JSngry

Sure, but there's not gonna be that many people on it... Richie Cole, Bobby Enriquez, those are two who immediately come to mind... Hell, let me think about it and get back to you in a few years, ok?

And now the question must be asked - why post about people posting about things you don't like them posting about, why not post about things you like to post about? Can we just talk about our reactions to the music here and leave the personal finger-wagging out of it?

Well, my point was to try to describe with some precision what the difference was between one night when he was hot and one night when he was not. For instance, there may be a few ways for a major league ballplayer to hit a home run by accident (or there may not be any such ways), but I'm sure that there are many thousands of ways and reasons for a major league ballplayer to miss a pitch completely. Now if both things I've just said are so, and I'm interested in how people who hit successfully do it and how those who do not do it do not, then I want to look closely at just what's going on when things work out well and likewise when they do not. It's not like I'm a coach or anything, but just by chance I was about to post something elsewhere that stems directly from this way of looking at/responding to things, so now I'll post it here. It's about Horace Silver's comping on "The Milt Jackson Quartet" (OJC). In a rather quiet way for Horace -- whom one thinks of from the way he often backs soloists in his own groups as a very aggressive accompanist -- his playing behind Bags on this album, particularly on "My Funny Valentine," is so subtly suggestive-supportive that I'm filled with a blend of something like joy and awe. Further, as one might expect, the sense of collaboration here is so total that it's possible to get kind of choked up about what artistic and emotional heights this music can attain -- and this in a performance that one can take as pleasant background music if one isn't paying attention. I'm saying then that to detect and enjoy the heights when they're there, we probably need (in our various ways) to take fairly close notice of what's actually going on. Otherwise, how do we really know when someone is hot and when they're not? But then I guess that's where my home run analogy breaks down a bit. In baseball there's an obvious external sign of successful effort: the ball leaves the park. In jazz there's only the music-making itself, its functioning details. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a fellow tenor player back in college, somebody whose tastes were generally far more "conservative" than mine, but with enough positive intersections (Budd Johnson, Gene Ammons, Dexter Gordon, etc.) to make for some good hangs. One day, Peterson came up, and I expressed that, eh, not for me, and this guy said, "I think that as you get older (he was one year older than me! ) you'll appreciate the specificityof his playing - when he plays an eight note, it is an eight note, always. When he plays a triplet, it is a triplet, always. Very few people play with that much precision." Well, as time went by, I realized that I personally felt better when an eight note wasn't always an eighth note, etc. Sometimes the "in between" stuff is what I need to feel/be real on myterms. That's not how I talk, that's not how I walk, that's not how I think, that's not how I do anything. It's been a while since I heard that Getz/Shrine thing, but how you describe it -one night the soloists not in Peterson's zone, the other they are, and the whole performance varying in qualtity accordingly to me speaks of that "precision", of wverything always being exactly waht it is. Obviously, there's a strength of self in thaat that is admirable. But it's also a bit exclusionary - if you wanna ride this train, hey, here's how it is going to be. Always. And not all jazz is played that way, the Silver/Jackson thing you mention being one of but innumerable examples. Sure, I have heard Peterson adapt, but only slightly, and never too far outside of his zone. Again, no reason why he should, it's his domain and he's master of it. But it goes a long way towards why some people dig him so much, and some people don't, and why some people dig other stuff a lot more, and some people a lot less. Peterson knew who he was, and he did not back down. Major philosophical props to him for that. But if you don't like it, he ain't gonna ask you to. And I give him huge props for that, even though I'm one of those who just don't want in. Now, as for Tatum (was that in this or the other thread?), edc mentioned "etudes" and I know exactly what he means, and most of the Tatum on record fits into that category one way or the other. But that 20th Century Piano thing, hey... Like all Tatum for me, the music is so concentrated that I can only listen in small doses, but that's where you can hear the etudes getting fucked with, and sometimes mindboggingly so. I think that Tatum had another gear that he kept to himself except on rare occasions, for who knows what reasons. But I hear these things and all the notions about "Tatum as virtuostic parlor act" get reconsidered real quick.

