JSngry

Curious to hear how he handles the bridge on "I'm A Fool To Want You". That's no place to tread lightly...

Z-HA! Just placed my order.

I think he does a good enough job delineating/discussing what these "institutions" were SUCCESS - Record labels with very open-minded owners. The earliest Mingus and the earliest Ornette were documented by LA-based labels. Contemporary recorded Vernon Duke's classical works AND Cecil Taylor, Dick Bock did those Shank/Almeida things, Koenig did the Shelley Manne free sides, both early in the 1950s. Tampa, Mode, Dootone, how many others, if you could play, you could get a date, it seems. Wasn't it Chewy who said that Tampa(?) was primarily distributed at grocery store? Seems to me that such an environment served whatever "sanctioned" social segregation was in effect by creating enough outlets for everybody that if one wants to get a balanced picture, one can. FAILURE - Lack of nationally syndicated press based in the area -Gioia really makes the case, I think, that a lot of the negative preconceptions about this music(s) were due to a critical inability to grasp the region falvor, and therefore also, perhaps, the true "essence" of the music(s), which in any of their forms were neither wholly removed from nor identical to the "East Coast" manifestation of esssence (s). Result - not complete picture painted, full appreciations not given, lots of peoples getting easy-answer stereotypes instead of the rich tapestry that is actually there. I'm not rereading the entire book, but it also seem to me that somewhere in his discussion about Eric Dolphy, he points out traits that Dolphy had that were quintessentially "West Coast", things like classical knowledge/studies, an interest in doubling, an eagerness to alter standard forms, things like that. Never mind the socialization aspect (only some of which would have been voluntary), there's a case to be made that this stuff was just "in the air" in LA at that time, that even if any given individual did not "go there", that it was still known to them and and was a factor in how they did go where they did go. Also, regional flayva - Frank Butler swung like mad, but he did not swing like Philly Joe, nor did LeRoy Vinegar drive the bus like Paul Chambers did. those guys had regional flayvah as well. Note also - Art Farmer. Won't say it's a perfect (or perfectly-written book), just that I took away from it things that I see to reason to let go of. Basic premise stated and delivered very well, imo. Past that - how the hell do you read an almost 375 page book overnight? I couldn't do that even back when I read better than I did anything else? Color me boggled! Bottom line, ultimately, glad you lost the reparations nightmare. I just did not see where that was coming from.

