JSngry

Yes, 12 bar blues with a bridge, as in so many Buddy Johnson (and Percy Mayfield) songs. MG Not necessarily 12 bars with a bridge, eh (you can do a blues progression in 8 bars if you do the I-IV in the first 4 and then do some kind of turnaround sequence in the next 4. The possibilities for variation are pretty open)? But rather tunes that suggest the blues form w/o necessarily adhering to it. Charles Brown did a buttload full of 'em, but, of course, that was after Buddy Johnson. Here's a simple (and oft-used) example: C7/C7/F7/Bb7 (or keep it on F7 if you wanna be all rudimental about it)/C7 A7/Dm7 G7/Em7 A7/Dm7 G7 That's it - 8 bars played thorough twice, then you put in a bridge, and back to the A-section. Standard 32 bar song form, but the A-section more than hints at a blues due to the first 4.5 bars. It's the pivot chord - the A7 (VI 7 for all you geeks ) in the second half of the 4th bar that steers it into standard song form rather than a blues form. If it was going to be a 12, you'd most likely keep that I chord (C7) for the whole bar. More importantly, by keeping the I chord in place for only 2 bars instead of the usual 4, you're automatically compressing the form by half. So unless you're really having fun, you're setting up the expectation for either a 6 bar blues (unlikely...) or an 8 bar unit, which then traditionally leads to either an AABA song form or an ABAC (or ABAB-altered). This prototype is, I think more common that the 12 bars w/a bridge. They A-Sections often feel like 12, but they're usually 8. Of course, there are exceptions. Count the bars of some blues ballads sometimes and see what you think.

Wynton's brainwashing campaign. Oh, sorry. You wanted constructive thought. sorry.

Wouldn't "blues ballad" most properly refer to a song that uses the I-IV progression as a basis, but also steps outside/away from both it and the 12-bar form as well?

Sad. I remember Al Davis in his prime, and this is sad.

Don't usually quote myself, but... Has anybody given consideration to the possibility that it's in The Man's interest to create this illusion that certain things are for certain types of people? And that it's just as much in The Man's interest to convince "smart people" that "simple thiings" are not for them as it is to convince "regular people" that "difficult things" are not relevant ot their lifestyle? Probably even moreso, because it's the "smart people" who are the true threat, since they understand The Man's true game. Think about it - if all the "smart people" found themselves able to genuinely relate to "everybody else" on a cultural/human level instead of one that scolds and judges? What if all the "smart people" could throw down on the dance floor just as righteously as "everybody else"? What if all the "smart musicians" could approach "the masses" with a presentation not predicated on superiority of one kind or another? In other words, what if "smart people" all of a sudden refused to be ghettoized and just all of a sudden quietly (or otherwise) showed themselves to be not some quaint breed but just regular people like everybody else? No, "smart people" are being manipulated just as much as "the masses". "Smart people" too often allow themselves to be convinced that they're "above" certain simple pleasures that any fool should be able to see belong to every-damn-body. "Smart people" too often serve as tools of The Man by refusing to play The Man's game instead of (re)claiming that game as rightfully their own just as much as anybody else's. "Smart people" wear their ghettoization as a badge of pride instead a mark of being fooled. Divide & conquer is the oldest trick in the book. If The Man can divide us with our own acquiesence, whose fault is that?

I know that; you know that; quite probably Gilles Peterson knows it; but it's not clear to me that their customers do. It's well possible that GP, whatever his taste and the breadth of his understanding, has been suborned by the Masters of Business and compelled to focus on what the ruling classes think that the masses should concern themselves with. As such, he becomes part of the problem, not part of the solution. MG You know, I went through that exact same mindet in the 70s, when I was at the height of my militant jazz purist social rebel mindset, and that was exactly what I said about all the soul-jazz and R&B. "Yeah, all these people are so busy dancing that they can't be bothered to fight the revolution." All those early 70s Prestige sides? Tools of The Man, that's what they were. If people were listening to that, there was no room left for the AEC, Ayler, Trane, etc. Dancing was the enemy of progress! Well, yes. And no. In the end, it's the individual's responsibility to take what's out there and do with it what they will. Sure, The Man has his preferences & interests, and will promote them relentlessly and ruthlessly, but oh well. And sure, "most people" will take it at face value and keep on doing what they always do. But again, oh well. This notion that "most people" are like they are because they've been manipulated has it backwards, I think. Most people are manipulated because they're like they are, and nothing, not you, not me, not Gilles Peterson suddenly using his role as "tastemaker" to promote avant-garde, or Ben Webster, or anything, is going to change that. Remember the whole Linda Ronstadt/Nelson Riddle thing? THE RETURN OF ROMANCE!!! shouted the headlines. People were tired of the frenetic superficial life and were ready to re-discover a more substatial lifestyle based on flowers and intimate dinners and romantic phone calls at midnight and all that shit. Yeah, sure they were, and sure they did. But they did it like they do everything else - shallowly and more as "gesture" than actual act of committment. Do we actually live in a more "romantic" world now? Hell no. The way that I look at is is this - if a cat is hipping me to some good shit, I'm taking it. Period. It's not my fault if he's part of a "bigger picture". That's got Jack Shit to do with the music, and the music is all I care about. What happens to/with the music after I get hipped to it is nobody's responsibility but mine. Once I have it, I can do with it as I see fit, and if I do nothing more than take it at face value and play along with The Man, that's my fuckup. I alos have the option of taking it and running to a different place with it, a place of my own making. I've seen/experienced the results of this "well, it's fun - hell, it might even be good - but I'll not accept it as such because it's a tool" mindset as played out over a lifetime. I've seen too many people build up a shell around themselves that results in them not being able to enjoy the joys of simplicity, the pleasures of giddiness, the raw fun of...raw fun, just because they've convinced themself that such things are for "those other people". Bullshit, I say! If you're "smart" enough to go deep, how "smart" are you if you can't go simple? Is it really smart to limit yourself to one end of the spectrum? Isn't that a form of reverse imprisonment? Give me all of it, simple (as opposed to simple-minded, although in rare instances I'll accept that as a quick-fix), complex, easy, difficult, blatant, nuanced, whatever. Why shouldn't I like it all? Who but me should decide what's for me? Now I gotta be honest - I still don't have any Gilles Peterson comps, and still only know of him by name. But when/if I should check some of his offerings out, and if there's a buttload of stuff on there that I dig, what am I supposed to say - "well, er, ah, this is really nifty, but I'm going to refuse the offering because Gilles Peterson is a tool of The Man"? How fucked up is that? No, "the masses" will always be the masses, and The Man will always be The Man. Neither you nor I nor the gods in the sky can do a damn thing about that. I refuse to let either of them dictate what I shouldn't like just as resolutely I refuse to let either of them dictate what I should like. Because if I do that, if I let anybody or any group of "forces" other than my own mind. body, and soul colour what I should or shouldn't get something out of, then I'm being manipulated just as much as anybody else, and the joke's on me if I think otherwise.

