RDK

Hmmm. Gotta say, the only one of this batch that I don't already have in one form or another is the Blakey. I'm sure I'll pick it up eventually, but after going hogwild on BNs a few years back, I don't think I've spun a BN CD (non-Mosaic version at least) in several months. There's just so much other stuff that I've been exploring lately.

Reading some of the other comments here, I've now decided that I'm far too indiscriminating. I take it all back - I dislike much of this disc, especially trk 9.

Ack! Sorry, guys, I'm really behind. Jim - I really, really dug both discs. I can't decide which one I like more - probably disc 1 because of "Cheesecake" but there's some mighty entertaining stuff on disc 2. Disc 1 is still stuck in my car CD changer - where "Cheesecake" delights my girls (and me!) to no end. Must have listened to it a hundred times on a recent roadtrip. And I'm not complaining; you wouldn't either if you heard my girls laughing and singing along. I dunno what, if any, theme there might be, but one thing stood out for me with both of these discs: they were FUN to listen to. Some serious stuff and some relatively frivolous tracks, but damn these were entertaining. Gotta run, but wanted to post at least this and quickly check out the answers... Disc 2 1. Uh, Cannonball Adderley and his fine group? But veddy interesting Cannonball, like I’ve never heard before (I don’t have his bossa album). Delightful! I can’t imagine jazz (or any music actually) being more joyous than this. The electric piano suggests this may be Cannonball’s later band with George Duke. Not too familiar with this period. 2. Odd, Phillip Glass-like opening certainly grows “jazzier” as it develops, but this still seems very much Third Stream – what the heck does that mean anyway? I dunno, given that it’s Sangrey, I’ll guess this comes from one of Braxton’s more classical ensembles??? 3. “Try a Little Tenderness.” Lovely. 4. “Moonlight” Sounds like Dinah in places, but then not really. Hmm. Piano sounds almost electric during the solo, so this may be from a lot later than I first thought. No, not electric, just the percussive piano style. Whatever. Very nice! 5. “The Song is You.” Fast-paced version of this standard. Starts out fairly conventional but grows increasingly raucous. Maybe a little too raucous, but not bad at all… 6. Piano solo – terrific – Bley? Maybe Andrew Hill? 7. Neat, noir-ish groove. Really like this one. 8. Steal drums, Caribbean – very interesting percussion – neat. No idea what this might be, but I like it. More Caribbean, though, than jazz – at least as first impressions go… 9. Funky, but also gritty. Gotta be from the early 70s. The vocals sound familiar – and are completely unexpected – but I have no idea… 10. Again, a breakneck tempo on a standard usually performed much slower. I dig the electric piano behind the inside-outside sax blowing. Perhaps a bit dated-sounding, but neat nonetheless. No idea as to who… 11. Completely missed this the first few times. No bloody clue (and perhaps the only track that I don’t care to learn).

I had some involvement with this so I'm very glad to hear that people are enjoying it, but for me it's a big step down from Romero's original NOTLD or even last year's remake of Dawn.

I much prefer the yin...

PM sent...

If the only thing keeping you from enjoying a movie is the familiarity of its *fictitious* setting, then you're pretty damn lucky. I'm ususually more concerned about credible characterizations, engaging storylines, and competent cinematic execution...

Real quickly, wanted to say that I've spun both discs today and really enjoyed them. An ecclectic and wildly entertaining collection of tunes - as I've come to expect from Jim. I'll be listening to both discs over the next few days as well, but I'm hitting the road tomorrow and won't get a chance to post my comments until early next week. But so far I'm really digging what I'm hearing. Many thanks to Jim and Mark for the discs...

TRACK 2 MAY BE THE DOPEST **** I'VE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE!!!!

That's funny; I distinctly remember addressing an envelope to Ray Kowalski... ← Spoke too soon - got mine today. Thanks Jim and Marv!

"Live long and prosper..."

Haven't received 'em yet.

Now I realize I'm not one of the most traveled guys around here, but just what is "Gotham City" supposed to look like anyway? I thought Chicago filled in quite nicely...

Gotta say, that's the kind of attitude that gave us the last couple of (horrible) Batman flicks...

<sigh of relief...>

Agreed. Much food for thought. But i think it's up to each of us to decide where the moral/ethical line is. What gets me is, as you allude to, the hypocrisy of supporting these labels while denouncing the trading of oop material via CDRs. That said - and despite what many jazz fans might say in public - I know very few who don't, if only occassionally, swap CDRs.

$56M for the weekend! Those are unexpectedly HUGE numbers for this film. Fox would have been thrilled with 30M. This is great news for the franchise, but dear god I hope they find a new director...

That should be your new signature line! ← Nah, my sig line is reserved for poking fun at idiots and their dumb reviews. Oh. Er.... heh. Heh....

CGI-driven, okay. But there's nothing "pseudo" about it. It's a damn movie.

Damn, you guys are tough! Lot of artists mentioned, but only a few to feel "guilty" about. Some good stuff - especially R&B and soul - made in the 70s.

Well there's absolutely no reason to set this (or any Silver Age) superhero movie in the 1960s - all that does is make the period and setting more important than the characters, who should have a "timeless" quality about them. That and the fact that most of these characters are still going strong in contemporary comic book stories, read by both kids and adults today. Anyway, saw this earlier. Not good by any means, but also not as bad as I feared. What saves it is it's sense of fun. You can't take it too seriously, so the horrible plotting, inconsistent tone, and fairly poor direction isn't as objectionable as it would be in a more "serious" movie. The matinee I saw today was packed with kids, most of whom seemed to really like it. As one fan/critic wisely pointed out, your dislike of this film may be proportional to how big a fan you are of the comic book. I would tend to agree.

er, theoretically "properly"

Lon pretty much said it all. As for Hollywood's "obsession," it has nothing to do with superheroes per se but - like any successful business - with making money. So yeah, when a Spider-Man movie makes $400 million, it's pretty safe to say that the obsession is indeed "ours." As to why there are so many superhero movies now, it's simply because the technology now allows us to make them properly.

Hey Dan, per Big-O rules, don't even think about pirating/bootlegging this one!

"The air pollution is a a-fuckin' up my eyes..."