JSngry

Chuck, I'll agree with you about everything except the "fragile" part. Naorah's a Texas woman, the product of a single-parent household who took off to NYC with no real leads. I know women like this, especially TEXAS women, and they might LOOK fragile, and they might ACT fragile, but believe me, man, they're tough as nails, the very definition of "steel magnolias" (hate the term, but love the character trait).

I had NO idea that John Ashcroft was such a Norah fan! P.S. : Hey "musicboy" - you're taking names? Here's mine - Jim Sangrey. J-I-M S-A-N-G-R-E-Y. I am a Christian, and I DO like Norah. But frankly, based on this response of yours, I think that you're a little twirp of an industry wannabe of the ilk that's at least partially responsible for the music industry being as fucked up as it is today. You do no favors to music, Norah, OR Christianity by taking this bullshit attitude of yours. Spare me the "martyr" trip - let's see what artist you're all gung-ho about in 10, no, 5 years. I'll betcha it won't be Norah - she'll still be around and doing well, but she won't be HOT, and people like you like to be where the action is, the latest, the greatest, the HOTTEST. Would you be this feverish about Norah if she was as popular right now as, say, Rickie Lee Jones? Make enemies in the music business? Hell, I've made enemies AND friends, lots of each, and I've done it just by being me, not by hitching my wagon to a "new star" and running a Brownshirt Bulletin Board. The kind of music I make (and, gasp, actually SELL every so often) is totally irrelevant to people like you. But that's ok - you're totally irrelevant to me too. Oh yeah, just how big does one's got have to be before one becomes a "biggot". And surely it is a most revealing Freudian slip that you confuse "ettiquette" with "edict"....Yeah, I'm loser enough to mock spelling errors. What a SAD case I am - a mere musician and not an industry "insider" who takes notes and issues threats under the guise of my religion. Hopeless, I am, absolutely hopeless. I wannabe like YOU when I grow up!

"Lexx" in da' house, opening the door for y'all... http://www.norahjones.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1122

By all accounts, Eager was indeed a most interesting character. I keep finding references to him having played with Frank Zappa in the early days of the Mothers. Anybody know more about this? Also intersting is an interview he did with Cadence in the 70s where he humorously tells of having enrolled in a Jazz Studies program somewhere recently, and was met with skepticism and disdain by the students because he "couldn't play"! I can imagine the scenario - this old mellow guy playing Prezbop showing up in the middle of a bunch of careerminded Clonetranes. It would be funnt if it weren't so damned true... R.I.P. Mr. Eager - you lived your life to the fullest.

And I'm one of the few who thinks that when it reaches THIS rarified level, there are no "winners". Should the old guy be considered a winner because he didn't get snuffed by the kid, or should the kid be considered a winner because he was able to reach the heights of the old master and hang without being hung? I keep coming back to a Rollins quote from the ...CONTEMPORARY LEADERS album liner notes - "I have a lot of respect for the art, you know, and for the tradition. Jazz is a thing that is only built upon what has happened before. It doesn't begin with any one guy. The greatest anybody can be is just as great as what has come before, and to be great you have to be steeped in what has happened." I suppose there's a lot of different ways to interpret that "The greatest anybody can be is just as great as what has come before" bit, but I've always taken it to mean that the standards were set with the originators of the music, and that no matter how new or advanced further developments got, that they still could only be as good as the originators, that newer does not equate with better. That's a surprisingly humble (and accurate, imo) assessment coming from somebody who at the time was considered one of the leaders in advancing jazz towards new heights and depths, as well as somebody performance practices can often be descibed as eccentric to the point of self-indulgency, albeit self-indulgency of often astounding creativity and insight, which raises the point - is there an element of selfishness that is NECCESSARY to allow the creative process to occur to its fullest potential? I think there is, and I think that Rollins pursued some of his more extreme directions, not out of ego, but instad out of a desire to not be fooled by the ego gratification that comes with being rewarded for doing what you already know you can do. There's always more to do, more to learn, more that you don't know, and acknowledging that require nothing if not humility. Following up on it, though, requires a bit of selfishness to keep you on course when the howls of outrage and/or confusion that inevitably follow a "name brand" exploring the unknown reach fever pitch. The fine balance between selfishness and selflessness that is required in any creative pursuit has not often enough been dealt with, imo opinion, and it should be. The above comment by Rollins was made in 1959, and by the time this album was recorded in 1963, Newk was no longer consider the Hot Young Gun In Town, In many circles, he was actually considered old fashioned, although how anybody could consider the games he was playing with time, harmony, and tone in those days as "old fashioned" is beyond my comprehension. So Sonny in 1963 might very well have at times felt like Hawk felt around 1953 - angered about being precieved as somehow "irrelevant", and perhaps having a bone to pick about proving that it wasn't so. Hawk had been around that block more than once, so his attitude was probably one of at once instinctively rising to the challenge while at the same time saying "Welcome to the club", and handing the kid a cigar and a snifter. Interesting also is to compare this session to the Hodges-Carter-Parker Jam session made for Norman Granz, or even the Bird/Hawk Granz date. The "tenor battle" is such a tired cliche in jazz, but otoh, there is a real basis for it. Something about the instrument that attracts VERY strong personalities not afraid to put their talents on the line against other members of the brotherhood. I don't know of any "alto battles" (althought there is a moment on one thing I forget the name of where Lee Konitz "speaks" to Jackie McLean in McLean's own "language" that is totally bone-chilling). Probably a books worth of speculation is awaiting the matter of the tenor psychology... All told, a fascinating record, a great record, perhaps even an "essential" record, even though, other than as part of a mid-70s French 2-fer Rollins series, this album WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN AMERICA from the late 60s up until its first CD issue in 1990. Is this criminal? Damn straight it is, but what else is new? Here kid, have a cigar and a snifter. (LOVE your imagined dialogue, btw. Probably not at all that far off.)

