Dan Gould

Well I could dream, but in all seriousness, for me, Kenny Drew was the ultimate accompanist for Dex. I do have to keep my Dexaholic Card active so I will watch this space for someone to tell me its on pre-order at Amazon.

There's a wholesale union for retailers?

I like the setlist (can't recall too many times Dex took on Green Dolphin St or Hi-Fly) but really prefer anyone else to Cables in this group. I'm sure I'll be in for it though ... suddenly occurred to me I could always make my own edits and re-burn, fade out on Cables, in when Dex returns. YMMV, but I tell ya, if I had thought of that sooner I'd have kept the Uptown release of this group, because the problem with Cables "taking it where we want to, Dex didn't care (paraphrasing here)" was especially egregious, IMHO, on ballads.

I am not talking about whether they should get vaccinated. I am saying that the mask-opposed are more likely to have natural immunity and that is part of why we are, at this time, doing rather well, despite loosening or elimination of restrictions. Also, I don't think the first half of your sentence is entirely accurate on either point.

And looking at it I see what Brad references ... it's not the Gazette as it existed but is like a series of record reviews/essays. Not helpful for me.

I really, really, hope that they keep the Gazette email, for the simple fact that when percyfrance.info launches in a very short time frame, I was counting on a little rub from Michael to drive some traffic. I can't rely on Organissimo + Facebook, I am counting on the Gazette and Marc Myers blog too.

I think (hope) that everyone is missing just how many people do have natural immunity from having had it. That is the best explanation (IMO) for the vastly lower rates we now see, even though vaccination efforts are running out of willing arms and skeptics (as opposed to the implacably opposed) now are free to run around without masks in most places.

FYI: The governor of Texas ended the mask mandate March 2 and was called a neanderthal who was signing death warrants of Texans. Since he ended the mask mandate Texas has crushed the virus about as well as any other state. And there was no surge in cases afterwards (he also lifted restrictions on business capacities). This chart ends in early April but the rates have only gone lower and flatter since.

Thank you for the link.

Anyone pay attention to lyrics? It's a story about a guy misled by a girl about her age, and when he finds out he tells her to go home. With all the charms of a woman You've kept the secret of your youth You led me to believe you're old enough To give me love And now it hurts to know the truth [Chorus] Whoa, oh, oh, young girl Get out of my mind My love for you is way out of line Better run, girl You're much too young, girl About the only creepy thing is that he implies that if she doesn't go home he may give in and "change my mind". I knew this one what is the other offensive hit he had?

Too bad its his partner at Resonance who is the big Gene Harris fan. Otherwise I'd have hope that sometime on the horizon we'd see this treatment given to the Three Sounds engagement at the It Club.

@danasgoodstuff Did you read anything about the law that Bresna referenced? It makes it pretty clear that the revision to the existing law was crucial, and that this was a major advance in "free speech" rights as interpreted. And by the way, her claims CAN BE FALSE. There is no 'proof' whatsoever about the truth of her claims, other than sex having occurred after she turned 18. This was most certainly not a case of "the truth is an absolute defense", like, at all. It comes down to, you can give your opinion in a public space, about "abuse" and "grooming" and "no sex, no work", with the intention of harming him, and get away with it ... simply because its your opinion that you were "groomed" and "abused" and that Coleman not hiring her for a gig was due to "not giving him what he wanted sexually".

That's inevitable if some people are not 100% convinced that she is a victim and he is guilty of everything. You know there are shades of gray in life, and as I said up above no one knows the full truth. Some judge him very harshly by his actions and that is fine. But not everybody is going to be so harsh, or so certain where all blame lies.

I honestly didn't realize that the law required that someone who alleges damages has to be found a non-public figure. I absolutely think he should have been allowed to proceed ... anyone with a 40 year career even a niche entertainment field ought to be a "public" figure. It's actually an interesting Catch-22 when you think of it. If he had been found a "public figure" he could have moved forward ... but then the standard to prove damages applies for public figures, right? Which I believe are reckless disregard for the truth and actual malice.

Loved that tune when I was a kid. The bit about choreography reminds me of this.

Nah, I was certain someone had posted a separate thread after it was first discussed in another June release's post, so I just kept looking.

