JSngry

Saw it on Netflix a few years ago and was fascinated by it. Are you expecting to discover anything than that he was a neurotic, brilliant geniusman who could probably mentally multitask better than 99% of anybody ever? And I mean that as a very real compliment, because whatever was going on inside him, he channeled it .Whoever else's problem it was, it sure wasnt't his! Alex Trebek!

I like the drum solos on that record.

From the liner notes of the Sony Classics edition of WTC 1: "You could take, to give you one problem for me, the F minor Fugue from the first volume of the Forty-Eight, which I am just now preparing to record, and find two absolutely satisfying ways to play it", Gould explained in around 1963 in a fictional interview with a certain David Johnson (who was none other than one of Gould's multiple personae). "The only qualification there is that since one has to play it, for recording purposes, with the accompanying prelude, that may throw some light on the decision. The version I've just committed to tape in a preliminary way is done extremely slowly, with pointillistic phrases every two notes in the subject, a la Webern, until you get to the last ones, where I put 'tenutos' and 'marcatos', apostrophes as it were, over each note. This is the way it now stands, but I am not entirely happy with it.There is a good case for doing this piece in a much more free-flowing 'legato' fashion, and this would change the character of the fugue entirely. And there are reasons that make this extremely applicable because the fugue [...], however remarkable a piece, doesn't teach one a special lesson in counterpoint or in how to adjust voices. And for that reason there is not the necessity of presenting it to contemporary ears as an important problem in that kind of contrapuntal adjustment. That's one argument. It spends a lot of time in A-flat and in D-flat major, which are obviously close relations to F minor but at the same time are relatively frolicsome. [...] That's another argument. And so the Dixieland beat in this comes off surprisingly well, but I'm not fully convinced by it. I think I'll do it again in a slightly less intense version of what I've done up til now, which is perhaps too slow." It may be added that Gould's second, published version of the F minor Fugue still reveals clear signs of the Webernesque phrasing which he had adopted when recording it for the first time. uh...whew! Dixieland beat. Somewhere in here there was a Dixieland beat. Or maybe the guy was a really good, and I mean good, dry, and I mean dry, humorist.

American letters? Is that like classical instruments? Am I being goaded into an opinion here?

They made me Stravinsky, but not all of those questions had answers I could really feel. In spite of that, I like how their picture of him has him at least halfway to Ray Charles.

QRT? https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/QRT

I have no guilt about the CTI records I like. I know what they did, how they did it, why they did it, and I like them for all of that. I have some I don't like, but I'm not guilty about that either!

Still waiting to find somebody who doesn't like Jackie but digs Rene. You know there's gotta be at least one.

What do I mean? Hell, what does the question mean? What is a "classical instrument", and how am I to have an opinion about that, it's like jazz fans who say they don't like vibes or soprano or whatever, and I just don't get that, I mean, seriously, if somebody is telling you where to find a million bucks cash, are you not going to listen because you don't like the sound of their voice? Never mind a million, fifty, even, I'm gonna listen. So hell, what's you least favorite classical music stand, what's your least favorite classical gravy, what's you least favorite classical radio station, you know the one that plays the same records as everybody else, they just got bad turntables or something, or maybe they play only the bad records and ALL the instruments become your least favorite? I get that people have some timbres that are more appealing to them than others, but again...the content of the music matters too, and if somebody's not hearing the content because they shut down at the timbre, how is that listening to music instead of just aurally feeling up a tonal blur? But you know, they got these instrument that take 7 or 8 hands and there's only 1 or two people to play them, the dissatisfaction's built-in, so, that.

Sorry, you've lost me. What was the question again?

Perhaps, and/or Theremin, possibly. What's your take on it?

Woo-Woo!

Not necessarily.