Calling Gene Ammons a "Texas Tenor" is a careless piece of writing/editing that doesn't take anything away from other "Texas Tenors" (and I can tell you also that there are guys around here who have proudly claimed to play "New York Tenor", which to them means Liebman/Grossman/Brecker/Etc. and...really? Is that how it works?) "Texas Tenor" neither covers as narrow a spectrum as often perceived (hello, Ornette, Julius, Dewey, yes too John Carter..also Tony Campise) nor has any real truth as a signifier for anything other than a "regional accent" if you will - and a case is there to be made that Sonny Criss, for example, did indeed speak with a certain "West Coast" accent. A lot of LA area altoists carry that accent too, even to this day. So what will you call that then, a "Black California" accent? I guess that works, but then again...unless you're hung up on marketing as history, is that really an effective way to steer the conversation? If so, hello "King Of Swing", "King Of Jazz", etc., marketing leads to labels, labels lead to a disincentive to look past them. Or so it seems to me, long-term. That stuff worked in its time, but out of its time, it continues to grow more and more silly, uncredible, and actually serves to create unnecessary preconceptions/barriers to objective appreciations towards music that have some very real merits. Benny Goodman as "King Of Swing", gimme a break. Benny Goodman as damn fine player, bandleader, enabler of fine players and arrangers both, socially significant figure, hell yeah to all of that. But "King Of Swing"? Nooooo....I'm gonna go into that thinking bullshit. With any luck, I shake it off, but these are not particularly lucky times. Real-time/personal experiences are beautiful, but don't expect future generations to "get" them, because the can't. They weren't there, so at best, they can look back starting with what they've been told about (speaking from experience here). People with brains are going to hear "West Coast Jazz", look at a map, and either LOL about that or swallow it whole and think that Leroy Vinegar, how did HE get in there?, that type of simplistic stupidity. And what's really funny is that most of them will not even care about it, think of Henry Mancini & Peter Gunn, and that brings Plas Johnson into the equation, and...hello unpredictable New Orleans variable! If you're lucky, you'll get some a very few of them to think it through no realize that, no, NOT a territorial claim, just a marketing term, but these kids today, they're not gonna buy that as effortlessly as they used to, ya' know? There's enough distractions as it is, what with the battle now being for owner$hip of hi$tory. Why add another one to the list? You want to know how stupid I was at one point about what all this "West Coast" "studio/players" etc stuff meant? I was actually shocked to find out that Joe Comfort was African-American. He played on Sinatra records, Buddy Collette was already there, so...I mean, this kind of shit poisons you, locks you into certain preconceptions that just don't hold up. It works both ways, too - if I'd have heard Jack Sheldon with Curtis Counce before I heard him with Stan Kenton, I'd very likely need photographic proof that he was Anglo-American. I mean, why would I even need to think about these things (I know why, btw)? Frank Rosolino - West Coast Jazz when playing with one type of player, NOT West Coast Jazz when playing with Lee Morgan? Again I ask - is that how it works? I say that over the long haul, more people get more hurt by this narrow perspective than by a broadened one, as long as the broadening is based on sound criteria. Looking at the cover of Gioia's book right now, and the full title is West Coast Jazz - Modern Jazz In California 1945-1960. If that sounds like a premise, well, I suppose it is, and if it sounds like a challenge to traditional thinking, well, yeah, I suppose it is that too. But is it a faulty premise,? Hell, I just don't see that. None of those words are false or describe something that is not there to see - there was modern jazz on the "West Coast" between 1945-1960, so let's look at it. I really don't see an issue there, although again, last time I looked at my map, the West Coast of America DID stretch up to include Oregon & Washington, it's not just California. But one step at a time, almost literally. Besides, it's got the Lighthouse All Stars on the cover.

SO glad I was not drinking a beverage when I read this!

Always tip here at home, figure that what goes around comes around. Plus, the more I frequent a place, the more I tip. Equal parts investing n goodwill and trying to buy affection I suppose. But seriously, until the wage structure for waitstaff gets changed, I start at 20% (the "new normal" around here for at least a decade) and round up. Non-restaurant tippage, it varies, but if it's a business I frequent (and one where tipping is appropriate), I'll tip on the high end of appropriate, just because. One thing I will not do, though, is reward bad service. I don't mean "off" or "had a bad day", I mean, "motherfucker, PLEASE" type bad. No, no extra money for you. Another thing - in an environment where tipping is not allowed but service is outstanding, I make it a point to speak to the manager and/or take an online customer satisfaction survey to give the appropriate kudos. That's free, and it's effective. For me, it's ultimately a QOL issue. Today's "service economy" is so NOT built on true service nearly as much as it is doing just enough to get by. I've seen it too often, employees not appreciated, recognition taken by managers only, just some real stingy-spirited shit. And since so many of these gigs are held by young-ish and or immigrant peoples, I fear the creation of a permanent "servant" class, where people have no expectations, no twinkle in the eye, all that. So I do my part to let people who do work the "right" way, treat me the way I would treat myself, that yes, they are being noticed, and that yes, your pride in your work and yourself does make a difference, if not to your employer, then to your customers. Just seems like the right thing to do, that' just me. High end, shit, what little of it I do, I tip according to custom, because that's just the cost of doing business, I think. Can't/don't want to pay that price, don't go, or else wait for a satellite location to open up in the burbs. Pros get paid what they get paid, right? Truly, I feel blessed to have what I have (not much in the grand scheme of things, but far much more than I have any right to expect given the life I've led). I feel that blessings are meant to be shared, not hoarded, and that indeed, what goes around comes around, if not directly in money, then definitely in spirit. So yeah, I tip, and have fun doing so. But - I have no idea what I would do about this if I traveled to any significant degree...not sure how much "the world is my home" Bon Homey I'd be able to muster, since I stay home a LOT these days, so going out is a fun thing for me. And when I do go out, I'm usually ready to get back home sooner than later.

