JSngry

Is this political?

Thanks for that update. Order placed!

Promotional expense!

That Goes To The Movies record is really good. There was a vinyl reissue of it (of unknown origin?) a decade or so ago. Not expensive then, and worthy every penny 10ormorefold.

Ok, played it louder, liked it more. Has anybody drawn the line between Gabrarek and Yusef Lateef? I think there's one (or more) to be drawn. This ECM "atmospheric" thing...I get it, but am not sure that it's always an imperative, never mind an incentive to listen. Water under the bridge by now, of course. But on this one, just a little less might not have hurt anything. Anyway, glad I listened more than once.

Reaction-neutral, primarily because I can't tell what it really is. Lots of sounds and lots of space, both very evocatively delineated, and I get that the them is "fairy tales" (right?) but how to connect that to this music requires a set of references I'm afraid I do not yet have. It's not off-putting by any means, not by a long shot. But it also does not begin to draw me in either. Maybe I'm not playing it loud enough.

tax write-off.

lucid

46+47=93 9+3=12 1+2=3

I went into a trance both time I listened to this, and still can't tell if it's lucid collective melodicism or lucid collective noodling...or if Bollani knows knew all the answers already. His ease of harmonies is pretty...lucid. Intriguing record, most assuredly not for casual listening, although, hey, ECM at it's most ECM-ish, they go out of their way to make it sound like it is.

Just thinking back how awesome that Dodger rotation was...Pitching in 1966 thru 1968, it seemed that that was golden age, at least for some teams.

I remember when Sutton was considered a decent number three starter. I guess when you have Koufax and Drysdale in front of you, that's the best you can hope for! RIP.

It's a damn good record.

My bad sorry. OJC yes, Contemporary no.

Wall of Sound. Not wall of details. Having said that....digital is not the best way to ear these records. It just isn't. It'll do if you have to, but...digital tricks you into thinking that it's jsut a bad mix instead of revealing what a glouriously intentional mix it is. Digital wants you to listen for the details. Vinyl gives you the reality - the details are there, but you have to decode them. I have an OG Philles Christmas LP (again with the noisy vinyl). I've bought that thing in every format imaginable, keep waiting for something to be "better", but every year, out come the OG. I was helping somebody mix their record once (no names, ok?). It was a jazz record, and there were thee horns playing a background. The guy ws looking for the right place in the mis for them. Everything was single miked then, so it was easy to say, hey try this...er-EQ each of the horns, mix them into a single sound, add reverb, and pull tehm into the background even further...it was ethereal like a mo, and the guy was excited. He said what made you think to do that? I said, Phil Spector! I ain't making a goddamn rock and roll record, he said as he reset the levers, Oh well!

whoa...

That's a wall of scaffolding, no sound in that unless it falls down. THIS is wall Of Sound!

Hey, if it's some real "finds", hell yeah, I'd be all in. I'd take that cow to the butcher and fill the freezer with it.

Sorry, this is the picturesleeve 45 I found... Comments on "Hung On You" still apply, though. As do the Goffin-King songs of this period having a real soul to them, The record's not quite the mindfuck that "Hung On You" is, but it's close.

Consider, if you like, the physics of this record - where is all that sound coming from? Can there be that much noise in that space? How coan loud be so soft and indistinct and yet still be so loud? How can you hear none of that sound and yet hear all of it? Is there really a front? Is there really a back? A top and a bottom? If nothing is there, why is everything there? imo, the act of recording meant that sound was now longer something potentially independent of - instead of totally dependent on - mechanical faithfulness. It's one thing to make a bad-sounding record because of ineptitude, it's quite another to deliberately make a record sound deliberately un-natural. Sure, this was already going on in other fields of recording (and music in general). But it was always fringe/novelty/avant-garde stuff. There it was aiming right at the hearts and minds of teenagers, with simple songs, only some of which had "subversive" lyrics. It was the sound of the record itself that was subversive. "Hung On You" is actually a pretty good song, Goffin-King were getting pretty adult at this time, a lot of that stuff speaks beyond youth, it's kind of timeless. So, yes, it comes off good when perfomed live: There's some real soul in that song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNk6tMd6tOY But good lord - WHAT IS THAT RECORD? That's not a song, that's not a performance, that's a...supernatural experience, not spiritually, just in terms of sound, noise, of just what the hell is it occupying space in wherever it is you're hearing it. It's there, the unreality of it accents the reality of it. It's not magic, it's work, choices being made. The process was crazy, but the result was not. You can't get that sound live, yet it is alive. How does that work? And on a real cracklyass cheap vinyl (I have never heard an OG Philles record on clean vinyl, and I doubt that any have ever existed, if they do, they must be counterfeit) 45 mastered hotter than hell 45...find it, if you want to, spend that money, hear it for real.

But in the end, he killed somebody, came to trial, faced justice, and died in prison. The art forevermore seperated from the artist, crime and punishment. He did it to himself. No man is above the law.

Agreed, but not always for the music itself, moreso for the sheer sound of the records...and if you really want the full impact there, you gotta go for the OG Philles vinyl, and then preferably, the 45s, at least a few of them. It's there that you get the full force of the vision...omg, I found a picture sleeve "Hung On You"...already had the LP and thought I knew that record, but no, not even. We got digital today, we can make damn near any noisesoundmusic we can imagine, but this shit was analog, not just the technology, but the basic notion of it - to get THAT sound, you gotta get people and do the work. DO THE WORK. No algorithms, no presets, you get people In the room and keep fucking aroun with all of it until you get IT. At some point...he pissed off too many people, and lost his discipline as it turned into an all-consuming obsession. But...that single with Cher, especially the dirge of "Baby I Love You"...records don't sound like that by themselves or by accident.

Wow...any idea who booked that gig and why? Maybe Junior Mance had a career outside of just playing for "jazz audiences"? Did he keep it danceable all night? I mean hell, cats like him came up playing dances, right? If you can swing, and don't mind a constrcted range of tempos, get those gigs, make that money, why not? Still, would like to know what the networking was, if he had an agent, a manager, etc. Seems like the guy always had something going.