JSngry

It's more "compositional" than his small group stuff, but there are also plenty of solos. The ensembles are pretty ragged in spots, but not so much that the details are lost. A little blurred, maybe, but they are such strong details that they can withstand some blurring! I'd not recommend this one to a Mingus newbie or somebody who is more interested in his soloists/small group concepts than his composing, but I do think it is a very worthwhile album for both the writing and the soloing, no matter how sloppy it gets in spots. If you like Mingus enough to have all the "essentials" and want to broaden your awareness/appreciation of his musical scope, I'd say go for it. Besides, the crowd booing when the stagehands lower the curtain, as per Union regulations, in the middle of "In A Mellotone" leaves an indellable impression, sorta like Ellington at Newport in reverse. It's the perversely perfect capper to the evening's festivities. I've seen snippets of silent footage from the actual concert, and to say that Mingus looked and acted frantic and that the whole scene seemed chaotic would be understating it. What a night it must have been for those present! The music is a LOT better than the day-after critical pans would suggest, but I can certainly imagine how objective criticism of the music must have been near impossible if you had been there in person witnessing all the disorganization as it unfolded.

If you don't know who he was, please find out.

Drink up!

Clora seems to be about 4-5 years older than Booker Ervin. I wonder if they knew each other in Dennison? On the one hand, that's a bit of an age gap in social terms, but Dennison ain't that big, and with the segregation of the time, families in towns like this all knew each other a lot of times. Maybe Booker had a secret crush on Clora! What if Booker's patented moans had their roots in an unrequited prepubescent love for Clora? Or what if Booker was the precocious type and actually DID knock boots with the young Miss Bryant, fell in everlasting love, and was crushed beyond repair when Bryant's family moved to L.A. in 1945? Somebody should investigate, maybe Toni Morrison could write a novel, a seqel to "Jazz" entiled "When Booker Met Clora". The mind reels at the possibilities... Shoot, Dennison is just up the road, why don't I just drive up there and ask somebody? Who's got gas money?

Dammit, I lied - can't go yet! :D Dude - the point is not the ultimate magnitude of their respective accomplishments. It's about being able to fully appreciate each of them on their own unique terms with an appreciation un(dis?)colored by comparison to anybody else. If anybody listens to Hank with a "cool, but he's no Trane" P.O.V., then they're not getting it. No matter how much they dig it, they're not getting what it is that goes into the creation of a personal voice, REAGARDLESS of the scale. Similarly, the person who listens to Trane and can ONLY obsess about how end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it brilliant-at-the-expense of everything else it is is not getting it either. By all accounts, Trane was the most genuinely humble man imaginable, and that's because he DID get it - that we ALL have our individual voices, and that even if a person has a limited message, if that message is somehow unique to that individual, then it is to be valued for that uniqueness, not pissed on because of its smaller magnitude. Trane was legendary for this attitude, and quite honestly, I think that THAT is what gives his music such a real human impact - that realization and pursuiance of the fundamental beauty of all of humanity, "big" and "small" alike. People are not for defeating (except as part of the learning process. Or in family sporting events ). Challenging and bettering, yes, and by some tough ways if need be. But people are not for destroying, at least not in music. People are for building up and celebrating as they bring forth whatever amount of the divine (or whatever the PC term-du-jour is ) they have, or can find, within them, in ALL walks of life, not just in music. To marginalize or otherwise not appreciate somebody who brings forth the divine in a smaller quantity or somehow less spectacular fashion than somebody else is to VERY MUCH miss the point, and flirts with a disrespect of that which creates the music in the first place! Respecting and appreciating the small(er) doesn't mean equating it with the gargantuan, it just means appreciating it in full for what it is, and being glad that it is what it is. It also doesn't mean celebrating mediocrity, which ALSO misses the point entirely. Like I said, we all got our envelopes, and they come in all sizes. But having a smaller envelope is no excuse for not pushing it! Touchy-feeley, ain't it? But you get my point, I hope. Now I really DO have to run. If I get a sec tomorrow, we can talk about cutting contests and the whole matter of competition in music. It's not as simple as "win or die", not by a long shot! Although that DOES factor into it...