Here! :rsly: :rsmile:

If there's room for Mose Allison & Dr. John to make mighty fine albums on Blue Note, there's room for Van Morrison. Take me where flamingos fly.

Earl Hines *1903 Michel Petrucciani *1962 Lonnie Liston Smith *1940 Ed Thigpen *1930 Find them all here: http://www.jazzpages.com/jzzbirth_fr.htm

Joe Chambers *1942 Bill Russo *1928 Find them all here: http://www.jazzpages.com/jzzbirth_fr.htm

I voted for ODYSSEY OF ISKA, but my cookies were turned off, so the vote didn't register! It's not my favorite (don't have one), but in many ways it's the most interesting to me, since it marks the beginning of Wayne Shorter, Opera Singer. Really, you listen to that album, and there is such pure MELODY to everything Wayne plays, and it's not the melody of a "jazz improvisor", it's the melody of a man singing arias. It's fascinating listening for me to hear this most facile of improvisors play such focused, directed music, especially given the loose, atmospheric accompanimental environments he created for himelf to do so in. I think this is not an album for jazz "newbies" or jazz "purists", but anybody who has the reference points to appreciate the concept of an improvisational saxophone opera (and the liner notes create an even more than usual "programmatic" scenario for the music that just reinforces the operatic concept) ought to check this sucker out and give it some time. It very well might grow on you more than you'd think. Or not. It has on me, that's all I know. BTW, it's a REAL bummer that ODYSSEY OF ISKA and MOTTO GROSSO FEIO were listed as a single choice. Totally different albums w/totally different results (and are you SURE that they were recorded on the same day?) ODYSSEY SOARS, but MOTTO just sort of rolls around in the mud, and not very lustily at that. Not for nothing was it witheld from release until Weather Report started becoming popular. ODYSSEY, otoh, came and went OOP in the blink of an eye as the "real time" successor to SUPER NOVA. Life ain't fair.

A definite recommendation here as well. A humerous note - I bought an 80s-vintage cutout cassette version of this on some "off brand" label, and on the spine, the artist was listed as "Archie Sheep". A great co-billing with Thelonious Monster, no doubt...

