JSngry

Did somebody say chuck?

I think "Lollipop Man" would be more cruel.

Well, SONG FOR WOUNDED KNEE hasn't made it out either that I know of, and THAT'S a crime. But does anybody hear the "Szabo-ness" of beck's role on "Circle In The Round"? I'm not looking to dis Beck, jsut trying to imagine what Miles had in mind for that particular guitar part/role.

Yeah, it's the "usual" Hamilton band of the time only w/o Charles Lloyd (who is back in place for the 3-15 cut. When did Lloyd get his group going anyway?). The "pickup" reference was more regarding Land. Wonder if he was a ringer for the session, or if he actually held the gig for a while. It was a good fit, that foursome.

Interesting possibility, but I hear Beck trying to do what Szabo was already doing as far as tone and inflection. Just an idle thought with nothing going for it other than the old "what if" game. Still, I wonder if Miles had been checking out some of those Chico Impulse sides w/Szabo on the sly. What he has Beck playing seems very influenced by Szabo (or did last night, anyway). But maybe not...

Is there documentation of the 1-4-65 Chico Hamilton group that included Harold Land, Gabor Szabo, & Albert Stinson being a working unit, or of having recorded more than the cuts that turned up on CHIC CHIC CHICO? The two quartet cuts off that album are pretty darn interesting - Szabo's totally unique reading of "What's New" (along with his accompaniment of Land's solo on the same tune), and the proto-fusion head/up-tempo collective improvisation of "Tarantula" (shades of things soon to come!) have long made me wonder just what was up with this foursome (or moresome). The empathy seems pretty high for a studio pickup band, but sometimes that kind of thing happens. As always, thanks in advance!

Wanna go for a drive?

Imagine everything staying the same, except with Gabor Szabo on guitar instead of Joe Beck. Interesting, eh?

You take the combined books of Carla Bley, Toshiko Akiohi, Mary Lou Williams, Geri Allen, Joanne Brackeen, Bertha Hope and Michelle Roseman/Rosewoman, and you got some tunes to last you for a while. Some MEATY Tunes.

I'm still wondering why he has no pictures of himself on his website nor a way to purchase his CD from same. Seems like with no pix and no tangible product, the wannabe shoe might be on the other foot... HOWEVER.... Having listened to his downloads, I can honestly say that he seems to be playing honestly, like he really WANTS to play this stuff and is enjoying doing it. Good! HOWEVER.... His phrasing is totally devoid of nuance and subtlety. You want to use David Sanborn as a musical role model, fine. But David Sanborn is a MOTHERFUCKER - a total MASTER of phrasing, tonal variation and vocalization, and melodic phraseology. There's DEPTH in what he plays (although some of the "jazz purists" can't/won't hear it). Same goes for the material and the production - no subtlety, no nuance, no depth. Entirely superficial (as in all surface, not as in lack of sincerity). Everything is "right", sure. But you can say the same thing about a dial tone. So far, he sounds like a cat who's got the tools. What he doesn't sound like is somebody who's got the skills. Yet. He should stop telling everybody how great he is now, and then start telling himself how great he not yet is. In every idiom, there are true masters, and if you ain't at their level, all boasts are empty. For evey Jaco Pastorius, there's a gazillion Brian Bosworths..

Y'all leave Donovan alone! Granted, he was too naive for his own good a lot of the time, and the picture of Dylan vibing him in Don't Look Back is about as cruel a moment as you'd want to see, but the guy had a good voice and made a lot of VERY GOOD records. Relics of their time, perhaps, but hey - you live by the pop, you die by the pop.

Jimmy Page allegedly on guitar, though. And Lonnie Smith did a fine job with it.

Talk about praising with faint damning!

Talk about damning with faint praise!!!!!!

Does a river bank count?

Ah...Turtles B-sides. NOW we're talking connoiseiur!

Need to relieve stress through shopping? Wanna try something new and different? Or something old and familiar? Want some good deals? May I be so bold as to suggest THIS SITE. It almost ALWAYS does the trick for me!

Funny, I don't wipe my feet off every time I walk barefoot...

If that's your objective, then post to The Babe Thread...

You think they even HAVE blood?

Man, that's OLDfashioned! we live in post-post-post-modern times. Things do not need to relate to other things anymore once again. The success of many a commercial is based on its utter irrelevance to anything, not even the product itself. This is the MTV age all over again! it at least has drawn your attention BIG TIME; mission accomplished. Post-post-post-modernism is a context in and of itself. This commercial lacked even that.

But HERE'S the crux of the matter as it relates to this discussion! From http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/header-howto again: If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, (emphasis added) complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. The intended purpose of public domain laws is to allow for widespread "free" dissemenation of works, NOT to allow for widespread profiteering from them. It's to "keep the work alive for whoever wants it", not "to keep it profitable for whoever can take it". Q.E.D.?????????? I don't think that selling "deluxe" packaging and/or "free" remasterings for what is surely a more than "modest" profit margin is even slightly within the spirit of the law. And if the spirit is being continuously, blatantly, and in a lot of cases, SHAMELESSLY violated, should the letter not be then changed to enforce the spirit?

Mo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'moneyMo'money From http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/header-howto : Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.

Talk about irony... From http://www.gutenberg.org/license : Starting with eBook #10001, a major rewrite of the Project Gutenberg license and "small print" went into use. It is consistent with prior licenses (which have evolved over the years), but easier to read. This new license starts each eBook with this paragraph: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net The main restrictions are for people who choose to modify the eBooks, and for any commercial use of the Project Gutenberg trademark (which is registered in the US and internationally). (emphasis added)