JSngry

I coulda swore it said "Seymour Butts"...

"Good one!", laughed Jesus. (LOVE this image, btw. Wish it were better know, or more accurately, taken to heart by my fellow C-Words... )

Dude, I'd rather eat lunch IN an O.R.!

FAST answers! More please! And somebody help a kid out - what's up with this "stabilization" business? What's that all about anyway? I don't get it.

Between Popeye'a, Church's, Golden Chick, Grandy's, Williams Honey Fried, and Babe's, I'll be DAMNED if I go to a KFC for fried chicken! But when I've been elsewhere, places where fried chicken was considered "ethnic" cuisine, as in either African-American, and/or Rural Southern, I'd prefer the flavor of OR but the texture of EC. Too many joints leave the OR on the mushy side, and that sucks. BTW, is it just a regional thing, or is it a national trend that the Big 3 PepsiCo-owned fast food chains are now cross-branding? We got various assortments of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut combiations all over the place here, and sometimes you can get all 3 under the same roof. The standalone, single brand, units of these chains is rapidly disappearing.

Do you leave your system on when it's not in use? I don't mean for a few hours or so, I mean like a day or two (or more). I've heard that this is actually best, since it avoids the "shock" of the initial power-on, and that it also allows the circuitry to "stabilize", whatever that means (eplanation anybody?). But what about the "wear", such as it is, of having a machine on non-stop, especially when it's not being used for a while? Anybody got the inside scientific skinny on this matter?

None that I could speak of, but the first few bars of "Up..." have changes that could pass for those of "Forest Flower", a not unthikable comparison considering how big a crossover success (by jazz standards anyway) Charles Lloyd in general and that album in particular were in those days. Jimmy Webb was certainly not one to avoid the "conventional", that's for sure!

Haven't bought this new release on Enja Justin Time yet, but it's been in heavy rotation on KNTU, and it's just a matter of time... Like Von Freeman's THE IMPROVISOR and Teddy Edwards' SMOOTH SAILING, DEEP IN A DREAM presents a more-than-veteran saxophonist in a program of straight-ahead material. More importantly, and also like those albums, the saxophonist in question has developed a totally personal expression, and sounds like nobody else. I've never DISLIKED Mariano's work, but neither have I felt compelled to really explore it either, his epochal work on THE BLACK SAINT AND THE SINNER LADY notwithstanding, so this album, what I've heard of it, comes as a bit of a revelation. This, ladies and gentlemen, is "straight ahead" jazz the way it doesn't get played very much these days - deeply, DEEPLY personal in every aspect (especially in Mariano's tone and articulation, which I think would be impossible for anybody to duplicate, and how many players of this type music on the scene today can you say THAT about?), full of thought AND feeling that go beyond the obvious into the sublime, and an overall quality that is at once serenely relaxed and constantly probing. In other words, this is music by an old guy (Mariano, according to AMG, turns 80 this year), and there is no "second hand" quality to his playing whatsoever. Indeed, aside from the aforementioned albums, it's been YEARS since I've heard "standard" melodies played so personally, or these type changes dealt with so organically, at least on a recording. If I say that Mariano here combines the tonal quality of Ernie Henry with the spontaneous phrasing of Lee Konitz, don't take that as a literal description, it's not. But it is the only comparative description that comes to mind to describe playing that really defies comparison. And talk about emotion - the first tune I heard off the album, without knowing who it was, was "I'm A Fool To Want You", a tune that is not to be trifled with if one wishes to get to its heart (Sinatra's WHERE ARE YOU version is the reference point for me, in many ways, and for many things). I was driving when this tune came on, and halfway through the first chorus, I had to pull over, stop the engine, and just listen, so powerful was the presentaion of the melody. I can't remember the last time that that's happened. The improvisation continued the story began in the melody and didn't go off into a lot of change-runnung, as is so common in the playing of ballads. This, I thought to myself, is a PLAYER, a musician of the highest order, one who actually DOING what most folks today merely attempt. When it was announced as being Charlie Mariano, I was more than a little surprised, but that's my bad, I suppose... The other tunes that KNTU has aired ("You Better Go Now", "Spring Is Here", and "Deep in a Dream") have all had the same quality, although my personal emotional attatchment to "I'm A Fool To Want You" no doubt is coloring my assessment of that tune as being the best I've heard so far. The rhythm section (Bob Degen, Isla Eckinger, & Jarrod Cagwin) is expert and sympathetic, but it is no dis to them to say that they're more effective as support to Mariano than as soloists and/or as a distinctive sounding trio. To get that, you'd have to have guys of Mariano's age and life experience, and how many of THOSE are around? Which, for me, is exactly why this music is so special - there just AREN'T too many guys like this around any more, guys who continue to grow and deepen in wisdom and feeling, and whose music does the same. In short, a rare and special presentation, at least what I've heard of it. Has anybody heard the whole thing? Is it all this good? Comments, please, if you have!

