AndrewHill

He was drinking heavily, I think, well into the 1980's. If I remember correctly, it was discussed in a 'Night of the Blue Note DVD' like thread (I'm sorry for not posting a link, because I don't recall the exact title of the thread or where its at) and he showed up and sat in the audience completely ripped. It was my impression (again I could be wrong) that maybe he was there to play, but he was too trashed to perform.

I have a 4-disc set of Bach's Das wohl Temperirte Clavier the '48' performed by Colin Tilney on Hyperion, and in the booklet, they explain how they found an original period clavier, tuned to the specifications of the time and played it in a vintage chamber hall. The pics are pretty cool too. I compared this with another copy I own, which does not follow the rigor of the Hyperion and there is a significant difference in sound. Maybe the closet we'll get to hearing what Bach might've sounded like? That's interesting :JSBach wrote his 48 to demonstrate the benefits of his new tuning approach known as the equal temperament (in french, at least...!).(1) That meant any of the preludes and fugues could be played on an instrument tuned that way and sound good, whatever the key...Do you mean, by "tuned to the specification of the time" that Bach's tempering method was not used and the old method of tuning the keyboard specifically for each key was used?Frankly, given the program, I doubt it, but it would be interesting the listen to the differences between the many ways of tuning.Does the booklet give anymore indications about this? (1) I mean the well tempered keyboard Sorry for the confusion. I guess you'll have to excuse my poor choice of words, since I'm not a musician nor a music theorist That said, I was really emphasizing the instrument itself, not the keys the pieces are played in. I pulled out the set though, just to make sure (I should've done this before I typed, but it was buried under a huge stack of cds) and Tilney plays a clavichord (1767) and harpsichord (1764) made by Hamburg builder Johann Adolph Hass for this recording. The booklet also mentions that Tilney performed in the Friends of St. Cecilia's Hall, which is also furnished with period furnishings to boot. When I compared the Hyperion with the other cd I had (it was one of those generic 'weekend classics' sort of cd, which I've since sold, the Hyperion was an upgrade) there was a remarkable difference not only in the sound of the instruments, but also, curiously, the metre the pieces were played in (the Hyperion version seems to be played at a slower pace, where the 'weekend classic' one is played faster. Why that is, I have no idea. Nothing to worry about...Listening to the music is what matters.This Hyperion sounds interesting by the instrument on which the work is played upon, at least. The incredible thing is how these studies which are purely didactical in intention diffuse such strong moods and emotions : great composer, great music! Thanks I checked around to see if the Hyperion set was still available and I couldn't find it at cdnow/amazon market or on ebay. It was printed in 1989, so I'm guessing its not available anymore. A shame, because it really is an enjoyable recording.

I have a 4-disc set of Bach's Das wohl Temperirte Clavier the '48' performed by Colin Tilney on Hyperion, and in the booklet, they explain how they found an original period clavier, tuned to the specifications of the time and played it in a vintage chamber hall. The pics are pretty cool too. I compared this with another copy I own, which does not follow the rigor of the Hyperion and there is a significant difference in sound. Maybe the closet we'll get to hearing what Bach might've sounded like? That's interesting :JSBach wrote his 48 to demonstrate the benefits of his new tuning approach known as the equal temperament (in french, at least...!).(1) That meant any of the preludes and fugues could be played on an instrument tuned that way and sound good, whatever the key...Do you mean, by "tuned to the specification of the time" that Bach's tempering method was not used and the old method of tuning the keyboard specifically for each key was used?Frankly, given the program, I doubt it, but it would be interesting the listen to the differences between the many ways of tuning.Does the booklet give anymore indications about this? (1) I mean the well tempered keyboard Sorry for the confusion. I guess you'll have to excuse my poor choice of words, since I'm not a musician nor a music theorist That said, I was really emphasizing the instrument itself, not the keys the pieces are played in. I pulled out the set though, just to make sure (I should've done this before I typed, but it was buried under a huge stack of cds) and Tilney plays a clavichord (1767) and harpsichord (1764) made by Hamburg builder Johann Adolph Hass for this recording. The booklet also mentions that Tilney performed in the Friends of St. Cecilia's Hall, which is also furnished with period furnishings to boot. When I compared the Hyperion with the other cd I had (it was one of those generic 'weekend classics' sort of cd, which I've since sold, the Hyperion was an upgrade) there was a remarkable difference not only in the sound of the instruments, but also, curiously, the metre the pieces were played in (the Hyperion version seems to be played at a slower pace, where the 'weekend classic' one is played faster. Why that is, I have no idea.

I would say its a bad idea. I'm a prof (I'm 36) and deal mostly with adults and I would never get involved with a student, or if a student expressed interest in me I'd shoot it down (as tactfully as possible)immediately. Ethically and legally, your band director should do his best to make sure that their relationship does not go beyond student-teacher. Just my two cents. HG

Funny enough, my old calculus textbook has a picture of one half of a violin on the cover (the James Stewart 4th edition).