Ok, I am getting waaay dark here, all this....whatever. Think I better head for the gym, play a house mix or two, and regain some balance. To amybody I've pissed off, sorry. Really. To anybody I've "intimidated"... Sorry, but are you sure it's all me? Speaking as somebody who's been intimidated more than once (to put it mildly...), it probably ain't.

I hear yeah. After all, why them mutherfukkas round if not to roll themselves back home? Myself, I blame us - we romanticized the kegs too much, they got to thinking that we needed them rather than the other way around, and they just got lazy. Let's put some corners on their asses and see how they like that! Are we talking about kegs here, or women? I thought I knew the answer, but... Oh wait.... THIS is why we don't have more women posters here. You sir, should be ashamed!

Durham's on Jaws' Straight Ahead, a Pablo side. He also played for a long time in the trio of...the guy that FFA just ordered some CDs by (mentioned above, and thus the tie-in). His time's good, but he's got this annoying (for me) habit of doing the stick-on-the-rim-on-2-and-4 waaaaay more often than is legal in even the most liberal regimes. He's got family in Dallas, I think, and I saw him sit in at the Recovery Room w/Marchel back in the day. He went into that stick/rim thing, and everybody just kinda looked at him like..."uh, dude"", and he just kept on doing it. I've since heard him do it -and to the same extent - on dman near every record that he's on, and....#$&#$&#&$#&%&#%&#&$#&$&#!!!!! But make no mistake, he is a true gentleman and a great contributor to this music that we all love so deeply.

I hear yeah. After all, why them mutherfukkas round if not to roll themselves back home? Myself, I blame us - we romanticized the kegs too much, they got to thinking that we needed them rather than the other way around, and they just got lazy. Let's put some corners on their asses and see how they like that!

Did you get to know Sonny Simmons there/then too? Neither met or even heard of him. Was he a drummer? I arrived in Oakland 12/85 and Smiley was one of the first drummers I heard. The other Bay Area drummers of note at the time were Eddie Marshall, Vince Lateano, Bud Spangler, Eddie Moore, and Gaylord Birch. All great players and nice people.. Right about now I miss the Bay Area and the redwwods.. Too damned much snow here in west Mich.. Sonny's an altoist who played w/Smiley in the early 70s. Great player, in the cracks between bebop & free, totally naturally so. My understanding of his bio is that he was in the Bay Area at this time as sort of a "street player", but cats like Smiley would have known him, unless there was some "bad blood" or something, which is always possible. But yeah, Smiley. I jsut checked out this thing: http://www.dustygroove.com/item.php?id=yy5...p%3Bincl_cs%3D1 The poetry - of contemporary vintage - may or may not work for you, but the Smiley-led band behind it (from the early 1970s & including Simmons & Barbara Donald )is hot!

I think we better start a "I Don't Dig Kegs Thread" before the pro-keggers get too pissed off. Or better yet, hell, fuck it - I KEGS!!! REALLY!

No doubt that was said after somebody passed a hat around to collect cash for another keg. Shall we start a "I-never-cared-for-a-kegless-party" thread? Now that should create some unamity! Not necessarily... alcohol is so....filling. Other buzzes are... lighter on the body. But no disrespect to the drinkers. Oh hell no. Once I became concerned with things like not going to jail and shit, I became one. A very good one in fact. Professional calibre, actually. But today, the only keg I know is Keg Johnson, and the only bud(d) is his brother.

Hey Chris, what was the deal with Steve Simmels (I think it was...) at SR? Seemed like an ok rock critic, but then they started having him do jazz reviews, and I really didn't understand why... Read the mag regularly from about 70-73 btw. Audiophile porn for a lonely backwoods teenager. But some good criticism along with it.

As no doubt, is he when she gets that way...

Did you get to know Sonny Simmons there/then too?

Yeah, I've really resigned as moderator. Can't so anything about post count or such, so if that "intimidates" you or whatever, sorry. But if it lessens the "impact" of any of my "opinions", I've also asked to be withdrawn form consideration for being the face on the next dollar coin. Of course, I could just not post anything else for a while, or ever. But just like everybody else here, I think I have something to say. Plus, I like the peoples here. All of 'em. Sorry 'bout that.

