JSngry

Yep. "Traditional big band instrumentation" inevitably refers to sections of saxes, trumpets, trombones, and rhythm.

An excerpt of "Bewitched" from Monster: http://members.tripod.com/~LizAshmont/monsterlp.wav That's Oliver all the way - innocuous on the outside, totally wack on the inside. Also, what Doug Payne has to say about the Mosaic: http://www.dougpayne.com/on_rev.htm

Managed to procure a copy of ROCK ALL NIGHT, and dig this - there is an instrumental played early on in the film, immediately following The Platters' two numbers, that has a two chorus bari solo that sounds like it MIGHT be Dolphy playing R&B. The swing of the player is not incompatable w/Dolphy's. And there's fleeting moments of tonal/harmonic manipulation that again would not be incompatible with how I'd imagine Dolphy would play on a strictly commercial R&B/Jump Blues type number. That's definitely him on screen, but is that actually him playing? We'll probably never know, but it's intriguing, if ultimately useless, to speculate that this might be an addition to the Dolphy discography. Anyway, if you're an insecure Dolphy completist and want to leave nothing to chance, you can get the movie here: http://www.thevideobeat.com/store/product-104.html

Not included.

From http://www.dougpayne.com/on51-66.htm Eight woodwinds does not a "big band" make, but I'd like to hear the writing anyway!

Jason, are you familiar w/Lee Konitz' quote to the effect that Warne had trouble opening up, but that when he did, it was something to hear? That's not an exact quote, but that's the gist of it as I recall it.

Ok, here we go. From http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-partners-...rown_10824.html Now, who or what is Knowledge Networks? From http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/info/main/who.html Interesting...

And a chart of the findings:

The same story fleshed out a little more: http://pda.physorg.com/lofi-news-partners-...rown_10824.html

Here's Dr. Brown's C.V.: http://www.ualberta.ca/~nrbrown/cv.html A long list of accomplishments, to be sure.

YAISH!

Well DUH! Don't you think that being aware of all the possibilities would affect what kind of statistics were gathered in the first place? Did they think to include prostitites or other likely "high activity/random partners" women in their sampling? Did they want to? Did they ask the men if they were including incidences of sex w/prostitutes, group sex, or any other "non traditional" encounters in their count? Did they ask the men if they were counting women who only gave them handjobs and blowjobs (and women who only did that to a man) as "sexual partners"? Did they ask them to include or not to include those in their count? Did they just ask the questions and then just draw the conclusion that there was some lying going (and then set about trying to anaylze the "lying") on when some of that "lying" might in fact be the result of sloppy sampling and/or a failure on their part to clearly deliniate the terms up front? You don't know, do you? And neither do I. Tell you what - you go on along believing any study you want to believe at face value, and I'll go on being skeptical of most all of them until given good reason not to be. That way, we can both keep smiling at the naivite of the other. After all, a smile is a terrible thing to waste.

Lorene Yarnell Sheb Wooley James Cotton

You're welcome. You seem like the type who could use a good laugh! But then again, we all could. And this report of this study gave me one.

Thank you. My point exactly. Perhaps not, but then again, there would appear to be no shortage of sprurious "research" going on for entirely (or at least primarily) self-serving ends (and by "self-serving", I in no way am implying implicit and/or omnipresent malevolence). I have no idea if this study is such an instance, but the reporting of it in the posted article would suggest that it might be, if the researcher fed the reporter his information in such a way as to lead to the article being written with the tone that it took. Or maybe the reporter's just a doofus looking for a sexy premise. Again, neither scenario would be particularly unusual, unfortunately. Anyway, it was the opening two sentences of the article that raised a red flag for me and triggered what followed: That's about as blatant an example of jumping from Point A to Conclusion Z without looking at any of the possibilities in between as any you could imagine. And that's what set me off. Sloppy journalism, at the very least, and it does nothing to encourage me to take seriously the story it reports. For one thing, the participants are only described as "2,065 heterosexual non-virgins with a median age in their late 40s". Well, big whoop. Hopefully the selection process applied at least a little more selectivity than that, but we don't find out whether it did or not in this story. Really, we don't find out too much of anything really solid in this story other than that a survey's been conducted by Psychologist Norman R. Brown at the University of Michigan, who has already conducted several such studies, and who is going to conduct another one. We don't learn where the proper results have been published, or even if they have been. This may be a perfectly legitimate study, with perfetly legitimate findings. Or it may not be. Robert Roy Britt, the LiveScience Managing Editor of LiveScience.com gives me nothing with which to decide one way or the other. What he does give me is reason to question whether or not I should take his reporting of the study seriously, and I have decided not to. Whether or not the study itself sould be considered likewise is impossible for me to determine with the facts at hand.

Here's an online Lloyd discography: http://www.geocities.com/rstubenrauch/discography.htm Looks like he did more cameos on rock alnums in the early 70s than I was aware of.

Seems like a few people have heard Waves, but what about Warm Waters, the other album with a Lloyd/Beach Boys collaboration? Anybody ever heard it?

John Hadl Joseph Hadyn Burt Hooton

Now that's really funny! I pose it because the answer to it is clearly the the same as that of an already-answered question, and this appears to have eluded you. It means of course that your distinction between the average woman's number of partners and the average number of partners a woman's had is no distinction at all. What seems to have eluded you is that it's about the interpretation of the data and how that interpretation is presented in terms of "conclusions" than it is the data itself. All I'm asking is, using my hypothetical scenario, if the fact that 10% of the women would report multiple partners would be discounted, or at least given less weight, than the fact that four times as many men would report the same. Afer all, 10% could easily be viewed as an "insignificant number" and therefore downplayed or perhaps even not considered. It's harder to do that with a 40% figure. Since I have no way of knowing if this type of interpretation was or was not done in this study, I'm going to question both the methodolgy and the conclusions. For all I know, these people could just be trying to raise a "controversy" just to get some more funding. Or not. To figure out if that was or was not the case, you'd have to look at who did the study, who funded the study, and to what ends the study was intended to be put. In other words, you'd have to question before accepting, and you'd have to accept with prejudice, knowing that any group of behavioral statistics is at best predicitive of probability only, and then only within the parameters of the group within which they were compiled. At best. Now, that's what's really funny!

So you can buy music from iTunes, of course.

Do you enjoy asking questions that have already been posed?

Well, Jesus, yes I did. That's my point I'm wondering if the study is looking at the average number of partners among women collectively or the number of partners that the "average woman" reports. Totally different outcomes.

Never been curious enough to find out myself. But they were both in the same TM clique, as I remember.

You might want to check out Day's earlier work w/Les Brown. That stuff'll make your manhood stand at attention, if you know what I mean...

I'm a bit amused at the references to Bob Ackerman here. I knew him well (enough) during his time in Dallas but have long since lost touch with him. I can only assume that he's, uh.... deepened in his manner in the intervening years...