JSngry

What's testosterone without estrogen? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The probelm as I see it is not that men are too tough, it's that they're too insecure. And women are too insecure too. They need to call men on that shit, not to beat them down, but to cut down the bullshit that men get away with. If a man can't handle that, can't handle being busted for being a fraud, and if a woman can't handle calling the man on his shit becasue she's too "afraid" or "put off" or wahtever, you got two weak people and nothing will change, except for the worse. It takes two to tango. Women cut men WAY too much slack. Whining about it and playing the blame game is just another form of slack-cutting. It's easier to nag than it is to act. Can't nobody make you a victim unless you let them, at least not under normal circumstances. Now, if a man can't deal with that, that's his loss. Any "victories" he obtains will be Pyrhhic ones. The smart guys figured this out a long time ago. The rest of them keep tilting after windmills. Between the insecure men and the weak women, you end up with a society full of people looking for an enabler rather than a mate. Pitiful, that's what that is, and the blame is equal. When you are weak, it is hard to respect anything, and respect is where hope and success lives. It takes a strong person to have and show respect, and both sexes are woefully lacking in strength these days, or so it seems to me. Opposites are meant to compliment, not destroy, each other, but it takes the strength of confidence to have the respect of that which is your complimentary opposite. And strength, TRUE strength, not illusory strength, belongs to those who choose to have it. It is not an easy choice, nor is it always anywhere near the top 100 options put before us. But somewhere along the line, it IS a choice. We all have choices, or at least we do once we REALIZE we do. Make 'em and live with the results. If you don't like the results, make different decisions. And if you want to but can't, ask yourself why not before looking for somebody else to blame. Sure, blame can always be placed on the outside, and usually with great justification. But fixing the outside wrong and NOT fixing the part inside that is wrong is a guarantee of the same old shit happening again and again and again. This works both ways - I have as much sympathy for the insecure male who overcompensates by attempting to limit others as I do for the weak female who overcompensates by nagging and complaining and being the perpetual victim. This goes for jazz and society alike. End of sermon.

Oh yeah - when I talk about "toughness", I most assuredly do NOT mean exclusively the stereotypical "macho" brand of same. If that's who you are, fine, go with that. But "toughness" is a trait, not a style, and it comes in many, MANY forms. It is definitely not limited to one gender-specific manifestation. Just wanted to make that clear.

So, what kind of a name is "Acker"? And what kind of a name is "Bilk"? Serious inquiry.

Jazz came from a tough environment, and it still resides in one, all efforts to change that notwithstanding. The die has long been cast in that regard. If anybody quits, that's THEIR decision as to what their priorities are, and there is no disgrace in backing off when the struggle seems greater than the eventualk reward. Although I certainly believe that women in jazz have to jump through more hoops than men (and I do believe that that is fundamentally wrong), the bottom line is that EVERYBODY has to jump through quite a few hoops in this music. If women have to "get tougher" in order to survive, so what? Truthfully, the women I most admire have, as a rule, been emotionally tougher than most of the men I admire, not because of some competitiveness, but because it was either do or die, sink or swim. Grit, tenacity, and a refusal to let life beat you down are NOT bad qualities in my book. "No pain, no gain" rings totally hollow when the pain is self-inflicted (see the hideous "tortured artist"), but as a natural character trait, it rates quite high on my list of desireable qualities. Honestly, I think that's the way it should be. Just put everybody through the same changes to get there. But don't take away the very thing that gives the music so much of it's basic character just so that more people can play it. Like I said, we don't need more people playing it, we need more people playing it WELL, and that can only come from trial, struggle, perseverance, defeats, and then and only then, triumph. Unless there's a need for more Anrde Previns, and I for one don't think there is.

I grew up in an area that was totally C&W-cwntric in the most stereotypically redneck idiotic way. So I soon grew to loath all Country music (something that I'm finally, thankfully, getting over). The one, the ONLY, exception was Johnny Cash. I have never not liked Johnny Cash, and I doubt that I will ever not like Johnny Cash. The guy had demons, and he was upfront about it. His openess about his religion was not in the service of castigating and demonizing others who also had demons, like it was with SO many of his Nashville peers. Instead, it was a reminder, as much to himself as to anybody else, that one can always get lost, one WILL get lost, and it's good to have a personal way to get back. Johnny Cash could be one HELLUVA prick in his songs (check out "Understand Your Man" and FEEL the seething contempt) and could probably be one in real life (you think that him and June didn't go through more than a few of the darkest possible dark nights of the soul?). But, again, unlike SO many of his peers, past, present, and no doubt future, he didn't gloss over them, or sanitize them for the purpose of creating a bad-boy image. You got the impression (I did anyway) that Johnny Cash carried a burden, and that burden was Johnny Cash. No mattter how much happiness Johnny Cash had in his life and career, he had to share it with Johnny Cash, and Johnny Cash loved nothing better than to fuck Johnny Cash up. It wasn't Johnny who wrote the lyrics to "Ring Of Fire", it was June. But Johnny knew what she meant all too well. Johnny Cash could not fake it worth a damn. That's the highest compliment I can pay anybody. R.I.P.

