JSngry

The Christ & The Antichrist! For every action...

I'm not too sure that he was ambivalent about asking Columbia for all thoise advances...

Hey, it's cool. Some of my best friends are my demons!

Works for me, Dude. I finally resolved it by the "him" that we have to go through is not necessarily a HIM, if you know what I mean. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I wasn't there to say with any certainty, so why waste time worrying about it? Fiddling while Rome burns, that's what it is, and the fire could be used to fry some chicken instead of cooking a goose!

...and noplace to put it...

Of course it is! What else have I got to go by? No, I don't have that impression about why you don't like Miles. I don't know why you or anybody else doesn't like Miles. Can't relate. I can't understand why some people don't like shrimp either, but they don't. I can respectthat, but I can't even begin to understand it. What I do think is that those of us who DO like Miles do so for reasons that might be a lot more "complicated" than why we like a lot of other jazz artists. At least they can get complicated if we let them. Maybe it's best if we don't!

Miss Otis regrets, she's unable to lunch today, madam, Miss Otis regrets, she's unable to lunch today. She is sorry to be delayed, but last evening down in Lover's Lane she strayed, madam, Miss Otis regrets, she's unable to lunch today. When she woke up and found that her dream of love was gone, madam, She ran to the man who had led her so far astray, And from under her velvet gown, She drew a gun and shot her love down, madam, Miss Otis regrets, she's unable to lunch today. When the mob came and got her and dragged her from the jail, madam, They strung her upon the old willow across the way, And the moment before she died, She lifted up her lovely head and cried, madam...... Miss Otis regrets, she's unable to lunch today.

They say that "you can't have it both ways", but Miles did, and without hesitation or reluctance. I think the only "ambiguity" is in our perception, because we have a hard time concieving of having it both ways without adding in ambiguity. But maybe we are wrong.

For me, that's an totally irrelevant point if you're talking it in terms of "historical accuracy". It's as likely, historically, that Jesus moved to France or someplace w/Mary Magdaline, and raised a family as it is that he died and rose again. I think it's the lesson of the story that matters more than whether or not it's fact or fiction, and for me, the lesson is that the more selflessly you give of yourself, even unto the point of self-sacrifice, the closer you come to whatever it is that is called "God" - the "self" dies and is reborn into the "whole". That's a lesson that transcends trivial Earthly concerns such as "did it REALLY happen?", and it's one of many that I've gleaned from a lifetime of trying and failing (miserably) to become a non-Christian. The facts tell me one thing, but the truth comes along and convinces me that the facts ain't the object of the game, that the lessons are. I finally gave up trying to lose my faith, simply because the truth was always greater than the facts. The lessons are there to be learned, they just aren't dependent on "proof", if you know what I mean. "Proof" is for liquor, coins, literalism, and other earthbound pretensions (although, liquor properly applied DOES take on some rather divine attributes. ). But I admit it - I'm probably not a typical Christian, to put it mildly...

Well, ok, maybe, but... My REAL point was that the "mystique" and the music are at some point, inextricably bound, that there's more to the "mystique" than a cleverly calculated manipulation of imagery and such, that there's a REAL basis for it (which is really pretty rare), and that that basis is one which leads to some pretty interesting, and deeply personal, places if you want to go there with it. I also find it interesting that Miles & Prez share many of the same qualities in their playing, but that nobody (these days anyway, t'wasn't always so) expresses reservations about them in Prez, which I think is a reflection of some folks' more "macho" conception of the "essence" of the trumpet's true "nature", as opposed to how the same people view the tenor. There's room in a lot of people's mind for qualities on some instruments that they don't care to hear on others. That, I find interesting for many reasons. But no satire intended, honestly!

Hey, you got me beat. I lost interest around '75 or so...

Thanks, RainyDay You're right - no "exclusion" intended whatsoever. What can I say? I write what I know...

I have this, and it's very interesting and enjoyable. Johnson plays in a happy, swinging style, and is not at all averse to using elements of "energy" playing as he goes along, keeping, I suppose, with the "quiet as its kept" connection between Gospel & Free Jazz in terms of "feeling the spirit". At first, it was a bit disorienting for me to hear such devices used so "innocently", but Johnson's sheer joyousness finally won me over. However much fun the record as a whole is, though, there is one certifiable masterpiece on here and that is a reading of "How Great Thou Art", the album's closer, which is about as emotionally devistating and profoundly felt a performance as I've ever heard out of ANYBODY, and that is a statement I do not make lightly, believe me. Recommended, and that last cut is truly essential.

