JSngry

from whom did you order it? amazon shows it as upcoming and DG is already out.

Hell yeah.

Forgive me if I focus on the rhythm section, not because of any deficiencies of the front line, but because of...the rhythm section.

I was there when they built it, named it, dedicated it, and opened it. It fit then, and it fits now, They do what they do they way they've always done it. Don't bother changing the name until you change what it is that you do. Some of them realize the the rest of the world laughs at them still, but there's enough of them - old and new - that it only makes them double down on doing what they do. Do note that I am talking about music, culture, and general esthetic, not personal behavior. When it comes to what they do in those regards, Kenton Hall Still Says It All. Perhaps a better person to name it after would be Gene Hall, but then you'd have Hall Hall. Still he's the guy who got it all going, https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhafz Or 'Fessor Graham: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Graham Those are two people who built from within, not an expansionist corporate guy who found cheap labor willing to work hard to feed multiple industries with interchangeable and disposable parts. Not that they couldn't get paid well, hey corporate gigs can get you paid very well. Just, you know, they got that bottomless pitcher of Kool-Aid that never stops following you around. They could name it after Billy Harper, but not too much (if anything) that goes on there has anything to do with Billy Harper. Lyle Mays, maybe? Why does it have to be named after a person at all? Why do we do this? Then again, "Music Factory" has already been taken, and more than once. In a perfect world, there would still be "Stan Kenton records" without anybody aggrandizing Stan Kenton himself. I could live with that outcome quite comfortably. Oh, you should know that the path to the old Lab Band hall was referred to as "Spook Alley" and that there was at least one faculty member who was pretty aggressive about warning their students of the danger of intermingling with people like Red Garland (who at the time was working his gig at the Arandas). That was a rough world full of rough people, he warned, he's hate to see any of "us" get caught up in THAT world, SO much better to stay "here" where it's "safe" and learn the music here, because that's what you want to do, right, learn to play music. So, you know, right away, black people playing jazz in its then-indigenous setting was dangerous, as were the people who made it. The intent was not overtly racist, because there were always "good" people like Clark Terry who were held up as heroes, but jesus - you could just give people a heads up that, ok, this is a different world than what you've known, and keep you eyes open about that, but this is also where the music is, where it lives, and these are the people who make it. Now go check it out and see what you got. Or you could scare people to stay at home and practice hard to get in a better lab band.

Hey, look - it's NEW Gabor Szabo! http://www.globalmusicp.com/gabor-szabo.html

I like this record a lot.

Clemobley has rode a bike once or twice in his life from what I understand.

That Sestina is something else! Serial done right, with imagination, flair, and clarity of musical, not just mathematical, purpose. I can hear the math, but only as it serves the music, not the other way around. Plus, that guy sitting at his manuscript while smoking...THESE are they types of guys Stan Kenton should have been working with, LOL.

nope.

Dude, I'll say it again - that's some serious research and dedication to same.+ All-Star Kudos!!!!

I've had enough off-line interactions with his person and his other work, that's how I know. He still posts here every so often, I hope he's ok in real life. He lives in Coco Central, so... I like him and what he brings, even if it does sometimes piss me off in style. The substance is almost always good.

Whatever voids you find Ahmad Jamal being in, I can assure you that their existence is entirely of your making, not his. yeah, and it's a lot, actually.

The first trio had Ray Crawford & Israel Crosby. THAT was an interesting sound. The second trio had Israel Crosby & Vernell Fournier. THAT was an interesting sound. Those are not insubstantial players, and what they contribute to the records they're on rewards the closest of attention (and perhaps reveals Jamal's trio architecture most fully, and although all great piano trios are about architecture (and will have their own), Jamal makes the group architecture the whole of what he does more than pretty much anybody. He's not gooing to hand you q big gaudy mansion, he's going to hand you a blueprint and let you take it from there...and oh by the way, there are a LOT of details there, so don't get lazy about it. I like the trio with Jamil Sulieman and Frank Gant a lot also. As far as Jamal;'s own playing, I like it better with them, and that too was an interesting sound. He's never had slouchy bands, ever, and listening to them over the years, there's a helluva lot more improvisation going on than you might think. But it's a different kind of improvisation, it's not "blowing", it's improvisation on/with the architecture. Those motherfuckers work. for such (perhaps) seemingly "light" music, those motherfuckers work. Bottom (pun not really intended) line, though - Israel Crosby. Jesus, man, Israel Crosby. Israel Crosby did not fuck around, so...you build the house from the foundation, up, right? Not the other way around. So, hey.