Did Fela do love songs for slow dancing? I mean, yeah, I certainly love romance and ballads and all that good stuff, but "criticizing" the Gilles Peterson trip for being lacking in those things seems to me to be like criticizing a Concorde for not being a train. There's plenty of value in each, and if you want one at any given type, you don't reach for the other. I very much value variety in expression and perspective, and I got plenty of different things to reach for at any given moment, including the exquisite LTB. As for "the poetry of life". I respectfully submit that said poetry is to be found anywhere and everywhere if one is willing to see/hear/feel/whatever the myriad forms of poetry that exist. Personal preference is one thing, but extrapolating that into a denial of existence is something else.

A Webmaster A Toastmaster A Zen Master

Yep, that is indeed it.

It's only lost if you can't find it, and there's plenty of other places to find it. Life is not one-stop shopping...

Flip Wilson Flop Fly McLard

Journey was quite popular for quite a few years, actually... But anyway, per Wikipedia: Like him or not, he's got cred.

I might have this... Not sure... Is the cover photo of Diz one w/him smoking/holding a really odd-looking pipe, one with sharp angles, almost looks like a golf club? It if is, then it's a combination of some of his pre-RCA big band sides w/something of Pee Wee's, the source of which I don't know, since I've never actually listened to the album. It was a gift from one of my folk's flea market jaunts a few years ago and was totally trashed. I think they got it for a quarter or less. I just kept it for that weird looking pipe.

Eddie Lang Jim Lang Bob Eubanks

Oh, well, those 70s Music Inc Big Band sides were horribly recorded! Can't tell you why or how, but the results speak for themself. Haven't heard this one yet, but you know, people in the "sound" world today are quite often equally quite clueless about what to do with one horn to make it sound natural. Never mind what to do with a buttload full of 'em. And then when it comes time to mix and master...

You could always go prospecting for tungsten...

Aaron Burr Chief Ironsides Old Leadbottom

We're all Tex. I am Tex and you are Tex and we are Tex together. But I am not the armadillo.

Faint memory of the film, none of the doc. How long do I need to hold that thought for? Like you the other day, I gotta go pee.

And speaking of interesting people... No more calls for most humorous post of 2007. I think we have a winner!

Tungsten. Anybody who gets a bug to go prospecting for tungsten is somebody I would have enjoyed knowing. Not exactly, "Hey, Bonnie. Whatcha' say we go look at shoes?" Interesting people make my life, and y'all certainly sound like that. Again -

That's exactly how I meant it. No regrets, right?

Had (and still have) a major boner for the younger Michelle Phillips. Probably the most beautiful woman of her "type" in the history of rock & roll afaic. I also think she's still a very attractive woman. If you're young, you probably see your mom, or maybe even grandmotther. That's the advantage of being older - you can see and appreciate the beauty in age as well as in youth. Can't vouch for her personality, though, and probably don't want to know. She might well be a full-bore bitch. Or not. Either way, that's reality, and reality has no place in fantasy.

As far as I know.

Dude, the first big band I ever heard live was Basie, 1970, in a theatre. No mikes except up front for soloists. The dynamic range was extreme, as you'd expect, but when they hit full roar, forget about talking to the person next to you. Hey - it's (usually) 12 or more horns + rhythm section. No record can capture the full range & power of that sound. Simply incredible when it's a good band hitting on all cylinders.