JSngry

So let me see if I got this right... People who choose to live in society by exactly the same moral code as you do but have a belief in "something beyond" are stupid? People who make the same behavioral choices as you do but have a belief in "something beyond" are stupid? People who freely acknowledge that what they believe is simply that, a "belief", not a fact, are superstitious and deserving of scornful mocking, or at best condescension, but those who disagree w/o being any more able to conclusively prove their beliefs are rational beings of superior intellect? You would, in your ideal world, strip these people, people who would live their lives in society exactly as you choose to live yours, of their personal belief system and impose yours upon them because it's better and truer? You hate religion (hatred) enough to think that anybody who finds a place for it in their life is stupid (bigotry), and would love nothing more than to see it's removal from these people's lives, no matter the consequences to their psyche (untold misery), is that what you're saying? What is this, atheistic fundamentalism? No "brutal inquisitions, wars, crusades, pogroms, holocausts, and countless millions of deaths" in this scenario, but that's just because you're a good guy. No gurantees that it will always be so. What's that line about hating the most in others what we hate the most in ourselves? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

Agreed, but I've always found there to be an aura of "presentation" to them that the Prestige sides lack, and in this instance, for the particular material involved, the verite approach of the Prestige dates works better for me. Then again, maybe it's just the 78 vs LP thing coming into play. No matter, it's all part of a whole, and I'd not be without any of it.

Peterson had previously made some derogatory comments about Monk's playing in an interview or some such, something to the effect that Monk wrote prety ballads but was a poor pianist. Monk's reaction in the BFT was his response to those comments. Myself, with only a few exceptions, I don't really dig Peterson simply because I find his playing to be a glorification of the obvious.

There was a Prestige 2-fer LP. PORTRAITS, I think it was, where Byard talked about the stresses of working w/Mingus. That european tour was pretty hectic and stressful from what I've heard, so Byard probably just decided that enough was enough and decided to chill.

She's on Pharoah Sander's ESP album.

Lucky stiff.

Bet you can't eat just one.

I prefer the Prestige material to the Blue Note.

Split the difference and settle in Iowa.

No matter where you go, there he is.

That makes him Sly Stone's nephew! Behold the power of the Internet!

Because the potato looked like Elmer Fudd.

How about man + earth + the solar system + the Milky Way + whatever. That would be greater than just man alone, wouldn't it? Objectively, without trying to lead the answer anywhere else, the answer would be yes, wouldn't it? If it's not, then my feet would not be touching the floor, the floor would not be resting in the ground, rhe ground would not be held in place, and how the hell could I order from Dusty Groove?

Same here, albeit possibly for a different reason.

