JSngry

Haven't heard the new one yet, but I cared much less for the last one than for the first two, in part because the sense of pictorial moodiness being in the driver's seat was so strong there. I don't ask this casually, carelessly, or provocatively. But... ...to what extent could this "sense of pictorial moodiness" perhaps, perhaps, be a distintively "feminine" - a "modernly" feminie - approach to the music? And, is it possible that we're seeing a new "perspective" emerge from some female jazz musicians where trying to do it/prove that they are "just as good as the men" is no longer a motivator? I know it's a loaded question, but still I wonder. I hear what you're referring to in both Mitchell's & Schneider's music, but it strikes me as being less, for lack of a better term, "easy" than it seems to strike you. And I really do think that the "guy thing", that repeated climbing of the mountains just to prove that you can climb them combined with the veni, vidi, vici thing of surveying the land from above once you have, is, if not exactly played out entirely, desperately in need of some tempering at this point in time. And not just in music... A little "travelling around", paying attention, and allowing one's self to be affected by what one sees instead of instinctively trying to "conquer" it ain't always a bad thing, ya' know what I'm saying? Jim -- I think that the real musical preferences/habits/what have you that we've both been talking about here, and that terms like "pictorial" seem to fit up to a certain point, begin to break down when you push the metaphorical aspect just that much further with "repeated climbing of mountains just to prove that you can climb them" (masculine) versus "a little 'travelling around,' paying attention, and allowing one's self to be affected by what one sees" (feminine). That is, while I recognize music that kind of fits the former description, the latter seems rather vague (though unobjectionable) to me and I'd be hard pressed to think of any particular music that fits it. Is, say, Monk's music "paying attention and allowing itself to be affected by what it sees"? And what in this scheme would "travelling around" be? Ingesting and reshaping more or less pre-existing musical flavors from other lands or cultures? Schneider certainly does a good deal of that, but her taste for Latin gestures seems rather auto-pilot-like to me. You're taking me just a little too literally, and I can't blame you for that, given the language that I used. But I do sense in Mitchell, Schneider, Geri Allen, Ursula Rucker, and even Monday Michiru, all women making distinctly personal music of substance (to one degree or another, depending on one's tastes) an attitude that music is not always best made by "conquering" the various strands of life that go into it, but rather by "absorbing and cooperating" with them. It's more of a general "feel" I get from their music than it is anything specific, and it feel like the right thing for these times to me, assuming that one has all one's ducks in a row to begin with. And it's not about "surrendering" one's masculinity or anything like that. It's simply about paying attention and learning something new to keep going. By such means does the species survive and evolve. Really - all the "conquering" has been done. Now it's time to build. Has been for quite a while, actually, only now the need is more obvious than ever as life goes one way and so much of the music seems to stay put, as if there's honor in voluntary stasis. All I'm saying is that these women all present an approach, an "attitude" in their music that seems to me more conducive to future growth, personally and musically", than most of what I'm getting out of most men these days. And it's that quality that may in the long run prove more constructive than the concrete aspects of their music. We'll see. One thing's for sure, though - the days of the gladiator are over, for now anyway. It was fun while it lasted, and it was damn well necessary, but geez, look around the world today and tell me what good slaying the dragons from the mountaintops is gonna do in a world where "one" is everywhere at once.

Shifted, definitely. Relaxed? Hmmm... I'll get back to you on that one when I can no longer personally differentiate between crap, mediocre, and gold within any "type" of music to which I listen. And please, god yes, deal with your own standards. They are in no way under attack from me. You're still a true hero of mine, no matter what or where I may be going now.

Haven't heard the new one yet, but I cared much less for the last one than for the first two, in part because the sense of pictorial moodiness being in the driver's seat was so strong there. I don't ask this casually, carelessly, or provocatively. But... ...to what extent could this "sense of pictorial moodiness" perhaps, perhaps, be a distintively "feminine" - a "modernly" feminie - approach to the music? And, is it possible that we're seeing a new "perspective" emerge from some female jazz musicians where trying to do it/prove that they are "just as good as the men" is no longer a motivator? I know it's a loaded question, but still I wonder. I hear what you're referring to in both Mitchell's & Schneider's music, but it strikes me as being less, for lack of a better term, "easy" than it seems to strike you. And I really do think that the "guy thing", that repeated climbing of the mountains just to prove that you can climb them combined with the veni, vidi, vici thing of surveying the land from above once you have, is, if not exactly played out entirely, desperately in need of some tempering at this point in time. And not just in music... A little "travelling around", paying attention, and allowing one's self to be affected by what one sees instead of instinctively trying to "conquer" it ain't always a bad thing, ya' know what I'm saying?

