JSngry

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0283095/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm

Saturday morning cartoons:

Phil Teele George Roberts Edward Kleinhammer

There's some great music on the Bley, but it's available elsewhere now. Can't argue about the cover art, though...people rag on the Blue Note LT-series covers, but they had a sly, coded panache going on (or, at least, one could project that on to them and not meet intellectual resistance tot he notion). The AF covers too often seemed just a little...unpurposeful to me. A unified sense of design, absolutely, but the art itself? Hmmmmmmmmm......??????? The design and the art seemed at odds with each other too much, maybe that's what it was. No matter, a lot of great music on that label/in that series. A lot.

I distinctly remember seeing it once, but also distinctly remember finding it wholly by accident, and was having to do something else (don't remember what) while trying to watch it. Also remember OL playing with a red plastic mouthpiece. distinctive! Might have been taped in St. Louis, or maybe up the road? Anyway, have never seen this since, and don't notice it ever being discussed much. Is it still alive in somebody's archives?

The fate of most Arista/Freedom LPs it seems. Alas, I think you are right. I was just looking at a list of Arista Freedom LPs, and -- should I admit this?-- I think I have all of them except "New York Mary" (which I have passed on a dozen times). I suspect that if some of these titles were issued on Incus, or FMP, or some other difficult label to find, people would happily be paying big money for them. Maybe we should have an Arista Freedom "what are you listening to?" festival. I have almost all of them. They damn near flooded the cutout bins at one time. Wondering how many newer listeners who find copies today are finding them with cutout scars.

So...not needledrops, then, corrrect? But most likely not "legit" either? Do not Japan re-reissue everything eventually and cyclically, in a legitimate accord of contract? Willing to wait for that until certainly terminally ill, in which case, hey, sue me.

The early returns are in, and it does get at least a little better...but six seasons worth of better...hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Chick Ramirez http://www.pegasusnews.com/events/ongoing/3812/ Joe Ramirez http://www.obitsforlife.com/obituary/575694/Ramirez-Joe.php Joanna Ramrez

One time I went almost a year between updates, started to finally get with it in the early evening, and then though no, this might take a while, so waited until the next morning. It DID take a while! However, pretty sure that one can cancel all updates while in progress and then resume at a later time, perhaps(?) even taking up where one left off previously. Downloading the updates is a separate event from installing them, iirc. Hell, I should have bought a new..."device" a year or two ago, but this thing keeps running and doing what I ask of it. Besides, I don't want Windows 8, am not good enough a human for a Mac, don't see well enough to live on a smartphone, and lack the courage to just hackerass my way to and through everything, so...when it gets broke, I'll fix it. I just hope I'm not when it does! But if that stuff just starts updating without permission, tha ain't right. Somebody done put a chicken head in your computer.

That would be, like, a 21st century Weather Report cover band, right?

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective. I remain as skeptical of accepting what the brain "can't do" as I am of what the brain "could do". It's like here, I have a brain, this is all I can measure it doing, so that's gotta be all it really is doing. Just as I don't want some trippo telling me my brain can make me grow wings to fly, I don't want no dullo telling me hey, this is all you can hear, so this all we're going to give you. There's a really simple way to solve the issue of what you personally can or cannot hear. You can do an ABX test. There is software available that allows you to do it yourself. You can load a hi-res mp3 version of a piece of music and a 24/96kHz wav file of that same music and see if you can reliably hear the difference while not knowing which is which. If you get better than 50%, then congratulations! http://theproaudiofiles.com/audio-perception-and-abx-testing/ Otherwise, without testing, you don't know. Yeah, that's good for what it is, but, really, am I supposed to believe that there's no cumulative brain conditioning going on here as well, that just because for one - or several, or many tests, that I can't "tell the difference" for the duration, that I should then go through life letting myself think that "oh well, I can't hear any difference, must not be any"? Over years, doesn't that add up to something akin to sitting inside a really good planetarium or some such where they go through the day into the night etc etc etc for a couple of years, and then I walk outside, the real outside, and there's all this shit there and not there and I don't even bother to think that it might exist because I've taught myself to not even consider it, never mind look for it. Whether it actually exists or not is one issue, but whether or not you even want to consider that it - or something else - might be there outside of your grasp, or totally imaginary, whatever, that's another. These progressions, there's always progressions...the one from "I can hear better than a dog" to "No you can't, it's impossible" to "here's your proof that you can't" to "why bother, nobody can hear the difference, and if they can it's just subjective" to "fuck them, they'll take what we give them" to "tahnk you master" to "fuck you slave, get back on it", hey, I've played those changes, those are the changes of Just The Way It Is, and I don't like them, no sir, I don't like them. What is not being addressed here is that sound itself can be measured (and obviously has been), but "hearing" is just one part of "sound", just as "sound" is one part of "vibration". All the senses operate off of vibration, and as much as we can measure subjective reaction to isolated inputs, where are the people looking at collective cumulative processing of collective cumulative inputs? No, that's not a "practical" concern, and yes, it is likely to end up with a lot of "subjectivity" involved, but subjectivity is sometimes an awesomely beautiful thing (and sometimes is not). So ok, where's the answer to this question - this test here, where's the people who have taken it over and over for, like 6-8 hours a day, every day for, like 5 years? Who has measure their results? Do they get better at discernment as time goes by and familiarity ensues? Or do they just bland out and put it all int he background, hey, mellow dawg, saul goode, or what, exactly? And what would that prove, the results of that test? And not only that, but this- who would be cruel enough to administer it like that, and who would be crazy enough to take it? Just remember - objectivity is part of a well-balanced hi-fi breakfast, it ain't the whole thing. Kinda rushed for time right now, or I could make this even more blatherous. But my point remains - call me a coal porter, and don't fence me in.