Indeed. I believe beyond all doubt that there is God, but I'm less than convinced that there ia "a" God, an anthromorphic being. Sounds like something that humans invented to put a face on that which has no face. But losing belief in the "symbol" in no way has dampened my belief in what it is that the symbol is attempting, no matter how flawed, to represent, or at least come to terms with. I believe that the Bible (indeed, a collection of stories, but not "just" a collection of stories) can still provide guidance on the path to getting a better understanding of what that something is. But NOT if it is viewed as a literal representation of ultimate truth. I see it as one culture's record of that search. A "message from the ancestors" so to speak, and as such, there are flaws, deep flaws, human flaws. But can we not, should we not, learn a lesson from these flaws? Is it not the function of all "messages from the ancestors" to learn not only what to do, but what NOT to do? I'm in no way an advocate of "organized religion", nor do I in any way subscribe to the notion of "Christian exclusivity". But in order to get somewhere, I have to start somewhere, and being raised in a Judeo-Christian culture, the most organic place for me to begin is within same. The lessons I learn from the Bible are in no way "exclusive" (most "major" religions come to the same conclusions through the perspective of their own cultural lens), but they nevertheless resonate deeper with me than do those of other culture's holy writings, the same way that Fathead NEwman resonates with me deeper than does Jan Garbarek. I can feel them both, and learn a lot from both, but when it come to which one hits deeper in the gut, it's Fathead, because he's "homefolks". In a quite real sense, I've destroyed my faith in the "literal" Bible in order to keep my faith in that which is beyond literalism. Heretical to some, but is this not the lesson of the death and resurrection, or any other lessions from the Bible (indeed, in all creation!), that in order to live and grow, someting must go through a series of births, deaths and rebirths? Those who curse at "organized religion" get no rebuff from me, nor do those who mock the concept of "a" God. But for those who do believe in a greater truth than what we can see and know, and to those who have a desire to follow the road to explore/discover that greater truth, I'm here to tell you that, in my personal experience, the Bible still offers much in the way of guidance and wisdom if you are willing to simultaneously let go of the notion of it as a book to be taken at face value (the word-by-word literal delineation of "God's Will") and at the same time take it exactly at face value (a collection of stories and other writings that DO reveal the nature of the relationship between humankind and that which is beyond it's clear understanding, including some royal screwups). It's a kind of "truth in contradiction" thing, and if there are those from either side who want to call it either heretical or delusional, hey, go ahead. But if there Is "truth" then it only stands to reason that truth can be found, or at least it can be uncovered one portion at a time. Much like I don't hear Coltrane anything near the same way now as I did when I was 16, I don't "hear" the Bible the same way now as I did when I was a kid. In fact, both have been never-ending, always changing journies, with periods of confusion followed by clarity, followed by new confusion followed by new clarity, on and on and on. The more I find out I know, the more I find out I DON'T know. And the more I want to know, the more I find out I already knew it, I jsut didn't know that I knew it. It's a trip. The Bible works for me in a way that no other "spiritual text" does. For those for which it doesn't, ok, I'm cool with that. But I would ask that the scorn and/or disrespet heaped on the book be levelled at the simpleminded uses to which it has been put, not against it's potential functionality as a guidebook to greater understanding, because just as surely as it can be (and has been) used it to chain and imprison, so can it be (and has been) used it to empower and liberate. Is that just "projection" of the individual on the book, another way of saying that if you believe, deeply believe, that a shoe reveals the nature of God that it would be just as useful as the Bible? Yeah, I suppose it is. But if I know a cat who's really into shoes like that, I'm not going to go around telling him that shoes have been a perinneal source of discomfort for me my entire life (they have), or point out some of the pervese uses to which footwear have been put to over the centuries (footbinding, anybody?) , or anything like that. I'm just going to figure taht the guy's seeing a LOT more in shoes than I do, and hope that he's on a road that will someday cross mine, and that if and when it does, we''ll take it from there and see where the NEXT road leads us. I would also hope that those who choose to get off the "Bible road" due to disillusionment, disbelief, or whatever, find another road to get back on. Not a road of "religion", but a road of humility in the face of creation and a road, a truly rewarding and personally relevant road, of seeking harmony and unity with/within it. Because without that, the track record of human behavior and accomplishment is less than stellar. And that goes for "religion" too. ESPECIALLY for "religion". Enough of this navel gazing. I gotta go peel some potatoes.

