JSngry

Indeed. Riley with Jaws/Griff was just dandy, probably the best/most perfect drummer that great group ever had, and he's certainly been fine (or better!) elsewhere over the years.

That's the thing that's become increasingly intriguing to me - listening to Trane's phrasing/articulation on the heads. Very unique in comparison to other Monk saxophonists, and, yes, more often than not perfectly melded with Monk's.

Fuddy-duddy me preferes the original cover however... Wasn't really that green, though///

A classic in certain circles around these parts. That one, and Live! too. Heard both albums regularly for decades on the AM jazz stations down here from the late 60s on. The FM jazz stations never seemed to be hip to it. Par for the course, that...

To, and into!

My source is unimpeachable, and it's a member of the Davis estate that is doing it (cancelling the release, that is). It is my hope (and unfounded in anything but hope - no info to support it) that this is just a temper tantrum and/or negotiating ploy.

Just received bad news...as in "cancelled"...details still vague...

Yeah buddy!

Has a sweep ever been so close?

Imo, labels such as Lonehill function in a significantly more ambiguous area of odiousness when they release "grey market" items such as this than when they release material that is blatantly pirated from legitmately copyrighted "official" recordings. It's still a sticky area, to be sure, but it's sort of like the difference between stealing somebody's furniture out of their house and "helping yourself" to stuff that's left out on the curb. Sort of...

Even if he is guilty, which seems quite plausible, is the need for vengeance absolute? Should it be? Forgiveness is not always easy, and frankly, I don't think that it always should be, especially under circumstances involving the willful taking of a life. But if one is totally unable to forgive, no matter what the circumstances, then I can't help but wonder if one ends up losing in humanity whatever one gains from the satisfaction of extracting revenge. Closure, some say, but is that always the case, or is "closure" one of thos devil words that one can sometimes use to nobly mask one's less noble instincts? I'd be a liar if I claimed that my "philosophical" objection to the death penalty was equal in all cases (it becomes less equal the older and more cynical I get, actually), but in a case such as this, I really have to wonder what purpose, other than a very basic sense of "revenge", is served by execution. Tit-for-tat may be the easiest avenue to closure - and I'll not for one second even pretend that closure is not of critical importantance - but it damn sure ain't ain't the only one. Seems to me that there's a time to hold on, and a time to let go. Make the wrong choice and you become a prisoner, literally or figuratively.

The varied opinions of "Hoe Down" are interesting. I agree that it's a jarring juxtoposition to "Stolen Moments", but I also think that that jarring quality is intentional. Think about it - the title "Stolen Moments" certainly implies a brief, doomed not to last escape. For whom, from what? Two lovers stealing away for a rendezvous? Perhaps. But also, perhaps, somebody, anybody, having a few moments of personal reverie, a reverie that is inevitably rudely interrupted by The Man. You get into your own personal zone, where you're alone with yourself, for better or worse, it doesn't really matter because if there's any problems, they're your problems, not anybody else's, and before too long...HOE DOWN!!! It never fails. Now, Nelson's take on all this could be bitter or sarcastic, but it's not really. It is what it is. "The Man" is just a fact of life. An unpleasant one, perhaps, but Nelson seems to be saying through this tune that no matter how unpleasant The Man is, there's always a way to get over and around, if not away from, him. You can't hide, but you can run, and if you run fast enough and smart enough, well, you're ahead, right? Lest anybody think that I'm "inventing" this take on Nelson's take, let me quote Nelson himself, from the Apirl 24, 1975 issue of Down Beat (pgs 10-11). The words are still startling 30 years later, and certainly raise eyebrows. But I think they provide a deep insight into Nelson's overall outlook on life (and by extension, his music). Nelson is speaking in regard to his 1969 State Department-sponsored tour of Africa: So...what are we to make of a man who feels that the deep beauty of his music has its roots in one of the equally deeply darker episodes of human history? Is it any wonder that such a man played and wrote music that was equal parts pain and elation - never one more than the other, and neither given an implicit "approval" by its creator? There's something disturbing about much of Nelson's music, and it's not that its creator said "Thank God for slavery". Nelson's music, even the blatantly commercial stuff, often sounds to me like a man who is about to explode, but not because he's "angry" or some such. He sounds like he's got this unresolvable tension inside him, and it sounds/feels like this tension is caused by the gnawing suspiscion that if you get rid of all the bad in life, you'll also get rid of all the good that comes as a result of it. And what, then, would be left? Where can a man who feels this way go for comfort and solace from this abstract truth but the blues? Stolen moments indeed...

Much love, much thanks.

I did hear it at the time of release, (perhaps even a tad before, not sure, but definitely before reviews were out in the press) and "different and exciting" is an understatement. But that's a story that's going to have to wait until October 30. Still not done w/Oliver Nelson...

Gatefold luxury minus the luxury!

