JSngry

Si! Contrast and compare with the Ray Brown Trio AMG soundsample found HERE. Funny, that tune sure sounds like a Mills Brothers number. Did they ever do it?

Which is why many of the specifics of Theiring's work make sense, or at the least merit consideration. The historical Jesus may well have been a shadowy figure far outside the mainstream of contemporary Jewish life. There were certainly ample opportunities...

I've seen the photo numerous times, and have known who it is, but have also long forgotten. Not gonna stop me from snappin' on that stogie, though...

Hmmm.... My long-standing bookmark tries to connect to http://63.211.17.231 and to no avail. Get the all too familiar DNS error mesage. But typing in the http://www.allmusic.com address gets me there lickety-split. Guess I just need to change my bookmark. The wonderful world of DNS...

Maybe they got into a spat with

You were in the men's room next to Willie Bryant, the lights went out, you reached for what you thought was your cigar, and you got the shit beat out of you.

Barbara Thiering is somebody who is a nut job taken at face value, but she's also somebody who makes some good, and fascinating, points that aren't as easily discredited in the specific as her theories are as a whole. Here's a link to an Amazon listing for her writings, as well as those that would appear to be related in them, pro & con: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...9691876-0509512 Of course, if you want a look at Early Christianity, there are the Gnostic writings, which are quite a trip. And I'd definitely recommend reading all the so-called "inter-Testamental" writings you can get ahold of. Much of what we read in the New Testament takes on a different meaning once you've read things like the Book of Enoch, which was apparently HUGELY influential in the time of the historical Jesus. Bottom line for me - it's all speculation. The culture from which most likely sprang the Gospels had such a tradition of shrouding the literal historical truth in deep symbolism and such that unless there's an archeological find of staggering significance, it's going to left to us to believe or disbelieve whatever we want. Lots of kinda "mystical" (to say nothing of "militant") sects in that time and place, and believeing that the historical Jesus did not at least tangentally interesect with them requires a highly literalistic POV, which is cool for those who choose to take it, but I myself am just not able to.

You're certainly welcome! And if you're looking for titles, here's a site that might interest you: http://astronomy.sussex.ac.uk/~alexd/albums2.html Some of this stuff I was totally unaware of.

http://www.dustygroove.com/jazzcd2.htm#384219 A session recorded in England ca. 1969/70 with, a.o., Kenny Wheeler & Stan Tracey. Tune selection is very nice, and very varied. Paul sounds pretty loaded on this one. For most players, that would not necessarily be a good thing, but a loaded Paul could often result in some incredible feats of tenoristical daring, and such is the case here. A lot of what he plays here falls every bit as much into the "how the hell did he DO that?" category as do the wilder flights of Lockjaw Davis. If you're a tenor player, a tenor geek, or both, this is one that you GOTTA hear. Not a perfect album by any stretch of the imagination. The accompanying musicians don't particularly do it for me (mileage will probably vary considerably on that one, though), and on a few tunes they shoulder the lion's share of the performance. And a few times, Paul weaves on and off mike. So if you're looking for one of those records that sounds like EVERYBODY CAME IN TO EXECUTE WITH AN EYE TOWARDS POSTERITY, well, this ain't it, especially since the piano sounds like it has already BEEN executed... But if you want to hearr more than a few moments of some pretty amazing tenor playing, here it is.

Here's the link: http://rodneypledge.tripod.com/sitebuilder...tbanktrack7.mp3 If you're using Windows Media Player, go to File, and then Open URL Past the link into the popup box that appears and then click OK. VOILA! Instant Getz!

I'm totally comfortable with the use of the technique when used "neatly", but the formulation of the "anti-music" angle of the Plugged Nickel and beyong band ain't so neat. It's attributed to a direct quote from Tony Williams, in 1965, which seems a bit much, unless the author was present at the time, which is a scenario I seriously doubt. (And that's not the only use of such license being taken.) I mean, it's a good story, and I've no reason whatesoever to doubt the gist it, but why not just frame it as a quote from the source? You know, something like, "Tony said, "blahblahblah", and we all thought, "yeah!"" or something like that. That keeps the drama and the narrative flow intact as well as having a helluva lot more credibility from the standpoint of historical accuracy, which I should think matters at least a little in a biography. Some people who read books actually care about stuff like this. Hard to believe, ain't it!

