Tom Storer

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.

Me, too. An opportunity to catch up on some of those box sets I never ordered because they were too expensive and I already knew some or all of the original albums. Being in Europe, the postage wasn't a big hit for the Monk box, but for the Henderson box (if they have enough in stock this time) it brings it up to $50. But the euro is strong, heh heh.

According to the CD cover pictured, Don Byas is part of the Ellington band! Now that's something I'd like to hear.

I'm telling you, this is the beginning of developments both wonderful and awful. Genetic engineering has been with us for a short while already, but this is another order of magnitude (if it is confirmed, of course). A homemade chromosome is only the start. It will end with us modifying our own genome, and creating alternate ones of comparable complexity. The species will begin to design itself and other species, wresting control from nature. It won't be within our lifetime--or rather, it won't end in our lifetime. It's already started! And you guys make quips!

Come on, doesn't anybody think this is: a) thrilling b) frightening c) both I got a couple of uh-ohs. That's it?

As usual, I completely ignore any sport until the French are on the verge of a heroic victory. Then I watch the last half and get all the thrills for free!

In other words, he does do interviews. But I'm not complaining! It's a good thing. Long live Muhal!

From The Guardian:

Yeah, they mention that when you order. They told me "delivery estimate 17-26 October" and said that's taking the postal strike into account.

Thanks, David! I ordered it, but it seems too good to be true. I won't be holding my breath. (Well, actually, I will, but I want to seem cool and blasé.)

A wise person once said to me, "To tell the truth, you have to exaggerate." I guess the Bad Plus bloggers could have said, "In many cases, what you dig at 13 you dig for life, although perhaps in not quite the same manner, and with numerous exceptions--sometimes you dig for life only some of what you dug at 13, and there are also those who stop digging altogether what they dug at 13." At least then they would have avoided all this sniping.

Everyone assumed she was black at the time, when the record first hit. It was a surprise to many when she was introduced on variety shows or whatever and a white woman walked out. Funny--I remember when it was a radio hit and I always assumed she was white. I was a kid at the time.

Thanks, Nate, for a very absorbing BFT. I didn't like all of it, but that's par for the course. I have no idea who any of it is, although there are things that sound familiar. I'm eager to read the answers! But without further ado, and before reading any other posts in the discussion thread, here are my own comments: 1. I'll take a wild guess that this is entitled "Five Cents a Page." Lots of fun! Fresh, despite the slightly joky mouth percussion. I was glad when the horns kicked in towards the end, too, to add some more flavor. I'm intrigued. But damn, Nate, what are you, some sort of poetry buff or something? 2. I got impatient with the bass vamp, and the generally static feel, but nice playing. 3. A Monk tune, can't think of the title, but seemingly stripped of its rests to give it something original. The jangling rhythm guitar, vaguely reminiscent of 70's funk, is a cool idea for Monk, but personally I feel he built enough funk into his theme that it would have been stronger if the original phrasing had been retained, with or without the guitar. I didn't get much nourishment from the soloing, either. To me this seems to try too hard to be hip. For funky Monk, I prefer the album Jamaaladeen Tacuma made with Wolfgang Puschnig, which favored danceable rhythm. Monk used to dance to his stuff and I guess I still feel everyone else should too (despite what they might want to do). 4. I like this a lot. Absorbing development, engaged playing with real ideas and beautiful sounds. Don't know who it is but will be pleased to learn. 5. I like the trumpeter's feisty tone but IMHO the whole thing suffers from predictability, a lack of memorable melody, and boring bass-and-drums. Similar in that way to number 2. 6. Ah, 60's style free jazz! Don't know when it dates from. I love the looseness and urgency, all that generous and assertive percussion. To me this has that edge that numbers 2 and 5 lack--that vividness. It has heart. 7. Well, how very mainstream. ;-) I love it! Very familiar sounding, I wonder if I don't actually have it. But I don't know what it is, only that everything about it fills me with ease. 8. Usually I'm not much taken with bowed string instruments in jazz, unless you're talking Grappelli or Stuff Smith (also I have a soft spot for Paul Chambers' determined sawing). But this is very cool, full of wit and feeling and a certain cocky swagger. Love those chirping double-stops at around 3:15, disintegrating into noisy scrapes. Another one I looking forward to learning the identity of. 9. Lovely atmospheres and textures. It drags in places, however. 10. I like the tenor player and, especially, the bassist. The punchy, repetitive rhythm figures by bass and drums are wearisome, however, IMHO. Quite a nice group, though. 11. Excellent end to the proceedings! Graceful and stately in a pleasingly old-timey way. The violin and trombone sound beautiful together.

Does Iverson--or his bandmates, since that "no irony" post was a collaborative effort--dis other people for recording some of the shit they do?