JSngry

Hal Russell Leon Campbell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Campbell Glen Blaine http://www.manta.com/g/mmzt9ty/glen-blaine

Thanks! Valburn, eh? That's unfortunate...but that's still the best Lester Young LP ever (well, it's my favorite anyway...).

Prompted by an MG post in the vinyl page - How many albums did they release, and what were they? All I know for sure is that they put out what is, for me, the greatest single Lester Young LP ever:

Sounds kinda Crown-ish to me, only Crown would put a headliner's name on an album that had one or two cuts by them and then the fine-print guy (if there was one) would take up the rest of the record. Or even better - put a headliner on the cover who's not even on the record. That's better than vulgar!

I like surf music well enough, but not necessarily stoned, just beautiful.

I saw that movie on TV one afternoon when I was a kid, before I really knew who Cal Tjader was. To say that his appearance was a contrast to everything else in the movie, before or after, is putting it mildly!

Randy Moss Rodney Peete Taylor Boggs

That's true, and yes, it's a drag, but you and I are both old enough to remember the time when there was a Game Of The Week on TV (TV meaning three or four channels, right?), and unless you lived in a few select cities, a game on TV besides that one was a pretty big deal. You were an Astros' fan as a kid, right? Remember what a stone-cold thrill it was to get one of those rare Sunday afternoon games on TV ca. 1966? There were only, like, what, 5-6 a season, if that? Today, you can pretty much watch your team play every game (if you live in the region), and if you can afford to pay not a whole lot of money, you can have access to every game of every team, every night, TV and/or radio! I do think that baseball remains this most affordable of the major sports, just because a team has 81 games to make their gate money. Most people can't afford to go regularly, but if you want to take your "typical family of four" to one or two games a year and don't demand primo seats, it's do-able enough. I occasionally think about a Mavericks game, and even nosebleed seats are in the OUCH range. Cowboys games, don't even think about it (and not just because of price). But me and the wife can go to a regular Rangers game with good seats for right around $100-150 combined, less than that if we don't mind sitting up a little and not so much behind home plate. We could go to more games if the tickets were less, but we could do the same if gas was less, bills were less, if everything was less. But if everything was less, our incomes probably would be too, so... That ability to bleacher-bum it to every (or almost every) game is (probably) gone in most parks, but so are the rock-and-roll package tours that used to give you the ability to see 9-10 bands with hits for, what, a buck-fitty? I guess the lesson is to get it while the gettin's good, because it won't be, always, and when (not if) things change, to look for the bright side as well as the dark.

Excellent.

Per the steroid/HGH issue, yes, there must be change there, more transparency on the player's side. It's part of accepting the responsibility that comes with the freedom. Let the pendulum swing that way now.

Better to be able to ride a pendulum than to have to fear getting struck by a hammer, I say. The pendulum has no choice but to swing back and forth. The hammer goes but one way and has but one function. Here's a good article: http://latino.foxnew...ller-dead-at-5/ As far as having sympathy for striking millionaire athletes, I think it's progress when you don't need to have sympathy for them. You have sympathy for people who can't handle their own business. I'd say the athletes (and the owners) are handling theirs quite well at this point, and that is progress (and the cost of it). I have no real "sympathy" for either side at this point. I just like to watch the games, period. But - If there was a market for my services to the point where I could get a bajillion dollars for doing what I do, would I pause and think to myself, "I'm not worth this. No man is." Perhaps I would. But then I would also look at the man who is offering it to me and think, "if that's the case, then why does HE have it to offer it to me?" And then I sign. And maybe try to get a little bit more, just because no man is worth that much, but some men have that much.

Polly Bergen Poll Parrott Eddie Shu

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sns-rt-bbo-newssxaec01a2-20121127,0,6243142.story Maybe today's baseball players are overpaid. Maybe they're not. (seems to me like the market is bearing the current cost well enough) But remember - there was a time when they had no way to affect the process one way or the other. Marvin Miller was a key agent of that change. I was a fan. RIP, and let us not forget what we give up when we give up our insistence on having a say that matters on the things that matter.

Feldman has skills, be sure of that. When he's on, he's tough. But his on/off ratio is bizarrely inconsistent, and his tendency is to not get it back once he loses it. And he gives you no indication that he is about to lose it. None. That's what makes him so frustrating, you get comfortable on the ride, then BAM!!! this guy drives you up on the sidewalk, then into a wall, then into a buiding. Next thing you know, there's blood everywhere, babies are crying, grown men are standing around slack-jawed at the magnitude of the randomness of it all, doctors and lawyers are too stunned to practice their craft, and once you yourself come to, you think to yourself, "oh my, where did THAT come from?" And the frustrating part, the really frustrating part, is that nobody knows, not even Scott Feldman.

