J Larsen

A Google search turns up plenty on Lucho. I'm surprised that he's not in AMG, as he must have quite a few fans. Here's a site purportedly run by his granddaughter. http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/9064/

Okay, one more for tonight: I was not aware that Danny Thompson ever played in jazz contexts. I can't say that I love his Live 1967 record (mostly because the horn player is, IMO, second-rate at best), BUT it does feature some nice vintage John McLaughlin.

I'm going to try posting in this thread a bit more from now on with comments on albums I discover on emusic. If you've ever been in to the On-U Sound scene (Jamaican dub) and you have any interest in classic blues, then the Little Axe record has some interesting moments and is at least worth a listen. It might not change your world, but it's an interesting half hour. Nicky Skopelitis has a live recording of material from the Ekstasis album that is exclusively available on emusic. If you haven't heard Ekstasis, think Damo-era can, Miles' Live-Evil record, touches of the modern indie experimental scene, and very capable musicians. It's been a long time since I heard the studio version of the album, but going by memory I think this live version is much better. I've actually found quite a few interesting, unexpected or unknown (to me) records on the site. I'll try to comment on a couple a day.

Thanks for elucidating. I've seen those records around the city, but I've always been a little intimidated by my own lack of knowledge about them (you know, that whole "what if I don't get one of the 'right' ones" thing). Next time I see a resonably priced stash I'll just dive in.

Thanks Late, that was the kind of thing I was looking for. I believe JAY-roo is the standard pronounciation of Jeru, which I *think* is an antiquated name for a chariot driver. I can't find it in the dictionary, nor can I tell you why I think that, but it's in my brain for one reason or another.

Well, you're hard pressed to find albums of a significantly higher caliber than these five in the BN catalog, IMO. Out of the five, I'd guess I'd have to go with Bud, because, well, it's BUD POWELL ferchrisakes!!! That being said, I'll be passing on these for reasons stated in another thread. They're going to have to issue something I don't already have in some form in order to get my business. I'm not opposed to them remastering items already available, I'm just not interested in paying for them at this point.

I'm trying not to fuss with remasters too much until I have the money to buy a stereo good enough to *really* show the difference between different masterings. On my mid-fi system, RVGs tend to sound a little brighter and more aggressive, but honestly it isn't a huge difference. I'm sure there's more to the story than what I can hear with my stereo.

Seriously, though - I really miss Small's.

Not much happening here in New York City...

Unless I'm badly mistaken (and that is a possibility), PanArt was primarily a Latin jazz label.

No apology necessary, that was just an FYI. I always feel compelled to set the record straight when I'm able to do so. I've always had a hard time letting things slip by. I didn't mean to make it sound as though Mathematica and other prepackaged software was useless. It is quite useful for certain things, and every now and then you can do a complete research project with it - it's just that that is definately the exception and not the rule. Generally, the further you get along in your research, the less useful it is. But all the same, no one would want to be without it.

Nope. I've encountered VERY few real-world problems that Mathematica can handle analytically. You put anything more than a little complex in to that program, and it chokes. It doesn't actually calculate. Mathematica is only an "integration table database" that "knows" how to use the change-of-variables theorem. If you enter something more exotic than what it has in its tables (which I assure you is over 95% of real-world problems), it chokes. Of course, in these cases you're unlikely to be able to come up with an analytic solution on your own, so you need to be comfortable with asymptotic expansions, perturbation theory, etc. in order to get an approximate solution from a program like Mathematica or by hand. But to do that you need to be an expert in calculus. Mathematica will solve most well-posed numerical (as opposed to analytic) problems, but it is also impractical in this regard in that it is a ridiculously slow program. Sure, it will intregrate something like xcos^(1/4)(x) fairly quickly, but put in a realistic numerical problem and you'll grow old waiting for the solution to pop out. Everyone working in problems involving serious numerical mathematics writes their own code tailor-made to the problem at hand. They'll run the problem on Mathematica once to check that their program is working properly, but that's it. Unless you have HUGE computing resources, Mathematica just isn't in the budget.

