Adam

I actually think that is a straw man argument, that "once one thing goes back, then the museums will get emptied out." The British Museum uses that all the time. But it simply isn't true. These countries aren't asking for everything back - just some key pieces. Most countries are cognizant of the fact that these pieces in foreign museums are (as one expert put it) "our best ambassadors." It is not in their interests to get everything back. Nevertheless, there are other legitimate reasons to hold off on any returns, primarily the ability of the "source" country to care for the objects. And the 1970 UNESCO accord certainly favors the old colonial powers. Of course, if it didn't, then there probably wouldn't be any accord. Wait til I tell you about the "ennabling legislation" for it in the United States, passed in 1983. I have more to say but have to go for now.

The UNESCO accord of 1970 tried to address this. Anything henceforth acquired, identifiable as loot, should be returned - thus, acquisitions after 1970. Those acquired before (which includes much of the Louvre, the British Museum, and so forth) can be "excused." However, it gets more complicated than that, as one might expect. Sometimes museums return things obtained before 1970 when it is just so clear that the objects were acquired nefariously. Example: the Lydian Horde, from Turkey, which the Met sent back after fighting it for many years. The Elgin Marbles were obtained "legally" depending on how one interprets the fiat given by the Ottoman Empire to Lord Elgin. The British Museum will never be compelled to return them, and one can provide lots of evidence that the marbles have been preserved in much better condition by being in the museum than if they were still on the Parthenon. But, morally, is there a point where the Brits (and the Marbles are actually the property of the British state) should return them, when a proper museum exists in Athens? Maybe. Or perhaps a shared program. The Greeks asked for a loan of the marbles for the 2004 Olympics, but the Brits turned them down, fearing that they would never be returned. As one interviewee pointed out (Tom Hoving, former director of the Met), the most well-known items in the British Museum are the Elgin Marbles and the Rosetta Stone, both of which are loot. How much would the attendance of the Museum drop if these objects were returned? And Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt, is starting a strong campaign to get some unique treasures returned to Egypt: the Rosetta Stone, the Nefertiti Bust in Berlin, the zodiac in the Louvre, and the state of Queen Hatshepsut in the Met.

How about we discuss whatever my latest History Channel show is on. Then I can tell you what's going on; and you all can tell me what you might find interesting in a show, and watch the final thing. And I am a fount of information on my current show for 6 months. Or is that too self-aggrandizing? Anyway, the topics at hand are: 1. Tomb Raiders - archaeological site theft and illicit artifact trading. Topics discussed include the Frederick Schultz case, in which a NY antiquities dealer was recently imprisoned for supporting the smuggling of artifacts from Egypt. The James ossuary - a looted artifact, so impossible to ever really know its authenticity. The looting of the pyramids in ancient Egypt. The antiquities auction market - estimated to be over 90% looted artifacts. 2. Hannibal the Carthaginian general and the Second Punic War

Wait, I don't understand, is it a 57 page article or a 550 page book?

"I ain't denying there wasn't no bottle." - Leon Spinks You know, it's funny, but if it successfully communicates what they are trying to say, then what does it matter?

Wait, isn't Presley HER name as well?

I have that song on a mixed tape. I think it is in the Sister Rosetta Tharpe Proper box.

My general faves from the 80s are The Waterboys (Fisherman's Blues was the first CD I ever bought) and the Pogues. Prince Bruce Springsteen avoided all references to New Wave, and Born in the USA and Tunnel of Love are both very good. And The River is 1980, I believe. Echo on the Replacements. Some early rap. Some Elvis Costello And Costello comes closest to "New Wave." I have to say I don't have much from the 1980s in my life.

Most peculiar, then. It's still not working. My work has a newly-installed firewall. I wonder if that is affecting it. Although I'm still getting this site. It's still www.jazzcorner.com, right?

For me, AAJ is up and Jazz Corner is down (and has been for 2 days).

Isn't that rule #2?

I saw "Scarface" last night at the Cinerama Dome in LA, and I have to tell you, I don't quite get it. Well, I do in part - it is entertaining, one doesn't notice the passage of 3 hours. I think most of the credit goes to Oliver Stone's script and Pacino's performance rather than anything De Palma did (but there are some great crane & jib shots in there.) But why should this film be this pop favorite/influence on hip-hop? The only full on "success" sequence is that musical montage where money is coming in, and they get the big house, and he marries Michelle. Then it's all down hill. Is it the idea of "you can make yourself and have it all" combined with the over-the-top elements and the quotable lines? I guess that's enough to make a cult film. But any input on that? Is it the sort of film that just plays in the background of a party? Did you hear that the studio wanted to replace the Moroder score with a hip-hop soundtrack, to make it up-to-date? Even Pacino liked the idea. But De Palma, who has final cut, said no, and so it remains. I'm glad - De Palma's reasoning seems right to me - that the film is also a record of its time, and Moroder and that disco (and the hair!) is all that period.

Yes, sorry. Probably just echoing the "album" in the thread title. I still haven't read Mezzrow's autobiography; I need to rectify that soon.

Are you going to do it as a separate thread, as with #1? I think that's a good idea.

Well, the article only mentions pre-bop banjoists, and there were plenty of those down in New Orleans. You can still see one with most "Dixieland" revival bands. But a bop banjoist? Hmmmmm. I bet an avant-garde banjoist would be easier. In fact, I think I've seen one, or am I just thinking of the accordian player with Dave Douglas's group (well, one of his groups)? Must consult my notes....

Another 10 days gone by; any more opinions?

In today's bizarre thought, that Mezz Mezzrow album may have come from Panassie to Henry Miller, which would explain why it would be in an antique shop in Big Sur, where Miller lived.

I got that one too. Wacky isn't it, to think how many people might have just one credit card and might fall for it?

I think I have 19, including the Collector's Disc. I can't remember whether I have the Hank Jones or the Stitt.

I was about to add the same note about Henry, but Shane beat me to it. Grimes attended Friday night as well, but as an audience member. I then saw Henry again Sunday afternoon at the Coffee Table cafe in Silverlake. He and his companion were talking with a third person, and I didn't interrupt. Friday night was mostly songs, really, with Jarman's very Buddhist lyrics.

I have 7 or 8, maybe. A record store out here used to have some at decent rates, but no longer (I think the supllier started going to EBay). Like Chuck, stored on shelves (not CD slot, but regular shelves) with other CDs, and there are so few that I know what they are.

I'm going Friday; I have to work at another event on Saturday for an arts group with which I'm involved. Otherwise, Saturday would be it. I haven't heard that about Henry Grimes, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I think we're related RDK - My Captain name is Captain Sam Rackham Even though there's no legal rank on a pirate ship, everyone recognizes you're the one in charge. You have the good fortune of having a good name, since Rackham (pronounced RACKem, not rack-ham) is one of the coolest sounding surnames for a pirate. Arr!

I will probably pick up a few that I don't own, but won't do any replacing for now. Amazon is carrying them for 13.99 or 14.99, and I can't see paying more than that, although I noticed that most retailers seem to have them at 16.99. But they really should have included a bonus something in each disc. Any new liner notes?

Wasn't this originally a 4 volume compilation? What have they been adding?