JSngry

I'd like to thank John for including a piece by Quartet Out in his BFT, and I'm heartened by all the positive response to it. There is a bit of a story behind the album, and that cut in particular, but I don't have time to go into it right now. Besides, we need some more comments now that the answers have been revealed! But FWIW, the vocal thing heard before the music starts is the words, "whilst travelling through this unfriendly world". It's a sample I lifted off of a Gospel compilation CD and had some Beatle-esue fun with (as happened several times on the album), and it's spoken by Evangelist Sister Winn. I'll talk about that (and other things pertaining to the cut) in greater detail after others have weighed in. (and yes - I am TOTALLY embarrased that I'm the one person who should have gotten #11 and didn't!)

The title might very well be, but otherwise, I don't know. WGO was released May 20, 1971; TARGO Nov 20, 1971. Marvin recorded most of his album in early 1971. Sly worked on his for over two years. That's the gap between STAND (another serious classic, but an ENTIRELY different kind of music in both feel and lyrical content) & TARGO, anyway. Only the single of "Thank You..." b/w "Hot Fun In The Summertime" & the GREATEST HITS album (one of the all-time great "feelgood" records) filled the gap (and by all accounts, Epic/Columbia was getting REALLY antsy about that). The article I mentioned earlier tells tales of tracks being recorded on the run and on the fly (apparently, between the heavy drug use and the group's being the target of several militant groups "attention", things were more than a little hectic during those years, and there was never really time for "rest" in the conventional sense of staying in one place for very long, although AMG says that the album was recorded at John Phillips' home studio. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between), and innumerable groupies being "auditioned" as vocalists using the tapes, which is why a lot of the vocal tracks sound so hissy - there had been so many erasures that that ended up being the "natural" sound of the tape! So, sure, I think the album titles might be related, but otherwise, I don't think so. They lyric concerns are waaaaay different between the two albums. Marvin is reaching out to the world, and Sly is watching himself die.

It's here, too:

Not that anybody can prove, but you know how THAT goes....

More was BAAAAAAADDDD!!! Tumbao's Chano Pozo set was most impressive. If this one lives up to the standards of that one.... I'll keep my eyes open for this one, I assure you. Thanks for the heads-up! BTW - have you heard More w/Perez Prado? Early work for both of them, apparently. I've just found a cut or two on various rogue compilation tapes (sic), but the combination seems to have been dynamite.

"Hi Ho, Bernstein!"

Don't know yet. I will soon enough, though, and will let you know. That lineup sure DOES look good, doesn't it! And yeah, the liners say 1961, but 1951 would be more likely for a label like Coronet, I'd think. The prospect of hearing Johhny Board (aka Mr. "the OTHER tenor player on Sonny Stitt Live At DJ Lounge") blow some more is tantalizing, let me tell you. I hope it happens. If you don't mind, could you give me some klind of idea on what OTHER labels this might have been released on? Anything even remotely "major", at least in jazz terms? No matter, though. Thanks Brownie!

What is "proper" appreciation? I can kill a flower just by looking at it, but I love them anyway. Forget about me actually raising one, though. Ugly. Pure-D UGLY! My wife, otoh, has the proverbial green thumb, but I doubt that she knows a pistil from a stamen, which I do. So who's got the "proper" appreciation of THIS form of life? I think we both do, in our own way, but SHE'S the one who needs to have the garden. Even though we both can derive genuine satisfaction from it, it is no doubt a "different" satisfaction that we each receive. It's the same w/Trane. People DO appreciate it. Why they do is a question with many different answers, I'm sure, and some of them would include the "I say I like it becasue I'd like to like it type". But you're right -to assume that all, or even most, would fall into this category IS smug, and moreso than perhaps you realize. Nothing personal, honestly, but this kind of thing (why do other people REALLY like what they say they like and do they in fact REALLY like it) seems to concern you much more than it does me. I will, for now anyway, respectfully (which, yes, is a change from my previous position) withdraw from the discussion, because I don't think that I will ever have "answers" to the questions you raise. Do you talk to many experienced musicians and/or many highly-experienced, veteran listeners, or do you just talk just to relatively novice-level "fans"? Your sampling might be severely skewered. And honestly, there'a vaguely voyeuristic quality to the whole question that makes me feel slightly (and undefinably) uncomfortable. But that's just me. I will say this though - thinking about art and jazz and where they're going never actually GOT them anywhere. It's the DOing that gets the GOing accomplished, and that's a process that will never be perfect until the going gets to where it needed to get, at which point the whole thing's over, and it's time for the next trip to begin. "Perfection" is an end, literally, not a process. Have a nice day, and perhaps some other time we can continue.

