JSngry

Well, this raises the issue of how much "insider info" is relevant to the public at llarge. It's a complicated matter, to put it mildly - do you want to know all the "preliminaries" that led up to a certain peformance, or do you just want to know the performance itself? And should you let some true but "unfavorable" information about the preliminaries color your perceptions of the actual thing itself? Having observed and participated in some "preliminaries" myself, I say "proceed with caution", fully keeping in mind Jack Nicholson's immortal line in "A Few Good Men". A LOT of illusions can easily be shattered... Exceptions, of course, abound.

"Thick As A Brick" now takes on an entirely new meaning...

I've searched in vain for other recordings of Thorne. Bummer.

As a musician, one of my pet peeves is writers who get the "technical" stuff either only partially right, or just flat out wrong. I'd say either know that what you're saying is wholly accurate, even if that means consulting with a musician (or anybody who can accurately critique the technical accuracy of the comments) or else just leave it alone and stick to "impressions", which are every bit as valid, if presented as such. Or even better, do both. Nothing sours the reading of a review more for me than getting somebody's impressions, and then they turn around and say something that leads me to believe that they didn't really hear what it is that they're talking about. Opinions are entirely subjective, of course, but the actual music being played isn't. Notes is notes, unisons is unisons, chords is chords, etc, etc, etc. More than once I've read a review where major and minor keys are misidentified, and that's just the tip of the iceberg! And Geoff - my distaste for such technical imprecision applies to professional writers, not aspiring ones, who of course are going to make mistakes as part of the learning process (which really NEVER ends). Although, if you're going to someday be a professional writer, I'd much rather you hear about it now than later, ok?

Agreed about the Monkian influence, but listen closer to the head on "Thandiwa"- Moncurs breaks the melody line up into his horn playing individual notes and both horns playing in unison (and at the end of the melody, in harmony). The result is the tension of a "push-pull" variety, not just between the horns and the rhythm section, but between the horns themselves, all of which which is neatly resolved by that end phrase, which is a nice basic "swinging" riff. This creation and resolution of tension by using "unusual" patterns in juxtaposition with basic jazz riffology is indeed QUITE Monkian (so many of his tunes, even the "difficult" ones, contain language that is drawn from the deepest recesses of the jazz language), but Moncur takes it a step further by distributing the tension between actual instruments themselves, whereas Monk kept it within the melodies themselves, although on things like "Coming On The Hudson" and "Evidence", he certainly implied it. This is "evolution" (pun intended) of the truest sort - not destroying or breaking away entirely from one's predecessors, but rather using their essence and building upon it to create "some other stuff" (pun again intended, obviously). Moncur also uses the "breaking up" of the melody line in "Nomadic", but here he never brings the seperates together, avoiding a comfortable, "homey" resolution of the tension, which is certainly in keeping with the title. The brief passage of sustained notes about halfway through offer a temporary resolution of sorts, but not really - they create an environment of momentary "pause", but it's a pause that can in no way be considered final. It's more like a brief rest stop that is fraught with the imperaty (not a word, but it is now!) of moving on, which again is wholly in keeping with the title. That's what I like so much about Moncur's work - the "programmatic" aspect of so much of it. Each piece occupies a very "specific" space in terms of the vibe it creates, and requires equally "specific" interpretation in the playing of it. No "blowing changes" type material out of this guy (well, hardly ever...)! It's a type of music that could easily be "pseudo" in the wrong hands, but with players like this, it's not an issue, and Moncur himself seems to come by this manner of composing and playing in a wholly organic fashion. Such music is not to the liking of every listener, of course, but for those of us who DO like it, it's a provocative and imaginative addition to the possibilities of jazz, and the rarity of such an approach speaks to both its uniqueness and its difficulty, I believe. No matter how one might feel about the "results" of Moncur's music, though, I think that one would have to acknowledge both of those qualities. After that, it's a matter of individual taste.

