JSngry

Indeed. Facilitated by Branford Marsalis.

I know of Mondragon, for sure. One of the most logical regrets I have about my "career" was turning down a gig that Mondragon called me for in Santa Fe ca. 1982, not long after I had moved to Albuquerque, and had begun sitting in all over town, playing what I knew in order to "impress" (i.e. - get called for local gigs). Phone rings and the guy says, "Is this Jim Sangrey, tenor player?" yeah "This is Joe Mondragon. I got a gig and my tenor player just cancelled are you open?" Wait...are you the Joe Mondragon who played with Mulligan and all that? "Yeah, that's me. Can you do the gig?" Well, y'all got a book? "No man, just standards, all the old tunes." Well, I knew that what this guy knew as "all" the old tunes and what I knew "as "all" the old tunes, would no doubt vary considerably, and I was still in my "Don't EVER make a fool of yourself on purpose" days, so I told him, uh, gee man, I'd LOVE to play with you, but from what you're saying, I don't think I'm the guy for the gig, REALLY sorry and thanks for the call and"Ok man, bye. CLICK." In retrospect, it would have been worth the professional and personal shame to have been on a gig with Joe Mondragon just for one night, at least it probably would have, I mean, he might have gotten old and rurnt and sucked, you never know, but I know that I not been up for THAT gig once he started calling those "deep" standards that I would have know and heard maybe like once or twice and wouldn't have been able to even semi-respectably fake my way through. I mean, it might have been Blue Bossa & Friends all night long, but hell, if you were Joe Mondragon and it was your gig, would YOU call tunes like that? I sure as hell wouldn't. If I had it to do over again, I'd have sucked up my nerve, taken the gig, gone up there and stepped all over my dick, schmoozed everybody, acted like nothing was wrong, gotten paid, passed out my card, and left the impression of a "good guy, shows up, tries hard, call him for the occasional sub job, see if he gets better". That's the way you get a career, but you know me, career has always been one of those words that I only know phonetically.

This one was the first I heard of what I'll somewhat capriciously label NextGen AACM. I responded immediately and continuously (to this day!), and can we please have some more Edward Wilkerson on record if that is a viable possibility? Seems like there was a window open for a while, some things came out, and then it stopped. If the guy's still operating at full strength or anywhere near it, he needs to be heard! and whatever happened to Henry Huff? Him too, as far as that goes.

Exactly. And what I meant by stuff being released "through" Verve, Verve had licensing agreements with Birdology & Gitane and who else, that allowed them to release product to the American market at less cost than if they produced it themselves. Blue Note had the same kind of thing with Something Else out of Japan.

Noon on Sunday?

Released on or through Verve, good-to-excellent (or better) records by: Joe Henderson Shirley Horn Helen Merrill Abbey Lincoln Charlie Haden (both with and apart from Quartet West) Ornette Coleman Herbie Hancock Bobby Hutcherson Wayne Shorter J.J. Johnson Rodney Kendrick Jackie McLean McCoy Tyner Dewey Redman/Cecil Taylor/Elvin Jones Randy Weston All from the 1990s on. People might have good reasons for not buying some (or even all) of these, but "there wasn't anything worth considering" ain't gonna be one of them,

Really, REALLY digging the Garcia sessions...Garcia is in full-frontal Nelson Riddle mode, and the intent seems clearly to be to make a Frank Sinatra/Ella Fitgerald album only with Louis singing. But Pop's phrasing, his time, his soul, cannot be bent to do the long flowing graceful phrasing arc thing. No, Louis Armstrong cannot help but be Louis Armstrong - the songs get sung in short, percussively phrased groups of words that make sense on their own terms. And even if the alternates show the producer (Granz himself?) haggling/harassing him about the lyrical groupings of "You Turned The Tables On Me", they also show Louis holding his ground long enough and hard enough to make it evident that when he finally DID change it, it was an accommodation, not a submission. On and on this goes, one song after another with fashionably "sophisticated" (and truthfully, quite good quite often) arrangements seemingly intent on endorsing & reenforcing The Great American Songbook, with The Great Louis Armstrong being Our Advocate Today, submitting for your approval. Well, fuck that. What ends up being is yet more confirmation of The Great Louis Armstrong, who slips the word "scarfin'" into "You're Blase" like it's the most natural thing in the world, because hell, IT IS! And the trumpet section glissing up to their note on "Stormy Monday" as if playing in a hall of distorted historical Armstrongian Echo, like a child playing an old man in front of the old man, been doing this so long we forgot where we got it, and then Louis getting on top of them as if to say, thanks for the ride, coulda gotten here myself, but let's go from HERE. On and on like that, every song damn near, just Louis OWNING everything. It's jarring sometimes, at first, there seems to be some disconnects, because one is not accustomed to hearing this kind of record presented by this kind of being. But once the shock wears off, it becomes evident that Louis Armstrong could play any damn thing he wanted to, and that he would play it his way. Like the man said upthread, "Majestic!" and not for any superficial reason.

