DrJ

Dredging this thread up because I wanted to share my good find...found this album in a used store for $29 bucks, the vinyl is in very good condition although the cover has a lot of wear (still not terrible). So this gets more interesting - the label on my copy is an old World Pacific label, not Pacific Jazz, even though the sleeve says only "Pacific Jazz Enterprises" and the number on the cover (as well as on the label) is PJ 1227. But my LP sure appears to be an original pressing since all the tracks that were in abbreviated form on the CD reissue are present in their longer versions. So: 1. Was the original pressing on World Pacific, not Pacific Jazz? 2. Or, was there some second or later pressing under the World Pacific imprint that included the original tracks without overdubs that hasn't been discussed here? Curiouser and curiouser...

Funny, I would agree with you Jim about PAGE ONE, I've never quite understood why everyone goes so ga ga over that one when OUR THING and even moreso IN 'N' OUT and INNER URGE followed and had so much more on display of Henderson's artistry. But with NIGHT DREAMER, I wouldn't call it tentative or timid, just more quiet, maybe even subdued, but in a very appealing way. Oh well, to each their own, and I do get what you're saying for sure.

I know this has been touched on in some recent discussions about Basie's 100th birthday passing with little to no fanfare in the U.S., but I hadn't also realized about other jazz giants who would have been 100 this year, including Fats Waller, Jimmy Dorsey, and Coleman Hawkins, until I read a piece about this in Jazz Times yesterday. Sadly I find it little surprise that the general public hasn't made much notice of this. But in the jazz world, at least in the U.S., the silence is also deafening. For example, where are the boxed set tributes? Am I missing something? Are you listening Mosaic?

This is a really interesting thread, particularly hearing about the reactions to Wayne "back in the day" from Chuck and Larry. Can't say I agree from a much later vantage point though about his first couple BNs, while the Vee Jay material is really outstanding, NIGHT DREAMER in particular has always been one of my favorite slices of Shorter.

I've been trying to track that one down DTMX, will intensify the hunt!

Well no offense was meant in my comparison, to each their own. But really Guy, while you may disagree, I hardly think my comparison can be considered "unfair." Harder-edged rock 'n' roll, blues, and r&b had been around for years before the Byrds or any of the other artists I mention, after all. Maybe you were interpreting my comments about The Who to pertain only to the "loudness" or distortion on the guitars, but it's the whole package that determines edge and impact for me in rock. So people like Little Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis from 10 years or so earlier, well, their stuff still makes what the Byrds did look a little tame and even a little precious to me, even though there's no screaming guitars in those 50's tunes and the recordings were murkier (maybe it's even BECAUSE of those things). Yet the Who's best work holds up for me when placed alongside even those rock n roll greats. To each their own. Don't also forget about less heralded (in terms of record sales) younger white artists who would have no doubt been well-known to hip musicians like the Byrds - e.g. Clapton and the Bluesbreakers - who had already crossed into much more sinister, edgy territory either at the same time as or even a little before the Byrds took flight. So I don't think the Byrds sounded tamer simply because they didn't know about other options; rather they made some conscious choices, adopting a folkier (and later a country-inflected) aesthetic but implementing it with electric 12-string, and this resulted in a very distinctive sound and great influence. But with 30+ years hindsight I'm not personally completely compelled by the bulk of their stuff - the sound is undeniably seductive and distinctive, but I can't say I feel they threw up more than a relatively small handful of truly great tunes. And I don't find personally that the Byrds' LPs have aged real well as albums that hold interest over 30-40 minutes. Yet I still enjoy their best tunes and their influence on the sound of pop and rock and roll that came after is undeniable - and that is to me their greatest legacy. Heck, groups like REM would probably have never even existed if it weren't for the Byrds, and McGuinn's influence lives on (exemplified by stuff like "Fifty Years After the Fair" on Aimee Mann's WHATEVER album, on which he plays 12 string).

Thanks for the heads up Dave, the Bennetts and Lafittes look mighty tempting.

You beat me to the punch, Dan! I ordered a copy yesterday from Peter. PS - love your Steve Martin quote. The last bit of that little song always slayed me: Be pompous, obese, and eat cactus. Be dull and boring and omniprescent. Criticize things you don't know about. Be oblong and have your knees removed.

A huge, huge loss. Rest in peace.

Great idea

Very interesting! I've been really enjoying Spaulding's SONGS OF COURAGE CD (Muse 1991), outstanding stuff and I actually prefer it by quite a margin over the more widely-discussed and also good BRILLIANT CORNERS (last out on 32 jazz, also a Muse). Will check this out.