DECEMBER 14: Budd Johnson *1910 (HELL YEAH!!!) Ted Buckner *1913 Clark Terry *1920 Cecil Payne *1922 Phineas Newborn *1931 Leo Wright *1933 Curtis Fuller *1934 Jerome Cooper *1946 Dan Barrett *1955 (same year as me) Find them all here: http://www.jazzpages.com/jzzbirth_fr.htm

Yeah, much of the Atlantic stuff still holds up, notably DREAM WEAVER, THE FLOWERING, IN THE SOVIET UNION, &, of course, the hit album FOREST FLOWER. The (several decades) later ACCOUSTIC MASTERS 1 is a good'un as well. DRUMFUSION is a keeper, as are Chico's PASSIN' THROUGH & MAN FROM TWO WORLDS, both on impulse (although to get both albums today, you have to buy the CD versions of MAN FROM TWO WORLDS & THE DEALER, the latter a VERY different album. Why they did it like this defies reason.) For later Lloyd, try his BN album recorded at Montreux. that's some good stuff. The ECM stuff is different in feel, but I like it just fine, especially CANTO. Lloyd's never been a "heavy" player to me, but I've always enjoyed him because of his tone - very distinctive, very personal, and at it's best, very moving. I do think that he's really, REALLY come into his own as a player with the ECM things - there's a depth there that even the best of his earlier work lacked, but that's just my opinion.

The NPR bit focused almost exclusively on the "history" of "the band", much like Spinal Tap. Interesting that the movie goes in a different direction. Guess I should have recorded that NPR thing!

Comparisons of Boz' loose, bluesey/jazzy vocal phrasing in even his most blatantly pop outings to, dare I say it, Norah Jones' might prove instructive (or not...). I think it's a Texas thing. GOT to be a Texas thing. Y'all DO remember that Boz is a Texas boy, doncha? :D

