JSngry

I know the "type" of people you're talking about, and I agree with you as far as you go. But the "call" for, what, "open-mindedness"(?) as it pertains to stylistic diversity that you issue is something that already exists in musicians and fans alike. If you haven't experienced it in numbers to convince you otherwise, I'm sorry, but I have, and it's something that I take for granted myself. The "cliqueishness" of audiences and musicians who hold up only one (or a few) "genres" as "the real deal" is something that has been in place ever since Armstrong took jazz away from being a purely ensemble music, and although those partisans can make an awful (in several different ways) lot of noise, they're another one of those "facts of life" that I find it more than easy to ignore. Nobody will ever convince these people otherwise, so on with the show, if you know what I mean. The people who can't hear anything before the "avant-garde" are "missing the point" just as much as those who can't hear anything after it as far as I'm concerned, and I'm NOT alone in this regard. Now as for your thought experiment: I'd suggest going back to the mid-70s for the whole Scott Hamilton/Warren Vache thing, and seeing how that played out. There were those amongst the community of "their peers, fellow musicians, and the jazz cognoscenti" who hailed these guys to no end, and those who reviled them equally. Such is life, and the beat goes on. Myself, I'd be thrilled if either one of these hypothetical guys showed signs of sounding like a young themselves, which is something I hear distressingly little of these days. I'm not into "retro" ANYTHING if all it entails is re-creation for its own sake, and frankly, that's what most of the new players of the last 20-25 years bring to the table as far as I'm concerned. Those who dig these players, of course, hear it otherwise. Hey- retro-Ayler sucks just as much as retro-Hubbard does in my opinion. I hold Ayler QUITE high in my esteem, but just because a cat works out of that bag doesn't mean he's got it going on. Imitation is still imitation, no matter what it is that's being imitated. Some people decieve themselves otherwise, probably because the more time that passes by, the more chances there are for imitators to be documented, so it's easier to claim "newness" in terms of relative documentation. Yet that is a fallacious assumption. The meat of any music is in it's substance, not it's style. Now, what those terms actually mean is going to vary on an individual basis, but I think there's every bit as much "snobbery" in cetain elements of the "straight ahead" camp as there is the "avant-garde", and it's ALL bullshit if you ask me. The vocabulary and procedeures of the "avant garde" have been around long enough now that any objective assessment of jazz as a whole must include them and thier "legitimacy". What that means is that the so-called "avant garde (a term I reall don't care for, really) ISN'T avant-garde, it's just another way to play music. As in all kinds of music, including "straight ahead", you're going to have players who do something personal, and players who "latch on" to the trappings of a style simply for the sake of "belonging" to a certain camp, for wahtever reason(s). The same applies to the appreciation of these musics - there will be those who like it for genuine reasons, and those who like it becuase it's "cool" in their eyes. And believe me, this happens in ALL genres of the music. Life's too short to get hung up on what's wrong at the exclusion of what's right. Yes, there is "pseudo-ism" to be had, and it's not limited to the avant-garde, trust me. PLEASE trust me. The "hipster" phenomenon, the "fan" (and musician) who wears music as a lifestyle accessory and nothing more, is QUITE old, and can be found today at any jazz event, be it a Dixieland gig, a bebop gig, an organ gig, or an avant-garde gig. Oh yes it can, and in equal numbers at each. Of this, I'm MORE than certain. For all the bullshit surrounding this music, ALL of it, there's much genuine beauty to be had as well. In ALL of it. Take your pick.

Laswell's not somebody I regularly spend money on, but I have friends who do, and I think he's a wonderful catalyst. Haven't heard anything involving him as player OR producer that wasn't at least "interesting" in the good sense. Can't give any solid recs other than those above, but I'd suggest checking out the Celluloid label as a whole. Chock full of Laswell's playground(s), it is. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread for further recs too, with an eye towards maybe picking some up my ownself.

