JSngry

Of course Tapscott was committed to the movement and to the record. But that's got no bearing on how the record itself was made, if it was in fact a studio recording. What I meant by "live" was "live in the studio", not "concert live". If it was the latter, then yeah, I doubt it was dubbed. But if it was studio, then my bet would be that the vocals were dubbed, or at least recorded in an isolation booth for later "fine-tuning". If I gave the impression that this was some random session that was used as backing for Brown's vocals, then that's bad communication on my part.

I'm listening to samples on AMG as we speak. Most interesting, although a lot more "electronica" oriented than what I've been checking out, which is stuff with a lot of Latin/Afro/Jazz/Etc. feel informing it. But I can certainly hear the attraction!

Bubbles Whitman = the man who said "Diddy Gallippy". You know what's fun? Get some of those fully intact airshots and put them on in your car while you're driving around late at night. Talk about hearing something "as it was meant to be heard"!

No, totally unfamilair to me. What's the deal?

Your perogative, of course, but please use a different stick when it comes time to stir the pot. Fecal bacteria in food can have some most unpleasant side-effects!

Hell yeah it's good news. Damn near everything that passes as "dance music" on commercial pop/R&B radio is prefab, soulless, grooveless bullshit. This shit is the real deal, real dance music, made by and for an audience who knows the difference. I've played a lot of gigs for championship-level "push dancers" (and some pretty damn good salsa dancers w/Latin bands) and have learned that real dancers have a feel for the subtleties of groove that most people, including a lot of musicians, don't. So any exposure for real dance music for real dancers is a good thing. Real always beats phony. Funny thing, though, how many jazz musicians are outright repulsed by the notion of playing dance music, or of dancing in general. I understand all too well the disgust that comes from playing lame music for lame dancers, but tell you what - when the real shit happens, it's beautiful in a way that few things are. It's almost spiritual. Hell, it probably is spiritual. But we don't even give ourselves the chance to go there, at least in part because the opportunities are so rare. But I wonder how many of us wouldn't take advantage of it if the opportunity came along. What -we're "jazz musicians" and "artists", and by god, you're supposed to LISTEN to us, show us RESPECT and keep your asses in your seats at all times? FUCK that! I think that too many, far too many "jazz musicians" today are actually sociophobes (is that a word?) at root, and intentionally make music to keep themselves seperate from anything resembling "normalacy" as far as human interaction goes. That's a far cry from just being who you are and if it's different, it's different, big deal, we can still party. And then, these same people who none-too-subtly give out the vibe that they don't want to be liked by any but a select few have the nerve to get bummed and pissed off when that's exactly what happens (a certain quartet in Dallas comes to mind... ). It's nuts, I tell you, literally unsane! Yet it's the rule more often than not. "Average people" are far more sensitive to the vibes a player gives off than generally given credit for. You can play the most horrendous shit with a good vibe and it'll be liked. You can play the hippest shit with an aloof vibe, and it won't be (other than by similar people, of whom there really aren't that many). Well hey - why not play hip shit, deep shit, and give off a good vibe about doing it? Why is that such a difficult proposition? Do you want to actually reach people, or do you want to prove something about either them or yourself? Or about both? Sure, there's always going to be some dumbasses who simply refuse to get it because they're convinced that what they know is all that matters. But they're the doppelgangers of the players who just as simply refuse to give it because they're convinced that what they know is all that matters. Music is nothing without spirit, and the same notes played with a good spirit is totally different music than the same notes played w/a bad one. It may sound the same, but it won't feel the same. I'll tell you what - if all I can have is an audience who responds only to feelings of superiority, I don't want an audience. If I can't get an audience with at least some people who don't know shit about what I'm doing but get a good feel from the music, then I'd just as soon not play. Becasue I feel that my music is a source of joy for me, and that joy is a blessing, and that blessings are meant to be shared with everybody, including strangers. And I see too many of us not wanting to talk to strangers. That's good advice for a six-year old, and there you have the whole thing in a nutshell right there. Do I "even LIKE jazz anymore"? Would I be going off on this tangent if I didn't?

Yeah, a lot of the house-influenced jazz I've heard has been lame. They don't give it up to the pulse the way they need to. Either that, or they haven't figured out how to make the machines really groove like the best house cats have. Whatever. What I've definitely gotten over is my esthetic objections to using "machines" to make "non-electronic" music. Hell, unless you're a singer, you can't make music w/o using a machine of some type (and the argument could be made that the vocal mechanism is itself a machine, so...). If you gotta get it out of a case, or put it together, or plug it in, or do anything other than just use what you were born with, it's a machine. Period. The problem for me has been that the machines (mostly the drum machines) haven't felt natural. Well, now either the technology's advanced, or the programming skills of the users have advanced, or both have advanced, to where you can lay down a serious groove using machines. No, it doesn't "sound real", but it feels real, and that's all I'm looking for. Myself, I think that the problem that "jazz" is going to have with all this is that the music's gotten so hung up on certain prideful and inflated notions of "tradition" and shit that even those who make a sincere effort are going to have subconscious blockage against letting go of it, and that's going to come out. Tradition is good and all that, but it's like inherited money - the further away you get from the person who actually earned it, the more it becomes a hindrance to finding your own self. Claims of "entitlement", for whatever reason, fall flat to me when all I hear as a result is second-hand glories filtered through third-hand lives played for fourth-hand audiences. That shit can go on indefinitely (and no doubt will), but... no thanks. I mean, it's all good, really it is, but no thanks. Nothing personal.