Well, on the opposite end of the spectrum, there's a lot of white folks in my neck of the woods who view this as a "black folks holiday" only and don't see any relevance in it for them AT ALL. Which, while missing the point of the holiday entirely, makes it as well. Funny how that works... We are a society in transistion, definitely constantly and perhaps eternally so. But for our "ideals" (ANY ideals, not just the ones espoused by Dr. King) to even remotely begin to come true, it requires a leap of faith (or if you prefer, a "suspension of disbelief") that even if the ideals are not yet reality, even if the ideals may never reach full fruition, that it is better to hold onto them and "get to know" them instead of discarding them completely, even if modification along the way is needed. The former is an affirmative act, an act of optimism, whereas the latter is an act of defeat, of cynicism. Life goes on regardless of what the choice is, but...

Yep. Big Maybelle had a hit with it, and I think Dinah Washington did too. Juke box fodder, this one was. Top-40 all the way in its day, before Lee go hold of it. Hell, my old man used to request it whenever he came to hear me work w/a female singer, so you KNOW it was popular! The changes themselves are pretty generic, though. Think "Perdido" and you're there.

As were some of the older ones, yours truly included.

Gee, didn't we already cover this earlier? You can't say I didn't warn you! Indeed. Hey - chores are beckoning. What can I tell you?

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as if when the "unequipped" DO appreciate late-Trane on a "non-technical" level that they are condemned (if not by you, then by others) for "worship", or some other "bait"-type term. Then, you (or if not you, then somebody) turns around and call into question the validity of the music (or at the least, the validity of any/all positive response to it) because you (or if not you, then somebody) CAN'T appreciate it on a non-technical level. The grounds you (or if not you, then somebody) use to make a claim for the legitimacy of your disapproval are the same that you (or if not you, then somebody) use to make a claim for the illegitimacy of other's approval. The inconsistency of this (and I'm not trained in formal "logic", so I'll not use that word here out of respect for/fear of those who are...) seems more than obvious to me, but perhaps I am missing something. To me, it seems as if you (or if not you, then somebody) are assuming "Correctness" straight out the gate and virtually DEFY anybody to prove you (or if not you, then somebody) wrong. That's a sucker bet if ever there was one. To me, this seems like you (or if not you, then somebody) seem to feel a sense of "entitlement", like it's your (or if not yours, then somebody's) inalienable RIGHT to apprecitate ALL "jazz" (if not all music), and if YOU (or if not you, then somebody) don't "get" it, then the problem lies entirely with the music itself, and if OTHER people get something out of it that YOU (or if not you, then somebody) don't then they must be delusional, or uncritical, or SOMETHING, because if there really WAS something there then you (or if not you, then somebody) would get it, and BY GOD, YOU (or if not you, then somebody) DON'T!!! Which, to me, is so much nonsense. Nobody "gets" everything, and big whoop about that! If somebody doesn't "get" late-Trane, they don't get it. Period, end of story. And if somebody DOES "get" it, they get it. Same period, same end of story. Of course, it's human nature for birds of a feather, etc., but that's really jsut so much so much. Besides, tastes are mutable, and just as I've known people who have come around to this music after despising it, I've known people who have gone the opposite route. Not many, in either direction, but some, which would seem to disqualify the notions of "none" and "never", thereby opening up the realm of variability and uncertainty, and ain't THAT some fun to be getting into now, dontcha' just LOVE it! Now, as a person and as a musician who is inspired by this music for both personal and musical reasons, of course I'm going to look kindly upon those who feel likewise. But NOT unanimously! People who only like this kind of music get on my nerves pretty quickly, just as do people who only like one kind of any music. And it's really not even about "how much" or "one kind". It's about "open"ness and personal "honesty". I have plenty of good personal friends and musical accquaintances who are either ambivalent or dis-inclined to late-Trane. But they don't rag on about it. They simply say "not for me" or "I just don't get it", which is fine by me. I feel the same way about some of the things that THEY feel quite strongly about. I'm willing to admit that I DON'T "get" everything, and I DO remain open to the possibility that either A]someday I will get what others don't; or/and that B]I may NEVER "get" some of it, and that it will be my loss, no doubt. But life is short, and we all make decisions about what to include, and in what proportion. I see no sense in knocking others for their choices if they otherwise show some semblance of "good taste" (now there's a can of worms for you, got your fishing license? ) or something akin to it, and I see no sense in feeling "superior" because of mine, assuming that the same parameters are met. And of course, I think that they are! Really, why should anybody feel the right to understand EVERYTHING? And why the need to get "defensive" when they don't? Hell, understanding Trane is a LOT more easy for me than understanding THAT!

