JSngry

Why Transformers are no longer allowed at school.

"Ribs" is alright with me! A far better mover (literally & figuratively) than was Deadsoul. Now, if only Twink Van Jackderhoff could meet a fate only slightly less final than Colin Ridgway's, then I'd say the rebuild was finally taking shape.

Don't they have trains?

One-Eyed Trouser Snake The Mascara Snake Jake The Snake

Do you have the 1953(?) Birdland broadcast w/Bird, Dizzy, Bud, Forgetwhoonbass, & "Sgt. Roy Haynes"? That's another one...

That's the difference between people who listen to music primarily as "entertainment" and those who listen to it primarily for "information". Not that one is intrinsically more "noble" than the other or anything like that, but it does have a bearing on how various opinions about the music itself should be taken. Both are valid approaches, and opinions from both approaches are totally valid, but only within the realm of that approach. Somebody who can't listen to 78s as a matter of principal beacause the music sounds "old" has as skewed/limited a perspective as somebody who can't listen to rap as a matter of principal because there's no "melody" or some such. In both cases, the dislike/discomfort is primarily caused by one's "entertainment needs" not being met. All well and good, "entertainment" per se is a basic, positive, vital human function, and I'd never suggest that anybody is "wrong" for not being entertained by any type of music, but - music also functions as a conveyor of information, and one should consider the possibility that one's entertainment biases, whatever they may be, might be preventing them from receiving some vital human information, information that could possibly have a deep and lasting impact on the way they perceives their own life. And that once that information has been received, processed, and began to be digested, it might well begin to be "entertaining". This can be extrapolated out past "recording quality" into all other areas of musical expression/experience. There's no musical "genre" that I know of that is incapable of conveying, in its own way, some heavy human information. But nobody like everything. Which is as it should be, except when something is dimissed on entertainment-rooted grounds masquerading as "informed commentary" on the information contained in the music. Again, as blanket statements of general taste, "I can't listen to 78s" is no different than "I can't listen to rap", and "I can't listen to house" is no different than "I can't listen to classical", and "I can't listen to avant-garde" is no different than "I can't listen to bop". It really isn't.

Allow me to pitch in with a solid rec for the Royal. I couldn't put it down and literally read it in one 8+ hour sitting. Maybe you gotta be a fan, but if you are (or if you just like getting a really good look inside the head of a consummate-plus "professional musician", then by all means, carpe diem.

This ain't about guys "easing into jazz". Not even. This is about people who are already there who think they've heard Bird & think that's nothing more than someing you're "supposed" to like. Or even worse, think that it's just "good" or even "great". The evidence speaks for itself that Bird was one of the greatest documented creators of music. Period. Hear it now or hear it later, but don't think that any other opinion is correct or even justified. It ain't. Anybody who thinks that it is is simply wrong. Fuck "bebop", fuck "jazz", and for that matter, fuck "music". This ain't about any of that. This is about life. What Bird showed about life is about as deep, no - as true as anything that anybody's ever shown. This little piddling "musical taste" shit is not the point. It's anything but the point. I'm not generally one to draw lines, but here I do. And there is no backing down.

No shit. I've never heard such a mindfuck of accents being displaced & expectations of rhythmic resolutions not being met. And it swings like a mofo and is all done so casually. This wasn't "bebop". This was forces in motion.

I hear that, now more than ever, but that's where Bird (& vintage Dizzy, & Bud) seperated themselves from "Bebop" as a style (and that's also why I'm preaching listening to the music instead of the style). What those guys did with "bebop" was as free as any music can be. They as a matter of course did shit with the changes that implied (and quite often literalized) alternatives that prevent that deadening cyclic repetition thing from setting in. And Bird in particular had a rhythmic thing that was about as free as free can be. Bar lines and beats meant nothing to this cat in terms of how he phrased. You wanna hear free really free music, hey - Bird is it. Biggest eye-opener I ever got was transcribing Bird's "Perdido" (an archtypical "endless cycle of predictable changes" tune if ever there was one) solo from Massey Hall. I could sing it, and eventually - after learning where all the apparently endless harmonic sleights-of-hand were going to occur - play most of it, but when it came time to put it down on paper, damn near nothing went on the paper where I though it was going to (or how it was going to go). I've never had that extreme an experience with any other player, and it drove home once and for all that this cat was one of the freest, most open creators of music that has ever been documented. All I'm saying is that Bird is somebody for whom detailed listening/feeling is even more essential than usual, simply because there is so much detail there (and this being about "objective analysis", we'll not get into the realm of the emotional, even though Bird's music is as complex and multi-layered in that regard as it is in the constructive). Even on all but the crappiest sounding live shit, you can still hear the lines and feel the rhythms, so this "sound quality" thing doesn't fly with me unless you're just listening to "music" as an ambient tool rather than to the actual details of what's actually being played. Anybody who's inclined to do that has that as their perogative, but any opinion as to the merits of Bird's music based on listening to only the surface "stylistic" qualities of it has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned. Which again, is their perogative, but I ain't gonna hear all that. Not often that I take such an intractable absolutist stance about anything, but this is one case where I do. No wiggle room here. Even an endless omniverse has certain signposts, and Bird is definitely one of those.

