JSngry

Mavs are at 11 straight. Hasn't always been pretty, but there they are. They got Kobe on Tuesday. I am not optimistic.

Put me down in this column as well, although with nothing resembling as much as a bit of certainty. I could see it easily being a blowout for either side, or a nailbiter the same way. Even my son, who's something like 85% in straight picks over the last 4-5 years (I kid you not!) is not calling this one. I still remember Holmgren's Packers being totally unprepared for Super Bowl XXI against the Broncos. That team was expecting a waltz, and the got moshed. Hopefully, that will not be the case tomorrow. I know that Cowher's gonna have his guys pumped...

That show had a very "urban" vibe, very "ethnic" supporting characters (including Nipsey Russell in a role w/o one bit of Tomming or other buffoonery). Maybe the network sensed "discomfort" from the heartland and cut it loose? I don't know, but I could see it happening...

Keep an eye on your stick then!

Indeed it does, but otoh, as fine (and occasionally great) as most of Woody's later bands were. I think the "mediocre eclectic" label as applied to the repertoire of those bands is not completely inaccurate, although it is harsh. The old standbys mixed in with whatever the "contmeporary" flavor(s) of the time was/were. I came up in/around those stage/lab bands and understand exactly what he's talking about. The "eclecticism" of that movement is a result of there frequently being no real core in the first place. You're taking kids whose exposure to "jazz" is often confined entirely to a relatively few records, so you've got to give them material to play that is not completely experientially foreign to them. There's a dilution right there, not for the sake of growth through expansion, but simply for the sake of accomodation (so many of these "schoolkids" would be better served by applying thier "jazziness" to pop music a la Steely Dan than to jazz. That's equally honorable music, probably more reflective of their life experience, and god knows there's a need for it, especially these days...). And when many of the directors have about as much of a clue as to the realities behind so much of this music as do the kids (a situation that admittedly has improved quite a bit over the last 20 or so years), well hey, "mediocre eclectic" is definitely a possible outcome... Woody's later bands were, if not a product of this movement (there was real, organic talent in most of them at any given time), certainly being spurred on by it, and imo, the material and performances began to reflect a bit of that esthetic. The difference between those goofy-but-cool late-60s Cadet sides and something like the mid-70s "Fanfare For The Common Man" etc. is the difference between a band of seasoned road-dogs playing commercial charts vs a band of mostly eager, talented young players happy to be playing the gig, having the chance to do their thing in such a hallowed setting, as well they should be. Nothing wrong with that at all, and as I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoy much of it (Bill Stapleton's chart on "Lazy Bird" was love at first listen, and remains so today). And the lineage of badass tenor player in that band continued until the very end (and continues today - Frank Tiberi is a serious MF!). But as far as being an "organic" unit like the Tapscott units to which, in the sentence in question, it was being indirectly compared, c'mon... None of which is to say that any of this has a bearing on the "worth" of any of the music in question realtive to itself. Good is good, fun is fun, and serious is serious, and both Tapscott & Herman offer those qualities, each in their own way. But if you're talking about which one is a more "direct" extension of the type of "impulses" that Litweiller was (impulses which, I believe, are real), then, yeah, Tapscott comes closer than does latter-day Herman, and by a large margin. Again, I mean no disrespect/condescension/whatever by any of this. It's all good in my book, and although that's a hoary cliche these days, I truly mean/believe it. All I'm saying is that I get Litweiller's point, even if I myself would not have worded it so, uh..."aggressively", the gist of his point is well-taken here. I don't think that anybody in this discussion would claim that Tapscott and Herman were "playing the same game", so to speak (nor that they should be), and it's precisely that difference which I believe Litweiller was attempting to highlight. AFAIC, if there's a "failure", it's in the words chosen to express the sentiment, not in the sentiment itself.

I believe it!

Well, lessee, let's look at "83"... 8x3=24 There are 2 factors in that equation, and 2x24=48 Now, 24+48=82, and 8+2=10 That's 4 equations so far, and 10x4=40 24+48+10+82+40=204, and 2+4+4+8+1+0+4+0 = 23 204-23=181 There's 2 different ages in question, and 181/2=90.5 Since 0 has no value, we can discard it and move the 5 over to fill the vacuum. That's nature's way. Therefore, 90.5 becomes 95, which we got from 83. If that's offensive, let's go back to 204-23=181. (20x4)-(-2x3)=86 And 181-86=95. Again, we get 95 from 83. Q.E.D. So yeah, he was 83. And 95. Same thing. Damn media don't explain nuthin' to ya' these days.

Phil Roof The Five Stairsteps Everson Walls

Marshall Dillon Miss Kitty Festus (for the restus!?!?!?!)

http://www.cosmicsounds-london.com/DUSKO/bgblues.htm Often available at Dusty Groove, and highly recommended.

Well, the truly noble thing to do would be to take that management position they keep offering me, make the $$$ now, and get her the kitchen right away. But that would be suicide of another type, and I'm too selfish to do that. So don't get too inspired, ok?

Definitely not. Thanks for noticing, and thanks for the portrait of Woody.

