DrJ

Click here to find out Oh wait, that was someone else... (Before I get a bunch of angry retorts, IT WAS ONLY A JOKE, I dig Roney)

So far I've only heard little excerpts from those last "experimental" sessions on the SELF-PORTRAIT box, but wow are they intriguing! The roots of Jimmy Giuffre's "free" period music, anyone? Anyway, have yet to hear anything by Shaw I haven't enjoyed, although quite honestly I am a bit tired of hearing people praise him by dissing Goodman...OK, he didn't like Benny's playing much, but that doesn't mean we ALL have to agree. I personally can't imagine a jazz history without either man.

Excellent album, great choice. Coles is criminally neglected in jazz discussions. By another odd coincidence, I just picked up GROOVIN' FOR NAT (1201 Records, a 24-bit remastering of a Black Lion date) which features the two-trumpet lineup of Donald Byrd and Coles and Duke Pearson on piano (1962). Coles quite frankly blows Byrd out the water on this one. I will give NEW MORNING another spin tomorrow and post further thoughts!

I wonder how many people who are huge fans of the books have re-read them real recently (read: since the movies came out). I have, and to be honest, while they still more than hold up and I find some new delight on almost every page (and can't wait to share them with my son when he's old enough), I have to say I was even MORE impressed with the movies upon doing this. Sure, Jackson had to take some cinematic liberties, but in many instances I think he's actually improved upon the books - and I almost never think that about any screen adaptation. Tolkein's books had great humor, style, and depth, but that doesn't mean he wasn't prone to just as much awkwardness in his prose, and a tendency to telegraph every plot development, and another tendency to go all didactic when leaving more to the reader's own imagination would have done even better. Jackson has streamlined in many cases where the text most needed it. Hey, if nothing else, he's jettisoned about 90% of the songs, which to be honest I've always felt were almost always the weakest, least inspired, and most tedious parts of the novels. So my main point is, sometimes through the rose colored glasses of memory (especially memory steeped in childhood), it's easy to elevate things like the Rings trilogy beyond reasonable level.

Sidney Bechet - COMPLETE RCA/VICTOR MASTER TAKES (RCA/VICTOR), disc 3 Jessica Williams - UPDATE (Clean Cuts) with Eddie Harris Various - ONE WORLD JAZZ (Columbia) - a 1959 experiment in transcontinental overdubbing that features Ben Webster, JJ Johnson, Grappelli, Martial Solal, Ake Persson, Jo Jones, Hank Jones, and others June Christy - SOMETHING COOL (Capitol Jazz) Bobby Hutcherson - MIRAGE (32 Jazz/Landmark) Byrd/Gryce - THE JAZZ LAB/MODERN JAZZ PERSPECTIVE (Collectibles/Columbia) Donald Byrd - GROOVIN' FOR NAT (1201 Records) Erroll Garner - SOLO TIME! (Emarcy) Woody Shaw - SONG OF SONGS Blakey and the Messengers - A NIGHT IN TUNISIA (Bluebird/Vik) Milt Jackson w/Coleman Hawkins - BEAN BAGS (Koch/Atlantic) Sammy Price w/Lucky Thompson - PARIS BLUES (Universal France/Polydor) Lee Morgan - DELIGHTFULEE (Blue Note)

I look at the movies as a different thing altogether than the books. I will always have "first allegience" to the novels, but damn, did Peter Jackson and crew do an amazing job with these first two. I'm a flat out fanatic for both movies, and for those who haven't done it yet, DO NOT miss on the expanded DVD edition of the first. The "extras" stuff is truly fascinating and awe-inspiring. What Jackson did in making these movies is nothing short of extraordinary. People do less in their entire lives than he did in the time he spent translating the Tolkein legacy to screen. I'm holding out for the expanded edition of TWO TOWERS myself...

I'm looking forward to exploring GREENDALE, haven't yet as I've been so re-immersed in ON THE BEACH lately. But will do so, and appreciate these comments on it.

I'm jealous, Dmitry - unlike you I HAVE seen that Kirk before and, inexplicably, passed it up (ever do things like that?). I'm still lookin'...

Hey, Tom, glad you're here! The other folks have steered you right re: how to participate, the more the merrier.

