Quincy

While lifetime he has sucked bigtime at Fenway, the last time he pitched there on July 29 he went the distance with a 2 hit/2 run victory. So maybe that's not exactly a key to victory after all.

The show has been infamous for band members thinking it was a horrible performance. They hadn't played in over a year and had the cameras rolling as it was supposed to be included in The Kids Are Alright. All that made it to the movie was a line to the audience by Pete daring someone to take the guitar off of him (which in context of the show is funny, whereas it sounds threatening in The Kids) and the closing credits where John & Keith threaten to punch the camera lens as the cameraman follows them as they run upstairs to the dressing room. Word has been that while those fake punches look cute that the band was extremely upset with their performance. But when you have something professionally filmed and the vault is running dry you might as well put it out there and I'm glad they have. I don't want to give away too many spoilers as part of the fun is hearing the clams and seeing Pete's reaction to them. Roger forgets the words of a song they'd been doing for 8 years, and many of Pete's flubs involve just one bad power chord which in passing is not a big deal. But during one song Pete is so far off on what he intended to play the pained look on his face is something else. You practically see him turn a different shade of grey. As I recall Pete didn't care for how his guitars were set up and whether it's the mix or length of time off from performing some of the roar isn't there on some songs. (Regarding the mix I've heard some PBS stations didn't broadcast the show properly, so the DVD may sound better/different than the broadcast.) Compare the "Join Together/My Generation Blues" section from Pontaic (as seen in The Kids Are Alright) to Kilburn and Kilburn just doesn't have the same gusto. However despite the "clams" some of the appeal of this show is that they hadn't played in some time so Pete's approach in solos is somewhat different. Not always for the better but different. As someone who has or has heard (and erased) about 15 shows from 1975 thru this one that adds some interest. Also the embryonic "Who Are You" is sensational. It's already appeared on the Amazing Journey doc from last year. A big bonus is the DVD set includes a London Coliseum performance from 1970. I believe the video portion isn't complete so I think the concert will have an audio only component. Not sure if they'll be bright enough to offer the whole thing sequenced properly as audio only or not. You never know with Who products. The picture quality will be dark as the stage was poorly lit, but I'll take boiler suit era Who in any form they can provide it in. So getting that and having Kilburn thrown in make it a great buy!

Whew, given all the deaths of jazz musicians lately the album title is a doozy if you read the title of this post a little too quickly. Piano will be a change of pace for him.

Supposedly it's based on the falling price of oil and their inability to boost production, thus if oil falls then they fall too. That at least was the opening excuse I read. Truth is I'm spending more time reading about own markets right now than theirs though.

Although tempted for years I had put off buying this set. Reasons included a growing interest in early jazz over hard bop and as some Blue Note Mosaics end up being getting RVG releases I figured I could pick up the sessions that way on this one went OOP. Also I wasn't sure if I wanted the trio sessions. However after taking almost 2 years off from hard bop (not cold turkey mind you, but playing it a lot less) it's been finding its way on the player more lately. Time away certainly from it has refreshed it for me. I've also been playing more Mosaic sets lately, even pulling out the booklets and reading through them again. And recently a Griffin/Lockjaw session w/ Parlan got played, and then the Parlan session on the Turrentine Mosaic... So I ordered myself a box of Horace in black & white. No offensive to album cover art of the included releases, but (note weasel words please) relatively speaking on the whole I find his covers less interesting than many of the other Blue Note releases, I'm not going to let not having the album cover artwork bug me in the least (not that I've ever let that stop me from buying a Mosaic.)

I think part of it is a result of the Mets collapse last year and how much better they've played since firing Willie Randolph. Milwaukee has a great deal of talent this year, some of which they won't have next year. I agree it's unheard of but I think it's the right thing to do in this case. Don't know the extent of it or how true it is, but word is Yost was panicking (Tony Gwynn for one has passed on info from his son who is on the roster.)

Nah.

Have a great f*cking birthday!

They've been beating up some winning teams. I feel about 15 years younger every time the camera pans to the dugout and I see Cito Gaston managing. I'm happy for the guy as he's been such a loyal company man. I think you're right to treat them seriously. The Astro late season run is a headscratcher. What is it with them and hot second half (or hell, last quarter) season play?

They've been out since July but I just noticed them today - Vinatage Black Cinema stamps. Note the Ellington Black And Tan on the left.

Is Sarah here? I just got an email saying this is Sarah's banned list. Snopes already has an entry saying it's not. And now I come across this thread. Damn stuff happens fast on the net.

But did he soften your laundry? Egads, 2 typos on that last second add another line. And I wasn't even drinking.

That's odd; he makes me laugh the way Richard Nixon once did. That is, not at all. Not even on Laugh-In? Sock- it to me! I went to see this mainly for Downy. He didn't dissapoint.

Oh hell, now I see the results of my past actions. I used to do that to Fongs.

Yes they do! I love the stout on the left, and their Old Stock Ale is tremendous as well. I prefer to leave the Belgium ales to the country of origin.

I recall one popular argument against Belle was that the Indians had locked up their division at a very early date (they finished 30 games above the 2nd place team.) Thus Belle never had any pressure on him when hitting. Uh huh, yeah, whatever. A fine excuse for not voting for someone because you just don't like him. There have been a ton of bad choices for MVP, far too many to mention them all. Bell over Trammell in '87, Gonzalez over ARod in '96, hell, Sosa over McGwire was especially stupid. Sosa wins it because he team barely wins wild card? So what. Both the Cards & Cubs had winning records that year yet it obvious that whoever got in at wild card didn't have the stuff to make it far into the playoffs. Why McGwire should have been penalized for having lesser teammates while putting up better numbers is beyond me. Heh, I guess Alou or Biggio would be the "organic" pick for that year, uh, maybe Greg Vaughn too. Though that 50 HR looks a little suspicious...