And if being a moderator means not being able to speak my mind, or if, by doing so, being percieved as a "bully" or some such by virtue of the title, then I do not want to be a moderator. I have notified Jim of this. If, otoh, my status as "leading poster" or whatever "intimidates" people or something like that, hey, sorry if there's that much stress in your life.

Ok. Sorry.

Let the record show now that when Bobby Durham dies, I was not impressed beforehand.

Ok, I really want to address this: The reason for starting this thread was twofold: 1) Some people on the other thread were bothered by criticism there of a recently dead artist, so here we are now; those who don't want to hear this kind of talk have an easy option 2) Trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff among jazz artists, and within the career of a single jazz artist, seems like a fairly natural and arguably necessary thing to do, unless you're one of those "It's all good" people. Don't we all do a lot of that sorting out in the course of our lives as jazz fans? Now doing that in a public forum does add some stress and suggests that mere name-calling might be not a great idea. But are you suggesting that doubts about the value of OP's playing should now never be expressed, or that the subject of what his flaws as a jazz musician might be is of absolutely of no interest? I'm all for critical discernment when it comes to musicians, and, like many here, I have my questions about Peterson's artistic choices in his career. What I trying to say is something that's hard to put into words, but it goes something like this, and it's just my opinion: I feels like people are using the death of Peterson to let loose negative emotions on a person they never knew. Maybe the point people bring up about this forum becoming more negative over the years is valid, it's not feeling right to me what's going on. I really can't express it more than that, but there it is. I wish I could be more articulate of what I'm seeing and experiencing here the past couple of weeks, but the OP thread is part of a trend where if you don't join in thinking the same way as some of the "inner circle" about an artist, you are made to feel like you know jack about music, and are pretty much forced to remain quiet. I'm still trying to figure out what I'm thinking, but this is the best I can do know. There is something to this. You have to be strong to stand against the group-think which develops on some of the threads here. When the inner circle orthodoxy mentality is pointed out, with a suggestion that perhaps the discussion would be better framed in terms of "it's just your opinion, and I respect it, so please respect mine too", that idea is hooted down as not being "honest". "Honesty" is championed as the reason for, as you put it, "if you don't join in thinking the same way as some of the "inner circle" about an artist, you are made to feel like you know jack about music, and are pretty much forced to remain quiet". So you have to be strong. Since I have had lots of practice being strong in real life, it doesn't bother me, but I have noticed it. Who the fuck is making you guys feel, the inference seems to be, "inferior" about your tastes in music? And who is this "inner circle"? I think I know, so that's a rheorical question, but good god, does anybody notice that there is often more disagreement there than anywhere else? Things like later Sonny Rollins, later Max Roach, James Spaulding, Duke Pearson, I could go on and on and on, there's a wide range of opinion there, and it is freely expressed. The problem there is...what? I don't think that anybody needs to feel inferior about what they like, period, nor do I think that anybody needs to be bashful in expressing it. So what if most of this "inner circle" (yeah, we have weekly meetings and shit...) don't dig, say, Bill Evans. Of course that is an opinion, and the history of jazz in terms of evolutionary progress and record sales says that it is definitely a minority opinion. So whatcha got then? Some people really don't dig Bill Evans and can offer detailed explanations of why they don't. A lot more people do dig Bill Evans, and can offer equally detailed explanations of why they do (I once sat for hours as a pianist friend dissected his inner voicings for me, sure in the knowledge that if I could really, REALLY see/hear what was going on that I'd see the light. Didn't happen...) Dude, except for discographical and other such matters, this is all opinion. Hell, making music is opinion - "This is how I think music should sound". I don't know what kind of "respect" it is that you guys are looking for. Do people actually call you stupid or something for liking some of the stuff you like? Or is it more a "feeling" that you get. I'm serious about this, because, yeah, damn straight I got some strong opinionsmyuself, and I ain't shy about expressing them, but I consider it a given that they are nothing but my opinions, and feel free to disagree, I'll not take it personally unless you make it personal, in which case, hey, I can go there or not, depending on the type of day I'm having. But I've very, very rarely seen it go personal in the music threads, although it does happen. It's just strong opions expressed with confidence on both sides, nothing more. If that makes anybody "uncomfortable, hell, what can we do? People love this place for the "open atmosphere", "collection of knowledge", "provocative insights" and all that, and well they should. But all that is a direct result of stong opinions being openly expressed. This board is what it is because of that, not in spite of it. Wishing otherwise won't make it so. Some of this "inner circle" carries "name value" from past accomplishments, and others, like myself, have a "reputation" just from saying a lot of stuff that some people have found "useful". And yeah, some of us have heard more music than others (hell, Mssrs. Nessa, Kart, & Albertson individually have probably heard - and remembered - more music than I'll ever even think about hearing). So yeah, the opinions are expressed more "definitively". That's the nature of life, and not jsut in music. I can offer my 21 year old son advice about "life matters" at age 52 with a lot more confidence than I could have at age 30, jsut because of experience. But that doesn't mean that all the advice I offer him will work for him, and it damn sure doesn't meant that he appreciates it all either. But we both love each other, have a lot of respect for the other, and he knows (or is beginning to know) that I'm not just talking out of the side of my ass, even when he has absolutely no use for what I'm saying. And I know that his way is going to have to be his way, and that in many, many, ways that it is not going to be my way, as much as I would like for it to be. I have been strong in opinion with him, and he has been strong in opinion with me. It hasn't always been pretty, but we both have a lot of respect and love for the other as a result, an adult type love that respects diffences even as it disagrees with some of them. Now, if I personally have ever caused anybody to, by the strong expression of my strong opinions, feel as if I'm trying to "put them in their place" or soemthing like that, I apologize, profoundly and fundamentally. I want the table to be full of food for thought, not rationed out to a selecr few. But I would encourage everybody to stand tall and proud in your taste, like what you like, and if you see an "inner circle" (we also have neat vests that we wear at community events...), then rather than be intimidated by it, see it as exactly what it is - a group of opinions different from yours. Nothing more, nothing less. And please feel free to run counter to it. Bottom line - differences of opinion aren't supposed to be "genteel", not if they are sincere differences of sincere opinions. But let's not confuse others -or ourselves - by thinking that our "worth" to anybody else is defined by how much one agrees with another, either an individual or a collective "inner circle" (btw, we offering light bulbs for sale coming this January...). Quite the opposite, in fact. An "attack" on a musical opinion (real or perceived) is not an attack on you personally. At least it shouldn't be. If it truly is, then the moderators need to be notified. Otherwise, if you believe it, BELIEVE it!

