JSngry

No "Laura" on Pearls, but that one's got some other really nice ballads w/good arrangements by Johnny Mandel & a gripping cameo by Jimmy Scott on "For All We Know", along with some not-so-nice stuff. Recommended if you can find a used copy at a reasonable price.

Outside of the cave, if there's more of them than us (and more people wanting to hear them than us), does it really matter what we think?

re:The Cover - dig the photo, not sure about the font though. Oh well. Don't understand the Roques suggestion. That's just weird. Sorry.

Surely you remember all those Black Panther cartoons...

Even if it's 4 over 3?

Unless you're there, it doesn't sound like you will...

Oh, really, yeah, ok. I mean somebody who genuinely feels a compulsion to do it, not somebody who phones it in just to get the bread. Believe it or not, not all "commercial" music is made strictly for the money. Some people actually enjoy making it!

Need/want, I guess, is a matter of motivation. You got some guys who play this stuff because they like it like they like other things, it's something they do because they enjoy it, but it's one of many things they enjoy. That's "want" to me. Examples would be, say, Grover Washington, Joe Sample, Chris Botti, & David Sanborn, all players whom I'm not ashamed to say that I respect and at times genuinely enjoy as recreational listening. "Commercial" or not, they bring a very musical mind & spirit to their proceedings far more often than not, and I can often enough find something there that makes me say yeah, ok, that's nice. I don't feel insulted by that type thing. "Need" would be when somebody goes that direction because that's the music they feel compelled to play because that's their language, the home of their voice. Examples? Nationally, I can't think of any right off hand, but locally, there's any number of people who take to that stuff naturally and who wouldn't want to play any other type music. Good for them, even if it's the "want to" types who seem to have the edge for me, just because they have a broader pallate with which to paint, both technically & emotionally. But that's just me. Noticably absent from the above are the true cookie-cutter "Smooth Jazz" types, because frankly, it sucks, and so do they.

Did I ever suggest that old folks try to pretend to be kids? No, and with good reason - I'm old enough to remember Big Bands full of old folks trying to play "rock". It weren't pretty. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember gene ammons, so I ain't jumping to any conclusions too hastily... But I'm not talking to old folks, I'm talking to younger players, the ones who are coming to jazz not because it's in their blood, but because it's in their mind that this is serious music, by god, and I'm a serious motherfucker, so goddamit, I'm not going to pollute my bad self by straying from the fold, it's SWING BABY, SWING, CHING-CHINGA-FUCKING-CHING-A-(and now, in tribute to Elvin)BADIDDELYBOOM. Yawn. A nerd is a nerd. And a jazz nerd is even more of one. Jeezus kids, you're supposed to piss us off, not lick our asses. I better stop now before I get too worked up... Miles? Say what you will about the post-retirement stuff, but ask youself this - If you really want/need to play instrumental popjazz, what makes a more, ummm...substantive role model - a Yellowjackets side or Amandala? That's a no-brainer afaic. And what are we to make of somebody like Joe Zawinul, who came in one side, went out the other, and is still going? At what point are we to say, "C'on, Joe, you're too old for that shit. Time to settle down and play "Hippodelphia" for the rest of your life"? Never I hope. I keep having nightmares about being 70-something, getting called to play a jazz gig, showing up, and there's all these bald guys with oversized glasses and beards (gotsta be beards) and a 19-year-old drummer who thinks it's A Real Honor to play with us (and who can't get a gig w/people his own age...), and the crowd is mostly younger people who come out of cluelessness, curiosity, a mixture of both, or else just being there for no good reason whatsomeevr. Them and a few house drunks who may or may not be between the ages of 30 & 97. The pianist is mightily jacked to have this gig, and is just besides himself when he turns to me and virtually orgasms while saying, "Hey man, let's play NARDIS!!!" I...would...rather...die. Seriously. Dude, I've always been a natural "eclectic" and see no reason to stop now. And I don't see any reason why I can't be influenced in a positive way by things like energy, vibe, etc. w/o having to resort to mere mimicry. It's one thing to mature joyfully and gracefully, to maintain an interest in things new & interesting while not necessarily doing all those things, to be more about the appreciation of them and the pleasures they offer than hopping aboard a bandwagon for futile commercial ends. It's something else entirely to reach a point in life and say, that's it, there's nothing else, I'm moving to (insert complacency center of your choice here) to play my shit over and over and over and over. Later for that shit. Much later, as in never. We can't help but get old. But we sure as hell can keep from no longer being open and full of curiosity, the joy of discovery, and the thrill of seeing the world change & evolve. Life is a blessing, not a curse, and appreciation is called for, I believe. If I ever reach the point in life where I lose that spirit, kill me. Immediately. And yes, I'm serious. Like a motherfucker. In fact, kill all the "jazz musicians" who are at that point now, be they 25 or 65. There won't be all that many left, I'm afraid, but the ones that are will be choice. (and P.S. regarding house - I've heard some Masters At Work shit with Gene Perez on bass that swings - honest-to-god effortlessly and gracefully SWINGS - harder than 99% of the new jazz I've heard in the last 20 years. Tell me why I shouldn't be impressed.)