I don't use a screen-saver any more, but I do go to a blank screen. A little less heat generated overall, call it a faux-greenery I suppose...and I don't know if having something not generating light is gonna do any harm, so, oh well. Just a little jiggle of the mouse and we're back to live action. Ubu - the forced updates/restarts can be eliminated by asking to be prompted before installing. You'll get a little pop-up in your systray (and it will stay there), but you can ignore it. Then you can install when you want, when you know you'll be there to monitor things. And you can also get a list of what you want to update or don't before doing it. They keep wanting me to update IE. Hell, I don't use it, haven't for years, so why? And you know how Microsoft like to run those proprietary changes and then say, sorry, that's just how it is. Other than my anit-virus, I pretty much don't let anything auto-update. Good programs can go bad, get greedy, and next thing you know, you got something you don't want to act like that acting ALL like that.

The clip is gone, but here's our discussion of it...sure hope I've got it (the clip) saved somewhere...

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective. I remain as skeptical of accepting what the brain "can't do" as I am of what the brain "could do". It's like here, I have a brain, this is all I can measure it doing, so that's gotta be all it really is doing. Just as I don't want some trippo telling me my brain can make me grow wings to fly, I don't want no dullo telling me hey, this is all you can hear, so this all we're going to give you. The expression "people hear with their eyes", that sometimes makes sense to me, not as a cynical note of people's gullibility & manipulabity, but I've recently had experiences watching hip-hop and opera performances with a lot of well-done choreography playing a big part in the role. And I quite unwittingly found myself, not necessarily" "hearing" but definitely engaging in the overall musical moment by focusing on the dancers, their moves, their grooves, their , for lack of a better word, "channeling" of the audible sound into physical movement. The two senses - definitely seemed to be working together to enhance each other, and although, no, of course I could neither "see" the music nor "hear" the dancing, there still was an enhanced effect going on, and I figure it's gotta be a combination of well-crafted stimuli being processed in a manner that, although not looking for it to begin with, definitely recognized the request for input, evaluated the input as pleasurable (however that works) and then opened the door and set a table for the guests. Am I making my brain do something it's not meant to do (huh?) or am I choosing to simply be conscious of what it's always doing? Or is my brain forcing itself on me, overpowering it's programming? Where are the answers to THESE questions, because these are (just some of the) question I'd like answered. So, can people REALLY "hear with their eyes", well no, of course not, eyes are not ears. But can we then rule out the synergistic effect of eyes and ears working together as simple "projection" or "illusion", at least under certain mutual conditions? That would seem kind of...cheap to me, to do that. Same thing with sound. On the on hand, yes, "hearing" is done through the ear and its components. But is "sound" just about "hearing"? This is where I'm scared to say "yes" because of all the massive chicanery that jumps out with all the HEY you can eat your vegetables by listening to flowers singing their natural songs through speakers implanted in your water well, but I'm just as afraid to say "no", because that's where all the boxer-uppers and neatly packed game-over just sit there and take it starts coming in, we've determined that this is all you need so this is all you will get, it has been determined for you what you can and cannot do, your perceptions are not valid, there is only one true perception...those are both pretty creepy options, if you ask me. Unless it can be proven that observable brain function is the only brain function (huh? say what?), then I think I'll be quicker to jump for my volume button or slide, than I will any permanent conclusions. You can control people by giving them delusions of false possibilities, and you can control them by giving them the false security of frozen conclusion. The reality, like love, gets slippery when it's wet. Stay slippery, my friends.