Ok, and agreed (if perhaps less vehemently, I got less and less time for vehemence about music these days, then again, that's just me...) but what does that have to do specifically with Nicole Mitchell?

The simplest reduction of all this would be to say that the cost of a typical home has risen from 3X a typical person's typical income to 6X that same typical person's typical income, no?

C'mon Joe, not just yet, ok? Please.

Why not fuse the two bands into...

Dude - if you're serious about checking out Bunny Briggs, you GOT to get this: You also get Sandman Simms & the GREAT Chuck Green. I'm serious as a heat attack here, dawg - this is a priceless piece of work here. Carpe diem.

A paragon of musical strength.

Jesse White The Maytag Repairman Mr. Whipple

I think the AMG Bio makes for a good obituary: Credits: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&a...fqxqy5ldde~T40D

Budd Johnson S.C. Johnson Essie Davis

Jojo Gunne Pistol Pete Maravich Chuck Connors as The Rifleman Gunne as in BB

It's all good if you ask me.

Do you understand what this POS is saying to you, Jim? You haven't come to the conclusion that A. Bonds juiced B. He did it to chase a record C. the juice made the difference in his quest by using your God-given power to consider the evidence, evaluate it and reach conclusions you believe are supported by facts. NO. You aren't smart enough to recognize "half truths and shoddy journalism'. No, I think he knows full well what the truth about Bonds is, but for whatever reason feels that there's a greater truth - such as the pack mentality of journalists and/or the racial tendencies therein - that overrides it. And maybe for him it does. Far be it from me to minimize those very real issues, but I just don't think that ignoring the obvious does service to any attempt to deal with them. I'm sympathetic to the claims, and don't deny that at least some of that might be at play here, but damn, a guilty guy harrassed is still a guilty guy. Argue the harrassment, but not the guilt (and again - how blind, literally and figuratively - do you have to be to not see it?). I just don't see where building a case for a legitimate issue on illegitmate grounds is going to do anybody any good. But apparently Mr. GS does. Again, that is his perogative, just as it is mine to fundamentally disagree with him. We all choose our battles, as well as how to fight them.

Why you, I oughta... Seriously, that picture of Virgil suggest some sort of familial resemblence. Cousins maybe?

Really?!?!?! Tell me more, please!

Is this guy any relation to Paul?

Maybe yes, maybe not. Probably more than they are now, but if Bonds was white and the type of asshole he is, who knows? Sure "the media" tends to give white athletes more slack in this area, but how much more when the level of assholery and level of record profile is this high? Point of comparison, anybody? McGuire? Played the media game quite well. Bonds chooses not to play it? Ok, his perogative, take the hit and move on, which is what he's doing. But no "apologies", please. None of this changes anything for me, though. Steroids - and for that matter Astroturf - and the removal of the full-dirt infield that for a while came with it - - those are things that simply change the equation in a way that cannot be dismissed. So when records are broken as a result (and I know, you gotta have "proof", but geezus, how just how far into BushCo Apologist Level Of Denial Territory are you willing to go for this cat?), for me it comes down to, do I at some gut level respect this cat to the point where I can look at it like, "it's ok"? And with Bonds, I just can't. Assholery alone, yes I could. Steroids alone, yes, I could. But both? Nope, sorry. Can't go there. I will agree though - Bonds was once a great ballplayer. No question about that. But...

Tell ya' what let's do - let's pick Wynton up at the airport, highjack his ass outta that bunch, and take him to someplace where...

