JSngry

I don't think that Gould "misunderstood" anything about Bach. I do think he reached his own conclusions, though. If, per Rosen, "It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the keyboard works are written above all for the pleasure of the performer", then I think it would be fair to say that Gould found his own pleasures there. I find them mesmerizing myself. as I do Zuzana Růžičková's harpsichord renditions, and for the same reason - each performed, in their own way, the feat of getting the music to the point of transcendence, where time and space no longer "matter" as literalistic marking points of some ultimate relevance. That shit just starts to float, and there you are, floating with it. Some players seem to be enthralled - to one degree or another - with letting you know where the "1" is of every measure. That misses the point of Bach, imo! Float on, I say!

the charts on that For Saxes Only were stylistically diverse (for the time, anyway), and it was with no little surprise that I began to learn that Wilber had been so pegged as a Bechet Revivalist or some such. Hearing his first recordings later on, ok, that made sense. But it was a retroactive sense that certainly had no bearing on the things I had already heard (and played along with) by him. I do get that even as he evolved there was a "squarishness" about his playing that never fully went away. Oh well. That's just how he played. Squares can have fun too, and a happy square is at least a little less dangerous than an angry hipster. When it comest time to actually get shit movin', I'll take the hip (with or without the -ster) over the square. But when it comes to just every day shit, living a bugout free lifestyle, the happy square is a not-unattractive option. Anyway, Bob Wilber enabled me being able to play with Jerome Richardson and George Duvivier when I was 15, so, yeah, feeling some love for that here, eternally.

RIP and so, so many thanks for doing this.

Save money and carbon - stay home, drop acid, listen through headphones. And of course, enjoy responsibly.

so now the new mystery is maybe what's that Roulette record in front of Splendor In The Brass? Can anybody read the label?

YO!

I like that one.

This is all over the internet, but is it real? Late in life Arnold Schoenberg,the boogeyman of the first half of twentieth century music, was asked by an interviewer, “Are you aware that young composers are now utilizing your twelve-tone method?” The reply was pure Schoenberg: “But are they making music with it?”

Cannonball, maybe!

Up?Up? Away?

Well, you know, Schoenberg ruined the OP''s life, so there's always gonna be shit like that here for as long as there's electricity and a crushed...whatever it was that got crushed, still not sure what that was, another big yawn, from Yous Truly, Mr. Cryptic, Finder Ol Lost Loves and Other Random Animals.

Henry Grimes went off some kind of deep end, and Sal Mosca essentially drank the Kool Aid from birth. Now, what kind of "familiarity" are we talking about hete? If you mean a deep engagement, then, no probably not. But if the guy checked it out enough to be put off by it, then what are we expecting here, an objective scholarly evaluation, with anything less being fakistic bullshit? I take his statement at face value, and am happy to note it with a big yawn, like Bird wanted to study with Varese and everybody dug Stravinky, and yes, but so fucking what? Neil Hefti still wrote Batman, Sal Mosca put himself into some weird isozone, Schoenberg did nothing like that, Warne was still genius, and really, what was Bird going to do with Varese, and/or vice-versa. At the end of the day, opinions don't matter, results do.

Dennis Menke!

Run the sprinklers for a week first.

What do Sale Mosca and Henry Grimes have to do with Warne hearing Schoenberg?

If that lecture of Warne''s came late enough in his lilife, and if biography are to believed, it was at a time when he had freed himself up about expressing things bluntly. He finally let go of his Lennie-ism, and apparently not always mildy. So, this sort of a summarial dismissal seems in line with that bluntness. I really find it hard to believe that a musicIan of Warne''s time and inclinations did not have a basic familiarity with Schoenberg, some basic exposure . Maybe he didn't, but how would that have happened?

He knew Bartok, right? Maybe not. Lee sure as hell did. And he was in LA the same time Schoenberg was. I have no reason to believe that he did not have familiarity, and just as much every reason to believe that he didn't like it, that's all.

Julie was a classmate of mine back in the day, very hardcore jazz back then, has evolved (last I looked) into more of a singer-songwriter type, but still keeping the jazz-inform.

We are remembering different things, maybe? I know that some of those LRC labels let out some different takes/edits of some live stuff, but the BN Reissue Series was all straight-up reissue...unless I am misremembering (ALWAYS a possibility...)

The single "brown bag" things were French-only, iirc. At the end of the brown bags, there were four issues of the same type that had the same basic design, but glossy paper and different colors. It was the short-lived "Blue Note Jazz Classic Series". and that was it for the 2-Fers. Look at them now! After tem, the LTs!

I crossed paths (lightly), with her back in the very early 1990s when playing on the local "chitlin' circuit", she'd come out to some gigs and listen. She was more or less a novice then, but was obviously gifted and sincere. I don't have this record, wasn't really aware of it, but now that I am....

Rachella Parks-Washington?