JSngry

I read that Corbett piece, and he has no knowledge of personnel, iirc.

Finally found a copy of this underground treasure, and I'm laughing my funkin azzoff! Anybody know or suspect who the players are? No reasonable response refused!

It's not enough to be a "Star" (as in "Star Search") in This Modern World. Now it's all about being an IDOL. An AMERICAN Idol, no less. Turn out the lights. The party's over.

The commentary by Dan Morgenstern is easily worth an extra howmanyever bucks...

You're kidding about American Idol, right? Tell me you are...

Mike, I hope you're right, but I've been having those same "wait and see, the backlash is coming" sentiments for long enough now that I'm pretty sure that they're nothing more than delusions along the lines of those cats of the 60s who kept saying "THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK! THE BIG BANDS ARE COMING BACK!" No, they weren't, and no, they didn't. They offered a last gasp or two, and then became museum pieces and/or oddities out of synch (but delightfully so) w/the rest of the world. Small group jazz is up next (front of the line, in fact) and live music in general is working its way forward, combing its hair so it'll look nice for the autopsy photo. I may be wrong, I HOPE I'm wrong, but I'm not making any bets on it.

It's also a damn good set, to say nothing of still being WAY in-print and available from Mosaic.

Nice sentiment, but about 20 years too late, unfortunately. Face it - we're analog dinosaurs in a digital era. We and what we offer are no longer interesting, much less relevant, to the lifestyles and mindsets of the vast majority of the world of today and the forseeable future. The days of people being entertained by real people doing things that they might admire and/or aspire to are over. Machines and ready-made servings of the past do that now, when it's even wanted. More often than not, though, what's wanted is something, anything, that they can either laugh at and feel superior to or at some level identify with as something they themselves could do w/o too much effort. The trend has been in place for quite a while, but I fear that the point of no return has long been passed. Extintion being the evolutionary process that it is, this ain't gonna happen all at once, nor all over, but the trend is obvious. We're dead, finished, obsolete, a relic of a culture and a mindset of a day gone by. Stay in the game, by all means, it's who we are and what we do, and Goddammit, we're GOOD at it, but realize how we fit into the overall picture. Hate to be such a drag, but that's the way I see it.

Soni?

I seethe.

You got your girlfriend through a booking agency?

Yeah, I ain't NO kind of fun.

For me, it's simple - with Larry's writing, I immediately (usually) get a sense of recognition that what he's said rings fundamentally true for me as well as for him, (or, when I disagree with him, that I clearly understand what it is that we disagree on), and further contemplation, when needed, usually confirms that. The only time he "loses" me is when he references things of which I am less than familiar. But that's my problem of not being as exposed to vaious authors, poets, painters, etc. as he is. If nothing else, it provides stimualtion to maybe someday get outside what I already know. With the Ratliff passage, I had to say, "What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean?" And even after I've figured out what I think he MIGHT have meant, I'm still not sure, and probably never will be. Now, I've read Ratliff often enough to know that is worst sin, imo, is being bland, both in what he reviews and how he reviews it. But this passage is just plain wack. Again, just my opinion.

WHOA!!! A DORIS DAY BLUE NOTE REISSUE SERIES ALBUM!!!! ALMOST JUST LIKE THIS ONE!!!! WHO KNEW?????

Wait 'til you hear the Rodcasts!

Well, if you look at the 1940s, its no contest! Seriously, I think that Prestige had a better track record when they had Miles, Monk, McLean, Sonny, the MJQ, etc. I find most BN sessions from this era to be good, but often very much "blowing sessions". Fine results, but not always memorable settings in terms of compositions and arrangements and varied programming (a complaint justifiably levelled against Prestige too, but look at the discographis of both labels chronologically and see if you agree that Prestige "wins out" in terms of "classics" up until about 1957 or so). Then, when the aforementioned artists left Prestige, it kind of splintered into a swing-centric "soul-jazz" label (Prestige proper as well as all the Moodsville, Swingville, Bluesville, etc offshoots) that produced much great (if not innovative) music and the New Jazz label, which had some great stuff, notably Dolphy, a lot of which didn't create too much of an impact, though (Dolphy being a notable exception). This is the era when BN was at its peak, I think, in terms of consistency, quality, and innovation. But then, when Don Schlitten started doing work for Prestige in the mid(?)-1960s, the label had a very, very respectable run of releases, not necessarily "cutting edge", but nevertheless strong work by some fine players, all of them either hardcore beboppers or rooted in bebop. This era overlaps the era when BN was becoming more diffuse, and also putting out a mixed bag of releases. As the decade came to a close, Prestige was definitely gaining an edge, I think, what with Sclitten's work and Bob Porter's coming in to produce all those organ dates. Into the 1970s, as Blue Note Hit A New Note, no question - Porter's soul-jazz sides easily blew away the Mizell Brothers dreck. And then, without fanfare, it was all done. So call it a draw. But if you want to have a tie-breaker, BN definitely did a better job of stockpiling and archiving. Prestige was a "cut it and release it" label. So from the 1970s on, people were able to pull out unreleased gems from the BN vaults, wheras Prestige mostly had to reissue what they'd already done. So give BN the edge here. A silly question, perhaps, but a serious answer/opinion nevertheless.

please enlighten me, what does it REALLY mean exactly? If you take it literally, it means that the best jazz is that which removes all "the flavor" from an individual piece and leaves everything sounding/feeling the same. That is, of course, the complaint that many non-jazz fans have against the music in the first place, that "it all sounds the same", or any number of variations thereof. A few people have been able to produce great jazz by doing that, but not very many. Most of waht I consider great jazz has consisted of music where material itself remains relevant at some level, even if it is doing a familar tune in a totally unfamilar way, or finding new meaning in a familiar composition, or even finding a new setting for improvisation. Those are all ways in which material is very relevant, I suppose that what Ratliff was trying to say is that great jazz finds inspiration in many places, and many times in some unexpected/nontraditional "nonjazz" places, that it's a music that can absorb many influences and source materials in the process of turning them into something ese entirely other than what they originally were. Which is spledidly true. But that's not what he siad, and unlike Mr. Kart's description of Mobley's playing that stirred up such a fuss not too long ago, it's not a thought that reveals its essential "correctness" under thoughtful scrutinization. It's just a thought that sounds like it must mean SOMETHING, even if that something has to be guessed at. And even if/when you guess, you can't be sure if you got it right or not. But as they say, "your mileage may vary". If somebody was able to reach the same conclusion as me as to what Ratliff really meant, and did so unambiguously, well then, good. As was obvious from the Kartian-induced chaos last week, some people "get" a writer and their style, and some don't. So maybe Ratliff is one that I just don't get. But damn - that seems like some awfully ignunt shit to me. Or, at the least, an expression of a thought not fully processed before being offered for consumption. Not so much a fault of "style" as of swallowing your food before it's chewed well.

Hearing today's use of melismatic singing is like hearing chefs on cooking shows saying "hal-a-peen-o". You know the muthafokkers ain't got a CLUE.

"Breasts of Passion" inDEED!

Damn, anybody who can watch a porno flick all the way through is seriously messed up!

Palmetto.

Contact was established as a result of postings here, yes. The actual exchange of ideas was done off-board, however. I was both honored and flattered to be quoted in the liner notes, and to see that the same quote made it into the book.

That, I think, was Larry's point - that the phrase was used carelessly at best, and cluelessly at worst. Piss-poor conveyance of an idea. If he REALLY meant it exactly as written, then he's an idiot, at least in that regard. Just my opinion.

Recorded very nicely as well.