Do fish swim just to be swimming, or do they have some notion of an idea about where they're going, or at least why? Not being snarky, it's a (type of) question I've never found a definitive answer to, not yet. Not about fish, but about music. Another question (serious also) - if one does not think like an artist, can one still create art? Or does that fish have to know exactly what its doing at all times? For that matter, does a fish even know its in water? Me, I like my free jazz to get paid, but hey, fish out of water, etc.

A life's work perhaps not known of/appreciated by the greater audience, but definitely of no small impact to those who did know about it, and, especially, it appears, by those who were touched by it first-hand. RIP, thank you, sir, and maximum props.

Yeah, that was all clear. Just was uncomfortable with the possibly implied disrespect/disdain towards those whose tastes tend towards the omnivorous. Might not have been what he meant, at all, but I couldn't tell. As someone whose tastes tend that way myself, I scoff at the notion/implication that it by default leaves one "not satisfied", and I will hold that "too many genuine interests" is simply an indicator of what the individual does with the input, not with the amount of input itself, not a case of "too many" but rather "carelessly handled". OTOH, maybe not what was meant at all, unconsciously or otherwise, so...never mind!

Well, ok then. The problem seems to have been that not that people can have "too many genuine interests" & that doing so never satisfies them, it's that Charters himself was a bit rushy and sloppy and grabby and opportunistic as opposed to being focused and dedicated. His flaws seem to have been distinctly of himself, not of some general moral imbalance which would inevitably and predictably come to be befallen unto anybody who pursued a wide range of interests. Those seem to be too different things to me, but the statement you quoted seemed to me to imply otherwise.

Alice Tully Frank Tusa Maria Tu. P.C.

Don't know if that applies to those specific people, but I find the (what appears to be) general premise that one can have "too many" "genuine interests" and as a result be "never satisfied" to perhaps be questionable and/or Puritanical and or maybe just a little short-dicked. You tell me.

Yeah, you're asking for the revealing of the obvious sense of something that. after repeated listening, I don't think exists. Me,. I want to know who that bass player was. There's a Les DeMerle album called "You the Bop" and some singer is on it. Maybe they sing the song so clearly you can understand every word.

Read it a while back, really enjoyed it. It's a novel, not a biography. I'd say go ahead and check it out, I don't see what's not to like if you keep in mind that it is a novel, not a biography. That's the truth, right there.

Mr. Litweiler's DB review stuck in my head and made a "album to buy the first time you ever see it", which is exactly what I did. I mostly stuck to Side One though, because, you know, Warne.

Hitting all the right buttons. Again. http://heightfiveseven.com/?p=3241

Maybe I'm not hearing it right, but it sounds like it might be a goof...the immediate next lyric is "the greatest sound that Eckstine ever sung"...wouldn't that likely be "song" instead of "sound"..so maybe the intent was "you're the minor sound, the greatest song that Eckstine ever sung"? If I were her, I'd accept it just to not have to endure those godawful Buddy Bregman elephantsounds.

Clifford Jordan seemed to have hit kind of a "dead spot" in the mid-70s, at least on recordings, but otherwise, jeez, that guy's tone alone has got all the life anybody should expect. He's got that preachy edge and those signifyin' inflections, the guy was forreal TUFF, ok? As for the album under discussion, I have never really "warmed" to it, in spite of recognizing the significance of its accomplishment. Just doesn't feel "relaxed" (which with Max is always a relative term...). I'll chalk that up to the size of the ensemble, a probable lack of meaningfully extended rehearsal opportunities, and the ongoing logistics during the recording process, which were probably pretty intense. But - the title tune became a mainstay in Max's book (there's an absolutely SEARING version with Billy Harper on the first Denon Tokyo side. And "Living Room" resurfaced on Abbey Lincoln's People In Me album, with a totally different vibe, one which I prefer to Max's version. Me myself, I'm one of those hardcore type who thinks that Max Roach never made an insignificant record. Even the latter of the Soul Notes. Institutionalize-y, yes. But not insignificant. Ever. Speak, Brother, Speak this is not, but about that type of thing is not something which I will not worry.

"Look sexy Jazz Karaoke Singer Chick, you might be The One right now, but I'm a tenor player, destiny is MINE. Just give me time to get my chops together and then I will be choosing you. You ignore me now, but look at my face. Look at it well - when I claim you, will will remember it in your subconscious and be delighted that I have come so far and chosen YOU, not that freshman alto player. You will squeal with delight when you feel that I have not only mastered my scale/chord relationships, but I have ALSO learned they sexart of rhythmic variation of both mind AND fingers. Your love will indeed be a secret no more you will be mine, I WILL have you. The break you leave open, I will fill to overflowing. Be ready, baby. Be ready for ME" See, this shit is NOT complicated. Y'all just taking the sex out of it. Put the sex back in it, people will proceed accordingly, jazz be making EVERYBODY happy again.

No sex unless you demonstrate your full awareness of chord/scale relationships. which is of course the meatheart & soulpotatos of The Great Original Only Amerticanar Jazz Form! And then, you can have your pick of the sure-to-be many. Get in line for Tuesday Night Jazz Karaoke!

Let's get this party started! Yeah man, go like The Bird!