JSngry

John McNeil's a fine player. Played in Horace Silver's road band quite a bit in the 70s but never recorded with him that I know of. This one sounds interesting.

She become man?

Was her powder too white? Was she impaired, or was that just her way? Are there other actresses of her ilk who interest you more? Was she all that, or what? Did she make all those movies just because? Is it true that some of her peers didn't think that much of her? Did she drink too much coffee, and if so, would decaf have helped? Discuss.

Ariel Sharon Clarence Carter Carter Jefferson

Yes!

That was, I believve, the Music, Inc. rhythm section of the time, so it's not like they were strangers to each other. Far from it. I've always heard this as weirdly recorded/mixed more than anything else.

A juiced Dave Kingman? Almost...

Dorry...

Not at all. Keith's somewhat a favorite of mine. But a cheap joke's a cheap joke, so you gotta carpe diem!

Blue Note:...."The Jumpin Blues" That one's a personal fave as well, but it's on Prestige. Ghuck pulled my coat to Lullaby For A Monster on Steeplechase, and I'm more than a little glad he did. Superb!

I'm certainly not an expert, but English law simply does not appear to take property crime very seriously. Once again, there's a certain... Never mind.

I don't know, but I'd love to hear a Jarrett version of "Moanin'"...

If you mean what would've happened had he stayed in the states in the 60s & early 70s, my hunch is that he'd have died much sooner than he did.

Wasn't he a part of the Orioles rotation that featured four 20-game winners in the same season? Doubt that will ever happen again. As noted, yes. And Cuellar had a decent stretch of very strong seasons w/the O's, with whom he didn't hook up with until an age when many pitchers today are begin to wobble. Hell, he even had some "nice" years with the Astros, back when they were a pitiful excuse for a team. Not saying that he's necessarily HOF material, but he was way too good to be relegated to oblivion...

Something neatly, uh.... symetrical about a thief profiting from Elvis.... (I know, I know...)

I am but one of some people who think that the advent of Mr. Marsailis is precisely when "jazz" began to die. Jim, I think you give too much weight to Mr. Marsalis. I do not consider WM either the "saviour" or the "destroyer" of jazz. At that particular juncture in jazz history, say 20 years after Coltrane's death, and probably 100 years after the misty beginnings of jazz, someone like Marsalis coming along and digging into jazz's history was was probably inevitable. After all, lots of young players were doing it before WM and lots did it after, and lots will continue to do it. The only difference was the WM had a fairly high public profile. But how exactly did the advent of this one man cause jazz to die? He didn't actually STOP anyone from playing or recording or listening to more cutting edge jazz. There was still lots of it out there. You think it was selling lots and getting lots of airplay before WM came along? If jazz began to die, it was the author of its own demise. Now I'm no great defender of WM, but it seems to me that if you're going to do some cutting edge jazz or "move it forward" (whatever that means), you'd better have a pretty good understanding of its past. One of the things that gives credibilty for me to a lot of Coltrane's 65-'67 music, and at least causes me to give it a good listen, is that you know this guy was rooted, and man, could he play the blues (one of the greatest blues players in the history of jazz, IMHO). Don't know much about Turner or Rosenwinkel, but from what's I've heard of Chris Potter, I think he's pretty solidly rooted. Joe Lovano, too, who I think is a good model for a creative jazz musician in this time - rooted in what's come before and not afraid to go there, but also not afraid to push the envelope sometimes, either. You may be right. All I know is the way the "job market" for jazz changed (and it defintely did change) after, say, 1984 or so. And as the nature of the gigs made available changed, so did the nature of the players who were called upon to play them. "Up front" was no longer desirable, "The Tradition" was, no matter how lamely or half-assed it was rendered (of course, the fact that that type of spirit is in direct contradiction to "the tradition" was lost on the participants...). I know from experience that more than a few no-playin' (literally as well as relatively) fools got a "name" in several cities just because they put on a suit and played all-acoustic sets consisting of "jazz standards" (tired jazz standards at that). That became what jazz "was", and that's what got the gigs - image and attitude, not music. You may say that that's always been the case, and you'd be right to an extent, but we're talking about totally closing off outlets that had heretofore been tenuous yet viable. That sort of thing does take its toll, especially over the long haul... It wasn't Marsalis' music that did it, it was the half-baked (yet fully swallowed) dogma that he so zealously promoted. I've blathered on about this many times in the past, so I'll spare everybody another go 'round. Bottom line though - things changed dramatically, and the chill still lingers, although a thaw definitely seems to be underway, thank god.

Once again, that's Ruth Gordon...

I am but one of some people who think that the advent of Mr. Marsailis is precisely when "jazz" began to die.

I have it, and to my best recollection, it doesn't. It's a "difficult but worthwhile" book, if you know what I mean.

And as complete as I would wish to make it!

I sincerely hope that all is well.

What the hell is gun swording your kid?

Nicotine, yes. Caffine, no.

"Great" has many meanings, and/but this one fits at least some of them...

I keep hearing names like Kurt Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, Brad Mehldau, etc. etc. These are all fine musicians with "something to say", but I'm not excited or particularly interested in any of them (overall, anyway. All of them have made a few things that I enjoy immensely. Just not enough, and not ongoing enough, for me to "invest" in their music). Why? It's simple - there's too much "reference" in their music. I feel like I'm listening to "music about music" rather than music about life. Maybe that's what thier lives are, and if so, then they're doing what they should be doing. But don't blame me if I find Trane at the Half Note more alive, more relevant to the actual living I've done and hope to yet do than endless contemplations and permutaions on the music with the end result being (it seems to me) nothing more than....contemplations and permutaions on the music. That ain't what I want, and it damn sure ain't what I need. It's the difference between driving a car to get somewhere and driving a car because you have a car and since you have it, why shouldn't you drive it? I need to know that I'm going somewhere (even if it's not perfectly clear where). I don't need to take a long ride to nowhere in a really comfortable car with all the bells and whistles. The "real stuff" still exists, definitely. But since it's so damn real, it son't look, smell, or sound too much like that of yore. It's free, it's electric, it's all sorts of stuff that makes "jazz purists" cringe, and rightfully so. And it's also heard in the voices of old fucks who have managed to stick around long enough to see their herd thinned to the point where their unorthodoxy no longer causes them to be dismissed or ignored. It's in lots of places, but what it all has in common is that it's music in the service of life, not music in the service of music. Our world today, and jazz is but one small portion of that world, is one in which too many people are so concerned with the possible effects of inevitable change that natural ®evolution is subject to an often fear-based analysis by both those who would evolve and those who would buy into the evolution. And if evolution ain't natural, is it really evolution? Myself, I'm waiting for the next Henry Threadgill record, and hoping that it don't cost $45.00...