JSngry

The assumption that "we" want more women posters here doesn't apply to me. I don't want more men posters either. The only kind of posters I want more of are people who posses an open-minded urbanity, and those who enjoy being around those who do (not automatically mutually inclusive qualities, btw!). Last I checked, that quality wasn't gender-specific (anything but!), nor does it preclude either ignoring or participating in a "sexy" anything thread of one's own free will, nor does it include "assuming" things about people who do or don't. Then again, it ain't my board.

Yeah, it's like if post pictures of baseball cards I think of men as athletes first and then their thoughts and ideas come second. C'mon, give some of us some credit for having evolved past the auto-objectification stage, please.

Well, if she played the same strategy every time, yeah, she'd break 2/3-1/3. but if she just did her thing and went with her hunches in spite of the "smart choice" strategy, I bet she'd win more than 2/3-1/3, which again, is a matter of successfully knowing/feeling/guessing when to stay and when to switch, which has nothing to do with the always equal odds for each choice on every game.

New borders site: http://beta.bordersstores.com/online/store/Home

I think that this is the crux of the matter for you, Jim, and I have to ask - do you really know people who "continuously get it right"? I believe there is a psychological term for the tendency to remember all the times that a hunch played out and forget all of the times that it didn't. The fact is that your lucky friends and your unlucky friends are going to have the same odds - 1/3 if they stick, 2/3 if they switch. Yes. An interesting aspect of genuine independent randomness is that it does not usually mix things up in the sense that the intuition of some people expect. If someone wins and wins again, then he or she just might win again a third time, even if the odds are against it. Genuine randomness is completely consistent with generating winning streaks or losing streaks that are very low probability events, and lead to the possible impression that something else is going on. In fact, genuine randomness will always create streaks from time to time. If we introduce something to the stochastic process to force the randomness to mix it up more and make streaks less plausible, then we are no longer dealing with genuine independent randomness. Now this, I like.

I think that this is the crux of the matter for you, Jim, and I have to ask - do you really know people who "continuously get it right"? I believe there is a psychological term for the tendency to remember all the times that a hunch played out and forget all of the times that it didn't. Continuously, well, only my mother-in-law. She's spooky that way (and others...). LTB & I have been pleading with her for years to go to Vegas, but religious considerations won't let her even contemplate the notion. Sit down with her for a "fun" game at home, though, and you can't beat her, no matter what. She has rabbits in hats like no other... But I also know a few people who, while not "perfect", routinely defy the odds to their benefit. But only a very few. And that goes towards "hunches", which I wonder (note - wonder only) are indicators of a greater, as of yet not understood, logic. Mr. Litwack says no to the logic, but maybe to the validity of the hunches, and for that I thank him for at least being open to the posibility of something other than a rigid "predestination" of sorts. Similarly, I know a few, only a few, people who seem to never get right. They do everything perfectly and yet fail. Them, I never loan money.... Yes, Dan, I know.

Was it sexy? Probably not, eh?

This moved me to tears. Square business. In a world of hyper-“drama” amongst conductors and performers alike, this cat just looks the music into where it needs to be. And it is so right once it gets there. That, dear friends, is a serious muffafunkin' mojo...

Only when it works. Seriously, though, I can no longer believe in total randomness, especially after having spent a few years trying to pursue it in music. Order of some sort inevitable asserts itself, although sometimes it takes a near-inhuman amount of detachment to recognize it. And where there's one level of order...there's another of chaos. and where there's one level of chaos, there's another of order. It's a spiral. Or something. And does it ever end/resolve/whatever? I don't think so. Wasn't it Cecil Taylor who said that there's no such thing as "randomness" in music, especially if the music comes from the gut? Or something like that. I have to agree. Now as it pertains to everyday stuff stuff, sure. I'll take all this and use it as it's meant to be used. But when "pondering", well... I wonder...

