fasstrack

Indeed.

I was looking through a book of older Tom Waits lyrics today. Good poetry. If a lyric reads good it usually is good. I think the Songbook is in good shape. I'm glad you brought this up. BTW: regarding Julie London, that was Barney Kessel and Ray Leatherwood accomping her on Julie is Her Name. There's another record by her I really like. Don't know the name but she sings Soon its Gonna Rain (The Fantasticks). I immediately started playing it after hearing that, besides the fact that I love all the music from that show. I'd love to know who the guitar player is on that. Anyone know?

What pisses me off are 'tribute' gigs or CDs. Yeah, right. Ruby Braff had it right when he said 'winners don't need tributes'. If the artist's heart is in it it's one thing. But usually it's just using someone's name to get asses in seats. I guess it's OK and in America you figure you need a gimmick. But if a club or recording company (are there any more labels?) has to use a memory to sell product what does that say about their belief in the living musician they profess to be presenting? It gives me the creeps.

Good question, and right down Broadway for me. I play the songbook every day of my life and in public, and am considered---and certainly consider myself a jazz musician. I'm a songwriter myself, and take it as seriously as I do playing, and that's very serious. So my work is in the GAS and I want it to survive and prosper b/c I believe in and am invested in it. I don't know what happened with Tommy Wolf. I think I heard he died young and sad---and it was a major loss. He had another good one: I'm Always Drunk in San Francisco---recorded by Carmen MacCrea on Atlantic. Also, let's credit Fran Landesman for a miraculous lyric on Spring Can....It's one of the heavyweights. As for Sondheim I think his genius will outlive any snarling in critical corners (he's not 'melodic'----BS). His handle on his craft is at a very high level. Jazz players, since you brought up the connection, have tackled Pretty Women (Sweeney Todd), Ladies Who Lunch was sung well by Cassandra Wilson. He is known for Send in The Clowns, but he has produced much work of similar quality. I like Anyone Can Whistle for a lyrical, simple melody. Listen to Weekend in the Country sometime and be blown away by his vocal quartet writing. Amazing. The point is he's alive and well and still capable of turning them out---contributing to the Songbook again. (Also, let's give props to Jonathan Tunick for orchestrating many of his shows. I think there will always be a need for good songs and so there will always be someone to supply them. I also don't think jazzers' acceptance of same ought to be the final word. Songwriters work resonate because they speak to people---they somehow take society's temperature and express it in poetry. Jazz players are usually interested in the changes. The really thinking musician picks songs that fit their voice and way of playing.

Will look into it. And how is Mr. Skvorky feeling? Better, I hope. His name was mentioned in Mike Zwerin's book La Trisstese de Saint Louis.

Distasteful though it may be........ I said what I needed to. Jazz will live on despite outsize egos. (Cut to God Save the Queen.) Distasteful though it may be........ I said what I needed to. Jazz will live on despite outsize egos. (Cut to God Save the Queen.)

Your quoting technique could use a little work. Btw, the funny faces above were just me having a little fun with the fact that you asked if anyone knew the 350 pretty much immediately after I had mentioned that I had a 350. I had two 350's, one with two P90's, and one with a CC and a P90. They were both fantastic guitars, not necessarily "better" than the carved tops I've had, but by no means inferior. To me, every archtop (carved or laminate, full depth or thinline, full scale or shorter scale...) is different, has its own personality, and should be met on its own terms. That's one thing I loved about trying out different guitars. It was like getting to know a different person each time, and learning to enjoy them for what they were. I know... sounds corny. I agree, and go one further. Every instrument to me has a soul. I'm not known for mystical statements but I believe this. When I had to sell a guitar earlier this year (to pay the landlord and the c$%*su%%^er threw me out anyway) it was literally like selling my soul since I played it for 22 years. But it has a home with a friend and I can get it back ($900 and a dream----I bought it in '87 for $110!). I had a very nice experience yesterday: I have a friend who is a pastor in the Bronx and was a professional sax player. Plays good and is a good man who started a jazz vespers service in remote-as-hell Marble Hill. I was up in the Bronx and just called to see if the vespers was happening and when. I had nothing on my mind but listening, soothing the savage breast, maybe sitting in on a tune. Usually the message comes on. This time Rev. Dixon picked up. I identified myself and asked about the service. 'It's on. Bring your guitar'. For once I didn't have it! 'You can play mine'..... He had an old but venerable ES335 or Stereo. Nice guitar but not at all kept up. The strings were older than the Wailing Wall. But one was dead to amplified sound, as I unhappily noted during my first chorus. 'Man, you got a good guitar here. Take care of it!' He will, I expect. It would be a sacrelig not to, and of all people........ Yeah, instruments have souls.