Another person I had no idea was still alive... No matter, Don Covay brung it. RIP

Not just that, but ANOTHER Texas Tenor...not going to read back to find out who the previous one(s) might have been. That should have been a big deal for the editor. I did glimpse far enough back, though, to get the Dexter/Pops pot story. Now that's a part of Convention Jazz Lore that needs to be added, that Dexter Gordon shared his herb with Pops every night on the gig...for that matter, that Dexter Gordon even worked with Louis Armstrong and that it wasn't one of those drag-type "modern guy in square band" things either.

I don't see anybody here trying to redefine the realities of the music/sociology that was (and many times still is) "West Coast Jazz". If the label is that fragile, blame the label. I'll make the same case against "Southern Rock". I'll call bullshit on that one too, and on my own dime. Also, if you study sociology, you study "Beatlemania". If you look for marketing guidance, you look for "Merseybeat", or more likely, "British Invasion". But if you want to seriously look at all of that in all the ways, you look at British Rock & Roll from 195x-196x. And if you really want need to get it all as right as it can be, you look at Popular Music, and then take it from there, and that's kinda like "follow the money", no telling where that will end up leading!. I don't get how "revisionist history" is a bad thing if it's aim/result is to take what is already looked at and add things that were also there but are not always considered. Such a thing should not blur the vision or erase it, it should simply give us more to look at, more to think about. I get how it doesn't always work that way, but the entrenched sight lines ain't always so perfect either. Memory does not equal truth, nor does complacence = inevitability. Keep in mind, I'm a guy who has been hearing a lifetime of bitching and moaning about "Northern" "revisionist history" regarding the Confederacy, so complaints of this nature do not easily fall on sympathetic ears here, too much confusion of personal feelings about actual events with the events themselves, just not in the mood to sidle up to that one for a beer, know what I mean? This whole thing about "revising" history - how does history not get revised as details get added and perspectives change? Erasing history, changing facts, eliminating people and events, just lying by either adding the false or subtracting the real, that's what you fear. But just saying "once we saw on, now we cans see that there were two" - and it's true that waht is being seen was actually there", if you don't do that, that's where things go wrong, I think. Apart from that, though, what I don't get, really do not get, is how thinking of "West Coast Jazz" and thinking of both Bud Shank and Sonny Criss is a bad thing? I still need it to be explained to me who gets hurt by that, and how, and why. And sorry, a simple "because that's not how I remember it" does not compute here. Lots of people remember lots of things, ok? Pieces of the puzzle, they are, all of them.

How much more rolling do you think this ball can take, anyway?

Well, at least you've seen an episode of Star Trek, right?

Before outsourcing the gig, I'd go with re-reading the Gioia book first, and then see where that leads. What you took away from it and what I took away from it are so different that I have no idea what could have happened.

Well now, see this is just silly. Your argument is being reinforced by stats, but now stats don't matter? If stats don't matter, then don't quote stats. I don't watch football a much as I used to, but I look at stats/data more than ever and see all sorts of careless and or specious positions put forth through "analysis" that is about as useful as "it's warmer today than it was yesterday". Frankly, "stats" are just another form of "opinion" if not looked at with any kind of qualitative depth. Anybody can get a damn statistic, just like anybody can have a damn opinion. Properly/relevantly refined stats give a more accurate assessment of any situation. Always. Stats like those you quote are a starting point, not a Final Answer. For the record - I was asking for refinement of your statistics, not challenging them. I don't know the answers right now, and obviously neither do you. You may have a point, but not like this. Right now, all I see is attempted Stat Bullying. I see it every day and it's extremely weak, aspirations of the purveyors to the contrary. If you got more, show it. And if nothing remains to the conversation, stop conversating! Silly! Game Over.