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing... I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler). There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.' Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work. Food for thought. It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself). The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed. I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors. Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took. edited for spelling. Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points: Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton. The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz. Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics. I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context. Point one: no, they arrived at their respective findings nearly 10 years apart. Newton arrived at his findings somewhere between 1665-66 whereas Leibniz arrived at his findings around 1673-6. Leibniz published his dissertation first in 1684-6, whereas Newton published in 1687. point two: that may be true; he also held the chair of philosophy at Cambridge at the time and his influence may have been felt through and through in the Academy. Point three: just citing examples to show that there was some difference in the direction of their work. Yes Newton worked more with the finite and with a fluxational calculus but he also dealt with limits. I can cite where that is stated if necessary. Yes, Leibniz dealt more with the infinite. Point four: I can't verify if Newton was the one who barred Leibniz credit. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that the Academy awarded co-credit for their work, and in that regard, they share that intellectual property. I don't recall reading anywhere that Newton 'stole' from Leibniz, but I can cite several instances where Leibniz was accused of plagerizing Newton's work, which we all know now is just nonsense. This is getting beyond silly, but I think your dates are off on Newton (I don't think he published the full theory until the turn of the 18th century). You are absolutely wrong about limits. Neither Liebniz nor Newton used limits in developing calculus (they were both dead nearly a hundred years before they were rigourously defined by Wasserstein). Liebniz and Newton used the concept of infinitesimally small positive quantities, but this is NOT a limit and, in the absence of the concept of a limit, is not a mathematically rigorous concept. An analogy would be that inifintesimals in the 17th century were on about as firm of ground as dirac delta functions are today - ie they aren't. That doesn't mean people don't use them or that they aren't useful, but the theory to support them isn't there. It is not difficult to verify that Newton was behind (or at minimum materially supportive) of efforts to discredit Liebniz and brand him a plagerist - which resonates with his alleged campaign against Hooke (and Flamsteed, who helped with the Principia, for that matter). This kind of shit really followed Newton around. Neither Newton nor Leibniz was dumb, but they aren't making my favorites list. Finally, let it be known that Newton's notation completely sucked. You're right, it is getting silly. But I will agree that yes, Newton's notation was beyond rediculous. Leibniz's notations are very user-friendly. But I'm going to have to say that I admire Leibniz very much, not only as a mathematician but as a philosopher as well. Ok. That's it.

Some of the first jazz cds I bought was Time Out by Dave Brubeck, Jazz Impressions of a Black Orpheus by Vince Guaraldi and Search for the New Land by Lee Morgan. Congrats! HG

whereas everyone would expect Yusuf, Muhammad or Osama, in this case it's Sammich. I'm rather dissappointed the GGASW did not notice. MG

There is some tremendous talent here. Only the greatest respect for these album covers. And yes, that Wilen cover is out of sight! Another great one!

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing... I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler). There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.' Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work. Food for thought. It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself). The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed. I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors. Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took. edited for spelling. Got to run to make the Rivers show, but a couple quick points: Liebniz published the foundations of calculus about 10 years before Newton. The RAS, of which Newton was the most influential member at the time, was very obviously biased against Liebniz. Limits and multi-variance are neither mutually exclusive nor related, nor are they defining features of calculus. Newton built up calculus from the principle of flux, whereas Liebniz used a loose form of differentials, which was not made rigorous until Cauchy came along a couple hundred years ago and defined differentials in terms of limits (in addition to doing some other seriously important work, esp w/ regards to extending the notion of calculus to complex numbers). Limits appeared in neither Newton nor Liebniz's work, and as such neither formulation was really rigorous by the standards of modern mathematics. I suppose part of this debate comes down to your definition of stealing when it comes to intellectual property. Newton certainly went to great length to ensure that Liebniz was not allowed his share of the credit, which to me is stealing in this context. Point one: no, they arrived at their respective findings nearly 10 years apart. Newton arrived at his findings somewhere between 1665-66 whereas Leibniz arrived at his findings around 1673-6. Leibniz published his dissertation first in 1684-6, whereas Newton published in 1687. point two: that may be true; he also held the chair of philosophy at Cambridge at the time and his influence may have been felt through and through in the Academy. Point three: just citing examples to show that there was some difference in the direction of their work. Yes Newton worked more with the finite and with a fluxational calculus but he also dealt with limits. I can cite where that is stated if necessary. Yes, Leibniz dealt more with the infinite. Point four: I can't verify if Newton was the one who barred Leibniz credit. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that the Academy awarded co-credit for their work, and in that regard, they share that intellectual property. I don't recall reading anywhere that Newton 'stole' from Leibniz, but I can cite several instances where Leibniz was accused of plagerizing Newton's work, which we all know now is just nonsense.

