JSngry

Well of course he is, silly. He was governor of California then! So the X-ers are still pissed at the Boomers. I'm shcoked, shocked I tell you, at this revelation! Hell. I'm a Boomer, and I'm pissed at the Boomers, so what does that mean? So much self-congratulation going on at "discovering" the wrongs that somehow actually righting them kinda got lost in the shuffle.... I would think, however, that an attempt by somebody like Feather to co-opt Ellington in exactly that same spirit of essentially self-congratulatory "entitlement" would be more the reaction of a pissed-off X-er. Surely such a lad would be able to see it for what it is (if not intentionally, then certainly in effect) - an attempt to alter the American Cultural Iconography for entirely self-serving ends. Quite the Boomer-esque gesture, don't you think? Yet the X-er defers to this gesture and instead attacks the attempt to call it what it is. This Anti-Boomer Boomer is left to ponder the possibility that the X-er doesn't fully comprehend what is going on with Ms. feather's work (at least in terms of the General Cultural Landscape Battle), or that it is yet another example of an ongoing battle for identity (and the right to identify one's own self in and on one's own terms) that Mr. Ellington was deeply involved in his entire career. Also being pondered - why the X-er doesn't seem to recognize that that the Anti-Boomer Boomer's attacks on both Ms. Feather & Mr. Marsalis are rooted in the same basic complaint - that they forcibly claim the music for their own self-serving ends instead of allowing the music to claim them as a matter of graceful happenstance. Again, they type of self-aggrandizement that the X-er should surely recognize for what it is - an Archetypical Boomer Power Play in action! This Anti-Boomer Boomer is also left to ponder the possibilitythat the X-er is so overtaken by pissed-offness towards the Boomers that he is left reflexively dismissing the Anti-Boomer Boomer's criticism of the specific for the sake of venting a general criticism that has absolutely nothing to do with said Anti-Boomer Boomer's criticism of a very Boomer-esque act and attitude and everything to do with said X-ers general resentment of everything Boomer related. That 's a lot of pondering, pahdner! But then again, I'll ponder pretty near any damn thing...

Carl Orff Carmina Burana Corina Corina

Don't know 'bout any of that, but it's far from an "essential" Mingus recording, soming as it does from the Dannie-less dark days of heavy sedation and such. Primarily "of historical interest", as they say...

So, you'd rather hear Buddy Rich drive the Basie band than Gus Johnson?

I have died and gone to heaven!

I got me one of them bubbles. Good value for the dollar, but the upkeep is pain.

Those wer the "high profile" joints. There were also lots of "little" places that you wouldn't know about unless you knew about them.

Bingo.

George Brunis George Hallas Paul Bryant

That's a loaded proposition... Depends on how you're defining those terms. A "lack of technique" has been used to marginalize all types of jazz since Day One by certain "Western" aesthetes. To them, there is one clear standard of "good techinque", and the value of any given expression is defined by how well this particular technique is displayed. By this standard, anybody and (almost) everybody from Louis Armstrong to Albert Ayler has been judged lacking in "sophistication" (or something along those lines.. Of course, the "non-Western" POV, from which jazz is clearly operating from (usually) says that thechnique is only a means to an end, not the end itself. If Monk had less "technique" than Horowitz (or, to keep it in the family, Tatum), that's because his technique was molded to meet his specific needs, to accomplish his personally necessary ends. so if you're going to say that Benson had better technique than Green, and was therefore better able to express himself and therefore in the end "more expressive" (not that that is what you're saying), then you might as well go ahead and say that Al Demiola is more expressive than was Charlie Christian. Techique is only a measuarble/comparative quantity relative to itself. It's ok, imo, opinion to say that Benson had a broader range of technical skills than did Grant, because, yeah, he did. He could play faster, no doubt. But that's where the legitimacy of the compasison ends. It's wrong to equate realtive "techniques" to the relative expressiveness of two players who are both expressing themselves fully and naturally, because in jazz, there is no one standard of expressiveness other than to tell your own story as best you can. )At least there didn't used to be...) And the "best technique" is whatever one(s) it is that enables you to do that. Period. Again, no accusations of such a chauvinistic attitude as referenced qbove are being made here. It's just that when people start talking about "technique" and "expression" as interchangeable qualities, you never know what they mean or where they're coming from. If you want to say that either Green or Benson told their story more effectively than the other, hey, be my guest. There ain't no wrong answer, if you know what I eman. Just know that if the question of thier relative "techniques" is the determining factor either way, then the boat is being severly missed, and in more ways than one...