Your quoting technique could use a little work. Btw, the funny faces above were just me having a little fun with the fact that you asked if anyone knew the 350 pretty much immediately after I had mentioned that I had a 350. I had two 350's, one with two P90's, and one with a CC and a P90. They were both fantastic guitars, not necessarily "better" than the carved tops I've had, but by no means inferior. To me, every archtop (carved or laminate, full depth or thinline, full scale or shorter scale...) is different, has its own personality, and should be met on its own terms. That's one thing I loved about trying out different guitars. It was like getting to know a different person each time, and learning to enjoy them for what they were. I know... sounds corny. I agree, and go one further. Every instrument to me has a soul. I'm not known for mystical statements but I believe this. When I had to sell a guitar earlier this year (to pay the landlord and the c$%*su%%^er threw me out anyway) it was literally like selling my soul since I played it for 22 years. But it has a home with a friend and I can get it back ($900 and a dream----I bought it in '87 for $110!). I had a very nice experience yesterday: I have a friend who is a pastor in the Bronx and was a professional sax player. Plays good and is a good man who started a jazz vespers service in remote-as-hell Marble Hill. I was up in the Bronx and just called to see if the vespers was happening and when. I had nothing on my mind but listening, soothing the savage breast, maybe sitting in on a tune. Usually the message comes on. This time Rev. Dixon picked up. I identified myself and asked about the service. 'It's on. Bring your guitar'. For once I didn't have it! 'You can play mine'..... He had an old but venerable ES335 or Stereo. Nice guitar but not at all kept up. The strings were older than the Wailing Wall. But one was dead to amplified sound, as I unhappily noted during my first chorus. 'Man, you got a good guitar here. Take care of it!' He will, I expect. It would be a sacrelig not to, and of all people........ Yeah, instruments have souls.

I recall an interview with Dudley Moore in which he said his admiration of Garner used to raise eyebrows among other jazz musicians. That suggests Garner has always suffered from this kind of attitude. That's the loss of the snobs. They're missing something great. But that's snobbery. Fashionable in jazz----mostly among idiots.

That's next on my list. Apropos of nothing I was looking through a Randy Newman songbook and was delighted to find he composed the ballad theme in Awakenings (the one Dexter as Rodolpho plays on piano). Gorgeous tune.

I've been following the vintage market closely for over 20 years, and it always surprises me how many 150's actually come up for sale. They're really not as elusive as some people would have you think. I think part of it was the declining demand for archtops for many years, particularly non-cutaway archtops. Now an ES250 is another matter altogether. Those are extremely rare. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I had one back in the mid-80's, which I traded a couple of guitars for at a shop in SF. It was a '53 (pre-switchmaster), sunburst, and a beautiful, clean, all original example. It played and sounded fine, but I eventually traded it for a '51 ES350 (two pickup version) plus an amp. The 350 was more practical for my purposes (I tend to prefer just using the neck pickup on most multi-pickup guitars), and played and sounded even better than the ES5. Does anyone remember the Gibson ES350? :unsure:Not that I care once and for all. If anyone can recommend good ones and where they might be gotten by all means do. 350's originally (and generally, throughout the years they were produced) had laminated maple tops, but they did make some (between '52 and '56, apparently) with laminated spruce tops. They were never carved, though, unless somebody did a special order or something. They originally had just one pickup, but soon went to two. ES175's are smaller (16 1/4" body, as opposed to 17" on a 350), and 175's have sharp cutaways. Not that I care if a guitar is carved or not once in my hands, mind you. In fact my preference is for laminated. They amplify better, sound better (in my experience) and---the beauty part----are cheaper. The sound is just as fat with less feedback. I have a cheap Godin now as my main squeeze. Crazy 'bout it (see aforementioned reasons) and probably will get those removable foam inserts for the F-holes to kill and bury feedback once and for all. If anyone can recommend good ones and where they might be gotten by all means do. Well, that came out kind of nutty. I was responding to the answer about 350s being mostly laminated...................

