Tom Storer

I've never been very visual, so when I saw Jim's question I thought, "Because they look similar"--two faces, close up so the eyes, nose and mouth fill most of the picture, kind of moody looking. Then the visual descriptions from various people refined the answer with details on just how they look similar. But the typeface! Yes! I hadn't even noticed that the font colors are the same. I'm sure that's the clincher.

Hello Franz. Franz? My name is Gregor!

I awoke one morning from uneasy dreams to find myself transformed in my bed into a monstrous vermin!

Yes! That was a great concert. I had first heard Herbie on a Columbia compilation LP from the 60's that my father had, which included "Seven Steps to Heaven," and also "Jive Hoot" from "Bob Brookmeyer and Friends." Then Headhunters was a hit and I started chasing down other records. But I had never heard about Mwandishi before and that part really intrigued me. The last group was lots of fun, but I was already nostalgic for the original Headhunters.

That was his then-current Headhunters group, no? Did you stay long enough to see Tony Williams take the stage at the same time as the Headhunters drummer and drown him right out?

Certainly, but the ethical point of that argument is more applicable to the situation where a record is not out of print. In that case, clearly a second-hand sale is not objectionable whereas a copy is. Considered solely from the point of view of "is anyone deprived of income," a copy of an OOP record deprives no one of income until such time as the record is back in print again--at which point one's possession of the copy becomes ethically objectionable. But now that I think of it, that's only as far as rights-holders are concerned. I guess you could say that copying an OOP record deprives second-hand dealers of a sale, so maybe you have something there. You might say that the original printing of those LPs established the entire pool of legitimately saleable objects, so any copying deprives someone of a sale, even if it's a second-hand dealer somewhere. I'll have to ponder this.

*CLASP*

If one were to be a hard-ass, legalistic, record-industry son of a bitch about it, one would say that it doesn't matter if a record is out of print, you CANNOT download an illicit copy without being consigned to HELL for eternity. But as far as the artists, or other rights-holders for that matter, are concerned, for an OOP record they don't make a cent off either a second-hand sale or an illegal download, and they materially can't make a cent off a first-hand sale since there aren't any left, so if you download you hurt no one. To be perfectly morally pure, you would have to solemnly vow that if ever the record comes into print again, you will immediately purchase it and destroy your downloaded copy.

I don't have a price limit. It all depends on how much I want the record. I think I've gone as high as $40. Here in France, if I had a $20 limit I'd be unable to buy anything except second-hand or special promotions.

I had the original LPs but never got it on CD. However, I can boast that I was in the audience!

I'm really enjoying it. I had heard some of the funkier ones but hadn't owned any of the Milestones. But I had never heard the spectacular "live in Japan" record, where Joe is just burning! Loads and loads of great stuff here.

I don't have a car. Does that make me ageless?

LPs?

Now calm down, edc. No need to lose your cool. As a matter of fact, it's because I recognize the limits of colloquy that I bowed out of the attempt to determine how many angels Aretha can call on the head of a pin. This is also a place where people can make casual comments and leave it at that--that is, not seek props as a cultural historian or "play anti-intellectual." You're a man with plenty of substance, clem, but your style gets in the way.

Actually, I don't need to address anything at all, let alone more seriously, but I thank you for your concern. I guess you've outed me as a potential douchebag fanboy, but so be it.

I'm not an Aretha completist, but if I didn't have at least a greatest hits compilation on the desert island, I would attempt to swim back for it. I don't see any point in making philosophico-moral fine judgments on her career. As far as I'm concerned she was supremely great on many, many songs, and if, as a popular music star, she also recorded some lame covers and ended up past her peak at a relatively young age, well, that's not unusual, given the territory. It seems ungenerous to stick up one's nose at her failures when her successes were such wonderful triumphs. I mean hell, edc, what have you done for humanity that compares to even a minor Aretha hit?

In the editorial of the issue that's just out, the editor, Yves Sportis, says it's a "suspension" and promises they'll be back, only bigger, better and more modern. No mention made of when he thinks that might be. Jazz Hot has an illustrious history but their current Marsalisite orthodoxy is a bit hard to take. I'm glad Jazz Magazine hasn't folded yet--I love to read Jacques Réda's column.

I had heard this was coming. People I've spoken to are not optimistic about the chances of Jazz Magazine, either...

I know nothing about this character, nor do I care what his sexual orientation might be, but I trust you don't mean to equate homosexuality with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism and beasteality, etc. ?? Hey, if it's consensual, what's the problem with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism or masochism? (Bestiality is different since animals can't really give their consent.) In any case I would "equate" homosexuality and heterosexuality with all those things and more besides. It's all desire, and who chooses that?

Mike, Rowling invented this character. In her mind, he was gay, and that was part of his motivations. The fact that she imagined him this way was not, as you say, crucial to the telling of the story. AND THAT'S WHY SHE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE STORY. The fact that she talks about it now does not change the story. So what's the big deal? You say "Everyone is getting themselves into such a twist because homosexuality is such a hot button topic." But not everyone is getting themselves into a twist. You are, for some reason. It doesn't bother me at all. You complained earlier that her talking about this was "sexualizing" the story. But the story is already "sexualized"--it's about human beings, who are sexual. The burgeoning sexuality of Harry and co. is a strong theme. If it had been revealed that, in Rowling's imagining of the character's backstory, Dumbledore had had an affair with a woman at some point, thus unambiguously revealing his heterosexuality, no one would have lifted an eyebrow. I suspect that discomfort with sexuality--not homophobia, just discomfort with the evocation of sexual desires beyond what is typically referenced in mainstream "vanilla" literature--is at the root of the controversy this seems to have provoked here. I think Rowling, rather than being disingenuous, was being honest. And as I said earlier, her agenda was apparently to plead for tolerance and the questioning of authority. That's a great agenda. More people should have that agenda.

I think we'll get cancellation notices.

Why can't you?

I've lived in France for over half my life, and tend to think mostly in English but often in French, especially, for example, during meetings or conversations that are taking place in French. Or if I'm writing a letter or document in French, then I'll be thinking in French.

But seriously, a fantasy is just another way of addressing reality. I think GA thinks that children's literature should be didactic and moralizing--that it should exist to teach them what societally approved behavior is (assuming there is any real consensus on that). Or in any case it should pretend that no other behavior exists. In which case it is useless, just another sermon.

OK, I have marked you down as such a person. You can mark me down as a person who believes that it is not inappropriate to have homosexual heroes in children's literature. For goodness' sake. Children live in the real world. They know full well that unmarried people have sex, including, for a great number of them, their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, their uncles and aunts and cousins. So literature should pretend that this is not so? There's a word for an approach like that, GA: dishonesty. You would have children be introduced to literature through literature that denies reality--a fine way to lead them to distrust and disregard literature from the very start.