JSngry

I don't know that Miles himself was really wanting to stretch the music all that much at the time - it was the peak of his first "star" phase, and he was by all accounts enjoying it immensely. As well, he was showing signs of complacency, specifically in his overt antagonism to the then sprouting avant-garde. The temptaion must have been great for him to stand pat and keep riding the horse that brought him there, and it's a temtation that I don't think he was always ready to fight off. Why should he? Life was good, so was the money, and the music wasn't too shabby either. However, I do think that he wanted SOMEBODY in his band to do what Coltrane had done - electrocute everybody and give Miles a "hot" foil to his own "cool" leader's role. Hank was not the man to do that, and it wasn't his fault. But there's more to having a band, a real band, than just having good players. You got to have combinations of personalities and tendencies that contrast and conflict in a positive way, and that allow the individuals to express themselves while at the same time presenting the leader's unique vision. It ain't easy. No slight to Hank - LOTS of guys passed through that gig before Wayne settled in. Hank just happened to get more profile than the rest. The only exception would be George Coleman, but he was on the gig when the new rhythm section was debuting, as opposed to Hank, who was on the gig with the Kelley/PC/Cobb crew, who, it could be argued, were Red/PC/Philly with the edges rounded off - in a non-derogatory way, of course. It was both the culmination and the end of an era, and Miles hadn't yet decided which it would ultimately be. What I find odd is the need to defend Hank's Miles work. It was indeed fine, but jeez, if it never happened at all, it would not affect his real contributions and greatness one iota. Definitely a footnote in the man's career, objectively, his crediting of Miles with getting him to parse down his style notwithstanding. My gut tells me that he would have done that anyway in reaction to everything in the air anyway. Hank always was a bit of a contrarian, God bless him.

Not perfect, but close enough.

HERE'S SOME GOOFY STUFF ON THE WEB!!!!

Did you know that Norma Morris is William Morris' daughter by Ravi Shankar's girlfriend?

The lipstick does what it is supposed to do, if you know what I mean...

Whaditellya?

At the risk of sounding like I'm pimping my liner essay (barf!), it (the constantly liquid usage of rhytmic and pitch variations) really IS all about the "allness", not just of music, but of life in general. Plenty of cats play some interesting shit, but how many really, REALLY, offer you insight into the truest essences of the natiure of universal existence? THAT'S why Warne Marsh was such a bad motherfucker!

Cousin Larry is getting his suit pressed as we speak! Dude, do you realize how much power you now yield? One of those boxes represents how many million people? Just think - if you get another, "unofficial" tv for your crib to watch whatever you want and just keep the Nielsen set tuned into BET on Jazz and shit (literally, but it's the besst we got for now) like that, you can make the world a better (not necessarily GOOD, but at least better) place in ways the rest of us only dream about. Imagine "The Hank Mobley Story" on HBO (w/Don Cheadle as Hank), and proceed accordingly.

SHE'S PURTY!!!!!

Coltrane made similar comments about Bostic, in whose band he toured for a while. I have a quote somewhere I'll try and dig up. My question is - how much jazz (or jazz-ish) Bostic is there? Bill Doggett - there's a similar contender. Maybe a combined set of similar foci - that would be a good thing. But I don't know that Mosaic could/would be the company to do it.

Is it live material?

Always dug Flip. Gotta check out his very first album - it's subjects are rather "adult". And funny as hell!

My daughter remains unconvinced. But she's wavering. Maren, can you talk some sense to the girl?

All of the above, and more than that!

Oh HELL yeah! FINGERS is a MUTHA!

Cedar Walton, Wilbur Ware...

That is a miraculous piece of writing. One of my favorites of hers.

I preordered this, and it's supposed to ship July 13. GOTS to be great!

And Chyna and Clarence Sharpe too!

Yeah, it is a "different time, different experiences" thing, no doubt. We live in a world that moves at a totally different tempo and in a totally different rhythm than we used to. Plus, and perhaps more importantly, the concept of not needing to rush to "get there" is rapidly vanishing from our collective behavioral repertoire - it's all about getting it all ASAP and such. The only problem with instant gratification, as my partner-in-crime Pete Gallio likes to say, is that it ain't fast enough. None of that for me, ok?, but I seem to be in the minority. I'm inclined to also think that the racial milieu of the times played a great part in all this as well. Who was it said that the subtext of Steppin Fetchitt was that he never hurried about anything because there was nothing worth hurrying to? I don't recall, and that's something else, but you can bet your boots that cats of Roy's era had an awareness of "taking your time" that was strongly reinforced by the social barriers that they faced. Now that those barriers have eased, we might have thrown the already clean baby out with the dirty bathwater. I don't know for sure. But more about that some other time, perhaps... I finished listening to the set last night, and the only bummer was disc 7. Half of it seems to be an ersatz Jackie Gleason/Bobby Hacket date, the other half and ersatz Jonah Jones Capitol date. Fine enough for what they are, but what they aren't is Roy Eldridge being Roy Eldridge, which the rest of the set is, and quite handsomely, thank you. But that's 1 disc out of 7, leaving 6 full discs of totally exquisite music. More than good enough in my book. More than good enough. A damn near essential set, AFAIC. I'm glad that for once I ordered (well, ok - urged loved ones to order for me as a Christmas gift) early in anticipation instead of at the last possible second in panic. That seems more than fitting, all things above considered. I'm gonna take my time with this one.

FOR LOSERS is one of the most accurately named albums of all time, a heartbreaking, poignantly unflinching (sic) musical portrayal of its title, specifically as it relates to "the jazz life". It's my favorite Shepp impulse!, bar none, and quite possibly my favorite of his, period. If and when it gets reissued on CD, people will either love it totally or hate it without reservation. Given the concept, could it be any other way?

Myself, I much preferred Holland's groups when Steve Coleman was on board. That was an exciting band in many ways. I'd not go so far as to call his current group "boring", but before you write off this group of his entirely, check out what it sounded like in its earlier manifestations for some context.

Don't I know it. You can NOT, as a rule, call that type of tempo these days - it will inevitably either slow down or speed up before you know it. It's as if that perspective on experiencing life no longer exists.

What's a father to do? "Bossy The Cow" - that's the way it has always been, and that's the way it still is. I stand by my convictions, including the ones that have been overturned on appeal.

I love the writing itself, and "cool" is not a problem. But her bands play the music with a pocket that sounds more "concert" than "jazz" to me, and that is a problem. Gil's bands, even in the rock days, but ESPECIALLY in the mid-60s, had a real stoner kind of groove going on - spacy, ethereal, etc, but always with a rhythmic sway to them that was definitely "swing" albeit it's own unique variety. I don't get that from Maria's bands, and it's a pity, becasue she really is a great writer. Maybe that's what she wants, obviously it is, so that's cool. It's just not what I want, and I demand that my needs be met no matter who it is! FEED ME!!!! Let me hear this same band when it's older and/or more dissipated (preferably the latter first). THAT I'd plop down big bucks to hear!