I think Barry Larkin. Joe was in the 3-hole most of the time during his MVP years, as I recall. I forgot they have the splits on Retrosheet. In his MVP year (there was only one) he batted 2nd 63 times, 3rd 49 and 1st 19. I assume you're talking about Larkin here; Joe won in consecutive years. Sorry, I misread your comment. Yeah, that was for Larkin. And thanks to Retrosheet this is easy to answer. In '75 Morgan batted 3rd 119 times, 2nd 19, 4th 3, 8th 3 and 9th 2. Obviously the last 2 were coming off the bench. In '76 he bated 3rd 130 times, scattered for the 11 games (but 2nd just once.) I hadn't realized that by '74 he was dropped into the 3 hole some of the time. I misremembered it as starting in '76. Those Saturday Game of the Weeks from '72-'73 are burned into the brain, where Rose goes 1st to 3rd on Joe's singles when Joe was batting 2nd. A couple of other MVPs since 1975 who batted 2nd (not that the one in '75 did mind you): In '82 Yount batted 2nd 138 times (out of 156 games played.) Batted 2nd 45 times in his other MVP year. In '99 Ivan Rodriguez batted 2nd for most of the time, but just 88 times out of 144 played. So yes, a fellow batting 2nd can win MVP!

I think Barry Larkin. Joe was in the 3-hole most of the time during his MVP years, as I recall. I forgot they have the splits on Retrosheet. In his MVP year (there was only one) he batted 2nd 63 times, 3rd 49 and 1st 19.

Don't know about the AL, but just eyeballing the NL I know of at least 3 since Morgan (and I confirmed on Retrosheet and Baseball-Ref.): 1995 - Barry Larkin - Batted 2nd for all of the playoff games at least. 1985 - Willie McGee - Some of the time. Whitey like to change things around, plus there so many speed guys on the team it was easy to do. 1984 - Ryne Sandberg. Frey's line up was set in stone. Dernier, Rhyno, Sarge, Bull, Moreland, Penguin, Jodie and Bowa. I was kind of surprised there were that many, and there may be more since Morgan (and I didn't look over the AL.) Although if you recall in Morgan's 2nd MVP year in '76 he was batting 3rd as Griffey was moved into the 2nd spot.

Yeah, it's a 5 lb. 1700+ page book with a few paragraphs that would have better been left out or rewritten... We've all made errors -- e.g. assuming that we knew things what we did not in fact know them -- but this is a mistake of egregious, mean-spirited, I would even say poisonous, would-be-know-it-all commission. The question, then is how and why could the author(s) have made this mistake? -- or rather, because I believe that the passages I quoted are essentially their invention, why did they invent this stuff? It sure ain't misguided but received "wisdom" in any circles I've been around. My guess is that the chief strain in writing a book like this, aside from the sheer typing, is to generate opinion after opinion after opinion after opinion, all presumably (but perhaps we know better) with the same degree of commitment and alertness. One suspects that the opinion-forming/emitting process gets a bit mechanical and exhausting at times, and further that it can generate little fits of virtually free-form, seemingly crazed pontificating excess -- the way, say, someone whose job it is to masturbate in private as much as possible might get confused and/or carried away, pull out John Thomas, and spray his fellow commuters on the morning bus. That's why I made the comment about the entry for Moncur which was in an older edition (before the 5th I think) but deleted. I no longer have the earlier book, but it was obvious that Moncur was an artist that possibly both authors detested (I have no idea how they divided the responsibilities.) There was a crack made somewhere along the lines of "but that would entail actually having to listen to his albums." I envisioned the author being beaten down & giddy from overwork & it being a late hour, facing an artist who he just couldn't stand. I think it was inappropriate to include it, although when faced with a review that is "off" in such a manner I figure that I should probably look elsewhere for other opinions for that artist. Is it better to fake interest and throw 2 or 3 stars at an album, leave out the artist altogether or find a 3rd person to review the artist when the 2 can't do it? Cook is dead so I doubt there will another book, although I suppose Morton could be teamed with someone else or (gulp) go it alone.

Yeah, it's a 5 lb. 1700+ page book with a few paragraphs that would have better been left out or rewritten, but on the whole it's useful and at times there's wit along with the criticism. At least they dropped the snotty Moncur III entries altogether in the 7th edition. Just think if they had let Allen Lowe write the Dexter Gordon section.

I haven't listened to a crystal radio set since 1975. Don't recall the station I tuned into but it was a kit and I used the pipe under the kitchen sink.

Dang, I only got 3 near the bottom. I was going to guess correctly on the top right one (which I haven't seen) as I recognized the landscape but then guessed a movie I've seen twice that it wasn't from. The Right Stuff is the wrong stuff for that one. Wrongly guessed Deliverance for the rowing picture and Magnificent Ambersons for the auto scene.

Being from Oregon I disagree that beer is approximately 5% alcohol. Try 10! (I tend to go for Hair of the Dog and barley wines.) 25, but I demand a retest as I was interrupted.

Another longtime Economist subber. National Geographic (grew up with it) Sports Illustrated out of habit (33 years...eek) Gourmet (a long-term cheap deal that I'll likely let run out. Maybe try Fine Cooking instead.) Cooks Illustrated Entertainment Weekly (a freebie, and surprisingly decent.) Also the Mosaic catalog. (Not much changes per issue, but it looks like a magazine.)