Tom Storer

It wasn't Wayne Dockery, at least the night I was there, but Darryl Hall on bass. Pianist was Randy Porter, drummer was a Dutchman, Martjin Vink. Great show! The pianist and drummer were a little wet behind the ears--impressive talent but still young enough not to have the ease that comes with experience. But they were eager! McPherson introduced "Anthropology" by saying, "Drummers like to play fast, so this one is for the drummer." They went into it at a ridiculous tempo, think Parker's "Koko". McPherson just about had time to fit in the general shape of the melody. It was quite a thrill, and they held it together. Everybody cheered McPherson and Vink for their supersonic solos, but meanwhile Darryl Hall (a wonderful bassist, this was my first time seeing him) was back there walking faster than any bassist should have to walk for that long... McPherson is an undersung treasure, a real bopper with a golden, liquid tone, distinctive and spontaneous phrasing, and a sassy, funky, swinging musical personality that deserves renown. Go out and see him if he passes through your town!

Just reading through this thread for the first time. The way I see it, you're wondering about five phenomena: - weird dog behavior - unexplained noises - items go missing, "couldn't possibly have been there" but then return - unexplained sensations (tugging, poking) - weird cell phone behavior From a skeptic's point of view, none of these are particularly eerie or even unusual. Except for the tugging and poking, all of them have happened to me at one point or another (not in the details, obviously, but in the general category). In particular, I can't count the number of times I have misplaced something and looked for it frantically, only to have it turn it up someplace that I had inspected--exhaustively, I thought--more than once. The power of suggestion and interpretation is mighty. Once a hypothesis is there to give a framework, further things that occur are immediately fitted against the hypothesis, and often they could fit the hypothesis, sort of... So, nothing proven, but "evidence" that the hypothesis might be correct... That said, who knows? Certainly there is much that remains inexplicable.

That reviewer is quite astonishingly clueless, as well as annoyingly pedantic. "But shortly after the blues were born, they were co-opted by popular and jazz musicians, who blended them with marching band and ragtime music. The blues’ rather monotonous melodic style and 12-bar choruses were changed by these musicians in different ways" If you start from the point of view that blues melodies are monotonous, I mean crikey... contrast this with the wealth of striking and expressive melody that runs through Allen's set. "Thus there are four types of music that can legitimately be called blues: [blah blah]" Allen, didn't you take Blues 101?? That question was on the exam! "Really the Blues? comes with its 72-page booklet on a CD-ROM. This is a commendable bow to “green” technology, but frankly, I don’t enjoy reading a 72-page booklet on my computer screen." Then print it out for Christ's sake. Sheesh.

On Friday I saw Kenny Barron solo in a small club - a privilege. He sounded great. This Friday night, it'll be Charles McPherson, with one R. Porter on piano, Wayne Dockery on bass, don't know who the drummer's going to be.

Hilarious! I wonder if he was channeling someone specific.

Love the one with Brew Moore. I saw Lou Bennett with Kenny Clarke and Christian Escoudé on guitar in the fall of 1979, one of the first concerts I saw when I moved to Paris.

I saw Ron Carter's Golden Striker Trio on Monday night at the New Morning in Paris, with Russell Malone and Mulgrew Miller. It's a fantastic group and they were on. Their arrangements, which I assume are Carter's, are great: memorable, deft, designed to leave space for real improvising. The only slight bummer was the sound: the bass was a little too bassy and the piano way too trebly, which I find inexcusable in a club. It was great to see Mulgrew Miller, and he was playing well, but that tinny sound was really too bad. Regardless, it was a joy to hear them.

I used to have a doctor who overbooked and I would wait up to an hour, always in a crowded waiting room. To his credit he was working his ass off, and once he saw you he was attentive, conscientious, took the time required and was generally a good doctor. I doubt he ever left the office before 9. Here in France, GPs typically do not have any office staff and do it all themselves, so it naturally takes a bit longer. My current doctor is also good but she doesn't overbook, so one rarely waits long. I'm pretty tolerant if the doctor is seeing patients continuously; it's hard to predict how long each patient will need. If the waiting room were empty like you described, and no explanation were given, I would definitely see red.

When the first shipment of "Really the Blues?" failed to show up on my Parisian doorstep, Allen graciously shipped me another copy, and this time it made it over. So--thanks, Allen! I've been listening to it these past few days and it's a killer. It's like the mix tape to end all mix tapes. I heard Blind Mamie Forehand's "Honey in the Rock" for the first time and was floored. And indeed there are many startling performances that stand out in this set. Loud applause for this fine achievement.

Who votes for these things, anyway?

I don't like the idea of honoring a family as "jazz masters," rather than individuals. If Ellis got it, it would probably be accepted with good grace. If Wynton or Branford got it, there would be loud disagreement, but they've been on the scene for decades and certainly a case could be made. But Delfeayo and Jason share this new "jazz master" title by association alone (they can play, but there's no lack of that in jazz), which taints the whole thing with politics. It seems like nothing but a publicity operation for the Marsalis "brand." Looking at the list of past recipients, it looks as if none of them were so honored until they were at least in the autumn of their professional life. Of the Marsalises, only Ellis has reached that point, and Jason, the baby, is in his early 30's! I think it harms the credibility of the awards themselves.

Tried to slip that one by us, eh?

Stéphane (trumpet) and Lionel (saxophones) Belmondo (brothers) Henry Threadgill and Pyeng Threadgill (father and daughter) Dee Dee Bridgewater and China Moses (mother and daughter) Kenny Washington and Reggie Washington (brothers)

Yeah, what's up with that?? "Give me a good quote, Greil, and I'll let you have the other volumes early." Shocking corruption.