No, standard practice was for the label to set up their own in-house publishing companies. Blue Note was no exception. There's a Cadence interview with Ronnie Boykins where he claims that Happy Frame Of Mind was deliberately unreleased b/c Boykins would give up his publishing for "Home Is Africa". So yeah, publishing was income, and an indie label did not give up income lightly. What I'm talking about was the label allowing some artists to own their own publishing, rather than requiring it be kept in-house with the label. This was no small matter, and they didn't let but a few people do it. But it was Donald Byrd who hipped Herbie Hancock to the need to own his own publishing instead of giving it away to the label. Not sure, but maybe Horace Silver set the precedent, he had Ecaroh Music to publish his stuff. When he started that company, and when/how he negotiated with Blue note about it, I don't know.

The ones that have more hands than players.

I remember first hearing about Chick around the time of the first RTF album (the one with Flora), early 70s, and then, ok fusion RTF forward, Circle, Now He Sings, ECM solo records going backwards, seemed normal enough. BUT... a few years later I was shocked to find him on some Blue Mitchell records and then ever more shocked to find him on a freakin' HERBIE MANN record. It was like the more I found him going backward, the older he got standing in place right there. Still, this was a good solo, still is.

Chick Corea is 77, Jack DeJohnette is turned 76 yesterday(!), Barry Altshcul is 75, Anthony Braxton is 73...Steve Grossman is a baby at 67...the Miles/Fillmore band that broke off into Circle and various other scenes....they're old by any measure. And Miles, of course, is dead. And yet they persist.

Let it be noted, though, that Blue Note did let select artists set up their own publishing companies. To hear Herbie Hancock tell it, it was Donald Byrd who educated him on why that was important and how to get it done.

How old is Evan Parker now?

Not Plan 9, but...Plan 18, maybe?

No arguments regarding personal preferences, of course not. You've contributed mightily to my broader understanding here, so thank you for that. I was hoping for something along these lines, actually, you and everybody else who has voiced their perspectives, Most satisfying thread results I've had here in a loooong time! Still, not wanting to leave well-enough alone... I'm reluctant to regard Gould's supposed "scientific objectivity" in the same light, preferring to regard his approach as, to quote Mr. Hawkins, "personal, idiosyncratic" (terms that don't jibe that well with "scientific objectivity, no?) Actually...yes? No doubt many ideas that are considered personal/idiosyncratic at their initial submission eventually turn "science" once/when/if proven over time and repeated testing. Monk, Pres, Ayler to add to the list of Bird). Also, do these contradict or reinforce each other?

Blakey, Miles, Max, Billy Harper, Charlie Mariano, Toshiko (with and after Mariano). oh, expats. never mind, sorry.

Sorry to hear of your shivers, don't hesitate to see a doctor if they continue. Seriously, I guess that would be one way to look at it, but, no surprise, I'm not ready to go there with that. All music carries with it the "baggage" of its time (both past and future on the horizontal plane), but at some point, baggage is assimilated and is no longer baggage, it's skin. I do think that, to quote Mr. Hawkins above: I think so much of the magic of Bach is that there are so many ways to play it; and that however personal, idiosyncratic, (in-)authentic or whatever the playing, it still always sounds like Bach... There's a reason for that, and as much as I'm willing to bet on anything of this nature, I would wager pretty big large that it's because of Bach's science, be it intuitive, partially glommed, or full frontal genius realization. It's like you can't break this guy, no matter what you do to it in a Newtonian realm, it still stands. It still stands. And I bet you'd be hard pressed to break it by quantum means (i.e. - multi-planar de/re-construction) short of downright destroying it and not allowing it a chance to come back together. No matter where the implications of that take an individual, ok. But as far as the base notion that Bach is scientifically rock-solid sound as "pure music" (or science), the only shiver I'm feeling is one of awe. There are very, very few musics that are that omnidirectionally sound. In fact, the only one that reflexively comes to mind is Bird. Beethoven, maybe, Louis (in theory, anyway). Ultimately, Bach is bigger than anything as petty as temporal divides. At least to this point.

Just wondering - is the list going to drive your future purchases in any way, or does that list exist separate from this one? Personal opinions aside, no real wrong answers here.

Dude, Camel done jumped the shark a good while back. I have neither smoked nor drank beer for a while now, and thank god, not just for health, but for all this..."flavor" trying to make things taste different than what they are. Oh, and Kool, my old brand (eventually)?