JSngry

I knew a guy who claimed it was once his gig to blow coke up Stevie Nick's rectum because doing it through the nose was affecting her voice so badly. Surprisingly enough, I believed him - he seemed quite creditable! So... Be thankful. Be VERY thankful!

Well, I'll have to disagree that "technique" is an artificial construct, at least as how I meant it. There's nothing at all "artificial" about cellular units of construction, motivic developement, etc., to say nothing of the fingerings used to produce altissimo notes and mutiphonics, all of which figure quite heavily in the music of late-period Coltrane. These are all quite specific devices consciously executed by the musicians involved. Nothing at all artificial about it - it's real, and it's what the music consists of, absent of anybody's (including the players') subjective "emotional" and/or "spiritual" projections. The instruments don't play themselves, dig? But in another way, I agree with you - even if you DO have an at least fundamental grasp of these concrete techniques, you're STILL left with appraising the music on how it reaches YOU, and that includes judgement as to how well the techniques are executed, and to what end. Which is why I can't take all this "decline/destruction of civilization" talk seriously as it pertains to late-Trane - I JUST DON'T HEAR IT! I hear a man taking conventional "Western" music as far as it can be taken w/o it becoming something else, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, and I also hear his "spiritual" triumph when he succeds (or at least gets close) and his frustration when he doesn't - in spite of whatever external projections Trane placed on the music, it was always, ALWAYS, "music first" with him, even when he placed it in service of his "quest", which, it can be argued (and quite well, I believe) was in place LONG before the 1965-66 period that apparently distresses so many people so intensely. It all seems like a natural and inevitable personal and musical (SO important, that one is!) evolution to me. Therefore, I DON'T hear "narcissism" or vague air-headed notions of "cosmic love" and such. But somebody else does. So what does that "prove"? Nothing, one way or the other, absolutely nothing. I will, however, entertain debates about the relative merits of the various recordings of late-period Trane, provided that it is on the terms of acknowledging and having at least a basic knowledge of the existence and validity of the techniques involved. INTERSTELLAR SPACE is ne plus ultra, imo, OM is fun but ultimately disposable, and there's much in between. But again, even THAT is subjective, so we're back to square one, albeit on a higher plane. And if you want to argue that that plane itself being "higher" is what's artificial, rather than the actual techniques involved in the making of the music, go ahead. I'd be hard-pressed to disagree!

Somehow I've overlooked this one, which for a James Clay buff suchas myself is both inexplicable and inexcusable. Self-flagellation begins immediately! How much tenor and how much flute does Heavy play here? And does he stretch out, or is he given obviously "regimented" space? No matter, It's Clay,and I need to have it. Thanks for the jolt!

Well, here's the deal. We all have other musical intersts, and a focus on Sly one month, Delbert McClinton the next, maybe Bartok after that followed by Johnny Cash, on to Elvis Costello or Marvin Gaye, well, HELL yeah! Too often, discussion of these types of music is left to musically illiterate and/or musically limited gushy "fan" types blinded by the glare of stardom, and/or lacking the necessary depth of experience to view these musics in a broader context. Either that, or you get the "music journalist" types who as often as not are at root fans with a vocabulary and a writing gig (there's some notable exceptions, though,, to be sure). The Organissimo community is anything but! I'd think that these "other" musics could be discussed quite illuminatingly by our bunch,especially since we seem to have more than a few members who are relative newcomers to jazz but have the musical and personal maturity that comes with time and an open-mindedness, a personal quality that no doubt led them to jazz in the first place! While discussing the specifics of jazz in great detail might sometimes be "difficult" for them, it's only due to a lack of experience, the accquiring of which is only a matter of time (We ALL have to crawl before we walk, right?). They still possess intelligence, personal maturity, and a much greater than average musical "depth" than the average "fan", and I think that that might make posting about NON-jazz music that is meaningful to them quite rewarding for all concerned. Besides, jazz is a music that has both influenced and been influenced by other musics. Getting a bigger taste ofd what some of that has been (and still is) about might be rewarding, I'd think. The plate is big indeed! But like I said, this is just an idea, nothing more.

