Dan Gould

Hey, Aftab, welcome from the former Gene Harris Fanatic!

I find that this place definitely has more sense of community, and while there is an element of the "clubhouse" I think we are actually doing a good job of making newer members feel welcome. For instance, its not like anyone has said to an unknown's request for a blindfold disc copy, sorry, what's the secred handshake? I just much prefer the vibe in this place than the one at AAJ.

Jim S., Here's what I don't understand: Is it possibly the case that Allen's playing is so offensive mostly because you've been exposed to it in the context of a blindfold test? I mean, what if you had seen this as a tribute CD, or if Allen says in the liners that this is his tribute to Getz (the AMG review isn't clear), would you say, wow, he really sounds like Getz, its unbelievable. I wish he'd done these tunes his own way, but its meant to recall Getz, so ... uncool but not evil? Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery, especially if its obvious you are doing a tribute to the subject? I think its fair to say that Allen does not imitate Getz on everything he does, its just on this CD of Brazilian tunes. If he made his living imitating Getz exclusively, than I'd understand Jim's reaction. Now, what of someone like Dick Hyman? I've heard that he can imitate just about any pianist in jazz history. AMG's bio tells us that: A very versatile virtuoso, Dick Hyman once recorded an album on which he played "A Child Is Born" in the styles of 11 different pianists, from Scott Joplin to Cecil Taylor. Is Hyman evil? Does he get a pass because he can do it to so many different pianists and not just one? Or is it possible that you are especially disturbed because its a saxophonist and cuts closest to your musical heart, Jim? Sorry for getting into this, I realize you probably want to leave your comments as they are-don't want you to go medieval on me, buddy! But you should realize that the powerful nature of your feelings make people want to understand them better.

(GoM, sorry guy, but after watching the LCS, and 26 Championships and all the rest, this is just too sweet. If only it had been the Sox or the Cubs doing the whooping ...)

Well, I think I know where the big argument's going to come in the answers thread ... and I think I need to listen closer to this "vampiric stooge" performance!

So this was not a poll, but some sort of jerking off. Clean up and say good night Dan. No, it was a poll, no jerking off necessary. Simon said something I didn't think was accurate. The board software gave me the ability to test his assertion.

If this is your understanding of jazz before bop, I don't know what to say. Am I missing major styles? Make up your own damn poll then.

HALLEH-FUCKIN-LUJAH!!!! DING DONG THE FUCKING WITCH IS DEAD!!!!! IF STEINBRENNER GOES APE SHIT ON THIS TEAM, THEN ITS ALL WORTH IT!!!

Ouch, Chuck. "No understanding of the art form." Look, my list was done in quick and dirty fashion in order to minimize the choices, to an extent. Yes, "progressive" is supposed to encapsulate all of the styles that came after hardbop, outside of fusion. Since I included the originators of bop, I figured I'd include the "originators" of what I've dubbed progressive and keep them separate from their descendants. Could I have split things up into big band and swing and dixieland, and hard bop and soul jazz and everything else? Sure. I just wanted a quick and dirty, simple division. It wasn't meant to be the template for a dissertation on the history of jazz. All it was supposed to do is demonstrate that more people are interested in the pre-progressive era than the post-progressive era, as Simon seemed to be implying in another thread. And I'd say that point is proven. Frankly, my only mistake, IMO, is not offering the option of "I don't limit myself to one era, there's too many tasty morsels all around."

Please explain. Are my categories derogatory to one era or another? About the only category to argue with might be the BN one, since I combined non-originator bop with hard bop and soul jazz.

The Ray Brown Christmas disc on Telarc is very very nice, every cut is a winner except for Greg Hutchinson's rap at the end. In 1964 (according to AMG), Prestige put out two different Christmas albums under the same name, Holiday Soul, one by Bobby Timmons and the other by Don Patterson. When, oh when, will Fantasy get on the ball and put these out as a two-fer? I mean, I know holiday music only sells for a couple of months, but I bet these would sell fine over several years' time. I do have a burn of the Timmons, and its good, but I've always wondered about the Patterson.

Double Amen! "Wig Blues" is hysterical-I've always wondered if this was Lou's first vocal captured on record?

Just landed what I hope will be a good 'un; its definitely a rare one. As you may know, Jim R. and I have become quite fond of Eddie Higgins' playing and I stumbled across an LP that Eddie himself had forgotten about when he spoke to the individual who put together his on-line discography: Warren Kime, Two of a Kime (Replica). Kime played trumpet and sang. It appears that this was Eddie's second or perhaps third recording date ever, around 1957 or 58. The discography says that Replica was a tiny label that mostly put out organ music for ice rinks and someone convinced the owner that he should put out some jazz records ... and shortly thereafter the company went belly up. Eddie definitely doesn't think it was a coincidence! Just nabbed it on ebay for $10, once I get it and make a nice CDR, I may offer the original to Eddie, since he definitely does not have it in his archives.