CS 500, I believe you're a good guy without a malicious bone in your body, but there are certain aspects of being an African-AMERICAN that you, through no fault of your own, just don't seem to comprehend (and I strees SEEM to - plese feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and they have to deal with the legacy (legacies, actually) of slavery. Things like attempting to maintain a solid family structure, a solid business base, a lack of crippling distrust and fatalism, these are all things lurking beneath the surface for many, MANY African-Americans. They are specific to the African-AMERICAN experience. Blacks from the Carribean, Africa, etc. weren't born and raised in this unique dynamic and often don't have any real empathy towards it. Some of the most blistering anti=African-American rhetoric I've ever heard has been from African blacks, who just don't understand why their American brethen can be such a complicated lot. They don't get it because they haven't had it. Now please don't misconstrue this as the tired old cop-out that slavery and its aftereffects is an excuse for people not seizing control of their lives. It's not, and leaders from W.E.B. DuBois to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Jesse Jackson to Colin Powell have preached and lived that it's not. I'm not looking for an "excuse" of any sort. But the fact remains that the legacies of slavery DO linger on in the collective American subconscious, and for a lot (certainly not all, but a lot) of African-Americans, it's often a little bit more to the fore than in the subconscious. It's not like anybody has a CHOICE as to whether or not to deal with this or not either. People certainly have a choice of HOW they deal with it, and thankfully, I believe more and more people are beginning to feel enough direct distance from the past, as well as enough solid self-identity, to see it as somting that's just there, something to acknowledge as you move past it, rahter than something to constantly have lurking in the background, ready to strike when you least expect or want it to. But this welcome and positive evolution has taken time, a LONG time, it being an evolution and all. Think about this - when I first started attending integrated schools in 1965-6, there were a few kids who had greatgrandparents, LIVING ones, who had actually been slaves, grandparents who had lived through the most evil days of Jim Crow, and parents who were right in the thick of getting out from under the fallacious and specious "seperate but equal" system that permeated the American South. Is it realisitic to expect a kid who is born into such an environment to NOT be touched by that history? The kids were (and probably still are ) the same age as me, so they've got kids now that are anywhere from their late teens to early 20s, kids for whom the ex-slave ancestor was never known, but quite possibly all the others were/are. If you haven't done your homework on how totally and purely EVIL the American system of slavery was, how it totally raped and robbed a people of any sense of self-identity and human worth, how it instigated a whole set of sexual and moral ambiguities into a people, how it basically took them from humans to animals, and then upon it's abolition basically told them to start over, to become fully human again (yet discouraged, crushed even, so many attempts that looked as if they might be TOO successful), PLEASE do so. And try and understand that in terms of how far we as a country are removed from those day in the bigger, truer, sense of time, that it's really not that long ago. The Civil Rights Bill was signed in 1965. Things didn't really begin to settle down until the early 1970s. That's only 30 years ago. Is it reasonable to expect a legacy of several CENTURIES to dissipate, much less become impotent in a mere 30 years? I think not. I think that 30 years is the eqivalent of 30 seconds as far as these things go, and it's going to take a LOT of time for things to begin to balance out (if they ever in fact do - a look around the globe at even longer-lasting ethnic tensions is not encouraging in this regard). It would be wondeful if the avearge human could pick up the daily paper, see what the current conditions were, and immediately program themselves to take full advantage of those conditions by programming out all the things that would interfere with said goal. Unfortunately... I know lots of white folks with one (or more!) black friends who can, will, and do pooh-pooh this notion of the devastating legacy of slavery. "Why, I asked (insert Friend's name here) about it and he/she nearly laughed out loud at the idea!" is a more than common refrain (dare I call it a mantra?) heard from whites, especially whites who are eager, admiringly so, to move on but less eager to confront exactly why doing so seems to be such a damn laborious process. Well, if "Friend" did in fact make such a comment, my instinct is to suspect one of four things: 1) Friend is totally clueless; 2) Friend is one of the lucky ones who was born into a family with a multi-generational legacy of strong, directed family life and belief systems (and, truthfully, that's the whole thing in a nutshell right there); 3) Friend has bought into athe system and is using the system, whether or not Friend realizes that Friend is being used every bit as much in return, especially if Friend is eager to present a "Happy Negro" face to the system - let friend get the least bit, uh, "questioning" and watch those opportunnities fly away!; or 4)Friend knows more that he/she is letting on. Shocking as it seems, 4) is a LOT more common than the average white folk realizes (and, perhaps, cares to admit). Like I mentioned earlier, I've had a unique (and, I suspect, relatively rare) opportunity for a large portion of my life to observe racial interaction as a kind of "double agent", in that I found myself able to be involved in regualr everyday life in African-American circles, not as a "white friend", but just as somebody who was just there all the time and as a result, ceased to be "white" anymore (not that I "became black", though, THAT'S impossible unless you're Johnny Otis...) in these circles. Suffice it to say that I don't make the comments I make here based on social theory or intellectual supposition, but instead on real-life experiences obtained over time. What "we" (average white folks) are "allowed" to see ain't always all there is. Believe that. PLEASE believe that. Far too often than some care to admit, it's DIFFERENT being a Black American. It just is, and wishing it weren't won't, unfortunately, make it so. People are all the same at root,sure, but their LIVES aren't, and that's something that gets overlooked too often. History is a bitch; trying to escape it or transcend it is at least a bitch-and-a-half. Neber, EVER assume that things are as they seem, not with black folks, not with whote folks, not with ANYBODY, because everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY in this world has issues, some individual, some collective, but ALL issues nevertheless. Therapy 101, lesson 1 is that the only way to get past a problem is to admit to it freely and openly. Part of America still feels a very real effect (an indirect effect, sure, but does that differentiation REALLY matter?) from slavery, and another part seem to be unwilling, DETERMEDLY so some times, to concede that such a thing could possible exist as anything other tha a "bad attitude". Seems to me that if somebody insists to you that they have a problem, and if you want to maintain a productive relationship, that it behooves you to listen - REALLY listen, objectively and without any foregone conclusions coloring your listening (this is one of the MAY things I've learned, often the hard way, from 20 years of marriage...). Nobody's listening, it seems to me. A lot of white America really DOESN'T have a clue, a lot of black America is convinced that white America just doesn't give a damn AT ALL, and opportunists on both sides find putridly fertile ground for self-serving exploitations. People of good will across the board grow weary from trying to fight the seemingly perpetual headwinds and eventually give up (or worse). I could tell yu stories, and if I get wound up enough, I probably will. But I shouldn't have to - there's stories everywhere you look, IF you know what to look for and where to look for it. You don't need my stories to elucidate the problem. The problem ain't fixed yet, so it must still be here. WHAT problem? We don't have a problem anymore. THAT problem - the one that ain't here no more, even though it hasn't gone away. Sounds like you're looking for an excuse. No, I'm looking for a SOLUTION dammit! A solution to what? To the problem that ain't fixed yet. WHAT problem? ...and the band plays on.... GOTS to be a better way.