I actually bought this album. Had a gig in San Antonio this past Sunday night, and stopped at a Starbucks in Temple on the way down. I figured that since I was already paying four bucks for a cup of coffee, I might as well pay sixteen bucks for a CD. So, against all better instincts, I bought the new Herbie CD. I have to admith that I was disappointed at how much it didn't suck, at least as a collection of modern, musically literate pop music. Quite a few of the cuts made for pleasant, at times absorbing (in the pop sense) listening. The singers nearly all sounded like they were too young and too self-conscious, but hell, that's the way musically literate pop music's mostly been for the last 20 or so years. Maybe even longer. I let it play three times through as I moved on down I-35 and never got even remotely pissed off, not even at Christina Arugula's hyperactive vocal acrobatics (they're much more focused on the CD than they've been on the TV appearanceces). The thing is, there's not that much on here that distinguishes this as a Herbie Hancock record. If this would've been released as a Various Artists "The Sounds Of Starbucks" type thing, with the profits going towards hurricane relief, or something like that, I don't think that anybody would be freaking out or anything, and perhaps some of the people who are tending towards apoplexy might even enjoy the some/most of the music on this CD. It's the name "Herbie Hancock" that creates certain expectations and disappointments for listeners, including myself, out of this album. Is that fair? Well, yeah, sure. "Herbie Hancock" is not a name without a history, albeit a broad and quite diverse one. Looking at the credits, i was struck by how much collaboration and borrowing there was on this album. Production, arranging, songwriting, etc., it's almost all done in conjuction with somebody else. The most musically interesting thing on the side is, believe it or not, "I Just Called To Say I Love You", a damn-near brilliant reharmonization of Stevie Wonder's most trite "major hit" ever. The way the harmonies are altered totally changes the meaning of those tripey lyrics and makes for a really, really absorbing listen. But looking at the credits, one sees that the arrangement was a collaboration between Herbie & the wonderfully talented Greg Phillingames. Now, the harmonies have "HERBIE!!!" written all over them, but who knows? Same thing with the version of "I Do It For Your Love" - very nice arrangement, dar and moody, with some really fat and dark chords creating a very non-trite vibe. It definitely sounds like it could have come from Herbie's mind. But guess who actually contributed the arrangement? Paul Simon his ownself! So, I'm left asking myself, just what did Herbie actually do for this album besides allow himself to be "positioned" as the leader and, probably, throw in some ideas along the way? I expect more from the guy than that, and I'm not sure that there's anything more to it than that here. On the other hand, however... As stated earlier, there is a lot of mucial literacy on display here, and a lot of really good, solid grooves in the service of that musical literacy. Those who are desperately searching for a respite from all the prefab, formulaic, empty bullshit that passes for "pop music" these days can find a plethora of relief in the music heard on this album. And, if lots of people are buying it (and it appears that they are), then lots of people will be hearing it. Whether or not they'll get it or not is another matter, but Pop Music has always been a crapshoot as far as that goes. But - fans of Joss Stone & Johnny Lang, to use but one example, who pick this one up will be treated to their heroes basically empty singing being served up over a deep grove that recall both the Herbie of Manchild as well as vintage (mid-70s) Crusaders. Should they ever hear the real thing at some future date, something might click inside them, and they might listen a little closer, have their curiosity aroused, and take it from there. Or not. You never know. The album is, after all, called Possibilities. Don't believe the hype - in terms of what it is, rather than who it's supposed to be, this is in no way a bad record. Far from it in fact. That "who it's supposed to be" part is tricky, though. For me, I'm treating it like I did that $4 vente Vanilla Latte on that road trip - as a pleasant stimulation on the way to other things that will be forgotten as soon as it wears off, but one that was good enough while it lasted.

WTF? That's the Turrentine/CTI Cherry cover photo?!?!?!?!?!

And based on what I know of her from her postings here, if I tried to change one thing about maren, I would no doubt have my head served to me, which is how it should be.

Which would make perfect since, seeing as how the structure of that tune is all about modulating up, staying there for a little bit, and finally coming back down. The last A-Section is downright ingenious in that regard, since it starts a half-step up from home, thanks to the movement of the bridge, and doen't retun "home" until the very last 4 bars

Based on what I know of her from her postings here, if I had to change one thing about Maren, I wouldn't.

"Now you're chunking in there" ←

I only kept the gum after I lost my pocketknife...

IIRC, there were some rumors circulating that the Astros might be relocating to another city as part of the then-impending expansion deal which eventually yielded the Expos & the Padres. Either that or else Topps was hedging that any and all Astros players were up for graps in the expansion draft and wanted to be covered. But I really think it was the first scenario. The rumors seemed far-fetched then, but by '67-'68, the novelty of the Dome had worn off, attendance was slipping, the team continued to disappoint on the field and you know how rumors get started... Although, I'm thinking that it was in either '67 or '68 that the Astros had their first uniform change, and the dark caps became orange. But I don't think that that would explain the blacking out. But - if you got a '68 Topps set, you got the Nolan Ryan Rookie Card!

By pulling for a "home" team that's never even been to a World Series? But that's cool. I'm down w/the Sox as well, been a fan since the late 60s, the days of great arms and (almost) no bats. So if they beat the Astros, I'll not be too bummed. And since I'm not from Chicago, I can be (and am) a Cubs fan as well. But I've been an Astros fans since they were the Colt .45s. Went to 6 or so games the first season the Astrodome was open (have yet to get down to Enron, though. Oh well...). Still have vivid memories of the 2 game "comeback" by Robin Roberts as an Astro, which abruptly terminated in a Sunday afternoon confrontation vs Koufax (a game which the old man valliantly drove us to in hopes of there being 4, just 4, tickets available at the box office on game day. No luck - SRO. But he tried, God bless him.). When you get shelled by the '65 Dodgers, it's a good sign that it's over... Spent a major portion of my youth between the ages of 9 & 15 listening to/watching Astros games (anybody remember the *GREAT* Lowell Passe?) and following the team in minutae. Still think of Joe Morgan, Rusty Staub, Mike Cuellar, Dave Giusti, and countless other Greats Of The Game as Astros first. Same with Harry Kallas. So they get first place in this Series rooting heirarchy.