Kobie Watkins isn't bad--he's in Bobby Broom's regular trio, so he probably won't overwhelm the guitar.

Good idea, and it seems to be legit in this case. But fees might still be taken out. Found this on the PayPal site: ****** Is there any fee for making personal payments? Yes, there may be fees for personal payments depending upon the way you fund the payment. Also, personal payments allow the sender of the payment to choose to pay the fee themselves or have the recipient pay the fee should one apply. Domestic payments: Domestic payments are payments between two customers in the same country in the same currency. In this case, there is no fee for either the sender or the receiver if the payment is funded with the sender's PayPal account balance. If the payment is funded by a credit card, fees will apply. Click here for more details. Cross-border payments: Cross-border payments occur when the buyer and seller are in different countries or/and the transaction is dominated in a different currency from the receiver's default currency. In this case there are fees applicable regardless of the funding source (credit card, balance, bank account). Click here for more details. Cross-border fee applies when a personal payment is sent to a PayPal account registered in a country outside of the sender's residing country / region. The fee varies depending on the recipient's country / region. Click here for more details on cross-border fee. The sender can decide if the fee is paid for by himself or the recipient.

What are the Japan imports?

What happened after Trane would quite certainly not have happened the same way if Trane had remained on the scene. I often think the 80's and 90's would not have happened the same way if Mingus hadn't died. But people do die, and things go on without them, necessarily differently. It's interesting to fantasize, though. Personally I like to imagine the collaboration of Trane and the AACM crowd in Chicago. Imagine a group in 1969 with Trane, Muhal Richard Abrams, Roscoe Mitchell, Malachi Favors, Steve McCall...

I think it comes down to what the Offering & Looking For forum is designed to do. As I understand it, it's not so much a discussion forum per se as a digital want-ads column. You put in what you're looking for and what you have for sale, then conduct negotiations and possibly sales off-line, between buyer and seller. If ads are subject to being criticized, sellers will not want to use it. The wider concern is that open discussion of the pricing of specific offers is an open door to manipulation. If someone makes an offer and someone in collusion with him comes in and says "What a great price! I wouldn't pass this up!" it can lead unsuspecting buyers to hurry to close a deal. If a trader wants to hurt a rival, he or she can post to say "Wow, this is pretty steep. I know it's on offer for a better price elsewhere." Bright Moments, I'm not accusing you of this, obviously. But in terms of policy, that, I think, is why buyers and sellers need to be able to carry out their dealings privately, without the gallery throwing in comments and advice that, at worst, could be unethical, and in any case are likely to be merely subjective.

Seems to me that J.A.W. was enforcing a reasonable policy and he did it politely. If the rule enforced is unspoken, well, now it should be understood. I think crying "censorship" in a case like this is exaggeration. On the one hand, there is nothing stopping a thread to discuss pricing in a general way, rather than one criticizing a particular seller; on the other, it doesn't seem like the deleted post was meant to be anything other than a one-off complaint to say, "I find this too expensive." I don't think anyone's freedom of speech is in danger at Organissimo.

I agree you should wash your kids before they wear clothes.

I'm a big fan of Woody Allen's movies--at this point in his career they're fairly predictable but I find them charming. And of course I love the soundtracks. I don't think this particular polemic has much to do with his movies per se, though.

"Appropriation" and "reparation" are strong terms. Personally, I think the issue only really comes up with a certain level of social impact. I suspect that Iverson's goat would not have been got except for the fact that great and unwarranted claims are made in the article re: Allen's unique ability to save the future of jazz, that and the fawning tone. If you're going to get publicity about what an important and influential jazz musician you are, and you are demonstrably lacking in virtually any connection to the music's history and practitioners other than your own record collection and supper-club band, then you're fair game for debunking. Personally, neither Allen nor the article make me angry, whereas Iverson seems rather vexed. But the points he makes are, I think, valid ones in evaluating the article and Allen's role in jazz.

The article says a few things that are incontestable: - Woody Allen plays music that he loves, New Orleans jazz. - He doesn't claim to be any good at it. - Lots of people go see him play because he is Woody Allen. - Some of them are unfamiliar with the music and find that they enjoy it. - "Allen is not jazz's savior—to say so would certainly mortify many people, most of all him." Despite qualifications, certain other things are ridiculous: As for the race thing, I note that whenever a white musician or commentator brings up race, not in defense of white contributions but to recognize the role of the "black community," the tendency is to dismiss it as expressing "racial guilt." I think that's a simplistic response and not necessarily true. I certainly don't think Iverson's article insults anyone's intelligence (although it might call for one to exercise it). It is perhaps true that Iverson, a working jazz pianist and sometime classical pianist who admires, works with, writes about and interviews white and black practitioners of both worlds, occasionally talks about race because he is alert to its implications, observing and experiencing them as he does on a frequent basis.

I remain skeptical. I mean, good for him for playing the music he likes, but the message of the article seems to be "What a rotten shame that jazz got all modern and difficult and stuff. Thank God Woody Allen is the keeper of the flame, single-handedly keeping New Orleans jazz from dying out entirely. Jazz owes him a great debt." I mean, puh-leeze. Ethan Iverson also has some issues with the article, expressed in a Do the Math post. Among other things, he notes, "If I was a curious young black person who stumbled across their piece in the Voice today, I'd run away from jazz as fast as I could."