Yep. It's very nice, imo. Not the same (or as earthsahking) as Miles's stuff, but definitely "related to" it. Henderson, btw, had some success as a funk/disco/etc solo artist after he left Miles, The title cut of the Wide Receiver album to which the AAJ interview refers was an R&B hit. No crossover success, but a hit neverhteless. IIRC, Henderson was part of the Norman Connoirs crew that had a run of popular R&B sets at the time under various guises. But I'm not 100% sure of that.

The Miles box was a total revelation to me. Who would haver guessed that "Sssh/Peaceful" had a head? OTOH, as "out" as the Trane stuff may (or may not) be, there's still Elvin. "Nuff said... Frankly, at those proces, I'd buy both by any means neccessary. Most grocery stores take credit cards these days...

I've heard that Keith does not appreciate cheap jokes at his expense. Good! Maybe he can read that and have a hissy fit over me like he did over Marcus Miller in his notes here... Seriously, I love the cat, but...well...you know. And even more seriously, does anybody else think that the Friday night sets are the most organic? I mean, you can hear the stuff getting tighter and more telepathic with each set from each night, and on Friday, it just seems like BAM, it's all there. Adding McLaughlin on Saturday certainly didn't make it any worse, but now I'm wondering what the night would have been like if he hadn't been there & if the trend of the week continued. No matter - this is a great set!

Well, of course you're right, but if you don't see what difference it makes (or why it might matter that it does make a difference), then you're also clueless. So go on ahead and be right!

You know a lot, but in this case, believe me when I tell you that he had a dramatic impact. Again, not his music per se, but his dogma. There were plenty of people (many/most of them musically under-qualified) waiting to "reclaim the tradition" or some such rot, and with all the hype generated by Wynton, they carpe-diemed like a big dog. They were also assisted by like-minded non-musicians who played any number of "cards" to gain positions of authority in the local festival/concert arena. Bebop was it, no matter how poorly it was played, and everything (and everybody) else found themselves shut out of the action. As much as I agree with the jist of many of the Marsalis/Crouch pronouncements about "ownership" of the music and stuff like that, the rub is that not everybody who wants to play that game has the requiste depth of knowledge/perspective/whatever to play it with what I would consider respect-commanding aplomb (there were no Muhals or Horace Tapscotts in this bunch, dig?). But the "beauty" of thier various "arguments" is that if you disagree with them, you're branded with whatever convenient disparaging labels are available, and as is usal with mob-rule, there's no room for reason, much less objectivity. So it's really a no-win thing unless you take it all underground and play it like that, which is what a lot of us did, and have continued to do. Given Dallas' incredibly constipated social dynamic over the last million years or so, this was perhaps inevitable. But all my friend in other cities told similar tales of differing scope. Believe it or not.

If he really digs the album, I think he oughta be spermin'...

I don't know about that (or the album being spammed), but I dig the Isley Brothers. Fight The Power, baby.

Thanks, y'all! A replacement fan will be ordereed and the old one cleaned!

Hilton Ruiz Hilton Jefferson Jack Hylton

Get this message immediately after the BIOS kicks in that that says "Alert! Previous Fan Failure! Press F1 to continue or F2 to enter Startup" The thing is, to my knowledge, the fans on my PC have never failed. I hit F1, and everything proceeds normally. I called Dell(hi) tech support, and they were basically useless, telling me that my processor fan was broken. It's obviously not, at least not that I've seen. The fan around the HD is working too, and has been. So - what triggers this message? How seriously should I take it (I know, heat kills...), and what do I need to be on the lookout for. As always, Thanks In Advance!

Ryan Leaf Judge Crater Amelia Earhart

YESH!

Have a pot of birthday coffee and turn into 14/8!

It is indeed (but even at that, I don't really like all that much Elvis), but - I've never met a cheap joke I didn't like. Unless you count the Yugo somebody once tried to sell me...

I continue to be educated here, and that is a blessing. Much love, and full props!