JSngry

Ok, so it's just another form of "essential" then, a concept both useful and useless concept, not any kind of "official designation" or anything. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I really wasn't sure what it was supposed to mean. Furtwängler and especially Mengelberg are an acquired taste for many and I'm not sure they are the best to start with if, like the original poster, you don't know anything about Beethoven's symphonies. What's so odd about Furtwangler? Great time, he has, not stiff at all. Who said that Furtwangler's time was stiff? The complaint (for those who complain -- certainly not me) would be pretty much the opposite, that his phrasing was too free and plastic. Nobody said that it was stiff. I find his fluidity delightful and many others "stiff" by comparison. That's why I don't understand the complaints (well, I do, but I am not sympathetic to them) or why he would be an "acquired taste". It's the "less fluid" world that would, for me, take some getting used to, especially having only lived in a post-Armstrong rhythmic world. I mean, we're not talking bad/weak time to be getting upset about here, we're talking, as you say, free and plastic. I've never once heard him be spazzy or grotesque with it, just...spontaneous. And always landed after taking off.

Treme's back. Good (it'll never be bad, probably), but comfortable. Uh-oh. Already one classic line, though - Davis is angsting out about his band not drawing/blah/blah/blah and the one lady says, "Well, you can always fuckin' quit", as in, nobody's making you do this shit, ya' know? To which I lol'ed out loud several times over, because there's your Truth About Life right there!

JSngry, I get where you're coming from, but considering the numbers of available interpretations of certain titles, this kind of input is helpful. Well, yes it is, that's why I said both useful and useless. Useful because, yes, consensus (knowledgeable and open-minded, at least) is indeed a good thing. A great thing, actually. Useless, because, hey, some people just follow the crowd, hear what they think they're supposed to hear, and then join the chorus, figuring that if this is right, then I can't be wrong. And then the chorus grows until somebody starts a new one. But yes, when I can tell somebody knows, really knows, their shit and isn't just posing and/or bullshitting, I want their opinion (and will go out my way to ask for it). Definitely. I don't know that I myself would use the term "reference recording" (if there's only one, or just a few ways a piece "should" go, then why bother either listening or playing any further? Points for trying? Celebrating failure as triumphant life lesson?)), but oh well. At least now when somebody does, I'll get what they mean (although, as a compliment to the people I do ask, not once have they themselves used that term!).

Ok, so it's just another form of "essential" then, a concept both useful and useless concept, not any kind of "official designation" or anything. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I really wasn't sure what it was supposed to mean. Furtwängler and especially Mengelberg are an acquired taste for many and I'm not sure they are the best to start with if, like the original poster, you don't know anything about Beethoven's symphonies. What's so odd about Furtwangler? Great time, he has, not stiff at all.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/old-town-records-presents-city-blues-mw0000052151

Seriously, I don't know. That's why I'm asking, to learn what I should think when I hear somebody use that term. Because right now, I'm like, ok...reference for what? Like one of those old Calibrate Your Hi-Fi records? Where you could hear a true A-400 & sine wave and all that and then adjust accordingly until you know you're right? Are these Calibrate Your Ears, Mind, & Soul records for classical music, listen to this and get right with classicalmusicgod? Or just what, exactly? I mean, seriously, I don't know what that term means in general conversation. Not trying to be a wiseguy hear, I really don't know.

I've seen the term "reference recording" bandied about so much, I though it was some sort of "official" thing, like from Penguin or one of those other arbitrary arbitrators that are given so much credence for whatever reason by so many for whatever reason. So in theory, you could ask 150 people what the "reference recording(s) was(were) for such-and-such a work, get 150 different answers, and it would all be all good, correct?

What is this "reference recording" business? Who decide(s)(d) that?

Twins signing free agent pitching like they are trying to get serious...guess they've had enough. Can't blame 'em.

And maybe because he's speaking in his native tongue when he does that. Can't always agree with the "scope" of his conclusions, but dammit, it's generally not because he doesn't have his facts straight (recent busting on the Ellington thing notwithstanding).