I don't know that Cole was an actual founder of the label, but he was certainly an early signee. I've read that Capitol actually began as an "Artist's label", that is, the label was to serve as an outlet for the talents and desires of its talent, not to endlessly produce annonymous but profitable "product". I think they succeeded pretty well overall, at least for their first decades or so. Contrast the handling of Sinatra at Capitol with the mis-handling at Columbia for a prime example. And as far as I know, nobody REALLY pressured Nat to "go pop". I'm sure the label was more than happy to accmodate him when he did, but I get the impression that it was his call, not the result of record label pressure. HERE'S a capsule history of Capitol. I'm sure that you can find better. As well, Gene Lees wrote a very nice portrait of Mercer in the later edition of "Singers And The Song", including an anecdote where Mercer went to visit Capitol Tower in L.A. and was greeted by a receptionist who was COMPLETELY unaware of who Mercer was. A bit sad (but predictable), that one is. And check out Ella's Mercer Songbook on Verve (w/arrangements by Nelson Riddle - not his most imaginative work by any means, but damn, there are moments!). I didn't know that Mercer had written lyrics to "Early Autumn", but here they are, and darn fine ones they are indeed!

Indeed, although I wonder how much of this phenom is seasonal in nature. We'll soon see, eh? But that's another reason why I propose this be a monthly affair - to give the selection time to "resonate" (or not) amongst the community. There's been an AOW or two that I keep meaning to pick up (and will), but the urgency fades as does its time in the spotlight. I figure that monthly might difuse that potential problem, as well it might for AOW, should the "rut" that esteemed feature find itself currently in continue unabated. But I like the symbolism of monthly as opposed to weekly for another reason. It's like "I know that our focus is on jazz, but here's an item you might want to devote a little bit of your attention to". If the thread develops at a leisurely pace, so be it! Just seems "right", somehow, to keep the weekly/monthly distinction as a symbolic gesture, if we do indeed get into this. So far, no dissenters, but not exactly a heavy show of support either. Who else has an opinion, pro or con?

interesting remark. I'll have to address this when I post my answers, because - for the love of me - I don't know what exactly I edited out No biggie. It's this darn unfriendly world of ours that's to blame.

Yeah, it's a drag how Impulse! would put half or so of another album out on a CD as "bonus cuts" and then either not put the rest of it out at all, or put the rest of it out as bonus cuts on another CD. They did some Chico Hamilton stuff like that, and it's infuriating. Better than nothing, sure, but still...

Just want to add a perhaps relevant detail - on the label of the LP issue, the last cut on Side Two is listed as "There's A Riot Goin' On". Time is given as 0:00. No time, and no time left. What that says about Sly's mindset at the time, and how it relates to this album, I'm not sure. But it seems to me that his sense of "impending demise" is at least a part of it.

Seems like we all have non-jazz music that we take pretty seriously for both personal and musical reasons. A focused discussion on these albums might prove entertaining and enlightening, no? And, if the album in question has some relation to jazz, so much the better. I was going to unoficially begin the matter and the forum with Sly's THERE'S RIOT GOIN' ON to see if there were any takers, but that would have been presumptuous. There is, however, a thread started on the album in the Recommendation Forum, if anybody's interested. It's HERE. R&B, Rock, Classical, Adult Pop (Sinatra, Cole, etc.), C&W, whatever, it would all be fair game (even Disco - some of those Chic records have GREAT playing on them!). Anything that you think would be MUSICALLY relevant, if only indirectly, to the community here would be fodder for inclusion. I know that this is a jazz board first, which is why I propose the monthly format. Besides, the monthy format would allow for a purchase by those less inclined, but not totally dis-inclined, to buy non-jazz music to check out the discussion, obtain the item if they desire, and join in the discussion. The "spotlight" that an AOM designation carries with it might focus attention in a way that a general discussion wouldn't, I think. Just an idea. What do y'all think?

