Dr. Rat

Looks just like my rat Chubbs! --eric

I think he picked up the clarinet late, didn't he? Much later I think than this photo must be from.

That's what I meant, that even before the trial they decided not to pursue that charge versus the securities fraud charge which was thrown out during the trial. I guess I'm still fuzzy on how one can be guilty of covering up a non crime... My understanding is that in order to prove the fraud charge they'd ahve to prove that Stewart sold the stock in bad faith--that she sold the stock knowing it's value was about to fall. This is a "state of mind" case, and prosecuters don't like them. They can be very hard to prove. The case they did prove was that she lied to investigators. This is easier to do, they just had to show that the story she told them was a lie. That's a crime in itself. Even if she had not committed a crime and lied to, say, cover for someone else, she'd be liable to prosecution. That's my understanding, but I'm just a rat (and not even a doctor at that) --eric

OK, now that charge WAS a stretch, and regarded the value of her own company Martha Stewart Living. I missed this. I know the feds decided not to bother prosecuting on this point, which is different. Do you know something I don't know? Rich people get rich by carefully attending to little six figure sums here and there. It wasn't smart, but she might have thought she could ride it out. Who knows? Goes to motive, and as the feds know, that's a hard case to prove. I agree the personal stuff does get taken too far. And it was probably a damn good cake. --eric

The story I heard (from same faulty media) was that the prosecuters decided not to pursue the fraud charge because it's hard to prove--goes to intent, etc., etc. Whereas with the obstruction charge, they only had to prove that the story she gave was false. They didn't have to prove what the real story was. --eric

ubu, I like your taste in beer. Do you know a beer called Sezoen (sp?)? --eric

I'd be surprised if she did much time or any hard time at all. Everybody seems to think of stock fraus as a victimless crime, but it isn't: somebody BUYS the stock that tanks--They lose money, they get hurt. Could be its someone I like even less that Martha (maybe Michael Eisner was dabbling in med stocks that day) but maybe it was the World Wildlife Fund. Still it's fraud, people get hurt, and the perpetartors deserve to be punished, not winked at. Actually, though she's hard for me to abide, her products are great and she actively used her power to make sure that was the case. You have to give her she'll defraud stock buyers, but not spatula buyers. You gotta admire that. Hopefully the judge will take it into consideration at sentencing. He's probably got a comfy bathtowel of hers. --eric

OK, so Mezz is not in the frame, but is that Mezz with the golf club? Can't be, can it? --eric

The practice in the article is to note the leader/soloist: "John Coltane's But not for Me . . ." and then to parenthetically note the composer. Shorter's name is still omitted in my edition, but the Davis attribution is to Davis as performer, not as composer.

Well, there's a point where criticism of a work becomes pedantry. I don't say that to be insulting, but to say that one has to ask serious questions about what standard is being applied and whether that standard is appropriate to the use the thing gets put to. I'm not associated with NPR, but I would defend their programming generally speaking. I think they hold up a fairly high standard of news radio and announcing. And they're my competition. I have complaints, but there you go. I've often had occasion to observe the way in which "standards" in different fields have a tendency to become self-referential. When I worked in journalism for instance, the standards that most journalists were concerned about didn't matter to most readers at all. So if there were a problem with a radio program, I'd have to know what the problem is. Some imperfections, yes, you live with. Others, no, you cannot. It depends. On the Gilberto thing: I doubt anyone is going to take this entry as God's holy writ, anyhow. And is it bullshit? I don't know. The losing a game of Russian Roulette thing is actually a fairly common usage. You can google it and see if you like. On Kenny Dorham: I'm no judge of the technicalia of the trumpet. I can't say whether Kernfield ought to be laughed at or not for writing what he wrote. On Collier: it's a long entry: it'd probably be easier for you to tell me what you feel is wrong with it. On the grad student thing: you had mentioned it as if, in itself having students do this sort of work was grounds to condemn the work. In a 1300+ page book the question isn't whether there are mistakes, it's how much they matter in the context of use. I read it the book for fun, yes. I also read it for research for on-air stuff. I find it useful for both these purposes. If it turns out that it is so riddled with errors that I oughtn't use it for the latter purpose, I'd be very put out, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that level of problems. ---eric

Yes, if you want to include volumes of useless books. How can use as a reference a book of unreliable information? Many publishers probably do use students for the preliminary work, but unless that work is thoroughly checked and corrected, the result is worthless. I assume that you think nearly all reference books are worthless. Well, there are lots of pretty useless reference books out there, yes. Some of them scandalously so. The Grove is a long way from that, though. It's useful and interesting, as I can say about the Feather/Gitler, but they're uselful in different ways, both have their plusses and minuses. You'd really have to show me what's wrong with the book. Joe Maini did die in a game of Russian Roulette, didn't he? A comparison btw. Astrud Gilberto and Count Basie might seem loopy, but I take it just that way: as a loopy idiosyncracy. The standard by which to judge a book like this is usefulness. Do its ideosyncracies seriously hamper it's usefulness (and the pure fun of reading it)? I don't think so. It's sort of like early dictionary projects--were there things wrong with the Johnson and the early Oxfords? Yes. Did they deserve scorn for them? No. They were both less than perfect and in their separate ways enormously useful. --eric