Kofsky was an avowed Marxist idealogue who wrote that book totally from that POV. I first read it in 1974 and even then took it with a pillar of salt. To be sure, you get some good info, but a lot (or should that be Lot?) of one-dimensional ideology pasted on top of three-dimensional realities which in the end weakens his case instead of strengthening it. His interview w/Trane speaks for itself - he keeps trying to put words (or more accurately, slogans of sorts) into Trane's mouth, and Trane politely demurs. Kofsky then attributes this to Trane's "reluctance to speak openly" or something like that. Ideology over truth - fuck that! Those were angry times, and the anger was more than justified. But like all things, you gotta separate the wheat from the chaff if you want to move forward in a construtive manner. I like Richard Pryor's line - "I can forgive. But I ain't never gonna forget." Kofsky appeared unable to do neither, as Chris Albertson's tellings of his later dealings with him (to be found somewhere in the archives here) would appear to attest. More's the pity.

Hell, I'm a hack for that matter, all things considered. Most of us are, truth be told. But I live with it, at times happily so. I wouldn't appreciate being called one, but I wouldn't deny it either...

She's been advised to sell the whole thing at once, to not ignore Japan, and to play hardball. Chuck was able to finance his AEC box by selling off most of his vinyl. I doubt that I have even a tenth of what he had, but I figure she should be able to get started on that new kitchen she's been wanting for far too long... And yeah, I do sleep with one eye open.

Just, at the very least, disrespectful and in bad taste, which was one of the problems of attitude during the 60's, of the lesser talented Free players. I know the times were different, and Black Nationalism feelings were high and all of that but, this kind of attitude hurt their cause. In the matter of The Freedom Principle, it might be worth noting that John Litweiller has always been a strong advocate of Warne Marsh & Lee Konitz (in the case of Marsh, one of the strongest, actually, him & Larry Kart), so reading that book with the thought that it's focus is race-specific is not accurate. Not saying that anybody has/is/will, just that if you have/are/will, that you shouldn't. It's not about that.

Like I said, mileages will vary... What I'd like to know is if anybody here will admit to liking the music of certain "hacks". I will! Some of my favorite music is by "hacks", and I have no problem admitting to their "hackdom", their lack of overall relevancy to the grand scheme of things, just as I have no problem admitting that I enjoy it anyway. Just because. Honesty and respect are two-way streets, it seems to me, and to defend something for being something that it is not is just as wrong as criticizing something for being something that it is not. The language used may often be a sticking point, but try to look at what is being said rather than how it's being said. Easier said than done, sometimes, but usually worth the effort over the long run. To get to the apples, sometimes you gotta work past the crust. Would that everybody knew how to make a tasty crust, but such is life. Again, just my opinion.

Film at 11?

So, is this the jazz equivalent of Smile?

This would be a question for the Widow Sangrey...

You can get a home burner (or find somebody who does) and dub them to CD just as you would a cassette.

Well, I guess it comes down to what you consider a "cheap shot", and on that, mileages will vary. As for Woody, hell, damn near everybody who's worked with him loved the cat, and by all accounts for good reason. He gave the guys in his band plenty of room to do their thing, not his, and that's a rare situation. But I doubt you'd find too many who would claim that he himself was ever the best talent, or even one of the best talents in his own band. Viewed in that light, "hack" (or its equivalent) is a harsh but not necessarily inaccurate assessment by somebody "from the outside". Of course, bandleading is a unique talent in and of itself, but we're talking playing/writing talent here, which is at once totally the point and totally besides it.

You might want to consider getting to know Zig. He's not a dead guy yet!

The focus of the book was given in its title - the move towards freedom, musical and personal, through jazz, not in jazz. Louis Armstrong was as free as they come, but that was just him. The move towards/need for a personal freedom was/is both a funtion of human nature and the nature of society. It is towards the seeking of freedom in that light that Mr. Litweiller writes. It's not an Overall Critique Of Jazz, if you know what I mean. It's a targeted examination of one element of the music. As for Woody Herman, hey the guy was a great bandleader and great facilitator of talent and cool guy to work for (by all accounts), but as a player, "hack" although blunt, is not that far off, not realtive to other players both outside his orchestra and within it. His place in jazz history, imo, is as somebody who used his success to provide a "safe haven" for players and arrangers who wanted/needed to function outside the "commercial" norms of the time, but not too far outside them. For that, we should all be thankful (and I am, and I enjoy, really enjoy, a lot of Herman sides from all periods of his career), but it's an insult to all concerned to consider him a "mover" of the music, not when the music under consideration moves from Armstrong to Braxton (and beyond?). In terms of "The Freedom Principle", which is a totally different POV than that of "jazz in general", yeah, Woody Herman is a non-factor. Which in no way diminishes his talents or contributions. I've read Mr. Litweiller's various writings for over 35 years now, and although he can be pretty brutal in his dismissals of that for which he has little use, to think that he's some sort of "avant-garde snob" who only favors one type of music/musician is a fundamental error. I went into the book knowing this, so I took it as a given. If a reader who had not had that background to his writing & tastes comes away with a different impression, then that is perhaps understandable/unavoidable. Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you that that is far from the actual case!

To fuck movie stars?