Ok, which "Jewish community" are we talking about? Worded like this, it sounds like there's only/just one monolithic/all-purpose "Jew", and I'll call bullshit on that right now, even though Question #2 refers to "communities", the lack of a "some" or anything has the same connotation. Reality is fucked up enough, and has really gotten us nowhere. Simplified/compressed reality might get us nowhere faster, but it's still nowhere. I've had enough of nowhere. I'll rephrase the questions (and answer them) - are pigs gonna be pigs? Yes, they are. And are people willing to go along with bullshit in order to get theirs? Yes they are. Now, I don't know that that gets us out of nowhere, but at least we know what the warning signs are. The wise one will look out for them everywhere, not just in nowhere.

What did they each drink?

Sorry if this was already covered, but...any relation to Jerry Fielding?

All fixed now.

Just woke up, not event hroguh my first cup of offee, but the posts have been deleted and the user flagged/disabled as a spammer, which is all I can do, and which should be enough until Jim A can deactivate the account altogether.

If it's not too late, could I get a DL, please?

Enjoyed it. I've been watching Key & Peele on On Demand but haven't gotten to this sketch yet. They're funny in general, very funny.

Well, I should have known better, but I think I've always been confused by the titling of this tune. I believe that the line "you belong to me" occurs about seven times in the lyrics, whereas "button up your overcoat" only occurs twice. Not only that, but "you belong..." occurs at the end of several verses. But I should have remembered that "You Belong To Me" was a well-known doo-wop ballad from the 1950's. This is a song I remember (more or less) from my early childhood on, first from The Ames Brothers (my dad was a fan) & then later, by the Hi-Lo's (I still am a fan).. Button up your overcoat When the wind blows free Take good care of yourself You belong to me Eat an apple every day Get to bed by three Take good care of yourself You belong to me Be careful crossing streets Cut out sweets Stay away from spicy meats You'll get a pain and ruin your tum-tum Keep away from bootleg hooch When you're on a spree Take good care of yourself You belong to me That last verse seems kinda...cheeky, so maybe it's Hi-Lo's only.

Never mind that - was that Gary Moore? And...how'd you get so "lit up"? I beg your pardon? Sir? Who's NOT got a secret now, eh? HA!