Ok, she put it on the table with it's legs straight up. And the children got a glass to catch the liquor out its ass. Yeah, so? I don't get the significance of confusing a duck and a chicken, and I've eaten plenty of both. Other than that cooking a duck is a helluva lot more messier (and that a duck has no white meat), I don't see why that's anything to sing about. Maybe its a metaphor for getting your hopes up based on a false assumption, but I dunno. Any ideas?

??!! east texas often looks like louisiana, mi amigo, tho' parts of it resemble arkansas (& vicey versey). I didn't want to say anything, but, ummm, yeah.

In da' howse. WHEW!

I'd use Andy Lotshaw lina\iment.

Boots Randolph and "Yakety Sax" were the Kenny G of my day and time while growing up/learning saxophone in rural East Texas. I developed a visceral dislike, no, a bottomless pit of raw and steaming hatred, for everything about the man, including the mere mention of his name. So I do not say the following lightly - Boots Randolph, when he wanted to, could play halway decently. Excuse me while I go put a bullet through my head.

They sent it to the Phil Spector Defense Fund.

Maybe it's because they used (well, Bennie, anyway...) and he hesitated that he got straight. Or something like that. Too many inadvertant drug implications in that sentence not to try and get a joke out of it!

Wouldn't you like to just once get away from the old art-vs-commerce bullshit?

Good luck on the house! Sorry, but technique is a "mean". In the art that moves us the most profoundly, it is indeed "just" a mean, which is not to say that it is unimportant. But - it's not the technique itself that moves us, it's what that technique is in the service of that gets ahold of us. Of course, there are those who think that Maynard Fervuson is the shit and that Don Cherry souldn't play his way out of a wet paper bag, but even then, I think that's a matter of what their respective techniques are seen/felt to be in the service of that drives those choices rather than an objective type of "I think Maynard is better than Cherry because Maynard can play higher notes" type of thing. Yeah, right, that's all it is... And btw, that goes the other way too. I don't think that anybody responds purely to technique, be it in music, visual arts, anything. There's always "more" to it than that. If I'm reading you right, Eric, what seems to be bugging you more than anything else is what you perceive to be a lack of appreciation for craftsmanship. And I would certainly agree that to dismiss quality craftsmanship as "irrelevant" is a huge error, just as I would certainly agree that there is no lack of art in same. Achievement a high level of mastery in one's craft is no small feat, and there is much to be gained from the appreciation of it. But by the same token, I also think that it's an equally huge error to assume that craftsmanship is "all there is". For some, that may well be the case, but there is such a thing as vision, imagination, daring, and all that other "arty" stuff. That's the stuff that keeps us collectively moving, for better and/or for worse. You know that as well as I do. It's also a huge error to think that all the arty stuff alone is enough to sustain growth. It's not. You gotta have the means to carry out the vision, and that is going to inexcapably require craftsmanship, and a high level of it. Now, different visions will require different types of craftsmanship, "technique" if you will, but a vision that is not followed up by an outbreak of parallel and sympathetic craftsmanship is going to remain just that - a vision, not a reality. Tough lesson to learn sometimes, but there it be. I also think (I think too much...) that it's a huge mistake to assume that anybody who places a significant value on the more intangible qualities of "art" is somehow dismissive or otherwise lacking in an appreciation, a deep appreciation, for the other things. Sure, there are the "tragically hip", but they have always been amongst us, and they always will be. But to assume that everybody who wants/needs/enjoys "more" than "just" good, or even great, craftsmanship does so out of a sense of disdain/superiority/neo-romanticism/whatever is just plain wrong. Loving the sky doesn't meant that you don't care about your lawn, if you know what I mean. Believe me when I tell you that there are plenty of people for whom the choices aren't "either/or". To me, it's a mark of maturity is to appreciate, love, even, many different things, yet still maintain a set of personal priorities, one that fully enjoys everything w/o succumbing to the urge to think that "it's really all the same" (yes, it isn't, but no, it is...), and that the presence or absence of certain personally-perceived qualities "doesn't really matter" (doing that leads us right back to the "everybody's special, everybody's an artist" position). To do so takes intellectual honesty, emotional disciplince, and cognitive craftsmanship. The end is, hopefully, a life artfully lived. Farmers can do it (better than many, actually...), mechanics can do it, hillbillies can do it, even painters and musicians can do it! It's not some sort of secret society. It's simply an individual choice, and one that damn near everybody makes in some form or fashion, and letting people know what their options might be is no sin. Honesty, discipline, and craftsmanshsip in the service of an artful life. Who could ask for anything more?

Although I have no practical experience in this field, from a simple "customer service" standpoint, I have to agree. They can shut you down anytime they want for as long as they want, and the only thing you can do is wait for them to change their mind? No.

