JSngry

First the last line from the ISKA revie, now this. Are the WORKTIME liners gonna be "lost" too? You're saving material for a sequel, right?

GET A JOB!

Eric Alexander is not evil. That would be Harry Allen. Seriously, Eric Alexander is a quite good player whose relative lack of individuality and originality is made significantly less obvious by the lack of competition. Giants used to walk the Earth, especially in jazz. Now it's more like 6'3" guys posing as giants. Not just in jazz, but everywhere in life. Fine enough, it's all relative anyway, but I myself refuse, or am perhaps congenitally unable, to confuse Mugsy Bouges with Manute Bol, much less Eddie Gaedel with Randy Weston. To all the Alexander supporters out there, I mean no harm. I mean, Lord knows I like plenty of music and players that are non-gigantic, to put it mildly. The main thing for all of us us is that we like waht we like - some of it for obvious reasons, some for reasons that only we ourselves can fathom. It's good like that. I have no problem w/Mr. Alexander as a good jazz saxophonist doing extrenmely proficient work - that's what MOST jazz is anyway, the level of true inspiration and such not happening nearly as often as the Romantics would like to believe, although in the Days Of The Giants, the bar was a lot higher (but the bartenders weren't....). I DO have a problem, however, with him as a leading voice on his instrument, or as a bright star on the horizon, or whatever Great (insert adjective of your choice here) Hope of Jazz, because if where he's coming from (see Larry's comments re:Eric, which I agree with in fact, if not necessarily in conclusion, at least not 100%) is indeed the future of jazz, then the music has changed at a fundamental level from where and what it has been for as long as I've known it, and frankly, I don't think that this new place really holds much interest for me. It's becoming like Disney World - exact replication in all the architecture/buildings/etc, but everything is built, what, at 80% scale(?), so YOU look and feel (and presumably, spend) bigger than you really are. Clever, comfortable, and entertaining but ultimately not as real as what we all know exists, or, at least, existed elsewhere, often on the same real estate. It's a HELLUVA nice place to visit, but...

Hey - if there was any doubt remaining in anybody's mind that this show is a psychological drama masquerading as a mob show, this last episode should remove it. I dug it.

Elvin is not dead. Just his body is. A spirit like that can NOT be destroyed!

I think we should all work up a sweat and a smile of the most massive joy imaginable.

See you later.

Francesca Tanksley. In a word, superb. http://www.dreamcallerproductions.com/dream/music.html

Will this do?

You have a metal-spined IASW box for real? This is the first I've heard of such a creature! Not saying that you don't, but every IASW box that I've seen has had a non-metallic spine (the only one of the series so far that has not had the metal spine), so if yours really does have a metal spine, you've got yourself a jimdandy humdinger of a collectors item!

Guess again!

No response to this leads me to wonder if I'm the last person here to know about this. Am I?

Hallsydappydiddlywappy Bimmalingadingaday!

C'mon man, you're a politician now. The rules are different. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18arnold.html?th Schwarzenegger Files Suit Against Bobblehead Maker By JOHN BRODER Published: May 18, 2004 LOS ANGELES, May 17 - Arnold the Litiginator? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's film production company filed a lawsuit last week against a small Ohio toy maker, claiming that the company's $19.95 Schwarzenegger bobblehead doll illegally exploits his image for commercial purposes. The suit says that Mr. Schwarzenegger is an instantly recognizable global celebrity whose name and likeness are worth millions of dollars and are solely his property. Ohio Discount Merchandise Inc., a family-owned business in Canton, came out earlier this year with a line of dolls of political figures, including Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. The company has long sold bobbleheads of public figures and celebrities. Its two biggest sellers are likenesses of Anna Nicole Smith and Jesus Christ. But when the company added a doll of Mr. Schwarzenegger last month, wearing a gray suit and a bandoleer and brandishing an assault rifle, lawyers for the California actor-turned-politician pounced. First in a letter, and then days later in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Mr. Schwarzenegger's lawyers contended that the toy company and its president, Todd D. Bosley, had violated the governor's rights to his image. They cited several California and federal cases that support a public figure's right to control the use of his name and likeness, and to be paid royalties if they are used to sell products. "California has very strong laws that protect celebrities," said Martin D. Singer, the lawyer for Mr. Schwarzenegger and his company, Oak Productions Inc. "His name, voice and likeness are not in the public domain. If you use them for commercial purposes, you are potentially liable for damages." Mr. Bosley says the governor should lighten up. The dolls are meant as a political parody and are thus protected under the First Amendment. Besides, he said, part of the profits go to a cancer charity. "Obviously we're making a little bit of fun of Arnold with a caricature of him," Mr. Bosley said. "No other politician has done this. Jimmy Carter sent me a book. Hillary Clinton signed one and sent it back to me. Rudy Giuliani carried his around with him to several of his speeches. We've never had a problem like this." The case pits two legal concepts against each other, the First Amendment's protection of free speech and political commentary, and the "right of publicity," a branch of trademark and copyright law that protects an individual's image and voice from unauthorized commercial use by third parties. The courts have tried to define the difference between protected speech and copyright infringement, though several rulings have left a large gray area, said Eugene Volokh, professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles. Use of a public figure's name, voice or likeness is permitted for journalistic purposes and as an artistic or political statement as long as the artist "transforms" the image into an original work, according to several court rulings. The California Supreme Court ruled in 2001 against an artist who rendered an image of the Three Stooges on a T-shirt without making an original statement about them. But last year, the same court ruled in favor of the DC Comics division of Time Warner, which produced a takeoff on the rock musicians Johnny and Edgar Winter, creating figures it called the "Autumn Brothers," half-human, half-worm creatures. The parody was deemed original enough to warrant protection under the First Amendment. "People have a right to stop their name and likeness being used in commercial advertising, for things other than books and biographies," Professor Volokh said. "If someone's image is used without much transformation, if it's not a parody or commentary, that is indeed legally actionable, and under that theory Arnold has a very good claim." Hollywood celebrities zealously guard their images and likenesses, he said. Those are, after all, their livelihood. Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Company in the 1980's after Ford used a sound-alike singer in its advertising. Elvis Presley's estate has filed numerous suits to try to banish the King's unauthorized images from T-shirts, coffee mugs and velvet paintings. Mr. Singer said that Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise have all recently sued over unauthorized use of their images. That noted, Mr. Volokh said, it is rare for a politician to file a claim based on the right of publicity. "It just doesn't look good when a public official tries to sue this way," he said. "It makes him look like a heavy. It makes him look humorless. It makes him look like he doesn't want his constituents to express themselves this way." Mr. Bosley said that while he felt significantly outgunned by Mr. Schwarzenegger and his team of Hollywood lawyers, the case has become a matter of principle for him. "There's a lot at risk here for me and a lot at risk in the future for people like me," said Mr. Bosley. "Do we succumb to threats and heavy-handedness? Or do we stand up for what America really is?" A San Francisco intellectual-property law firm, Townsend & Townsend & Crew, has taken on the case at no charge. William T. Gallagher, a partner at the firm, said that Governor Schwarzenegger cannot expect to be immune from satire. "It's clearly a parody," Mr. Gallagher said of the doll. "It is also making a statement about the cult of celebrity in America. If you're famous, then suddenly you're highly electable. That's what the bobblehead does. It is a transformative statement and absolutely protected under the First Amendment." Not so, replied Mr. Singer. The doll, he said, is nothing more than a rip-off of Mr. Schwarzenegger's solid-gold image, which other companies have paid millions of dollars for the right to use in advertising and marketing. "Arnold has always been very vigilant about uses of his image. The reason is his name, photo and likeness are one of the most valuable in the world," Mr. Singer said. "It's not being a bully when you're looking at people taking advantage of somebody and making commercial exploitation for their own benefit."