Damn... 26 tracks? :eye: :eye: TRACK ONE - Jabbo Smith? Fine indeed! TRACK TWO - My ears are getting kind of blurry right now, so all I can say is that this sounds fine to me, good time, fluent players, really good drummer, & Stuff Smith? TRACK THREE - HI FI! Sounds kinda Columbia-ian as far as studio goes... Willie Smith on alto? It all goes by so fast...sounds fine to me. TRACK FOUR - Kinda corny, but kinda not... I like the trumpet's entrance & the clarinetist's tone. The vocalist...sounds put on to me. As entertainment, it's cool, as entertainment-plus, I dunno... TRACK FIVE - I halfway expected the Ink Spots to come in... not really "transcending the period" for me, if you know what I mean....sorry. TRACK SIX - Tram. If he wasn't so sly, he'd be so damn corny. But he is, so he's not. Not even. TRACK SEVEN - Oddly "modern" in time feel, especially on the intro, unless it was from after 1945 or so...nice playing. I really like the pedal-point on that vamp, that's another "modern" element to it. TRACK EIGHT - I recognize "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" (NOT Whitman!), but that's it. There's kind of a "non-New York" thing about this, like it's from somewhere else with a big scene with some different flavor, including some "country bumpkin" aspects. I like it, but it is different. TRACK NINE - Well, xylophone or marimba, so..Red Norvo? That's pretty damn out there for a "jazz" record from those days, until it comes back in, and even then, it ain't in no way following an "expected" direction...proof that the impulse towards "chamber jazz" is hardly a post-WWII thing, and proof that good musiicans with open minds will not only love a challenge but often enough thrive on one. TRACK TEN - Mid-late 40s, yeah, that's some stuff right there. Excellent, mellow tenor, really got that Texas moan going on. Buddy Tate? Love the opening melody, wish it had been repeated at the end. Sure feels good to me. TRACK ELEVEN - Really dig the drum fills & very fluent trombone. Otherwise...you gotta wonder what it was like to be playing both a music (jazz) and a format ("big band" that still didn't have any real "rules" in place other than the ones that were being made up as they went along....wild notion that...But DAMN that's some nice tenor playing, and an equally nice tune. I'd like to play it today, only a tad slower. TRACK TWELVE - Nice tune! Not "Folling Myself", but sure starts off similar...Interesting voicings in the background...very nice playing all around, although band intonation is a little, uh, "slippery" here and there, which adds dimension to the voicings - most of the time... TRACK THIRTEEN - Now that's just nuts! Kinda like "Ebony Concerto Blew My Mind & This Is What Is Left Of It"... Now see, bob Graettinger's shit was even more out there than this, but it had an organic quality that this lacks. This really sounds like somebody's composition class semester project. I mena, it's like the back-handed compliment, "Yeah man, I really dig what you're trying to do"... TRACK FOURTEEN - Jimmy Dorsey playing "Red Cross". All I know is that Dizzy wrote some charts for Jimmy Dorsey & that a college buddy had a LP of Maynard Ferguson playing with Jimmy Dorsey. Other than that, I know nothing, except that Jimmy Dorsey could play. TRACK FIFTEEN - Chick Webb or Sid Cattlett? "Lisa" I recognize. As for what I said earlier about "rules" and big band playing, you can hear the difference here, how the sections all know how to phrase and shade together to maximum effect. Helluva chart too, that's another thing, the once the basic guesswork was codified, it got easier to expand the pallate. A most enjoyable performance. TRACK SIXTEEN - Basie. Maybe w/Shadow Wilson. Papa Jo was a little "smoother" than this. Helluva sax section. Not Buddy Tate, I don't think, almost sounds like the other guy in the Miller band besides Tex Beneke, what was his name..Al Klink. What, is this some sorta prank and this is another stealth Miller cut? I've got a few myself, so I know the band could go here... And once again - helluva sax section. A Miller trademark, btw... TRACK SEVENTEEN - I guessed Lips Page on Disc One & it turned out to be Harry James. So if I guess Harry James here, will it turn out to be Lips Page? TRACK EIGHTEEN - No idea. Almost "African" in how the rhythm is the melody in so much of it...Didn't think I was going to get into this one, at least not from the intro, but once the band came in, hey, it get better & kept getting moreso. By the end, I was all smiles! TRACK NINETEEN - I reckon this to be Hodges on alto, but outside (totally) of the Ellington environment. Exceedingly fluent! And DAMN, that intro almost sounds like a distorto-guitar! I get the feeling that this is from the time when arrangers and bands had gotten comfortable enough with each other to begin pushing things ahead. The scoring on this is very "traditional", not musch different than some of the earlier big band cuts heard here, but the band is way more comfortable executing, to the point of this almost starting to sound "old fashioned", so everybody was probably thinking, "Hey, we/they can do this already, let's see what happens with this..." Gotta love that. TRACK TWENTY - Wow, this is kinda out there too., at least at first...Then it's not. And then it sorta is. I think I like it better when it is. I think I like the clarinetist either way too. TRACK TWENTY ONE - Piano @ 1:13 = WHOA! The rest is fine, too, especially the trumpet. TRACK TWENTY TWO - mmm...I've heard this one before...Tommy Dorsey, from a little later on? That tone and cleanliness of execution certainly suggests so. Very clean. Nice arrangement, playing the hit "Boogie Woogie" chart against itself & opening up both the time and the density. Although, in terms of "intrinsic quietness", I could lean towards Claude Thornhill here...either way here, the star is the chart. Excellent writing within intentionally limited parameters. TRACK TWENTY THREE - "Petrushka" or derived from there, I think. Bird used to quote it. No idea otherwise, but I really dig it. TRACK TWENTY FOUR - Gotta be the Boswells. Mellow. TRACK TWENTY FIVE - Kinda sexy (sorry ladies!). No idea otherwise. Not a great song by any stretch of the imagination, but a darn fine singing of it. TRACK TWENTY SIX - Is this an acoustic recording? Good groove, and again, the beat doesn't get on top of itself, which to me is what makes the difference between "swinging" and just "playing hot". Was that Red McKenzie doing the comb thing? Wow, that's a helluva lot of tunes to comment on, dude. But even more to assemble & upload and such. Worth every second afaic, and big thanks to you for doing it. Love Points aplenty!