What happened to the Love & Peace Jsngry? 'C'mon man, let's deal with reality! You can't expect a kid listening to Flock Of Seagulls or Led Zep to Soulive to Song For My Father, ect, ect to jump right into Dial-era Bird and dig that scratchy, lame audio. Love & Peace eventually collides with Reality, and choices eventually have to be made.

Started "playing" jazz as a freshman in high school, thanks to an active & energetic (if totally educationless in matters such as theory) "stage band" program. My interest in the music both as player & listener was both initially triggered and nurtured in that setting. The program had been ran by former journeyman type big-band trumpeter who had left the year before I got there, and his successor was a veteran local "club date" guy who had spent time out in L.A. in the 50s. Between the program & the then-exploding "jazz-rock" thing (ranging from electric Miles to Chicago/BS&T/etc.) it was a good time to get interested, as there were both outlets & similarly inclined peers. Hearing Bird, didn't make me want to play the music. I was already wanting that. What it did do was to wake me up that there was a level of jazz that was waaaaaay beyond most of what I had been into. Even if I had no idea as to the specifics of how it was made, I knew enough (and could feel enough) to know that this was something altogether different. The only things that had hit me this hard then were Trane's Transition, Ornette's Free Jazz & Blakey's Indestructable. So no, it didn't "set me on the path", so to speak, but it certainly cleared & clarified the path that was already beginning to form. In retrospect, yeah, it probably changed my life. I still got that Everest LP, btw. Still play it, and still recommend it to those so inclined. Helluva side.

In what - the "songs" or the playing? The songs and Symphony Sid. Well, that's the essence of the music right there....

So what do you like best - music or time frames? Sorry, that's a Nessa in abstentia question I know, but knowing what you do like, I can only say that it's all there in Bird, and in a form that's a lot more "organic" than what was to follow. Not to dismiss or imply any belittlement of what came after, it's some of my favorite music too, but I'm of the mind that an appreciation of the offshoots without an appreciation of the grandeur of the source is kind of a "tourist-y" thing to do. Which is fine if being a tourist is what makes you happy. No shame there, a pefectly wonderful life can be had. Just know it for what it is, and know where to look for something else if and when the gnawing feeling that "something's missing" should ever arise.

In what - the "songs" or the playing?

First Bird I heard was when I was 15 or 16. This one, purchased from a Treasure City cutout bin for $1.99: Come to find out years later that it was a combination of the Birdland date w/Fats, Bud & Blakey mixed in w/a few Royal Roost airshots w/KD, Haig, etc, but no matter. The sound on this album is not the best (I've since heard far worst, but at the time, this was the worst I'd heard). The first track was a "KoKo" that was so damn fast that I, not yet even knowing about "Cherokee"" didn't have even half a clue as to what was going on. That was followed by a "Round Midnight" that was so slow that I, not yet having a real clue about ballads, couldn't get into. So I'm thinking, "Yeah, this guy can play fast, but big deal". Then... Cut 3 on Side 1 was the Birdland "Cool Blues". Now this was a 12 bar swinging little riff tune, and that was something that I'd learned a little someting about in the year or so I'd been somewhat obsessively exploring jazz. And I could tell from the gitgo that, crappy sound wuality or not, this was no ordinary saxophonist. The phrasing of the lines was as free and open as could possibly be, the lines took liberties with the basic harmony far beyond anything I'd yet heard, and the whole solo just seemed to be a journey of damn near epic proportions told with an offhand ease that made the reality of the content all the more staggering. "Well yeah, this guy can play!" The next, & final cut, was "Ornithology" from the same date. This was a long cut, w/exquisite solos by all. By the time it was over, I was in a daze. "Holy fukkin' shit - so THIS is why everybody shits themselves over this Charlie Parker guy. Yeah, I get it now." Well, I really didn't get it then, and maybe still don't fully get it. But damn, I was 15 or 16, the record had crappy sound, and I still got something, something that stuck so deep that it's never left. Maybe it was the fact that my first exposure to Bird was some live shit as opposed to studio, but the "I can't really get into it because of the sound quality" line is one that I refuse to accept as anything other than a cop-out, no matter how genuine the sentiment may be. I say this with nothing but love, but also with nothing but total seriousness: Listen, motherfuckers, LISTEN.

