JSngry

The Boots Randolph comparison/analogy/whatever,was, of ocurse(?) relevant to my knowledge of "things" ca. 1972, which was when I first heard the Austin record. Not sure if anybody wants or needs to know or care, but Randolph at that time was making mostly MOR Monument records like this: Of course, what I came to learn was that Boots Randolph had roots in R&B tenor, had actually been some kind of a "jazz musician" before becoming a Nashville session player (that's him on vintage those Brenda Lee hits, and Bobby Jones for one knew him as such, when he was), so the linkage between him and Sil Austin was probably the other way around than how I first figured, Play Pretty...being the first I had heard of Austin, and MOR Randolph being somebody my environment forced me to encounter at a relentless pace, resistance was indeed futile. What I still find interesting, though, is that whenever you aim for that "middle of the road" market, no matter where you come from, where you end up is pretty much the same place, and that a lot of guys who make pretty forgettable records do so while handling the instrument itself quite nicely.

Listened to it a few more times last night...for me it is very much worth it for the tenors, mileages variable, no doubt, but that's some damn fine Land & Edwards on there. As for the singing, the more I listen, the more bizarre the session itself becomes. Beeks is, like, shifting beats around within his lines, starting them in different places than the solos and his original recordings, and it sounds like he's doing this consciously, but his pitch is so weird...I don't know. But he's so unbothered/unaware of it that I'm thinking he's in some kind of a zone here. And then to read the liner notes...jeez, right from jump he says and he goes on from there into a description of the origins of vocalese, how it was originally intended as a form of coded, private communication of thoughts which could not otherwise be spoken. Then he goes into Planetism, which in and of itself is not quite what you expect from a guy who had a few jukebox hits earlier in the decade, if you know what I mean. So this is where the guy was at the time of this session. Was he crazy? Was he high? was he genuinely blissed out? Hell if I can tell, all I can tell for real is that the guy's in a weird place technically with his singing, and listening more and more to how the band deals with it as it unfolds is fascinating, Gerald Wiggins in particular, and Earl Palmer especially in particular. Every local jazz scene has had situations where a local singer who may or may not be any good gets gigs or hosts sessions and hires the very best players available, and how they in turn play the shit out of the music, holding it together for the singer becuase, you know, that's why they're the best, ok? This record is like that, only, hello, not just one top-shelf tenor, but two, two very top-shelf tenors, and nobody gets limited by this being a vocal date, cats get more allotment here than they would have gotten on a 78, sometimes more. No producer is credited, but the label was David Axelrord's, right? Wiggins is credited as arranger, so maybe he functioned as producer as well. But..what's this about "Moody's Mood For Love" If this existed in a vaccum, well, ok, so what. But in the context of this session, all the other stuff that is obviously going on...wtf? I'll also point out the final lyrics of "All Of Me", Beeks is singing about shit like do you want a crazy person on your conscience?, shit like that, and the vibe is that he's speaking retroactively, like he's in THAT place. And listen to the words of "Golden Days"... All the biographical info I've read about Beeks is general/sketchy, a combination of the most basic facts and various "reported to have..." type things. But holy shit, this was a guy who saw himself as a savior of humanity, spoke in what he perceived to be a private language, and invented a thing called Planteism (the basic principles of which he uses Linus Pauling to support). I'm thinking there's more to this story than just some guy who got lucky with a few juke box hits and then wandered about making occasional comeback attempts, this ain't Earl Coleman. Even though Earl Coleman's got a story (and although I much prefer Earl Coleman as a singer), it ain't this story! All in all, not a "great" record by any stretch of the imagination. But to paraphrase Dan Rather...it's an interesting record...not an amusing record, but an interesting record.

If you delete something though the moderator control, you do have all the normal checks in place. What appears to have happened to Larry was that he was trying to delete content from inside a post that he was in the process of creating, and it ended up deleting the entire thread, with no indication that that's what was going to happen. As far as restoring once deleted, that happens so rarely here, but the few times I've had to do it in the past, there's always a repository of deleted content in the Moderator CP where one can go to restore it if need be. Larry and I both looked pretty much everywhere for such a place that might serve such a function and might house the two deleted Wooley threads but to no avail I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work.

As long as it's still up there, it should still be up here!

Heard two great turns of phrase from Dan Rather this evening, subject/source/context irrelevant, just great language: They don't know whether to howl at the moon or check their email. It's interesting...it's not amusing, but it is interesting... Rock on, Old Man Rather!

Tammy Grimes Tammy Wynette Ian Luff

Billy Kidd Kitty Carlisle Thomas Carlyle

I seem to remember Superscope (was it Sony then?) releasing reel to reel tapes of piano rolls...Gershwin's, perhaps? Very early 70s, iirc. Would there be a common person/factor in that company and that general kind of piano capture/reproducing technology?

KILN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiln_%28band%29 KILT KLIF

DVD, putting this up here because it's on Mode, a true labor of love from all I can see, and because the YouTube footage made me need to want to have it, so I got it. http://www.amazon.com/Grandes-Repetitions-n/dp/B00NMNX66C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449677336&sr=8-1&keywords=Les+Grandes+Repetitions

And the one guy, geezs, he gets exiled to the bottom with the microphone piledriver about to fall on his Paul McCartney looking ass, poor fella! or maybe Album Covers With Implied Assembly Line Die-Stamping. NEXT!

