RDK

Brilliant!

Believe it or not, but the dogs and pizza they sell at Costco (in the stands outside the stores) are pretty damn good, though the quality may be regional. For store-bought, we tend to stay away from the national brands, the Hebrew Nats being an exception. The Ralph's deli brand is also quite spicy and yummy...

That's why I prefer agnosticism - that way, either way I'll be surprised...

Steal Away is sublime!

Is this a, er, Texas kind of question...?

When, over our recent Thanksgiving get-together, I offered a Mosaic catalog not-so-discretely marked up as a "wish list" to my family members, it was greeted with a lot of "Oh great - now I know what to get you for Christmas." So the question now is not will I get a Mosaic box for X-mas, but how many? Takes some of the surprise out of it, I guess, but it's better than more socks. They should use that in their holiday catalog: Mosaic Records: better than socks for Christmas!

I was actually joking in reference to this... Please don't send mail asking me if you can link here -- you can do so, without asking or telling me. The only people I prefer not link here are those who mail me asking for permission to link.

Agreed! Has anyone tried e-mailing the guy to see if it's okay to post it here?

Well, to be fair to Wynton (and I rarely am as his music just doesn't move me all that much), in most of those quotes he was asked his opinion about free and ag jazz and simply told the truth: that he just doesn't dig it all that much. He's quite free to like and dislike (and make) whatever styles of music he chooses. I don't think it has as much to do with a bias or a "closed mind" as simply a personal (and rather conservative imo) preference. I don't like a lot of ag either - but no one cares as I'm not in a posiion to make my position on it known to a wide audience. When he states, re: ag jazz, that "nobody's interested in hearing that on a regular basis," he's sort of right to a point (though he's making a gross generalization). That's why ag jazz will never, almost by definition, be a "popular" genre to the mainstream. It's not intended to be. I've been on a big Braxton kick lately and have really come to appreciate his style, but his music obviously isn't as accessible as Brubeck or Miles. Now WM can sing the praises of Braxton (or Ornette) if he so desires, but why should he if he doesn't get/like them? That's Wynton's problem, not mine. The fact is that WM is a popular and populist kind of jazz musician. He's a fine technician, but a bit too bland (imo) and conservative in his style. But that's the kind of thing that makes him so "pop"-ular with the masses. His problem is that he's become too successful given his artistic accomplishments and too outspoken regarding his conservative tastes - and that pisses off more open-minded jazz fans.

Like being able to use record reviews as message board signatures without the author's permission? (But at least I'm no hypocrite. I know what I'm doing is wrong. I just chose to do it anyway. And I would gladly pay that "reviewer" five bucks to come forward and admit that he wrote that wonderfully terse yet gramatically awkward review. )

What a cunning linguist that dude is!

Certainly agree about the "think differently" part, but this isn't just limited to the internet but to this new "digital age" in general. The ease with which data - news, publishing, photos, music - can now be transmitted more effectively to the masses is causing (for right or wrong) a sea change in the way we think about copyrights and such stuff. The digital age is still in its infancy and we're still figuring out just how to use it. Technology now often develops at a faster rate than we, as a society, can process it it fully on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. Overall, I think D62 is right on in pointing out the hypocrisy in the copyright rules - or more accurately how us music fans relate to such rules and have different standards for music and text. It doesn't matter if it's "free" or not - it's an artist's work dammit - and I thought the artist was supposed to have a say. It's not only about money. To mix apples and bagals, wasn't one of the James Newton's complaints about the Beasties using his sample from Axum that, though they paid him, he didn't want them to use his piece in the first place? Yeah, there's a big difference between Definitive ripping off another mastering and issuing it as their own - that "plagarism" to me - and someone cut-and-pasting an article appearing on Yahoo, but there are fundamental similarities as well. Copyrights and the digital age don't mix well, and I think there are going to be some fundamental changes made in the future. And don't get me started on patenting DNA/gene sequences!

Congrats Phil! I've heard only a couple of thoes discs. Pretty conservative choices overall. Would love to see the Jarrett trio or Haden's band perform on the Grammys.

Shockingly ( ) I don't really disagree with Clem here, but I also can't help but wonder why so many people seem to feel that ALS is an "untouchable" tune to cover. I mean, hell, every sax player has done a version of "Lush Life" or "Star Eyes" or whatever, and I've always assumed that one reason this was "okay" was that each musician (or at least the "good" ones) puts his own stamp on the material and improvises in some (at least slightly) different way. If not, then there'd hardly be a need for anyone to perform jazz standards. But ALS seems different somehow, and I'm not sure if it's just because it's perhaps the one piece most closely associated with JC or because its length and complexity makes it a lousy tune to improvise off of. I agree with Clem that it would be more interesting to hear, say, a solo piano version or a version with different instrumentation, but what's so wrong - and what's prevented anyone in the past - with a musician covering it? I gotta say, it seems rather ballsy that Branford would even want to tackle ALS given the shoes he'd be trying to fill.

Damn SUVs. This wouldn't have happened if she was driving an eco-friendly vehicle. Or if she wasn't crazy...

Unless they find new tapes of the Pepper, I wouldn't expect any significant improvements. But you never know...

Peanut Butter & Chocolate Oreos!

And while Aric may be closer to your definition of an 18-year old moron - - I would never say he doesn't know shit about the music. If nothing else he's passionate about it - and that's good enough for me.

True, but can't one say this about any cover version? I mean, every time I hear someone cover a Monk tune I think that Monk did it "better."

Those numbers are meaningless in that context. Those are probably "maximum" watts before they burn up, but even that's deceptive. Most legit speaker manufacturers don't spec out their systems like that, by adding up max power handling capability. They're just trying to look impressive by boasting "1000" watts, but they are, charitably, being deceptive. Still, free's a damn good price...

On the other hand, if Uni does cut many OJCs, I would expect a ton of OJC cutouts hitting the marketplace...

Just caught up with this thread. Great job, guys! I can't help, but it's really cool to see such a project spreading like wildire...

If they do severely cut the number of titles, I'd suspect a lot of, uhm, trading will be going on. And who could blame anyone?

... or this... (I was going through the 1st edition of the Rolling Stone Record Guide and buying the 5-star albums that sounded interesting!)

It's a bit hard to remember after 25 years or so - it would have been around 1980 - but it was probably either this...