Coronet CX-159 LIONEL HAMPTON Liners claim its a fall 1961 concert recorded in Malibu Beach. Anybody got personnel? Also, I've not known Coronet to have released "original" material, so had this been out elsewhere previously? As always, thanks in advance!

Do you not feel "included" on Martin Luther King Day?

Classical Rock Blues Psychedelia ( 60 - 70 ) seems to sum it all up from what I see, with a strong emphasis on "cult" items and bands. Not my strong suit, but if you're into this kind of stuff, Blue Cheer is a safe bet, especially VINCEBUS ERUPTUS. Count Five is a tad earlier, but fun, "garage band" tyoe stuff. Lots of these bands, like Ultimate Spinach, Beacon Street Union, etc., I've heard about over the years, but never actually heard. Others, like Frigid Pink and Canned Heat, I've herad but don't really have any enthsiasm for. Nitzinger, otoh, I've not only actually heard of, but I actually worked with him briefly once upon a time. Very guitar-heavy music, totally rock, but with an interesting twist or two along the way. Just noticed an album in there by Chris McGregor & the Brotherhood Of Breath. from a jazz standpoint, that's your best bet.

Just curious, Chris, why are you doing this? For geneological research, historical research for a biographical project, or what? If it's none of my business, feel free to say so. It's just that it sounds like a most "unusual" project. Thanks, Jim

Too bad, but I have to get this anyway. Thanks!

Nobody has said it yet, so I will. If there are elements of the man's "real life" that bother you, don't let them overshadow the ideals that he tried to represnt as a public figure. All our heroes are idealized version of real people with real faults, so let's accept that and move on, shall we? There's more, so much more to the man's legacy of thoughtful examination of the human condiditon than "I Have A Dream", but if that's what works, go for it. Nothing wrong there. Peace out. Have a great MLK day, and keep the dream alive as much as possible the other 364/365. And even more than that.