It's tracks 8, 9 & 11 that are intriguing me the most, having identified, I think, all the others (some with the help of other's links, thank you very much!). #8 literally JUST flashed on me. I'm more familiar with this tune (and the melody's opening phrase is what haunted me into recognition) in an uptempo version on another label, but I think that it is track #9 of this CD: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...l=Ay9h1z81ajyv5 I have both ot the original LPs of this music, but it has been years since I paid much attention to them, due to this player's continued and ongoing strong output. But I KNEW that melody and its player sounded familiar! (But I could be wrong, as I haven't checked to see if I'm right) #9 I'm liking more with each listen. Due to the bass clarinet, I still have to guess Surman, but that's due to my unfamiliarity with anybody else to guess. Whoever it is, they're a monster, and I like what they're doing, as well as what everybody else is doing as well. Recording seems to be ECM-ish" in quality, which strenghtens the Surman guess, but really, I'm clueless. #11 reminds me of the saxist w/The Ganelin Trio, but I'm not familiar enough with any of those guys work (and no good reason for that, either) to say with any certainty. Again, a STRONG performance, and exceptional playing by all concerned. #1 - follwed a posters link to get the answer, and all I can say is WOW. Who'd have thunk it? Not me, for sure, but "Je T'aime" is how I feel about it. I get the feeling that #5 has been edited, although not in a way to affect the musical performance. Just a hunch. Is this #13? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...l=A1sq3g4fbtvoz I need to get it even if it's not! Strong set, John. STRONG!

Spent the last few days going through one of my periodic "obsessions" over this album, and yet again it proves to be one of those rare works that reveals more as the years pass and presents new things to ponder. One thing has become clear to me over the years - the music on this album affected Miles from ON THE CORNER on to a greater extent than even those who acknowledge the influence might realize. RIOT, like said Miles music, is one big stoned/coked haze of an experience, with Sly in the middle, fully aware of the cliff he's hanging from (and was about to fall off of). The music is much more "jammy" than anything he did, before or after, yet Sly is always there to put things in focus, vocally and/or instrumentally, at exactly the moment things threaten to meander. The use of various sonic textures as pure compositional devices on this album is very striking as well - there's a perhaps hedonistic concern with sound for its own sake that continues to fascinate me. It's rich and varied, yet very much of a single mind. All of this very strongly echoes Miles to me, not just in the obvious musical techniques used (I swear you could dub him into the middle or almost any track on RIOT and it would sound like it was supposed to have been there all along), but also in the overall concept of self-awareness and the leaders place in the midst of a teeming self-sufficient organism that could easily veer off into chaos and self-defeating self-indulgence. The thing that got me most recently though, wasn't the music, but the lyrics. Somebody once said, with arguable accuracy, of Dylan's "prime" years that every time he hurled accusations at "you" that he was really hurling them at his own inner demons. Sly doesn’t even bother with the “you” very much here, but much has been made, over the years, of the album as a response to the tensions between Black Militancy & Flower Power, which, although perhaps a superficially accurate analysis, misses the true INNER tension of the lyrics (and the music). Here Sly presents a selection of lyrics that are at once obtuse yet wholly (and frighteningly) direct. The opening line of the album - "Feel so good inside myself, don't want to move/Feel so good inside myself don't need to move" - says it all. Gone are the days of wanting to take us higher, replaced by a state of totally stoned (he COULDN'T get any higher and still function, which is, tragically, exactly what happened of him) "just is"-ness that would soon become "death" for Sly, but for this brief moment, we catch a genius (and make no mistake - Sly once was possessed of/by a pop genius of the richest kind) in that rare state where his intoxication and his ability were not just in full sync with each other, but were fully AWARE of each other . He neither wanted nor need anything, and was content to just let it be like that. A thin line between euphoria and death, it is... The lyrics of this album are full of such frightening self-awareness, as if the guy knows that he's killing himself, yet for whatever reason he refuses to stop. Take "Poet" - "My only weapon is my pen", he says, and then he goes about creating a supremely funky jam with next to no lyrics! What does that say about his will to go on “fighting”, especially in light of such succinct-yet-deep lyrical gems like "Everyday People", "Everybody Is A Star", "You Can Make It If You Try", etc.? And what about "Africa Talks to You "The Asphalt Jungle""? "Must be a rush for you to see a lazy. A brain he's meant to be. Cop out? He's crazy." “TIMBER! ALL FALL DOWN!” Yeah, I think Sly was fully aware of the fate that awaited him due to his insanely heavy coke use, and, to me, that's what makes the lyrics on this album so strong. It's like a fully coherent suicide note written, not moments before the act, but several years before. The music is still the most relevant part of this album for me, though, and the marvels thereof are seemingly inexhaustible. This is the album, more so than anything by JB, I think, that created the blueprint for funk and for the funky side of "fusion", especially Miles & HEADHUNTERS-era Herbie. JB no doubt bought the land and poured the foundation, but THERE'S A RIOT GOIN' ON is the album that actually built the house. There's SO much detail in the music here, so many "touches", some incidental, some in the forefront, some obviously planned, some not, that it takes more than a few casual listens to even begin to sort them all out. Definitely a "headphone album" if ever there was one. Hitting just the highlights would require a post at least as long as this one, so I'll pass for now. I don't know how much THERE'S A RIOT GOIN' ON is on the "radar screen" of today's audiences. Sly long ago ceased being a viable player on the scene, and all you hear of him anymore is the few "feelgood" hits on oldies radio and assorted commercials. But there was a time when this guy ruled the world, and this is an album that had huge musical & social significance in its time. I wonder how many of the younger fans of Miles' electric music have really absorbed this album, as well as how many of the fans of that era of Miles who don't stray too far outside the realm of "jazz" have done likewise. If you haven't yet done so, you owe it to yourself to check this one out, not just because of its influence, but also, no, especially because it's a strong, innovative work of the highest order on its own terms. Anybody else dig this one? If so, let the discussion begin, And if not, get ye to a music retailer!

