Leeway

The Gorgones Giorgione Giorgio Armani

I don't think the question was about being turned off, it was about demurring from the statement: "Dynasty" (Triloka) is as great as anything Jackie ever recorded. For me at least, that's a bridge too far.

I'd want to hear that Wooley-KV disc first. I saw them when they first started touring earlier last year as a duo; it didn't really knock my socks off, even though they are two musicians whom I really like. Something didn't mesh that night. Maybe small crowd, maybe they hadn't worked out the material sufficiently. Just seemed there was a lot of unrealized potential. They've been touring steadily since, so I expect that they've honed their performance. Certainly I'd want to see them again if they came my way.

Repo Man Best Man Laughing Man

Discs 1 & 2

Charles Barkley Charles Bukowski Jim Ignatowski

One Step Beyond Destination ....Out! I'd try to sneak New Soil past you too

I love Turgenev's writing. Falls in that territory of the mind between Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Probably natural to side with Bazarov when young. I'm sure Turgenev had an eye on social developments in Russia, quite clearly discerning the rise of revolutionary movements, understanding them yet fearing their consequences. I recall now that my undergraduate Russian teacher, when I asked her if she preferred Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky, responded unequivocally, "Tolstoy." I told her I was an avid Dostoyevskian. She said I would see it differently when I got older, and she was right. "War and Peace" to me has always been a significant event, not just a book. And I now find "Anna Karenina" more profound than when first read it. Plus Tolstoy's novellas and stories. To be fair I haven't read Dostoyevsky in quite a while, so that might nudge the pendulum a bit. I've been dipping into two books about reading. Generally I prefer reading to talking about reading, in the same way I prefer sex to talking about sex. But sometimes it is helpful to talk. ON REREADING - Patricia Meyer Spacks THE PLEASURES OF READING IN AN AGE OF DISTRACTION - Alan Jacobs Of the two, the Spacks strikes me as the more interesting and substantial. I found her discussion of rereading where one's original conception of a book changes completely upon rereading particular relevant in light of my unexpected dislike for Nabokov's "Bend SInister," and EJP626's revised view of Bazarov. Spacks describes a number of such situations in her reading, including "Lucky Jim" (a novel, and protagonist) that never impressed me, but I know had, and has, a cult following. OTOH, some books, including those of Henry James, have risen in her estimation. Actually, the specific ups and downs don't interest her as much as how the rereading process creates these revisions. Not surprisingly, age seems to have a lot to do with it, LOL.

Too bad the packaging is not improved on "Mad Dogs" 2. My package of the first set arrived all off the pegs, with one badly scratched. I had to get Not Two to replace it, rather a hassle for all involved. I'd hate to have that happen again. I might have the dealer open the box before shipment to check condition and put the discs in sleeves. As for Niels dilemma, I'd say the Cecil Taylor and Tapscott are essentials. I know the Cecil has been banging about for a while, so can probably be picked up when a good price offers, but I'd hate to see the Tapscott go O/P, then get pricey. Those Hats can disappear fast.

For what its worth, I'll take post 1975 Art Pepper any day over the early stuff. I happen to agree with you about Pepper, but disagree with where you take it. Larry really put the case best, so I won't attempt to restate it, but to me, Pepper in late career was working against desperation (or maybe it was disaster), while McLean was working against fatigue (or maybe exhaustion). There's a different frisson associated with each. I prefer Pepper late, but not McLean.

I appreciate your appreciation of Jackie, which I share, but the statement I put in bold above just strikes me as a vast overstatement. Revisionism is fine, I suppose, but at a certain point, it can be carried too far. I think it does a disservice to the many undeniably great albums he did record. Just my 2 cents.

Martini & Rossi Beefeater Ice Cube

American Pickers Pawn Stars Auction Hunters

Holland-Dozier-Holland Hollaback Girl John Hollenbeck

Oblomov Lazy Boy Lazy Susan

Venus Williams Venus de Milo Venus in Furs

Mr. Proutie Mrs. Proudie Proteus

Ran Blake Looks like I will finally get a chance to see the legendary Ran Blake: Solo performance Venue: An die Musik Live!, Baltimore Thursday, December 4, 2014, 8:00 and 9:30PM I got tickets for the 8:00PM show. If circumstances favor, I might stick around for the 9:30PM show also. Paging Colinmce! After an hiatus from the Baltimore scene, I now have two shows I'm keen on attending. Added: Now I learn that on Saturday, in DC, Ran Blake is holding a Master Class. It's like Ran Blake Central here: http://atlasarts.org/?s=ran+blake

