JSngry

It's also interesting that a large percentage of musicians started making "theme" albums at about the same time. Coincidence? I think not. Retreat is more like it. I mean, hell, when the "conservative moderns" stop moving ahead, that's a sure sign that stuff is coming to a halt, and sure enough it did. We've been down this road many times in many places on this board, but I'm of the unshakeable opinion that "jazz" today is a foregone conclusion, and if it isn't, then people are gonna get all up in arms about it not being jazz, if they do anything at all. Not at all my idea of a good time, but your mileage may vary.

I like the first song on each side better than the second, but no matter. One of my favorites.

Well, that's another thing that sticks in my craw (and again, this is nothing personal). "rather open to...", like it's some sort of controversial...moral issue or something like that. Fender Rhodes, percussion...OOOOOHHHH, DO WE DARE????? What about vamps & chants? LET"S LIVE ON THE EDGE!!! I mean, damn, the shit happened, and it happened lots. Some of it was really really good and some of it wasn't, but saying that one is "rather open to it" in 2007 is like saying that one is "rather open to" the use of electronic keyboards on pop records... No idea how old some y'all are, but I'm telling you for real - If you're getting into jazz these days, you're gonna hear a lot of bullshit about what it "is" or "isn't". And you're liable to end up thinking that a freakin' Fender Rhodes is something to be looked at with a combination of fear, dread, and if you got some heretic in you, something to scandalize the elders with. Hey - this is 2007 - it's a fucking Fender Rhodes. Nothing else.

Oh, you want extreme do you? Hmmm..... :g :g

Do you listen to other musics from other eras with similar considerations in mind? Do you know enough about them to do so? And if not, how much of this "hearing" is reflective of a perhaps unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude affecting how you hear what it is you hear. I mean, jesus, you want to talk about "stiffness" and "sweetness", hell, there's any number of albums from the 50s & 60s that are full of that, there's any number of "classic" hard bop sides that swing by default rather than by inspiration, and let's not even get into the much-beloved (including by me) organ-group genre which if if you know what you're hearing is chock full of "stiffness" and "sweetness". Not that it matters, but it seems that 70s music gets tabbed as being somehow unique in this regard, and I'm here to say that that's just so much falseness. Rosewood is no more "stiff" or "sweet" than any number of medium/medium large ensemble records of any other day, and the core material & playing is a lot hipper than most of those. Any time you get "charts" involved, you better get skilled section players in the mix, or else have a lot of rehearsal time. I don't think that they had either on Rosewood, and that accounts for the less than wholly relaxed/organic execution. As for the arrangements, yeah, ok, matter of taste, but if any of this stuff is "sweeter" in style or content than, say, a typical Tadd Dameron or Al Cohn arranged date, then we have fundamentally different definitions of sweet... Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just challenging you to listen beyond what you you think you're hearing to what actually may or may not be there. In these dyas, when so many are coming to the music "after the fact", I think it's important to set aside preconceptions, especially those of the "conventional wisdom" type that have popped up over the last 25 or so years, and get a grip on what was really going on at the time, and why certain things sound like they sounded (the Joe Henderson Milestone sides are another case in point here - "forefront of jazz" none of it is, but if I hear anybody say "dated" again about it, I ain't responsible for the cleanup...). Again - ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED. If it doesn't then it's because "you" don't have enough of a frame of reference to realize it. Again, not trying to bust your chops, just trying to get people in general to get out of this....cloud that "70s jazz" is any more (or any less) "dated" than any other era. Stuff's gonna sound like it sounds, and there's always a reason, be it from 1926, 1976, or 2056. And it is possible to understand what those reasons are, if you wanna do the homework (and if you don't, fine, but expect to get called on it by an asshole like me every once inna while ) and figure out what the deal is/was/always will be. So let's look at specifics rather than catch-phrases that really don't mean shit. That's all I'm sayin', ok?

Now that I've gotten the vent out the way... Try Master Of The Art if you can find it (has it made CD anywhere at any time?) or anything from the second run at Muse, although that stuff is a little...anti-climactic in some ways and makes me kinda wistful/sad.

And since it's Halloween...

Having neither obtained the book (yet...) nor remembering 99% of what I've said, ever, could you be so kind as to tell us what that is?

Feel free to compare Woody Shaw w/Kevin Ayers, but I....can't relate to that. Look, successfulness of execution is one thing, core validity is another. That's what I'm talking about. And if any of the material on Rosewood, or any of Woody's material, period, lacks core validity to a listener who is conversant with the jazz idiom, then that's a concept to which, again, I cannot relate. Some may come back that I'm being "judgemental" and full of shit, but...ok...so what? Now, for larger ensemble work of his, yeah, I prefer the Berlin thing on Muse to Rosewood. And I prefer Woody III to Rosewood. But I don't think that any of it is "dated" in the sense that it was of its time and of its time only. In the meantime, let's all play a bunch of Baby Face Willette or Art Blakey or Ornette Coleman Atlantic sides and talk about How Groovy they all are. Nothing "dated" there, is there...