hatHut 2R14 Steve Lacy: CAPERS w/Ronnie Boykins & Dennis Charles, that's another good one. I've got a few of the hat CD reissues, but the original LP packaging is worth seeking out for its own sake. "Objects" they may be, but glorious objecfts they are.

Interesting point, and reflective of our own experience living with Eastern Time.

Also glad you're ok, Alexander. Sounds like things could easily have been far worse. Just hope you don't get dicked around by the various insurance companies involved. Cross your fingers...

Gut, obviously, and this time it and the brain were on the same page (wish that happened more often...). Shoulda known... And watch out for that "Cajun Power" in the Bowl. Sounds "non-relevant" I know, but believe me when I tell you it's not... BTW, the Dallas teams of the early 90s had GREAT defenses. Dave W. is STILL living off of that. The end came when the salary cap went into effect. The first of many instances to come of Jerry Jones shooting himself in the foot.

JUMP UP/WHAT TO DO ABOUT is one of the great albums, period, as are all their Cecil Taylor sides.

I'll basically second that. It's not "his regular sound", which is kind of refreshing, but the results are indeed not particularly memorable in terms of the overall scheme of things. Check it out - there's far worse things to have.

Same here, although if you're a geek about this album like I am, you should consider buying the PET SONDS box.

Them's the ones! Rather than wordlessly scatting or doing a vocalese thing, Wilson sings the lyrics straight for a chorus, then goes on to keep the lyrics but improvise a melody for them. It's an effective tact, I think, one that Betty Carter used, and one that seems underused today.

Don't really know that much of Mercer's singing, but what I have heard has always gone down smooth. Besides being a great songwiter, the guy was a co-founder of Capitol Records. Think about the impact that label has had, directly or indirectly, over the last 45-50 years.

Yep!

