JSngry

So they don't/might not want to sell it anymore. A questionable decision, but theirs' to make. "Almost everything" has been digitalized. It'll be available somewhere, somehow in perpetuity. And what hasn't been...hey, people can (and are) taking matters into their own hands. Do I "feel bad" about all this/that? Yeah, sure. But otoh, reality is what it is, and life goes on. You're either free or a slave, and the choice is yours to make, now more than ever. Just remember - to live outside the law, you must be honest.

Speaking of vocals, didn't he sing "All Of Me" on Cookbook?

Whoever benefits, benefits. I do happen to know that Mozart isn't benefiting, nor his family But I won't say that no one is benefiting, or should benefit, from the fact that what he did has had an extended shelf life as a marketable commodity. Ok, you tell me - what's your guess as to the ratio of people who have actually benefited from Mozart in a non-economic sense to those who have made big bucks off of him thanks to those who used him as a battering ram in the remarked-upon-in-another-thread Cultural Indoctrination Phase Of The Class War? I'm not saying that nobody should benefit in any of these ways, just that if/when the world gets to a point where Bird & Trane replace (or even coexist with) Mozart & Beethoven in the Panthepon Of Great Artists, does that mean that the Cultural Indoctrination Phase Of The Class War is over, or does it just mean that it's updated its weaponry? i know, we won't know for sure until (or if) we get there, but If I was a betting man, I'd lay odds on it being the latter. I can hear some people saying, "Jesus, Jim, what will it take to make you happy? Why is it so bad that people are hearing good jazz?" Simple - they're not hearing it, at least not when it's used as background music or any other "safe", "Establishment" purpose. They're being targeted and conditioned by it. If they are hearing it, it's in spite of the intent of its placement, not because of it. What will it take to make me happy? Equally simple - for people to wake up and get a grip on how they're being played. Once that happens you can choose the whens and hows of how you get played, because let's face it, sometimes the good of getting played outweighs the bad. But it needs to be a voluntary act. As it pertains to the jazz of the past, ideally I would like for people to simply be able to hear the very real blood, sweat, tears, and cum that is in the best of it, as well as the dignifying of same that it so compellingly created. And then - do they same in their lives, in their times. Do I seriously expect this to ever happen? Oh hell no! And aside from the little diversions of posting to this board and occasional real-life conversations, I don't let it ruin my day, if you know what I mean. But if and when I see a chance to give a loving whomp upside the head of a collective delusionality, I'll do so. Hey, that's what friends are for! Now, what, if anything, this has to do with Pat Metheny, I don't know. so somebody whomp me upside my head, ok?

Is there? I think it's great to go into somewhere and hear Stanley, as I do when I'm arrested mid-stride by Grant Green on a TV programme. But that's for my pleasure. I used to enjoy it, because the places where such a thing would happen used to be at least reasonably congruent to the context of the original music. But when it gets this far gone, it's actually kind of creepy. If you stop to think about it, which at the time, I didn't, having far more pressing and pleasant matters to tend to. Indeed, it DID happen, in the late seventies/early eighties (well in Britain)... Was that actually a mass movement, or a "subculture". I was always under the impression that it was the latter. was I wrong? Dude, haven't you been reading consensus of the board? That is a HORRIBLE thing, an ABOMINATION! Seriously, I think it's a helluva lot better that the essence of the music be kept alive in non-literal form than literal. Non-literal is by nature more fluid, and therefore harder to capture/conquer. And the samplings/deconstructions/remixes/what-have-yous do a much better job of representing a certain essence of the music, I think (I mean, the culture has evolved to the point where one phrase of Bird can communicate his essence just as truly as an entire box set - if presented knowingly, and that's a huge "if"...), than does just plucking it whole from its home, washing it clean, and placing it back "whole" again (but what a hole there is in that whole!) into a context where the music is a slave to a foreign master(s), The Freedom Principle in the service of....something else altogether.

