ignorance and then claim either that I taste no difference, or even worse, brag about it not mattering to me how either of them tastes, then...

So, do you approach all languages phonetically, content to hear the sounds of the words and remain totally clueless about their meaning? To a degree, I get that. But between Salsa and opera, I’ve found that contentment to lead to an unsatisfactory, and at times totally illusional, sense of “understanding”. Too often, what it sounds like without actually knowing the language and what it actually is saying are totally different. Notes and harmonies are words and grammar , at least to the extent that the language of music parallels that of verbal language. But music is closer to speech than it is written language, so if all you care to comprehend about language is the phonetics, think about how easy it would be to hear “ I want to slit your throat” as “oh, what a cute puppy” and vice-versa.

Language means language. It’s not a metaphor. Music is a language that is at best only partially translate-able to the printable. That’s my experience, anyway.

RIP. And his sister recently passed as well.

Walter Lantz Woody Herman Paul Reubens

That record has been blogged on Inconsistent Sal, or whatever it’s called.

Ha! I am getting increasingly curmudgeonly about assumed familiarity. It began when the son of a friend of mine graduated from college, and when I called him to congratulate him, his greeting was, and I quote, “ What's happening, motherfucker?” and I told him right there, no mother fucker, you don’t know me that well just yet, understand? And then he was all like sorry, Mr. Sangrey, and I was all, geezus kid, there’s something in between ya, know and blah blah blah, but...yeah, comfortable is always a good place to begin, but respectfully comfortable, because you don’t know me and I for damn sure don’t know you, so let’s neither of us make assumptions that can quite possibly turn sour and die. Hey!

"Hey Dan"? What's wrong with "DUDE!" Do you know this guy?

https://www.schullerstavern.com/ Probably not!

Truthfully, the more I listen to "Kitty", the more I prefer it to a great number of things. Sonny Greer was never a notable "pocket" drummer, but on this thing..everybody just seems to know this is a disposable dance tune, so they go for what they know in that realm, which is just relax and enjoy it, and not in the way of rape-culture like that Gerald Wiggins record, but just hey, let's hit us all where we live, in the dance reflex that passes all human understanding. Johnny Hodges' raison d'etre, of course, was all about that, but Sonny Greer, he gets all up in there with it too. "Kitty" is supposed to be one of those "embarrassing" Duke Ellington records, but...hell no!

Historical context for that record...there weren't any Shirley Scott records coming out at that time. So I was willing to put up with an album of severely compromised Dexter to get one side of really good Shirley Scott. At that time, you didn't know if there would be any more Shirley Scott records or not. Figured there would probably be more Dexter, although in retrospect, it should have been the other way around.