JSngry

Sure, flour, that's the easy one.

Fat Albert's your cellmate..hey Hey HEY!

Great people/horrible things....horrible people/great things...no rhyme no reason, except when there is, and then there isn't, until there is again, lather rinse, repeat.

Helen Merrill = Tantric Luded Chick = Ventriloquist Dummy Unconscious Chick = Murderless Necrophilia Tantric is all the further that appeals to me, but Ludes were big in the 70s for both dudes and chicks, so....but...really? You want to BE the waterbed? Different strokes, I suppose, although, you call those strokes? And SO not even Tantric. But that whole knock'em out first thing, that's some piss-poor excuse for manliness right there. Off to jail with that shit, and this time EVERYBODY gets to stay awake.

I get that many people hear it like that, but the thing that strikes me about Pres up until the very end was that, unlike, say, some mid/late Bud Powell, it never seemed that his fingers got tripped over themselves, like the wiring just wasn't fully connected. It's just that his time, internal/mental/whatever, just slowed waaaaaaayyyy down. And sometimes his air failed him, especially in that little run in the 50s where his health got so bad before, when was it, 1956? That he shaped up a little bit?. But even then, the thing I end up noticing in spite of all that is that no matter how long it takes him to land, he lands, and no matter how slow he's moving, he's in constant motion, at least as far as fingers go. Then again, you could say that fingers not getting tangled means nothing if air is short and flight path is sub-dimensional. There's that case to be made, and I can't counter it other than to say because Lester Young, that's why. This is extremely coherent to me, and that sound from 9:16 thru 9:19...that's a sound that is so far beyond "notes"...damndest thing I've ever heard. Yet objectively, running on fumes. But damn, what fumes, and the engine neither misses nor backfires. Nor does it race or purr, either, but hell, moving into death, etc. Right/wrong answers? Probably not any, unless and until one gets their for themselves, and by then...

Let's just say that the reviewer does not appear to have been adequately prepared to write a reasonably informed and/or particularly insightful review and leave it at that. Details available on request.

That's a casual at best Ellington listener speaking there. Late Ellington is a nearly endless affair, and certainly endlessly fascinating. Nothing to really "reevaluate", but plenty to consider - if you get to it in the first place! Then, I would take issue with this: No, no, no, no, no. And again, no. What "live recordings of this period" are we listening to, and how many of them have been edited to only include the hits medley and the vocals? That's a seriously mistaken statement. And then... Ok, but that's kind of like saying that taking a shower is probing the connections between the body and the body...in other words, the only thing he was probing was himself. Putting it that way sort of implies a distance/degree of separation that simple wasn't there. If I wanted to get petty about things, I would throw this in as one giant "Big Deal": But in fairness, this was also noted on the liner notes and contemporaneous reviews, so, let it slide, apparently it "matters". Finally, as a simple, honest, disagreement as to essence: I would argue that Duke was not staying ahead of his time, that he was keeping up with his times, and within his highly personalized languages (timbral, harmonic, and rhythmic). This is important to me, because for me, Duke is eternal, no matter what happened, is happening, or will happen, Duke is relevant, not just for tools but for attitudes, skills of both perception and transference of perceptions into multi-layered/multi-level expression. To reduce that to was he or was he not "up with the times" is to misunderstand the whole thing, really. But again, honest disagreement, perhaps. So...this, for them, and again, thank you. There, cleaned up for Wall Street, where the language is as pure as the Capitalism, no doubt.

Thanks! First, there's no excuse for any informed critic not being able to distinguish between Paul Gonsalves & Harold Ashby, nor in being not able to identify Norris Turney as the usual Ellington fl(a)utist...pretty much ever, but especially during this time. Don't yet have the record, but same for the saxophone and trumpet solos (especially iof it's Cootie,). But those first three, yeah, c'mon. Everything else stems from this: That's a casual at best Ellington listener speaking there. Late Ellington is damn near endless, and certainly endlessly fascinating. Nothing to really "reevaluate", but plenty to consider - if you get to it in the first place! Then, I would take issue with this: No, no, no, no, no. And hell no. What he fuck "live recordings of this period" are we listening to, and how many of them have been edited to only include the hits medley and the vocals? That's a seriously mistaken statement. And then... Ok, but that's kind of like saying that taking a shower is probing the connections between the body and the body...in other words, the only thing he was probing was himself. Putting it that way sort of implies a distance/degree of seperation that simple wasn't there. If I wanted to get pissy about things, I would throw this in as one giant BFD: But in fairness, this was also noted on the liner notes and contemporaneous reviews, so, let it slide, apparently it "matters". Finally, as a simple, honest, disagreement as to essence: I would argue that Duke was not staying ahead of his time, that he was keeping up with his times, and within his highly personalized languages (timbral, harmonic, and rhythmic). This is important to me, because for me, Duke is eternal, no matter what happened, is happening, or will happen, Duke is relevant, not just for tools but for attitudes, skills of both perception and transference of perceptions into multi-layered/multi-level expression. To reduce that to was he or was he not "up with the times" is to misunderstand the whole thing, really. But again, honest disagreement, perhaps. So...this, for them, and again, thank you.