Here's one for my wife: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgAN39et1GU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OndXxqBF_3w

Yeah, sure.

Took time to read responses before going on to Disc Two, and...wow...Jack nailed this stuff, I see that (too) many of my guesses were easy but worng, and....LENNIE TRISTANO! NOW on to Disc Two...

In terms of pure randomness, what's the difference between Monty deciding where the car goes and some other human?

Late to the party, but finally have some time, so, the usual thanks & disclaimers in place, here we go... But not before saying that although the general time frame(s) of this music is not one which I consistently inhabit, it is nevertheless one which I always enjoy, and for several reasaons. One, it's "family talk", ancestral conversations that may or may not have had a lasting impact on the way that things are now, but family is family, and you can always learn something from listening to family. Second, this music, although in no ways "simple", was in so many ways more "direct" than what we get now, if only because it was from a time when the music and the culture(s) from which it sprung were still in the throes of self-discovery. Once the "self" was discovered, other issues arose out of necessity, and those issues were, again out of necessity, one which created all sort of ambiguities. So, yeah, it is all good, and it is all real, and that goes backwards and forwards equally. I have no real "expertise" in this type jazz, but the eternality of the music's spirit allows me to feel it more than just a little! ANYWAYS... TRACK ONE - Hamp, unmistakably, and Christian, most likely. Been a while since I listened to that old RCA box of Hamp's small group sessions, but if I was a betting man, I'd say that this was on it. Hell, let me go look... Ok, not Christian, but Irving Ashby. And Marshall Royal on clarinet, nice! Ray Perry on violin, I don't know too much about, but he impresses here, as does Vernon Alley's driving bass. Hard to beat this! TRACK TWO - Rex Stewart, gotta be, probably in an Ellington showcase (those ensemble voices like Lawrence Brown are pretty hard to miss...). Any elements of"contrivance" are far outweighed by the sheer effectiveness of the entire performance. There's a story to be told, and damned if I know how it could be told any better. TRACK THREE - Seems like I've heard this one before, might even have it somewhere...Also seems like the tempo accelerates a little as it goes on...altoist sounds like Jimmy Dorsey...excellent writing, with execution to do it justice...nice. TRACK FOUR - Another one I think I've heard and/or have. Lips Page? Hard not to dig this...you can feel that dance pulse, something I still like to feel somewhere in any music I here, no matter how "abstract" or whatever it gets. It really don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, somewhere, somehow...Hey, my foot is patting and my ass is shaking - Mission Accomplished! TRACK FIVE - Now this one kills me! Seems like I should've heard about this a long time ago, but no....Bill Harris? Tenor sounds like Lockjaw on the head, but not on the solo...Dodo Marmarosa on piano? Very modern, free-thinking, not unlike him at all, I think, especially on the comp...Tenor...first guess would be Flip Phillips, given the presence(?) of Bill Harris, but I think not, the opening phrasing is a little "prissy" for Flip. I'm thinking more along the lines of Georgie Auld or Charlie Ventura, although towards the end of the solo, he gets back into the Lockjaw Zone. Nice long cut, doesn't sound live, but I guess it could be...V-Disc or airshot maybe...This is really good stuff here, with ideas just coming out open & unforced. If this is part of a concert/broadcast/whatever, and everything played is of this nature, not constrained by time, and full of this type of swing-to-bop-to R&B playing, I would like to know so I could get it! TRACK SIX - Not really feeling this one, although I can appreciate it, and the tune itself is deceptively "tricky" in spots. Actually, the more I listen to it, the more I like it, although as far as feeling it goes...well, let's just say that if I needed to go there, I could. There is a definite vibe going on, though, a real mood. Eddie Lang on guitar? TRACK SEVEN - "Tea for Two", and that really sounds like Earl Hines, one of the more amazing musicians this music has produced. What's not to like? So much music in just a little over three minutes! TRACK EIGHT - Flagwaver! That trombonist, hey! Scoring & execution are both on the..."basic" side, but the feel is there, and in a social setting, where this was going to be heard (in its time), that's what puts it over. Good spirit by all, and the trombonist FEELS it Jack! TRACK NINE - Jesus Chirst what a band! Sax section in particular, tighter than a gnat's X%$@>! Tenor/soprano player sure sounds like Charlie Barnet, so this might be his band, he always had a good one, but what I want to know is who the arranger is, and who the lead altoist is, because those two people are the real heroes of this cut (and probably of this