The thing about Chic was that the top of their music was disco, but their bottom was often anything but. Listen to Bernard Edwards' bass lines and how they break up the beat rather than lay it down, and listen to how Niles Rogers' guitar parts are more Jimmy Nolan than Studio 54. Add the totally in the pocket drumming of Tony Thompson, and you had a trio that could lay down a foundation that could capture minds and asses alike.

It wasn't just that, I also didn't dig how he mangled the blues vernacular on that one cut. It just didn't sit well with me. HAving said that, I've been hearing Alexander on some as yet unidentifed new releases on KNTU, and he sounds as if the stick is finally coming out of his ass, albeit incrementally. He still sounds like "your father's jazz", but he also sounds like he's loosening up and realizing that a lot of things have happened since 1965 or so. BTW - I've always had the highest respect for his saxophonistical abilities, and the sincerity with which he employs them. The fact that I've mostly found him to be a big bore emotionally is a purely personal matter on my part, nothing more. The cat can play.

Well, ok, but I'd say that B.B. plays like he knows more than he lets on, but that Pepper plays like he knows more than he wants to. And I'm not talking music!

Hell if I know, but as a means to confront, examine, and, if so desired, temper it, you'd be hard pressed to find a better medium, I think.

What's to apologize for? Those cats sould PLAY!

Anybody heard this one? I found it used a while back, finally got around to listening to it, and it's quite nice. Sort of a "Strata-East" vibe to a lot of it, w/the emphasis on cultural pride. Besides Joe (who's in good form), it's got James Spaulding, Steve Nelson, Ron Carter, Kenny Washington (Carl Allen on some cuts), and occasional percussion, narration, & vocals. Produced by Don Sickler, recorded at/by RVG. Nothing earth-shattering, but far from the retro hard bop I was half expecting either. Brown wrote some really nice, non-cliched pieces here, and with a band like that, they get played quite nicely. He himself gives a good showing too. I bought another Brown Muse date, PEOPLE MUSIC (feat. Tom Harrell & Vincent Herring), and was a bit let down by both the writing and the playing in comparison to this one - not as much meat, although there were enough moments to make it an "ok" listen. So what's the deal w/Donald Brown? I know he's from Memphis, played w/Blakey for a bit(?), and now resides back in his home town. He's batting .500 w/his recordings so far (for my tastes, at least), and I'm wondering what else he's done that's in the vein of CAUSE AND EFFECT, if in fact he has done anything else like this. BTW - those "just before the fall" Muse dates can often turn up some pretty interesting performances by people like Gary Thomas, Kenny Garrett, Geri Allen, Cindy Blackmon, and others. Guess the albums didn't get wide distribution due to the label's impending collapse (or maybe the whole LP?CD conversion bizness, I dunno), but I see them in cutout bins in spurts. Worth a gamble, a lot of them are - nothing "major", but some good music neverthenonetheless.

Possibly, but more likely it was R&B. New Orleans was a hotbed of R&B activity in those days, and "Dixieland", at least as a commercial music, was viewed by most of the younger locals as old-fashioned.

Hot nasty mutually degrading sex with a coked-out Jennifer Lopez?

Oh, it looks to be a potentially very interesting gig, w/or w/o Suire Dankworth. I'd pay just to hear Rudd & Davern play together.

For that matter, Kenny Davern playing Ornette isn't too far of a stretch either. In fact, there's not a true "Dixielander" in the entire bunch!

Not sure if the 50 year limit applies (legally or morally) to items that were bootlegs in the first place. Ain't that a bitch... The Chester stuff I knew about, but not so the Birdland. Now I'm confused...