JSngry

How long has the Smithsonian used direct crowdfunding like this? I had hoped I was paying taxes for something like this. That's my idea of crowdfunding.

It took a while for Rollins to re-emerge as an influence, and when he did, it was through people like Ware, and, especially, Threadgill, people who picked up on what was not "boppish" about Sonny.

Scott, you have an ilk, it appears. Where do y'all do your ilkings?

Sorry about the French. It was the only Google hit I could find that was not anecdotal.

If genius has to be "useful and enjoyable", then a good dog is a genius.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2v_xB1eZ_zwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Diana+Ross+lennie+tristano&source=bl&ots=R_s0m0bRmi&sig=5CLYJVK8AgVaabR-YUXKBGNaEVI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin3_Hw24DXAhXjh1QKHf5ZCMwQ6AEIVjAN#v=onepage&q=Diana%20Ross%20lennie%20tristano&f=false

Charles Lloyd is always stylish.

Ah! Exactly!

Roscoe, I forgot Roscoe too. Meets all criteria. Braxton, too.

Oh geez, I left out Monk. By any standard, Monk. And not just "Genius Of Modern Music" genius. real genius, created a reality that becomes more true as time goes by, Alpha and Omega, Monk's music is. They'll decide who gets money, that's about it. Time will decide who's a genius and for how long.

He did not go to Juilliard, but iirc, he worked with Liberace before he worked with Chico!

I like it because the cat's just jamming on tunes. No pretense, no reach exceeding grasp. Just jamming. He's a helluva trumpet player, and an excellent musician. He's just not a creative force of any real merit, at least not in my world. But he's not aspiring to anything like that here, he's just a cat jamming. It's refreshing.

Or...consider the possibility the backdrop for all that that many (most?) women have been creeped out enough often enough that their ability to be trusting of possibly innocent(ish) behavior has been, if not destroyed, then at least severely undermined by life experience? I mean, yeah, nobody likes to be seen as a perpetrator when they're not, but if so many people are complaining so much about this, it seems like there's a good reason other than that "women" are just pissed off because they're just too sensitive or some reductionist avoidance mechanism like that.

The Lion is not amused at this notion...

do you like The Jefferson Airplane? Because, man, their music will really get rid of you hangups, man.

Warren Gale...interesting career in its own way...Bay Area stalwart, slightly progressive player, worked with Joe a lot(?) for a while, and yet(?) found playing a dominant role in some late-60s/early-70s Kenton bands, where he played the same way he always played. What's he playing on these Amy dates? Just parts?

First heard him with Woody Herman, then, at greater length, with Hamp. Cat was a player. RIP.

Yeah, well, you can spend your life either trying to do the next or creating the first, but seldom does one successfully result in the other.

I do appreciate a sharp-dressed man. Or woman. And compliment as appropriate. But always about the specifics of the attire, because if a dude's got a great tie, hey. and if a chick's rocking a fantaboulous scarf, compliments due. I don't know anybody who tires to look sharp who doesn't appreciate the effort going being noticed, as long as it's directed towards the specific (meaning, you gotta know what you're saying, not just some kind of GAWRSH you shore look purty today, that's just not happening). Unfortunately, with business-casual (at best) being the norm, not that much opportunity. But sharpness should always be recognized. But you know, with hi-def today, no excuse for not noticing the nuances of a tie/collar, or a bracelet/necklace combo, or all the other nuances that go into personal expression through wardrobe choices. Just remember - be specific, and make clear that it's the item you're appreciating, not the person you're objectifying. If you can't go beyond generic things like "nice" or "pretty" or some such, either refine your expression or just leave it be.

Well, see, that's the thing. Duke/Strayhorn, they were there own editors. The great ones usually are. Duke got SO much shit about BB&B, and so much of it was misguided, but it did need some editing, imo. And he kept editing it, although to/for what ends, I'm still not sure. But still, he did it. A guy who keeps rambling, not for effect, but because he doesn't know any better, that's just....stunted.