band in general!). Them and the rhythm section for not letting the time get on top of itself, which a lot of bands from this time let happen. TRACK TEN - See track Eight, and I can feel the time getting on top of itself all through this one. "Rushing" is the wrong word, it's more like how you feel the first attack of the beat in relation to the duration of it. Even if you never literally speed up, it feels rushed because you're getting there before it get there. Even by a microsecond, if you do it systematically, hey, you notice it. But damn, that outchorus, hey, they lay into it, and again, in a social setting, I bet everybody got whatever they wanted. TRACK ELEVEN - Yet another one that sounds familiar...Ellington(ia) of some sort, I think, although the soring is not unlike Sy Oliver, so it might be Lunceford or Dorsey...great pocket, right in there, and the band finds it to their liking. GREAT trumpet breaks...gotta be Cootie, so Duke it (probably) is...Damn, I love Ellington & get all of it I can, but there is just so much of it...Oh well, add another one to the list! TRACK TWELVE - Oh HELL yeah - for the first part. Solo section is a little mundane, but that ensemble stuff...WHOA! No idea who it is, but there's some shrewd musicians involved. TRACK THIRTEEN - Tatum w/Tiny Grimes? No, I don't think so...Tatum had flashier and more variated runs, and a lighter touch...but still, in that vein. No idea, but it's good playing by all. TRACK FOURTEEN - More WayBack...I always get an image in my mind of the players on these things making the gigs, and it being like so many other gigs in all times, you show up and play what you play for the people, try to get your kicks doing it, sometimes more better than others, but still better than working for a living , and yeah, it's jsut cats playing the pop music of their day for people to whatever to, but now, it's...this! And try as ?I do, I can not put myself in the mindset of playing this type music and having it being workaday, pop, gig music without projecting my feelings from my experience in my time onto it. Which, I think, complicates matters more than they should be complicated. So, yeah, I like it, but I also find it a bit of a trip as well, in a good way, true, but still a trip. I mean, I can't imagine what it would be like wearing those type clothes & playing htis type music and have it being anything other than...not of my lifetime. So I learn, both about myself, and about them, hopefully. TRACK FIFTEEN - Well hey, you got your Roy Eldridge, and that makes it a keeper right there. Is that Benny Carter? Thosw two from this time I only relaly know with Hawk on board, and that darn sure ain't Hawk...Once again, the time stays within itself, which is something that we take for granted now, but was not a task readily or easily accomplished. It took some time. But anyway, Roy, YEAH! TRACK SIXTEEN - Really not feeling this one, and not just because the record itself is a tad off-center... Sorry. TRACK SEVENTEEN - Another tight band, always a thing of beauty as long as it swings, which this does. Goodman? That's some interesting, involved writing...one of Eddie Sauter's charts? Yeah, that's it. That guy...wow...the sax soli is just beautiful. This guy knew how to write, not just score, but write for a band...In it's own really quiet way, the Goodman band playing Sauter's charts was pretty avant-garde, those charts...not at all "dance material" in terms of what was going on over the beat, very, very "orchestral", demanding listening, although the beat was still danceable, although certainly not aggressively so. The chart he did on "Perfidia" (w/Helen Forrest's vocal) is still one I listen to regularly, as is "La Rosita". The guy was a master, and this band gave his charts the love they deserved. Say what you will about Goodman, but when he gave it up, he gave it up with full love and props attached, and you can hear that here - this is in no way an easy chart to play, yet the band has every little nuance down pat. that takes time, rehearsal, love, and a helluva good ear and soul. Much love for this one here! TRACK EIGHTEEN - Oh hell, I should know this one...Henderson? Yeah, that's Hawk, early in his first prime, just CHARGING through the changes like he owned them, which he did, god do I love me some Coleman Hawkins...hey, this is da' bomb as my kids used to say, hellaceous writing & playing, life at its finest! TRACK NINETEEN - Charlie Shavers? Getting lei-ed? Now this is a trip! FLUENT! TRACK TWENTY - Prototypical Horace Silver! This computer isn't showing the tag, but this is Charles Lavere right? No I'd not have known otherwise. Again, the record is off-center, but oh well about that...I really dig this one, the tune, the playing, and above all the spirit. It's loose, down-home yet cosmopolitan, it's smart, it's hip, it's nasty but not vulgar, hey, you could lead a life like that doncha' know.. Kudos to those who have, those who are, and those who will. Well hey, a GREAT Disc One, and although I don't know squat about most of the music, I really, really dug it! Thanks, B, and off to Disc Two.

