Lazaro Vega

? Time to look in the discography! From his session index: Kenny Dorham & The Jazz Prophets Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 1st set, May 31, 1956 Kenny Dorham & The Jazz Prophets w. Kenny Burrell Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 2nd set, May 31, 1956 Kenny Dorham & The Jazz Prophets w. Kenny Burrell Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 3rd set, May 31, 1956 Kenny Dorham & The Jazz Prophets w. Kenny Burrell Cafe Bohemia, NYC, 4th set, May 31, 1956 Phil Woods 7 VGS, Hackensack, NJ, June 15, 1956 Kenny Dorham & The Jazz Prophets NYC, July 19, 1956 The July 19th session does not appear to have been issued. The ABC session was done right before the Cafe Bohemia stand.

Will have to check those as "Alfie" 's'been the favorite. Did a night on Fathead this past Thursday and played many of his High Note releases. "Davey Blue" stands out, especially for "Cristo Redentor" (on alto). Think Fathead played a little gospel when he was with Ray? Also dug out a couple of the sessions he did with Jimmy McGriff -- unpretentious and swinging.

For what it is worth there's a figure Sonny Rollins plays during his solo on "My Old Flame" from "Jazz Contrasts" which Trane picked out and turned into the head of "Like Sonny." Trane runs that figure at length during, I think it is, his solo during "On Green Dolphin Street" in the 1960 concert Stockholm Concert with Miles. (Lewis Porter points out the allusion in "My Old Flame"). Picked up that Jazz Prophets group cd originally on ABC out of the blue a few years ago and dig it.

Thanks Allen. Looking forward to checking out the trio tracks, especially, with Sandke and Robinson.

Looks like they worked up to the recording and it sounds like it: there are all kinds of things happening to hold this together. The eels thing is a trip, though, wow. Who thinks of that? Whales and wolves and other critters with Paul Winter in a romantic (classic sense, not sexual sense), sentimental, even nostalgic "environmental jazz" thing in the 70's. But eels just for their sound. "Baby baby its a wild world...."

Big tubes in their servers? Man, that has to be expensive, just paying for the bandwidth. I wonder how many on-line listeners that allows. They must have the Stay Puff marshmallow man as a sugar daddy. All sugar. Sucrose to burn.

Cornetist Rob Mazurek's avant "super group" where, "the overall organic approach included actual organic sounds - for example, the sounds of electric eels recorded by Mazurek at INPA research laboratory in Manaus. The juxtaposition of two drums, two basses, two mallets, multiple flutes, two cornets, bass clarinet, ARP synthesizer, guitar, trombone, voices and flugelhorn all played important roles in the development of the final sound. "“Psycho-Tropic Electric Eel Dream” is a group improvisation centered around the sound of electric eels. The electric eel tanks Mazurek recorded at INPA contain two species of eels, Pulsating and Waveform. The sound was recorded in a special tank of 15-20 eels of various sub-species, each with its own tone. The results are fascinating tonal clusters not unlike the sound of violins." There's so much going on here that after three full passes through the album it hasn't completely sunk in. Nichole Mitchell's flute is a centerpiece in the work. http://www.thrilljockey.com/artists/?id=10140

The flutes on "Joy Spring" make a sound unlike anything else. It seems the start of "Joy Spring" is upcut on my copy -- it jumps to a start a hair into the piece.

I slept on "Citizen Tain" forever and keep hearing from his fans that it is the album to have. The reunion of the brothers and all.....

The one with Arno? Our friend in Ohio, Jerry Lynch, has recorded nearly every web cast we've done since first going on the web. It is a good solution for listening to a program that goes until 3 a.m. He can listen on his own time, and he'll BUY the music he hears that he enjoys. Not to mention he has great taste.

Sequed some of this with John Carter's "Castles of Ghana."

