JSngry

Night Owl Ray Knight Nancy Lopez

The Money Changers In The Temple A Pain In The Ass Astrud Gilberto

That was no lady, that was my wife.

That's the ADD medicine, right?

I'm not nearly concerned as much with what happens while it's being made or who's making it as I am with what happens to it after the people who did make it, sticky circumstances and all, end up going away and the "full ownership" of it shifts to...somebody else (because it almost always does). Because then the creators aren't around to fight back even subversively. That's when you end up with Culture. Make mine fluid, please. By any means necessary.

Notation was/is a means to an enc. There are other means to that end as well. Once upon a time, notation was needed to impose the consistency. Today, not so much. There are other tools to be used, and they are being used.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDLmpcI0lY&feature=related 1961, but still.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO1qnP6tpak 1963: African states unite against white rule http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/25/newsid_2502000/2502771.st And so forth. What wasn't Eurocentric in 1963? Plenty. DUH. For that matter...

Margaret Cho, All-American Girl Gig Smith, All-American Girls Professional Baseball League All-American Professional Carpet Cleaning

She just burnt your dick in the dick-baker, you dumbass, and you're buying that it was an accident. Hell yeah there ought to be clowns. Not a Beatle...not a Johnny Mann...not even a ballad-looking personage...close your eyes and I'll kiss you. tomorrow I'll still not have a clue who you are or what you're doing on this cover...

It's the logical next step after FM radio.

Is this a trick question?

Classical repertory performances have almost always been about "supposed" to be. Audiences expect it. conductors strive for it, players don't have a gig if they don't do it. And it's not their "supposed to be", it's "the culture's", whatever the hell that is "supposed" to mean, although it's obvious what it does mean. . Jazz is rapidly in the process of becoming that. American jazz, anyway, which is what we both know as the "base" of all the others It only seems different because we've come to one music that was already what the other is now in the process of becoming. Those aren't signs of life you're hearing out of jazz, they're dieing gasps as "culture" keeps the chloroform-scented handkerchief loosely but securely in place. I mean, I guess it beats not having anything better to do, hoping for it to not be so, but...not really. Dead, except as ritual. Both of them. Which is ok, all but unavoidable, and potentially quite wonderful, but again, whose ritual(s) and to whose ends? Culture!

Hell is still hell when you get there! Ain't but the one! What needs to be asked is this - what need is there for live performances of repertory music (any music, really, but let's focus here on repertory music) these days other than ritual of some form or fashion? And then - in whose rituals are we being asked to participate? I say that the further the music itself gets from the people who created it, the more institutionalized the ownership of it becomes (if it is going to "survive"...tricky word, that one...), and the more institutionalized the ownership, the more of the ownership the ritual becomes. Even the best meal turns into shit eventually. But shit turns into fertilizer, and before you know it (or don't), here comes another fine meal. Beware the people who don't want you to shit. Beware the people who don't want you to have that NEXT meal. Before long you'll just be eating your own shit (and/or theirs), and then shit just turns to shit. That ain't the right math, that ain't.

Sorry, but putting pop culture buzzwords aside, true "reverse racism" is non-racism. Racism either is or it isn't. The math of grammar tells me so, and even although grammar is a toy, math is gravity.

Factoring in the very real impact of technology on information dissemination, my point is that a natural evolution such as this is part and parcel of "the human spirit" - but so is an enforced conformity/anti-evolution (aka "consistency") in the service of interests other than those of the immediate participants, one that is put into place to ensure control of both input and output. At some point, resistance becomes futile and volunteered slavery sets in, which is all well and good as long as we know it for what it is. It's when it reaches the point where we think it's something other than that that fucks people up. That's what I'm seeing in LCJO, and that's what I've experienced in waaaay to much "classical" music. Too bad, because there's some "fine music" there. But it's over as far as being relevant as anything other than an "institution", and jazz is irrevocably headed the same way. Watch it happen and ask yourself does history repeat itself, and if so, what can we learn from watching it do so. But don't worry - there will come a time when Wise People speak of Ellington as Wise People Today speak of Mozart. The Tale shall be told, and believed, for All The Same Reasons too! I hope I'm dead by then. I know the music will be.

So, you're saying that the relative consistency of "classical" performance practice over how-many-ever centuries has been a more-or-less naturally occurring phenomenon not particularly influenced by "outside considerations"? Hmmm...not sure but that I'd not be suspicious about that...music created for (figuratively and literally) the court and/or church and/or patron and used to sustain same...and there's never been any times where people wanted to do it differently in either the composing or interpretation only to be smacked down by those powers, net/cumulative result being that don't even bother any more, this is "the way it is" now and forevermore? For every heroic defiant "rebel" we've heard about, how many not-quite-as-willful-beatdowns have there been that we haven't heard about? Or was that some sort of Golden Age where no outside influence was never imposed? The way they do it now is the way they did it then, and the way they did it then was because they wanted to do it that way, exactly? From what I know of the courts and churches (and many patorns) of those times, I find that juuuuuussssst a little hard to accept, never mind believe. And from my experience in contemporary equivalents of same, I find it impossible to accept. And to believe. Them that pays the piper tend to buy the tobacco as well. Smoke it as offered or go get your own. Truthfully, I think that LCJO is more or less a con. But I don't think it's any kind of a new con. Hardly! But I do think they're succeeding in turning jazz into "America's Classical Music", and more's the pity - and the con.

Tanner Scheppers Schepps Dairy Archie Shepp

Oh, but let's consider this, just for grins... We can rightly give the LC crew shit for perverting Ellington, and for being on a path to institutionalizing their perversions, aided and abetted by "the powers that be", powers that have many interests, preserving the "essence" of Ellington as Ellington realized instead of how they want to think that he realized it most obviously not among them. We can tell this because we have proof of Ellington's actual life and music - many of us were alive when the great thing that was "Ellington" walked our earth, played our dances, appeared on our tvs, and made records that could be bought relatives as soon as recorded. And those of us who weren't have a treasure trove of archival AV materials that pretty much lay it out for us how this thing sounded and felt in and relative to its time and place. Not a lot of speculation is involved. So... Why do we just "accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion? Surely human nature hasn't changed, and we have next to none of the type of documentation we do to make a valid Ellington/LCJO comparison. How are we knowing that so-and-so's interpretation of this-and-that that's making us so gooey isn't just as corrupted/perverted as LCJO's interpretation of Ellington? Where's the proof that it's not, and where's the proof that there's been no similar types of influence by the various "powers that be" who have influenced to ongoing perpetration of that music? And consider this - if the possibility exists that our positive reaction to 200-300 year old music is based on at least some interpretive practices imposed by factors other than Original Meaning (whatever that is...), and we accept that as ok, because bottom line, we are moved, then if people are being moved in 200-300 years by performances of Ellington that are even more fucked up than LCJO's, will they be wrong?

It did a lot of people, but just because of the Dolly Parton association. It's actually a good melody with nice changes, especially the bridge. There's some live recordings where Sonny really eats that bridge up! The older "oddities", Sonny attributed to his love of movies as a kid. I guess if you went to the movies a lot back then, you saw Jolson a lot. At least Rollins did. Besides, who doesn't love Jolson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qAQq6IKM50 [

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8asQlY-SEk&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGfVeCspmDs

I dunno, man, sounds like IHOP meets The Men's Club...you sure you wanna try that?