Big Wheel

Another thought: say you and a friend are in a bookstore. You're leafing through an engrossing book and want your friend to check out a certain passage in it. You put the book down and say to your friend, "Hey, check out page 167 in this book," and your friend does. Now let's imagine the same situation, only this time, you hold the book open for your friend and flip to page 167 so he doesn't have to. Is there an appreciable difference between the two scenarios? To me, the first scenario is the same as displaying an image's URL. The second is the same as using code to show the image without actually possessing the image file in any sense. True, you don't own the book yet while it's still in the bookstore, but the bookstore doesn't have a problem with you looking at it there. What people like Brenda Bragg (and certain German courts, evidently) don't understand is that on the Internet, the "bookstore"--in this case, her online photo store--doesn't only exist when someone's typed the URL of the store into their browser. Every time we looked at the now-deleted thread, it was just like we visited her online store.

This lady is comparing apples and oranges. First of all, as she notes, the image was watermarked. That means it has her stupid company's name splashed ALL OVER the picture ina way that's very difficult to remove. Only someone really dumb would try to download such a picture and take it somewhere to have it blown up so they can hang it on their wall. That's the whole reason why they watermark it in the first place. On the other hand, the vast majority of CDs are not watermarked. A straight burn of the CD would contain no deterioration in quality. A rip to a 128kbps MP3 file would show some deterioration, but probably not enough to deter most listeners from enjoying it. The closest analogy to a watermarked picture is a shitty RealAudio clip that nobody would want for regular use.

Betcha that Brown Sugar will be the next to come out in the US. Of course, that could be around 2007 at the rate BN is reissuing the Roach catalog.

Jim--you're right; there are two accepted forms of notation, but algebraic has become more popular. "Traditional" or "descriptive" notation, which I learned first, uses the names of the pieces to describe each square. instead of h3, that square is called KR3 or King's Rook 3--it's the third square up on the file your King's Rook is on. You describe a move first by naming the piece that is moving, then a dash, then the square the piece moves to. So if you want to move your knight to KR3, you notate N-KR3. If you're in a position where it's possible for both knights to move to KR3, and you want to move the one that started out on the king's side, you notate KN-KR3; likewise for your Queen's Knight, QN-KR3. (In traditional notation, pawns ARE notated as P, so the most common opening move is notated P-K4 rather than e4. Captures are not notated by square but by the piece being captured, so if your pawn takes a bishop it's just notated PxB--a big difference from algebraic notation, which only refers to the square that the piece captures, not the piece.) There are two big reasons traditional notation has fallen out of favor: 1) it generally requires more writing than is required by algebraic notation. Moreover, it requires you to remember more or less meaningless details. By the end of the game, it really doesn't matter which knight is your King's Knight or your Queen's Knight. If you're studying a position in the middle of a game, it's a huge hassle to go back and figure out which is which. Of course, you could circumvent this by replacing the specific name of the piece with the square it's originally sitting on-- instead of QN-QB5 you could write N(QN3)-QB5. or in English, "the Knight that is sitting on QN3 is the one that moves to QB5". But this means your notation gets even lengthier--using 10 characters instead of 6. In contrast, as Paul noted, algebraic notation can notate the same move in only 4 characters: Nbc5. 2) it can be more confusing because the way squares are named is *relative* to whether you're playing white or black. When you notate the white pawn moving two squares in front of the king, in algebraic notation it's notated e4. When black does the same thing with his own king's pawn, it's notated e5--and if he moves it another square on his next move, it's notated e4--the same square as white landed on in the first move I mentioned. Each square has one distinct name. But in traditional notation, each square has TWO names, depending on which side is making the move. If white moves his knight to KR3, it's notated N-KR3. But if black moves his knight to the same exact square, it's notated N-KR6, because that square is six rows in front of him. Hope this is not too confusing! Here are a couple of sites that explain things a bit more clearly: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/descript.html http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_..._chess_notation

Personnel on this one: Clark Terry, Jon Faddis, Jimmy Owens, Eddie Henderson, Frank Greene, Sean Jones (tpt), Benny Powell, Luis Bonilla, Dennis Wilson, Douglas Purviance (tb), Jimmy Heath (ts), Frank Wess (ts, fl), Jesse Davis (as), Jerry Dodgion (as, fl), Jay Brandford (bari), Kenny Barron, Renee Rosnes (p), Anthony Wilson, Oscar Castro-Neves (g), Larry Ridley, Trey Henry, Bob Cranshaw , Lewis Nash, Stix Hooper (ds), Lenny Castro (perc).

Check out Passage of Time. Nobody talks about it but it's IMO the most mature thing I've heard out of him yet (haven't really familiarized myself with the organ records).

Whaaa? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&u...l=Artadqj6yojda

Growing up in suburbia seems to have gotten even more boring these days; I can't think of any neighbors of mine that even approach the ones in some of these stories. Former Miami Dolphins safety Dick Anderson (from the 1972 team) used to live across the street from me, though...

I'm guessing it was one of these: Mastiffs are HUGE! But they can be quite gentle if properly trained as puppies (same goes for Rottweilers). One of my friends has an Old English Mastiff that is about 4 feet tall and could tear a person apart. But since they trained him almost from birth, the only thing visitors have to worry about is getting drenched in slobber whenever he greets them.

