chris

Dude, what DO you have then? I mean, I would think Louis, Dizzy, Parker -- those would be about as "conservative" as one could get in the jazz establishment anyway!

Which of these are you most surprised to see on the list? I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone can listen to jazz and have no Parker! Similarly Mingus, Davis, and Ellington... and Miles? But the real surprose to me is the repetition of Art Pepper and Chet Baker!

I was just listening to the Best of Blind Blake and the Best of Blind Lemon Jefferson, both of which are outstanding

All I'm getting is a real estate site!

I was particularly interested in your thoughts given what he has to say about Bessie Smith and other early blues and jazz singers... My take is that a lot of the book feels like provocation for provocation's sake, much of it defended simply because things "could" be that way, without much evidence as to why we should think they are. Apparently the only good white listener is Davis Though I suppose there is some truth to his contention that historical distortions and assumptions are just as rampant amongst "serious" listeners as frat boys...

Heck of a lot better than the reverse. The head can learn...

Thanks! I'll know more of my daily schedule after a meeting today, but I think I might have burned up most of my time between this show, a Blues Association show, and some time at Powells... but if not, I might take you up on that offer I've been to Portland twice and really liked it-- I'm eyeing a move there in a couple of years (when my kids are out of high school)...

I am going to be there. What's Jimmy Mak's like? Casual? Is it a smoke-free place? Can I watch the show and get drinks or is it a full dinner deal? Thanks in advance...

Thanks-- time to get some music now that I know who I am looking for!

What's the general difference between barrelhouse and boogie woogie?

Happens constantly, pretty much by definition... In most arts I am more familiar with-- such as poetry-- there is always some group that is doing something new (the avant), but of that group only a minority are really "feeling it" and creating that way out of a necessity to create for others what is in their head. The rest are along for the ride. Eventually that group gets absorbed (in a good way) into the next group pushing frontiers, while others continue to pretend, and new people who don't get it imitate them. For some it's taking the easy way, trying to take a shortcut to being one of that progressive group. For others it's just a symptom... that's the saddest thing-- people bereft of a way to see and to share because they've lost touch with their creative drive and all they can do is imitate and replicate, albeit quite skillfully sometimes... [added after reading ep1str0phy's post] That's the crux of the issue-- "modern" artists who are ignorant of the history and then those artists creating today so lost in the history it might as well be yesterday for them!

Let us know how it goes... the only cable I've so far tried that sounded as good as the cat5 was Kimber 8tc-- but I could't affcord it

Wow-- I can not WAIT to hear some of this stuff. Just when you think you've heard it all... Now why won't someone turn up some Buddy Bolden, Robert Johnson, etc?

I'll be in Portland Nov. 1-5 and would like to catch some jazz and/or blues shows. Anyone know of anything going on there? Recommendations for any local clubs or places to see?

Compulsory licensing doesn't fix the fundamental problem with current copyright law, though it does address the issue of archive preservation. I still believe there are other ways that problem could be approached-- and it has nothing to do with wanting to make music cheaper, it has to do with the fundamental goodness of having a rich public domain. Chuck's flat wrong if he thinks all copyright legislation is about protecting creativity. The IDEA of copyright is about promoting creativity. In fact, though, it has become a capitalist tool of the media conglomerates. The Founder's Copyright was a great idea. Live + 70 or 90 or even 108 years is crazy. And, further, the original idea of copyright was that it was meant to be TEMPORARY, otherwise the proposition is relatively untenable. It was about BALANCING rights, which copyright protection does not do because it has become-- for most practical purposes-- so long that it may as well be unlimited. It would appear that Chuck would like that kind of eternal protection so it can pass on through the generations forever. Many don't agree with that proposition. There is no reason that a copyright holder-- artist, family, or company-- should feel a right to the fruits of artistic production FOREVER. Why? Because Chuck feels that intellectual property should be just the same as physical property even though it ISN'T, and like most intangible properties in our lives, it is handled differently. If Chuck wanted physical property to pass to your kids foever, then he should have bought some! This conflation of physical and intellectual property is a significant philosophical problem (a failure, in my opinion) which is amply discussed elsewhere. In fact, there are ways to handle the preservation of material even if it passes into the public domain. It doesn't rely on the deep pockets of big media to have that happen. As I said-- there is still profit in there even if it's not on the scale that labels would like-- and there are plenty who would participate on a cost basis to preserve. Paying of royalties and licenses on such material is a non-issue because it would have-- by definition-- passed into the public domain. All the sky is falling rhetoric about cultural purging is equalled by the gutting of the public domain culture. There ARE multiple side to this issue NOT counting the pirates and the no-copyright folks. We stand where we do on copyright today not because of people looking out for the interests of artists, but because of media conglomerates, most significantly Disney and their ilk, looking to protect their profits beyond all reasonable timeframes.