In The House Guess it's been going on for over a year, but I just heard it a few months ago. This cat plays the good stuff too! Here's hoping that the "jazz studies" types take a lesson and learn what swing is really all about. Sticks up the collective asses is not conducive to good swing. No matter how "sophisticated" the stick might appear, it's still a stick, and it's still up their ass.

"Madness"

Only 7 horns, but it's arranged & played like a big band, mostly.

Yeah, but this type of thing would almost certainly have the vocals added on top of the band tracks, unless it was a live recording. Brown was probably not a professional singer, so there'd have to be some "work" done on the vocals in terms of phrasing and stuff like that. Maybe even moreso if she mostly did recitations. They'd most likely want to work w/the phrasing of the speech. Jayne Cortez could do it live w/Richard Davis, but that's Jayne Cortez, dig? This was Vault, not a big label by any means, but not a DIY either. Some "professional" production was probably at play. But I could be wrong. I'm expecting a copy quite soon, and will report back. BTW - anybody ever hear that Flying Dutchman side of Pete Hamill's writings narrated by Roscoe, w/James Spaulding & Ron Carter playing in the background? That's definitely reading added on top of tracks, and that's what I'm expecting here, especially since it's a full ensemble playing, not 1 or 2 people.

The CDs or her playing?

There's a version of "Windows" from 1/05/66 that was recorded at a Mercer Ellington Septet session (w/Chick on piano), by a quartet of Paul Gonsalves, Corea, Aaron Bell, & Louis Bellson. It can be found (and retitled by somebody as "Ugh") on New Mood Indigo, a Doctor Jazz LP that's probably been out on CD somehow. Wasn't released until 1985, though. Chick seems like he never went to a session w/o a tune or two. Don't know if they'd been requested beforehand or not, but the cat seemed to be somebody who always had tunes ready for a session. That's smart.

All I can add is that when/if the Herman Phillips (you have heard of Herman Phillips, haven't you?) Mosaic comes out, there's gonna be a lot of happy campers, yours truly included.

Tom Slick Slick Rick Doug E. Fresh

"In Time" is just too damn funky!

I've got that side, and yeah, it's one of the best. From the airshots of this era I've heard, I'd say that it was indeed common practice for an announcer to introduce each tune. Sid was "looser" than most, but yeah, that was the deal.

But certainly not less necessary...

I'd be shocked if it was live.

Yeah, Bitches Brew got a lot of critical praise on release. The whole cranius-in-rectus Crouchalis revisionism bullshit was not even in the picture then, other than for the people for whom anything too much past New Orleans/Swing/bebop/take your pick was confusing. I'm even thinkng that Chris Albertson wrote a glowing, gushing even review of Jack Johnson in Stereo Review. Somebody did, if it wasn't him. Ascension got a dual-review in DB, Bill Mathieu (5 stars, iirc) & somebody else's (not 5 stars). So that might qualify. The first Bird/Diz 78s, definitely. Koko/Now's The Time got eitehr zero or one star. One of the more infamous reviews in the annals of jazz reviewism, actually, and one that probably played a part in critics not wanting to be too quick to dimsiss the next waves of progress, even if they themselves didn't necessarily feel it to be such. Kenton, definitely, although I don't know if it was any one single recording. By the time City Of Glass hit, the controversy was already going, and had been. Truthfully, I think maybe Black Byrd could qualify. Pretty much universally, if not particularly vehemently, trashed. Who knew that the cult of the Mizells would someday emerge. Not me!

I thank you, but this is soon going to become a "Most Overrated Organissmo Poster" thread... I guess in my mind, "eloquence" is a function of focus, and I'm in no way willing to claim that whatever focus I have is something that is something that not most everybody is capable of, if they had the time and energy to devote to it. I mean, I've onlyu had a full-time "straight job" for about three years now, and I'll soon be 51. So I've had a lot of time to think. That's a luxury most people don't have (and I can tell you that it's a luxury that not as many musicians take advantage of as probably should). So, as much as I sincerely appreciate all the kind words, really, I also feel that I've been a beneficiary of circumstances more than of any "gift" or "talent". There's a helluva lot of similar eloquence lurking in a lot of the people who post here. I mean that. It's just a matte of finding it inside, and that takes time (lots) and encouragement. I can't help anybody with time, but if it's encouragement anybody wants, here it is!

Since you asked, it's been Monday Michiru for me, pretty much all year. From her near-earliest work to her most recent. Apparently my enthusiasm is less-than-unanimously shared, but oh well. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and all that.

Nobody?

Thanks, but.... shut the fuck up. Seriously, all I'm saying is that all that anybody has to do is to feel first, then think/ask, and keep on doing that cycle. That's it. Damn near anybody can do it. That it seems that more people don't should not be taken to mean that they can't. We've all been indoctrinated, trained, and crustified by all sorts of forces, some intentional, some not, some benevolent in intent, some not. Comes a time to just let all that shit go and find out who we really are, who we would/could be if we didn't know who we thought we were supposed to be. Now, maybe not everybody can confront that notion comfortably (or even uncomfortably), but anybody can get on that road once they do. I'm not "eloquent", I just don't stop asking questions of myself, don't take the first easy answer that pops up and close the book on it. That's all. Again, anybody can do it. I've been told that curiosity is not an intrinsic human trait. I don't believe it. What's not an intrinsic human trait is setting self-imposed limits on how curious you're going to be. That's a learned behavior, and what is learned can most likely be unlearned, no?