The reason for starting this thread was twofold: 1) Some people on the other thread were bothered by criticism there of a recently dead artist, so here we are now; those who don't want to hear this kind of talk have an easy option 2) Trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff among jazz artists, and within the career of a single jazz artist, seems like a fairly natural and arguably necessary thing to do, unless you're one of those "It's all good" people. Don't we all do a lot of that sorting out in the course of our lives as jazz fans? Now doing that in a public forum does add some stress and suggests that mere name-calling might be not a great idea. But are you suggesting that doubts about the value of OP's playing should now never be expressed, or that the subject of what his flaws as a jazz musician might be is of absolutely of no interest? I'm all for critical discernment when it comes to musicians, and, like many here, I have my questions about Peterson's artistic choices in his career. What I trying to say is something that's hard to put into words, but it goes something like this, and it's just my opinion: I feels like people are using the death of Peterson to let loose negative emotions on a person they never knew. Maybe the point people bring up about this forum becoming more negative over the years is valid, it's not feeling right to me what's going on. I really can't express it more than that, but there it is. I wish I could be more articulate of what I'm seeing and experiencing here the past couple of weeks, but the OP thread is part of a trend where if you don't join in thinking the same way as some of the "inner circle" about an artist, you are made to feel like you know jack about music, and are pretty much forced to remain quiet. I'm still trying to figure out what I'm thinking, but this is the best I can do know. Again - in the RIP thread, things were going along in what I thought was a respectful manner (i.e. - nobody - save maybe Clem, but even for him the tone was quite respectful at first - was saying "bad things" about Peterson, other than that they might not have been a fan, and even if we weren't we recognized and respected his unquestionable accomplishments over the course of a notable career. Apparently that wasn't enough. Apparently saying that one wasn't a fan, even if it was done in the context of extending respect, was seen as an affront to humankind, and as a sign of some deep-rooted sociopathy. That I feel, is just so much bullshit, the motivations of which might include (but are not limited to) A) Extreme insecurity on the part of some Peterson fans; B) a subliminal fascistic impulse to stifle/control expression of dissenting opinions, regardless of "tone"; C) A cultural notion of propriety that dictates silence over speech under certain circumstances and/or D) Some folks just not getting out of the house too much. A, B, & D I really don't have any sympathy for, but C is something I'm sensitive to. I felt a need to respond to the RIP thread, because I do recognize and respect Peterson's accomplishments, but I also am not a "fan". Never have been, probably never will be. But that doesn't mean that there's not a lot of respect there. There is, difficult as that appears for some people to see. so anyway, I could have said "What a career!" and let it go at that. Ok, yeah, fine. But where are the rules that one must give a false impression in the name of "respect"? Sorry, but there are some rules by which I just don't play, and that is one of them. So I gave a true impression - not a fan, but load of respect. And that...wasn't good enough. Oh well about that. So somebody suggested that any ambivalence about Peterson be expressed in a seperate thread, And here we are. And it still ain't good enough. Why, because he just died? Once again - respects have been paid. I'd not have started this thread if that last point had been recognized. I have no intention of getting some perverse jollies by dumping on a corpse while it's still warm. But I know good and damn well that there are a lot of jazz folk who are either ambivalent about or downright hostile towards some/most/all of Peterson's output (put me between some & most, leaning towards most), and the idea that their voices should not be heard at all at this time, no matter how respectful they be, is appaling to me. It's kinda like when Regan died. Everybody was supposed to suddenly love this cat just because he was dead all of a sudden. Well sorry 'bout that, but I felt that I could express personal regrets for family and friends w/o having to pretend that I didn't think that he was the vilest occupant of the Oval Office this country has ever had. But nooooo..... People die every day, every hour, probably every minute. When they do, their life story doesn't suddenly change, it just ends. What they've done, they've done. The notion that death suddenly makes a legacy any different than it had been up until that point is kinda....not true. It is not "disrespectful" to comment on the legacy. It is disrespectful to do things like A) applaud the death; B) unfairly (i.e. - out of context) defame the person's character; C) juxtapose/project feelings about the legacy onto one's assessment of the personal character of the deceased D) some more other stuff along these lines. Now, you and others may not feel that way. Fine. But recognize it as that - a difference. It is not a willful attempt to antagonize, belittle, or otherwise "trump" your or anybody else's feelings. If anything, the seemingly easily-made accusations/inferences that they are are quite, dare I say it. hurtful. Insulting even. To think that one's differing opinion of an artist's music, and a gentle expression of same, is intended, either consciously or otherwise, to defame the character of said artist and/or to piss on that artist's fans is so far off the mark as to make me wonder WTF is going on in people's minds that they just can't accept the fact that not everybody likes everybody to the same degree. It really is that simple, y'all.