So...the best that ultimately happens is that the music extends its shelf life as a marketable commodity? And that benefits who, how? I had an experience in college, ca. 1977. I had just turned on the TV, and there was a rerun of Bewitched. At first I enjoyed it, but then it dawned on me - as a member of the Baby Boomer Generation, I was already being targeted for lifelong assault by The Powers That Be. I was being set up to be told that whatever I thought was cool was cool, and would be for as long as I wanted it to be. I wasn't going to have to really "understand" it, deal with it, I was just going to have to think I did, and failing that, just act like I did. But as long as I wanted it, as ;ong as it could be sold to me, I was going to be able to get it one way or the other. And so it went.

Eat two!

To tie this back in to something else, even though I was adamant in my appreciation of Kenny Burrell in another thread, that admiration is based on context. Burrell's importance/relevance/whatever is as much a part of his place in the continuum of his time as it is anything, perhaps even more so. If all of jazz, or even all of music, operated from the Burrell ethos - hard-working, substantive, but also always "proper", then what would our culture be except a highly efficient machine cranking out highly effective machine babies. Which is not a bad thing as long as you also got some other shit going on. Better those type than many others. But if that's all you got, then you ain't got much afaic, except for "better" machines. And if the only way to get "mass acceptance" for "jazz" is to make it "safe" (or if it just naturally becomes "safe" as a part of cultural evolution), then what are we getting out of the deal? Not much except a newer version of the Same Old Same Old as far as I can see, and although that's cool in a "Pop Culture" type Instant Gratificational way, human nature being what it is, the Old Cool becomes the New Respectable and only The Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, other than the possibility that any piped in music can theoretically be seen as intrusive and/or propagandistic. I can go there from time to time, but not anywhere resembling always. But... There seems to be a school of thought that absolutely rejoices at the notion of hearing Stanley Turrentine, et al as background music, as if it signals The Dawning Of A New Day, when Enlightened Men & Women will walk the Earth. Pop Culture as we know it will disappear, the airwaves will be dominated by Finger-Tappin', Poe-Snoppin' Good Ol Swing Swang Swungin' JAZZ!!! and The Hip Shall Rule Eternal. Ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever. And if it accidentally does, it ain't gonna be as fun as one might think, unless one is in fact one of those who fails to see the inherent contradiction in the terms "hip" and "masses". I celebrate both, feel both, but in no way for the same reasons and in no way do I see them as anyway "the same", as if the only reason "the masses" aren't "hip" is a simple matter of lack of exposure, and If Only They KNEW.... That, Dear Friends, is the height of both ignorance and arrogance. Apples & oranges, never met Twain, render into Ceasar & all that. And please, close the door - can't you see I'm dressing?

Or Sonny Fortune in Crisis...

As always, the dogma was a smokescreen for a money/power grab. And now Wynton & Willie Nelson are releasing an album together. On Blue Note.

Elliot Lawrence in Investor's Daily?

Dude, I'm in the "jazz world" & it strikes me as a bit odd.... You got kids in high school now taking classes to learn how to play bebop. How modern can that be? I mean, ok, 2-3 more people buy a CD sampler, and then buy some OJCs & RVGs. A few more kids show up on the playground. And then what? Has it ever happened that a society has a collective awakening that there was really, really good music made in the past, and that it was so good that everybody stopped what they were doing musically and went back to what people used to do? Ever? Lord knows, there's schools across the world cranking out clones dedicated to the hope & proposition that this is going to happen any day now. Tell you what - I'll take a nap, and y'all wake me when this comes to pass. Cancel that, I'd like to wake up at some point before I die... The very best to be hoped for in any cultural dynamic is that people develop enough discernment to not automatically accept that which is spoon-fed them (and not just musically) and apply that faculty to their life in the here and now. But somehow, I don't think that "getting into" 50-60 year old music because you heard it piped into the restaurant of a "nice" hotel really represents any sort of independent-minded honing of one's critical thinking skills.... Is it "good music"? Well hell yeah, of course it is. But that term implies a myriad of things to a myriad of people, and at least as often as not what it implies to more than a few people runs 50% or more contrary to what that meant in terms of the music in its own time, and irregardless of whether or not that ultimately "matters" the net result is that music that was once "dangerous" (or at the very least, "counter") to The Establishment now is part of that same Establishment, and either the music makes The Establishment "hipper" (in which case, What A Wonderful World This Would Be), or else... Look around. You tell me.

