Tom Storer

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.

I think you folks are looking for things to criticize about this. Authors typically have a lot more "information" about their characters than they communicate in a book--there's a whole imaginative background that doesn't need to be spelled out but helps them create characters who are consistent in their behavior. Rowling mentioned this bit of background when answering a question from the audience, and also mentioned that she had headed off a bit of detail in the film-making that would have contradicted it. I don't see any need to make her out to be a disgusting, dishonest coward when it seems to me she was honest about her character and admirable in her message. If she had "revealed" that the character was an adopted child or something, I'm not sure the same accusations would have been made. Somehow the fact that she imagined him gay gets people angry. Go figure.

According to the article: So yes, she did seem to intend to make some kind of a statement. If you have notoriety you're not allowed to make a statement? Seems like you should benefit from your notoriety if you want to make a statement. And a fine statement it was! Nothing disgusting or dishonest about it from what I can see.

Which you don't seem to read... No, but seriously. In addition to drumming up custom for their records and giving props to musicians they admire, the Bad Plus blog often has very interesting content. And in response to your earlier comment, I have no personal or professional connection to any member of the Bad Plus. Never met 'em.

They tell you what you should be listening to?

This makes me wonder if it isn't you who are being disingenuous. But carry on, carry on.

I have to wonder why you're so pissed off and suspicious. Why, for example, would you characterize Bill McHenry as a schmuck? Because of his playing? You accuse Iverson of being a liar and the group of being disingenuous. Why? Just because?

You infer that their repertoire and their playing is crass commercialism--why? Because they play tunes that have been pop hits? So did most of the major jazz stars of the 1950's and 60's. Did that have no element of commercialism? Did Miles Davis really never think of sales or popularity, and if he did, did that make his music any worse? You say, with apparent pride in your discernment, that you refuse to buy their "product." Have you ever spent any time listening to it? As I said earlier, maybe it's not to your taste. Between that and spitting on them for having impure motives there's quite a gulf. I guess Iverson had better get used to it: many here are hipper than he can ever hope to be. Or think so, anyway.

Congratulations! I'm not a player of games myself, but my brother was big into chess and played tournaments in his younger days, so I can appreciate your satisfaction.

I think they have their own thing, honestly arrived at, and do it very well. They might not be to everyone's taste, but I strongly disagree with the notion, which some seem to hold, that they're just a bunch of lame poseurs. I have yet to hear the spin-off groups such as Happy Apple (Dave King; Michael Lewis, saxophones etc.; Erik Fratzke, bass, guitar, etc.), the Gang Font (King; Fratzke; guitar, Greg Norton, bass; Craig Taborn, keyboards), or Buffalo Collision (Iverson; King; Matt Maneri, viola; Tim Berne, alto & baritone sax). But I like the Billy Hart quartet with Iverson, Mark Turner and Ben Street.

I went and saw the Bad Plus at the New Morning in Paris on Tuesday night and quite enjoyed it. A couple of things struck me: Their whole thing is about tightly crafted arrangements, which I found distinctive--they have a group sound that is obviously the result of a lot of work and thought. They improvise at a high level of abstraction from time to time, but always inside the arrangements--no lengthy solos. There's no "pop/schlock l@@k at me game" going on at all when they play. They clearly believe in their music, love to play together, respect the audience (that is, they're not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes with pretense and pseudo-hipness), and don't coast. As for the arrangements, it's not like they don't take any chances, either. They did one tune featuring a quiet bass vamp that in my opinion went on far too long, but I could see what they meant. They were asking the audience to go along with them on a certain mood--I think it worked for many in the crowd, even though I became impatient. It also strikes me that they're part of a long tradition in jazz with regard to piano trios with an identity based on original arrangements, the root being perhaps Ahmad Jamal's early 50's trio. Before anyone jumps in with scathing sarcasm, no, I'm not saying the Bad Plus is equal to that Ahmad Jamal trio, but the similarities are evident: the whole focus on arrangements that shift in and out of various grooves and repetitive vamps, with a relatively minimalist piano style, clear and central bass lines to hold the thing together (as opposed to walking), and although King is a lot more instrumentally varied and active than Vernell Fournier, both primarily keep those grooves going. I even bought their new CD, "Prog," and am enjoying that too. As a steady diet, TBP would be too narrowly focused for me, but that's true of so many groups. They make a fine meal, though.

Hey, don't do that! Cut me a deal for 4500 € !

I ordered on the 5th, and since then when I look at the order on the amazon.co. uk site, it has said the same thing: Items not yet dispatched: Delivery estimate: 17 Oct 2007 - 26 Oct 2007 So on the fifth, they estimated a two- to three-week waiting period. They've never changed it with regard to my order, although apparently it's changed for new orders more than once in the last week.