I'm not glad he's dead, though. But I'll not listen to him any more because he is, nor will I reconsider by opinion.

No argument here.

Did you run with the Lester Young Story Columbia 2-LP sets of the late 70s? That was a priceless series!

Presumably, except for the Hardman and Goodman sessions. He's there too!

Well, if it really is "irrational", why is it "rational" to quietly accept it & appear to offer implicit concurrance? One could comment, "wow is this weird! Look at the far too long article in this totally unaware rag that passes for a newspaper in this town!", instead of "I never liked the guy". Yeah, but then one appears to be making a blanket attack on the media as a whole instead of attempting to add another perspective, hopefully a reasoned and considered one, to a specific Discussion In Progress. Blanket attacks are easily/thoughtlessly concurred with or dismissed, engaging on specifics less so. If you can find anybody who cares... And do you really think that "I never liked the guy" (and a hopefully reasoned and considered delineation of why not) equates with "bashing"? That's a serious question, because I myself don't remotely see it like that. I really see no impropriety in expressing an opposing viewpoint at any point in An Ongoing Event Of Media Orthodoxy. Failure to do so is one way how future generations lose grasp of the nuances of any given time. And there are forces at work (although I doubt that any of them are at work with this Oscar Peterson business) who attempt to control/limit/stifle any/all dialogue for precisely that reason.