Totally agreed, to a point. Don't punish me for my father's sins, and don't tell me that my faith is bad or corrupted or the like because other people (wrongfully) did horrible things in the name of that faith. Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot, trying to do good by their fellow man while preaching the good news to those who will listen. Anyone and everyone should be able to tell the difference between words and action. Boney James says he's a jazz musician. Dave Holland actually is one. Same difference. No, it's not. "Good Christians" and "Bad Christians" are both Christians nevertheless. (The falseness of Duality raises it ugly head again!) As for Holland and James, as far as the majority of the world is concerned, they both ARE "jazz musicians", Different types of jazz, sure, but hey... Some of the vilest people imaginable have been Texans, as have some of the most delightful. Should I claim that the vile ones aren't "real Texans"? That's kinda, uh...naive, isn't it? So is pretending that "most" Texans are "good" ones. I don't know most Texans. Based on the ones that I DO know, I'd say that it's a pretty mixed bag, and that most of 'em have good days, bad days, and days that are a mix of the in-between. Don't know that that's "good", but at least it's real. As for telling the difference between words and actions, yeah people do just that, and that's why so may people are turned of to Christianity, and to religion in general. The words and the actions have too often been fused in all kinds of ways. That's real, too. Nobody, believer or non-believer, gets, or is entitled to, a "free pass" just because they claim to be "one of the good ones". You live your convictions and let the chips fall where they may. Can't worry about labels and/or what other people think about what YOU think. If you do, there's till an element of "seeking favor" that undermines the courage of the conviction. Or so I think... I'm all in favor of balancing the endless negative attacks on religion in general with soem reality - namely that much good has also come from spiritually motivated people, and often enough, organized religion. But only to the point where it's truly balanced, and saying things like "Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot..." goes beyond balancing. Sorry. You want to be judgfed as an individual? Cool, don't we all? T'aint the way of the world, unfortunately, especailly once you claim membership in a group. You want to claim membership in a group, be prepared to be alligned with EVERY aspect of that group. If that strikes you as unfair or anything like that, hey, so it is. But a "real Christian" is as real as his or her actions, and claiming that only "good Christians" are "real Christians" is a pretty laughable concept, really. Think about it...

Don't know anything about this one: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&t...10:8y61mped9ffo maybe it's got your lineup.

CHICO HAMILTON SPECIAL http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&s...ugjb7ia8g7dr~T1 has the same group w/a different bassist.

Art Blakey WAS a Russian spy. Do your homework, dammit.

Yeah, but as much as it happens here, it must be fun... I suppose some people think so. But then again, some people think that toughing your genitals feels good. I'm a marked man from here on out, aren't I?

Just to amplify on this a bit - there were many different strains of Christianity that sprung up around the same time. Paul's "version" was but one. Some of them, like the Coptics, still surive, albeit in miniature, and others, like the Gnostics (a wacky bunch if ever there was one - how a group could get the point so strongly and then go about executing it so perversely is nearly Python-esque!). The various strains were mostly divided by regionality, but there were inevitably overlaps, and resultant ideological conflicts. Now Paul was not one to tolerate variation from his party line (he even "took out" Peter, figuratively speaking), so he was on a mission to organize and propagate HIS vision of Christianity (those who wish to think that it was actually "God's vision" are welcome to do so, but apply the dynamic to any contemporary scenario and see if you can reach the same conclusion). Thus we have the various letters to the various congregations. They are nuanced, and they do show a willingness to "keep the peace" by showing an awareness of the local customs and predelictions of each group, a willingness to keep the troops in line by giving them a little bit of space to keep their "cultural identity", jsut enough space to keep them actively involved and not drive them away. One one level, this is good business, pure and simple, a model for building a broad, powerful, and effective coalition of diverse components from geographically separated areas. But recognizing that aspect of it is a far cry from making it "God's plan" for women. It's no such thing (Moses's sister was a priestess, for crying out loud, albeit one whose life is greatly downplayed scripturally in relation to the two brothers. Make of THAT what you will in terms of when, where, and by whom the Mosaic writings were codified/finalized), and even if you want to claim divine inspiration, to claim it as an inspiration for any "plan" other than to keep the early church together is just plain wack. Christians have no grounds for complaint when somebody calls them on the B.S. that the faith has propagated. There have been innumerable tragedies as well as innumerable triumphs. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than a continuation of the same mindset that created those problems in the first place, the mindset that figures that the ends justify the means. Well, if you got such a cynical and corrupted (imo) view of what the ends are... Another vent finished, hopefully the last one, at least for today.