More fun with stats, perhaps...how does that 60% success rate of passes from the one break down among teams with roughly the same offensive rating as Seattle playing against teams with roughly the same defensive rating as New England, in the 4th quarter, with 2:00 or less on the clock, and with the passing team needing the points to get a win? I'll trust you to do the "roughly" part within fairly tight boundaries. And if you want to get really accurate about it, make those ratings based on what they were at the time of the games, or immediately afterwards, not what they were at season's end.

How many, if any, of those carries were within the same possession? What was Seattle's % for 2015? What % of this 60% was against New England? What percentage of this 60% was in the 4th quarter with less than 2:00 on the clock? What percentage of that % of this 60% was against New England in the 4th quarter with less than 2:00 on the clock?

And one more thing...Brubeck/Desmond, Tjader, all the SF/Fantasy things..."West Coast Jazz" by any definition, chronologically, arguably there before the Lighthouse or Mulligan/Haig scene (Brubeck definitely), but not part of the LA-Equation at all, so how does that work, exactly? If I'm to believe you guys, "West Coast Jazz" is the equivalent of what still often gets passed of as "Dallas Jazz" around here, highly competent, recreationally serious-ish music played by university (Kenton, for the old days) alumni/first-call studio players and their proteges that gets gigs and makes a certain audience happy and has no desires past that...why would I want to like that? Thankfully, I hear that only sometimes out of what you are calling "West Coast Jazz". If that's all that was there to it, hey, I can get that right here, right now...and don't want to.

So she's alive? That's another "who knew?"!!!

ANY comic not being bitter and angry from jump? Naaahhhh

Well, fwiw, I got a my first full-ish taste of it when I was 14. The difference, though, is that other things had already happened by then, and I was getting those as well. But it took me a while to figure out why I didn't think it was all that good, and then a while longer to realize that maybe it was after all. Two constants, though - Chico Hamilton & Bill Perkins. Always those two. Fully agreed about Jack Sheldon, and will just add that if you don't have/haven't heard his stand-up album on Capitol, you're missing a rare treat. http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2010/03/oooo-but-its-good-the-jack-sheldon-comedy-lp.html

It's the only thing I've knowing read of his, but it made a lot of sense to me. Does that mean I'm going to vote for the next available Bush?

Point is not about music sounding or not sounding the same. Point is that more or less same dynamics of scene not presented marketed on equal terms. One group gets a whole coast of America (btw, SF, Portland, Seattle?) to itself for decades ahead, another gets a gimmicky RCA album starring many of the label's own roster, and then moves on. To be expected in real time, but as an ongoing truth, we can do better than that. Marketing is not based on objectivity, neither is personal taste, necessarily. But something's got to be! Who bought Les/The Jazz Modes records, anyway? Anybody? That seems like a potential "crossover" band that didn't(?) cross over. I'll blame Charlie Rouse. Put Bob Cooper in that chair and Julius Watkins is rich before his time. Not time to purge the infidels or anything stupid like that, just time to have a more...realistic discussion going forth. Do we not like the Ted Gioia book, btw? That thing made impossible for me to take the WCJ "shorthand" term seriously, it just no longer made sense to me to do so.

CC C3 now in at DG: https://www.dustygroove.com/search.php?s=Matana+Roberts+%97+Coin+Coin+Chapter+Three

Been running into that here lately as well, and not necessarily in the "big" boxes. Need that explained to me. Part of me wants to think that the labels are disincentivized to do any real QC on these things, becuase, you know, who's really going to listen to every disc of every one? I bet that discussion was had at least once.

In red! Somewhere in the 70s, whoever owned Chess/Argo/Etc (or maybe somebody who didn't own it...) flooded the cutout bins with all these LPs that had B&W Xerox-y looking covers. Not remembering if this was the same batch that had same front and back covers, but there was that too. Anyway, you know how tricky xeroxing red could be back in the day.