In a can, if you're Chef Boy-ar-dee (who, by the way, is the father of Frank O. Americanne).

Cleo Laine? Fine singer as far as chops go, but she does nothing for me musically, ESPECIALLY when considered as "jazz". Just not to my liking. But "jazz vocalists" per se? LOTS of favorites. I really dig what a good singer can do with the interpretation of lyrics (Abbey Lincoln, Helen Merrill, Joe Lee Wilson, Andy Bey, the list goes on) or musical inventiveness (Sarah Vaughn, Betty Carter, Sheila Jordan, the list goes on), to say nothing of the singers who cover both grounds (Jimmy Scott, Eddie Jefferson, Shirley Horn, Johnny Hartman, Ella at her best, THAT list goews on). Then there's the solid, jazz/blues guys like Joe Williams, some Lou Rawls, Jimmy Witherspoon, and Jimmy Rushing (to name a few off the top of my head, who are all about the groove and the soul, the vocal equivalent of a good organ trio. Then there's Billie Holliday... Singers, GOOD singers, have an advantage that instrumentalists lack - lyrics. Now, if an instrumentalist is all about music from a theoretical standpoint (not a bad thing at all in and of itself), then lyrics won't be all that important. But if the object of the game is to tell a story, then how can lyrics NOT be an asset? But - that asset is also a burden that the instrumentalist DOESN'T have, because, in the words of somebody, somewhere, at some time, "that which is too trivial to be spoken is usually sung". MOST lyrics are nice, neat, glossy expressions of simpler (although universal to one degree or another) emotions, and it's up to the singer to personally invest them with depth, to bring out the more "mature" emotions that weren't necessarily inherent in them in the first place. It's a tough nut to make if you think about it (or even more daringly, attempt to do it), and it's somewhat (and I stress, SOMEWHAT) understandable why singers overall tend to be a moody, tempermental, often flaky lot - what they do, the good ones anyway, is a very demanding task. Myself, I didn't really get into, REALLY into, singers until about 7 or so years ago, but when I did, it was hard and heavy. These days, I find myself actually PREFERRING to listen to recordings by singers over 50% of the time, andoften enough gravitate towards singers of the ilk of Sinatra, Cole, etc, those for who a jazz feeling is but a portion of their overall expressin, singers who deal with the song as a song, with "genre" being less important than creating a little 3 minute vignette with a full range of emotions, subtexts, and stuff like that. You don't have to be a "jazz singer" to do that! The voice, the "original" instrument, the only one with absolutely NO physical distance bertween instrument & player, is a powerful tool, and it's no surprise that instrumentalists of ALL eras have incorporated vocal effects of one kind or another into their playing, be it tonal quality or be it actual inflections or other "effects". Show me a musician of ANY genre who doesn't have SOME vocal quality to their playing and I'll show you a musician that I'll not spend much time listening to. The kind of "jazz singers" that I DON'T care for are the ones who try, and I mean NOTICABLY try, to be either "hip", "sophisticated", "swinging", or any other quality that they feel the music is "supposed" to have. Singing is to different from playing for me in this regard - if it ain't a NATURAL expression of who and what you are, there's a gap between performer and performance that I can feel, and it's a feeling I really don't care for at all. Of course, that's a totally subjective matter, and the list of "jazz singers" that I'll go out of my way to avoid will contain names that will be on somebody else's "must hear" list, so no sense in giving recs on who to avoid. Suffice it to say, though, that if I did, Cleo Laine would be on there somewhere, and probably nearer the top than the bottom.

