JSngry

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?

Steve McGarret Stoney Burke Gene Barry

T.O. for Cootie!

Sickle-cell; don't know, yes, from a car accident; blow.

Personal Admission Of Guilt Pt. 2: I've always kinda dug it.

Have you heard Zig?

I didn't, and I don't see "the problem" as being one. Mr. Litweiller has big ears and very broad tastes. That book is a specific look at a specific subject and is best read in that light, not as a manifesto of one man's attitude towards music and musicians in general. Just my opinion.

Blythe Danner Gay Talese Merry Wiesner-Hanks

Ok, how about having them comb the vaults and see if there's more and/or better performances from the Milestone Jazzstars tour? The album they released had a few moments, but I was left thinking that there could/should be better.

George Sisler Walt Dropo Gus Suhr

Works for me... Neil Armstrong Adrian Legg Dan Foote

And that goes double for the ladies. Of whom much is given, much is asked.

How about Teremce as Wayne Shorter?

Nothing, if you accessorize tastefully.

Candice Bergen Candy Finch Bradley Parker-Sparrow

Kid Ory Med Flory Liz Story

Hey babe...

Can't help you with dates, but doesn't Wilson also sing on "Four"?

That's an impressive first post. Welcome!

The BN "policy" of keeping things in print vs deleting them is apparently, according to Tom Evered, a function of their being a part of the EMI Coprorate Empire. The label is a seperate "cost center" (or as some businesses prefer to call them, "profit centers"), and it would appear that keeping items in print that don't move in certain numbers creates a "loss" on paper that has a negative effect on the bottom line. Which, as we all know, is what the money folks look at whether or not it really makes sense. It's a little nebulous to me how you can continue to lose money on something once it's paid for and simply taking up shelf space in a warehouse. Hell, if you need the space for something else, put the items somewhere else off-premises, like in your trunk or something.. Create a form or something to keep track of where you put them and call them "Auxillary Inventory" or some such and create a "deferred value" for them. Or some crank-yankin' semantical/numerical shit like that. But however much you lose (or how much you keep from losing by remaindering the stock), it seems to me that you could make that much more over the long haul by selling it off over time at regular. But then again,, if wholesale price stays the same over the years, inflation might well make it more profitable to get a lump sum for a bulk inventory at a lesser price up front, as might being able to write off the loss. Hell if I know. It all seems to work within the culture who accepts it all at face value as being "real". Myself, I believe in god, so that's more than enough "suspension-of-disbelief-as-lifestyle-foundation" for me! Whatever. It's the kind of numbers game that creates "assets" on paper that may or may not have any relevance to the three-dimensionl world. It works within itself, so hey. But like I always like to tell the Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons, "DON'T LOOK DOWN!"

Word.