(Copy of letter sent to Congressman Markey via his web site. Also phoned his office with thanks). Thank you Congressman Markey for your advocacy of more intelligent rules and fees for Internet web streaming services. I'm the Jazz Director at Blue Lake Public Radio (www.bluelake.org) and the over regulations of programming content in the DMCA -- where you may only play 4 pieces by the same artist in the a 3 hour period -- makes it impossible to broadcast a radio program which gives the listener a true idea of the depth and scope of Duke Ellington's contribution to American culture, for instance. It isn't just Ellington, though, it is the entire 78 rpm era, the Swing Era, which is forgotten in this legislation. Of course that was America's greatest musical era. What's ironic is that music from the 1920's and 1930's has survived every technological advancement known to modern man starting with acoustic recording, then electric recording, then radio, then long playing microgroove recordings and on and on -- even digital audio tape. But it managed to stay connected to the people, to the music's audience. The DMCA programming regulations separate the music from anyone interested in hearing it in depth via the web. Depth is what educational, non-commercial programming provides. Yet that strength isn't allowed on the web stream, not without the work of getting web stream waivers from the copyright holders. However the majority of labels who hold the rights to the 78 rpm era won't sign. They say to block the stream when doing that kind of programming. Keeping the music from the audience is antithetical to a radio station's mission. In any case, thank you for your advocacy of something other than the profit motive. Radio is about connecting with people's imaginations, not their wallet. The rules overlook the fact that people use the radio to listen to music and that listening and purchasing are two separate activities. The way the web streams are being regulated it is as if each listener is using the stream as a delivery system for purchasing music, and that's a fundamental mis-reading of the audience. Of course broadcasters should pay to be on the web -- that's not the issue. The issue is fairness and, especially, keeping the audience in mind. It's the only way music will stay "on the air." Thanks again, Lazaro Vega Jazz Director Blue Lake Public Radio 300 East Crystal Lake Road Twin Lake MI 49457 WBLV FM 90.3/WBLU FM 88.9 www.bluelake.org

That's not true. FM channels pay BMI and ASCAP rates to broadcast FM. Those royalties go to composers, though, not performers. These web cast rates go to performers. And these rates apply to podcasters. Podcasting music is about impossible if you follow the rules as "on demand" downloading of music is seen (not by me but by these lobbies who've written the laws) as a point of purchase as opposed to listening. Now that I've read the article they do deal with this issue. This, too, about the laws governing program on the web: "Their reasoning was that a digital radio transmission was not a radio broadcast at all, but a sequence of perfect digital copies of music performances provided to the user, who could then copy them rather than paying to own a CD." This is the point where things went completely wrong. People listen to the radio to fullfill their imaginations. A very small percentage to "steal" music.