I suppose it's possible to read "some" as "nearly all." --eric

Yeah, that's it. My mom had a K-Tel (or similar) 8-track comp of the big hits of that year. I should see if I can find it somewhere. --eric

The whole college kid thing: that's how reference books get written so that they don't cost $10,000 when they're done. A LOT of this sort of work gets done by grad students. Who really wrote those entries in the reference book (you name it)? Who does most of the editing for the Library of America series? Who does most of the donkey work for any scholarly journal you care to name? Who actually did the bench work for that groundbreaking scientific paper? In many cases NOT the person who gets most of the credit. A project like this is a HUGE undertaking, and it is to be taken for granted that you'll find things to complain about in there. It is impossible that it would be otherwise. The background assumption in a lot of this kind of criticism seems to be that the work should be perfect--it just isn't going to be. Maybe you don't like James Lincoln Collier. Other people do. That's how it is. --eric

My family didn't influence my musical preferences too much that I can tell. They didn't really listen to a whole lot of music--I did, a lot of times with headphones so as not to bother anyone else, starting when I was quite young--5 or 6. At that time mostly early 70s pop--I can remember some song about a junkyard dog--and Philly Soul. Then I found a bunch of old Rolling Stone Records (late sixties mostly) at the Goodwill, which were my big thing for a while, progressing through the Clash and reggae and African music to Cuban and then one day, while I was in grad school, I came across a load of cheapo knockoff Italian compilations: Ellington, Armstrong, etc. I picked up a comp of the Blanton/Webster band comp and my musical world was changed forever. Ellington helped me discover what I called "texture." A new sensual door was opened up for me. Of course, I had the usual suspect jazz albums in college: Kind of Blue and Giant Steps, and I dabbled in some more modern stuff: Zorn and Abercrombie, but none of that really mattered in the way the Ellington did. From there I collected all sorts of Ellington and got into 30s jazz pretty heavily and expanded from there. My jazz tastes are still much-less-than-universal--but I come at jazz from a pretty weird angle. --eric

Straight Life. Pepper as a writer is a phenomenon unto itself. He gives you a sense of just spilling some of this memoire stuff. Great book.

I'm not quite in RUN! RUN OUT AND BUY! mode just yet (I couldn't buy much anyhow), but watching record companies for years and years do the same stupid things, and not do very obvious things that might sell a few records, and inventing all-new dumb things to do . . . Some companies have pretty good catalog management policies. Others suck big time. So, depending on who buys . . . well, you just never know. --eric

What's the story with Soundies? These are videos? (DVDs?) --eric

Thanks a lot. There goes another Jackson, I suppose. I think I'll chase that live disc first. --eric

The CD is very solid, I thought. It was a staple of our Jazz Top 10s here for a couple of months (so other folks did feel likewise). I'd recommend seeing them. --eric

I've always been intrigued by this group because so many of the players are favorites of mine (Chaloff, DeFranco, Terry, Rouse . . .), but I've never come across what looked to me to be a well-done reissue of their stuff. Does anyone have any recommendations regarding the band's music (which I've heard little of) or particular reissues of it. Thanks for any help, --eric

Concord is still owned Alliance Entertainment, or no? --eric

Oh yeah! a big second on the Crow book.

If you want to change to a critical rather than historical/biographical book, I'd suggest Ted Gioia's Imperfect Art which I'm just finishing. He has a point of view, but a pretty well reasoned and informed one by my lights. In the historical/biographical realm, I'd suggest a book someone recently reminded me I enjoyed very much: The Ellington Reader. --eric

Creeping moralism! I don't think this qualifies as an ethical issue unless you destroy the original source after digitizing--or sell an inferior product, which is a separate issue. I am probably telling you a lot of things you know, but . . . You can really work wonders with bad voice recordings using effects: I've had a lot of success with just spectrally analyzing a field voice recording, finding the oddball spike and suppressing it with the parametric eq. If you do this with care and you're lucky you can do this without killing the ambiance or the quality of voice. What is bad on a voice recording is often a very simple problem, becuase there is so little content. One thing I've noticed using some treatment packages (I've used a lot, but I'm not sure about this particular package, I've demoed lots) is that you have to be careful when you apply more than one sort of effect to a recording--I've had some pretty weird results--sounding like flutter, phasing--when I've applied two effects to a voice recording--especially if the person does things like drag vowel sounds. These effects are generally subtle and they don't happen all the time by any means, but they are enough to disturb me. I have offboard analog eq, which I will use instead of the internal digital algorhythm if I compress a recording either temporally or dynamically, for instance. I am by no means a theoritician or qualified technician in this realm--just somebody whose made a lot of different kinds of voice recordings. Anyhow, hope this is of some service, --eric