Sorry, but I don't follow chess. Not trying to be funny. I really don't. so I feel unqualified to respond. But - I do, subjectively, see much more to Coltrane's "accomplishments" (a word the usage of which I understand, but the implications of which are too "labor-centric" for me to fully embrace in this particular matter, although I will stipulate that it is appropriate to some degree in the face of Coltrane's well-documented "work ethic") as more than "more or less defining the limits of conventional music. This might, and I stress MIGHT, have been a result of his work, but for me, the visceral thrill of the music comes from, not the abstract appreciation of "boundaries being broken" or some such (my words, not yours), but from the sense of personal struggle, frustration, and triumph, something that I think we can all relate to in some manifestation or the other, if not this particular one. The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and all that. It's a very HUMAN feeling I get from this music, and "fully" human in a way that a lot of more "focused" music isn't, at least not to me. Here you have a guy who saw an opening into a "new" realm of possibilities, felt that he had the tools to tackle the challenges it presented, took it, and never looked back after doing so. There were both triumphs and failures along the way, but that's the nature of the beast, right? No doubt there are those who prefer music that has already answered its own questions beforehand, and I can respect that, enjoying quite a bit of it myself. I can even enjoy music which has no question to answer because it asks none to begin with. It really is "all good" to me, at least in principal. The specifics are a bit thornier, however... But in late Trane, I get: the vicarious thrill of watching somebody else tackle that which I am nowhere near equipped to tackle directly myself, at least not to the extent that he did; direct "personal" guidance to what to look for when/if I am as well as what to do or not to do when/if I do; and the "detatched" appreciation of a man playing the saxophone as "well" as it can be played in the context of some really thorny musical(objective) and metaphysical(subjestive) "issues". I suppose it would be rather easy for somebody who has no affinity for this music to interpret that as "worship" of some kind, but I see it as no such thing. Coltrane's "quest" might have had implications toards the "divine", but they were also firmly rooted in earthly, human, techiques and methodologies. I admire him to no end, respect him as much as I do anybody (and more than most), but in no way do I worship him. Which is why pieces like McDonough's, pieces that drip with "baiting" remarks about this whole alleged diefication of Coltrane (a phenomenon that certtainly exists, but is in no way the primary reason for the esteem in which he is held by so many) fall totally flat with me. By making veiled (or not-so-veiled) mocking comments about the alleged nature of the man's fans, they fail entirely to deal with the music on its own terms, as well as the man's personal qualities, both admirale and questionable. It's a "no win" game men like McDonough play, and I strongly suspect they do it to call attention to themselves and/or their personal musical/social/whatever agendas much more than they do to stimulate a SERIOUS discussion of the music itself. Where there's no room for ambiguity, or a sincere admission of uncertainty in any regard, or, especially, the admission of "realtive" merits as it concerns parts of a whole, I seriously doubt there's any room for "forward progress". It all comes down to "I'm right, You're wrong" on both sides, and like I said waaaaay earlier, I ain't got time for THAT.

Well, Corcoran's on my "Enemies List" of music journalists (his deliberately inflamatory (I hope) "Most Overrated" list included Otis Redding & Charlie Parker), but that's a good article indeed.

The article I referenced mentioned attending a session where a lethargic but (mostly) coherent Sly spent about 30 minutes getting a basic groove out of some session musicians, after which he laid down for a 2-3 hour nap under the board. And that...was that. I'd love nothing more than to be proven wrong, but I think he's gone. Forever.

Ok, I gotcha.

Imagine calling for references!

Last I heard, Sly is alive and living modestly but comfortably in a private community somewhere in California. Supposedly, however, the inhuman amount of coke use he indulged in has left him w/permanent brain-damage, and periodic attempts at recording sessions have resulted in nothing, absolutely nothing, of use, even for exploitative purposes. The guy seems to be Brian Wilson with an UNhappy ending (irony fully intended). This I got from a rather detailed and well-researched article in some British music magazine that I spent about an hour reading at a newstand (don't ask why I didn't just buy the damn thing. I should have) in the early 90s. It included then-current interviews w/the various members of the Family Stone, most of whom, perhaps not suprisingly, have become quite religious, some (Larry Graham) quite visible, and others (Sister Rose & Freddie Stewart/Stone), quite privately and locally. The article also included a photo form Sly's induction into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame that damn near made me cry, so obvious was the man's condition. From genius to near-vegatable. With this album as a warning to all concerned, including himself. LET'S PARTY!!!