Another quibble I have with cybermusicsurplus is that they're owned by allegro, yet you can't combine an allegro order with a cybermusicsurplus order to save on shipping like you can do with Mosaic/True Blue. Kind of silly considering that AFAIK the cds come from the same warehouse.

A few more for tonight: Kurt Rosenwinkel: Heartcore Horace Silver: The Cape Verdean Blues Jelly Roll Morton: Mr. Jelly Lord (Tomato)

I ended up getting Take Ten, Sonny Meets Hawk, Far East Suite, Gil Scott-Heron's Pieces of a Man, and Marcus Roberts's Plays Ellington. Also picked up the Calle 54 DVD for $12.99 which is by far the best deal I have seen for that title.

Wow, thanks Chuck. Damn, I ordered Take Ten but the chance to pick up a huge chunk of the Mosaic material for $15...with free shipping, might have to place another order eventually.

Just out of curiosity, are any of those Desmond/Hall sessions (Easy Living, Take Ten, Bossa Antigua) on the OOP Mosaic box?

Lots o' stuff from the B&N Concord sale, plus some others: Jessica Williams: Live at Maybeck Andy Laverne: Live at Maybeck Marc Cary: Rhodes Ahead Stan Getz: Getz/Gilberto Don Wilkerson: Complete BN Recordings Jimmy Smith: A New Sound, A New Star right now: Chick Corea/Gary Burton, Native Sense--DAMN. If you are a fan of vibes and or/duets you gotta check this out. Some very strong playing by both, and they TEAR THAT SHIT UP on the penultimate track, "Rhumbata." I had no idea that Chick had this strong a feel for Afro-Cuban playing.

I'm going home to Miami in three weeks...if you want I can sneak into Wayne's hi-rise and ask him. Might as well see if he has any good sammich recipes while I'm at it.

Up--I'm off the school meal plan for the summer again and have been doing a lot of cooking lately. This week I've been getting more adventurous...last night I made a Spanish tortilla (sorta like a big omelet with more potato than eggs in it) that was pretty good, although I couldn't get it to stay in one consistent mass since it was impossible to flip the whole huge thing over at once. Tonight was some gumbo from a mix, but doctored with chorizo and okra. Mmmmm.

Thanks Jim and Tony. I'm not the biggest fan of Defrancesco so I think I'll go for Mode first. Coincidentally, I was just listening to the Don Wilkerson version of "Scrappy" today! Edit: Actually, I just realized that THREE of those tunes are on the Wilkerson BN set.

Who else is on the Carrol title? Also, who are the other musicians on Ivery's "3"?

There's nothing "wrong" with Jurek's opinion that the album is a five-star album. Of course it is. But the review is RIDDLED with errors of fact that call into question how closely Jurek listened to this album. I'll ignore the error that requires one to know a little history, namely that Red Garland is comping on "Sid's Ahead"--It's Miles playing piano; Red had left in a huff during the session after Miles criticized him (at least, that's how Miles tells it in the Troupe autobio). Even so, anyone who's heard more than a tiny bit of Garland would suspect that that is not him playing piano on this cut. I'll also ignore the ignorance of musical terms that Jurek displays in a lame attempt to wax poetic over the course of several paragraphs, as well as the numerous typos. I'll also ignore the fact that Jurek never even mentions Billy Boy, one of the greatest piano trio tracks of all time, which makes me wonder if he just skipped it entirely while listening to write the review. Assuming he actually did listen to the album. Let's cut to the egregious stuff: 1) Miles does not solo on "Two Bass Hit." Somehow, Jurek believes that "Davis blows his ass off in his solo." 2) Jurek uses "Straight No Chaser" as an example of how the band was fluent with Monk's "unusual harmonic structures." Great, except Straight No Chaser, though it has a rhythmically tricky head, is a plain old 12 bar blues harmonically. Jurek is just showing off his "knowledge" of Monk's music rather than adding anything meaningful; in an attempt at sounding like a critic who's hip to music theory, he comes off as a moron who has no knowledge whatsoever of harmony. 3) Jurek claims that everyone solos on Dr. Jackle except Philly. Wrong. Garland does not solo. I'd like to try whatever mind-altering chemicals Jurek's on that make him hear Garland soloing here. The side effects would be worth it just to hear Red burning at this tempo. If it wasn't such a lengthy, flowery review, I'd let some of this crap slide. But if Jurek's going to be a pedant, he should at least make sure he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Then obviously you've never read Thom Jurek's Milestones review, which demonstrates either a near-complete ignorance of the album or a severe crack habit.

Happy birthday to the guy who turned me on to T-Bone Walker!

Which of the Marchel Ivery discs would be the one to pick up first?

Hey, I think I might actually know the lucky buyer of that album--met him at a party last summer. He's a young bassist and a Cecil Taylor/William Parker freak. Tried to track him down for a gig in June and his number was disconnected.

God, I love Ropeadope Records!!! If only more labels were like them...they forwarded my email to Bernstein and he got back to me personally. A hell of a guy. Turns out the official site has now moved to www.sexmobmusic.com (there are MTO clips under "the goods.")