JSngry

Give him some cuts off the Pops Plays W.C. Handy album, or something like that. Something that hipsters with beards don't listen to at Starbucks and that young people think sounds like it comes from another planet, but obviously doesn't. He'll figure the rest of it out on his own, if he's going to.

Give him a good Louis Armstrong record recorded in hi-fi. Everybody loves a a good Louis Armstrong record recorded in hi-fi. If not liked, then save your money and your time, not your problem now, send the kid a Best Buy gift card for appropriate occasions, buy him a tie when he turns 18, and wish him good luck on his endeavors. You did your part, right?

Kinko's customer base just expanded exponentially to the power of infinity.

Lotta good that did... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZAC-6DEVSs

Jukeboxes? Problems? Are we looking at..."interference" here, if you know what I mean? Dang, I'm not going to have anything left to talk about in the reveal thread. But that's okay - I'm enjoying the conversation now. Jukebox problems, but not the way you're thinking. More like poor business decisions on Danny's part. He financed the session himself, and issued the records on his King Zulu label. But apparently it took him a few years to get the money up to have the records pressed. To quote from his A Life In Jazz: "This recording project was a disaster: when the records were printed the jukeboxes had changed over from 78 rpm to 45 rpm, so I could not put the records on the new boxes." Without exact dates...it's possible then that if it might have been seen as a cover-ish of Sugar Boy's tune, when in fact, no. Historically significant without being historically relevant.

I've got the Blakey set on that same label/with the same type cover, and it's got dates of 1992 & 1993, if that helps any.

Jukeboxes? Problems? Are we looking at..."interference" here, if you know what I mean?

What it means is that Freedman writes some freakyass harmonies for Tate to sing over! But it don't bother Grady none. Just sayin' - if you ear hears things in terms of "weird chords" then this album is full of 'em. But if your ears aren't bothered/affected by those things, then, no biggie. Also, it's a total "concert" vibe here, not songs with a beat, or anything like. I love it myself, think it's audaciously grandly beautiful, but I've had people leave the room cussing about it too, so...spend the money if you've got it to spare, I'll put it that way.

Strongly recommended for those whose ears can handle accompanying harmonies being stretched almost to the breaking point: Arrangements by Bob Freedman.

I ordered that Dodds CD right away...found this one reviewer's comments particularly stimulating (if they are actually accurate): All of which might explain how you get from Danny Barker "Chocko Me Feendo Hey" in 1946/47 to Sugarboy Crawford "Jock-a-mo" in 1953, not just lyrically, but musically. This other Amazon reviewer calls this CD: So even if not exactly that (I don't know) it sure sounds like something I'd have gotten a long time ago had I known about it!

My wondering if these lyrics were causal compilations or knowing passing-along...it seems to be much more of the latter than the former...even if Barker was not masking at any point (at the time, the Indians might have been viewed as somewhat "gang-like", although it was much more than that, I don't know that it was something "respectable" just yet), he was still around, watching, and taking notes. At the very least, he was a spectator of keen insight and at least some access. Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

Correct indeed!

Nope.

Heard this on a Treme episode...never figured out what is was from, but it must've been the flip side: http://www.louisianamusicfactory.com/showoneprod.asp?ProductID=1728 So, yeah, historically important...quite!

No, and not Warne Marsh!

But the dog looks like it was born in that thing.

Guess Who?

From the Great Big List Parallel Universes I'd Love To Visit is the one in which "Tell Laura I Love Her" was released - and was a hit - with its original lyric.

And TV game shows, nothing wrong with them either. Seriously.

Don't know which is the more disturbing possibility - that somebody did this while they were stoned, or that somebody did this when they weren't stoned.

Does this count?

Well, "working bands" were as much about "working" as they were "bands"...and I use the past tense advisedly. They still exist, even if as "ongoing projects". But it's a different world trying to "do a project" than it is to "make a record" than it is to "have a band" than it is to "have a gig" than it is "make a gig". Not saying it's "better" or "worse". But it is different, especially in terms of who you play to and why you play to them (and, especially, how you get to get to them in the first place), and that is where Max's comment about "what jazz really is in practice" really seems accurate to me.

hmmmm....yes, the key phrase there being "in practice"...and today, where "the document" is pretty much the object of the game, maybe not such a distortion any more...