Of course, the majority is wrong (or at the least, uninspired and limite in vision) at least as often as it is right, doncha know. It's not like the majority of cavemen were bold MFs who discovered fire as a matter of consensus... And let's not even talk about the eating of oysters! Sometimes the loon who goes solo ends up being more righter than what's already right. (just tweakin', my friend, just tweakin' ) And on that, I gotta run. Hasta manana, y vaya con Dios.

Here we differ - I say that everybody has their own envelopes, and that in his world, Hank pushed his as hard as Trane did his. BREAKTHROUGH is a painful, bloody record in its best cuts - its not a Mobley record per se, so there are pieces in which he is either secondary or absent altogether - that is every bit as intense IN ITS OWN WAY as anything Trane did, and DIPPIN' is as boldly a fully personal statement as, say, CRESCENT. Again, in its own way and on its own scale. They were both very special, and if it's important to recognize that in the grand scheme of things one was more "very special" than the other, then that should not necessitate denying that the other one, though less "very special", in fact WAS "very special" to a degree that many, MANY musicians aren't. Now, of course, Trane's envelope was much bigger than Hank's, so it could withstand a proportionally harder pushing. When it got pushed, and indeed it did, as hard as was possible for him to push it, more people couldn't help but notice. But that's not the point, not at all. THAT point will be stipulated to, and anybody who objects will be declared incompetent! THIS point is that if all one can see and appreciate is the big things, then one has a viewpoint that is really just a magnified version of one which can only see and appreciate the small things. Doesn't matter if all you have is a left eye or a right eye if all you have is one eye, dig? It takes an appreciation of the full scale to be balanced, I think, and I also think that most of us would agree that balance is a good thing, right? That's my point, and nothing more. PS - kudos to the omnisicient Chuck Nessa for sniffing this puppy out from jumpstreet. But its not just Hank, its music as a whole. Actually even more than just music, but that's as far as I'm going with it. All this talk of "overrated" this and that lately, although definitely within the legitiamte domain of personal opinion, was beginning to too often strike me as either arrogant or clueless. Not anything in particular, mind you, just the accumulated pile of "I don't think that "$%$^" is all it's cracked up to be". After a while, it's just too much - none of us can ever get ALL of it, but a little humility, a little willingness to admit that there might be more things going on than we can grasp at the present time in terms of both scale and substance is in order. Music is bigger than ANY of us, doncha' know. Just remember that. Again, not directed at any one person or idea, honestly. Just an honest reaction to cumulative stimuli. And btw - I am not a NASCAR fan AT ALL! But I liked the analogy anyway as a conversation starter.

Well, your opinion is your own, and perfectly valid. I would agree with you up as well, at least up to a point. But these questions remain - is a career of otherwise sustained excellence ultimately meaningless if it is not accompanied by that moment or two of shining glory? And, from whence does that shining emanate? In other words, is the notion that there is only one form of "real" success an arbitrary one, and one that has been distorted/perverted by vainglorious means to life-defeating ends by and to society at that? Have we become so intent on celebrating one, and ONLY one, form of success that other forms, less glamourous and more personal in nature, have not just been overlooked, but have actually been devalued? Is this a good thing? Does it devalue the notion of a champion in any form to celebrate the accomplishnments of the near-champions, not in place of, but AS WELL AS, those who come close but never quite get there? And - if the notion of what makes a champion is so fragile that it cannot withstand sharing the glory, how worthy, how desireable, how correct in the deeper sense is that particular manifestation of the concept? Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with music.... :D :D