One of Brubeck's lesser known and better Columbia sides, I think. Not a lot in the way of overt "experimenting", although the pieces all reflect the concerns signified by the title. But whereas some similar efforts by this group in this vein sound "forced" or too "clever" for my taste, this one seems to lay in the cut just right. Desmond's in GREAT form here and gets plenty of room to blow, Brubeck does what he always does, only he seems more relaxed about it than usual to my ears, and the Benjamin/Morello tandem do what they did best - give the other two guys the best possible support they needed to do what they did. All told, a most satisfying album, I think. Desmond, of course, I always dig, and Brubeck is somebody I've always ran hot and cold with, depending on the selection (although my respect for him continues to grow as I mature and no longer reserve my respect solely for that which I like), but I've never felt the need to delve TOO deeply into the Brubeck 4tet Columbia catalog, if you know what I mean. (The Fantasy stuff is a WHOLE 'nother matter, though). THIS album, though, I think is prime stuff, even for those who shy away from this group or are content knowing their "highlights". Anybody agree? Disagree? Check it out!

Down, Billy, DOWN!

LTB's cool. When I can't dazzle her with brilliance, I baffle her with bullshit. Or so she lets me think...

Where can I go to get a nasty bronchial infection and such a treatment for it?

Well, if I ever come across an Andy Williams album with him wearing too big sunglasses, a pink shirts, AND a sweater, I reckon that'll be the end of my financial solvency for the foreseeable future...

So, what's up w/Clifford Brown's "Sandu"?

Well, I hesitated, because it's going for $25 (Japanese import). I REALLY liked the cut, but $25 is over my usual "willing to pay" range. But I took a look at those sweaters, and that was all the nudge I needed. I mean, I can get PLENTY of great jazz for less than $25, but for sweaters like that, I'm gonna have to venture into Andy Williams land, which will come at a much greater cost, I'm sure. If not in dollars... Dusty Groove strikes again. The bastards!

If you have the filters turned off, none, probably.

That's what I always assumed.

Dude--if you're not going to use this as a song title, I'll gladly give it a home! Be my guest, just treat it right.

Uh, I just realized that what you see when when you click that link will depend on where your "safety settings" are set, so this "running gag" has most likely been entirely not running for anybody but me... Ok, I'm a dumbass.

Up. Is it just me? Not concerned, know the realities, no sweat, just wondering if I got a problem on MY end.

Dude, I say this with much love, but... WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN???? Seriously, much love. But I just GOT to ask.

Well, uh...yeah. So did the Armstrong phenomenon & the Parker phenomenon. That's....kinda the way things work. Well, uh...yeah. If you saw a tenorist chasing Hawk in, say, 1952, or an altoist patterning himself after Hodges in, say, 1959, you would be seeing an extreme abnomaly. And the Pres-disciple thing was pretty much no longer "hip" by 1957-58 or so. Time marches on, even if things don't get fully finished before it does, and some good stuff sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. Happened to Ruby Braff. But some other stuff HAD to happen, like the REST of the 1950s. That's....kinda the way things work. Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules. Dude, I don't know what "jazz world" this is, but if I had to inhabitsuch a world, I'd get the hell out of Dodge. Granted, I get a little put off by those who insist that Trane's later work (and I'm assuming that late-Trane is what you mean when you say "Coltrane") is bogus, but I get just as put off by those who can't hang w/all the greatness that came before it either. I know people whoa re like that, but frankly, they're in the minority. At least amongst thoise that I know, and I've been around the music and its various facets for several decades now. You don't like the music, which is fine. But for whatever reason, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about those who do. SEEM to. Yeah, the whole snob thing exists, and I hate it AT LEAST as much as you do, because I play the stuff and have to deal with it in a way that you probably don't ("OOOOOH! You guys are so FREAKY! I LOOOOVE it" followed a few minutes later by "Eh, you guys are all right, but it's a bit 20th century, don't you think?" when all we're really trying to do is just PLAY SOME FUCKING MUSIC breeds neither confidence nor contempt towards those who say such things, just thermonuclear indifference ). But if you're not going to admit that there are a good number of people who just LIKE the stuff for the same reasons that ANYBODY likes ANYTHING ("Hey guys, good set, felt really good" DUDE - can I buy YOU a beer?) then you're not only begging the question in a MOST obvious manner, you're eliminating all grounds for serious discussion. Because there ain't no discussion, there's just two lectures going on at roughly the same time (a stereophonic monolog, perhaps?). I'm sorry if you haven't met some of these people yet, the people who genuinely like this kind of music "just because", but frankly, it's possible that you have and just refused to see it because you refuse to allow for the possibilty that they exist. Not that this has anything to do with you liking the music or not, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with that. Like what you like and deal with the rest in no uncertain terms. Right freakin' on, and get in line. But afford others the same courtesies that you afford yourself, ok? Because you don't "understand" everything, including why some people like what they do. Ain't NOBODY got that much understanding, not even you and me combined. That's....kinda the way things work.