I wish I knew for certain that "hearing" only involves the ears...sound is vibration, and most of the body, if not all of it, is sensitive in some for or fashion to vibrations...if your body can feel low frequencies that your ears can't hear, the why not the same with higher frequencies? Not as "sound" per se, but as something that the brain nevertheless processes along with sound. This is not a practical consideration, I know, and I'm not saying that every claim that comes along is legit. I know there's a lot of hoodoo out there. But I do think that sensory perceptions might better be more understood as a blend of neurological impulses than by compartmentalizing them and thinking that's the end of that. God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually. And synesthesia, definitely an anomaly, but is it a true malfunction, or just an abnormal degree of the brain's "normal" functioning? Hell, for that matter, blind people are alleged to generally have higher developed senses of hearing than sighted. If there is any truth to that at all, how does that happen? Does they just grow another brain just for hearing, or what? Not wanting to replace old myths with new ones, I remain, Lilac Vegital Counsellor At Love

THE Phillip Wilson?

The Smooth Ones A Jackson The Warriors

Gotta love a guy who can make you think that 89 is not really old.

I enjoy listening to older Lou Donaldson records for the social images they conjure, not so much for Lou Donaldson per se, especially the organ records (all of them). I don't think the guy ever had a bad band, nor do I think that he ever played outside of a social point of reference, so that's a compliment, actually, although it might not sound like one. It means that he did what he set out to do, mission accomplished. But by the time he "returned" or whatever it was, the social reference was maybe less to going to than to having gone, although if you want to say hey, that's nonsense, well, hey, it probably is, but what can I do about that myself, I'm not Lou Donaldson, ok? Also, does anybody still ahve the clip of when LD called into the sports talk show? That's a slice of life right there, maybe two slices, or even three!

I know the downtown scene, and used to be interested. It's "now" sure, but it's been "now" for, what, 20 years now? 30? More? Threadgill, yes, always. Ripples of Threadgill (and etc.)...ripples. The closer to the origination point they are, good. The further out they go, hey. My life and my appetites run at two different speeds. Having learned to somewhat control them each does not mean that I have brought them both under the same control. Different wagons hitched to different speeds of different lights. I'll live with the dead, die with the living, and build a resort village in the wormhole that connects them. Reservations not only accepted, but encouraged! When it comes to downtown, make mine Petula Clark or don't make it at all. Preferably the latter. I'm a simple country boy, and town is someplace you go to pay bills and/or go to jail. Air has no town nor no time. Air is always! Oh, Henry!

I dug the cat's photography, for real.

He's one of those folks that I respect the hell out because they're still finding new-ish ways to work with an older-ish vocabulary, and at the same time and by the same token one of those guys I can't really love, for that same reason. For me, form, ensemble texture, and group rhythm are the final frontiers (such as they are either final or frontiers). Not a whole helluva lot of people are really pushing any of those frontiers today and still being classified as "jazz". Maybe "jazz" is at once its own problem and its own solution, but ever since Branford decreed that Fathead was not a jazz musician, I'm like, ok, then, thanks for the tip, ALL bets are off now. Lots of perceived obligations now removed/relieved of, lots. But still and all, J.D. Allen is a very serious player/musician, and I fully respect him. And I'm pretty piqued by what Jeremy Pelt's drummer is up to. But, I dunno, I respect lots of people, and truly love everybody. But the number of people I like...maybe not so many. Same thing with J.D. Clampett & J.D. Parran for that matter, although more edge has been on the latter from the git-go, so adjust significantly accordingly, ok?. However, this is great: and hello Raymond Bailey!

Books-A-Million? We had those in Florida. No, we got Books-A-Million here too...when she first told me about it, I though it was the same thing too. Just called her, and the place is call BookOff, actually. It's a Japan-based company, and in L.A. they have "Japanese" stores and "American" stores, with inventory targeted accordingly. She and her BF go to both, but they favor the "Japanese" store, because they're into J-Pop & Anime & Manga, and all that. The CD selection that I could see over Skype was not really exciting, but they did have Jaki Byard's Blues For Smoke for five bucks, so what the hell, family time, etc.