JSngry

It was Jimmy Giuffre's trio, but the trio with Paul Bley & Steve Swallow, that was a trio and it had a piano, and it made amazing music, so, I'll go there with it. But Bley's own trios of the 60s..every which way you could turn from there, they turned. Neither Ran Blake nor George Russell did any trio records in the 60s, did they? For that matter, other than the bass-less group, neither did Cecil, correct? Nor Andrew Hill...for whatever reason, some of the most interesting pianists-thinkers of the 60s were not making trio records. Maybe it was an attempt to avoid "guilt by association" with the more pop-based trios going on (I seem to recall reading a review at one time that mentioned "the invisible dividing line between this & Peter Nero-land, in a manner not favoring the trio record under review), maybe it was that they had an interest/budget/whatever to flesh out their music with additional players, I don't know. Even Alice Coltrane, still controversial, I guess, but even though her core group was generally a trio,, there were always other things along..A Monastic Trio as close as it got, and that's a good one, I think, the pure trio cuts on there work for me. Cowell's Blues For The Viet Cong, 1969, in by a hair. Anyway...one that's as interesting as it is not particularly good is Roger Kellaway's Spirit Feel, which sometimes has Tom Scott added, but which also has some trio cuts that are kinda out-there/goofyfun. In other words, typical Kellaway! It's on Pacific Jazz, as were other, much less, uh, "exploratory" trios by Monty Alexander, Craig Huntley, and, of course, Les McCann, whose trio work in those days I can dig as deeply as the bass players take me, no more, no Les. and of course, Elmo Hope. I think I prefer his 60s output to his 50s output. Definitely prefer that Last Sessions material to any of all the rest of 'em, period.

Paul Bley Earl Hines Now He Sings, Now He Sobs The Legendary Hasaan Cecil - the Lyons/Murray group, that's a piano trio, and such music that came out of it! McCoy's impulse! trios still have that shine of freshness all over them. And any introduction or that Duke played, be it a matter of bars or of choruses. The triangle of Jamal/Lewis/Harris is an intriguing one, not least of all because I think they appealed to much the same audience, and maybe had the same veneer, but good lord, when dissected, their musics could not be more dissimilar! Jamal's trio had all these "odd" things happening and were full of spaces, Ramsey was ALL about no tricks no gimmicks, and, really, not too many spaces, and The 3 Sounds sorta split the difference, no tricks no gimmicks, but a great deal of sophistication, spaces as needed, like breathing, as well as roots deeply planted in the earth. For Ramsey, I prefer the Eaton/White-Jennings trios, but still, Young-Holt, masters at their own bag.

Music has always been hipper than its fans (and often enough, players), which is not a dis on fans (or players), just an expression of awe about how deep music can be. As arrogant as people want to be about themselves (sometimes justifiably, sometimes absurdly), music itself is more of all that than all of all that combined. And then some. If music cannot make you humble, you had better watch out for what's coming. along those lines...Si Zentner, wtf? Liar? Bald-Faced liar?

RIP, and fullest, deepest respect. Talk about a guy who was there in SO many places, that was Phil Woods. I truly regret that he passed on before he could write his memoirs.

Just wondering.

Yeah, and that's the thing, "Spring Cleaning" is hardly on the level of ""Ain't Misbehavin'" in terms of popular culture, but Fats Waller did make that record, (as did some group named Girls From Mars?), so as long as Fats Waller stays in circulation, somebody is at some point come across this one and think oh yeah, let's use Fats to sell our stuff, and next thing you know, money in the pocket for the publisher, and if they get a license for the record itself, more money, mo money mo money mo money. I guarandamtee you that we'll be seeing road torus and revivals and whatnots of the Ain't Misbehavin' musical for many years hence. It's not about Fats anymore, it's about the brand, and continuing to find ways to monetize the brand. "Culture" is a selling point first, and a genuine concern second, if at all. Not saying that's bad, really, it's simply business. But we need to keep that in mind going forth, as we keep seeing all the literature and articles and presentations and such that take these ever-receding real lives and careers and begin framing them as...mascots, easily identified identities that people can recognize without any real effort (Miles is pretty much already there), and what better tool to use for commercial marketing than something that everybody knows and everybody likes, especially one that doesn't present the complications of being living? History may reveal greater complexities of a life past, but time simplifies them lest they diffuse into invisibility. History will be for art, time for commerce. The battle eternal!

http://www.bournemusic.com/bournemusic/search.php This is why you always own the publishing.

Robert Q. Lewis Cue Porter Porter Kilbert

From http://www.swingmusic.net/Zentner_Si.html Did this really happen? http://www.downbeat.com/default.asp?sect=cpollindex I see no immediate evidence that it did.