Would have to register.

Yeah, Prestige of the time did not seem to be a label that obsessed over "perfect" takes, at least not in terms of neatness of heads and such. Looking for comparably productive sessions, the first thing that comes to mind is the two Miles "contract fulfillment" sessions: Miles Davis (tpt); John Coltrane (ts); William "Red" Garland (p); Paul Chambers (b); Philly Joe Jones (d)May 11, 1956 (14 items; TT = 81:49)1In Your Own Sweet Way (D. Brubeck)5:402Diane (E. Rapee-L. Pollack)7:443Trane's Blues [John Paul Jones] (M. Davis)8:25 Before the tune starts, Davis says, "Blues..." followed by Chambers tuning4Something I Dreamed Last Night (J. Yellen-S. Fain-H. Magidson)6:125It Could Happen to You (J. Burke-J. Van Heusen)6:36 After the tune Davis asks, "How was that, Bob? Okay if we do Woody 'n' You? All right, just Joe..."6Woody 'n' You (D. Gillespie)5:00 After the tune, this exchange: "Okay?" Weinstock (joking): "Do that one over." Davis (testily): "Why?" Coltrane (nonchalantly): "Could I have the beer opener?"7Ahmad's Blues (A. Jamal)7:208Surrey with the Fringe on Top (R. Rodgers-O. Hammerstein)9:009It Never Entered My Mind (R. Rodgers-L. Hart)5:2010When I Fall in Love (E. Heyman-V. Young)4:20 Issued without piano solo on Prestige 45-19511Salt Peanuts (D. Gillespie-K. Clarke)6:0312Four (M. Davis)7:1013The Theme (take 1) (M. Davis)1:5714The Theme (take 2) (M. Davis)1:02October 26, 1956 (15 items; TT = 75:00)Rudy van Gelder Studio, Hackensack NJCommercial for PrestigeMiles Davis Quintet Miles Davis (tpt); John Coltrane (ts); William "Red" Garland (p); Paul Chambers (b); Philly Joe Jones (d)October 26, 1956 (15 items; TT = 75:00)1If I Were a Bell (F. Loesser)8:13 Most issues include a brief exchange between Davis and Weinstock at the beginning ("I'll play it and tell you what it is later") and count-off until 0:102Well, You Needn't (T. Monk)6:153'Round Midnight (B. Hanighen-C. Williams-T. Monk)5:214Half Nelson (M. Davis)4:435You're My Everything (false start) (M. Dixon-J. Young-H. Warren)0:30 Davis: "'You're My Everything', Red... Hold it, ev -- you, when you see a red light on, everybody's supposed to be quiet." Van Gelder: "Here we go, Miles." Davis: "All right." False start. Davis: "Play some block chords, Red. All right, Rudy? Block chords, Red..."6You're My Everything (M. Dixon-J. Young-H. Warren)4:467I Could Write a Book (R. Rodgers-L. Hart)5:05 Issued without p solo on Prestige 45-1958Oleo (false start) (S. Rollins)0:36 False start. Davis: "Uh, it's got a four-bar beat." Tuning and rehearsal. Weinstock: "One thousand one..." Davis: "Rudy, turn on the red light." Chambers: "What is it?" Davis: "Newk's number one." Chambers: "Number one... Just like we do it at work?" Davis: "Yeah, watch your tempo, Paul, willya?" Jones: "Yeah, let's keep it up there." Davis: "There you go."9Oleo (S. Rollins)5:4910Airegin (S. Rollins)4:2111Tune Up (M. Davis)5:4012When Lights Are Low (B. Carter-C. Williams)7:27 At the end Davis says "Okay... All right. Okay." Listed as "Just Squeeze Me" on cover (but not label) of Prestige 709413Blues by Five (false start) (R. Garland)0:24 Garland: "Who's this? You gonna blow on it?" Davis: "No, you -- the rhythm section's gonna play it first. You're gonna play it first, we're gonna come in. Here you go." Snaps fingers. Garland: "Right on it?" Davis: "Yeah... Right on it." False start. Davis: "Hold it, hold it. That's right on it. That's the chorus, Joe. That's the chorus... Here we go..." Coltrane warming up.14Blues by Five (R. Garland)9:5415My Funny Valentine (R. Rodgers-L. Hart)5:56 Conventional wisdom is that the band simply showed up, got levels, and then played what for all intents and purposes were two club sets per date. Pauses are definitely part of the mix, but not for much. Two and a half hours of releasable music out of two sessions, even if some OT was involved (was there?), that's pretty damn impressive.

