JSngry

Well, sure, we all have, but when you're dealing with written correspondence like that, you're not dealing with a faceless person. You're dealing with somebody who may very well be not unlike yourself, a front-line staffer who's doing the gig to make their nut, not because they really get off on any kind of a power trip. The one with the teacher & the flash drive was particularly ugly. Flash drives are infamous for being used to disseminate viruses, and the kid knew it. Having your kid knowingly violate a perfectly acceptable school policy is not something to defend, much less harass a teacher over. And getting all passive-aggressive snotty with a coworker over her missing cat, that's not cool either. I can dig that it's not your gig and all that, but c'mon... Even if it is all fabricated (and if you guys say so, I'll believe you), after a while it rubs me the wrong way, because the targets are always below, never above. Too easy, kinda mean-spirited, and...maybe not very nice, really. If you're going to shoot, shoot level or above, never below. That's what the bully does.

If those are fake letters, they're pretty funny. If they're real letters dealing with real situations, the guy's not funny at all, he's just an asshole.

This is all good information, much appreciated.

So, if one wanted everything (which I don't), one would have to buy both editions?

Not just songs. That's the difference.

I mean, I see Ryko & Hip-O & Zeppo & allkindao, so - what I want is the package that gives me 1) all the non-album material 2) any relevant alternate versions, preliminary takes, etc. Live stuff is not that critical to me. I used to have all this stuff on LP, then sold it all at one point, rebought some on cassette for the car, but now want it on CD. To that end, I'm definitely not looking for the "cleanest" sound. I still have a few Stiff 45s somewhere, and I remember them NOT being clean. I want this stuff to punch and punch back. So, whatch'all think is the way to go?

The Rollins has a long-ish version of "I'm Old Fashioned" that is worth the cost of admission alone.

And see, that's all I'm really getting at, that in these days and times, you're finding all these people who can play all these different things comfortably because they came up with it all being good to them, so why not? And that in turn means that their "jazz" can bring all that to the table too, as it certainly should, and it should still be considered "jazz", imo, not in the Marsalisian sense, but just because the players come from jazz, and no matter where else they go, they ultimately bring it back to jazz. It's evolutionary, sure, but...why not. You gotta let peoples be peoples. Sure, the hardcores freak on the notion, but that's what hardcores do. I can, do, and have, found issue with Spalding's group's music, but always on grounds of performance, not on type of material. Her direction in matrial is what excites me most about where she is right now. Little by litle, it seems to me, we're getting out from under the rock of the Jazz Police. Anything that moves that game ahead is ok by me. You usually bring the fringy into the mainstream, but if you can get the mainstream to go to the fringy, or just have them meet in the middle, that's still getting something done as far as de-scarifying people about so many things there's really no good reason to be scaryfied about.

Seemed like a weird booking from the get-go. I'm trying to think of a time when Konitz & Jamal might have had a shared audience and am coming up blank.

That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious. You have a point there, so let me amplify/modify. Your response to Medjuck's post seemed to me to say 1) that anyone who has the responses you understood him to have had is living deep in a semi-ancient past that may never have even really existed, and 2) that you're puzzled that anyone could think in those benighted ways in the 21st Century. I then took 2) to mean that you not only really didn't understand how anyone could think that way but also were puzzled that there even was anyone who still thought that way. This last is what I found it hard to believe that you believed. No, I just found it hard to believe that Joe himself would think that way, which is why I really didn't understand. And I still don't get what singing and playing the bass has to do with being considered jazz or not. Sure, it's a really rare, almost unheard of thing to do, at least in jazz, but...I still don't see what it has to do with how to "classify" the music. There are singers who sing jazz, and there are bass players who play jazz, so... how does/why should somebody both at the same time result in a cancellation of jazz? jazz + jazz ≠Jazz? Only if jazz ≠ jazz in the first palce, which is where I was again confused by Joe's apparent parameters for same, because he's posted here for a while, and like he says, he's not hostile to more "modern" sounds, at least not that I've noticed. So yeah, really, I was just trying to figure out what the man was saying, because as he said it, and coming from him, I did not know what he meant. Care for a cigar? It really is just a cigar, i promise.

If you like the 10" covers, there's a sharity blog that specializes in 10" LPs of all genres and always has covers for them. I'll not post a link to that site here out of respect for our board's policies, but between your ingenuity and Bullmosse Jackson's mojo, it shouldn't be too hard to find...

I've always wanted to see this. Thanks for the tip!