It's not about assimilating the music into/with/whatever other musics. It's about learning from the rest of the world some very basic truths about where people are (which is for the most part not where "we" are) and putting them to use. It's really not that complicated.

You know, none of us lived through the Industrial Revolution, so we're all convinced that that paradigm is the paradigm. But we're all living through the Technology/Digital Revolution, and guess what? It ain't, not any more. Things like internal rhythm, listening focus, attention spans, etc. are going to change in a fundamental way (they already are), and they're going to stay changed (even as they continue to change). Do we want to be strangers in our own world? Or do we want to find a way to keep the bad guys from totally taking over the dissemenation of the information that we all know to be true? Ching-chinga-ching-chinga-BLAM! E-raced. De-leted. Fatal error. Ya' gotta be a moving target these days.

Yes, but your own sensibilities need not be so set in stone as to be untouched by those coming behind you, do they? Look, I'm fully aware that I am who I am, that I've lived how I've lived, and that there's no magical getting rid of that. But does that mean that I've got to not listen, enjoy, & maybe even be moved by things not of my generation or before? Not to somehow become somebody else entirely, to forget my old truths, but to just simply add to what I already know? Hip-hop per se has never bothered me, and I was into it pretty early on, still got a bunch of old Sugar Hill 12" that I still pull out. Same w/dance music - I was digging Funk back in the day big time along w/all the jazz. So if I liked those musics then, why shouldn't I like them now? And if they've evolved, why shouldn't I check out the evolutions? Life goes on, with you or without you. I fell into the coomon (and necessary) middle-aged "stupor" of hunkering down and narrowing focus, because when you're raising kids, that's kinda what you gotta do. But it doesn't mean that it's a stupor that must become permanent. I'm coming out of it, thank god, and I'm hearing some things that interest me coming out of the evolutions of what I once dug with a passion. Now does that meant that I'm going to automatically dig all the evolutions? Hell no. So much hip hop now has become a big pile of sludge, and so much dance music has become mechanical/techno robot music. That's not for me, not at all. But what about the stuff that doesn't turn me off? Am I supposed to say, "Well, yeah, that's really hip, but hey, I'm too old for it, so I'll just leave it alone"? WTF is that? Goddammit, I'll like whatever I like, thank you very much! And probably like it more because I'm liking it with some perspective, not because it's all I know. Now as far as how I let all that affect my music, well hey - I understand the motivation behind Miles' electric work better & better every day. He had a personal need to confront "popular culture" on his terms, to bring what he knew to what he maybe didn't know but was intrigued by. If in the end it meant having what was essentially an instrumental pop band, hey - it was a damn good instrumental pop band, showing the rest of us that that type music didn't have to be locked into formulas of obviousness and simplicity, that you could still paint pictures of grace and nuance in an idiom that often disdains such things. For me, that's every bit as important as refining "Stella By Starlight" (or even "Directions") further and further and further and further and... So I don't know. I don't have Miles' resources, guts, money, career, or reputation. And I sure as hell don't have the cachet to get a bunch of young guys into a band to let me learn from them while I, hopefully, teach them at the same time. So me myself, hey, I'm probably through doing anything too much different than I've already done, although I hold out hope otherwise. But it kills me to see players younger than me just not giving a damn about doing anything other than what's already been done, even/especially on the "free" scene. The world is full of interesting music today, and some of it could easily lend itself to the skills that a good jazz player could bring to it (to say nothing of the spirit that a good jazz player should be able to bring to it, since to me, jazz is spirit first and foremost). Kahil El'Zabar's Juba Collective side is an example of what might someday be possible when jazz meets house w/o playing down to it (as well being an unfortunate example of what happens when you get a project like that recorded by somebody who doesn't understand either music...). And that's just one possibility. I've long admired Steve Coleman, and if it took him way much longer than I had hoped for to get that shit sounding as good as I hoped it someday would, the last few things of his I've heard have made it there. Finally. And there's other possibilities, so many other possibilities to make musics that are alive & relevant outside of an increasingly hermetic world. But it ain't gonna happen if "jazz musicians" stay locked up in the cave, and leave the few truly bold & open spirits out there left hanging to look like fools inside the cave and like freakish anomolies outside it. That's their loss (although they'll not see it as such), but more importantly, it's the world's loss. But agoraphobia is what it is, so I'll know where to find those guys whenever I need to find'em. Which, frankly, is probably going to be less and less as time goes on.