No, that's REX Harrison. Ravi Shankar is Ravi Coltrane's half-father, and George Jones' brother-in-law by marriage once removed. L. Shankar is no relation to L. Ron Hubbard, but the similarity ends there, even though they both need insulination in their attics becuse they are dianetics, like Ron Santo, formerly of Santo & Johnny fame (no relation, btw).

A harbinger of things to come, if only we had seen it: http://www.internetvideomag.com/articles20...vs-Michelle.htm

Larry, thanks for posting Bill Kirchner's comments. Like I said, all I had heard were stories. Bill obviously knew the guy up close and personal, so his impressions definitely mean something to me. Too often the dark side is all that gets publicized. It's good to get a better balanced picture of such a gifted and ill-fated musician.

I guess the Solid State reissue would only confuse matter further, eh?

Klemmer, eh? An interesting career - from a pretty undisciplined but undeniably energetic quasi-free player to one of the godfathers of smooth jazz to a pretty undisciplined yet undeniably energetic straight-ahead player. The stuff w/Ellis was a perfect fit - Eliis was wacky, and so was Klemmer. Ellis had moments of substance, and so did Klemmer. Ellis knew no fear, and neither did Klemmer. You get the picture. Ellis also had Glen Ferris on trombone, and Pete Robinson on keys, so there was a key nucleus of young, energetic players who just didn't give a damn what anybody thought, and the results show that, for good and bad alike. You just can't diss guys who are this far off into their trip, no matter how weird that trip may be, especially when some pretty good stuff actually happens (find a copy of Ellis' AUTUMN and check out the mindfuck version of "Indian Lady" therein) I've only heard one of Klemmer's Cadet dates, BLOWIN' GOLD, and was not impressed, but neither was I repulsed. I think his "best" work was on impulse!, CONSTANT THROB, WATERFALLS, & INTENSITY. Often bordering on "free funk", these albums will come as a BIG shock to anybody who only knows Klemmer from his BAREFOOT BALLET days. None of it is at all "deep", but it IS all vibrant, and that's gotta count for something. Some have praised NEXUS quite effusively, but I never heard what the fuss was about, honestly, and Klemmer's featured performances of "'Round Midnight" & "God Bless The Child" (on the Galaxy albums5 BIRDS & A MONK and BALLADS BY FOUR, respectively) are among the very few performances that so totally repulsed me on first listen that I've yet, roughly 25 years later, to even attempt a second listen, so riled did they get me. But Klemmer's not a "bad guy", musically, he just has a spirit and a concept that doesn't reach me overall. And besides, his prototypical "smooth" output beats the HELL out of what followed in its footsteps. Like Gato Barbieri, the "commercial" settings forced him to curb his most extreme tendencies and focus on playing lyrically, which in both cases was not always a bad thing. However, when Gato went for broke, it quite often moved me. When Klemmer went for broke, it amused me more than anything else. But THAT'S not really a bad thing either, ya'know?

Gotta admire the kid's spunk, but PLEASE contribute to his edjumacational life exspearimintce and tell him that the PROPER spelling of "yawl" is "y'all". He might be able to walk the walk and talk the talk, but until he learns to SPELL the talk, well, he'll never REALLY swing.

Lexx still be banned, but (s)he no really care.

Well, then it wouldn't be "deluxe".

I just picked up a 2-CD set (on Ember) of Bird at the Open Door, 1953, I think. Sound is not airshot quality, but is "ok" for an amature location recording, certainly better than some things that have come out (am I the only one who found Stash's BIRD SEED literally unlistenable, even for a diehard Bird bootleg buff?). It's edited to (mostly) exclude all non-Bird notage, so if that kind of thing is problematic, I'd suggest steering clear. But that's the only reason - the playing is incredible. Something about Bird's later live playing really gets me. It seems like he's "left himself" and is playing with an omnisicient detatchment, free to effortlessy go wherever he wants whenever he wants, and doesn't have to expend any physical or emotional energy in doing so. Some pretty profound stuff, I think, and highly recommended, with the above caveats.