Filles de Kilimanjaro Chick-fil-A Reverend Eatmore

Never really thought about the mechanics of airline play before. Is it really as easy as that, some guy with the airline looks at the charts and says, oh, people are buying this, we'll add it? Or are airlines just out and out offering "stations" to the labels for whatever price to increase revenue? Other side of the coin - do the labels get any money back on that, or do they take a charge-off for promotional expense? And what about publishing/composing royalties? On a per-play basis, lump sum usage fee, or zero, zilch, nada? I'd think there would be room for some good old fashioned schmoozing between airline and label/artist reps along the way, some guy calling some other guy and saying hey, we got this thing happening, you want in on it? and the other guy saying, well, let's put it on our radar, see how it goes, and then the other guy calls and back and forth until a deal is reached. Crazy, all the ways to make, or not make, money off of music, still.

The digital scoring tools take care of a lot of things, I'm told, Finale and those things. I still write by hand, though, it's what I know, and for what I write and who I write it for, it still works. If I had to do anything large ensemble-ish, though, I'd either learn it or farm it out. People are, uh, "charmed" when I give them handwritten parts...

Also - let's keep in mind that the choices are not limited to Bobby Sherman & David Cassidy, who are more fully gathered with Sajid Khan & Jack Wild in any discussion. About anything. And let us not forget that Sajid Khan's fame was at least in part assisted by the Jay North Comeback. Pop Culture itself might be simple enough, but remembering all the forgotten names is a little tougher nut to meg.

Playing this again this afternoon...geez, Mr. Beeks is in pretty dire form,,, BUT - There is a plethora of great Harold Land and Teddy Edwards on this record Really looking at the liner notes for the first time where the dude expounds pretty rigorously on his life system of "Planetism" and...whoa... Those are two pretty big buts in my estimation. Is there a really detailed life story of Clarence Beeks anywhere? Seems like there some kind of story here, not just another footnote.

It's a, how you say, seduction (or post-seduction) record. This record was all over the place when I was a kid too, I'd see it in the same stores in the regular and cutout bins! I heard it then, and didn't really have any appreciation for what was being done, sounded like A Boots Randolph Record For Black People, maybe it was, once Boots started making strings records of non-country songs, who knows what was driving what, not me? Anyway, based on exposure to this one record, I formed the impression of Sil Austin as nothing more than A Black Boots Randolph, which was, of course, my loss, because as time revealed, the guy was one of the great vintage R&B tenor players. Pretty much ALL of his records were "commercial" in intent, and this intent was of its time, and yeah, Sil Austin could play, pretty for the people and/or otherwise. Another unfortunate side-effect was that it took me waaay too damn long to realize that Sil Austin & Syl Johnson were not the same person. OUCH!

Give me some milk or else go home!

The Miley Cyrus String Quartet Twerks The Music Of Allen Lowe...yes, there's your retirement money right there! Have you ever written for stings before? I've tired a few times, but the part writing scared me off, different clefs, bowing instructions, all that...and string players WILL call that shit to your attention, none too graciously either. Out of my league, but a fun game, to be sure.

Whoever it was who did this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_Jones_%28saxophonist%29 a hearty "Thank You!!!" is sent your way!

Yeah, that's it, thanks!

Anthony Newley Conrad Wedde Dr. Dahab Gaime, DDS

The old software had an easily accessible "dump" for deleted threads. This newest version does not. That's pretty damn chagrin-inducing. What Larry was doing - I was adding a post, and it quoted my previous post, which I didn't want to do. I couldn't get rid of the quoted passage, so I painted it and hit delete - how does that delete an entire thread? Our Moderation Actions menu are on a drop-down at the very bottom right of a page. They don't appear unless you consciously look to perform a moderation task. ] The Quote system in this new software does seem to have a mind of its own, and although I found it useful in the past, I;ve also found it a bit unwieldy in terms of being able to easily delete what sometimes . Now it looks like it's possible for at least one user to get tangled up in the quote box and get his poster-delete code to hop on and bareback on his moderator's delete code. Something ain't right about that. This code be buggin'.

Wilbert Longmire Bob Wilber Wilby Fletcher

No way, there is no way that the sequence of events you described should have produced that outcome, not without there being some serious bug in the software. I suspect there are some serious bugs in this software that have yet to be addressed by the developers. If there's not, then the only other sane explanation is that you are a fascist taliban raper. Assume the position. To move the discussion forward, we were looking at this: Strictlyn terms of technique/vocabulary/etc, no, I don't hear anything that's never been done on the trumpet before. The instruments been around in its current form long enough that people have pretty much figured all the options as far as basic sound production and manipulation. Ovverblowing, multiphonics, "trick" fingerings, mouthpiece manipulatons, waht you blow into/against/away from, it's all been done, at least all of this has. Believe me. Again, broken down to the level of "devices", the basic building blocks of his statements. What I do hear is a real, evolutionary and virtuostic mastery of these techniques, which is as it should be, people fgure out how to do something, next people figure out how to do it more naturally, without the "experimental" distance, and so it goes. At some point, it peaks and begins to decay, but that can happen in any numebr of ways and take up any conceivable number of timeframes. Nate Wooley is definitely not participating in any sort of decaying thing here, no, it's great to hear somebody this comfortable with this much technique doing these things with it, it's got a real populist feel to it, and I mean that as a high compliment, it's like DUH, this is so NOT mysterious, this is everyday speech, and AFAIC, yes, it is, and yes, it should be.