WE got back later than expected from taking the baby to see the great grandparents this weekend, so just reviewing and commenting now. A few thoughts: 1. DAMN, this is fun! And not just because I know the answers...I'm actually JEALOUS of all you folks getting to puzzle these out (and you're doing a damn fine job), and can't wait until I'm on the receiving end. So far, I have to say this has worked out almost exactly as I predicted in terms of which tunes would really be universal "hits," which would get mixed reviews, which would give people the most fits, etc. Those of you waiting to make CDs, you're going to have a BLAST. 2. I am THRILLED that I have (to quote Dan, a Type-A guy after my own heart!) "lost control of the classroom." This is EXACTLY what I had hoped for, everyone getting excited about it and kicking in ideas, not only about who is on the CD but how to make this blindfold test thing even better. For what it's worth, I am all for keeping the rules to a minimum and allowing any type of discussion that is desired in the discussion thread. If people don't want the answers given away on their first run throughs, then make sure to listen to the CD and log your answers FIRST, before joining the discussion. I would urge everyone to look back at how incredibly rich it's been, with people giving clues, kicking in ideas, and spurring thoughts about the music...any tighter reins on the thread would have squelched that. So again, listen and get your own head straight about your thinking first, before looking, but then jump in and join the fun -that's my two cents. 3. I do think Dan and others have good points about not being the first to post and giving away all the answers blatantly...'cause there might be someone new to the game who doesn't realize that there could be answers here. I love the idea of linking to the answers as Jim R did, really cool. However, I don't think anyone really did "give them all away" here, as far as I'm concerned everyone's comments and hints have been very artfully and thoughtfully done, with the intent of maximizing the fun. 4. Without giving any additional hints, I don't think I have seen anyone try and discern an overall "theme" to the CD - I will say it's kind of loose and general, so don't knock yourselves out trying to figure out things like "they're all played in the Key of A" or anything, but it might be fun to hazard guesses on this (unless you're sure, in which case mum's the word). 5. Finally, let me again emphasize everyone is doing really well and that my intention was not to stump folks but to get them thinking and listening carefully and it seems to be working. I'm on cloud 9, really, it's so great to see this happening! B)

I was recently reminded of this great tandem in listening to a prior album of the week on this board, A CADDY FOR DADDY. Not my favorite Mobley but a good one, and Higgins is on fire and his interaction with Lee is certainly apparent on that one, too.

Some crap, probably! I'll look for the Barron Muse and other date (yep, I do vinyl, and I've seen some of the Muses in the bins - now that sounds like the punch line to some hip Greek tradgedy-referencing joke, doesn't it? - and passed due to uncertainty, won't in the future). PS - Just to clarify about both Monterose and Henry, lest I sounded too critical, I REALLY like both quite a lot, but just not in the sort of starry-eyed way I admire Tina Brooks' playing at this point in time. If this makes sense, they sound supremely qualified and talented but ultimately still like mortals to me - which is very cool in its own way and again I think why those who seek a deeper appreciation of the music enjoy them so - while Brooks, well, it's like he came down from Planet Tenor to beautify our planet, not with supreme chops or overwhelming Rollins power but just by having such a uniquely complete thing going...which makes for an amazing and inspirational listening experience, but can oddly also be offputting at times when you want something a little more earthly. Or maybe that doesn't make sense to anyone but me!

Ah yes, the Neil Young guitar. His acoustic playing is perfect for his music - sounds sloppy at times but he can create a great sense of drive while sounding fragile and at the edge of falling apart, and most of this is a calculated approach rather than limited technique I think (because listen to some of his more "polished," produced affairs like HARVEST and COMES A TIME and you'll hear a much cleaner player). Somewhat similar comments could apply to his electric playing, but there he's just flat out brilliant in my view - not in the sense of great technique by any means, but he's one of literally a handful of rock guitarists who you can identify without fail, every single time, especially when he's using the Les Paul with the Bigsby vibrato. God I love that crunchy and crackly distorted sound he gets and that odd, just enough of it in the background delay/echo effect. Plus he almost never wanks or gets too far from the melody, which, lets face it, would be a REALLY bad idea given the limitations in his technical abilities and the simplicity of the harmonic structure of his tunes. The "jams" are more like some radical, abrasive form of hypnotherapy, and it works for me.