I don't think it's unreasonable to cite a Getz influence in EH's tone, but as Chuck Nessa said in a different context, it would be easy to make too much of that. I don't think it's a case of Eddie having said, "I like Stan Getz' tone. I want to get one just like it" as much as it is a case of him having said, "I like this cat's tone. I can take the basic characteristics of it and make something entirely my own out of it", which is a different matter altogether. There's definitely some strong traces of Prez in the inflections EH uses, as well as some strong traces of Rollins in the way he phrases his lines on the earlier sides. But the guy was way too determined to be an original to settle for the "easy way" of direct copping of somebody else's stuff, be it tone, phrasing, or ANYTHING. Eddie Harris' was one of the most readily identifiable voices in jazz, no matter what the context was. I think he was one of those "scientific" guys in a way, one of those cats who enjoyed taking things apart and putting them back together in a new way. All of his explorations with electronics, the reed trumpet, singing through his horn, all that stuff, bears this out to me, as does his sometimes absolutely INSANE intervallic licks(I've got one of his method books, and a wackier bunch of stuff to practice you'll never find), and his altissimo (extreme high-register) work - everybody else uses those notes to be loud and assertive, but EH used them to sigh and caress. It takes a "scientific" mind to dissect a technique like that and come up with an entirely different use for it. But unlike some "scientists", he never, EVER, lost that funky "street" feel, never let the science overwhelm the heart, and that's why I love him, even if he made some really, REALLY "questionable" choices as far as records go (imo - although, as he said in one of his album titles, he needed some money!). But then again, if he had shied away from those type things, he wouldn't have been Eddie Harris, so this is a case where blatant commercialism is every bit as "real" as the alternative. Artist, scientist, entertainer, XXX-rated comedian (will this EVER be reissued?), and panderer. You get them all in Eddie Harris, and in equal measure, and in contexts where you'd expect one thing and get the other. Far from a "simple" individual, and far from "simple" music, all things considered. If ever a player was deserving to be thought of in terms of "subtext" and "layers of meaning", it's Eddie Harris, and if ever a player was able to make all that intellectual crap be at once fully relevant and totally irrelevant at the same time, it was also Eddie Harris. Gotta love him. GOT to love him!

Well, how many times have we the general consumer been led to believe that certain things have been "lost" or "rumored to exist" only to find out that they have existed all along, only in the hands of a VERY few collectors (the kind I refered to earlier as "deep" collectors, people like that Jerry Valburn cat)? No problem with that as far as I'm concerned, collectors do what they do, and the financial considerations (the various estates, having the material devalued for all concerned by haphazard bootlegging, etc) involved in holding such rare and priceless material are quite legitimate. So no resentment from me if this stuff has in fact been known to exist, if only by a few. I just find in incredible (in several ways) that there has been no mention wahtsoever of this stuff even being RUMORED to exist. It's like this is something that haas truly turned up for out of nowhere. Which, given the Andorra cartel's history and reputation for questionable ethics (which extends beyond what people here on the board say, btw, 'nuff said), leads me to wonder if there might not be a tale of intrigue behind this footage. Even if it has just been unearthed (and the film stock seems to be well near virgin quality, I'd say), who unearthed it, where, how, and how did THESE guys end up with it? Or if it has been quietly circulating in select circles, how did it finally break out into general circulation? Did somebody break ranks, or was a little bit of theivery involved somewhere along the way? We've all seen and loved the movies involving "high-class" art, jewelry, etc. thieves, so maybe that's what's fueling my imagination here.But you got to admit, it's downright WIERD where and how this footage just suddenly pops up with absolutely no hype through the aegis of a company with a "shady" reputation. Could be the basis for a "cult film", don't you think? But that dowesn't really concern plebians like us, does it? Bottom line for US is GET IT WHILE YOU CAN!!!

Hey, the kid's 19 and he's writing about Herbie Nichols. Nothing I want more than to see him succeed. BIG TIME. So if I see an opportunity to keep him off the path of musically unaware and/or statements that reflect an incomplete understanding of the music at hand, DAMN STRAIGHT I'm gonna be a prick about it. To not do so would be unconscionable! (he says with a wink and a smile...)

"baking in the syrup?" Wait; that's not it... No, Moose, I think it was: ...like sticking your dick into a woodchopper? No, THAT would be partying with the Woody Herman band on a REALLY bad night... Shouldn't be joking on this thread, though. This really IS some fucked-up shit.

Some constructive criticism, Geoff, if I may... A more accurate way to say this might be that Nichols wrote music that called for the drummer and bassist to contribute equal weight to the structure and direction of the music rather than to function in a purely supporting role, not that "Nichols was happy enough to be the equal member of a trio, rather than the specific leader". Herbie wrote all the music and put it together, both on paper and in the studio, and that includes the "concept" of the drummer and bassist being more up-front as integral parts of the compositions themselves. He was very much the leader, the leader of trios that featured a more equal distribution of roles than the traditional "solo plus support" piano trio. Which is, I think(?) what you're meaning to say, but not what you actually DO say. You make it sound like Nichols' trios were co-op affairs, that everybody set their own roles, and nothing could be further from the truth. It was HIS music, HIS concepts, and these were defintiely HIS groups. Not busting your chops, dig what you have to say, but I know you want to improve as a writer, so I'm here to be a prick whenever I think it'll help, ok?