I have a hard time discussing late Trane with anybody who doesn't "like" it yet refuses to acknowledge and/or is unable to recognize the musical/techinical principles involved, which are not insignificant. That's at least as "unexamined" an attitude as those who swoon at it in faux (or genuine) ecstasy. I have little use for either, although on a gut level, both are honest enough reactions. If we want to play "attack the fan", that's like shooting fish in a barrel. If we want to discuss a "difficult" music, let's discuss the music itself on its own terms. Break down the techniques, their application and execution, where they "came from" and why they're being put to use. I don't see McDonough (or Crouch, or Doug Ramsey) doing that. What they're doing is essentially saying that their negative response to it calls into question others' positive response. For some reason, they, and their accolytes, seem to feel that such an attitude deserves a response and that failure to respond somehow makes their negative reaction more valid that others' positive reaction. I seriously doubt that McDonough is equipped to have a discussion based on objective analysis of the music, which is why I find his comments (and similar comments made by similarly "equipped" people) to so much "so what". The usual response to a position such as mine is "well, so you're saying that if you're not a musician, then your opinion is invalid?". No. All I'm saying is that if you want to attack or affirm the music on grounds other than your own personal affinity for it, or lack thereof, have the tools at your disposal to do so. And don't confuse having a negative reaction with being superior to having a postive one. If you don't have a least a basic objective understanding of what it is you're having a reaction to, then yes - all opinions are equal. "I like it" is as valid as "I don't like it". Getting visons of Utopia from a music is just as valid as getting visions of a chaotic hell. Attacking either vision is meaningless (and futile) if the attack is going to be on some vauge grounds of "esthetics". If you want to "bump it up a notch" in terms of critique, analysis, etc., have the specific tools to do so. If you don't, get off your muthafukkin' high horse, dig? All the intellectual masturbation in the world doesn't hide the fact that if you don't understand what it is you're debating, it's still masturbation (and it amazes me how some folks can stroke and stroke and NEVER come). Nearly all music, including that of late Trane, has some very specific technical and organizational principles involved besides "emotion". This is something I seldom see critics of late Trane acknowledge, much less deal with. In fact, I've never seen it, at least not to my knowledge. The closest has been those who criticize those who would follow in the path of late Trane without first getting a grip on some fundamental techinical knowlege and skills, which is sound enough advice, but is really no more "wise" than advising a beginning driver not to try to drive like Richard Petty until they learn how the brakes work... Even with a knowledge of the technical aspects of the music, it still comes down to whether or not you "like" the results. Although, it's been my experience that the more an individual understands the music of late Trane in technical terms (or at least terms relevant to a stylistic/cultural/whatever "technical evolution"), the more prone they are to liking the music in at least "general" terms. But I don't know everybody in the world, so I guess that's just a gut reaction on my part, which means... OM might be Rolling Stone, brownies made with clarified butter, but INTERSTELLAR SPACE is definitely not TV Guide. Game Over.

http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=1882896

LOVE TENOR/FALLEN ANGEL. Like a lot of the little more I've heard, but that one is a freakin' masterpiece imo. NATION TIME is good too, perhaps might sound "dated" to some ears, but it's dated to a time and vibe that I remember well, so it's cool w/me. Thing I dig most about McPhee is his tone, and his mastery of the nuances of it. I have to be in the mood for that FREEDOM side, a little too much space and primary emphasis on nuance above all else for me to get into regularly, but, hey, that's my problem. When I AM in the mood fpr it, it's a kaliedescope of deliberately minescule tonal infinities, whatever that means. Haven't heard anything yet that cinvinces me that the cat's a real "finger" player (that is, having virtuostic "traditional" technique), but that's ok. There's different kinds of virtuosity, and McPhee, based on what I've heard, has become a virtuoso of tone, nuance, and sound. That's a virtuosity that is as difficult to achieve as any other kind, and it works for me. Can't really say yet that I've gotten what ALL the fuss is about in some circles, but some of it seems well-grounded, and I share some of it. I need to get more of his stuff to get the "full" picture, I suppose, but hey Zeus & Cristo, the guy's made more albums than Lee Konitz & Sonny Stitt combined, it seems. I have the ones I mentioned above plus OLEO (need to dig deeper into that one, I think. Its substance beckons, but not yet compellingly so. The guitarist sometimes just seems silly to me). What else do I need to have to have the "basics" covered?