Closer than most, I guess... I don't seem to be communicating my ideas successfully, so I'll stop (hopefully) after this. Suffice it to say that this: is exactly right, and that this might be better expressed as I have a hunch that there is a macro-pattern to how/where/when the 2/3 chance will yield a win & how/where/when the 1/3 chance will yield a win that is apparently as of yet outside the realm of "accepted" and/or existing statistical analysis, or even consideration therein. Now yes, I know - every game has the same equal chance for the 2/3 chance to yield a win & for the 1/3 chance will yield a win, and in that proportion, so please, no repeats on that one, ok? But I'm not talking about chances, I'm talking about results, and the fact that, not just in this game but in all games of chance, some people consistently outperform/underperform against the odds, even when systematically making "counter-logical" and/or "smart choices" suggests to me that there is some sort of macro logic or macro pattern playing itself out. You can call that "superstition" or "ignorance" or "naivite" or whatever, but I humbly (sic) suggest that outside of every observable level of randomness there lies an even greater order, and that outside of it lies a yet even greater level of randomness, etc etc etc ad infinitum. It is to that speculation/hunch/whatever that I have been addressing these comments. Apparently there is no respect for this notion, and ok. Hey, y'all got training and shit on this stuff that I don't and undoubtedly y'all know what you know, and I fully respect that. All I do know is that I never fail to be surprised when science discovers new levels of order, nor am I surprised when science later finds new levels of chaos outside/inside the same. That cycle goes on forever, and it is one of the great joys to be had in this life, if you go that way, which I do. "Playing hunches" may or may not be a fool's game. I've seen more people get burned more times than not, but there are those who continuously get it right. But sitll, it ain't something I'd ahng my hat on, not unless it was one that I had no pangs about losing. But looking for/considering the possibility of a macro order or logic as it pertains to "the odds playing out over time" doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me, even though I don't have anywhere near the "tools" to go about discovering/proving/whatever it. I will also posit that at least as much as "the odds" are here to serve us, that we are also here to serve the odds, which means...whatever you want it to mean, I guess. But I do believe that this shit is far from unilateral.