http://news.com.com/2001-1_3-0.html?tag=prntfr> e7cb6b9.jpg http://www.news.com/2001-1_3-0.html?tag=pr...//www.news.com/ New Net radio rules draw fire on Capitol Hill By Anne Broache http://news.com.com/New+Net+radio+rules+dr..._3-6165336.html Story last modified Thu Mar 08 06:01:00 PST 2007 WASHINGTON--A key Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday slammed new federal rules that would require many Internet radio services to pay higher fees to record companies. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) had harsh words for http://news.com.com//2061-10799_3-6164865.html a ruling released Tuesday by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board. It proposes raising the amount that commercial Internet radio services pay to record companies by 30 percent retroactively to 2006 and in each of the next three years through 2009. Each station would have to hand over a minimum $500 royalty payment. The pricing inquiries arose in part because Mel Karmazin, CEO of Sirius Satellite Radio, whose proposed merger with XM Satellite Radio is being scrutinized by House members, seemed to indicate at a House hearing last week that prices would never increase, even on the combined service. "This represents a body blow to many nascent Internet radio broadcasters and further exacerbates the marketplace imbalance between what different industries pay," Markey said at http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/...ure_radio.shtml a hearing here titled "The Future of Radio". The hearing was convened by the House panel on telecommunications and the Internet, of which Markey is chairman. "It makes little sense to me for the smallest players to pay proportionately the largest royalty fee." Before http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/...terms2005-1.pdf the CRB's new rules (PDF), which are subject to appeal, most Webcasters calculated their requisite royalty rates based on a percentage of their revenue. According to calculations by the Radio and Internet Newsletter, an advocate for Net radio services, the new retroactive 2006 rate would require Webcasters to pay approximately 1.28 cents per listener per hour--enough to cripple some smaller services, the group argued. "One can easily imagine Web radio looking more and more homogenized," --Robert Kimball, general counsel, RealNetworks The CRB's decision has imperiled Webcasters by widening the gap between what Internet radio and satellite radio services must pay, RealNetworks general counsel Robert Kimball told politicians. He was also speaking for the Digital Media Association, whose members include Amazon.com, Apple, Microsoft and MP3.com, a property of CNET Networks, publisher of News.com. If the decision is not overturned, "one can easily imagine Web radio looking more and more homogenized," Kimball said. That's because the higher rates may force Internet radio operators to reduce the number of songs they carry or increase their advertising prices and frequency, which could make it a less desirable place for advertisers to invest, he said. Kimball suggested the http://news.com.com//2061-10802_3-6160483.html proposed merger between XM and Sirius should be put on hold until Congress "corrects the Copyright Act's bias against the Internet," thereby allowing Internet radio companies to compete more fully with satellite firms. For instance, the Copyright Act prohibits Internet radio from offering its own recording devices and portable radio devices, but it does not levy the same restrictions on other radio services, Kimball said. (A recording industry-backed effort is under way in Congress, however, to http://news.com.com//Senators+aim+to+restr..._3-6149915.html impose new restrictions on satellite radio devices.) Copyright law also places a number of programming restrictions exclusively on Webcasters, Kimball said, including forbidding them from announcing upcoming songs and playing more than two songs consecutively or four songs over a three-hour period by the same artist. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said she believes Internet radio could face threats from another source: "broadband providers who have the ability and incentive to limit consumers' access to the content of their choice." She called for passage of http://news.com.com//Net+neutrality+showdo..._3-6055133.html Net neutrality legislation, which failed to pass Congress last year, that would prohibit such a practice. Questions about XM-Sirius Although Internet radio played some role in the hearing, many politicians continued to focus their questions about the proposed $13 billion merger between satellite radio players XM and Sirius. Just a week after a House panel that oversees antitrust issues http://news.com.com//House+panel+grills+Si..._3-6163223.html grilled him, Sirius CEO Karmazin agreed to field similar questions from Markey's committee. Several politicians on the committee, including Markey, said they planned to scrutinize the proposed deal for potential conflicts with the public interest. Some voiced outright reservations about approval of the deal. "It's hard to see how prices of satellite radio will go down" as a result of the merger, said Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas). The broadcast industry opposes the deal on the grounds that combining the two companies would amount to a government-sanctioned monopoly. Consumer groups also have voiced fears that the merged entity would result in higher prices for satellite subscribers. Karmazin again argued the combined companies would give more programming choices to listeners and would not result in raised prices--at least on the individual services. He reiterated that the same receiver would be able to get content from both services, eliminating the need for customers to purchase another device if the deal goes through. "You will not pay more than $12.95 for that service after the merger," he told the committee. He added that the combined company plans to offer the option of purchasing smaller batches of channels for a lower price. Pressed by Markey on the combined company's pricing plans, Karmazin acknowledged that customers who want to receive content from both XM's and Sirius's previous offerings may have to pay more than $12.95. He declined to give an exact figure but estimated that price would be "closer to $10" less than the $25.90 it would currently cost to subscribe to both services. It will ultimately be up to the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to decide whether the merger favors consumers or would hinder competition. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin made it clear as recently as an interview published Wednesday in The New York Times that the companies have high hurdles to jump. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2601 scheduled its own hearing on the matter for March 20. CNET News.com's Desiree Everts contributed to this report.

