JSngry

Explanations, please?

I guess the best way I can explain it, as someone who plays an instrument despite not being able to read music, is to try and hum along with the title cut. I've tried numerous times, and it still baffles me. I can't imagine how difficult it must've been to try and SOLO around that. That's a tune I've played a bit, and I can tell you that, like most Monk tunes, you can break it down into components which aren't really all that unusual. In this case, it's the old I-bVII7-bVI7-V7 (think "Topsy" or some such), that's the core harmonic motif of the song. Aside from that it comes in some relatively "uncommon" (in terms of "general usage"), hey, no big deal, right? Wrong. The use of this core is not symmetrical. Monk throws in all sorts of harmonic "detours" that result in the changes themselves being easy enough to get a handle on, but not their placement in the form, their symmetry if you will. That's the part of that tune that's a real bitch, because as soon as you start into a phrase that you think is going to lay one way over the changes/bars, OOOPS, GUESS AGAIN! Up pops a pivot chord that sends it off somewhere else just for a bar or two before it comes back and/or starts over, and not where you need it to for your idea to kinda work anyway. It's just struck me (literally) that perhaps, that's what the title is refering to, how the tune is a walk down a (harmonic) route that is full of unexpected yet ultimately logical "corners", corners that you have to make in order to stay on course, corners that come out of nowhere, at first seem illogical or even "dangerous" or "wrong" yet corners that ultimately get you to where you needed to get and in a highly, in retrospect. logical and "colorful" ("brilliant") fashion/ In a way, it's the Monkiest of Monk tunes (although I'd leave room on that list for "Work" and a few others, in that you have to be aware of the macro form at all times. It's not just enough to know where you are at any given monment, you gotta know where you came from and where you're going too, and all at the same time. You need to develop an acute awareness that where you are at any moment is never just that, it's part of an ongoing continuum that exists whether you realize or not, and will have its way whether you recognize it or not, becuase it's bigger and more unshakeable than just one person. "Always Know" and "All Ways Know". If that's not a metaphor for life and a definition of true hipness, then I don't know what is. It's no wonder that Monk survives, and its no wonder that a lot of people latch on to the superficialities for cachet, and its no wonder that people who go deeper with his music never find an end to the truths it reveals.

Hell, just have them try the lead-in fill from the break of "I Feel Fine"...

Monk swung like hell without any help from anybody. What are you talking about? And why is an AOTW thread in the Mosaic forum?

"Ego" is subjective. Plagiarism is not.

I'm a fan/admirer (at least of his Beatles work, after that....), & I know a surprising # of drummers (jazz & otherwise) who are too. Perfect drummer for a band that was more than the sum of its parts. If he had been a "better drummer", then I think the music would have lost its balance. Plue, I give the guy credit for taste and pocket, neither of which require the type of chops that his detractors (of which I also know many) belittle him for not having. None of them were "great musicians". Oh well.

What video is this? The early section standbys were Jerome Richardson & Jerry Dodgion on altos & Pepper Adams on bari. Tenor players included Joe Farrell, Eddie Daniels (he became a regular for a while) & Seldon Powell. Joe Henderson also made a Euro Tour w/the band.

Is there a tense halway between past and present? Because I really don't care any more, this shit is all old & over now, doncha' know, but I still have an opinion as to what happened.

I'm a big fan up until Tommy. After that, I remain a fan, but not as big. For me, the kicks come from Moon's drumming raging out of control, like he wanted to be Elvin but didn't have either the chops or the discipline, so he just went gonzo and hoped for the best. Hell, the whole band was like that early on. Energy & tension to the bursting point with little to no effort made to control it. Quite the opposite, in fact. When they calmed down (on record), they were still good and all that, but.... Who's Next is a great record, and lord knows "Won't Get Fooled Again" says it all for once and for all, but...gimme "Out In the Streets" and I don't care about none of that no more.

Lester Bowie David Bowie Jim Bowie

Mousey Alexander Alexander the Great Great Caesar's Ghost

But... a "solid major leaguer" is still a damn good ballplayer, no? Even with the dilution of talent that's been going on since the first wave of expansion back in 1961, and even allowing that there have been more than a few players who've made the bigs since that never would have when it wa still a 16 tem affair, don't you think that to be a career major league .285 hitter is something that less than, oh...1% of everybody who's played the game professionally at any level could muster? Dude, if you look for 'em, you can find all sorts of cats who played ball in college, or semi-pro, or even in the low level minors who are very, very solid players at any but a major league level. If you had them on your recreational league team, you'd be accused of having a ringer, know what I mean? But these guys couldn't even get to the higher monors, much less to the majors, much less put together a .285 season when they got there, much less maintain that for a career. Sure, in the isolated context of the majors, .285 is "just" solid. But what it takes to be solid at that level relative to what "solid" means in the context of the game as a whole is a whole 'nother bag. Anybody who can consitently hit .285 in the bigs might not be a spectacular "major leaguer", but they're still a spectacular "baseball player". Now, that of course leads to the psedo-need to categorize spectacular major leaguers as "super-spectacular" baseball players, or some nonsense like that, and as for that....yuck. But it's the same thing as the James Spaulding thing - rating (where/when/if it needs to be done) is always going to be relative to context, and as "true" as it is to rate in a micr-context, then surely it is equally true to also consider rating in a macrto-context, if for no other reason than to fully appreciate exactly what it is that is getting micro-rated. To simplify all I'm saying is that on a scale of 1-10. relative to all baseball players, a career .285 major league hitter rates a 9., what...8? Yeah, sure, 9.7, why not... But relative to all major league hitters, where the scale only runs from 9-10, that 9.8 is the equivalent to scoring a 80 on an exam - solid but not spectacular by any stretch of the imagination. But hell dude, if I could hit .100 in the bigs, I'd be happier than tits in a tongue factory!