Putting in a good word for Crosby, at least in his "prime." Goofy dude and now a media charicature, but undeniable, tremendous talent in the most natural, idiosyncratic way - although largely squandered before 1968 and after about 1970 onward (a VERY brief peak!). Some of the shit he wrote or contributed to CSN was just unreal, and the "jazz sensibility" comment by Bev is spot on. I also agree with comments about some (most?) of the Byrds albums sounding more like a few great singles held together with unmemorable filler. I don't think the majority or maybe any of the albums belong in anywhere near the same league as the best work of the Beach Boys, Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, or Who (put any of their LPs alongside something like THE WHO SELL OUT and it's a no-contest victory for Mr. Townshend, for example). Still, their greatest singles were glorious slices of pop. And yet ultimately the Byrds now sound tame, almost quaint with this many years' hindsight. They sound much more "of the 60's" too than the greatest artists of the era to me. Some of the comments above seem to me to be commenting more on their INFLUENCE - their sound and elements of it as filtered through other, later artists' prisms, which is probably their greatest legacy - arguably, they have had more DIRECT influence on the SOUND of rock and pop guitar bands than any of the other artists listed above - than on the staying power of the music the Byrds actually recorded. The contrast between a great Byrds single like "Eight Miles High" and the Who's greatest for me, "I Can See For Miles," is instructive. Townshend and company still sound as though they are exploding out of my speakers, whilst the Byrds twitter (albeit pleasantly) in the background. I think one can even argue that an "unintended consequence" of the folk and country touches the Byrds introduced, undeniably a breath of fresh air in small doses, was to drain American rock of a little bit of its more sinister, blues and R&B derived edge. Good, bad, or indifferent depending on your point of view, but an issue to be confronted.

Damn, a Mosaic of the Verve Basie material would be VERY VERY nice...can't imagine someone hasn't thought of it there and isn't working on it.

These are great recordings, IMHO, not Hope's "best" but still excellent. Not the finest fidelity, but highly listenable. If you have a turntable, you might consider getting the Japanese vinyl editions (2 LPs) of these if they are still being offered by Mosaic...they sound quite good and were reasonably priced as "going OOP" items a while back, although I haven't A/B'd with the CD issues.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of Snoop as Miles...he's not a talentless hack, first of all, though I don't count myself a big fan. And second, OK, personally he's kind of an idiot, and tiresomely "in the media" 24/7, but all that aside, you never know, it might just work. Whoever plays Miles convincingly would need an attitude, and a certain "outside the mainstream" detachment, as well as the ability to convey the need for fame and the drive to cultivate a mass audience...hmmm...maybe, just maybe. Those things will be far more important than physical resemblance IMHO. One thing I've discovered is that I would starve to death as a Hollywood casting person...some of the casting decisions that have made me groan the most upon hearing about them ended up working out really well, and vice versa.

Wow, interesting stuff - also wasn't aware KELLY GREAT was his first "confirmed" recording session (missed that somehow) and definitely wasn't aware that there appears to have been another earlier one awaiting firm confirmation...hopefully Avakian will respond with some info (and plans for a reissue!).

Thanks for the tip Jim! This is the type of session I would never have even known about probably if not for this board. I've been on an Elmo Hope kick since last summer, when I snagged the Celebrity and Beacon trios on vinyl. Most lately I've been marveling at his composition MINOR BERTHA as covered on James Spaulding's SONGS OF COURAGE (Muse) CD from 1991. Spaulding's group tears it up, and I am utterly hooked on the major/minor thing and hip bop rhythmic displacements in the composition. Anyway, if there are some parallels with Hope, and also given the other nice things you say about Hewitt, I'm on it. Will order today.