From ejazznews.com. Cecil Taylor Big Band 75th Birthday Celebration At The Iridium Jazz Club March 23-28 Taylor Ho Bynum (trumpet) Stephen Haynes (trumpet) Amir El Saffar (trumpet), Jeff Hoyer (trombone) Steve Swell (trombone), Bill Lowe (bass trombone/tuba) Marshal Allen (alto sax), Bobby Zankel (alto sax) Sabir mateen (tenor sax) Elliot levin (tenor sax), Will Connell (alto sax, bass clarinet, flute) J. D. Parran (bass sax), Dominic Duval (bass) Jackson Krall (drums) Cecil Taylor (March 15, 1929) is an indomitable musical spirit. One of the true originals of American music; a towering giant who sits atop the Mt. Rushmore of modern jazz giants - Bird, Trane, Miles, Ornette and Cecil. His contributions to the canon of improvised music cannot be disputed as has been documented on numerous recordings that have included collaborations with John Coltrane, Steve Lacy and Max Roach. His influence in free jazz circles has been absorbed in Europe too, where he has performed and recorded with some of the most important free jazz players on the Continent. His ferocious playing is so trail-blazing that it made more of an effect on the whole concept of rhythm than all but a few drummers. His blending of jazz and modern classical sensibilities set both traditions on their ear and were never the same since then. Along with Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane, Taylor helped to usher in a turning point in the history of the music. Avant and free jazz would be unthinkable without his innovations and it's a testament to his work that it is still part of the mainstream with many performers today. Now celebrating 50 years as a recording artist, Taylor also celebrates his 75th birthday with his BIG BAND at Iridium this week! Not content to rest on his much deserved laurels, Taylor practices piano constantly and always regales crowds with new pieces. He is a one-man multi-media presentation as he sings, chants, reads poetry, dances and plays the piano with phenomenal power, speed and intensity. Anybody who catches this, please weigh in!

Gotta love A.C. R.I.P., and much thanks.

Read my comment to this tune on page 1 of this thread. I knew Jim would love this tune! I like it myself. You know me better than I know myself. Maybe that explains the voices in my head...

Another subscriber to the Philosophy Of Pete Gallio - the only problem with instant gratification is that is isn't quick enough.