Is that what Red was singing to Sam upon seeing his...uh...you know?

Bess Truman Truman Capote Cap Anson

Well, firtrher research turns up that those "interesting places" of which I was thinking were in fact occupied by others, but he was still a fine player indeed.

http://www.elmers.com/homerepair/images/El...roductChart.pdf

Who doesn't? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U5JfGYx4c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2hoO088lc Slightly amusing, but not funny. Bob was a friend. And a damn fine writer too. No disrespect or diminution intended.

Yeah, Cherico turned up in some interesting LA places in the 60s.

Who doesn't? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0U5JfGYx4c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2hoO088lc

I'll let you have mine for a few weeks here and there...

Jefferson could indeed be sublime (and often was), but as time passed, I think he got uncomfortably creepy in his "things ain't what they used to be" lyrical orientation. Those lyrics of his to "So What" are nearly vomit-inducing imo, a kind of Jones/Jeffersontown Jazz Kool-Aid which one must be halfway suicidal in the first place to drink. They're meant to flatter Miles, but they end up sounding like a lovesick teenager defending the focus of The Rock Scandal Du Jour to their disapproving parents (and all that that implies...) For me, when Jefferson wrote his lyrics about "regular life", he was good-to-great. When he wrote his lyrics about music, it got pretty weird sometimes, and not in a good way. Still, I have paid my money, taken my chances, and ain't asked for a refund yet. Not even.

You're correct, Larry, except for the part about "onomatopoetic or nonsense syllables". Onomatepoetic, yes, ideally always. But nonsense? Only in the hands of a hack. A good scat singer will "say" the same thing that an instrumentalist would in every way. The sounds/syllables of a good scat singer's work will "mean" the same thing as an instrumentalist's lines for precisely the same reason - the manipulation of sound into a language results in a "message", a specific communication between player and listener based on a language that is commonly understood, in the greater general if not always in the immediate specific. For that reason, that's why there are so few truly successful (imo) vocalese lyrics - finding "regular" words that communicate as precisely as those of the instrumentalist's lines is a task met by either outright failure, "cleverness" (usually, in which case the result is no meaning at all except "cuteness", and depending on the solo, either a cheapening of the original or a rightful positioning of it as the "pop" (or perhaps less potentially offensive, "entertainment") artifact that it ultimately is, and no dis at all intended there), or, at its best (rarely), high-level craftsmanship in the service of artistry and/or genius. For my money, Hendricks, with whose work I am largely but in no way completely familiar with, reaches the latter level when he deals with solos that might be initially thought of as belonging to the second level. In particular, two examples (perhaps lesser known due to their being sung by Yolanda Bevan instead of Annie Ross) consistently spring to mind - his lyrics to Thad Jones's solo on "Shiny Stockings" & to Horace Silver's solo on "Doodlin'". For that matter, the entirety of "Doodlin'" is a delight, playing as it does the quintessential Hard Bop Game of presenting an entertaining exterior over a subtly "deeper" interior. HEndricks could be silly, and Hendricks could be "middlebrow", but on occasion, Hendricks could also Get It Exactly Right, and for that he has my enduring respect, if not my consistent love. Just my opinion.

Sorry, LTB = the Lovely and Talented Brenda, my wife. It's a term I've used here and at the BNBB for a long time, but sometimes I forget that not everybody's gonna know that. My bad there.

"If that ofay punk John Hammond says "Splendid!" one more time, I'm putting my motherfuckin' foot up his goddamn ass."