Somewhere there's heaven...

And btw - I still love this music, even the lesser efforts. I've put a lifetime into it, and that's for keeps. But I've lost my illusion/delusion that it is going anywhere other than where it's already been w/o some fundamental changes in outlook, and I don't see too much interest in that amongst my peers. If anything, I see hostility towards it. Too bad. How are things in your town?

Same answer. The motive of most the people releasing the music is the same as those making it. They think it matters, and no doubt to them it does. And a lot of it is "good" - fine musicians playing sincerely. But when you look at "distinctive", that then very much becomes a matter of distinctive relative to what? Does the perception become the reality? Yeah, probably so. And I have come to the conclusion that too much of the current "jazz perception" in not one that sees all the possibilities of the world in which we now live. It's one thing to create an alternative reality to have a place of your own in which to grow & prosper, but it's another thing to create an alternative reality to have a place to run to and hide in. Which is which? The results speak for themselves, and there again the perceptions will be the reality, and we all have different perceptions, so I'll not go there, at least not here. I will say, though, that it might behoove a lot of jazz musicians to open the curtains every once in a while, maybe even open the door and go for a walk outside the neighborhood. But agoraphobia's a bitch...

Somebody should do it.

LATE? It's only 5 in the afternoon!

I'm deeply inspired by my late father damn near every day. But I don't wear his clothes. That doesn't seem to be a contradiction. EXACTLY!!!

Well, of course. But those are places you never will go, because those are places that don't exist anymore. If the inspiration is to find those places that don't exist anymore, then...no thank. But if the inspiration is to find some places here, now that you haven't been before, then hell yeah! That's all I'm saying - the past should inspire the present to create the future. It shouldn't inspire the present to rebuild the past.

Nor do I. But I don't wear in 2006 what I wore in 1976 either. Even if I could still fit into it, I wouldn't.