Not a great, or even particularly "good" record overall (it'll do if it's there), but....Jaws!

Maybe we should send them some stuff namedropping Norris Turney.

Indeed.

Ok, so it's not just me, then. Try reconstructing that into what appears to be recording order...mindblowing.. And whatever became of Mr. Phipps?

Good thing Glenn Gould was Canadian, it's against the law to arrest a Canadian while they're playing piano.

Uncredited soloists will mystify?

I don't mind me some Nancy Wilson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD6doGhSElI

Yeah, Sonny Stitt was one of those guys who didn't really seem to know anything else to be. Not that you'd have wanted him to be.

For grins, let's add up the times of these things: 1089I Hear A Rhapsody5:091090Embraceable You7:051091I Never Knew3:021092These Foolish Things8:191093Our Love Is Here To Stay4:191094I Cover The Waterfront6:241095What's New7:101096Old Folks4:531097Bean And The Boys8:351098Strange Blues7:321099Outburst4:33 Missing is an alternate (a-HA!) of "What's New" on Strange Blues which clocks in 6:35. Total time of issued music = 73:36 for 12 songs (the Jazz Discog thing misses the alternate of "What's New". This from a time when the standard for pop records was to get 4 songs/session. Of course, jazz mo'swifter unless shit go bad (and lord knows...), and of course there's bathroom breaks, etc. Again, the point is not that everything was one take perfect (although, again, do the math, not a lot went wrong, nor should it have, not with these players and this material), just that it was a damn productive session. And the further it goes along, the better it gets! And it would fit on one CD. Where's our "For Discrinimalating Collectioneers Only" shady-grady labels with Jackie McLean - The Legendary February 15, 1957 Session? This. I would like to know which take of "What's New" came first, or if they were even played sequentially.

False starts, etc. are easily allowed for, sure, but it's not like there's any original material or challenging arrangements that should require true multiple takes to get right, just one horn + rhythm trio. We're really talking jam session fare here, and who is there on this date who was not gonna ace that type stuff (especially on a good day, which this appears to have been)? Mal Waldron? Art Taylor? Hell those guys got called for so many dates precisely because of their reliability. And Jackie sounds like he came to bring the heat from note one. So, really, essentially club gig, no do-overs there, right? This was Prestige, remember, bring 'em in, move 'em out, put out the records. Eleven songs in three hours, not a whole lot of room for starting over there.

Check it ALL out: http://www.junodownload.com/labels/Rivbea+Music/releases/ I was thinking everything was probably legit until I saw Fuchsia Swing Song, and a few others, and maybe that is as well, deal struck, perhaps. Lots of stuff here, and Juno's a known quantity in the house/DJ world. Assuming that all is legit, this is a good platform with good exposure for this.

Nothing there that should need more than one take if everybody's hitting, all standards, just set the format, run the tape, and there you go. I still wonder how much of the "incentive" behind this session done this was was the date with Ray Draper just one week earlier. That one did sound like anybody was having fun, to be honest, whereas this looks and sounds like Jackie or Weinstock or somebody came out of it saying, ah, that was not good, let's get back in here and do it right, forget the frills, let's just bring in a quartet and blow hard on a bunch of standards. And if you're looking at a union standard three hour session, you got 11 songs in three hours, a little more than 16 minutes per song on the average. That's about the right time to set a routine, run anything you want to cover, slate it, take it, hear a little playback, and move on. Lather, rinse, repeat. "Blowing session" or not, though, that's one successful session!

Thanks. Pretty productive day at the office. Looking forward to re-creating it from all the pieces, sometimes that's "revealing", sometimes not. But I'm not surprised that "Outburst" was the last tune of the day. Hard to see anywhere to go from there (time/place/etc).

Not sure if I lost them in session order or not!

What kind of blues are we talking about here?