Hey Joe - That IS a good book! I've recommended it to some of my more entusiastic students in the past. (Up until this calendar year I taught undergraduate courses in theoretical physics. Now my research is fully funded, so I don't have to worry about that anymore.) I've even used my girlfriend's copy of that book on a couple of occassions as an "emergency reference" for times when I've been working at home and needed to, say, have an analytic expression for the roots of a cubic equation. Fermat's Enigma is another pretty good book (though not nearly as useful as Gullberg's book, it does provide an entertaining background for the importance of Fermat's Last Theorem and its recent proof). E: The Story of a Number is also very good and definately recommended. I recommend avoiding The Life of Pi and A Tour of the Calculus. While they are popular, I found them to be dull, uninformative and not very well written.

I have all of these, so, as my cd budget is pretty tight these days, it will be a while before I pick up any of them. If I didn't have any of these, it would be a tossup between Grantstand and Indestructable, the later of which is one of my favortite Blakey albums.

So "Jeru" is a nickname for Mulligan? Anyone know the origins of this?

And she's working on a JD? Not a bad deal.

Joe, if you do have to take the GRE History subject test, definately buy this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...513667?v=glance This is the only authentic testing material you'll have access to prior to taking the test, so don't waste it. Study like hell first, then use the test in the book to assess your weaknesses and work like hell on your weaknesses up to the day of the test. I had some very smart college classmates who scored in the 400 to 600 range on their subject tests because they didn't take them seriously. It's not enough to be smart and competent - you really have to be on top of your stuff the morning of the subject test. I had a couple of peturbation theory problems on my subject GRE that required multiple pages of computation! You also want to start looking into funding sources. Like shrugs said, you can do pretty well for yourself if you have decent test scores, although that largely depends on what your field is. Most people I know in math or science programs have free rides and are paid at least $15,000 a year in stipends. A few people I know (myself included) make closer to double that. In the humanities, you might have to go looking for the money, but it's likely there to be found. One other note on funding: there tends to be a lot more available in terms of stipends, fellowships, assistantships and tuition waivers for PhD and JD candidates than for those in Master's programs (MBA programs exlcuded - at my school MBA candidates get about $30,000 in stipends thanks to private funding). I don't think I know a single person in any serious PhD program that has to pay tuition. On the other hand, most people I've known in Master's programs had to pay the bill or take out student loans.

Joe, don't sweat the GRE at all. You'll be fine with the math. There is a little complex (as in "i") algebra, but nothing more sophisticated than that. I think there is a history subject test, but I don't think that very many humanities programs require subject tests. Nearly all programs in technical fields, OTOH, do require them (e.g. math, physics, chemistry, biochem, engineering, etc.) Check with all of the schools to which you plan to apply first, but I seriously doubt that you need to take a subject test.

Joy! Pure joy!

Unless you're uncomfortable with basic math, don't sweat the general test. If you're taking a subject test, study as much as you can. Those are no joke. Here's my horror story: I took the general exam in the first year that it was offered electronically. The computer I was provided with at the testing center had a faulty monitor that started flashing on and off about halfway through the logic section. Imagine answering long questions like "if your mother's cousin's nephew is your nephew's cousin's sister...." while only being able to read them for about five seconds at a time! I probably could have retaken the test, but they score the electronic ones instantly and I got a high score anyway, so I didn't bother.

I went with Hill. The only others I don't have are the Young and Rouse. I'll pick up the Young, but I'm not too excited about the Rouse. That Lee Morgan session will make his fans very, very happy. I might pick up the Rivers disc as well depending on what I read on this board when it comes out, as I find the sound on the Mosaic to be a little strange.

I have a hunch that in a hundred years or so, that will become the prevailing attitude and they'll cut the piece short.

I have the 40CD set on the History label. It's similar to a JSP release, except with even more modest liner notes. The sound is fine, the music is tremendous, and the packaging is adequate but not a selling point. For the price, it's a great set. I'd recommend it to anyone building an Ellington collection. I see it at Tower from time to time for $70.

I have a ton of Andrew Hill, I like almost all of it. Most of the 60s stuff is incredible. I'd probably put him in my top 20, which I think is extremely respectable. He's great, but I can't say he is/was "capital G" great like Monk, Powell, Herbie, Tyner, etc. (Yes, Tyner goes in my short list of "capital G" great pianists. I know not everyone agrees with that.)

Hey Late, I do like that Jesse Fuller record a lot. Thanks to all for the suggestions.