Cast a vote in this poll? Talk about a quandry! I am unable to decide because I somehow got hold of a defective, unmarked set that has Hank playing solos on all the Freshmen's tunes, and the Freshmen singing background on "Avilla And Tequila" and "My Sin". Cuscuna declines to answer my questions as to how this happened. Personally, I think he stays drunk all the time these days.

There are no easy and/or immediate solutions to the race problem in America. There might not even be any difficult and/or longterm solutions. The scars of slavery, not just the financial scars, but the cultural and emotional scars, still linger on today in spite of there having been enormous improvements over the last 30 or so years (along with a few setbacks in the last 20). These scars need neither be dwelt upon or ignored, but they do need to be acknowledged, because they have played a large part in creating the racial schisms that exist in America today, schisms that go farther and deeper than the natural human inclination to associate primarily with one's "own kind". Myself, I gre up in an extremely racist area of America, and upon leaving it for college, entered into about a 15 year period of working and associating primarily with African-Americans, not by some conscious choice or rebellion against my point of origin, but just because that's how things worked out in terms of things like music, roomates, etc (it all began with the music though - that was the catalyst). I learned a WHOLE lot in those years, not just about Blacks, but about Whites as well. The most important thing was how each group percieves the other when they think nobody's listening. Many Blacks have as much distrust of Whites as Whites have fear of Blacks, and each group can provide plenty of anecdotal evidence to support their feelings, and that is not to be discounted on either side. But that doesn't excuse it either. How I always got along was simple - I treated everybody as an individual ("conservatives", don't cheer just yet...), and that included recognizing and respecting their background, racial and otherwise. Some of the absolute SMARTEST (and some of the dumbest!) people I've ever met were hustlers on the street - brilliant minds at work in an unsanctioned economy. If you try to "reach out" to these guys in the "spirit of brotherhood", they'll play you mercilessly, just as they'll suddenly become absolutely invisible if you try to "straighten them out". You got to be true to your own code while at the same time respecting theirs - respect does NOT equal approval, contrary to what the more moralistic among us try to persuade. Similalry, I learned very early on that there is as diverse a makeup of interests, personalities, and beliefs in the African-American community as there is in any other sector of America. The notion of "Black People", used scornfully OR "desiringly", is a doomed one, because there just ain't no such simple a classification, not even in a simple matter like skin color! You want to make friends with "Black People"? Well, good luck - next time you go to buy an automobile, when the salesman asks you what you're looking for, tell him, "a car" and see how far you get - it's the same thought process. I don't say that to be cruel or cutting, but merely to point out that America went through its "Brotherhood" stage. It was fun while it lasted, and it served a useful purpose. But it's past time to move on to the next level, which is simply acknowledging differences and commonalities alike and relating to others as individuals. Again, however, relating to people as individuals means KNOWING WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. Not just in some vague, academic fashion, but instead having a PERSONAL sympathy to why Mr. X always seems distrustful, or why Mrs. Z seems so nice to your face but never REALLY gets friendly. Some people are going to be assholes no matter what, but SOME people have reasons, and it behooves us to try to understand those reasons if we wish to establish anything remotely resembling true communication with them. I can't stress my belief in this enough! And - if you automatically assumed that the above-named Mr. X & Mrs. Z were black, well, the jokes on you! Maybe they are, but maybe they're not! It's normal, healthy, necessary even, for white folks with a conscience to go through a phase of somehow being "ashamed" of being white - our race collectively has contributed, and continues to contribute, to so much of the ill-will, mistrust, and unease between races in America. But, just as it's wrong for whites to think in terms of "Black People", it's also wrong for us to think of ourselves in terms of "White People" too. THAT contributes to the division just as much as anything. Think about it - how can you relate to another person as a true individual, or expect them to be able to relate to YOU as an individual, free of all the bullshit that "society" imposes in that way, if you can't think of YOURSELF in that way? Not every white guy is the Devil, and not every black guy is a martyr. The "problem" with relating to people as individuals is that so often it takes time for for a MUTUAL relationship to develop. People want a quick-fix, and there ain't none. The history of America has taken care of that quite nicely, thank you. But it's been my experience that friendhips that coalesce around TRUE respect and commonalities between people of different races come about once the barriers are eliminated the old-fashioned way - by just dealing with it, rolling with the punches, and in general dealing with the bullshit as it comes up (and it does, most assuredly) rather than trying to run an end-around on it. There's STILL a lot of conscientious "reaching out" going on between the races, where everybody is all smiles and glows and aren't we all just SO happy. That kind of superficiality, as my father used to say, "won't last until the water gets hot". The answer to Rodney King's famous question is "Yes, absolutely. But not all at once, and not all the time." To pretend otherwise is to ignore basic human nature, and how many times has THAT failing bit our collective butts? Personally, I'm at the point now where my friends and professional associates are indeed a "rainbow coalition" of races and cultures. Tellingly, though, my BEST friends of other races are all people I've know for quite a while. It's still MUCH easier to make friends with somebody of my own race than it is somebody else. But that's cool. Like I said - there are barriers, and there probably always WILL be barriers. But I didn't put them there, and neither did the other guy. But time, and ONLY time, will reveal to him/her what kind of a person I am and what kind of a person they are. I'm old enough and have had enough life experiences to know a fair amount of what makes people tick, both as individuals and as part of a larger "group", and I always try to conduct myself accordingly (in public, in private, and with myself - you gotta be consistent, and that's a tough one there! ). If a bond is eventually formed, it will be real and lasting. If not, c'est la'vie. You don't HAVE to like everybody, nor does everybody have to like you, even if their basis for not liking you is one that is entirely (or at least largely) inside them. Not everybody can hurdle every barrier every time. That's life, dig?