I'm not at all angry. I'm just confused - genuinely - as to what singing while playing the bass has to do with whether or not the music is "jazz", which, as you worded it, seemed to be one of your conclusions. It kinda reminds me of the alleged line of Mary Travers about Ray Nance that Ralph J. Gleason quoted - "I didn't know a violin could play jazz." I mean, what's the connection, even slightly? As for everything else, the pieces of Spalding that I've heard all do indeed bear a lot of non-traditional jazz influences, but hell, its the second decade of the 21st century, ya' know? A lot of things have happened past what came out of Chicago in the ''60s and '70s and have been heard by a lot of different people. About the only thing that definitely doesn't sound like jazz to me any more is music that tries to sound like jazz is supposed to sound. I guess it's the logical outgrowth of the fusion aesthetic (and although for all of us today it's impossible to really get a real-time sense of it, jazz itself has almost always had a fusion aesthetic to it to one degree or another), which doesn't bother me. It's one of the few logical choices people have these days, it seems to me. The one thing I think I'd stand firm on, though, is that I can't imagine a non-jazz player doing what Spalding does, either in content or execution, or feel. Other than that, if a 20-something year old woman can't bring a jazz sensibility to a music that might be reminiscent of contemporary classical vocal music (which I kinda doubt...I've never heard Spalding sound even remotely like Kathy Berbian) or a Joni Mitchell album that is almost as old as she is (if not older(?) - or vice-versa - without people thinking that it's "not really jazz", then hell, what's the point of even trying to make your own music? Just follow the rules and stay between the lines. Really, though, enough with the word "jazz". It's pretty much over as a living thing other than a marketing tool for elderly New Yorkers & Tuxedoed New Orleansians. Let them have it.

That was hardly the main gist of your response, which was more like "I know (or at least seriously doubt) that you're not serious", when, for the reasons I gave, I was completely serious.

Here's the thing - I don't get the sense that any of them (Portico) are really "great players" on their own. But they play well together & make coherent group music with . It's certainly not all there is to be gotten out of music, but it's nothing to run away from, either. I had no idea that there was any kind of "hype" behind them in the UK. My son found them (apparently quite randomly), really dug it, and thought that I might as well. So what I heard and reacted to was a true "cold listening". But if this stuff is getting really "popular", hey, that's not a bad thing. It's another color on the usually-more-or-less-monochromatic popular palate, and as a fan of palates in general, it's kinda hard for me to get upset about that. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure that it applies as generally as you might think at first....

I actually enjoyed the simplicity of Portico. As long as everything resonates & balances within itself (whatever that means...), I tend to like most anything. Now as for what creates "staying power", that's a whole 'nother thing.... but ear candy (and that's how Portico struck me, as ear candy) is something I seldom feel negatively about, unless it's really badly botched.

I've just heard on Portico record (Isla) & liked it well enough. Didn't realize they sucked so hard. My bad. Then again, I like Stacey Kent well enough too. Maybe this whole "British music" just...eludes me somehow. Oh well!

No, I really don't know what it means...should she not be considered (or seem to be) a jazz musician because she sings while she plays bass? Because the music rarely had regular song forms or steady rhythm for very long? If it's the former, then WTF? Either be a singer or a bass player, but don't be both because...you can't!?!?!?! And if it's the latter, then..."regular song forms or steady rhythms" haven't been "required" in jazz expression for..how long now? Almost 50 years? So yes, I am genuinely puzzled, because I'm hearing prerequisites applied that by any objective criteria are not relevant to the conclusion being reached, unless I took a nap in reverse and it's 1958 again or something....

I've just discovered Portico (thru my son), and I'm liking them very much, not least because I hear a strong influence of Miroslav Vitous-era Weather Report in there, which in turn links to the older ECM sound. But there also that strong minimalist thing informing them too. Haven't really looked at Ronin yet, but I'm game.

Really doesn't have to be either/or...it's just new possibilities, new ways...but those who have lived a life not having their sense of what and where "is" is defined in rigid, modular, time/place-specific terms/parameters will not have the same ideas or needs or inclinations as those of us who came up with a different sense in place. Of course, as the possibilities change, so do the needs, and, it seems logical enough, so will the content (and the content-delivery mechanisms) that meets those needs.

How do these guys compare (in general "stylistic" terms) with Portico Quartet?

Not really sure what this means....

I think she meant that people who go beyond playing changes are one type of great improvisers, not that going beyond changes is a prerequisite for being a great improviser.

OK"!"

Very "wry", there, "David"!