Ok, these motherfuckers came to play! AND they had something good to play!! !!!

Very enjoyable, but I'm leaning towards thinking that if it was a different band, maybe not so much?

Hey, the earth keeps orbiting the sun. Pretty predictable in that way, but how else could it be? It's Earth, Earth gotta Earth, right? With him, I feel like the music is what's happening not in what he plays, but what's happening by what he plays. Definitely not a "traditional" way to approach the notion of "jazz", so he may or may not be that. I just like what happens as a result of him doing what he does, the architecture and the shape of the performance tends to please me. I also think he's one of those players that you can not listen too casually or too deeply too. He's elusive that way. But you know how you can walk into a room and it feels good and inviting in a way that you can't put your finger on except by noting its absence when it's not there? That's how a lot of Jamal strikes me, as creating a good room for that song to be in for as long as it's time to be in that room. And when it's time to leave, hey, get he hell out!

Maybe Manson DID write it, we don't know anything about that other than that Blossom Dearie was a freak.

He's neither major nor minor, he doesn't fill a gap nor does he operate in a void. He is his own self-contained thing, and he may or may not be "jazz". I'm kinda like, who cares,is it music? is it ideas? Is it original? Does it have both style and substance? For all of those questions, Jamal comes up as a "yes" to me way more often than not. The only one on which I cede a variable is substance, because the guy was not above making records that met the market more than halfway. But usually, it was the other way around, he did what he did and the market dug it. This is not even 2:30 long and there's enough ideas in there to make a whole record for any number of people.

You've done enough writing to know that there's two basic tacts to take when harmonizing a lead line for a section - you either keep the chord on every melody note and make anything out of the chord into a diatonicly compatible note that gets you there, or, you start looking at non-triadic notes as potential places to go out of the diatonic and off into something else. The former is, no matter how well you do it, "easy", definitely basic (which is not necessarily bad, of course). But once you get into the other way, then you really have to know your shit, because, ok, you're going to go out of the key for this tone, where are you going to go, then, where are you going to land with THAT? That's where it can get really heady, and if you don't know enough, you can write yourself into a corner, and/or have some funny sounding shit that needs to have some kind of logic to justify it. Emotional, coloristical, whatever. Or, yo can just have it become obvious by sounding right, no matter how "out" it is. Math don't lie about itself by itself. Not only does Puerling display a total mastery of that, he also knows his cadences. Sometime, it'll be like every two notes is a cadence unto itself, and the second not of the first cadence immediately becomes the first note of the next one, on and on and on. And oh by the way - the cat knew how to set up some totally unexpected cadences for final notes of a phrase, and they're shocking but not for the sake of being shocking, you can take it backwards and see how it's totally justified and, ultimately logical. And also, he will change a melody altogether to have his harmonic way with it without fucking up the lyric even slightly. Larry mentioned Morton Feldman earlier, let me throw another name out there - Ornette Coleman. Earlier Ornette, where his whole logic was recognizing that any note could belong to any chord. so improvise with that in mind rather than outlining the changes. Puerling, of course, much more a "song" guy, but he operatives with a similar type logic in a different type symettry, if that makes sense. Either way, both are/can be about as free as you can be in their musical thought. I can hear it even better on that Astrud Gilberto/Gary MdFarland album that nobody ever made.

Harrison's Mass is mesmerizing.

As of this post, I have just learned about Billy Osborne, and to call his credentials impressive is putting it mildly... http://rhodeislandmusichalloffame.com/site/?page_id=1689 http://www.ripopmusic.org/musical-artists/musicians/billy-osborne/

No Percy here, alas.

So...NOT this, correct?

'I gotta play in the city tonight, dig?'