Royalty-Rate Hike Alarms Web Broadcasters Small Radio StationsFear Increase Will Force Them To Abandon the Internet By SARAH MCBRIDE March 7, 2007; Page B1 Internet radio broadcasters face the alarming prospect of paying much higher royalties to song performers, a burden that could silence some online stations. The Copyright Royalty Board, an obscure federal agency charged by Congress in late 2004 with setting sound-recording royalty rates for online radio stations, has carried out its mandate -- with the result that some broadcasters could be on the hook for millions of dollars more than they had planned. The rates set by the board, effective retroactively to 2006, start at .08 cents per song, per listener. While that might not sound like much, it rises every year and adds up fast. And that's in addition to the sizeable royalties Internet radio companies pay to the songwriters and composers of the underlying works. "With these rates, there's no Pandora," asserts Tim Westergren, co-founder of Pandora.com, an online radio service with about six million registered users. The schedule is likely to take up a big part of the agenda at a congressional hearing on the future of radio scheduled for today. RealNetworks Inc., a Web company, is among those testifying. While the hearings aren't expected to affect the new rates, the industry can appeal the decision at the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. But it's the small broadcasters that are hit especially hard. Until now, Congress has kept the stations' royalty costs artificially low to encourage a nascent industry. Previously, those smaller groups could pay 12% of revenue to a music group called SoundExchange, which collects royalties for digital spins of a song and doles them out to song performers and record labels. Because the smaller stations paid a percentage of revenue, they never faced a situation where their royalty bills exceeded their operating revenue, as many will now. At the same time, music labels facing faltering revenue have been eager to make sure that everyone pays for their music. The board's new rates appear to be close to those sought by SoundExchange, an offshoot of the Recording Industry Association of America that now operates independently. But the Internet radio broadcasters say the rates hit one of the few bright spots in the moribund music business and thus end up shooting the labels in the foot. "People buy a lot more music because of what they hear online," says Mr. Westergren of Pandora. "Internet radio is one of the best things happening to the record industry," agrees Kurt Hanson, owner of the online radio company, Accuradio. The entrepreneur calculated that under the old rules Accuradio's sound-recording royalty payments last year would be about $50,000. But under the new schedule, Mr. Hanson figures that his bill now amounts to about $600,000 -- more than all of last year's revenue from his radio Web site. The rates also hit public radio stations like those affiliated with National Public Radio, which has been charging hard into online music. The public-radio stations were previously allowed to pay a flat fee under a separate negotiation with the music industry association. Now the stations will be subject to the new rates, after a small number of exempted hours of streamed music. "NPR is consulting with the public-radio community to determine what steps must be taken to reverse this decision and its dire consequences on public service media," says spokeswoman Andi Sporkin. Internet radio counts over 50 million listeners in the U.S., many of them tuned in to tiny, niche-oriented online broadcasters. That's well in excess of the 14 million or so subscribers satellite radio can claim. Satellite radio pays sound-recording royalties under a different schedule that was separately negotiated with the music industry; it too is up for renegotiation. The schedule highlights an inequality that has rankled many online entrepreneurs for years. Regular radio stations don't pay royalties to performers for their over-the-airwaves broadcasts, although they do pay royalties to composers and songwriters. "It's flat out unfair," says Jonathan Potter, executive director of the Washington-based Digital Media Association, which represents online music companies such as AOL. His organization is weighing its options, which include appealing the new schedule within 15 days. Judge James Sledge, who oversaw the proceedings at the Copyright Royalty Board, says the schedule "is our best determination" given the boundaries established by Congress. Write to Sarah McBride at sarah.mcbride@wsj.com1

Hi all - More details on the new royalty rate: The Copyright Royalty Board has announced new rates and terms that apply to digital streaming of sound recordings over the internet. The new rates represent a steep increase over the rates that broadcasters previously paid to stream their stations' broadcasts. A good summary and analysis of the ruling is here: http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml Highlights: The new rates for commercial webcasters are: $.0008 per performance for 2006 $.0011 per performance for 2007 $.0014 per performance for 2008 $.0018 per performance for 2009 $.0019 per performance for 2010 The transmission of a song to each listener is considered a performance. Thus, transmitting one song to 500 people would be considered 500 performances. It has been estimated that in the case of a commercial webcaster with an average of 500 listeners at any moment, broadcasting 16 songs an hour, 24 hours a day, this would result in a payment of about $211 a day for 2007, annualized to $77,015 a year. These rates are retroactive through the beginning of 2006. Noncommercial webcasters playing LESS than 159,140 aggregate tuning hours per month (less than approximately 221 listeners in any given hour) are only required to make the minimum $500 payment. Note: these new rates apply only to the sound recording component of the broadcast - that is to say, to the performer or record label. Royalties for the underlying musical compositions are collected by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. The current ASCAP and BMI licenses permit broadcast radio simulcasts from a station's website. SESAC requires a separate license. There's some movement among webcasters and web radio fans protesting the agreement, more information at: savethestreams.org and saveourinternetradio.com. I'm looking into other avenues besides petitioning congress and will forward what I hear. All the best, Jean Cook Future of Music Coalition www.futureofmusic.org