I've been where you are-- and I'm not far removed still What seems to be working for me is judicious use of guidebooks and questions in forums like these. Listen intently, follow sidemen you like, use the guides to find similar artists (not so much for review of quality)... I may get pilloried, but finding some groups that will help you get your hands on copies of OOP, vinyl, but most importantly LIVE jazz sets will go a long way as well-- more and more I'm convinced of the necessity of hearing the live sets where it's all happening immediately and without multiple takes. If you live in an area-- as I do-- without live jazz, what's the alternative?

One thing's for sure-- it's complicated. And changes in technology are making it moreso. I agree with Chuck that the abstract "all" is not going to do the preservation... but I think there are many other models besides overly extended and onerous copyright laws. Foundations, for one thing. And there is still money to be made with material that is out of copyright-- more than enough, I would think, to enable preservation of these items, if not the kind of absurd profits on the backs of artists who see little of it that some labels (and their lobbyists) have come to enjoy. These copyright owners have had their chance-- excessively so. And I'm not talking about pirating music here... I'm talking about a reasonable copyright span with provisions for archival material AND digitization for searchability and access in useful, incomplete forms.

Nate-- you'll have to argue with the American Heritage Book of English Usage on this example (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C002/007.html) as the example I am using turns out to be a parallel to one they use: "We had hoped to report on this problem but the data was inadvertently deleted from our files." Regardless if twittering, the point is clear. Even the beloved Language Log recognizes the problem of evasion of responsibility with passive voice in the very post you showed us (given the caveat that this is only true in the common, "limited" conception of grammar, their alternative to which we are not privileged enough to know yet, and their optimistic assumption that people utilize this technique at "their own peril" notwithstanding Like I said, if you'd like to look at a few dozen final student project reports in mid-December and see if you can maintain that minimizing passive voice isn't a good rule of thumb for SOME audiences (which is all I have maintained), PM me your snail mail and it will be done. Some of them are masters at constructions which obscure their responsibility for their own project results... There are dozens of such "rules" that are effective at some stages and for some writers. Such as "Avoid ellipses." "Just use 'said' in dialogue." And "don't start sentences with a coordinating conjunction ."

Tangential, but related in that it talks about the origin of jazz... have any of you read Francis Davis' _History of the Blues_? Thoughts? Seems a bit controversial to me

Before spending too much on speaker cable you might want to check out a few resources such as: www.roger-russell.com/wire.htm and www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/interconnects/DIYSpeakerCablesp1.html I am EXTREMELY happy with my cat5 cables and my most reliable audiophile friend thought I'd upgraded my previous ($9 per foot) cables...

And, in fact, the second clause of my original example is a passive construction-- whose assumptions were in error? At the end of the semester I will send you a few dozen student final reports and then we'll see what you think of the desirability of the passive voice

Yeah, sorry-- I tend to avoid the passive voice and even did in my example. The proper example would be "we had hoped the plans would work out..." I've seen more than enough student writing that is immediately improved by the passive voice to know how crucial such rules can be FOR THE RIGHT AUDIENCE.

So what's your answer? Keep extending copyright and ENSURE that the materials in question in this article CAN'T be preserved? The fact is that there are rightly two issues here being conflated as one: the right to archive material and the length of copyright... a tactic unfortunately espoused by the monopolist-minded in the entertainment industry. This is going to continue to be an issue for all attempts at digitizing information. The monopolists would have it that archiving is wrong even if the contents are never made available in their entirety, but just for searching, and even if that searching is tied to monetary gain for themselves. That's a real problem. Similarly, some of us believe that a reasonable copyright duration is a good thing, but that what we have now is far FAR from reasonable. Thank Sonny Bono (may he continue to rot) for much of that in the U.S.

The passive voice thing is just one of many rules that are designed for the lowest common denominator of writing skill. When one has no writing skill, then one is better off with blanket rules than none at all. I dislike one (nearly canonical) type of passive voice: the kind that seeks to evade responsibility and which is often found in political speech, defensive press releases, and government writing. You know, the kind that goes something like "we had hoped our plans in Iraq would work out better, but it turns out some assumptions were in error." The injunction about "to be" is similar. In one sense, if you need those kind of rules you are really in trouble. But it's amazing how many people need them. Keeping the personal and emotional out of criticism, though-- well, that's just silly. Although it is an effective way to organizationally attempt to maintain an illusion of subjectivity. Why they would WANT to is a different story...

Chuck, It seems that a lot of people disagree with your assessment of the label. (On the sound, not on the legality.) Reviews I've read suggest this set has better sound than the Savoy/Dial set. I will probably pick this up over the next few weeks and offer my comments. Guy Chuck did say their sound in the last few years-- and judging by my discs and previous discussions here, most agree. They typically just steal another mastering. That doesn't mean THIS set is bad....