Coot Veal Cruella DeVille C. Everett Koop

Jan Hooks Bill Bates Sophia Katchis

That's the difference between Sinatra & Dylan right there, then, if Sinatra had hit it on Take 4, there might have been a Take 5, very remotely possibly a Take 6, but definitely not takes 7-11. But now I'm wondering what all went on for takes 5-15, what was being went for that didn't happen...because god, that released take, that thing still gets my fire going, some real viseceracality there. I don't know about even the smallest version of this set, I mean, yeah, it's the best Dylan for me, but, I dunno, I'm not obsessive about Dylan in the least, I have some, and it's not a little, but it's not a lot, and it tends to go as far as I want it to whenever I go there. But that one session, yeah, I want to hear that.

This comment from the WSJ article: I've only known Esquire since the late 1960s, by which time it was reputable fare found in doctor's offices and such. But other than the Vargas Girls, etc things, how "racy" was it, ever?

What, Si Zentner? I don't recall that guy EVER being that popular for that long. Or do we not remember the "difference" between Playboy & Penthouse, an oft-noted difference among consumers of the time? If there's a nicer yet just as accurate way to put it in terms of the topic, I apologize for not being able to find it. But last time I looked, "exposed vaginas" is a term of simple, factual description, devoid of any vulgarity or salacious intent. "Unshaven underarm hair", "pierced earlobes", "painted fingernails", "exposed vaginas", I see no difference there. Really, by the time I came of age, Playboy was on the way to being considered square, and that was a big part of why. That's history. We gonna talk about Playboy and hipness, let's talk about that then, All of it. Because there was a Playboy "ethos"., and it did fall out of favor, all of it. "Metaphorically", yes, the Playboy "brand" of jazz, or hipness, or nudity, or whatever, seemed very much about leaving some of the parts out, mostly the parts that could make a mess. Everything cool, calm, controlled, and just as they wanted you to think that you wanted it, because, that's how you build customer dependence loyalty. Mr. Teachout is correct in pointing out that Playboy did advocate for jazz, but not all jazz, and the notion that all jazz is "hip" is as fallacious as the notion that adopting it as a lifestyle accessory confers hipness on the adoptee. Personally, I think it's a reach of a premise, the whole "lasting claim" thing, and definitely an overreach as far as being a fully accurate look at things. But between Si Zentner, Bob Brookmeyer, and Slide Hampton (and I'm trying to remember anything ca. 1973 that would have given Slide Hampton any visibility at all, or for that matter, Bob Brookmeyer in 1970...wasn't eh pretty much "off the scene" then?), my hunch is that a lot of trombone players were Playboy subscribers. and let me tell you what periodical had a helluva lot more jazz/hip thing going on in the same years as Playboy - Saturday Review. Not Stereo Review (although they had some good coverage), not Saturday Evening Post (as if...), but Saturday Review. More, more ongoing, and broader/deeper coverage than anything I've ever seen in Playboy. don't nobody remember them now, but check 'em out. Not a "hip magazine", but some above average jazz coverage for about 15 years, mid 50s to very early 1970s..

Yeah, my daddy's people came from Germany (well, my daddy's people's people, anyway, some kind of weird shit called "Pennsylvania Dutch"), so I'm not predisposed to hating on VW because they're German. The whole Nazi-Joke thing, I mean really, that's too easy, lazy humor, it's the same kind of mental laziness that was on display in the VW boardroom, take the easy way out, worry about it later, if ever. Lie about your cars, go for the okie-doke on the jokes, same thing in the beginning, if not in the end, just...unchecked laziness. VW was not honest, and when they go bringing my daddy into their paradigm of lies, like my daddy didn't know shit about diesel engines (and he didn't, but he knew enough to avoid them for the rest of his life after the one time he tried them), so you, hey, daddy's son, THIS one's for you, you'll LIKE this one, this is something with which i will not abide. I trust my dead daddy more than I trust a living corporation. Actually, we drive Hondas for the most part, and that's something that my daddy never did. He was American Cars all the way until the day he died. No VWs OR Toyotas for him, no sir. So hey VW, leave my daddy out of it, ok? You're not worthy.

Better than Si Zentner, how about how Paul Desmond, perennial Playboy Reader Favorite, and Gloria Steinem, short-time Playboy Bunny and significantly longer-term Feminist Of Note, were a couple there for a while in the1970s.

I had easy access to jazz a few years before I did Playboy, and by that time, Penthouse was the thing. There was this dude I knew in college who subscribed to both, and it was the old cliche, I get Playboy for the articles, but I noticed that his old Penthouses had wear, his Playboys were still mint, so I guess he was reading the articles with x-ray vision or something. Frankly, for as long as I've had an opinion, I've found Playboy kinda corny, and Hefner kind of creepy. Of course, it was around long before I was here to have an opinion, so maybe you kinda had to be there. But from what i can see in retrospect, they treated everything, including jazz, as a lifestyle accessory, and the lifestyle they were recommending accessories for was kinda silly. Naked chicks everywhere and sex at will, sure, yeah, All without pubic hair or exposed vaginas. What kind of jazz you gonna have without exposed vaginas in the metaphorical mix? Now, to the practical point - when was Si Zentner THAT popular?