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing... I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler). There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.' Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work. Food for thought. It's not true that there is no evidence that Newton stole from Liebniz, but I don't have time to really get into it now (also I'm a derive from first principles guy rather than a dates and names guy, so if I tried to get into this without reviewing I'd make mistakes and end up embarassing myself). The research into Hooke has been very active since the early 90s (it was around before then, but sparked up in the 90s) - some (I don't know what percentage) historians of science are convinced that Newton stole the theory of gravitation from him and IIRC blackmailed him to keep him quiet. I attended a convincing lecture on this topic by a physicist turned historian from Harvard in about 1997. Newton also apparently attempted to erase Hooke from history, by having his portraits and notes destroyed. I'm fuzzier on the Kepler stuff, but recall being told about it by one of my undergrad professors. Like I said, I have no idea about the other two, but I'd be interested in hearing the evidence that Newton stole from Leibniz, especially if its anything else other than calculus. If anything, Leibniz was accused of stealing from Newton and the Royal Academy of the Arts and Sciences ruled against Leibniz that he discovered calculus. It wasn't until after Leibniz's death in 1716, that Newton and Leibniz were co-credited. In addition, Leibniz only published one book (the Theodicy I believe) in his lifetime, and that deals with religion and any correspondence between the two supposedly did not discuss calculus. And the fact that Newton's calculus dealt with limits for example, and Liebniz's dealt with mulit-variance, I think shows the independent paths they took. edited for spelling.

I like Richard Feynman quite a bit, if not for anything else then the Feynman integral. A couple of great bios on him is Genius (Pantheon) and The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford). Gleick's 'Genius' is easier to read then Mehra's 'Drum,' which goes into the physics and math in more detail. I recall the Gleick book to be a very good read. No love for Niels? I think I read it in a matter of days. I just couldn't put it down. Some love for Bohr. He changed Rutherford's model of the atom, which altered our understanding of atoms at the time.

I'm leaving him out on the grounds that he was a looney tune. But he's right up there, of course: The three laws of motion, the Principia, the law of gravition, that town in Massachusetts, not to mention the fig thing... I left him out because of the evidence that he stole most of his most famous work (primarily from Liebniz, Hooke and Kepler). There's no evidence to suggest that Newton stole anything from Leibniz. I have no idea about the other two though. Concerning calculus, the dispute is who founded it first. It appears that Leibniz did by about 10 years. But if you compare their work, Newton's notations are very different from Leibniz's and I think it was settled long ago that Newton couldn't have possibly seen any of Leibniz's work. As it goes, Leibniz's notations were easier to read and thus that's what has survived, e.g., Leibniz's integral symbol is an elongated 'S' which means 'sum.' Now was Newton a looney tune? You probably have to be when you're that kind of genius. For example, it is known that he would pace for weeks at a time, non-stop, before he was ready to work. Food for thought.

Cool photo along with the one of Cecil in the boyscouts. What a trip!

Indeed.

This may be a good time to come up with 'would be' album covers if Big John would've signed with ECM

I have a 4-disc set of Bach's Das wohl Temperirte Clavier the '48' performed by Colin Tilney on Hyperion, and in the booklet, they explain how they found an original period clavier, tuned to the specifications of the time and played it in a vintage chamber hall. The pics are pretty cool too. I compared this with another copy I own, which does not follow the rigor of the Hyperion and there is a significant difference in sound. Maybe the closet we'll get to hearing what Bach might've sounded like?

Yes. Clarke and McBee are absolutely incredible on that date. Probably my favorite of the Pharoahs.

One of my math profs studied with Kurt Godel at the Advanced Institute of Study back in the mid 70's. One story he shared was that Godel and Einstein liked to watch Disney flicks at the theater together on the weekends. I think he said that this was in the late 40's early 50's.

I like Richard Feynman quite a bit, if not for anything else then the Feynman integral. A couple of great bios on him is Genius (Pantheon) and The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford). Gleick's 'Genius' is easier to read then Mehra's 'Drum,' which goes into the physics and math in more detail.

The wife loves the show, and I watch it passively. Out of the three seasons that I have sat through, last night's finale was just awful. We invited some friends over and turned it into a dinner party and before we knew it, two hours fllew in no time.

Just got Lacy's Evidence from last weekend, and what a nice date. I like Cherry on trumpet although I can imagine things being a little edgier if he would've brought his pocket trumpet. Carl Brown holds his own too, and with Higgins, it sort of sounds like it could've been a Lacy plus Ornette's rhythm section. I like how they handle Monk's Evidence as well.

I have barely half of them (There were 12, right? They came and went before I could even say 'West Coast Classics'). I have: Mulligan/Baker Sheldon Cooper/Shank Touff Baker/Freeman I think this series is neat, if it didn't do anything else but expose me to a lot of artists that I never got to hear before, besides the obvious. Out of these, the Mulligan/Baker and the Cy Touff are among the ones I listen to the most. But this perspective is somewhat limited because I haven't heard a vast majority of them. What a shame that they're all OPP except for two. So I just keep my eyes peeled hoping to find them used (found the Touff for $5 at Half Price a couple of years ago and I think I yelled out 'NO WAY!' in the store. One of the coolest finds and at a great price.)

Ditto. Great line-up on that one.

Sorry... I'll get ya on there! No problem -_- Thanks for the add. Again, a very well-done professional-looking job. Hats off.