Citing letters written to local churches (letters that are so often written to address xpecific problems within those churches, and letters which are chock full of the cultural traditions and mores of the time and place) as the authoritative "word of God" is one of the dumbest (to say nothing of most harmful, and therefore counter-productive) things that "Christianity" has ever done (and still does). Not that that ever detered/deters anybody... I'm vehemently opposed to this kind of ignorance and resultant manipulation/degradation that comes out of Scriptural "interpretation' of the Bible (or any "religious" text for that matter, but I'll take care of my own back yard, thank you...). "Reading in context" applies to more than quoting verses out of context, it means (or SHOULD mean, anyway), knowing the background and intention of the various writings, so one can not get bamboozled into thinking that Paul's telling women to cover their head and stuff like that is anything more than a regional director of a franchise trying to enforce "traditional values" in his various outposts. Although I've read some commentaries that cut Paul some slack by noting that the individual liberation felt by many of the early Christians was degenerating into near - or more than near - orgiastic behavior, I say "big whoop". That makes that aspect of these writings useful as historical documents, but by giving them "cannonical" status, and especially by downplaying or even ignoring the true nature of pasages such as this, so much harm has been done that "the church" refuses to accept responsibility for, and by God, they SHOULD accept responsibility for it. Good luck on that one... One of the most disheartening "religious" experiences of my life was when I set about to read the entire Bible straight through. Everything was going along fine (keep in mind that I'm quite firmly an "anti-literalist" believer, so the experience was like the ultimate spiritual archeological expedition), especially finishing up with the Gospel of John - one of the most truly "divine" writings extant. I left out of that one on a high that I thought wouldn't quit. Acts was kinda interesting in a "jazz immediately after Coltrane's death" kinda way, but then came Romans, with that opening salutation that immediately reeks of salesmanship and self-promotion (albeit under the guise of Jesus). "Who the **** is THIS guy, and what has he done to the Jesus of John?" was my immediate reaction. It was a rhetorical question, to be sure, but the impact of going from the grace and joy of John almost directly into the braying of Paul was an eye-opener, somewhat akin to following a cut by Paul Desmond with one by Ace Cannon... Iif you're looking for a believer to defend the kind of irresponsible and frequently ignorant and/or malevolent stewardship of it's (supposedly) core "meaning" that has been the hallmark of Christianity atleast since it shook hands with Constantine, you've come to the wrong place here. It's but one reason why I don't mind refering to myself, when asked (and in Texas, you get asked a LOT ) as a "Zen Christian" or a "Jesus Christian". My feelinngs about Pauline Christianity (and PLEASE let's not anybody try to pretend that there's not a difference!) are ambivalent at best... Anyway, just had to vent about that. Sorry!

10 - Held over 10,000 shares of Studebaker stock! 9 - 1953 Greenwich Villiage Little League Coach of the Year! 8 - Allergic to potatoes! 7 - Wrote left-handed, ate right-handed! 6 - Passionate about preference for 5-string banjo over 4! 5 - Frustrated pastry chef! 4 - Original staff writer for Your Show Of Shows! 3 - Weekly poker games with Robert Oppenheimer & Harry Truman a legend; used winnings to co-finance JATP tours! 2 - Violently opposed the formation of the NBA! And the Number One Little Known Fact About Charlie Parker..... 1 - Assassinated by Russian spies!

TOP TEN LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS ABOUT WAYNE SHORTER 10 - His first name is really "Thewayon"! 9 - 3 time Newark Youth Mambo Champion (Pre-Teen Division)! 8 - Played every instrument on every Weather Report album! 7 - Conducted the orchestra for brother Parnell Shorter's 1961 Grammy Award winning album of Schubert lieder done in sign language for the hearing-impaired! 6 - Childhood sweetheart? Betsy Palmer! 5 - "Nefertitti" really based on changes to "How High The Moon"! 4 - Invented microwave popcorn! 3 - Directed the pilot of "Charlie's Angels"! 2 - Certified Electrolux Dealer! And the Number One Little-Known Fact About Wayne Shorter........ 1 - He's Ravi Shankar's daughter!

Yeah, I thought the phrasing sounded very much like this trombonist, but the sound of the instrument sounds like something other than a slide trombone! But ok, everything makes sense now.