Greetings! Sorry to be so late (again), listening for the first time while typing/reacting but the usual thanks and stipulations firmly in place as ever, let's go to town (and stay for supper!) TRACK ONE - I believe that's Sun Ra playing a Fletcher Henderson chart form that Hat Hut album. Yeah, that's John Gilmore. Don't know waht to say about that...so much context and subtext and all that stuff...but we'll never hear all that ever again. It's gone, as all things eventually are. Except as recordings, of course. But here it is, science being dropped in that uniquely Ra-ian way. Catch it and you keep it! TRACK TWO - Artie Shaw w/Lips. Didn't know that right away, actually thought the band sounded like Goodman's on the intro, but then the clarinet & strings gave it away. Some pretty interesting personnel too, session FF as listed here: http://www.mosaicrecords.com/discography.asp?number=244-MD-CD&price=$119.00&copies=7%20CDs I'm guessin g that's Auld on tenor & Jack Jenney on bone. Auls is pretty well known, but Jack Jenney (although...Ray Coniff? Possible?)...famous for "Stardust" (again with Shaw_, but other than that, I don't really know his work, which is an error on my part. Not sure what the chronolgy would be, but around this same time you had Guarniei, Mike Bryan, & Dave Tough playing in Goodman's band, although at the same time, I can't say. But those ware three good guys (and in Tough's case, an outstanding guy) to have in those chairs. And dude, I so much love the blends sax sections were getting in those days. They all had their own sound, but they all blended so beautifully. Brass sections too, but the saxes...even an outfit like Glenn Miller's, one that was basically pop even when it was jazz, lord have mercy, that sax section, I just listen to them and marvel. That's another thing you'll likely never hear again, because the dynamics of playing have changed completely - venues, amplifications, horns, mouthpieces, arranging demands/techniques, everything. But geez, a big band is a thing of joy, except when it's not, but lord, when it is, it IS. TRACK THREE - Very Ellington-ish in concept, but the drummer is not Sonny Greer, and the piano player is not Duke, although strongly coming from there. Interesting piece, especially the rhythm section, and especially the drummer. And the trumpeter does not call attention to his/her self, which put him/her right there in the Freddie Jenkins/Arthur Whetsol/Shorty Baker (even!) lineage of truly noble Ellington interpretive trumpetes, although this is not Ellington. And even though it's not, it does nothing to cheapen the originator, and just how rare is that, ever? TRACK FOUR - Ra again? Sounds familiar, but I can't place it exactly. Sounds like a revue number (I would say "floor show", but that has trivializing implications in general conversations), something with at least one dancer being showcased in front of the band. Something "exotic" (another word that has generally trivializing implications), but really part of Ra's (or whoever's) overall quest to create a mythology of self that overrode all the trivial (for real) mythologies that had been foisted on his mind by others. The visual is a powerful tool of conveying information, people hear with their eyes (as they say), and dancers, well hey. Try to not look. TRACK FIVE - I recognize "Button Up Your Overcoat" and should recognize the trumpeter...a gorgeous Pops-inspired sound...it's a trio, no bass, but do you need one with that piano player? HA! I think not! Wild guess - Ruby Braff & Mel Powell? It just has the vibe of those two. No idea who the drummer would be though (but kudos for doing the right thing all the time, you're exposed as hell in a context like this). Mel Powell, now there's somebody who can slip under the radar if you're not careful, Earl Hines with a less crazy sense of time and with the occasionally arresting harmonic tangent. Braff was around for a long time, and kinda wore out his welcome as far as I'm concerned, just too much of a good thing for too long (my problem, though, not his, not at all), but always good in small (enough) doses. And this is a very nice dose. Nice and tasty. TRACK SIX - Well hell, that's Jaws. Get the rest of the shit out of the way and let Jaws play. Always. Always. Even with Griff, although then it's not quite such a pressing imperative. Oh, there's Clark Terry...is this from Afro-Jaws? I never really got into that one, although I did rescue a copy of the LP cover from a dumpster in 1979 (true). But, yeah, More Jaws, please, less "other". TRACK SEVEN - For the piano, the dots themselves are not all that interesting, but the way they're connected sure are. Is that Richard Williams on trumpet? Oliver Nelson on tenor? But not Red garland, right? Ok, I am confused. Maybe they should have left the "Latin trimmings" alone? TRACK EIGHT - I kept waiting for the point to come when I could say "ok, that's enough of that" and it never came. Whazzup widdat? "Funny" time feel in the bass/drum hookup, it's like the drummer is just a tad behind on his ride cymbal, which ends up with it hitting a pretty hard backbeat, almost like Vernel Fournier did in a toally different way with Ahmad Jamal back in the day. Of course, nobody's "behind" in the sense of not having good time, that's just where this particular pocket is. And once you realize that no, it's not going to lag/scuffle, it's going to groove, then you can smile out loud about all that. I dig that bass palyer too, nice lines, good notes, and in that pocket. TRACK NINE - I kept waiting for the point to come when I could say "ok, that's enough of that" and it came pretty quickly. The time feels tight, not flowing. Not intense, just tense. Not by incompetence or anything, just how they feel it, and...sorry, I don't. All the gesturing in the world falls flat if the time don't flow. It don't meant a thing, etc. TRACK TEN - Oh HELL yeah! Barry! And Sam! I was in a group a while back, well, "group", a duo, me and a drummer, and we played this tune. Transcribed rather easily actually, a few odd-metered bars here and there, but a very natural-falling composition, it really is. And that last phrase, it seems to be a lift from the Kent jingle line "smooth taste, fine tobacco, that's what happiness is"...right? This is one of the great sorta-kinda "lost" great jazz records of its time. Hard as hell to not play this, the lead/title cut overnadoverandoverandover, but once you do, it's all just superior. Ask for it by name! TRACK ELEVEN - whoa...I never even thought about there being a point when I could say "ok, that's enough of that"... no idea who it is, but...that's a helluva lot of information, all of it sound (no pun intended). TRACK TWELVE - I swear, that tenor player sounds like either Jimmy Heath or Grover Washington, that tone, upper register in particular. The tune itself, I could get tired of it for it's cleverness, except it's so damn clever. Ok, that's Metheney, so this must be that Midem album that's been around on a gazillion different labels, right, with The Heath Brothers & Gary Burton & Brubeck & BB & Chick, right? I always avided it thinking it would just be some silly jamming, but this is actually pretty good. Well, dig - Grover got a part of his sound from Jimmy Heath, that Philly thing. So...information gets conveyed in all kinds of ways. ok? Did the Heath Brothers record this on Columbia? That's such an infectious tune, crossover appeal out the ass, in the best way. TRACK THIRTEEN - Well, that's a saxophone quartet alright. And that's "Airegin" alright. Some of the voicings are Hemphill-esque, the group intonation and time gets pleasantly quirky at times, very occasionally for all of it, but...none of the playing is really on point. But that sopranoist is finger-wiggling in such a way that suggests some kind of knowing that might be better heard in another context, almost Sam River-ish in a not yet fully/barely formed kind of way...but I dunno, maybe not? The balance between native wit and learned skill is not necessarily indicating itself towards a positive balance. Not necessarily, though. Maybe it's a lot of badass cats operating outside of their comfort zone recording not particualrly well. But the soprano spots...whoever that is, I think they know more than the others. How much that is, hell if I can tell by this one cut. But see the comments for Track Two and see what I mean about sax section sound never gonna be like that again. Those guys never knew that anythng could sound like this, and these guys could only play like that by making a consciously retro-fit of their entire minds and beings, and even then/once that...yeah (or to the point, no). That's just how it is. TRACK FOURTEEN - "Lament". I never appreciated what a great tune this is until actually playing it semi-regularly (just within the last two years, actually). This pianist is very much staying inside the tune, which is, I think, the best place to be with it. It's not a structure you can really open up/stretch out on with wild abandon. Well, maybe you could, but I don't know how well for how long. It's not that type of thing. It is what is, and is best treated as such, just a beautiful melody with a lot of harmonic movement in the service of that melody, movement that can trick you into thinking you're going to land some place other than you actually do (if you're paying attention, and if you're not, well...UH-oh! ) TRACK FIFTEEN - As with Track Nine & Thirteen, I feel, in different ways, a certain lack of fluidity in the expression. That type of thing is subjective, but no matter how clean music (any music) is on top, there should always be a spot somewhere, even if it's in a place that is beyond hidden, that stanks. Because everybody stanks. Babies stank. Old folks stank, everybody in between stanks, you stank when you're alive and you stank when you're dead. Stank is beyond "funky" or "nasty" or any of that. Stank is uncreatable and stank is irrevocable. So if music ain't got that stank in it somewhere, I get to...wondering. Maybe it's in here and I just don't know where to go to get it. I'm a patient man, but time is tight, as the radio used to tell me. But apart from that, hey, nice compilation here, plenty of provocative implication in most of the music. Wish I'd had the opening to get to it much sooner than this. My loss. Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Rec'd via email:

