JSngry

A few years ago, on The Game Show Network, I saw a late-60s episode of What's My Line (syndicated version) where Dizzy was the Mystery Guest. A blindfolded Soupy guessed it was Diz. Also saw Jack Cassidy guess Duke under similar circumstances, but this was hipper.

Chu E. also has a job, apparently? Where ya' workin'?

That was the LP cover as well.

I still wanna know how Crouch is going to spin this one...

Joe Friday Julie London Percy France

For me, vocalese usually stands or falls on the merits of the lyrics (and a stipulation to a "pop" estheic at some point or another is granted w/o objection). On those grounds, Jon Hendricks scores more often than not, and Eddie Jefferson, for whom I used to have a great deal of love, is starting to fade. Exceptions to both are there, though. Scatting, though, I dunno. When jazz was a more purely rhythmic music, hey, it was hard to fuck up (although many did anyway. There's some in every crowd, I guess). But once the harmony got more complicated, the need for a concurrent maturation of the scat didn't seem t keep up. Dizzy, Moody, Hendricks, a few others dealt. Not too many more. And then there's Betty Carter, whose scatting isn't really "scatting" at all. She's inhabiting the space with her voice, if you know what I mean. Now, with post-bop and free firmly behind us (or getting there), what's the need for "scatting" per se? Just sing dammit, whatever that means at any given time. To paraphrase Monk, you got a voice, use it.

You guys are upset by this? Not me! I'm envisioning a day when Trane Clonedom will be rendered a non-viable option for living musicians wanting to ply their craft in public. Imagine a day when some punk shows up to play, knowing every damn Trane lick backwards and forwards - and little if anything else (especially soul) - and being able to tell them, in all honesty & sincerity, "Sorry, Jack, but they got machines that can do that just as good and for a helluva lot less. Come back when you got something original to offer." I hope I live to see the day!

Hey, don't get me wrong - there's plenty of music that I personally don't like (for any number of reasons). It's just that I don't feel "threatened" by it. Likewise, there's plenty of "lesser" music that gives me a lot of pleasure and/or stimulation (again, for various reasons), and I necessarily don't feel the need to proclaim that it's "better" or even "as good as" than anything else just to justify my enjoying it. It is what it is. What else could it be? What else should it be? A "top-heavy" perspective is every bit as unbalanced as a "bottom-heavy" one, no? One lets you fly but runs the risk of never letting you land, and the other prevents you from ever getting off the ground. Either way, no thanks!

And how many times do you hear - outside of this board - that jazz is unlistenable or some such rot? Open-mindedness goes both ways. No -it goes all ways. As in so may things, we ain't there yet.

Mr. Peppermint The Butthole Surfers Jack Nitzsche

Wynton? Working w/Andre 3K & ?love? WTF? I'm not saying its a bad idea, hell - fuck "reverence" and all that shit (reverence is not the same as love, not even slightly), but geez - how is Stanley going to spin this one?

Really, if you can't appreciate something on its own terms, then what's the point? Humankind (and the stories that spring from it) is nothing if not a diverse lot, and the jostling for "position" on the "cultural" ladder is based on the assumption that some stories, and therefore some humans, are intrinsically more "worthy" than others. I for one don't buy it, not for a second. If you know the people, you can better appreciate their stories as the unique and beautiful contributions that they are. If not, then you're going to be prone to "proving" to yourself that the people you don't know so well but still reach you are "as good as" the ones that you do know well. And if you have/want to prove that, well, isn't there an implication in there somewhere that those people aren't as good? Or at the very least, that they may well be as good, but that they need the "approval" of you and your type to be "officially" recognized as such? It's a slippery slope. Humankind is united by certain ongoing fundamental traits and experiences. The sooner we can all learn (or at least attempt to learn) to appreciate the universiality of those traits & experiences and forget about wigging out over the specifics of how they get expressed, the closer we can get to a life without the irrational fear that leads us to "defend" against that which we all share. There's plenty of things in life that need to be defended against, but expressions of beauty, joy, the ups and downs of "everday life", and contemplations on the mysteries of life surely shouldn't be among them, no matter who expresses them, and no matter how they go about doing it.

Dusty Springfield a "belter"? She was a lot of things, and I have a lot of love for a lot of her work, but I've never thought of her as a belter. Quite the opposite in fact!

this one's playing that rikkileenorahjones jones but quite nicley IMO. Ah yes, the "neo-soul" game! Now that's where pre-conceived expectations and cliches get stood on their head as a matter of course!

In any case, that record review was pretty much forgotten (certainly by me) until Francis Davis wrote a piece, for the Atlantic I think, about Shorter's "Footprints Live" and resurrected (with attribution) the idea of Wayne's alleged desire to "disappear" as a soloist... That's been one of your most memorable lines to me over the years, Larry! Made me frantic to hunt down Iska (and it took some doing - didn't find a copy until 1978 or so) to hear just what it was that you were talking about.

I'll second that emotion. Let it be noted, though, that the Montreux box features several worthy lineups that never got "officially" recorded otherwise.

The video I saw (don't remember the song or its name) was mostly her fronting an all-black band in a pseudo-1940s era club. The "image" being projected that she was this white chick who not only had the chops (musically & sexually) to hang in such an environment, but that the black folk loved having her there (I didn't see Ursula Rucker in the house though...), and that "we" should be impressed by that. Oldest trick in the book. "Back to the basics" indeed. No doubt, the chick has chops, and if she ever learns as much as a sliver of, uh....subtlety, she might well be a force to be wreckoned with. But right now, she's gamin', and there's far more interesting and relevant games (and with significantly higher stakes) to be played than that one.

But I would not feel so all alone...

My Friend Irma G. Schirmer Carla Thomas

Inside joke, long story, etc. Nothing bad, I assure you.

Brook Benton Tina Brooks Evita Peron

Milton Berle Uncle Sam Uncle Buddy

Thanks for clearing that up, Jack. And Chuck (by proxy ). The logo on the spine seems a bit of of heavy-handed product placement for a non-subsisiary affiliation (it seems to suggest subsidiarydom to me), but I guess it's a sign (literally) of the times. Although, all those Firestone Christmas records (now there's a Mosaic just waiting to happen ) had the CSP logo prominently displayed, so I guess not. If you'll indulge me, I need to ask this for my own edjumacation - what then is a true subsidiary? If EMI manufactures the product for Mighty Quinn, recieves revenue from it, and has discretion over what may or may not be issued, what's they added layer that makes a label a "subsidy"? I'm guessing that the main differences are that a true subsidy receives its capital from the parent company, right? And that the revenue to the parent comapny from an outfit like MQ stops at licensing fee/manufacturing costs? MQ, not EMI, gets all profits and pays all royalties, right? Just trying to sort this all out.

That Columbia side must have had "status" of some sort, because I remember seeing it available in stores all throught the 70s & early 80s.

The Don Ellis side on Mighty Quinn that I bought has an EMI logo on the spine & is copyright 2005 by EMI Special Markets.