Sorry, can't figure out what "it" is referring to, for a proper response. Are you referencing the "problem" of "jazz not being welcoming to women" or Coleman's specific behavior during their affair? Or Coleman taking legal action against her? If it's the last one, then no I absolutely don't think his actions should be frowned upon. Nothing more American than a good old lawsuit. It's just too bad that a change in a law rendered "opinion" as unactionable. If it's his behavior during the affair, I doubt he's the chivalrous type but no one truly knows the facts here. Lastly if its the first thing .... what's the solution to this "problem" you've identified? Affirmative action for women instrumentalists? Quotas for festival gigs? How about an intensive educational program to convince the dwindling jazz audience of the value of women instrumentalists? This is where the improvement in the fortunes of record stores could really come in handy: "Hey! Instead of buying that 8 LP set of Lee Morgan - there are only six tunes repeated over and over!. Try Ingrid Jensen instead. She's really good!"

Here's that original thread As always more info as we get closer to release date. I just got an Amazon shipping update for June 18 so I guess all systems are go. Disappointed that Carmell is only on one of the three concerts they picked tracks from but I am still looking forward to this.

He sued her because of his belief that her actions were meant to damage his earnings and his career and that they did in fact damage his earnings and his career. By his description of the aftermath of her public actions, it seems that they did (certainly the degree of damage is up to debate). What else is he supposed to do than sue? She started it with her (let's remember) opinion of the facts and circumstances of their relationship. She went public, with what somehow turns out to be be protected speech, meant to punish (and apparently did punish). And here we have, in a nutshell, the problem of only and forever seeing categories of people, instead of just plain people.

I am amazed that three different people here are misrepresenting the decision in the case. @bresna The decision had nothing to do with any change in laws related to "MeToo" which are criminal in nature and mostly amount to a substantial re-setting of the clock for statute of limitations purposes. It is the winning attorneys who are claiming a great victory but I can find nothing that indicates the Anti-SLAAP law was conceived with MeToo specifically in mind. It's interesting to note too that this amendment to existing law took effect in November of 2020 when this was case had been filed two years before then but the law references "continuing" cases as subject to the new requirements. Would a competent attorney have counseled Coleman against proceeding, had all this happened since? None of these protections as 'free speech" existed when Coleman filed his suit. @Niko: " so what the court had to decide here was whether whatever happened was so obviously not an abusive relationship that she was lying when she claimed she perceived it like that in retrospect " is not what was at issue. The deciding factor was that her opinion that it was abusive and that she was "groomed" is now protected speech. You see, its all about feels now, not proven facts. @Rabshakeh " having considered the documentary evidence and testimony of the witnesses, " Uh, no, sorry, none of that came in. They got summary judgement that her opinion of the facts of the relationship is protected speech: In October 2019, on behalf of Ms. Grand, LBKM and Baker Hostetler filed a motion for summary judgment defending her letter as a protected expression of opinion incapable of being proven true or false to attach defamatory meaning and liability. Judge Eric Vitaliano agreed. http://www.lbkmlaw.com/news-events-first-amendment-me-too.html

Dmitry there is supposed to be a separate "reveal" thread.

It's not a formal educational environment so "wildy inappropriate" is highly doubtful. Was he her professor, giving out grades? He was an informal mentor helping her become a better musician. And pretty sure he says the sex started before paying gigs came into the equation. Alternate theory: Mutual attraction, sex commences entirely on a consensual basis, he became controlling/psychologically abusive, she decided she can't believe she was ever attracted to him, she decides she was "groomed" and manipulated and never really consented. I don't know that's what happened, but I do know it might be closer to reality than her version.

Sincerely asking: What makes anyone certain that he is guilty of "grooming" or any of the other things claimed by her? This will always be 100% he/she said (unless I am missing some independent corroboration of hers?) Is it that he was older and a mentor so he's a moral degenerate and impossible to separate that from his music? How do we know it wasn't consensual until she decided that it really never was?

Does it feel better to know that you shook it off quickly? I am left with blind faith that my body chemistry is altered to be ready to go to war if the need arises.

But given the efficacy of the vaccines, the risk by the vaccinated is extraordinarily small that they could get a serious infection. If you don't think someone is telling the truth about vaccination, stay away as best you can. But if you are vaccinated what does it matter? Are you going to mask forever? Wear two masks to show how serious you are? Or trust the science if you've gotten the jab(s)? I smell a post-vaccine poll here.