JSngry

Just curious, Tony - do you listen to much opera? And even if you don't, do you hear the operatic qualities of ISKA? I guess to be more accurate, I'd have to describe it as a series of arias, or perhaps a song cycle, but given the programmatic nature of the music, and the way the whole ensembles frames Wayne's "singing" (and DAMN does he sing on this album) with music totally in sync w/the themes of each piece, the whole thing somehow just strikes me as operatic in essence.

Well hey, the gist of the original post seemed to be "why did people say that you couldn't dance to bebop?", a question that seemed more about public perception of the music than the music itself, so my comments were made in that context. If anybody wants to think that there was not a xocially relevant "angle" to early bebop, not necessarily the music itself, but to the overall "culture" surrounding it, the extra-musical environment from which it sprang (and by extension crept into the music at least, AT LEAST, subliminally), they can be my guest, but I don't think the evidence supports such a position.

Simular problems here.

I'm thinking early to mid-50s, yeah, 52-54, somewhere in there. I'd have to look it up to be sure. But he definitely played for Da' Bums. I think he played into the early 60s w/various teams. Pretty sure I used to have baseball cards of him as a player, but I'd not swear to it.

No, that's definitely not what it was ALL about, but that was a part of it. Not the actual musical developments, but the actual presentation and "attitude" that created the popular perception (check out the Life magazine spread, preferably in its original context for maximum "flavor". Time also had a piece that was similar in message, but w/o all the photos. Guess the Luce folks couldn't dance to it either, which wouldn't surprise me in the least) that this was some kind of "exotic" "cult" music that could not be enjoyed by "regular" people. Too many first hand accounts (and that video clip of Earl Wilson w/Bird and Diz) to deny that. "Mainstream America" was getting it's first postwar look at the "New Negro", and THIS time, the attitude stuck, gained momentum, and changed a nation. The resistance to that change and the resistance to early Bebop is linked, I believe, although it would be a huge oversimplification, an outright error even, to say that they were one and the same. Bubbles Whitman was no longer needed, shut my mouf, and for that we should all, especially "Diddy Galippy", be glad! :D The music itself, of course, wasn't really "about" this, it was "about" a natural evolution as the musicians gained greater tools and knowledge, and a similar music to bebop was going to happen, inevitably. Living music always evolves. But I do think that the socially aware (perhaps even at times "militant") attitude of the early bebop musicians, and their unwillingness to mute it TOO much for consumption by the extant entertainment machine gave the music a character that a lot of people on both sides of the fence picked up on. How that attitude was recieved very often seemed to depend on what side of the fence you were on. We as a culture saw it again with the free jazz of the 1960s, as well as with the rock-and-roll of the 50s. Maybe even again, although from a totally 180-degree different perspective, in the Punk of the 70s. Music rarely evolves in a social vaccuum. I definitely don't subscribe to the theory that music is first and foremost a weapon of social change, but I do believe that any music that exists in a social environment cannot help but be affected by that environment to some degree, and can sometimes even serve as a catalyst within that environment. I think that the full reality of bebop is one such instance. Developing the music is just part of it. After you got it, what do you do with it, and how? Do you function within the status quo, do you go counter to it, do you seek to subvert or to overthrow, what DO you do? If you percieve yourself and your music as STRICTLY a product for disposable consumption, well, the world's pretty much your oyster if you get the right hookup. Otherwise... Not that the boppers were the first to take such a stance of self-respect, FAR from it. But I do beleive that they were considerably less subversive and more directly revolutionary than nearly all their predecessors as it came to seeing their "place", and proceeded accordingly. Some, like Dizzy, were superb manipulators of the system. Others, like Monk, jsut didn't give a rat's ass and figured the the truth would win in the end. Most didn't have all the tools to function as independent businesspeople and ended up as revolutionaries in search of a gig. And some just said "fuck it" and killed themselves one way or the other at various paces. None of that has anything to do with the music, but it has everything to do with the musicians, and if it's wrong to make those things out to be one and the same all the time, it's also wrong to attempt to disregard the various overlapa. Lots of grey in this picture, LOTS of grey. So what was it ALL about? Life, I guess. Nothing more than that. But that's enough, ain't it?

If you're a "deep" (as in Brooklyn) Dodgers fan, then you got a connection w/Zim. BTW, just because I like the cat doen't mean I condone his action in this instance. That was just TOTALLY wack. Like I said, the guy's a trip, so wack shit's gonna happen with him. But fersure, he was wrong.

Zim is a trip. Has been for as long as I can remember. If there was true justice in the cosmos, he would still be managing the Cubs as they prepare to meet their destiny, whatever that proves to be. And Ryne, Dunston, Grace, & Andre would be his coaches. So would Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Don Kessinger and Ernie Banks. But not that damn Bob Buhl!

Hell, ODYSSEY OF ISKA is my favorite opera too.

Unless God wants to get into the record business, in which case you're REALLY gonna have a mess on your hands. You thought that KOESTER was hard to work for...