I think it jumped the shark with the, (ahem), phallic analogy. Ok, guess I misread the room. My bad, and duly noted for future reference. But... The meat of that post (no pun intended) was in this paragraph: People had been asking how much of Miles' reputation was mystique, how much of it was purely musical, and what was the basis for the mystique. I'm of the opinion that the music and the mystique are at some fundamental level intrinsically intertwined. Few artists of any medium have allowed so many (seeming) contradictions to co-exist in their work and their persona as did Miles Davis. Name any "artistic attribute" and you can find both it and its opposite in both the music and the life of Miles Davis. Perhaps I misspoke when I used the phrase "truth is found in resolving ambiguities", because Miles never really set about resolving the ambiguities. He instead seemed more than content to let them coexist, not as battling forces, but instead as opposites that peacefully coexisted as a matter of fact, as if it was the most natural thing in the world to be equally yin and yang at the same time rahter than being one or the other at any given moment. Which is how most of us are. We all have our various "sides", but how many of us can display them all at once, and in a most natural manner at that? Very few people can do that, and Miles, both as a person and as a musician seems to have been one of those few. The implications of this are quite real - here is a man and a music who can more or less exemplify many different things to many different people without any of those people necessarily "getting it wrong". At the level of celebrety, this is called "charisma", but it goes deeper than celebrety - it goes to the very real possibility that Miles' appeal, both personal and musical, was based on providing us with "bonding" based on providing us with bonds of recognition of ourselves and recogniton of our "complimentary opposites". Miles' music was "masculine" AND "feminine". "sloppy" AND "tight", "tough" AND tender", yin AND yang, and not one or the other at any given moment, but everything all the time. Arguments about Miles inevitably take the tact of Point A being refuted by a "yeah, bit" Point B, as if one refutes the other by having greater weight in the overall appraisal of the situation. Although that works in a lot of instances, it just doesn't fly with Miles, I think, because both are inevitably correct. Was Miles an asshole or a warm human being? Both. Was he a trumpeter with great chops or one who found a way to make do with what he had? Both. Was he a genuine innovator or an opportunist who was not above outright theft? Both. And none of those qualities necessarily takes precedence over the other. In fact, they are often all true at the same time. How many jazz musicians, no, how many PEOPLE can you say that about? Very, VERY few, and I'll wager that those of whom you can are people with a "mystique" their ownselves. Which leads to the question - when we choose "what it is" about Miles that we like (those of us who do like him, anyway), are we choosing to ignore the very real OPPOSITE qualities that he also embodied? If we are, are we doing so because we honestly don't see them, or because it would bother us to admit being so attracted to the buzz from the positive that we are more than willing to overlook the negative? And if we are willing to admit the latter, does that not open up a whole other set of personal "quandaries" about who and what we ourselves REALLY are? What we are willing to accept in order to get what we want/need is a major defining element of our personal character, isn't it? So, placed in the context of the above sentiments, I thought that a Glory Hole analogy was not only appropriate, but genuinely relevant, especially considering Miles' rumored bisexuality, which in itself is a literal embodiment of what I'm talking about and might go a long way towards explaining his personal and musical essence. That is, if it doesn't make the "enigma" (as it appears to a hetereosexual white male SERIOUS lover of Miles Davis' music such as myself) even more complex. Because whether we like to admit it or not, it's impossible to get the "good" Miles without also getting the "bad". If we like it, he music is fellating us, to use a figure of speech, but we really don't KNOW just who or what is doing it, not completely. And for something like that, if you don't know completely, you really don't know at all. I thought it would make sense. I guess I thought wrong.

I hear ya'!

Maybe. I don't know. My hunch would be no, though, just because, as convoluted as Diz could get rhythmically, his ideas were usually firmly rooted in harmonic patterns, and the head to "KoKo" doesn't REALLY give you any "easy" changes to put underneath it (I've heard a 70s Lionel Hampton big band arrangement where they use stacked fourths - if I recall it right - and clusters on it!). And, really, after that final "blee bleeeee bah doodle-oodle-oooooooh....ablee-bop......a-doodle-oodle-oooh-ba-debop", you by no means are obligated to go into "Cherokee" changes - you could start up on pertnear ANY tune. Or NO tune! The existence of a piece like this sorta makes you wonder if there were other such pieces floating around amongst the deepest of the deep boppers - things that really weren't "songs", or even "tunes", just self-contained statements that could stand alone as "non-melodic melodies", if you know what I mean. Just because they never got recorded or talked about over the years doen't necessarily mean that one or two guys didn't have some "private" material like this. Probably not, but you never know... It's Ornette before Ornette, I tell you!

So I hear that Earth is going to be hit by an asteroid. My next step is, what, go out of town?

After 30 years, I STILL can't figure out what's up w/that melody. Sure, once you get through it, it's "Cherokee". But WTF is going on with that melody? It's ain't based on the blowing changes, and the rhythmic/melodic contour is more Ornette-y than Ornette. Bird was hearing something WAY different when he came up w/this one! Does anybody have any insight on where that thing came from? To me, it's the ultimate in bebop esoterica and inscrutability, speaking from a purely musical standpoint. Go ahead. Sing/play it and tell me WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THERE and how it relates even remotely to "Cherokee". Or anything else, for that matter. And btw - I LOVE this head. Be Bop coming from a place like this is the HARDEST bop!

Bottom line - Why would I want to see a Mel Gibson Jesus movie? Bottomer line - I wouldn't!

Does SWR2 netcast?

Sorry, but the more I listen to #2, the more it bugs me. I know the rhythms are all expertly played and so on, but it's that silly ass melody and how they don't DO anything with it except make it more and more silly, like a Frank DeVol movie theme played under an animated title sequence for a 1963 movie comedy with Phil Silvers & Phyliss Diller starring and Dom Deloise playing a shrink or some such. The bottom's happening, but what's on top ruins it for me. Sorry, just had to say that.