JSngry

Some chiropractors are better than some orthopedists. And vice versa.

Colonel Steve Austin Stephen F. Austin The Nacogdoche Indians

primarily, the band. From there, the composers. I was already familiar with Higdon, but not the others). Good stuff. The band, it has been productive, to say the lease... http://www.verdehr.com/recordings.htm

Well, I just checked, and I've been seeing an optometrist for a good long while now, not an ophthalmologist. And like yours, he's damn good, technologically adept, and pays attention to the finer points of personal eye evolution (or deterioration, as the case may be). So let me amend my statement. Kudos, Dr. Tran! https://www.planoeye.com/team/stanley-tran-od/ No way in hell am I going to go to some factory clinic, though. Same with dentists, you gotta look out for the pimps, they're too damn everywhere.

Oh my, somebody else to pay attention to...I really liked this one.

Yeah, well. uh....probably not just now.

And that's the beauty of the American Experiment! That sanctimonious asshole Brother Jonathan had not a chance against an herbaled and cerealed multi-racial force of smiling shit-chasers! U S A !!!

Agreed on ophthalmologist vs optometrist, but unless you get your lenses/prescription ground on-site, you have no idea where they're being made or by who. I still like doing mine on-site because the place I patronize has pretty girls with soft hands, warm hearts, dark senses of humor, and they always smell good, as does the Chinese joint just across the street.

I can't think of John Jay without auto-switching to Joey Jay.

I also got 8, but I'm ok with that. I know what the Federalist Papers are, if not who all the authors were, and I know what the Amendments have done even if I can't tell you offhand exactly how many there are. Now, here's something I did NOT know - the story of Brother Jonathan, a precursor to Uncle Sam: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/brother-jonathan-uncle-sam Before America Got Uncle Sam, It Had to Endure Brother Jonathan Brash, bold, and bigoted, he made for an uneasy national mascot. I mean, fuck this guy, give me good old Uncle Sam, for real!

I do hope that interest is being spurred, but I doubt I have anything to do with it, I'm not "present" anywhere else except here, and this is a pretty isolated nook of the universe. I don't even know that I'd call him an "unsung hero" like Talbert, Spencer, or Roland. Those guys were all writers who had bands to serve their ideas. I can't even consider him to be a Kenton or Raeburn type, leaders who had a vision of "modernity" but needed others to actually do it. No, I think that Henry Jerome was a guy who got convinced that bebop was going to be the next big thing, so he went there with the people who had convinced him. In the process, he had a really good band. But did he hustle the shit out of it like Kenton or Raeburn? No. It seems that he did the bebop thing until a better offer came along. And that's where a lot of "jazz history" is deficient, imo. It's so focused on narratives of specific peoples/places/things that when something like this happens, nobody pays attention (other than Ira Gitler, and then pretty much as far as I can tell just in the one book). But the band/music on this disc, leave of the announcements, and you'd be well within the bounds of reasonability to guess a band that did have narrative cred. But to quote somebody I would generally be loathe to quote, facts are stubborn things. And here this music is, just where it says it is, being more or less what it claims to be, if not the "bebop" of the Gillespie big band or even the Eckstine band when it tipped over into real bebop, at least as close as some soon to come, and closer and certainly exponentially closer to 1944 Basie than to Hal Kemp (right down to the tenor playing...). So...what else is there to hear, and why (presumably?) is nobody looking for it?

Ok, several days of playing this record now, and...is there more of this material? And has it been examined by serious jazz people? Because the impression that I get is that this is an estate produced affair, and they don't really "get" it in terms of legitimate jazz history, I mean, they make as much a fuss about Allan Greenspan as they do anything else (and there's a thing or two where there's two tenors, and if the second one is Greenspan, then that cat could play, and if it's not - and it's probably not - then who the hell is it? Maybe "serious jazz historians" don't give a fuck because it's Henry Jerome, and all that comes with that. Or maybe they have looked at it, and this is all that's of interest. But geez, all the talk about history and Savory and all this and all that, and I had to accidentally stumble across this record on Amazon, like 20 year or so after it was first put out? Gene DiNovi talks about Bird & Diz & Budd Johnson (hell, Budd Johnson, you keep popping up in ALL the most interesting places!) coming out sand sitting in...something was going on with that band, and now the question is simply how much of it got on the air, and how much of that is preserved? It's bugging the piss out of me that this is as good (not "great", just really good) as it is and that nobody's really called it out, for whatever reason. Is it possible that it doesn't fit with anybody's "narrative", that it's as simple as that? Don't bother us with facts, we've got a tale to construct? No, Henry Jerome wasn't a driving force behind the development of be-bop, not even. It seems like he was an opportunistic-ish guy who hoped to ride a wave. But - look, there's the band, there's the players, there's the music. I'm thinking attention should be paid to that, regardless of whose band it was. And, possibly, more attention needs to be paid than has been. Possibly.

There are no bad Johnny guitar Watson records, period.

So this online glasses thing, you still need a prescription from a real doctor right, this isn't like those clothes ads i see on the tv set where they say let your phone measure you right now for this shirt and these pants and we'll have them to you lickety-split, not at all like that, correct?

No, that there are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records, period, is the point. Your taste is your business, not mine. Mine is recognizing a bad records from a good records, and there are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records, period. If you don't like them, hey. That just leaves more for all the other boys and girls who likes the GOOD records. More for us, so thank you for your taste and the abundance of unspoiled riches it behooves.

There are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records. Period.

I tend to find them in bunches at Half-Prices, never just one, always a bunch at a time. And if even one looks like it might be worthy, I grab the whole batch. I'll deal with are they any good or not after I get them home, it's like a haircut, you can always cut off, but you can never cut back on. it's a trip to look at their points of manufacturing, how this music of and from Cuba started coming out on all these labels with Miami area addresses, just think about that scene, you got a bunch of refugees wanting to buy records they left behind, and somebody's doing something to get the product out there, some how. The mind reels at all the possible scenarios. The guy from PanArt smuggled a bunch of his masters out, but some of this stuff, it doesn't sound like it's from any kind of master tape, if you know what I mean. And yet, there it was and if the back covers of some are any indication, it was there in abundance. It's items like this, where the records themselves likely/possibly have a story behind them besides, oh, a lot of people bought this when everybody else did, and they all got rid of it when everybody else did too, that make crate-digging (if they still call it that, they didn't use to when I started doing it) so much fun. Always check the "International" section, folks!

Front cover: back cover: Like the really end-of-the-road Argo cutout-bin specials back in the day, only, at least, in color. What a band, though, check out these changes, like a really left field Brian Wilson song:

Especially when presented with the evidence: I smell the back cover -

Bought it for the cover, keeping it for the cover.

There are vocal and instrumental.vibratos on this record that may well no longer exist in nature.