I'm usually quiet on these baseball threads, in spite of having a deep personal love for the game dating back to the mid-1960s, as well as a residual sense of history left over from spending almost my entire pre-adolescence obsessing over the history/culture of the sport. It truly is my "personal sport", even if I let it go for years at a time, just because. Whenever I come back to it, it's always there. The faces change, but the stories don't. In that sense, indeed - baseball is life. Now, does anybody here care what I think about Barry Bonds? I doubt it, & I hope not, but here goes... To think that he didn't use steroids at all requires a suspension of disbelief the level of which even the staunchest Bush apologist would have a difficult (but not impossible) time mustering. To think that he didn't knowingly use steroids with the intent of performance enhancement requires a leap into a circularity of logic which can only leave one unfunctionally dizzy, nauseous, or both. Which is not to say that there are those who nevertheless relish the task. You can find somebody to do damn near anything, doncha' know... I have no choice but to "accept" Barry Bonds' record. A record is nothing but a number, and the numbers are what they are. 755=755, period. And 756 will be >755, just as 715 was >714. And the fact that Bonds, unless he's got a really deep, swell side that nobody sees is for all intents and purposes a bit (or more) of a world class asshole doesn't really bother me all that much. A lot of people in his position are, they just cover it up better than he does. So I accept the record. But I do not, will not, and cannot accept Bonds as "Home Run Champion". Like it or not, the word "champion" carries with it more than a few extra-literal trappings, the type of things that make you "feel good". Now that may be mushy sentamentality, but so be it. And nothing about Barry Bonds record makes me feel good. I'm left with the nasty sense of a man who seems to me to have bullied his way into the record, gangstered it, raped it and dared anybody to file charges. Sentimental? Sure it is. But I watched raptly and cheered loudly when Aaron hit #715. I certainly understood all the sentimentality (to say nothing of the cultural insecurity) behind the "Ruth will always be king" hype, but hey Hank Aaron...quiet dignity, true accomplishment, and yeah, the game had changed from when Ruth played it and yeahyeahyeah blahblahblah but STILL... Steroids, that's w whole 'nother "change". I was talking on a break to the guitarist in the band I was gigging with last night about this, a guy from Baltimore who played high-level high school & college ball until he banged up his shoulder, and he said, "Jim, you know you still gotta hit the ball. Steriods ain't gonna make you put the bat on the ball." To which I countered, "Yeah, but are you gonna tell me that steroids won't make a lot of long flies - doubles, triples, or even outs - into home runs?" To which he replied, "Hell no I'm not gonna tell you that. That's why cats take 'em". And there you have it. It's not the same record, just as Maris' 61 was not equal to Ruth's 60 due to the extra games in the schedule. Now, Maris' record was certainly legit, but it was different. Similarly, the records of first McGuire, and now Bonds, are certainly legit (again, 756 > 755, period), but they are definitely different. With good reason are the records of the Dead Ball era looked at differently. So too should the records of the Juiced Athlete. We're talking a fundamental paradigm shift - not a just question of degree - as to the balance of potential factors that affect each possible outcome. Question of legality aside, if we're going to be honest about this whole thing, let's just call it what it is, remove the "stigma" and get on with it. Getting on with it comes down to this - in our heart of hearts, do we feel that this guy is really a "champion"? I have to say - no, he isn't. He was a damn fine hitter who juiced himself into the record book & stayed too long at the dance just to do it. The latter is hardly a new phenomenon, and the former is just a fact of life in these modern sports times. But the combination, that's just...too much for me. Mileages may vary, especially in the Bay Area, but oh well. Point of comparison - Rickey Henderson. By all accounts, a miserable human being, but yes, a great base stealer. Stayed too long at the party just to get the record? Yeah, probably so. But in spite of that, when he broke Cobb's record, I cheered, because dammit, he did it legit (or certainly seems to have), worked the system(s) to his natural advantage and just flat out earned that record, no questions asked about that part of it. And that's how it should be. But Bonds, McGuire, all those guys, they played a fundamentally different game, and damned if I'm going to look at their accomplishments as part of the continuum. They're not. They're different, and they represent a different type of accomplishment. To each their own as to how "real" any of it is or isn't (anybody wanting to make the propellor vs jet argument has the floor, as does anybody who wants to make the legal/fair vs illegal/unfair advantage thing. Discuss amongst yourselves...), but also to each their own as to how much, if any, "affection" is felt towards this new breed. You can gangster a record, but you can't force love.

Not unlike windowpane, which is also for the head.

Happy birthday indeed! Texas beckons...

Oh, but those are TEXAS Executives. NEVER cool. These are CALIFORNIA Executives. You know, swimmin' pools, movie stars, Dancing & Romancing, everything you want in an Executive w/o the petro-ignunce. I'm ready for my close-up!

But dude - "The California Excutives"... DUDE!