It's not about diesel, it's about my daddy. My daddy was an honest man, these VW people were not.

No it ain't. My daddy was an honest man.

RIP, and much love.

Somebody please tell me that there's a bootleg of the complete Like A Rolling Stone session, but only if it's raw, unedited/uncut/unmixed session tape, like some of the Sinatra things, tapes start rolling and never stop. Listening to it as "excerpts" would be tedious, but hearing it all unfold naturally, in real time, that's got epic potential, although in Sinatra's case, the "perfect take" was in fact just that, there's an element of hunt leading to capture that is compelling, and on the rare occasion when Sinatra goes past that perfect take, he knows what he's done and stops it from going any further. Was the released "Like A Rolling Stone" taken (more or less) for a single take? Even at that, I might be good to listen to it.

Sorry for of your loss, Mike. I know that was tough. And you've been presence enough here lon enough for me to know that you neither abide nor otherwise embrace cheapness. I certainly hope I didn't give you the impression that I thought otherwise. My only point was that they're two different things, recording as documentation and recording as object. two different aesthetics, really, and of course we each have our own preferences, even as we can appreciate many things past that preference. The Miles/Teo thing is really interesting to me because people who think that Miles just rolled tape and left it to Teo miss out that, if his "firing" of Teo because of how he messed up Quiet Nights was any indication, he DID pay attention to the end results. For that matter, the Miles/Gil thing itself was built on a foundation of editing/splicing/what have you. There's some who feel that that music was too complex, too nuanced, too subtle, to be successfully performed live. Given the results of the few times it was, they're not necessarily wrong, but their point remains very pertinent. It was, I think, music conceived for recording, and once you go that way with it, well, why halfass it? Where's the "limit"? Teo deserves more props than just editing jams into tighter, releasable product. The more he got into the music of On the Corner and beyond, the more you can sense a real composer's mind in the results. Perhaps it is a true "Third Stream" music, a fusing of composition and improvisation using the type of materials that could only come from a live source. Perhaps the goal is not so much "perfection" as it is an attempted transcendence of the limitations in both composition and improvisation. I like to think of it that way, anyway. Teo was an interesting guy, really. Appears to have be a bit of a blowhard, maybe, but still, some real chops, real skills, definitely not a lightweight, and as much as I like the Bill Laswell remixes of Miles/Teo's original work, something like the original Rated X, hearing that in real time, that was just like WHOA, WTF?, it was obvious that was a construction, but holy shit, what a construction! And "Pharaoh's Dance, when I finally got around to objective listening and hearing the construction of that, same thing, this guy was a true composer. If Ellington's real instrument was his band, then Teo's might have been the tapes. Laswell said something along the lines of Teo didn't really understand the implications of that mucic, or didn't have the technological skills to deal with it, something like that, to whcih I say bullshit, calling it on my dime. Teo knew exactly what he was doing. Laswell is doing to Teo what Teo did to Miles, only without the benefit of being live with the music as it was being made and collaborating directly with the makers of it. OTOH, that itself is an benefit of its own. Funny how that works... It's kinda funny to hear how Miles was not really aware of how subsequent recording methods had changed, apparently when he began to work on Tutu with Marcus Miller, he had to have it explained to him how all this was going to work. But he picked up on it, and turned it into some great live performances. So,, full circle, complete 180, whatever the appropriate metaphor is, recording influences live influences recording again, it's a loop, and it's only going to be as valid and compelling as the participants. You get a lazy guy doing lazy shit, that's gonna suck not matter what, even if it "sounds good" it's gonna suck for all the wrong reasons. You get two lively minds like Miles & Teo working together..it ain't gonna suck...or if it does, it will suck for all the right reasons, just like live playing. For my money, the In A Silent Way box is one of the most amazingly revealing documents this music has seen. The raw performances are not even remotely together enough to be released without some serious editing, the actual album was shockingly edited, controversial in its time in some quarters, some people claiming it was a ripoff because a solo was repeated (The Sonny Stitt Conundrum at a whole new level). To hear it all laid out like this leaves as many new questions as it answers old ones...the main one for me being, what was anybody supposed to do with this? What could anybody do with this? I always prefer music that is the result of choices being made to music that isn't. Of course, that's really pretty much all music at some level of abstraction, but...the music where the choices are more or less immediate (realtive to human history, any way), that's the shit that get to me. But oh yeah...Erroll Garner...this is not his best playing, not for me, but it's stimulating interest, so yeah, good thing as far as it goes, and if further interest dwindles after everybody hears the hit, then oh well, history repeats itself, always, right?

A little cloudy here, but still visible.

http://aloc102.blogspot.com/ No posts there since July of 2013. Last visited here in April of 2014. Hope all is well with/for him. Ah, here is is, alive and Tweeting! https://twitter.com/aloc102

Roger Miller Miller Huggins Huggy Bear