Heard an NPR -exclusive "interview" segment a few weekends ago, complete w/songs, and laughed my ass off.

Those who are hardcore AOTW junkies might want to consider an AOTW supplement next week - the Bud Powell trio set recorded at the same concert. Marvellous stuff, and available to vinylheads and old-but-not-too-old fans as Prestige 24024 - THE GREATEST JAZZ CONCERT EVER, where it (and some later pieces w/George Duvivier & Art Taylor) is coupled with The Quintet's set. All that's missing is Max's "Drum Conversation" and the big band set that opened the night, the latter not recorded to my knowledge. Why Fantasy doesn't just go ahead and put the whole shebang into one package and give it Dee-Lux Remastering and that two-fer title (and even use the same cover art, pretty cool if you ask me) is a question worth asking. Or have they? I'm still digging the twofer, Luddite that I tend to be.

Is a Complete Note the same as a Whole Note, philosophically speaking?

Sure. Pretty interesting player at times. He's on a bunch of the early/mid-70s Woody Herman albums on Fantasy, but to me his best work was on MEL LEWIS AND FRIENDS & Chet Baker's Artist House things. I've heard stories that Herbert's addiction made him a real prick, even by junkie standards. One anecdote had him swimming in the ocean somewhere while on tour with BS&T (a band FULL of junkies in those long-past-their-glory days) when he began to flounder in the water. His bandmates heard his cries for help and asked each other what they should do. After a few moments silence, somebody said, "Let the motherfucker die". With that, they all turned and left. Herbert recouped, but the tale is an indication of just how nasty the whole drug thing can get, and how badly Herbert got caught up in it. His best work is conservative-yet-probing (or vice-versa), with a pretty personal tone. It's also got a very real emotional ambivalence to it as well, which may or may not be a result of the drugs. That's a door not worth opening unless you knew the guy really, REALLY well personally.

It's an album that has never been released anywhere besides Japan, ever, as far as I know, going back to the LP version. It's some intense stuff - Side 2 of I SING THE BODY ELECTRIC is the "Readers Digest" version of this album. Nothing even remotely like the stereotypical WR "sound" to be found here - it's intense, borderline free music full of distortion and wild improvisational abandon. Besides Shorter, Zawinul, & Vitous, you got Eric Gravatt on drums and Dom Um Romao on percussion. It's one helluva wild ride. As to whether or not it's difficult to find or not, I suppose not, not in these days of the Global Shopping Village, but in the Pre-Internet Era, it used to be a BITCH to find in all but the most urban areas. Iif the price is right, I'd pick it up ASAP. I don't think you'll regret it.

"Legend" has it that Norman Granz was interested in releasing the Massey Hall tapes and asked Mingus to name his price. When Mingus asked for $1,000,000, Granz demurred.

Get a copy of LIVE IN TOKYO by any means necessary.