paul secor

But a good critic, by definition (i.e. my definition -- and I don't know any aestheticians), captures the spirit of things. Otherwise, why would one bother? Now whether any of them actually does that -- there we can argue. But not to even try? Or to more or less repress such speech? Again, for me -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- to talk in some loving detail about about that which you love has always been a natural thing to do. Don't we do that all the time here? I agree with you completely there, Larry. I just find that too many critics in all fields end up sucking the lifeblood out of what they write about. I should say that I've been trying to play the part of devil's advocate here (how well, I don't know) and that I wasn't in any way referring to you or John B. Both of you do "talk in some loving detail about that which you love" - a very well turned phase. My favorite critic is/was Guy Davenport who did exactly what you said.

Logicians and literalists can capture logic and literalness while missing the spirit of things.

I find that there's another side to this, especially to your comment: "There exists among and around jazz musicians by and large (but not always), and for perfectly understandable reasons, a sort of locker room culture that says, among other things, 'Only we (and not all of us, for that matter) can understand, comment on, and judge the human and social circumstances and the artistic results of what we do.'" There's a quote attributed to Barnett Newman which speaks to this: "Aesthetics is for the artist as ornithology is for the birds." (Within the context of these forums, there's another, ironic, side to that quote.) Newman wasn't speaking about critics but, in general, I think that musicians, writers, artists (of all kinds) tend to regard critics and criticism as a necessary evil. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. (I know there are writers who write criticism and reviews but, at least in certain cases, I think that's because they have to eat.) I'm thinking of a quote attributed to the composer and teacher Andre Gedalge: "Critics make pipi on music and think they help it grow.” Just my thoughts - or mainly the thoughts of Newman and Gedalge. Artists do what they do and critics do what they do. I'm much more interested what artists do.

Zachary Klein: Ties That Blind

Duke Ellington's Jazz Violin Session (Atlantic)

Farewell to a musician whose work I enjoyed immensely. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Just watched a film of some of the making of Lost on the River: The New Basement Tapes, and wasn't Impressed. Interesting that Dylan evidently had no interest in putting music to almost 50 year old lyrics, and instead gave them to others who did that. I guess he had no interest in living in the past - one of the signs of a true artist.

I guess I can be included with the dummies. I'm ok with that.

I guess my point was that the sides have been discussed to death.

These discussions have gone on over and over on these forums. By now, all of us know where we stand on this subject and, in the end, each of us will do what we do.

I don't think that most musicians put labels on their music. There may be a few who do that, and if it works for them, that's fine. I find that I listen for similarities in music, rather than differences, and labels work against that for me. If listeners or critics want to label music, that's up to them. I'm not anti-intellectual. Just anti-labeling.

Happy Birthday!

For myself, I'd rather just listen to the music and take what I can from it, rather than laying on labels. I guess critics need labels. I'm just a listener. No offense intended to any of the above posts. I'm merely stating my own position.

Looking forward to it.

I see these sets as answers to someone who says, "I want it all, I want it now, I want it cheap, and I don't care how." But that's just me.

Hahahahaha!!! I wasn't around back then either, but if the highlight reels are any indication, that plus the fact pitching is far and away better now than back just 30 years ago, I think it's a fair bet. He still didn't see a circle change, two seamer [was the knuckler thrown back then?] or a any number of pitch variations like the slurve or a four seam splitter. And some of the best pitchers of that time period weren't allowed in MLB. I just don't see the Babe as much to shout about compared to modern day players. Just my two cents. How many modern day players can match his record as a pitcher and hitter? If you say one, that's one too many. He was one of the best pitchers in the majors until he turned to everyday playing.

Golden Richards Jay Silverheels The Bronze Buckaroo

Steve Coleman's probably gotten more attention here than he did from the Times article.

Shelley Fabares Johnny Angel Stuart Margolin

Happy Birthday!

I don't think that anyone has mentioned Grooveyard. If someone has, I missed it and apologize. Anyway, Grooveyard is a worthy addition to recommended Land.

Good buy - some Prime Warne.

I recall seeing a photograph in Down Beat years ago of Archie Shepp sitting in with the Ellington band. Always wondered what the story was behind that. I had no idea that Don Byas was also involved. Thanks for posting the link.

"Bud Powell and Lester Young don't often get "linked" stylistically or anything, but they were both two of the least disguised souls this music ahs produced, I think. They both can break your heart." True words, Jim.

I don't know if Rod Levitt has been mentioned here (and I'm too lazy to read through 11 pages), but judging from what I've heard (only the Riverside/OJC reissue) and from the comments on the Levitt thread, one or more of his RCA recordings might be a possibility for a very good reissue.