JSngry

Hell if I know, but he did it. Cat must've had pneumatic pumps for jaws. It's almost like listening to a Pete Brown LP at 45. No, I take that back - it is like listening to a Pete Brown LP at 45 (I had the experience once when using the Newport Jam Session side to test out the "'50s Hawk at 45 sounds like Bird" theory - he does, sorta - and Brown got included in the experiment as collateral damage ). Thing is, it fits in its pwn wierd way. Definitely "anachronistic" in terms of the whole songs, but for the few seconds that he's playing, it fits. Wild, wierd, wacky, wonderful stuff, as the man said.

Bechet-style soprano saxophone on some early-50s R&B sides. The group was Steve Gibson & The Red Caps. The sopranoist was Emmett Matthews. He used to play with Fats Waller. You know, I used to do a comedy/music bit about Sidney Bechet having a R&B in 1956 with a tune called "Sassy Britches". But now that I've heard something not all that different that's real, I dunno... Hearing this type of soprano playing in this context is pretty damn freaky.

If you can find that Vee-Jay date w/Gene Ammons, Franks Foster & Wess, & Nat Adderley, a.o., grab it! Note: this is the CD reissue cover, which adds Ammons' name as co-leader. The original was issued solely with Green's name as the leader. But the rest of the artwork seems to be the same.

A clever nome de gissimo if you ask me!

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showuser=207 Hmmmm.......

I thank you!

H PPY BIRTHD Y!!!

Could somebody be so kind as to post a list of what selections were on the Mosaic that were not on the original LPs? Don't need full discographical info, just titles and if they were 45s, unreleased titles, alternate takes, etc. 'Preciate cha'!

Well, I have'em all except Off To The Races and Byrd In Hand, so I guess I have most of the material as well. But "most" is not "all", and "Last Chance" doesn't mean "Take your time, Bosco, we'll save one for ya' for when you're good and ready to buy it", so... Oh well, I was just gonna buy crack with that money anyway...

Five pages later, we come back around to my original thought! ← Hey, the classics never go out of style!

Besides, when somebody who knows mopre than I do talks, I do listen, and not just for the purpose of finding something to disagree with.

So says the man with 14,000 posts! --eric ← Not yet!

Mark Trail Gil Thorpe Mary Worth

Who needs a book when you got THAT? Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past. Enjoy! ← Is that what Chuck means by living in "two different worlds"? But seriously, I have a great respect for those records Chuck listed that have no edits on them. That's amazing. You know what? If we were playing 6 nights a week, doing our thang, we could do that, too. I guarantee. But as you know, Jim, the environment is no longer there. When Chuck saw us the last time, this past Thursday the 26th of May, it had been a full month since our last gig. And I thought we were pretty rusty. Luckily it was kind of a warm-up to Bakers, where I thought we kicked ass. But the point is, the infrastructure to support this music has been gone a long time. So we make due with what we have. I'm reminded of a conversation with Joe about a tune Metheny recorded which Joe later found out was completely improvised, on the spot, in the studio. It blew Joe away because it sounded like something that had been composed or at least worked through once or twice. But no, it was off the top of Metheny's head. I remember Joe wishing he could do that. You know what? He could. If he could dedicate all his time to playing and practicing like Metheny does, he could improvise something just as beautiful. I have no doubt. But he doesn't have that luxury right now. He's got to work his day gig, bring home the bread, take care of business. Same for me. I'd love to practice the organ 8 hours a day. I have new tunes running in my head almost 24 hours a day, but I don't have time to go figure them out. I've got a kid to raise, bills to pay, gigs to hustle, a house to fix, etc. Is it anyone's fault? No. But them's the breaks. Again, we work with what we have. ← I empathize completely. Believe me. Perhaps more than you know... But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it... We do indeed work with what we have, and we try to do the best we can with it. But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it... It is a different world today, and it is not in the least conducive to us doing what we want to do, hell, should be doing. But that doesn't mean that Chuck is "wrong". Far from it... There are no easy answers.

First of all, that is NOT what Chuck was doing. What he was talking about involves spontanaeity (how do you spell that damn word, anyway?) as part of a significantly more-encompassing esthetic. You can choose to believe that or not, and I suspect your choice has already been made. Second of all, if you really do need/want it spelled out for you (as I do "spontanaeity"), I respectfully suggest listening more, talking less, and assuming even more less. You're already coming at this from a "second-hand" (at best) pserspective, so the question is - do you want to learn, or do you want to establish your "difference" at any cost? Now there's an esthetic dilemma worthy of further review! Third of all - I forget what third of all is. If I was a prsioner of neo-romaticism, I'd celebrate the moment and consider it art in its own "special" way.. But since I'm not, (REALLY!), I'll just chalk it up to experience, age, and fatigue (in the midst of one of those periodic bouts of irregular sleep, doncha' know. It SUCKS!) and move on, hopefully back to sleep. One monkey don't stop no show, but a good pillow sure as hell can.