Dude, how are you holding your sides? If you do the Fancy Waiter Delivery Grip (thumb on outer rim, remaining fingers on the underside label, no solid, opposed grip anywhere on the rim), then, yeah, ok, you're a Cer-T-Fyed Vinel Con-E-Sewer but you're just asking for shit like this to happen, which as you're finding, it will. Fate is more than happy to reward carelessness and/or cluelessness and/or a disregard for simple physics (unsecured objects of the size/weight of an LP will move more than secured ones) with a metaphorically mocking kick in the metaphorical 'nads. Hold your records with both hands to and from the turntable, and do it with enough force to prevent slippage. Don't be asahmed or otherwise "common" in how you take them outta the sleve. Hell, sit down if you have to, so if the platter plummets, it goes nowhere but your lap. No, I don't always follow my own advice. But whenver damage occurs, it's doesn't ahppen when I am.

Megan Stanley Meghan Shanley Megan Scally

Is a batting average, a baseball staistic. Hits/Official At Bats. A batting average of 0.285 means that of all the times he had an Official At bat, the batter got a hit 28.5% of the time. (now, "official at bat" is a little bit of a tricky proposition for soembody who doesn't know the game, but you get the idea, I hope). More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average http://www.ehow.com/how_9730_calculate-batting-average.html A .285 hitter is a darn good hitter, possible even great if included in those hits are "power" and/or "clutch" hits. You definitely don't disrespect a .285 hitter. But you usually don't fear him either, unless he is a known "power hitter", sombody whose hits are predominately ones that create disruption and/or scoring. Teams all want .285 hitters, but teams are willing to trade them to get even better hitters and/or to fill other needs. To give some perspective, a .300 hitter is considered a "star", and anything over, say... .325 or .330 is considered spectacular. Do that consistently, and a player becomes a "superstar". Do it consistently enough and you become a Legend Of The Game. A lifetime .285 hitter will (unless, again, they were a proven power hitter, an exceptional defensive player, or otherwise had some unique skill(s) ) be remembered fondly and respectfully by the game's cognoscenti and those who were around then, but to the general public they will become yet another faceless name, one of many others who played the game through the years, were known in their time, and now....aren't.. A final note, to give some historical/statistical perspective - The last person to hit .400, once a not uncommon (if far from common) was Ted Williams, in 1941. He hit .406. Players since havd threatened to repeat that feat, some more seriously than others, but inevitably fade as the season goes on.

I don't think it's the recognition of difference per se that leads to your appreciation , which as I said , is more a function of what you want/need the music to do . All I need is for the goddammedd music to be whatever the fuckke it is so I can listen to it on it own terms, which is all I really want. Tell me your story. After that, hey, who knows, and all bets are off. Predispositions exist, but so do surprises, and you don't know until you get there, and maybe not always even then. But if you don't know by the time you leave, then you got a problem.

When I was a kid, we had a calico with a mustache like that and we called him Stash. One day, though, he was just gone. We think the milkman stole him to give to his mom. Square business.

Nonsense. You can still compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and you can still compare apples and oranges so long as you know that they're each what they are and can/will never be the other, nor whould they be, and it's a good thing that they aren't/won't/can't be. So I'm with the Dumpette here, I dig both, but for different reasons, and it's the recognition of the difference that leads to the appreciation of it, and I do think that I dig Don Patterson a whole lot more than Bobby Pierce and Reuben Wilson a little bit more than Ronnie Foster, so if there's anybody named Niles Istic with a Solar System in any of that, damned if I can see it.

Yezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

That's "Sonny, Please", the title track from his latest CD.

I don't know that one; thanks. It's this one: http://wc10.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&...10:kjfqxq95ldhe And it's on Jewel, not Paula. My bad, even though both are "the same thing".

Yes I have.

I know Elvis' work very well. I just don't get it the way that a lot of people do. I understand it, I just don't get it. And that's ok with me. Believe me. As for post-Hip Hop Gospel, I really do think that there is such a thing as post-Aretha Gospel in terms of both singing and production style (and the fact that "production style" enters into discussion about Gospel is telling in sooooo many ways....) And the Inez album I'm specifically referring to is a later thing on Paula. Her voice was "old" but still strong, and that realy drove home from whence her phrasing sprung. And it was a different place than did Aretha's, which goes back to the notion of there being such a thing as post-Aretha Gospel. Here's one more thought - to raise another pop/R&B/crossover issue - Gladys Knight made vastly more-better singles than did Aretha. Unquestionably. Yet a great Gladys Knight record is just that - a great record. A mediocre Aretha record from the same time is nowhere near as good a record or performance, yet it still carries more subliminal drama. It might well be the more compelling listen even as it is the less satisfying. Now, sure, some of that is backstory created by a combination of past performances and hype/marketing/image. But some of it is just that Aretha, even mediocre-to-bad Aretha can get to wondering in a way that most people can't. That's the kind of thing that at once goes beyond "music" and at the same time goes to the very core of it's intent and function. So waht does that mean? Hell if I know, other than my answers are mine, yours are yours, and who's right depends on who's wrong, and good luck on that one.

Well, that's the thing, the implication is that it isn't. But...

On the subject of Jolly, what's the word on this one: Quoth the Ba***rd(s): Lots of conflicting/mixed messages there....