Or maybe not. Feel free to add to the content, this is not intended as a male-only thing, even though it, like much of the board as a whole, ends up that way. I for one have benefited greatly over the years by learning what my wife does and doesn't find "sexy". It's no secret that male & female "tastes" will vary by instinct in this regard, but learning is not only recommended, it can also be a helluva lot of fun. And I know - most women don't find "sluttiness" sexy. At least not in public....

And tell them Groucho told you to pick that curtain!

We share because we care.

Thanks for the summation of what we all already know! :tup :tup

Well, there we are then.

Dan, you seem to be saying that the results stemming from the (constant) individual odds cannot be influenced by the (equally constant) collective results. Seems to me that the only way for that to work would be if everybody who played played enough times to reach the "statistical truth". Unless and until that happens though, if the collective result = 2/3 and not every individual result = 2/3, then either some individuals are going to have to perform outside to odds, either positively or negatively to keep the collective even, or else something is an illusion. In other words, if 60% of a state's residents always vote, and one county has a 45% turnout one year and 75% the next, some other counties are going to have to vary correspondingly to keep the 60% constant. Similarly, if 100 people switch & win (or if 1 person switches and wins 100 times) then at some point the 1/3 outcome will have to happen either individually or collectively at a temporarily greater than 1/3 rate in order to uphold the "greater truth" of the overall 2/3 success rate. Right? You said earlier that you won 80% of the time by always switching, right? Well, if you "retire" right now, you've outperformed the odds. In order for the odds to have true meaning (which I believe they do) doesn't there have to be underperformance somewhere at some time? Or can everybody win at an 80% rate and the odds still truly be 67% ?

This would mean that the odds are not 67-33 but something else entirely ?

Of course it is... So ok, there's 100 people lined up to play this game, and you're #100. The first 67 of them switch, and they all win. Not likely, but it could happen. There's no "law" guaranteeing that it couldn't. Sensing a trend, the next 32 also switch, and lo and behold, they win too! Again, unlikely as it is, it could happen. So, it's your turn, Mr. 100. You know that switching is, in isolation, the smart move, but you also see right in front of you that the results have, in this immediate zone, outperformed the odds. At some point, not switching is going to have to result in a win. So - where is that point, and how do you best predict it in order to win the car, which is, after all, the object of the game, not running an intellectual masturabatathon? And - do you only look at the action going on in this room to figure that out, or do you look at everybody who's played the game in the past? Maybe at some point, five folks in a row didn't switch and won. How does that skew the point at which it's again going to be the winning choice? What if right there in the building you're in, there's another 20 studios full of people playing the same game, how does that affect the chances that your choice will perform according to the odds, not in theory, but in actuality? "The odds are always the same", I can hear everybody saying it. Well, yeah - it's still 2/3 vs 1/3. But unless there is a systematic pattern of every third person switching and losing (and that assumes that everybody will chose to switch, which ain't gonna happen either), then 2/3 vs 1/3 ain't necessarily gonna mean squat when your number comes up. Mr. Litwack earlier mentioned the Law Of Large Numbers, which I first heard about in conjunction w/the MIT blackjack team. There were times when they took to the tables and lost big and long before the numbers came around in their favor, other times when the shit clicked from jump. Was there any predictor as to which it would be? No, of course not. And if they weren't deeply funded, there was no way to insure that on the nights when it took a long time for the odds to finally kick in that they wouldn't have run out of money first. Now that's a game where if you got the time and money and system, you can guarantee winning results over the long haul. There, statistics are of comfort and practical use to you. Here, you got one shot to be right, and all the statistics can do for you is give you a little sense of faux-confidence that you've got a "good chance" to win the one time you play. Well, maybe you do and maybe you don't. If you played in isolation, yeah. But you don't. The game's been played before and it will be played after, so you are not the only one to whom the odds are applying. Now, can anybody show me, not that the odds play out over time collectively, because it's obvious that they do, but rather that there is a predictor to individual distribution of same amongst people who precipitate this activity, i.e. - players? "Small science", like "small religion" serves no real purpose other than to create a false sense of comfort rather than forcing one to confront the potentially horrifying, yet very real randomness of any given moment. Your everyday behavior may be the same either way, but at some point some shit could jump up and hit you and you're either gonna shit your pants and die, or else deal with it.