I guess I might say that "genius" involves taking a premise that the general population does not even recognize as possible and then not only creating it, but proving it to be valid, not necessarily immediately, but eventually. Past genius there is genius as evolution, don't just prove the premise but develop it, evolve it. "1" is pretty much meaningless unless/until there becomes "2". If 1 & 2 follow from the same source, so much the better. I guess you can have genius without creativity, there are plenty of people who don't exhibit the geius of creativity, but do have the genius of taste...perhaps that's "art". Genius and "art" are, like, two circles of a Venn diagram, they only sometimes interest. Same thing with "skill", sometimes, not always, although a skill that is specific to a particular genius/art and none other should be appreciated for its uniqueness, which may or may not involve genius and/or art. My personal geniuses....Bach, Beethoven. Pops. Bird/Bud. Ornette. James Brown. Phil Spector. Warne Marsh. Prez. Cecil. Sonny. Elvin. Duke. Firesign Theatre. There's more, but not that many more. "Genius" is a word that's like "awesome". 99% of what it's applied to is not really that. Most of it is skills and work.

I dissent from the opinion that Wynton just "copied" the 2nd Quintet. That group was very improvisational and fluid, very "real time". What Wynton successfully did (and was presumably his intent), was to codify the elements of those improvisational moments into a mainstream-able compositional language for jazz combo. Andrew hill, actually, had been working on that type of thing in a more macro sense years before, but again, Andrew Hill was an improvisational spirit, and his devices (such as they were) were utilized in that spirit. Wynton kinda used all that shifting type stuff as means to set ends. And that was interesting at first, because I was kinda thinking, well, it's about time somebody started looking at composition that way. But then it just...stalled out, and the longer it went on, the more it became apparent that this was not the seeds of a new thing, it was going to be the end result, and I was like, ok, you're not going to keep going, are you...and that really disappointed me, because, you know, here's this guy with this massive skill set as a player, a really solid business backing, and all he's going to do is codify and pontificate? And then the longer form works started happening, the concept albums and "ambitious" things, and, like...oh lord jesus, please don't keep doing this, but it kept getting done and done and done, all this potential not being embraced, and yet all this institutional empowerment and....yuck. It just turned into yuck. Enough time has passed, and although Wynton has seriously firmed up his business position as far as "institutional" power, musically, he's pretty much a non-power these days. enough music has bypassed him in terms of the "overall jazz audience", that he no longer seems a real "threat" to anything I care about, the damage was done, and now we go forth in the aftermath. THAT'S jazz, going on in spite of the damage, you can't kill it, it will evolve by any means necessary because it's not about any kind of "style", it's about spirit. You can kill a body, but not a spirit, a spirit will live in whatever body it can get.

Yeah, genius needs no adjective in front of it.

I have a female coworker who calls me "honey", "sugar", and "dear", even though I've never met her face to face, it's all phone calls and emails, and IMs, and it's only at work. I take it as a sign of she thinks she's putting a velvet glove on what she thinks is an iron fist, but honestly, it comes of like Paula Dean mind-melding with Pearl Bailey, so...am I amused? No. Am I offended? No. What am I, then? Employed, paid, and ready to go home at the end of the day. That's what I am. But in today's climate, if this lady really did make me uncomfortable, I would feel fully empowered to contact HR. Because companies today (ok, some companies) do get that you have a right to not be made uncomfortable in the workplace on personal grounds. We are not there to pursue personal agendas, we are there to work, and to work together. That's what we are paid for, and nothing else. Anything that deters from that is outside the scope of work, and work is what we are there for. It sure ain't for the comfortable furniture and endlessly recycled air. But, see, that's the thing - I myself am not made uncomfortable by this woman, so I'm not going to complain, or even call it out as some sort of bullshit "men's rights" "double standard" pity party. But if I was truly offended, then yeah. Then it would be real. For me to sit hear and feel put upon is just....lame. And that's where evolution comes in. I am evolved enough, not just to not be offended, but to respect the possibility that somebody else might be. So no, I'll not be calling HR, but if somebody else really needs to, more power to them. Because the end game is to treat everybody with respect, and a big part of respect is allowing other people their right to be offended without reflexively being offended by their offense. Respecting another person being offended is a big first step towards defusing any further/potential volatility, and that's a first step that seems to be taken less and less these days, imo.

See, you're missing the point. Women are not forcing evolution on us. They are offering us the opportunity to evolve. Time will tell how that works out on a large scale over a longer window of time, but that's true of everything. Resistance may or may not be futile, but honestly, wouldn't you like to live in a world where suspicion of men in general is not a well-deserved norm? I would. Thus, you have an opportunity to evolve. Use it or lose it, right? Also remember this - no matter how it works out, you will still have your genitals, and, hopefully, your mind.