Not so sure that I would disagree with you. Look, I've heard talk for a long time about going "beyond Bird". That's bullshit. You can't go beyond Bird, because Bird was everything. If it existed in life, it was in his playing at some point. Now, what you can do, and what I'm a big believer in, is going different than Bird. Bird's way was just one way, and there's no limit to the number of ways there are to go. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. But no matter what way you go, you're not going to go "beyond" where Bird got, nor "beyond" what Bird was. Such a place does not exist. If you can do so well as to get to where Bird got going your own way (and maybe, maybe, a few people have), you've been blessed.

Next on Behind The Music:

Also, the very best Bird is often heard on some pretty rough sounding airshots. The Dial/Savoy/Verve trilogy (none of which is in anything resembling "poor" sound) is far more often than not just the tip of the iceberg. Live Bird is a universe unto itself, a freakin' glorious universe, and the sound quality often requires active listener engagement. Deal with it.

Look, I'll probably be inducted into the Subjectivity Hall Of Fame on the first ballot, but by any universal objective criteria I can think of, the collective body of Charlie Parker's improvisations rank as some of the most profound music of the 20th century. The "sound quality" of the various recordings will eventually remain a factor only if you're listening to music strictly for recreational reasons and are either unwilling or unable to listen to the music as music and not just as a lifestyle accessory. If at some point you don't "get it", fine, but there's no excuse to be had from any source other than within yourself.

Just a thought - have you checked you email's trash bin to see if their response (if they've actually sent one) might have accidentally been classified as spam & autodeleted? I know it's not "supposed" to happen like that, where a new sender is automatically classified as spam and automatically deleted, but I've had it happen once or twice for some inexplicable reason.

Just for the record, when I did work out, it was never at a fitness club (except when I first moved to Albuquerque, LTB & I joined a Nautilus club that was really cool). It was either at a city rec center, a school weight room, or at a local Y. I know the atmosphere at some of those hardcore gyms can be pretty, uh, "intense", and sometimes there's a level of brain-dead machismo that's pretty hard to take. Plus, there's the matter of ethics. We tried to join a Bally's here in Plano, signed a contract even, only to be called back in to sign a contract which, amazingly, showed totally different terms than the one we had signed two days earlier! Immediate threats of legal action got that deal (and the one that we had already signed) rescinded in a bigass hurry! So I can appreciate the tactic of wanting a less "intimidating" atmosphere to encourage greater participation in a truly worthwhile (and profitable) endeavor. But dammit, it's working out. It's exercise. There's weight lifting involved. You can only go so far into it before it's time to shit or get off the pot. And should you choose to shit, hell, anytime you shit, there's going to be a possibility that there's to be some occasional grunting involved. DUH!

Oscar Hammerstein Oscar Madison Ollie Matson

this is not accurate, Jim, and I think you know it. He violated the rules (as inane as they may be). He was told his membership was being cancelled, to stop lifting and follow her to the front desk. He ignored her, continued to lift weights, and behaved in an intimidating manner to the female manager. That's why the police were called. Well, yeah, but if his story is to be believed, the "intimidation" consisted solely of saying "I’m not grunting, I’m breathing heavy", ignoring her request, and continued exercising (and I've done enough working out to know that it's not at all a good thing to stop cold in the middle of a set unless something crashes or is about to crash. Just as you don't try to take away a dog's food while it's being eaten, you don't interrupt a serious set of reps. Totally uncool.). Even if his story is not to be believed, there's no allegations of physical or verbal threats (oh sure, he got "loud" & "offensive". WTF does that mean, that he grunted again? ) or anything like that. Nothing concrete other than that he refuted her assertation in some form or fashion & went back to work. So if all it takes for a fitness center manager to get intimidated and call the cops in is somebody not respecting their authori-TIE, then I stand by my original assertion that this is a clear cut case of Wimps' Revenge. Read the club's "techniques" & comments by other members. WTF is that all about anyway? People who get turned off by sweat, grunts, any of that, clearly have a hard time dealing with the simple realities of physicality (I shudder to think what making love to them would be like), and shouldn't be running something as purely physical as a fitness center unless their sole goal is to make the money, in which case, they should get the phuk out of the way, hire a manager who knows what time it is, and let the money come in all clean and sanitized through the bank. You don't create a supposedly serious environment for working out and then bitch when people actually do it. WIMPY! Truly a world gone wrong.