JSngry

Nifty!

What the hell is he doing here? It sounds like a Bert Kaepmfert record as remixed by David Lynch?

Yes, I have Movies, Too and it also exceeded expectations.

Here's my other brother, who was also eaten, but escaped his way out through the top before being digested.

As somebody whose little brother actually was eaten by pigs, I think you should display more sensitivity to pigs eating people and the lives that are impacted by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua4suRfdbWU

fwiw, Scott footed the entire bill for that session and then dealt it out in pieces to whatever label he could made a deal with. Very entrepreneurial! Besides the Seeco & Carlton, there was another portion released on the Perfect label, some Columbia sub-subsidiary, My Kind Of Jazz.

My brain would have exploded a loooong time ago if that was what did it.

Tatum could be florid, but it was always a choice with him. When he felt like it, that motherfucker (per Ray & Rowdy, it's ok) could freaking defy gravity!

I like the way she sings the opening line to "This Is Always". Sets up a follow-through rather than being the conclusion.

Irritant # 764 - Civilian: I don't like ______, it's just a bunch of noise/random notes/whatever/soulless noodling/etc/and so forth. Musician: Well, actually it's not really that. Here's what's happening...(explanation in some sort of technical/sociological detail of varying accuracy). Civilian: Well, I'm not a musician, so I can't understand that. All I hear is a bunch of noise/random notes/whatever/soulless noodling/etc/and so forth. And I don't like it. That is SO much bullshit. "I don't like it", you can't argue with that. But the notion that you have to "be a musician" to "understand" any music, much less "like" it is total bullshit. In fact, the notion that you have to "understand" anything to "like" it is bullshit. "Understanding" is intellectual, "liking" is emotional, not the same thing. It's such a cop-out to play the "well, I just don't like it" card without admitting that maybe you don't understand it because there is so much there that you're not familiar with. That is a fixable situation if you desire it to be, and although not liking something is about the worst incentivization for learning more about it, just sayin',...if you're incapable of learning about things like shapes, colors, balances, shifts in motion, all that stuff that is pretty much present in every aspect of your waking life...really? Incapable or just not that interested? And equally bad is the "well, you don't like it because you don't understand it" tactic. Equally bullshitty bullshit. No - they don't like it because they don't like it. Edify as much as is gracious, but don't expect to convert, that's not the object of the game. Intellectual vacuums are meant to be filled, but a differing emotion is not an intellectual vacuum. At least not necessarily. Unfamiliarity is always an opportunity to learn more, about both the stimulus and the self. Now of course there are stimuli that present an unwelcome opportunity, like that buzzing chain saw, should I put my hand on it because it sorta sounds like a really loud purring kitten, uh, oh HELL no, but a record or a gig, it that's going to result in something as potentially fucked up as a severed limb, then yeah, stay away and make no excuses. But otherwise, hey, it's a big world and nobody is going to want or be able to deal with all of it. so just say so, don't play all these circuitous logic games to make it seem like I'm OK, you're OK, But I'm More OK, because really, nobody's OK unless Everybody's OK, and most of us fall somewhere in between. Learning - nobody I know was born playing or composing. Singing, maybe. Point just being, everybody can learn something, and most people can always learn more if they want to. Keepin' it real since 5:15 this morning, Yors Truly.

Very much need to put my logistics towards getting into the loop of both of these circles. Easier said than done, but...

Is this part of the series that used to(?) be in Allen, or is this a whole 'nother thing?

Remember that musicians are "audience" too. I don't know anybody who just plays without listening to what at least some other people are doing. You think Anthony Braxton talking about Frankie Lymon is some kind of a gag? Hardly! Well, I have known a few with aural blinders on, but they were in the minority, and they were always creepy before it was all over, especially the ones who didn't even listen to the other people they were playing with.

Audiences are like every other human (including musicians) - there's always room for growth/improvement of understanding, and most bristle at the suggestion.

These are my favorite Mothers by a mile, not even trying to be a "rock band", instead, a "contemporary classical" composed/improvisational absurdist chamber ensemble.

Oscar Peterson was one helluva pianist who had one helluva career, of that there should be no dispute. The disagreements are esthetic, and if they are to be meaningful, they should be based on a respect of the craft and the professional accomplishments. So when I agree to a large extent with allen that the majority of Oscar Peterosn't work offends, or at least irritates me in some primal way, that is strictly esthetic. I mean, the guy was a master pianist. It just gives me the creeps what he did with it most of the time. And no, it's never been customary for jazz musicians to just highly praise all other jazz musicians at all times. Was Peterson praising of Monk? Was Eddie Condon falling all over himself to pimp Bird? Was Mingus not highly cynical about Ornette? I could go on, and that's just public pronouncements. What people will say in private is a whole other matter, because, yes, it is a business. Norman Granz was a business. But even past that, there is no unanimity of taste, none. None. Why should there be? People are crazy, all of us. A broad orthodoxy and conformity of thought is not a natural thing, it generally has to be instilled or enforced, and that just makes us more crazy than we already are. Here is an excellent peer-to-peer conversation between Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn, ca. 1975. It's actually pretty enlightening as far as what can make somebody either love or loath Peterson to whatever degree possible, and there is a not so subtle inference that apparently not everybody loves Errol Garner after all! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNsywQOW1I

That's a great record!

I imagine we all have are artists we feel defensive about, for whatever reasons, but really, and again, so what? We like what we like, we dislike what we dislike, and if we're going to be all fragile about it, that's probably a bigger issue than simple musical taste. When it goes from "like" or "dislike" into "passion", it's definitely more than just musical taste, but and yet again, so what? That's all part of what makes us human, so...roll with it when it goes your way, roll with it when it goes the other way. Happy rolling to one and all!

That's nonsense. Keith has done great work, silly things, and all sorts of things in-between. I know of no prevailing board blockade of any pro-Jarrett comment, that would be stupid. I mean, there are certain people who just don't dig him, but so what? There are people who love everything he's done, and again, so what?