Obviously you do not know your baseball history, not even of your own team. While I cannot at the moment identify the speaker, that line was uttered in the 1950s when the Yankees were winning Series after Series. And by the way, it was uttered at least ten years before I was born. Its making a serious point about rooting for a team that seems destined to win over and over and over again, just like, at the time, G.M. was the dominant car manufacturer, a behemoth that overwhelmed everyone else. If you don't understand the analogy, given its time frame, well ...

I agree with you, Brad, though Pavano isn't the worst choice, he pitched a beauty in Game four. Who'd imagine that Pavano and Penny would account for the first three wins-or at least pitch in the first three wins. But I agree, I'd prefer to face Mussina with a rested Beckett in Game Seven, not to throw in the towel on game six, the team ought to be sky high trying to close it out, and they just might get to Pettite. Pettite didn't exactly kill the Sox in Game six last time, and there's a wee bit more pressure on him this time. I do know this, if the Yankees come back they'll truly be insufferable bastards. Whoever said that rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for General Motors, they said a mouthful of truth there.

I think we can see who the bastard red-haired stepchildren of jazz are. (just watch, now someone's gonna vote for fusion and neobop just because ...

Simon, you've said a lot of stuff here, without a whit of evidence whatsoever, especially for your assertions about the "floating voters". "He's radicalised the people who were unsure about him before." WHO are these people? Your friends who didn't hate him quite as much as you do, but now they hate him passionately? This is ridiculous. I know plenty of people who found Wynton engaging in that series and have begun to investigate jazz because in between the talking heads, these people heard snatches of wonderful music that intrigued them. The answer to the question of why jazz has declined again is this: When Wynton got all the attention, jazz became "cool" again, as it periodically does. The fact that people drifted back away has nothing to do with Wynton, the intrinsic value of his music, or the supposed "impact" of his beliefs about jazz. It has everything to do with fads and the passing thereof.

Yeah, what the heck was that? Is it you telling your story about your arrival in New York and your encounter with the idiot cabbie?

Rooster, you got it by yourself. "Progressive '60s" is the universe of music influenced by Free, or the AG, everything demonstrably "beyond" bop and hardbop. In fact, I conceived it specifically based on your known interests, and I suspected that the Post-60s category would be your second choice.

I'm guessing the "classic BN era" will win by a landslide. BTW, if "progressive 60s isn't clear, I mean, what was demonstrably POST-bop, and POST-hardbop.

Sorry, but isn't this analagous to saying to Ernie Banks, "You're known as Mr. Cub. Considering that the Cubs still haven't gotten to the World Series, and blew it this year in heartbreaking fashion, isn't it time you step aside? Heck, why don't you just die already? You're obviously everything that's wrong with the Cubs." (I realize you'll miss the baseball reference, Simon, but others here know what I am saying). And I do not at all understand this comment: First of all, Wynton's "credibility" was damaged beyond repair among those who already disagree about post-60s jazz. So who are these presumed newbies who think Wynton is an idiot because Jazz didn't deal very well with the last forty years of the music? Wynton's credibility is exactly what it was pre-Jazz: For those who don't find anything worthwhile in free and fusion, he's fighting the good fight. For those who do, or are pushing the music into different areas, he's the anti-Christ. So what? Nothing has changed because of Jazz. And finally, considering the popularity of the Conn threads and the two different RVG threads, I'd suggest that jazz of the "classical" period is very much a preoccupation of this board, with far less centrality of the post-60s period. In fact, I think its time for a poll.

My copy of Coldwater Flat was signed by Gene Harris hisself, which is quite cool. I also have a personalized autograph from Eddie Higgins, and best of all, I now have Waiting for the Boogaloo Sisters autographed by all four musicians, and I think I'm the only one because Ron was slow to get to the autograph booth after the set in Clearwater and so I was the only guy to ask him to sign. B)

