Teasing the Korean

They also deteriorate after decades even if they've never been played.

Now there's a blast from the past. I used to have the score from Lilith on Lp. IIRC Phil and Quill played on it. Was it on Verve? Colpix. But Mr. Buddwing and Yellow Canary were on Verve. The squares in charge of Verve reissues never even heard of Kenyon Hopkins. That's what we get when squares run jazz reissue labels.

Herbie Hancock - Empyrian Isles - Blue Note (70s stereo) John Barry - The Ipcress File - Decca (mono promo) Ferrante and Teicher - Pianos in Paradise - UA (black label mono) Miles Davis - Kind of Blue - Columbia (6 eye mono)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oLTUbdbU1XM

Any Kenyon Hopkins yet?

Sure, they recorded lots of schlock, but their early prepared piano albums on Westminster, Columbia and ABC are brilliant. "Heavenly Sounds" in particular is like a proto-ambient record. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/arts/music/06teicher.html

Have a great birthday!

I was watching some of these recently. Great stuff. Jo Stafford was a such a natural.

Funny the writer chose Ornette and Albert Ayler for A5. Both of them can be pretty straightforward and outright tuneful compared to many other players of so-called "free jazz." BTW, my range of listening extends to A0 and A6 jazz.

TV ACTION JAZZ!!!

Jonathan Edwards.

Funny, after I did a search on the interwebs, I saw ONS included with some of the track listings for this album. However, it's not on my copy, nor either of the two I unloaded. Maybe on a CD or an import copy? It must have been from a 45. All the tunes are from Broadway shows on that album, and One Note Samba was not. Strange...

No, my sexy little chewster, that is NOT on this LP. Do I Hear A Waltz? Long Ago Come Back To Me Here's That Rainy Day He Touched Me The Shadow Of Your Smile Gimme Some What Did I Have That I Don't Have? Run For Your Life Tell Me More Cast Your Fate To The Wind

The "macho" attitude supposedly expressed by Frank and the Rat Pack is very much in line with that expressed by jazz musicians of the post-be-bop era. The whole jam session cutting session mentality is a prime example of this. If you're going to dismiss Frank, you may as well dismiss jazz too. I know it's painful to face the ugly underside of that which you love, but it's also healthy.

Most great artists don't. Including many that are admired by the regulars here.

While I have problems with the Real Book - many of the them - it DOES serve a purpose. In an ideal world, no one would need it, but the world I live is (sadly) not ideal.

"...She said he was intoxicated..." YA THINK?

I hear what you're saying, and I think semantics may be dragging us down. In a jazz setting, you can make a distinction between "correct" changes and "accepted" changes. I was approaching this issue more from the practical side rather than an academic side. The accepted changes of many, many standards, as you know, are not the ones the composer wrote. There is also a difference between thoughtful, deliberate reharmonization and downright WRONG changes. The first (bootleg) editions of the Real Book were plagued with errors, and because they were in the Real Book, they ended up being perpetuated. "Round Midnight" is a special case, because in addition to the common existing variations, the first version of the Real Book contained some bizarre changes that I'd never heard on a record either before or since. In live playing situations I've been involved in, I'd say it's about 50/50 in terms of how those last two bars of the bridge are played. I thought in the context of the discussion that that was worth mentioning. And if one of my tunes is reharmonized and accepted that way, so be it.

Anyone watch this show on BBC America? In the spirit of "Monty Python" and Peter Cook and Dudley Moore without being an overt rip-off of either. Very funny...

No, just making fun of you.

Actually, when it comes to Monk tunes, it's the opposite, because HE changed his own tunes. "Criss Cross" is a great example, in that he hacked 2 bars out of it between the Blue Note and Columbia recordings. Composer's prerogative. And of course, any player has the liberty to do with a tune what they will. But if you ask me who's changes/forms/whatever are "correct, Monk's or anybody else's, for me, it's Monk. I kinda differ with you on that one vis-a-vis Monk. Monk didn't write show tunes, he wrote highly specific compositions. And if he changed the specifics of a few of them over the years, they still remained specific and they still remained compositions, not show tunes or pop songs. One of my biggest musical irritants over the years has been players who play Monk tunes like they are just "songs". I mean, yeah, you can do that, but it's really pretty cheap, I think. It shows a fundamental failure to grasp what Monk was doing. Now, if somebody wants to proceed from there like that, hey, that's their prerogative as well, and lord knows even the wrongest roads can lead to some cool places. But I'm of the school that believes that no matter where you go, there you are, and if you're "wrong" from jump, then no matter where you end up, you still got that bit of wrong with you. Maybe that matters, maybe not. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But if you ain't ignorant, just wrong, ain't a whole lot of bliss there, at least not for me. I largely agree with everything you've posted here. I simply feel, though, that with tunes played in a jazz setting, the concept of "correct changes" is somewhat fluid - especially with "Round Midnight." Completely agree with you regarding the concept of approaching Monk compositions as though they are simply "songs" or "a set of changes." What prompted me to post on this subject had much less to do with what was "correct" than it did with what to expect in a real-world, real-time playing situation in which someone calls "Round Midnight." Cheers.

Actually, when it comes to Monk tunes, it's the opposite, because HE changed his own tunes. "Criss Cross" is a great example, in that he hacked 2 bars out of it between the Blue Note and Columbia recordings. Also, "correct" isn't always the underlying principle when you're on the bandstand with people you've never played with. Still, I hear what you're saying. But since so much of jazz is reharmonized anyway, it's a moot point. Few people play the written changes to Rodgers' and Harts' "Dancing on the Ceiling," even though they are more challenging than the accepted variation generally used by jazz players.

I sometimes lurk on other jazz message boards, but post only on this one. I've noticed something interesting: In terms of participants, this board has some EXTREMELY knowledgeable members, who are jazz musicians, writers, critics, producers, etc. - more than the other boards I've lurked on. HOWEVER... Despite the heavier jazz credentials of members on this site (relative to others), this board is the LEAST JUDGMENTAL and MOST OPEN to other genres of music. Also, it seems to be the most tolerant of music on the cusp of jazz. It tends to reinforce my theory that the people who are the most knowledgeable about jazz tend to be less interested in erecting boundaries and more interested in enjoying good music. HERE'S TO ALL OF YOU AND HAPPY FRIDAY!

While there are plenty of outright WRONG changes to Round Midnight floating around, there are a couple of commonly accepted variations on the bridge. Monk's own versions are one, which was correctly posted above. Miles' changes are the other. For the last 2 bars of the bridge, the Miles changes are: Bbm7 - Eb7 - Abm7- Db7 F#m7-B7 - Fm7 - Bb7 As far as which is "correct," that is debatable; but of all the variations on this tune, the one I just posted is the one that is most accepted - and the one that you're most likely to encounter on the bandstand. In playing situations where you're calling tunes on the fly, it is always worth discussing the end of the bridge for this reason.

Next... (L7) Kidding, of course. I'm a MAJOR June Christy fan and have at least a dozen of her Capitol albums. As for Frank, to each his own, but I think his reputation and persona sometimes obscure his gifts as a singer.