In the matter of who was the better driver between the two, one could look at the facts and say that when Driver A was the winner of a race that he was the better driver, but that when he didn't win Driver B was. Considering that Driver A won 50% of his races, that means that in the other 50%, Driver B was better. A perfectly even split. Consider also that the difference between 1st & 3rd place is much smaller than that between 2nd/3rd and, at best, 10th, and the case could easily be made that Driver B was the better driver in the races he lost than was Driver A. Any way you look at it, an objective reading of the statistics indicates that 50% of the time, Driver B was a better driver than Driver A. Also, in the 50% of the time when he wasn't, he was a better driver than all but one or two drivers on the course, which cannot be said about Driver A under similar circumstances. I'd also think that both drivers' peers would have great respect for both. Driver B automatically reduced their odds (in retrospect, of course) of finishing in the top ten to 1-in-9, and that could not be said of Driver A. Driver B's mere presence on the track made it a tougher race 100% of the time. The same could not be said of Driver A. although Driver A's mere presence GREATLY reduced their odds of actually winning. But as some have stated, there are more ways to win the money than by winning the race. So I'd think that both Driver A and Driver B were greatly, and possibly equally, respected by their peers, albeit for totally different reasons. Clearly, Driver A is a "champion", something that Driver B never was. But - is Driver B's talent worthy of total dismissal, or was his a talent that was every bit as special IN ITS OWN WAY as Driver A's? Even if Driver B never reached the highest heights of Driver A, did he not sustain a high level of performance that Driver A was unable to? Does "mediocre" accurately describe such a talent? Is such a designation realistic or arbitray? Some simple questions follow from this - If appreciation (sincere appreciation, not the glancing blows of condescension) by others of one's effort and achievement is considered a reward for any worthy endeavor, and if said appreciation is witheld or otherwise denied on the grounds that one's unique accomplishments do not measure up to somebody else's, that "success" comes in one form and one form only, is the implication then that being the best you can be is an ultimately worthless pursuit if that absolute triumph never comes? If one never reaches that highest goal and is viewed by others as a "lesser" talent because of it, is taking pride in whatever one DOES accomplish merely a matter of self-delusion? If it is, why should anything less than the "win at any cost" ideology be adopted by any and everybody? And if it's NOT, then what are the implications to the specatators of the world who perhaps value the glory of the winner more than his/her actual feat? Are they responsible for both creating and sustaining a hype based on a false set of values? Is that a good thing? Is it at times possible to OVERvalue being a champion? And then, possibly the most intriguing question of all - how many spectators would be "losers" if they applied the same standards of success to THEIR lives' endeavors as they did to the efforts of those whom they so enjoy watching compete?

The above error has been corrected. Now, on with the show!

Let's say that there's these two race car drivers who began and finished their career at the same time, and who were also always in the same races - one never raced without the other one being in the field. At the end of 5000 races, they both decide to retire. Driver A has won 2500 races, a whopping 50%. But in those races he didn't win, he never finished higher than 10th, and often didn't finish at all due to a tendency to crash on certain turns at certain tracks. Driver B, on the other hand, never won a race. Not one! But he finished every race, and he never finished lower than 3rd, Never! So, after both drivers retire, the debate amongst racing fans rages for decades as to who was the better driver. So, what say you?

I'm one set short on that Prez series, but it's just a matter of time... :D But SUPER CHIEF is a better overview of the "world" of Basie in thise days though, I think. OTOH, used LPs are cheap enough (in the right palces) that having BOTH would be recommended! But the liner notes to SUPER CHIEF alone should be reissued - lots of pithy quotes from Jo Jones. I especially love this one about the Prez/Glenn Hardman/Lee Castle date: Buck got a streetcar and followed some chick to the stockyards to get a piece of tail. "Start without me." We used the first trumpet player from Tommy Dorsey's band. He'd been out all night and turned up drunk and with a split lip. Some chick's husband had come in, hit him across the hand with a .45 and he jumped from a second story window. So he was pretty mussed up. Played OK, though." Beat THAT, Stanley Crouch! :D

Julian Priester, Fred Stone, Chuck Connors, Jeff Castleman, Harold "Money" Johnson, Aaron Bell, Eddie Preston, & Jimmy Woode are all still alive to my knowledge, as of course is Louis Bellson. So are Gerald Wilson & Elvin Jones, if you want to get hardcore...

Figuring a mean of about 20 minutes per side, that's more like 12 LP sides, or 6 LPs total. So the idea of a Mosaic set is still desirable for those who want it all. Hell, a straight reissue of the early 70s 2-LP SUPER CHIEF, complete w/original liner notes, wouldn't be too bad as an introductory package. That was a damn fine set.