If there was a revolution (and there was), it wasn't about "we don't want anybody to dance to and otherwise enjoy this music", it was about "we are most assuredly NOT the grinning, subservient Negroes you've gotten accustomed to seeing on stage who are there to cater to your every inane whim. We are serious musicians making serious music." In other worfds - we are fully adult MEN & WOMEN functioning as such. Deal with it, because that's the way it's gonna be. Big difference, I think. Hell, MONK danced like a motherf---er! The only time you don't dance is when you're afraid, or otherwise crippled. The actual music of bebop might have scared some people (mostly musicians, I'd guess), but I'd imagine that the IMPLICATIONS of it scared even more. I mean, if you were into the "comfort zone" of "Swing" and weren't really paying attention to the world around you (including the musical rumblings, a lot of which were missed due to the recording ban), a record like "Shaw 'Nuff" or "KoKo" must have sounded like a cattle prod up the ass, and not TOO many people are going to feel comforted by that (unless they had requested it...). "These Crazy Colored Folk! What the hell are they DOING? I CAN'T DANCE TO IT!" No, mutthaphukka, you don't WANT to dance to it, because it's not all about YOU anymore. It's not gonna be all YOUR world anymore. Make room for Daddy. Who plays the horn. In a Caddy, no less. "Things To Come", indeed! And yeah, GOM, that is Jones' quote. One of my favorites, along with Cecil's "I don't play for the people who leave, I play for the people who STAY."

DOH!!!

As an infant, did cats nibble at your head when you tried to nap?

Hell, mine is ODYSSEY OF ISKA (of the BNs, anyway), so don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

I viewed this game as a test for Dallas. Granted, the Eagles aren't firing on all cylinders right now, but the talent is definitely there, and we all know that on any given Sunday, etc., so I figured that if we just played a close game all the way through and didn't get a total butt-whuppin' that it would be one of those "moral victory" things, and there would still be reason for optimism about the direction in which this team is headed. Well, it turned out better than that, didn't it? !!!! (Note to all NFL players, broadcasters, etc. - the above message did not use the word "football" one time. Get a clue...)

ADAM'S APPLE - the most purely melodic Shorter BN in my opinion. No "licks", just pure melody, straight from wherever melody comes from (head? heart? both? neither? If I knew, I could always be and/or go there...). It's more than "just" "cerebreal" or whatever, there's a pretty mystical thing going on here. Not necessarily "spiritual" (but not necessarily NOT spiritual either), but just the mysticism of melody, of hearing, feeling, and playing such sustainedly melodic music. There's definitely some "zonage" going on here. Emotion is indeed subjective, for this one moves me deeply. But that's just me. ODYSSEY OF ISKA moves me even more, and how many people like THAT one? So, like, whatever. I'll take it where I find it.

At this moment, Pete Hunter is the luckiest man in the NFL.

Ok, so, there was all this fuss about Verve doing or not doing that WILLOW WEEP FOR ME album with or without the strings (myself, I like it both ways, so whatever...). Old news, right? Well, this afternoon, I procured an album that bumps the necrophilliacometer up another notch. This time they "raped" Wes while the body was still warm! The album in question is A PORTRAIT OF WES MONTGOMERY, World Pacific Jazz ST-20137, a art of the "Jazz Milestones Series", a series that in my embyonic jazz days introduced me to the Mulligan/Baker Group, the first Chico Hamilton 5tet LP, TWO DEGREES EAST, THREE DEGREES WEST, KONITZ MEETS MULLIGAN, and a few other REALLY nice classics from the PJ catalog. But THIS album is a little, uh... "different". It seems that hot on the heels of Wes' death, Pacific Jazz saw fit to reissue some of their Montgomery holdings. Well, ok, that's par for the course, of course. But in the words of liner note writer John William Hardy (always a tough guy for me to get a handle on, for some reason), "In recent years, the poignant sound of Wes Montgomery's guitar has been almost exclusively housed within the frameork of a large orchestra. Thus, with this record, producer Dick Bock has seen fit to have Gerald Wilson create settings of brass and strings to enliven the proceddings....If the elaboration of these performances by Wilson will assist the non-jazz listener to hear them, the whole thing's worth while. AM car radio listening has been a more pleasurable experience in the recent past with Wes Montgomery's fine sound pouring forth amid the brass and strings..." I'd never even heard of this record. Seems like it came in the last 5 or so years of PJ's activity, so if it vanished w/o a whimper that's understandable. But what REALLY intrigues me is Gerald Wilson's presence here. What kind of charts did he write, and how, HOW did they make a late-60s orchestral overdub session fit on top of a mid-50s combo session without it sounding TOTALLY unnatural? Or did they? I don't know yet, because my turntable situation is not yet resolved (but it will be soon). I'm sure some of the vets here have heard this record, but I'd never even heard OF it. Frankly, it kinda boggled my mind, although I don't really know why it should. But for 7 bucks, hell YEAH I bought it. Input, anybody?