I know what you mean about limited appeal in the players you list to a degree, but someone like Tina Brooks I see as mainly being in that category because he had a problem with a short career and got limited hearing outside the "connoisseur" circle during his lifetime. You listen now, with mucho years of hindsight and ears attuned to a whole lot of post-bop sounds, and you think, "Why the HELL wasn't this guy more widely heralded?" His sound goes down easy and can almost immediately be appreciated by relatively neophyte ears (everyone I play his stuff for, no matter how casually interested in jazz, digs it), yet there's a whole lot of new subtleties to discover and enjoy every single time you listen, even for an experienced listener. Clearly, just bad juju or something (well, that and some unfortunate habits that foreshortened his chances). At least that was my reaction to Tina, I loved him on first hearing of TRUE BLUE and my admiration has only grown over the years (most recently have been digging his playing on the Howard McGhee-led version of THE CONNECTION, and have become firmly convinced this one blows the more widely known BN version out the water...Tina's solo on "Wigglin'" is one of the best of his career). Someone like Monterose (and Ernie Henry to a lesser degree), on the other hand, particularly on an album like IN ACTION, I fully understand why he's got a limited appeal - it has nothing to do with talent or merit, but just that he's REALLY subtle, has a tone that doesn't immediately captivate with beauty or sound real distinctive, and he's also not conventionally swinging or bluesy - or conventionally ANYTHING. But again, a seasoned listener admires that, and he's someone who you keep coming back to because of the subtleties and the "inside" the music thing you so eloquently described. Barron - OK, he's in that grouping because he's just too "odd" to unprepared ears (people I play this for tend NOT to like it unless they have the proverbial "big ears"), but he's another one who I personally enjoy all I've heard by so far, which isn't enough I'll be the first to admit. Really enjoyed the MODERN WINDOWS and other Savoy stuff and I'm now trying to track down all his stuff with Ted Curson. Now if only Mosaic would suddenly announce a Paul Jeffries box, that would lead to the kind of posthumous career boost and righteous recognition Tina got, I could die happy.

Not sure how known it is outside the home office area of Sacramento, but Tower has been in dire financial straits for the past few years (see: Tower Woes). Our local stores have really had poor inventory lately, and at least the one in Land Park just cut back on their open hours - for years they opened at 9, but to my surprise I found the door locked and new hours posted (open at 10 AM) last weekend. Anyway, not to apologize for Tower or anything, 'cause I agree with the criticisms, but there are some unfortunate reasons they are scaling back I think.

Must...clean...water...off...computer terminal...spit...when...laughing....too...weak....

Glad to see the discussion beginning! Interesting comments already. I'm out of town next couple of days, taking the baby to visit great grandparents, but will be back Sunday evening and will check in again then. But it hardly matters, 'cause mum's the word from me for another couple weeks... PS - OK, A HINT: Rooster Ties, there's no harmonica buried on track 11 but if you spin the disc backwards on a turntable, you can hear someone whispering "Turn Me On, Supa Groover"...

I understand you pretty "clearly!" That's what really strikes me about the waltz and the "All the Things..." variant, you can really hear that he's got an unusual relationship with the beat and that he's thinking out every little inflection, there are not any accidents (well, if there are, he pretty quickly develops them). It's just that I'm not always as compelled by what he does as you are, but again that's just on first pass through and it's something I already find to be very fine.

Finally tracked down a copy of James Newton's ROMANCE AND REVOLUTION (BN 1986) on near mint vinyl, for $1.95 no less! Great companion to the marginally easier to find and better known Blue Note from around the same time, THE AFRICAN FLOWER.

On the strength of IN ACTION's ballads, I'll definitely be checking that one out, thanks for the tip Brad.

Got it and listened several times this past couple of days. You know, it's real solid, and I'm glad to have heard it and have it in the collection. There are some major faults that are hard to overlook - Monterose didn't have a real individual, identifiable tone (personally I hear a whole lot of Lucky Thompson, not in the tone but in the softness of his articulation at times and his eloquence and restraint, in addition to the more obvious influences like Rollins and, inevitably, Coltrane), the backing trio is rather pedestrian (probably the biggest blemish), and the couple of more aggressive numbers so far leave me cold - again, mostly down to the rather leaden backing more than any problems on Monterose's part. He shines on the slower pieces though, easily worth the price of admission and on those the Lucky parallel is really striking, and I'm not just sayin' that 'cause of my avatar! I wonder if that was a declared, overt influence or just coincidence? I REALLY dig the first tune "Waltz For Clare" (that one's been haunting me, but then I also tend to gravitate toward jazz in 3/4 and 6/4) and the slight but clever variation on "All The Things You Are," and definitely "Lover Man," justly singled out above. I do get the feeling one has to live with the album for a while to get the full impact so this is in no way a "final judgement." Again, glad to have it and get the chance to savor it over time.