OH CRAP! I'm much too busy right now to find god and be born again! Can it wait 'til the weekend? Dude, this IS the weekend...

OK, if it's directed at me, my line was "Jazz needs more women". Because: 1) Jazz playing on a high level has always been dominated by men. If we had more women, we'd have more talent. 2) The "Jazz fan" is archetypally male. If we had more female fans, we'd have more fans. Ergo Jazz would have more financial etc resources. 3) I am pissed off with testoterone. In general, the more places that women feel at home in within Jazz, the more are liable to commit in a meaningful way. If they do it here, that's part of the way there. 4) Anyway, I just think women get a raw deal in society. Simon Weil OK... 1- We already have enough "talent". What we need is more, as you called it, "high level" talent, and that's not a function of gender. If the argument is that having more women active in jazz increases the chances of finding that high-level talent, then I agree. But if it's that there's this VAST untapped pool of superior female talent, then I ain't buying it. High level talent is high level precisely because it's rare. Do we need more Geri Allens? Hell yeah. Are we right to assume that more females will display the talent of Geri Allen than will the same number of men? Hell no. 2- Perhaps. But perhaps we'd have more jazzcentric relationships, marriages, and families. And families cost money. There goes the records and the clubbing! What we need are more jazz fans of both genders who refuse to commit to anything but the music. Bring in the pods, I say! 3- Hey, I'm pissed off with having to eat to stay alive, but whatcha' gonna do? Best to learn to control it and enjoy it responsibly and maturely rather than curse it, since it's not going away anytime soon. 4- No rebuttal, just wanted to finish the list. But just like anybody, ANYBODY else, sometimes the raw deal is your own fault to some degree, and sometimes it's not. Glancing over that does far more harm than good when it comes time to try and right a real wrong, one in which the wronged is truly and totally blameless.

The Rapture?

I can speak only for myself, but what you "see" is what you get. Yeah, I like the Babe thread, but I'm not afraid to poke fun at it either. Part of it appeals to the horndog in me, and part of it brings out the evolved male in me and makes me want to post a picture of Babe Ruth. I'm comfortable with both aspects of my self. I don't try to intentionally offend. Usually, anyway... This place is about fun and jazz for me, and those are two areas that I feel totally comfortable approaching from both a humorous and a serious perspective. sometimes even both at once. That's who I am, so that's who I am. Personally, I don't care if more women post here. I don't care if more men post here either. If somebody likes to have fun, if they like jazz, and it they are secure enough to go with what and who they are, then cool. Welcome aboard. If not, well, this place might not be a good fit. "One size fits all" is a myth! This ain't really a restaurant, it's more of a potluck in a lunchroom. As a rule, the Organissimo philosophy as it has been evolving is a simple one - if you don't like what you see on the table, bring something from home and pass it around to see how it goes over. I don't bite, and I'm not a rapist. I'm a 47 year old father of two who's been totally monogamous for the last 22+ years. I know who I am, and I know who I'm not, and really don't see the need, usually, to go too far out of my way to prove it either way. In fact, I'm trying too hard just making this post!

Yeah, Ivie was one of the greatest, period. Is it just me, or does it seem that she's a bit overlooked these days?

Good point, Chuck. You get that late 40s RCA stuff with the several vocalists going at once, and it's just WACK - pure sound. I like the thing Hibbler did w/Rahsaan quite a bit, but otherwise, I find him an acquired taste that I've only partially acquired. And I like Jimmy Grissom & Milt Grayson too. Good singers in a band that at the time really didn't need one. Rock City Rock, baby!

Thanks again.

The REAL reason why Van Gelder's stuff has been so erratic lately:

ahem.... Nederlands eerste, enige & echte sex elpee = The first, only & true dutch sex-LP Peer Mullens & de vrolijke trekkers = Peer Mullens & the happy wankers Well, that would explain the glove...

Michael musta got tired of all the sand... Nope, he just moved to Germany & changed his name!

My sentiments exactly.

So much for liquor being quicker...

EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cusuna's "under the counter" release:

Steff's stiff, I'll bet!

On KING!!!

Hustlin' !!!!

On the green, it looks like...

Gives a whole new meaning to "flip the record over", doesn't it?

The Old Man & The Revox