Probably, but I'm not sure. The disc I hear was a Gear Family single-CDcollection of the groups RCA recordings, a mixed bag that is bery good when it's good and bery distressing when it's not. The reason I say "probably" about that disc you mention is that Matthews seems to have been an important member of the group in those years. The hustory site you link to is good, but I found one this morning that is damn near exhaustive! Check it out: http://home.att.net/~marvy42/Redcaps/redcaps.html I should note that this group was totally unknown to me until last night. But doing some digging into who that sopranoist was led me to discover that they were apparently quite a seminal group, a key part of the transition of styles in popular African-American vocal groups from the Ink Spots style to the proto Doo-Wop of the "bird groups" like the Ravens, and then into the raunchier R&B of groups like Billy Ward & The Dominos. I had no idea!

Intentional or not, that's quite a mixed message right there. Of course an artist has "something". But who says that haveing it confers "superiority". Not me. Of course, ego does come into play, sometimes healthily and necessarily, sometimes narcissistically, and sometimes a some ghastly combination. But yeah - that "something" is the point of art, all art. Think about it. Which leads us to this: Another perhaps unintentionally mixed message. Technique is indeed the means of conveying the message, and the better technique one has, the more options one has at one's disposal. And the more options one has, the more choices one cn make, which, ideally, leads to more specific statements being made (even if the statement is about "vagueness"!). So in that sense, technique is more than "merely" anything. But taken to the next level, technique is indeed "merely" a tool to an end. If that end is relatively slight, all the technique in the world can't disguise the fact. But it can fool some of the people some of the time, just as can a lack of technique in the service of of a passionate yet unfocused vision (those who present this type of work are usually found out to be "one trick ponies", and after the enthusias for the initial passion dies down, these people find themselves wondering where all their "fans" went. On to the next verse of the same song, that's where, most likely...). Technique is one of those thigs that can either liberate you or imprison you. I'm very tempted to say that no schooling in the world can alter the outcome, that one's true self will come through no matter what, that a person who truly needs to make an involved statement will learn the technique needed to do so out of internal necessity, and that those who have relatively little to say will still have that much to say with any amount or lack of technique. So when all is said and done, technique is "merely" a tool, albeit a crucial one. And let's not overlook that there are a vast variety of specialized "techniques", each with its own set of rules and standards, and each useful for a specific goal (Monk, and those who explore the implications of his work, comes to mind almost immediately). But still - the fault of a work beiong shallow or otherwise lacking is not the fault of the technique(s) employed, it's the fault of the person doing the employing. And it's this "everybody is special, everybody is an artist" mentality that drives me nuts. Yes, everybody is special, and yes, everybody is an artist, but all that gives us is a starting point, not a finish line. Big, BIG, difference. What I think you're talking about is a variant of the old "cult of personality" bizness, and it's older than Methusala. What really needs to ne examined, I think, is not if the supposed emphasis on "individuality" is harmful (hell, there is no greatness without individuality), but rather the hows and whys of what kind of people are willing to settle for standing at the starting point thinking that they've crossed the finish line. That's got next to nothing to do with slash-and-burn questionings of the nature/processes of art and more than a little to do with the basic nature of the people involed in the processes. Don't rail against the tools or the concepts, rail against the people who are actually using them. It ain't the song, it's the player, dig? Given the exact same set of tools, training, and cultural "surroundings", shallow people will produce shallow art, and great people will produce great art. Simple as that. Just my opinion.

Thank you. In my book, it means paying deep attention to everything going on around you...

If the complaint is that nobody's learning the rules before they break them any more, I'm sympathetic to the principle, although I have some serious doubts about how much of that is really going on in the "upper echelons" of any art. There's always been frauds and posers, and there always will be, and, yeah, sometimes they get a little bit of play. But they don't last, and if they don't invest wisely, neither does whatever bit of money they get out the deal. The radicals who stick around, who ultimately really matter, quite often understand the rules better than those who defend them (the rules, that is). At least the ones who I dig do. If, otoh, the argument is that the rules are being broken, well, hey, tough. And get over it, becuase inevitably today's broken rules become, to one extent or the other, tomorrow's orthodoxy. Don't like where things are now? Be patient and live a long life. Odds are good that things will come back your way to at least some extent sooner or later, if only for a little while. That's just the way it goes. Of course, if we're talking about art in a society that is flirting with destroying its fundamental character for whatever reason, all bets are off. But since this ain't the Political Forum, no need to go there...