I've been following the vintage market closely for over 20 years, and it always surprises me how many 150's actually come up for sale. They're really not as elusive as some people would have you think. I think part of it was the declining demand for archtops for many years, particularly non-cutaway archtops. Now an ES250 is another matter altogether. Those are extremely rare. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I had one back in the mid-80's, which I traded a couple of guitars for at a shop in SF. It was a '53 (pre-switchmaster), sunburst, and a beautiful, clean, all original example. It played and sounded fine, but I eventually traded it for a '51 ES350 (two pickup version) plus an amp. The 350 was more practical for my purposes (I tend to prefer just using the neck pickup on most multi-pickup guitars), and played and sounded even better than the ES5. Does anyone remember the Gibson ES350? :unsure:Not that I care if a guitar is carved or not once in my hands, mind you. In fact my preference is for laminated. They amplify better, sound better (in my experience) and---the beauty part----are cheaper. The sound is just as fat with less feedback. I have a cheap Godin now as my main squeeze. Crazy 'bout it (see aforementioned reasons) and probably will get those removable foam inserts for the F-holes to kill and bury feedback once and for all. If anyone can recommend good ones and where they might be gotten by all means do. 350's originally (and generally, throughout the years they were produced) had laminated maple tops, but they did make some (between '52 and '56, apparently) with laminated spruce tops. They were never carved, though, unless somebody did a special order or something. They originally had just one pickup, but soon went to two. ES175's are smaller (16 1/4" body, as opposed to 17" on a 350), and 175's have sharp cutaways.

If that's 'cheesy' please cut me a huge slice. I like your last sentence, first paragraph. Trust your own ears---first and last.

Heideggerean? I injured my self reading that I've been more and more aware of 'extra-musical' explanations/roots of music the more I mature artistically and just by constantly performing. It seems to me if performing music (as opposed to writing it or some other activity away from the public eye) puts one in the 'eye of the hurricane' re social interaction we performers would do well to have some semblance of knowledge of what makes people tick. The natural outgrowth of that is concern with what they will respond to. The sociology piece has to do with the 'why' people respond (overlapping with psychology). Some people have an uncanny ability to read people. I don't know that I do any more than the next guy but I find that studying and paying attention to how people act in groups and (obviously in our case) how and why they respond to music (in other words the effect we have on them) can at the very least make us want to be less self-involved. It's not about studying people to either please or control them (or measure reactions to calculate what to play), but about sensitivity period. None of this stuff makes me change anything I play, but I think being more aware of what might going on with people one interacts with can only help in any profession. On another point (that I made earlier) what I loved about Jourdain's book is his analysis of how memory is organized and how it influences creativity. I don't want to speak for him and I already recommended the book. 'Nuff said. But I'll look out for yours. Thanks.

So nice it posted twice

The one I know and can recommend is a 'New Testament' period remake of the Kansas City 7. Late 50's recording, I would guess. On Impulse, I believe. Thad Jones is a featured soloist and they bring him out on I Want a Little Girl. The one I know and can recommend is a 'New Testament' period remake of the Kansas City 7. Late 50's recording, I would guess. On Impulse, I believe. Thad Jones is a featured soloist and they bring him out on I Want a Little Girl. The one I know and can recommend is a 'New Testament' period remake of the Kansas City 7. Late 50's recording, I would guess. On Impulse, I believe. Thad Jones is a featured soloist and they bring him out on I Want a Little Girl.

