Stompin at the Savoy

I guess it's pretty hard to make money with jazz festivals, so they have to lure attendees with some pop names. Harrumph!

Stormy Daniels says that she and Trump had an affair. Trump says they didn't. Who are you going to believe - the fake blond with big breasts, or Stormy Daniels?

I had the 86 set, found it unlistenable, and got the 2003 set when it came out. The 2003 set was remastered in 1999, a quarter century ago. I imagine the technology has improved quite a bit since then so it seems possible to find some improvements. I would expect an RCA remaster to be better than Fremeaux because they have access to better sources, probably.

The 2003 Never No Lament: The Blanton-Webster Band, which utilized the 1999 remastering from the big RCA box was a very significant improvement over the 1986 Blanton Webster Band. Curious to see how the sound is on this release. Also unclear is whether RCA has remastered this material for volumes in the Ellington in Order series, which are supposed to be coming out soon...

Good price on a very worthy set!

😢

Never mind. Corsi is trash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi

My folks liked them and had an lp or two. They were pretty good singers but to my teenage self they were the epitome of squareness.

I will probably buy the kindle edition someday when it drops to $2.99. The sample seems like it is well written but the subject matter is so familiar... The book is now the number one best seller in jazz music on Amazon. (scratches head).

I can understand understand saying for example Peterson is too florid, busy, doesn't leave enough space, etc. This is a criticism or observation of his style. Earl Hines (etc) good, Oscar Peterson bad is a pretty crude analysis but I guess that is fashionable now.

I'm 71 now and have been listening to jazz since my late teens. Originally I was most fascinated with Parker, Gillespie and bebop. Later I got into Miles, Coltrane, Bill Evans and the Blue Note label. Still later I got into big band and swing. I have a lot of piano music in my collection. The consensus above seems to be that only newbies to jazz like Oscar Peterson and that they outgrow him. In contrast I got interested in Peterson fairly late in my jazz listening career. I like him. It's often toe-tappin stuff and his technique and speed are pretty amazing. Even at his most breakneck speed, he is still able to work in all sorts of ideas and variations. Every once in a while he plays something that makes me think holy crow, that changes everything! No, I don't want to listen to him every hour of every day but I do listen and still buy his records. If someone does not care for Peterson I have no problem with that. We all have our own tastes. I do find pronouncements like he doesn't swing or is fake jazz or only the ignorant like him to be problematic and a sign of snobbery, dogmatism and immaturity.

You can read it, therefore anyone can, regardless of visual impairment. You really are dogmatic to the last. You don't know the diff between resolution and size but I'm technically incompetent? Uh huh. I was just thinking it's not worth engaging with you. I think you are knowledgeable about music but it's hard to get past the dogmatism, one-upmanship, cheap shots and foolery.

This is it in a nutshell. You are always right! Or you think you are. I just mentioned I was a computer professional for decades. Do you think I might know how to blow up a picture? You posted a very low res pic. When blown up to a size I could read it looks like a blur. If I leave it pretty small I could maybe puzzle it out in an hour or two of staring at it, which I am not about to do.

You don't understand the difference between resolution and size.

Jim you are talking to a computer expert, ok? The resolution isn't good enough for me to read with my poor vision when I blow it up. You are still having trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. "They aren't developed for shit" is opinion. Ask yourself: is this something I can prove? I think you have grown used to a rhetorical looseness which allows you to add "and that's just a fact" after you produce an opinion. It's muddy logic and you are confusing yourself with that into believing that opinions are facts.

I'm sorry but I am unable to read that album cover at the resolution you have given. He has a number of interesting themes in the Rhapsody but the one I like best is a four note phrase. I don't know what key but something like Db D E E(octave lower). It gets mutated harmonically and rhythmically and reaches a very satisfying melodic/harmonic resolution, as one would in a song. I suspect you know what I am talking about but I could go find that resolution in a clip, I suppose.

You have yet to adduce any facts. Calling something deep or shallow isn't a fact. Possibly you have actual facts; you haven't revealed one yet. To some extent I agree with your opinion but I am honest enough to admit it's an opinion, not a fact. Insisting that one's opinion is fact is a hallmark of dogmatism.

This is fine-sounding rhetoric but ultimately a concatenation of subjective impressions: the musical gestures are empty - how are you going to prove that? Shallow and musically all surface - how are you going to document that? Those are subjective opinions. So is "it's corny". You are acting like this proves it scientifically: Allen Lowe said it so it must be truth! Musical dogma! You can no more prove those things than you can disprove it when I claim the piece was inventive, stimulating, and interesting in its time. Something that was inventive, stimulating etc 100 years ago probably isn't going to seem inventive etc now.

Did I say doctrinaire? Maybe I meant dogmatic.

I don't totally disagree with you. In my view it is not a masterpiece nor is it the best work Gershwin ever did. On the other hand in your excoriation of it I find something uncomfortably similar to my own protestations about the quality of Taylor Swift's work. After a good deal of thought on the matter I have concluded that whatever the reason and whatever the justice of the judgement the fact is people like her. Putting down her music is trying to hold back the tide. I've learned that my doctrinaire rants don't impress anyone and realized that asking if she deserves all this approval does not tend to edification. No one is forcing me to listen to her.

And by the way I really don't understand this statement. What? The essay was by a non-white.

This is all very doctrinaire. People who disagree with me are ignorant, etc. What's the point of all these put-downs? Nobody is forcing you to listen to anything. The fact is this is a popular piece. Does it deserve to be so popular is a question which does does not tend toward edification. It is. Get over it.