Or is corny. And none of that shit sucks, or is corny.

Not anything directed towards you, honest, but dammit, I'm so sick of hearing 70s music such as this described as "sounding dated" when we got teenagers & 20-somethings going gaga over 30s Swing, 40s Bebop, 50s Hard Bop, & 60s Boogaloo. You think that shit doesn't sound dated. HELL YEAH it sounds dated. ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED. Let's just get over this "dated" shit and ask ourself a few simple questions - Are the cats playing? Are they playing at a comparable or higher level than other similars of their time? Is that similar ultimately no better or worse than any other similar from any other time? And if it is, WTF difference does it make, and other than back-story and/or self-historical edification, why do we need to look back instead of forward (or even straight ahead at now) and at the same time even think about "dated"? Woody Shaw was a BAAAAD motherfucker, period. He spoke in his own voice as a player and composer, and it was all of a piece Never really made a sucky record, at least not that I've heard. If "dated" comes into play when listening to/evaluating his voice, I respectfully but sincerely submit that you might be missing the point of Woody Shaw and are instead looking for a "Woody Shaw Type" to play the repertoire of your desire. Sorry if that's a bit cranky, but I'm feeling a bit cranky myself today, and what I say about "dated" and Woody Shaw is not a lie. So hey. Much love in spite of it all.

I came to most all of this music more or less in its time and have long held most of it regard ranging from the highest (...In Japan is, along with Inner Urge & In 'N Out, my favorite Joe album as far as pure tenor playing goes) to quite high (the early 70s stuff w/Alice & Woody & all the Miles-ish Rhodes-y stuff is very much "of its time", but oh well about that, what isn't, and besides, everybody's playing, so what's the problem?) to just ok (Black Miracle always seemed kinda...cop-out-ish to me, but then again, my LP was plowed and it sounds a lot better on a clean CD). So I've heard 'em all, actually had all but a few on LP, got the box to get 'em all on CD under one roof. HEckuva deal at that price. I gotta think it's gotta be weird for people coming to this stuff only having heard the BNs & Verves & etc. Electric piano! Vamps! Percussions! Long, semi-free-ish jams! Chants! Overdubbing! ALICE COLTRANE! Oh the terror! Oh the horrror! :g :g But for some of us, this stuff made a lot of sense then, and it still does. What didn't make as much sense, as good as it was on its own terms, was all the Verve "concept" albums. They just seemed a bit retro, and other than the Jobim side, I'll take the best Milestones over any of the Verves. And I'll take the best Milestones with the best Blue Notes.

Because Landry & Schramm were Nazis?

Denardo Coleman, Neneh Cherry, Titiyo, David Cherry, Eagle-Eye Cherry, Joshua Redman, Josh Haden, Tonya Haden, Petra Haden, Rachel Haden, Charnett Moffett, & Codaryl Moffett. Monday Michiru

Nothing says "church function" like Martin Luther: Get a black beret, a black swarthy sweater, and let the good times roll!

Jesus.... I just talked to Lyles West. Marchel had had a form of leukemia for about 10 years running, and apparently the pneumonia overtook him in spite of the antibotics having an initially positive effect. Damn... There's heroes you have from afar, and then there's heroes you have up close and personal. Marchel was/is/and always will be one of the latter for me. This is a surprise, and it stings hard, hurts like hell. Marchel was a man who was continuously robust and who just did what he did year after year after year. Knowing him was a blessing, so I can't complain, but still... Life is short. Carpe diem.

Who's that host? So familiar, and yet I can't come up with a name...

Rappy Rirthray!!!

Well, at least it was coming out of that end...

And there would be plenty of material that, listened to from a certain perspective, could justify that. I've known some militant Kentonites who, back in the day, would go there. Loudly & proudly. Selected realiity allows you to believe, claim, and prove damn near anything. The entirety, though, seldom does. So we all choose. Grey is not my favorite color, but when all subjectivity is removed, that's usally all that's left. And that is why I make the choices I make.

She looks and sounds less frightening here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxdli39ff4 I realise that the album the Merv holds up is one that I bought about a year-and-a-half ago, back in the tail end of my buying-stuff-that-even-tangentally-suggested-"jazz"-in-hopes-of-finding-some-lost-pseudo-treasure-for-life-in-the-cave-that-I-knew-I'd-never-in-hell-get-around-to-listening-to days, and sure enough, I still haven't listened to it yet.

A disturbing proposition either way!

Doug Ramsey, y'all, Doug Ramsey! GIVE IT UP!!!

Hell dude, how does anybody lose it? FWIW, I've found singers to be at least as erratic and "fragile" as anybody, possibly/probably even moreso. If you're looking for "consistency", look elsewhere, or at least for a "craftsman". Hell, even JB "lost it" for a little bit - check out Mutha's Nature and ca.