I want to recommend in the highest way a book I stumbled on in the library yesterday: Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy by Robert Jourdain (Morrow, 1997). He's a scientist/musician who has very compelling thoughts about the nature of creativity, structure of composition and improvisation as they relate to memory, and the way these things form a confluence to impact and get strong reactions from the listener. These are supported by scrupulous research and the statements of many musical giants. His prose is top-notch and quite readable. I think anyone interested in music, the mind, improvising, or how we store and unleash ideas at the right time would get much from this book. That's what I get going to the library in an attempt to pick up women. Seriously, Jourdain is brilliant IMO. His thoughts on musical memory and both creativity and listening/responding validate my own, and his explanations of same are much more in-depth and scientific than my own could ever be. Great discussions, too, on the contrasting composing methods of a couple of fairly decent scribes named Beethoven and Mozart.

If you are Frank Kimbrough we have met. Please give my best (from Joel Fass) to Kendra Shank---a great lady and a true colleague. And if you're not Frank----why, I oughta.........

It wouldn't entirely surprise me if Jarrett had said something like this at some point, but surely not about Thelonious Monk. I'm not even sure if the time periods match since Jarrett only hit it big after Monk retired from touring. I have to check the veracity of that statement. I know I read it somewhere, but we all know we can't believe everything we read----or should know. But there are all those other statements.........

What's it worth to you to have me to rescue your ass from the nut farm? I hear Keith's ego has been donated to Harvard Medical School. He, of course, made the call...... They are building an aircraft hangar to store it in! And I like Keith Jarrett! I still cannot wrap my mind around something he was quoted as saying (of course misquotes do occur): he was supposed to appear on a double bill with Thelonious Monk and protested, saying "I share the night with nobody". His misperception of his own importance in jazz history is staggering. It's not only nice to be nice, it's smart. No one owes anyone anything. Meaning, of course, the audience in this case. But the smart artist (and this goes for anything) is well aware that people are more likely to like your music if they like you.So, humility aside, it is simple common business sense. Jazz has suffered terrible losses in CD sales (3% of all sales) and generally is in a backwater in the States. There are myriad reasons for this, but self-important 'stars' acting like fucking 3-year-olds doesn't help too much. Way to go, genius.

What's it worth to you to have me to rescue your ass from the nut farm? I hear Keith's ego has been donated to Harvard Medical School. He, of course, made the call......

I'm pretty sure mine had one pickup. It was black and may have been a P-90. mean it was 30+years ago----before CRS and macular (sp) came to stay.

I've been following the vintage market closely for over 20 years, and it always surprises me how many 150's actually come up for sale. They're really not as elusive as some people would have you think. I think part of it was the declining demand for archtops for many years, particularly non-cutaway archtops. Now an ES250 is another matter altogether. Those are extremely rare. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I had one back in the mid-80's, which I traded a couple of guitars for at a shop in SF. It was a '53 (pre-switchmaster), sunburst, and a beautiful, clean, all original example. It played and sounded fine, but I eventually traded it for a '51 ES350 (two pickup version) plus an amp. The 350 was more practical for my purposes (I tend to prefer just using the neck pickup on most multi-pickup guitars), and played and sounded even better than the ES5. Does anyone remember the Gibson ES350? I hope I'm getting it right. One pickup, pretty sure it was a carved top. I had one in the late 70s and got rid of it soon thereafter. I bet it would be worth money today. Does anyone know this guitar? It was carved, not laminated, right? I seem to remember it looked a bit like a 175 (which is laminated). Never been a big Gibson fan, to be honest. But I did fall in love once: Lorelei was a 1929 L4 acoustic, and it was wonderful. Alas, love was unrequited, as I put my down payment in and could not raise the necessary remaining cabbage. But the owner let me apply my down payment towards an amp. OK, so it was an AER which I came to despise...................

Yes. Very nice. A lot of stretching out by everyone. I forget the tunes.

I didn't read most of his stuff, and mostly avoid topical discussions---but I will say this (not knowing the details of what happened, admittedly): it's not a good idea to ban people from web rooms unless they are menacing someone online (or stalking them privately). When one particular moron was constantly stalking me on a chat room I used to participate in the 'leader' (it was Branford Marsalis) made a comment that 'free speech is not selective'. He told me to ignore the guy. He was right. (In the end, the trolls and assholes took over Bran's site and he closed it down and that was a drag). There is an 'ignore' feature that is very handy here. I suggest people use it. And if you get into rants over politics know going in it could get ugly and act like adults. And don't take it that damn seriously. As you were.......(;