AND Don Knotts!

Ya' know, it's not like I WANT to be a lesbian...

One thing Steverino COULD do was pick a good fruitcake! http://inet3.collinstreetbakery.com/multi/...d=csb2&t=fam_cs Look for Mr. & Mrs. Dave Brubeck on the list too!

Oh yeah, these films raise two questions of the "What the hell..." variety: What the hell kind of mouthpiece is Bill Harris playing? It looks like a glass doorknob! and... What the hell was George Duvivier wearing to Ben's gig? Looks like he just got back from a pool party! BTW, having never seen actual footage of Harris before, all the comments I've heard about him looking like a dork but really being a wild child are MORE than borne out by what's seen here. OUT-standing!

Just remember, voting with your pocketbook is like...

Oh, I bet he gave her the "deep-six" more than once, even if "deep-six" is a SERIOUS oxymoron...

Depends on who does the laundry...

How 'bout adding the vocal album he did w/Gerald Wilson?

Any idea how Clay got called for this date?

Just got finished watching the 2-DVD set, and all I can say is "WOW". The "JATP" footage MUST have a story behind it. I can see why it was never released in its time, a LOT of goofing going on by the musicians, who are obviously pantomining to a pre-recorded track (Buddy Rich plays a kit with no ride cymbal!) and generally seem to be having a laugh about the whole thing. Still - priceless, PRICELESS footage, seemingly released here in raw form, complete w/slatings (Buddy's change of countenance in one segment between where the take is being slated and "actual" filming begins is one of the many priceless moments). The whole thing seems like an attempt at something that was doomed from jump street as far as getting a commercially viable product goes. Flip in particular looks a bit loaded. But to see Lester seemingly unaware and/or unconcerned that he's supposed to be "performing" for the camera...wow... Plus. we get to see his shoes! Up close! Maybe a minor detail of concern only to the fetishist, but when it comes to Prez, I plead guilty in that regard. No regrets about it, either. The question is - where the hell has this stuff been all these years? Has it been circulating amongst "deep" collectors, or has it just been unearthed? The film quality is incredibly good either way. Easily worth the 30 bucks I gave to Dusty Groove (the bastards!) for it just for this footage alone! But...so much more, including the unused music recorded for "Jammin' The Blues" (audio only, of course). Having never befores seen JTB, I was initially disappointed by the total lack of belivabilty in the pantomiming, but I got over that REAL quickly. A visual feat, this one is. The Miles stuff I had seen only once before in toto, and the same goes for "The Sound Of Jazz", which appears here in, I think, more complete form than the VHS copy I once saw. All are about as good as quality, audio & video, as I think is possible unless pristine original source material is found. Who knows if that will happen? The CBS vaults must have some dusty nooks and crannies that remain uncharted, but I'm not holding my breath. An essential set for most of us, I'd think, but again out of stock at da'Groove. However, go HERE and fill in the request for e-mail notification of its return, and JUMP when it comes. This one may be around forever, or just a short time (and that JATP footage may or may not be the determining factor), but once you have it, you don't have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, do you.

Yeah, but if he's wearing shades like this, you WILL go home a winner!

Slated for a Mars-only release. The import price is going to be--you guessed it--astronomical. Are those going to have a red tinge to the cover?

Re: some of us "not taking Brubeck seriously". I went the other route, and have come back, almost full circle. At first, I thought he was hipper than shit. Then I thought he was kinda corny (him, not Desmond. A mantra, that should be, it seems...). Now, I have come to realize the integrety of most all of his work, and although he is still lower on the "totem pole" as far as personal enjoyment goes than many, I have tremendous respect for him and his work. I think that every one of these "phases" was rooted in the fact that Brubeck uses traditional jazz "means" w/o using much traditional jazz "specifics", and that my view of him was/is related to how much importance I put in the relative weight of those two things. Anymore, hey, what the hell! This EURASIA album, though, is one that I've always dug, no matter what my personal take on Brubeck was at the time. Just seems like it's all where it needs to be, no muss, no fuss, just pure goodness from start to finish.(Although "Brandenburg Gate" flirts w/prissyness QUITE a bit, it never succumbs). Glad to hear that some dig it, and that some others have had theire interest piqued. I think it's a keeper!

Wore you out, eh? JUST KIDDING!!!!