Speaking of Little, he still doesn't get it, and while I don't exactly expect him to be offered the position anyway, he's making noise about not really wanting it anyway: Little unsure he wants job Sox manager put off by team's hesitation By Gordon Edes, Globe Staff, 10/23/2003 MIAMI -- Faced with the increasing likelihood that he will be fired as Red Sox manager, Grady Little said yesterday that he's not sure he wants to manage the Red Sox next season. "I'm prepared for the likelihood . . . I'm not sure that I want to manage that team," Little said by phone from his home in North Carolina. "That's how I felt when I drove out of town. "If they don't want me, fine, they don't want me. If they want me to come back, then we'll talk and see if I want to come back up there. That's the way I feel about it." Little said he hasn't heard a word from Sox brass since returning home. "All I know is when I left there, there was some hesitation. That's all I need to know," he said. "If Grady Little is not there, he'll be somewhere. "Right now I'm disappointed that evidently some people are judging me on the results of one decision I made -- not the decision, but the results of the decision. Less than 24 hours before, those same people were hugging and kissing me. If that's the way they operate, I'm not sure I want to be part of it." If Little is fired, that may not play well in a clubhouse in which numerous players expressed their support for the embattled manager after last Thursday's devastating Game 7 loss to the New York Yankees in the American League Championship Series. "That's not my problem," he said. "Just add one more ghost to the list if I'm not there, because there are ghosts. That's certainly evident when you're a player in that uniform." Little was on the last year of a two-year deal he signed in March 2002. The Sox won 93 games in his first season, 95 this past season, when they also won the American League wild card, their first playoff appearance since 1999. The team holds one-year options on him for both the 2004 and 2005 seasons, but last March told Little they wanted to wait until the end of this season before deciding whether to exercise those options. Little, unwilling to go through another season of being a lame duck, almost certainly would not be amenable to just having the club exercise his option, which the Sox have until Oct. 31 to do. He wants the security of a multiyear deal. "The reason anyone wants to make changes is they feel that the team should have done better than it did," he said. Winning the wild card and advancing to the seventh game of what Yankee manager Joe Torre said was the greatest series in which he took part wasn't enough? "I'm not sure," Little said. "You've got to win the World Series in Boston before it's considered winning." Little again said if he had to do it over again, he would have left Pedro Martinez in to pitch the eighth inning of Game 7, when the Yankees rallied from a 5-2 deficit to tie the score off Martinez. "I know that wherever I go, I'll do the best I can," Little said. "I know what we did there. I'm sorry the results of one decision caused so much pain, and it sure helped sell a lot of papers. I feel bad for it. But gol'dang, I can't turn back the clock and make another decision, not knowing whether the results of that decision are good or not." Speculation has been rampant at the World Series about who the Sox might pursue if Little is let go, as expected. Dodger coach Glenn Hoffman, the former Red Sox shortstop who declined an invitation to interview before Little was hired, is a name that has surfaced here. Hoffman had briefly managed the Dodgers when Tom Lasorda was interim general manager there, and told associates that with the Sox GM situation unsettled at the time, he didn't want to go through that experience again. "Only time will tell," Little said, when asked how he thought the club would perform under a new man. "But if they think it's going to get better, they'd better watch out. I know how it was when I got there, and I know how it is when I'm leaving." Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek last weekend said there were a "billion things" that could have caused the Sox clubhouse to fall apart last season, and it was because of Little that it did not do so. "Most things people don't even know about," Little said. "Everyone knows the final results. We didn't win the World Series, so we lost. I'm only thankful that they're pointing the finger at me, and not at a player, because I can take it. I'm telling you that right now." Little was asked if Martinez spoke with him after the Game 7 loss. "He came and gave me a big hug and thanked me for the opportunity, just like a lot of other players did," Little said. Little said, "To tell you the truth, this ain't bothering me like it's bothering a lot of other people. I'll tell you right now, I did the best I could do, and I still think [his handling of Martinez] was right. Baseball people think that -- maybe not Red Sox fans -- but baseball people tell me over and over. "But in Boston, it's not just this one decision, or just one game. It's like this in May. People are talking about devastating losses, and it's the end of April or first of May. That's serious stuff. You don't play 162 games. You play 162 seasons a year. Every game is a season. That's why this doesn't affect me like it does a lot of people." Because Major League Baseball doesn't want the World Series upstaged, any announcement regarding Little's status probably won't come until after the Series. "If Grady Little is not back with the Red Sox, he'll be somewhere," Little said. "I'll be another ghost, fully capable of haunting."

Sad news. Wasn't he recently on that new show "Star Dates"?

Just saw this one in CNN's article about the comatose woman in Florida who's wish to die is being prevented by an over-reachng Jeb Bush: "Michael Schiavo, who already has one child with his long-time pregnant girlfriend, is his wife's legal guardian." I don't think the writer meant to imply that Schiavo's girlfriend has been pregnant a long time, but that they've been together a long time, and she is presently pregnant. There's gotta be a better way of saying it.