JSngry

This is one of the biggest cultural fucks I've ever seen in real time, and it's been going on in some form or fashion for about 30 years now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown,_Dallas This is particularly galling: What they don't tell you is that there was a bit of, shall we say, disagreement over what to do about that. It was a not particularly pretty disagreement, either....

No, not. But there for the listening anyway. Truth be told, I've never really gotten gut-punched by Blue Mitchell either. Nice, as you say, but...

The Vanguard sides he either led or played on are very nice, imo. So there's those, if they might have been out on missed (is that correct grammar?).

I don't know that I've ever seen it be good, at least not in the sense of solving anything vs. just relocating it. Dallas has had this going on for several decades now, and no, not good.

But what is not answered here is the matter of shifting relative interior pitch, i.e. the physics of microtonality. I'm sure that at some point something really "off" can be made to happen, but what/where that point is, I don't know, as well as the point between "audible" vs. "subliminal" impact. I can tell you that you can get a lot of people exited just by tuning a piano to natural temperament vs. even, so that's as good a place as any to start the pondering, if there will indeed be any. If you want a real answer to this from members here, 7/4 is definitely your guy. Rod might have come good input as well.

(105 is 5% more than 100, but 100 is only 4.7619 less than 105.) So you don't slow down as much as you speed up. Let x = the amount of pitch alteration applied to a single pitch Let 100 = original pitch 100 + .x(100) = 105 x = 0.05 therefore 105 - x(100) = 100 x again = 0.05 What you're suggesting is that: 100 + .x(100) = 105 - x(100) therefore 100 = 105, which, no, false.

Beatles, eh? Do tell!

And again I ask....

In white theaters?

The "conventional wisdom" is that Byrd's chops came down from their peak as he devoted more time to non-playing activities (education, law, etc.). In other words, it was more rust than an actual physical faltering setting in. Anything to counter that?

Probably, which would loop back to 1201.

You complain now, but once you start watching sports on HD, you will wish that you had not been born into a non-HD world. Trust me on this one. And if you like cleavage (and not saying that you should, just proposing that if you do), then sports are again the best reason to get HD, what with the way that camera-peoples and directors like to roll, you know.

Little Johnny C has proven over the years to be one of those albums where you either love it or just don't see what the fuss is about. Much like Coles in general, I suppose. Back to Woody Shaw, let's not forget that the 1965 sessions that were finally issued on Muse as In The Beginning were purportedly recorded as a demo to shop to Blue Note..Shaw was doing the "start as sideman then maybe get a leader date" route on the label for sure, maybe if Lion has stayed on, then yes, but no, and did not, and besides, that type of jazz was losing favor at the label by the time the 70s dawned any way. But I definitely get a sense that that vortex was beginning to swirl in 1965-ish.

Yes! Any list w/o KD is no list at all afaic. (that's the second time in less than 24 hours I've used that device, so...shoot me before/if I use it again, ok?) And let it be said that although Johnny Coles made only one leader date for BN, it was a true gem.

Maybe Ebert felt the wsame way about Coppola as I do about Sonny Rollins. Or Wayne Shorter. Or even about the last few seasons of The Cosby Show, when it was obvious that they were just making stuff up to keep the show going because the original premise had more or less been rendered irrelevant as the kids got older. But there was nevertheless a story in motion there, and I watched and enjoyed anyhow, just because I had bought in so hard when the story began that damned if I wasn't going to stick around to see how it ended. Or maybe he had those feelings and at the same time had a good business sense about what might yet lie ahead. No harm in that, I think. No compromising basic sentiment, jsut positioning it in such a way as to maybe yield benefit further down the road. Nice work if you can get it, right? Or maybe he was a shameless manipulator who fooled everybody. It happens. But me, I really don't care that much. I always dug the Siskel-Ebert thing and used to like Siskel more until he left, and then I realized how cool Ebert really was. And now they are both dead, so, yeah, the list of Live People I Have Dug In My Lifetime Who Are Now Dead grows yet again.