That would be found here:

You want to hear standards in their original form? watch a bunch of old movies, musicals especially. They're show tunes, and since you can't go back in time to see the shows on Broadway, the movies serve as the next best thing. Just don't be surprised to find out that a shitload of perinneal jazz favorites were introduced by a cat named Fred Astaire... Personally, I think that jazz is more than whatever tunes get played. It's a mindset, and ANY musical turf is fair game. Great jazz vehicles) existed before show tunes ruled the roost (Jelly Roll Morton) and after (Ornette). Standards are beautiful things with lasting appeal, but they're not "pop" music anymore, obviously. Gradually they're comng to be viewed as American Art Song, which is cool, just don't anybody scratch their heads as to why the kids can't hang when somebody starts singing "you are the promised kiss of springtime that makes the lonely winter seem long", if you know what I mean. Hey, I love the standards, truly love them, and consider them fundamental to American culture, past present and future. But jazz doesn't HAVE to have them in order to survive, unless it wants to survive only as a repertoire music. The culture has changed, and so should the music. If trends in pop culture are on a downward spiral (and old fart that I am, OF COURSE I think they are ), it's up to jazz to relate to the tools that are producing such crap and turn them around, to make the proverbial silk purse out of etc. etc. etc. That has been a major factor in the the spirit of the music (and more importanly, it's people) from the git-go, not just in music, but in life. The more that jazz becomes "about" music-for-music's sake than relating to life in all it's aspects, eternal and temporal alike, the closer it inches towards outright death. The corpse may be gloriously embalmed, but you won't have to worry about it stealing your car anymore. Let the jazz mind come out in whatever fashion it chooses (or is chosen by). We got records, and damn good ones too, so let the past serve it's righful function, which is to inspire, not to suffocate, the present. Classicism, I believe for myself, is best participated in in the abstract.

Remember Miles' guest spot on Miami Vice? I think he played a pimp. And then there was Miles' Honda(?) commercial (bike, not car).... Spacey I first saw as Mel Profitt on Wiseguy, a show that for a cuppla seasons was one of the best things on.

Throw in the syndication-only pre-NBC run (w/Harold Ramis in place of Morainis) and you got a deal I can't refuse. That was a TRULY great show, and the home of one of the most eerily accurate yet totally surreal pieces of musical parody I've ever come across - Moranis signing off the station as Mel Torme doing The Star Spangled Banner. Brilliant, as was the entire show.

Other way around, dude, but no biggie.

"Pound Cake" is also used, in slightly altered form as the basis for John Coppola's "Cousins", a big band piece recorded on several different occasions by Woody Herman.

Does this mean that Pepino needs a gig?

Deep's announcing the passing of Jimmy Knepper on AAJ: http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread....=&threadid=1985 Sad news. Knepper was one of the best ever in my opinion. Everybody dies, bur still....

http://www.johnsrealmonline.com/classicnick/index.html http://www.ycdtotv.com/index.html

This from Joe Golberg's JAZZ MASTERS OF THE 50s: "You're writing a CHAPTER about Art Blakey?", tenor saxophonist Johnny Griffin asks incredulously. "It'll have to be an awful long chapter. You ought write a BOOK about Art Blakey. He's a rascal. He's liable to do anything, if it's business. I remember, he was having trouble with a trumpet player. He had Ira Sullivan in the band, playing tenor. Ira plays trumpet too, you know. They were supposed to go to Chicago. When this trumpet player got to the airport and saw me there too, he knew what was up, and just turned around and left."

This malady is indeed age-related, and is invariably accelerated/accentuated with marriage and, later on, having children. I've suffered from it for about 20 years now, and have loved every minute of it. Except, of course, when the lovely and talented Brenda attempts a cure.... Oh, BTW, it's also known as "Ozzie Nelson Syndrome" and/or "Terminal Puttering". To those of us who grew up watching 50s domestic-based sitcoms, it seemed like what we were SUPPOSED to do. Little did we know that Steven Covay lurked in our future...