Feldamn is going to the Cubs, it appears: http://www.lonestarball.com/2012/11/27/3697666/scott-feldman-signs-with-the-chicago-cubs Good luck to everybody involved.

I thought that she did some of his (Claxton's) covers, but google isn't returning any real results...as I misremembering?

That's the thing about Amazon, you can buy damn near ANYTHING from them, not just music. I plan on using this widget as my portal for anything-everything Amazon related from now on. Garment bags, tablet sylyi, stretchable belts, blender gaskets, hey, O-Board get a piece of it all now.

Hey, it happens to everybody, not being able to identify something in your own collection. There for a while, Mike Weil was getting a complex about it. Once you get enough stuff, things fade from the forefront of your memory, and when your memeory starts going a little bad, the backmost reaches are often the first casualties. I've been having that happen a lot the last year or so. C'est la vie, ya' know? I'm just glad that it turned out that I didn't own the record like I thought I did (which is another issue altogether...), and that it's inclusion here incentivezed me to go ahead and get the sucker. I been needing it, and now will have it.

Dude, we just had to sit here and play. You had to do the actual work. Thank you for your patience.

From that same set, the Bird thing (Parkeriana Pt. 2, perhaps), two thoughts - what could a meeting of Mingus & Jimmy Lyons produced? And how much more material is ther of the McPherson/Hillyer/Byard band sitting around? This band tends to get a little of the short-shrift, McPherson & Hillyer being seen as a regression from Dolphy/Whoever Else, and in a way, yes, but in another way, no. I mean, reconstructionist bebop is not re-creative bebop, and I hear them doing at least as much of the former as the latter, and if nobody here can get inside the heart and head of Mingus like Dolphy and turn it all into something As Truly Large As Life ("larger than life" would be cheap), well, how many horn players could?

Getting to this material today, and yes, I agree. The whole "Lovely Day In Selma" thing kinda comes out of nowhere and is more than a little arresting, the first piece of completely unfamiliar, out-of-nowhere WHOA!!! Mingus I've heard in...quite a while. It's good to feel that way again, to feel not just the greatness, but the actual, for lack of a possibly better word, shock that comes with it.

Oh, THAT'S the one, then, it's a Machito date, not a McGee. Of course. Or is there a separate McGee date with the same title? Yes, I know this one, and agree to its excellence. I'm good with Machito from this period almsot universally. Funny how his sound became somewhat "old fashioned" as the music progressed, but it never lost its essence, and eventually came back around as "classic".

Probably not. Like Weizen says, they're probably thinking that this is a house of lunatics. Which it is, but we're (mostly) all friendly lunatics once you make it in the door and get though the hallway into the den. But getting through that hallway is a real booger sometimes!

I'd just like to know what the referential spectrum was. I'd not call Machito "vulgar" myself, not even close. I would call some Hollywood-ish overly-exaggerated/simplification of basic Latin percussions vulgar. Then again, I'm into all kinds of percussion-driven music where there's drums on the left, percussion on the right, and there's nowhere you can go without finding something being percussed on, even electronically. And in those musics, it can range from sublime to ponderous. It's a big spectrum. So all I was really wanting was some kind of reference as to what the OP considered "vulgar", and why this date was not that. For all I know, the OP might be a deep connoisseur of Afro-Cuban rhythms and feels that most use of Latin percussion in jazz settings results in a watering-down of the Latin element to serve commercial ends, and they consider that vulgar. Or at the other end of the spectrum, they might not enjoy percussion in their jazz at all, and find full-frontal Afro-Cuban elements "vulgar" in the sense that "African = primitive". You can find plenty of people who fall in with either side of that spectrum, and, obviously, in-between as well. A world like "vulgar" only has meaning relative to the user's spectrum. And in any kind of dialogue, until you know the listener's reference points, you don't know what they mean. So yeah: I don't know what this mean. I might know what it means, and I might think I know what it means, but I can't know what it means until the person who said it comes back and gives me a Point B to go with their Point A. I was willing to let it go, just figure that for whatever reason the OP did not want to engage, and ok, that's cool, just let it go and move on, in the end, I know what I like and don't like, so really...yeah. But some people wanted to go someplace else with it for whatever other reasons, and now they have, and now we still don't know what the OP had in mind. Not even close enough for jazz!