My gut tells me that this is going to end up being a self-parody of sorts, and that I can live without. I'd like to see Tarretino use his massive gifts for something beyond in-jokes and hip pop-culture references. Not that I mind that, I don't. And I've liked all of his work so far. But I just got a hunch the guy's gotten into bing "Quentin Tarrentino", if you know what I mean. Style will only get you so far, then it's time to deliver substance. Without taking that next step... But yeah. I'll be seeing it, and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

The Monkerena juggernaut is kinda stalled, and we could use a boost or two of capital. Interested?

What Prudence fails to mention is that the letter is from her sister, and that Pru has been boning her now-brother-in-law since 1989. Details, details, details...

Gotcha. Is the sound quality "acceptable" by 1973 bootleg standards?

Saw this double CD bootleg the other day at a local emporium. Claims to be a soundboard recording from '73. Might have been on the allegedly French "Pinups" label (the store had several other items on this label, including a Mingus thing that turned out to be identical to the France's Concert label disc of a few years ago, and some Miles/Fillmore stuff not on Columbia). A bootleg of 1973 vintage is something that may or may not be of good sound quality, so I'm asking the collectors here if they know anything about this particular item. As always, thanks in advance.

Good side. In the LP days, I listened to Side Two a LOT more than Side One, which in CD terms means it's a record that will likely gain momentum as it goes along, and I always enjoy that. Pick it up. It's fine.

Sonny Simmons (ignore him at your own risk!), Michael Marcus, Tarus Mateen, and "special guest" (special being one of the understatements of the still young century) ANDREW CYRILLE (HELL YEAH!). On the French Bleu-regard label. Somebody sent me a burn to audition, so I don't readily know where to get it, but when I find out, I will do so immediately. That's how much I'm digging it. This is a representation of contemporary jazz in its finest, fullest flower if you ask me. No it ain't Hard Bop, or funky, or anything else. It's just four cats playing masterfully. Some might call it "free", but if that word conjures images of tortuous crash and burn squealfests, think again in this instance. This is how I like to hear modern music played - with references to and a full awareness of things like structures and time, but without any unnecessary (for these individuals, anyway) need to go over what everybody already knows is there, which in turn frees them up to, as Ornette said, "play the music, not the background". It takes a really masterful, and above all, mature musician to work this territory and not have it turn into either a rambling rant or a seminar on advanced eccentricity, and this group is indeed masterful. There's total interplay, and a logical narrative flow to all the pieces, which is what I want out of ANY music. "Structure" certainly entails more than recurrent song forms of a set # of bars and preordained chord changes. It's all about how you get from Point A to Point Z, and the options are limitless. Simmons is a master at this - he uses elements of the entire spectrum of jazz, not to replicate or to signify, but simply to tell his own personal-yet-universal stories in that language. What he says is comprised of many familiar elements, but the way that he says it and puts it together is entirely his own. When he's in top form, which he seems to be quite a bit these days, he's one of the most coherent and compelling players there is. You can't help but follow him, that's how together he is. Marcus & Mateen are excellent as well, but right now, how 'bout some LONG overdue props for Mr. Andrew Cyrille. Like Simmons, he's a player who plays "out" music using a great deal of "in" vocabulary (and I DO hate these arbitrary designations - you're either playing or you're not. "Styles" don't mean a DAMN thing as far as I'm concerned). This guy has total command of his instrument and his music. Simmons and him make for a perfect pairing. You can listen to them and clearly hear what's not being explicitly said because their roots run so deep that "the tradition" is not something they have to blatantly state for you to know it's there. Since Andrew Hill is getting such good play on this board these days (another HELL YEAH!), let me put it like this - imagine this music as 4 Andrew Hills playing together at once and as one, a 4-way Andrew Hill solo simultaneously played by two saxes, bass, and drums. You'd still get the deep feeling of "jazz" from it, and you'd still hear the logic and the development - even if it came and went at its own personal pace. In the end, you'd definitely know that you started at Point A, ended at Point Z, and had a helluva interesting ride getting there. That's the way this band goes about their business. No need to go into the specifics of each piece, for this is one instance where the music really does speak for itself. If you prefer stuff that deals more overtly and literally in the beautiful traditional elements of jazz, then this one is probably not for you. But if you can dig a music that takes those specifics for granted (and includes them in its underlying essence) and goes from there, not to speak the words without the understanding but rather to speak the understanding without the words, then by all means check this puppy out. These are two masters in their prime and two damn fine players on the way to theirs at work in full glory here, and it is not to be missed by those who might be interested.

I've had it for years and enjoy it quite a bit, actually. The pianist (somewhat not his fault - the instrument he's stuck with is not the best) and bassist (no such excuse for him, sorry to say) ain't too hip, but Philly Joe pretty much renders them irrelevant, and with a frontline like that, everything else takes care of itself. Somewhat of an unpolished gem, I'd say, and much better than often given credit for, imo. I'd recommend it.