(begin forewarded message) HAD SOME TIME ON MY HANDS SO I LOOKED THIS UP SO YOU SHITKICKERS WOULD KNOW HOW YOU CAME TO BE. WHO IS JACK SCHITT??? For some time many of us have wondered just who is Jack Schitt? We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt!' Well, thanks to my genealogy efforts, you can now respond in an intellectual way. Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married O. Schitt, the owner of Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. They had one son, Jack. In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt. The deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt. Against her parents' objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout. After being married 15 years, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced. Noe Schitt later married Ted Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was then known as Noe Schitt Sherlock. Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Lotta Schitt, and they produced a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony. The wedding announcement in the newspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials. The Schitt-Happens children were Dawg, Byrd, and Horse. Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently returned from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt. Now when someone says, 'You don't know Jack Schitt,' you can correct them. Sincerely, Crock O. Schitt

That's no more practical than that "real jazz" musicians should have a path for "free" musicians to sit in. It can happen, sure, but it doesn't make sense to say it's a kind of obligation. I think Crouch means to say that jazz "needs" a community in the specific sense of a widely shared repertoire and shared musical goals and practices, and to the extent that some music becomes more dependent on idiosyncratic systems or processes, ignoring traditional methods, and thereby excluding musicians who haven't made a specific study of the more idiosyncratic music, it is outside the "community" and no longer jazz. He wants "jazz" to be a genre in which everyone can be judged by the same criteria. Having a single community with a single set of standards is a nice and cozy idea; everyone likes to be part of a group and share in what the group is all about. To an extent (but only to an extent) jazz had that up to the late 50's or so. But it's long gone. On the other hand, there remains a very large and vibrant community within the larger jazz world that meets Crouch's criteria. It's not like swing and changes aren't still the focus of a majority of jazz players in the world. The more insecure members of that community, such as Crouch and that other guy, the trumpet player, resist any expansion of the definition of "jazz" as if it were a criticism of their own preferred style; but of course that isn't the case. Most aficionados of "free" or non-traditional jazz that I know are in love with the whole tradition, and the musicians involved, whether or not they could play convincing bebop themselves, are usually knowledgeable and appreciative of what Crouch calls "real jazz." Likewise, many straight-ahead players love a lot of "free jazz," whether or not they play it. Crouch would have it that jazz is made up of two rival camps, viewing one another with anger and suspicion, and in fact his writing tends to encourage such tendencies when they are latent. But Iverson is right: "it is high time to put this issue--which has fragmented the jazz world terribly--onto the table and look at it in a serious way." Then again, has it ever been a harmonious community with agreed upon standards? From the Creole vs Uptown (that is trained vs ear musicians) of old New Orleans there's been a difference of opinion about approach. Though the uptown musicians would concur that their Creole brethren were better educated, more consistently good musicians, it was, in a political sense, a forced synergy. Then the emerging swing guys looked at Jelly Roll as corny because of his ties to ragtime. It about skipped a generation before Jelly was seen for the skill, creativity and depth of his musical contribution, and only now being regarded as one of the great "Johnny Appleseed" type figures of the music a decade before jazz was even recorded. That is he left New Orleans and turned on many, many musicians across the country to what jazz was. So, in context, I'm not sure there ever was an agreed upon set of standards that remained in place very long, long enough to speak to the entire music. There are ideas that run through the tradition which are consistent, and would include jazz after 1959, but in terms of "measurable" musical standards those seemed to be in a constant state of change, which is what makes jazz so dynamic (purposefully written in the present tense as naiveté rules the day as long as Cecil, Ornette, Muhal, Braxton, Roscoe, Threadgill, many others, are alive and making music).

Page not found

As just a side note -- I wrote a long article for the Grand Rapids Press about The New History of Jazz when it first came out and produced a two hour radio special from the same interview with Alyn Shipton. In the lead to this article there was a mention of "not much notice" in America. That may be true, but there was probably more than he knows. Here is the interview: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9830

Well there's some good news out of Chicago's jazz scene. Congratulations.

Some more LeRoy Jenkins in there, Ohio. Hope you dig it.

Around 1983 Rosengarden played at Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp with the Blue Lake Monster, our faculty big band. Warm and easy going guy who could really swing. RIP.

Yikes, it is one o'clock and I'm just getting back to you. Mike Hennessey wrote, "'The Seagulls of Kristiansund' was written by Mal when he was spending a vacation close to the beach in that Norwegian location ni 1977. "I used to watch the seagulls perform a ballet every morning," he says. Hennessey mentions the piece is built around two tone centers, E minor and A minor. He writes, "It is a slow, poignant, rather melancholy composition whose mood is beautifully sustained throughout in successive solos by Rouse, Shaw and Workman."

Coming up right after Ornette.....