As others chimed in, OTB is NOT the album with "Needle and the Damage Done." Jim, it's hard for me to put into words why I enjoy the album so much. First off, it sounds totally unaffected and natural. Second, the production is perfect for the low-key music - it's unfussy and unlayered, with a raw, recorded in your living room or home studio sound (this may seem a minor point to many, but many many otherwise good rock albums have been ruined for me by overproduction). The arrangements are also spot on - whatever is there in the often sparse soundscape is just right (such as the electric piano on "See the Sky About to Rain," not something that Young used often but if fits just right here). Most of side two is basically a long, mellow, sometimes apocalyptic dirge, sublimely understated and poetic. To be honest it took me many listens as a younger person to warm to the album, but that's because at that point I was expecting HARVEST type stuff. In listening now, I am struck by how melodic these songs are - despite the dirge-y trappings and post-junkie undercurrent, every single tune is hummable and sticks in your head for days. So I agree with Bev there. In short, this is the Neil Young album I now pull out the most to listen to (by far), mainly because the current CD edition of AFTER THE GOLDRUSH is so crappy. Musically though, I think that one is at least as strong if not stronger, I differ a bit with Bev there. Emotionally, once the imagery begins to sink in, it's far more "direct" and charged a Neil Young album than one like HARVEST (which was a bit more "polished" but which I also really like by the way - way too fashionable to bash it because it was popular, but really, it's superb, there is no "half-crap" to that one - I defy anyone to pick out a turkey on that album, and the recent DVD-A surround disc is great fun). Not quite as sloppily in your face about its emotions as an album like TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT (another great one - an instance in which the critics have it right and I think that might be the one you're talking about, Jim, since it was basically a wake of an album after some drug related deaths of those close to Young), but there's a whole lot of anger eloquently expressed and directed at all the right places throughout. Hell, ON THE BEACH also contains the immortal line in "Ambulance Blues": "It's nice to have a friend who'll tell you when you're pissing in the wind." I'm not up for defending Young or his approach to anyone, though. You either like him or you don't. He's made his share of stiffs especially over the past 20 years, but for me, he's also put down some of the rock that I continue to enjoy more with each passing year as I approach 40, and for a medium that's often expendable with each phase of youthful growth, I find that remarkable. That's all I can ask. PS - Sleeper Neil Young album of all time not to be missed: COMES A TIME. The title track (which sounds like it has always been around, like some standard from the roots of America) and a heartbreakingly direct and heartfelt reading of Ian Tyson's "Four Strong Winds" alone put it in the big leagues, despite this one definitely having a couple of turkeys (unlike HARVEST).

I may be alone in the wilderness on this board, since I see little comment on him, but I'm a huge fan of Neil Young, especially circa 1969-1980. ON THE BEACH has always been one of my favorites, a quiet, imperfect masterpiece, and it's FINALLY been reissued on CD. While pristine vinyl probably still beats it to *hit (given that my cheapo vinyl copy sounds pretty damn good), they did a nice job, with my only quibble being that on some of the louder tracks they appear to have mixed his vocals down a bit too low. But a minor issue - in any format, this is a hell of an album. If you never heard it, check it out, and if you did, revisit it. If you're not already depressed about the sorry ass state of rock music these days, listening to this album will certainly get you there - hard to believe it ever got this good.

You WOULD have to say that, Soul Stream...I just passed on MINOR SWING at a used store yesterday...unfortunately one about 40 miles from home, I was passing through coming back from (to coin a Carmell Jones kind of phrase) business meetin'. Damn.

I love the Art Hodes choice of Lon's, very strong candidate for bluesiest ever. And to add one player that hasn't been mentioned: Sonny Clark, while certainly steeped in bop, had a VERY bluesy undercurrent to both his writing and playing.