Not entirely out of the realm of logic/reason to suggest that by this line of thought, the sampler/DJ/whatever is not just inevitable/necessary, but also correct in basic-impulsed motivation, if not always in result. If the new vernacular is in fact recordings, then they are the ones meeting that vernacular head-on and actually engaging it to re-form it. Never mind if they're doing it "right" or even "well", history will sort that all out sooner or later. A diet of frozen information will inevitably lead to a frozen population. These folks are keeping it liquid, fluid, moving. If it's baby steps, so be it. Everybody starts as a baby, including a paradigm. Of course, if the new vernacular is not recordings, then never mind!

Time, touch, tone...the guy was a master drummer, period. He always had that "showbiz" thing going on, and sometimes....maybe not what I wanted, but no matter. It was honest, always, and he was masterful, always. You never heard a Chico Hamilton album that didn't have a Chico Hamilton groove to it, no matter what that groove was. NOW can we have this reissued in the US, please?

I think "unusual and idiosyncratic musical talent" best describes his own gifts! I was listening, about a month ago, to one of his Solid state records, The Gamut, I think it was, and was not allowed for even one second not to think what a strange record it was, one of those things where "good" or "bad" is not even a consideration, what the sole consideration was was that nobody - nobody - else could have even begun to make a record like this, never mind actually make this record.

Well hell. That was an interesting musical life. Very interesting. RIP & much thanks.