Hmmm...who's the drummer on the Rollins version, the Trane version, and the UNITY version? "It's just Elvin's tune..."

Yeah, I think that's a good way to feel it, Lon. Not at all unlike Cecil Taylor, Tatum's music delivers so much information so rapidly, and so densely, that the listener, even the musically astute one who can follow the cat without TOO much difficulty, is more often than not stunned by the sheer magnitude, force, and power of the work. Repeated, careful listenings are a delight, as the shock wears off and the beauty of the details begin to reveal themselves, but Tatum is not a player for those who like their music to be warm and fuzzy - there is little overt emotionalism in his music. But that's OK by me, because as Lennie Tristano liked to point out, there is a difference between "emotion" and "feeling", and there is PLENTY of the latter in Tatum's playing, if one is willing to be receptive to it, eventually. To me, Tatum is not necessarily a "jazz pianist" as much as he is a world unto himself. That world is based in jazz, and usually exists IN jazz, but, really, the guy had his own perception of music that was at once in and apart from the jazz of his (or any other) time. Like I said over in the Masssey Hall thread, the whole notion of music that is at once full of feeling AND full of virtuosity of the absolute highest level is intimidating to many, and understandably so. It's discomfiting to realize that some people, a very, VERY, select few, can indeed have TOTAL command over their instruments, their intellect, and their feelings all at once. Such people may indeed be "freaks" and/or "geniuses" but looking for a way to somehow lessen the scope of their accomplishments is dishonest to my mind - what they do speaks for itself, and the fact that we (most all of us) fall short really ain't THAT big a deal unless we pretend that being fine just as we are ultimately makes our thing the same thing as what those guys do. It doesn't, and it isn't. The Tatum Pablo solo recordings are a VERY good listen, but they are NOT to be rushed through. I had a roommate in college who bought the LP set, and we dove right in. Neither of us could handle more than a side at a time, though, and sometimes not even that. It wan't just sensory overload, it was intellectual overload as well - the is just SO much to digest in one track, never mind an entire LP side, and FORGET about listenng to the whole set straight through, or as close to it as time allows! But think about this - the pyrotechnical technique, the harmonic detours that defy logic yet somehow make complete sense in the end, the voicings that should require more than two hands, in short, all of the things that freak us out about Tatum, these things were NOT "dazzling" to HIM - they were perfectly normal. It was how he heard music, simple as that. Sure, he had his stock runs and his "show" pieces, but playing those things must have been "role playing" to him, the way to fulfill the expectation that he be an "entertainer" of SOME kind ("Hurry Hurry Hurry, Step right Up - Come See The Blind Negro Piano Virtuoso Play Faster Than Anybody In The World!"). When the guy just sat down and played, as he does on the 20TH CENTURY PIANO GENIUS album and on a lot of the Pablo solo things, it was all music for the sake of music, and, damn, what music it was. People who are able to see/hear/feel/whatever that much detail as a matter of course, and are able to express it fully and unhindered, are different than you and I. They are indeed "geniuses", and if we can never reach their heights, we would be fools to ignore what they show us, for it is most assuredly real, and as such, we should all take heed and try to "get the point". "The Truth" ain't always easy, but it IS always true, and like it's written somewhere, "the truth shall make you free". Can't speak for anybody else, but I WANT to be free, and I ain't afraid to work at it, even if I never get "all" of it!

YO QUIERO COOTIE!

Roy. Just because. ALTHOUGH...Buck could get a vote of mine, as could any of these guys (and Red, and Buddy Anderson).

What if "musicboy" is really Greg having a laugh at our expense?

Take your pick : http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...&sql=H1169031:1 Between Young, Rollins, & Trane, you got my Big 3, but to be honest, I strongly recommend checking out Artie Shaw's version to hear the song done more balladic.