Yes, greg, Indeed, that specific culture is gone. HAS been gone. Having caught the tail end of its full glory, I don't need a book to tell me that. But, as if further proof was needed, I submit as evidence Who needs a book when you got THAT? Hell, I'm almost 50, so my life is probably more than half over. I know that Chuck's life is extremely likely to be more than half over. So the future belongs to you kids, as does how you choose to interpret the recent past. Enjoy!

Edmond Hoyle Abner Doubleday James Fenimore Cooper

Here, more or less: Or so it seems to me. What you're talking about is valid in and of itself, I suppose, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what Chuck was talking about.

Look, man, to each thier own. If somebody wants to "document" a perfection that doesn't exist in reality, that's cool with me. Of such things are idealism made, and idealism can inspire just as easily as it can deceive, so, yeah. Otoh, I fully understand where Chuck is coming from. Once upon a time, the "essence" of jazz was being spontaneous and having consummate craftsmanship at your disposal simultaneously. Any "mistakes" that happened were in the heat the moment and were due to "human error", not a lack of skill going into the venture. Such mistakes were tolerated only if the power of the surrounding lack of mistakes were strong enough to create a preponderance of the evidence. This is a world that didn't tolerate flaws as much as it did recognize them as fundamentally human parts of the growth process, and, as such, nothing to hide so long as the greater goal of being spontaneously creative and technically adept wasn't lost. I can find "technical flaws" in damn near every truly great recorded performance, jazz or otherwise. It's a question of how minor they are, and if they truly take away anything away from the overall weight of waht is being said in the performance. I can also point to any number of performances where the technique is flawless and nothing of significance is being said, just as I can point to any number of performances where the weight of what is trying to be said is diminished by technical sloppiness. Of course, my standards are my own, so your mileage can (and should!) vary. Also, sloppiness in the heat of the moment is more forgivable, imo, in the early stages of a style, personal or collective. Then, it's more likely to be a matter of something not being reached simply because what that something is is not yet fully clear. But that window of "forgiveness" doesn't last forever, for either individual or collective "visions". Sooner or later, you gots to get a grip on it. But in today's "jazz world", just as in today's "real world", the dominant esthetic of creators and consumers alike has little room for things like slow but steady pursuit of a vision, forgiveness of minor flaws, or any other such indications that there's a real human undertaking a real task. No, today, most people, it seems, want to hear the "finished product", even if it means finishing it before it's really finished, if you know what I mean. And a lot of musicians fall for the same bait, which is, I suppose, just another sign of the times. And then some know-nothings pop in with "perspectives" full of resentment against shit they don't know anything about other than what they've been told they should be resentful about by god-knows-who and that they've swallowed whole rather than chewing thoroughly. It ain't pretty, but it is today, so there it is. As far as "documentation" goes, afaic, it's as important or as unimportant as you want it to be. What are you documenting? Why are you documenting it? Who are you documenting it for? What difference in the long course of history will it make if it does or doesn't get documented? To what ends will the documentation be put after it leaves your possession? Etcetcetc? Those are all very real questions, and the answers need to be arrived at soberly and honestly. The answers will also vary widely from individual to individual. Or, at least, they should. That they too often aren't, and that they don't, is just another sumthin' else. Suffice it to say that documentation in the ears, minds, and hearts, of one person with whom you fully connect in a moment of unrecorded performance is at least as important (probably more important from where I sit) as a recorded document that thousands may hear without really getting your point. But not everybody sees it that way, and for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the matter of "career". But that's just me. So, hey!

What's wrong with jazz today is how an honest disagreement over how one's skills are applied gets turned into some pointy-headed "attack" on a never-stated-or-implied "esthetic" that supposedly values spontanaiety over craft to the extent that craft no longer matters. Where that came from, I have no idea, but it sure wasn't from the discussion as it had been going so far. People having opinions based on totally fucked-up perceptions of what it is they're supposed to be having an opinion about - another thing that's wrong with jazz today!

When would you rather it be? --eric ← When would I rather what be? Things are as they are.

What's wrong with jazz today is today.

Kiefer Sutherland Eddie South Peter North

Too much math for R&B.