UH oh, here comes trouble... http://images.google.com/images?q=%22sexy+...&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

No, GOOGLE. Maybe I should turn the Moderate SafeSearch feature off and see what happens...

An Edward Hopper exhibit, THAT's the ticket!

Good stuff indeed. And STRONG seconds for the Wild Magnolias, as well as the other Mardi Gras Indian musics. A fertile field, that is, with deep grooves aplenty and lyrics to keep you wondering. Bo Dollis RULES!

Well, that's different, then. I wish you'd have said so from the beginning. Just know that the board as a whole tends to be more "conversational" in tone, and your initial posts seemed to be more "exhibits" than invitations to discussion. Also, discussion is more likely if you start a seperate thread for each album. Post your impressions, get responses, and take it from there. Just some constructive criticism, no offense intended. And apologies for my wiseass comment about Waldron et. al. I thought you were some pompous ass lecturing us Philestines rather than a kid working on getting his writing chops together. Wrong of me to assume that, but that WAS the first impression I got. Take that for what it's worth. Finding that fine line between going over your audience's head and "talking down" to them is part of the maturation process of any communicative discipline, and it's never in the same place twice. The problem with not knowing is that you don't know. You're showing uncommonly "advanced" tastes for a 19 year old. Carry on!

Oh, I can and will critique myself. And I can do it on this cut. Stick around. But if I gave TOO much information, people might have wondered about that, why I was SO analytical about that one cut and not the others, or if I went the "coy" route, that might have given something away as well. And if I said a little something somethin about every OTHER cut and just gave a curt "I have this" for one, well, THAT looks funny too. I know that Jim R is ALL OVER little clues like that! A lot of the people here know I'm in this band and that we have some CDs out, so I just tried to make my comment "blend in" with all my others, just gave some "general" impressions like I did for every other cut on this Test. Not really giving props to myself (you'll notice that my comment about my own playing is decidedly lacking in adjectives), but definitely to Lyles, Dennis, & Pete, whom I think are richly deserving. Tried to make it inconspicuous, and I think it succeeded in blending in well with the rest of my guesses, most of which, if you'll notice, weren't really guesses either. Just went with the flow of the moment, that's all. As for the "European" thing as it pertains to the drumming, I can honestly see that, because Dennis is a huge DeJohnette buff, and Jack did a lot of archetypical work on ECM. You can hear a DeJohnette-y quality in Dennis's playing, I think, so that's why I made the comment I did. Again, a totally honest comment.

Here we go. Talk about an uphill climb! http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/listSec...nID=8263#R32260

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22sexy+...&oe=UTF-8&hl=en And that, Dear Friends, must surely be a mistake!

Fair enough, Dan, but where's the disinformation in this? Honest sentiments all, and no attempts at deceit or misdirection. I sincerely meant everything I said. It IS a gorgeous tune, Pete DOES play the melody superbly, I AM telling my story, it's NOT anything innovative, we DO try to be as honest and personal in our music as we possibly can be, and I honestly COULDN'T wait for the identity to be revealed. Not a speck of disinformation there, sorry. If prizes were being awarded, yeah, I'd have disqualified myself. But all we were supposed to do was give our honest impressions of the music, and that's exactly what I did. What impressions would I have had of the cut if I ahdn't been on it? I don't know. That's like asking me what goes on at my job when I'm not there. I don't know - I've never been there when I'm not there! And I really DON'T think we sound "European"! The joke for me came in Randy's poker allusion, becasue a "bit" of mine is "Musicians You'd Not Want To Play Poker With". Some examples: Coleman Hawkins - No way in hell to figure out what he's holding. Ben Webster - You COULD win some hands, but you'd be afraid to. Lester Young - You'd probably win ALL the hands, but feel so bad about doing so that you'd give him all his money back, and probably some of yours too. John Coltrane - Would never take the horn out of his mouth long enough to ante up, so what's the point? etc. THAT was the "joke", not my response in the discussion thread. Sorry for any misunderstanding.