Woody Shaw started popping up more often as the decade progressed.

Coming from the player of an instrument where changing keys is just a matter of starting from a different fret, that's funny! The more I think about MG's query, the more interesting it becomes, because he's really dealing with the acoustics of microtonality. If 7/4 is reading this, he could no doubt get to the gist much better than me, because I'm not sure but that MG doesn't have a mathematical point. This would be an interesting experiment, perhaps - record a string/horn/whatever section playing, say a C# Maj 7 chord, sustaining it for, say, 10-15 seconds with no vibrato (because vibrato changes everything). Then have the same section record a C Maj 7 chord for the same duration, again without vibrato. Then digitally bring the C Maj & up to a C# Maj 7, but keep the duration at 15 seconds (easily done with digital). Feed both tracks into a single channel, and use a digital mixer to feed both into a single track, gradually transitioning from the natural C# chord to the sped up C# chord in a mathematically perfectly symmetrical 15 second arc of phasing one in and the other out. At the 7.5 second mark, you would have equal parts each, and double density, but you'd also have equal parts of whatever micro-tonal adjustments the math would have made to the "trueness" of the pitch. By the end of it, you should be able to tell how much has really changed to you ear, and then figure out if it was a timbral thing, a micro-pitch thing, or if these two are really the same thing. Or even better, run both into two separate tracks and A/B them at random intervals. You would likely notice a difference, but what the nature of that difference would be, hmmmm.... You could do the same thing with analog, just make two loops and use a stopwatch. But that's old-fashioned.

Are you thinking in terms of natural temperament or even temperament? String players routinely differentiate between C# & Db, G# & Ab, etc., especially when playing chamber works, Has to do with overtones relative to key center and/or some such. Nest time you see a string quartet on a smoke break, stop by, say hello, and ask them about that. You'll be surprised how chatty the can get when they start talking shop! But if you're asking if it's possible to, by altering the speed of a master tape, to in some way find a % where the top-most & bottom-most pitches end up in different or almost-different keys relative to each other, I can't say that I've eve heard of such a thing, and I know about a lot of people playing a lot of games with tape speeds. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't happen. But I really don't think it works that way. Bottom line - if you can find a pop record where everything is perfectly in tune to even temperament for every note played and sung, you've found a true rarity! So you're essentially starting with flawed data anyway, to be honest.

Did somebody say "Harlem Air Shaft" and "brilliant"? Yes, absolutley! Maybe just one or two kindz of "wrong", but all kinds of RIGHT!

Being able to look into comedians eyes without them being able to look back.

Yeah, Hawk was fierce, yet always logical. Not unlike Roscoe Mitchell, if that makes sense.

Don't remember any names, honestly, but it was nights from about 1968-1971.

Not sure of the exact chronology, but Cyrille definitely worked with Mary Lou early in his career. That much can be gathered from various liner notes, and liner notes never lie, right? And even if they do, here's AMG, which is even more reliable than bad liner notes! http://www.allmusic.com/artist/andrew-cyrille-mn0000752246 All I can tell you "for sure" though is that Cyrille playing with Mary Lou Williams before hitting it with Cecil is what has passed for "common knowledge" in my world, such as any of that may be. How that relates to Hawk in 1961 (not 1962), though, hey, I could be wrong. But between drum & bugle corps, Eric Gale, chemistry, and Julliard, I still say you can't fault a man for trying, especially a drummer. A drummer that doesn't try is no drummer at all in my book. That, and that he - the apparently always trying (in some form or fashion) - Andrew Cyrille - totally kicks ass on Hot Line, which has no bearing on this matter whatsoever. But still.

Not enough time to click on no more than at the very most 22 main forum headings to see what's new therein and then proceed accordingly? What, are you one of those Highly Effective People, and this is one of your habits? Try this, then - subscribe to a thread and get an email notification whenever somebody posts to it. Then you can waste time on email to keep from wasting time on the board. Life is not complicated unless you expect it to be simple. JK, LOL, inset smiley here, etc..