I am intrigued by the whole idea of music "for" or "not for beginners." My take on it is that there is actually no distinction - and in fact those of us with more listening hours under our belts are probably least qualified to make that judgement. Rather, new listeners should just listen to what they feel like listening to and will probably do just fine that way. I came to become a jazz diehard after being a really eclectic listener, mostly to pop but a little bit of everything and a lot of "border music," stuff that skirts the edges of many genres like Frisell, Wayne Horvitz, Metheny, etc. So here's the thing: the more I have listened to mainstream, bop and post-bop acoustic jazz, I have experienced the phenomenon of "beyond the boundaries" jazz actually sounding MORE alien on first few listens. Now that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, and in many ways with more listening experience I find that it hits me at a much deeper level after being assimilated, but the point is that when I was a "jazz neophyte" I could listen to that stuff and often it would sound LESS alien to me. This is also no knock on acoustic straight ahead jazz - I'm not saying it lacks adventure when in skilled hands, it's still my "first love," but what I am saying is that there are definite ground rules that people follow in this setting - even someone as adventurous as Cecil Taylor, the framework is still there. I think all this makes perfect sense - after hours and hours of listening, my ears have become attuned to the usual elemental ground rules (in less inspired situations, conventions) of acoustic "straight ahead" or closely allied types of jazz, so other stuff sounds funny at first - not bad, but jarring a little until immersion. An example from my early listening to jazz days was Ornette...basically, at that point, it just sounded like great music and I didn't see what all the fuss was about in terms of his "revolution." With hindsight and the ability to mentally compare his work with other contemporary players, I get that now, and if anything I think his music sounds just a bit more "alien" now every time I put it on the player. Now maybe that increases my INTELLECTUAL estimation of his music a little, but not at an emotional level. If anything, it takes me a bit longer to "get into" the Ornette mindset sometimes. A more recent example is James "Blood" Ulmer's ARE YOU GLAD TO BE IN AMERICA? I finally caught up with this recording a couple weeks back, and have been enjoying it a lot ("jazz is the teacher but funk is the preacher!"). It's not "out" music to me at all but it's definitely pretty far outside the acoustic jazz mainstream...there was a time about 10-12 years ago that it would have sounded perfectly "normal" on first listen, but it took me a couple listens to warm to it now, and I realized it was because it was outside the mainstream mold and my ears just needed a little time to adjust - to the timbre of the instruments (many electronic), the mix, everything about it that is quite a bit different than what one encounters with a typical acoustic set. So again, it's not about fogeyism or shutting other stuff out, but a relatively steady diet of acoustic bop/post-bop will DEFINITELY affect my "ears" and how they perceive other music on first listen. As a related issue: if I take a break from acoustic bop/post-bop, listening to other types of music for a while and then come back to it, my enjoyment of the acoustic jazz is sometimes GREATLY enhanced...basically, my ears seem to hear the music differently, everything sounds fresh and new. Anyone else experience these things?

Happy Birthday, Stefan! Listen to some good stuff, John Handy maybe!

Man, some real giants have left us recently. He'll leave a huge void and a slew of great musical memories.

Damn sad news. Rest in peace, Mr. Davies.

Has anyone A/B'd the Verve Master Takes box against the old Complete on Verve box? For its age, the Complete Verve box still sounds really good, but a little muffled. If the Master Takes box was a significant step up in sound I might be willing to take the plunge.

This incident has me feeling philosophical: If a bird shits in a formerly popular singer's mouth, but there's nobody who listens to her anymore, did it actually happen?

Jazzmoose, I grew up seeing Ronald McDonald ads and going to McDonalds simply does not "feel good" to me on any level. In fact, I think like many (most?) people who eat fast food on occasion, I end up feeling a tremendous amount of conflict and guilt about it...as I think about it, nobody I know wants to admit they ever eat fast food, but with 333 gajillion sold, SOMEBODY is eating at these places! Anyway, I don't think it's a "feel good" thing on that level, or at least a straightforward one. Fundamentally, I also don't buy the "programming" argument and I'll tell you why. First, the whole Skinnerean stimulus-response explanation of human behavior is far too simplistic. We're not lab rats...we do things for many reasons, based on the interplay of many influences and cues. Second and related (and more importantly), my parents taught me the difference between going to Mickey D's for a hamburger occasionally after a ball game and using it as my primary nutritional source. That is the stuff that is missing that accounts for kids growing up over-eating fast food, the lack of parental guidance to put the ads in proper perspective. If you sit a kid in front of a TV and show them McDonalds commercials without any reprieve or parental guidance, well sure, that's what they come to know. So just don't do that and they'll be OK. Finally, it's worth mentioning the majority of the population in fact does NOT go crazy with fast food, they go crazy with FOOD period - it's overeating at all levels and locations, whether at home, in "finer" or "healthier" restaurants, etc. It's a pervasive, serious problem. Just visit another country and compare portion sizes and you'll see, and this applies in all restaurants, in people's homes, etc. So it's not about fast food, it's about TOO MUCH food and bad choices throughout the day, no matter the setting. That and a complete lack of exercise. I'm not trying to defend fast food companies, but I am trying to encourage people to look at the issue more broadly and get at root causes. If you focus on villifying the fast food chains, IMHO you're missing the bigger picture and nothing much will change.

Take5 brings up the only potential legit point I can see potentially being driven home by the film: This is a major issue and very different than adults who choose to eat crap 24/7. Kids don't have the same choices, they don't know any better (or maybe they do but obviously they have less impulse control), and for many parents school lunch is the only feasible option to feed their kids. So non-nutritious school lunches are a MAJOR inexcusable public health blight and I will get behind anyone who is out to fix this problem. Two thumbs up here (although even then I must say I've heard at least 3-4 NPR pieces about this issue in the last year alone, not to mention pieces in other less reputable media outlets, so again, is this really a previously unexposed problem? Is not the real issue that people KNOW it's an issue but seem short on creative, sustainable solutions?). Anyway, I say let's spend our time and energy talking about how to protect our kids from these types of legitimate evils, and NOT spend it trying to "protect" Joe Slug from that evil Quarter Pounder stalking him around the strip mall...