JSngry

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!!!

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...