As a time of action, yeah, the present is definitely the most important point in time. But if you try to prepare for the present while it happens, you're gonna be S.O.L. "In the moment" is a vital notion, but I'm afraid it's been somewhat over-romanticized. You don't practice/rehearse/compose/etc. for the moment, you do it to be ready in the future - when "the moment" actually arrives. You want to have the tools to be able to handle it, and if you don't, your past will fuck up your present, and your future won't be all that you want it to be. Inspiration is indeed a matter of the moment, but being able to handle it isn't, except in those very rare occasions where we do something "over our heads". And I don't think that anybody would recommend depending on that happening as a matter of course... Ok, as somebody who's participated in a few recordings, all of which I believed in at the time, and most of which I still do believe in, I can tell you that there's a certain amount of vanity involved. You think that you've got something to say, and you want it heard. So you make the record. It's a way of saying, "Hey world, I'm here". And yes, there is commerce involved, defintiely. You're hoping that enough people will hear the music and like it enough to want to hear more in the form of gigs & further CDs. There's that pesky future popping into the equation again! Fair enough for all of that, we all need that sort of "validation", and god knows we all need to be operating out of hope rather than despair. But it doesn't mean that the music we make is really going to "matter". Now that's not the point of recording, but then again, you're wondering, if I'm reading you correctly, why so many jazz records today aren't that distinctive. It's because the people making them aren't. Doesn't meant that they're invalid as people or musicians, just means that what I read in a comic strip long ago is true - "Remember - you're unique. Just like everybody else." And I'll apply that to my own recordings. The two QO sides were both labors of love, and I'm proud to have made them. But I'll not kid myself by pretending to think that they're anything other than vanity projects, things that we documented because we wanted/needed them to be documented. Even if somebody else had felt that want/need, how big a fool would I have to be to think that our music was anything other than a small drop in a vast ocean that evaporates and replenishes drops routinely and without concern? No, we loved the music, we played it out of love, and we documented it out of love. But to think that we did it simply to "capture the moment" would be naive. We did it because A) we thought we mattered and needed to prove it to ourselves B) we hoped that the documents would build for the future & C) nobody had a day job at the time. It would also have been naive for anybody, especially us (although this wasn't the most musically, uh..."cosmopolitan" group...), to have thought that we were making music that was anything other than a response to things much bigger and much older than us. To us it was "new" in some sense, but as far as the overall jazz scene, it was definitely "inside-out" (or what ever you call it), and nothing too radical at that. It's a sign of the scene that some people found us "avant-garde". HA! We weren't raising any new possigilities, and we certainly weren't asking any new questions. Hell, we were struggling just to answer some fairly old (in jazz trems) ones! And that's where I think most of today's jazz musicians are today - the legacy is so deep at this point that it's all too easy to get weighed down by it and to feel that you've got to "honor" it in some form or fashion. And when you get to that point, you start, quite unconsciously, to make music about jazz rather than jazz itself (indeed, this happens with any music, I think, other than that which is entirely functional). I've only recently begun to see the ultimate futility in this myself. I'd convinced myself that I was a "jazz musician" who belonged in the "jazz world", and if that world was a small-getting-smaller one, it was like that because the rest of the world was wrong, a bad place to be avoided at all costs. Any pleasures to be found there had to be wrong, because everything about it was wrong. Well, the rest of the world is wrong in a lot of ways about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that we're any less wrong ourselves, and it doesn't mean that the world's pleasures are not there to be had by us too. We're as out of touch as the world is overly wired-in. We're as insular as the world is promiscuous. We're as closeminded in our highly focused broadmindedness as the world is ignorant of everything by having all of it at they're disposal. We're as wrong for being hellbent on defining who we are by who we aren't as the world is for willing to be any thing at any time because it's the thing to do. We're as wrong for mocking the party from the outside as the world is for going to into it thinking that it's real. In short, we've become prisoners of our own making as well as prisoners of external circumstances. Not too much we can do about the latter until we fix the former. There are a few (or more) beautiful exceptions, but if you're wondering why new release after new release sounds like they sound, that's my answer. And here's my solution - Fuck "jazz". Fuck "music". Fuck anything and everything except life lived without fear. Then let's see what songs demand to be sung, and then let's sing the hell out of them.

I'm deeply inspired by my late father damn near every day. But I don't wear his clothes.

Diner. Mickey Rourke.

Well of course I'm talking about the future. No sense trying to shape the musical past, because it's already happened. And no sense talking about shaping the musical right now, because as soon as it's here, it's gone. So what else you got left? You want a bridge between the past and the future? I gave it to you. I didn't say forge about the music (in fact, I specifically said not to! I said forget about what it's all "supposed" to be. Big difference. Look - if you've been touched, really touched, by jazz, or by any music, it'll be a part of you. This music's spirit has been too strong to just pass away. But the body that spirit's been being delivered is like any other body - it ain't gonna last forever w/o some unnatural assistance. To ensure a healthy body for that beautiful spirit, it's going to have to stop being about "style", because that's missing the point entirely about what it was about in the first place, which was relating to life through a music that best provided a vehicle for doing so for the people making it. I know we still got plenty of people who best relate to 2006 life by 1956/1966/etc. music but when it gets to be as literal as it so often gets, is that really relating to life by engaging it head-on or by avoiding it to one degree or another? Is the demand for certain "criteria" to be net ultimately just a fetish of some sort, maybe even an avoidance mechanism? If it is, that's cool, I suppose, but I'd like to make the modest suggestion that if where you're from is dictating where you are (or, especially, where you're going) too much past the point of giving you an individual flavor with which to go forth, then, unless you're heading down the homestretch of life, you're really not going anywhere other than where you've already been. Might as well sit around and look at the photo albums all day. But if you do that for too long, don't be surprised if later on in life all the pictures of you in those photo albums will be of you looking at old photos. Is that a life well-lived?

Yeah? Then what the hell does it mean to a woman? Touche, Mr. Gould! I still like the "nature and time making love to each other" thing, and for exactly that reason.