Legs Diamond Diamond Lil Lil Abner

I wonder why Ban is playing the Fender Rhodes Third drummer for this band - Cleaver, then Mintz - now Billy Hart!!! Great choice - maybe the only better choice would be for Randy Peterson to crank it up with this quintet, but on a serious note, for this band, Hart sounds like a perfect choice as Stewart often drives this band with that tuba groove thing he does As you know, both times I saw them they were great - the second time they were awesome. Ban's compositions are very striking. Maneri's are oblique sketches with a much more open vibe. Malaby and Maneri together are a dream. Expect them both to be seated facing each other. I think they are using the Fender Rhodes because the piano they used to have at Windup Space is gone/non-operational. Matt Mitchell had to use the Fender Rhodes when Snakeoil came through there maybe a year or so ago, whereas he used a "regular" piano a day or two before at the DC gig. Yes, looking forward to this group.

William Caxton Johannes Gutenberg Bob Guccione

I think the difference between "Sebastian Knight" and "Bend SInister" is that the Nabokovian ego is held in check in the former and run amok in the latter. Like you, I normally celebrate this sort of inventiveness, but this time it just did not work for me, the taste was sour. And by all means, weigh in! That's cool, would be interested in what you like about it, or how you see the book.

I'm almost certainly going to see this concert unless force majeure prevents me Sunday, December 7th, Windup Space, Baltimore CREATIVE DIFFERENCES presents: MAT MANERI & LUCIAN BAN NEW QUINTET with special guest BILLY HART Mat Maneri (viola), Tony Malaby (ts, ss), Bob Stewart (tuba), Lucian Ban (Fender Rhodes) Here's the odd thing. On another concert notification, the same group and concert is billed as: MAT MANERI'S FANTASM Mat Maneri ,Lucian Ban,Bob Stewart, Tony Malaby and Billy Hart I wonder why the confusion over names? I'm not thrilled with Ban on Fender Rhodes, but it might turn out interesting after all.

Jackson Pollock Sydney Pollak Castor and Pollux

BEND SINISTER - Vladimir Nabokov (1946). Paduk, the head of the Average Man Party, has taken over some unidentified Eastern European country and instituted a state tyranny. Paduk is opposed by his old schoolmate, and nemesis, the famed moral philosopher, Adam Krug. The story, such as it is, revolves around Paduk's attempts to get Krug to collaborate with the government, and Krug's efforts to resist. This could have been a fairly interesting, perhaps even important fiction along the lines of 1984 and Animal Farm. Perhaps recognizing that that comparison will be made, Nabokov, in the Author's Introduction, declares that this is not a novel concerned with real world issues and takes a swipe at Orwell, denigrating him for his cliches. Nevertheless, the reality is that Orwell's works are much superior to Nabokov's. The former have had an important influence on literature, society, and politics, while Bend Sinister remains a relatively obscure curiosity. There are at least several problems with the novel. First, Nabokov bulks so large in his own story, the reader has to peak around him to get a look at what is going on. Second, Nabokov loves violating the conventions of fiction; he's forever pulling back the curtain on his "conjuration," reminding the reader that it is all a Nabokovian invention. The reader knows. This seems less a stab at post-modernism on Nabokov's part than an impatience or even dismissal of such narrative; basically he could not be bothered with an actual novel. Third, the text is so clotted with archaic, obscure and foreign words (for which Nabokov is endlessly providing scholarly translations), it is practically impossible to get through a page without near-constant resort to a dictionary. Fourth, there is so much bitterness and contempt for practically everyone, not just the bad guys, it's hard to be concerned. One thing that bothered me is that Krug supposedly rises above all this, the incorruptible man, the moral man. But Krug brags that he used to torment Paduk as a schoolboy by sitting on Paduk's head every day after school. Is this moral? Krug feels Paduk had it coming, but that is hardly better than Paduk's state tyranny, indeed may be an inflated version of it. Fifth, the endless digressions get tiresome. The best of them, a deconstruction and reconstruction of Hamlet is quite long, rather brilliant if wrong-headed, but what it has to do with the Krug-Paduk story is hardly clear, Last, when Nabokov does venture to reach for real human connectedness, something in very short supply in this story, it teeters on the brink of sentimentality. Anyway, enough disparagement. I guess if it is approached as a book of wordplay, an untangling of conceits, a parsing of digressions, or even as something to fit a political theory, then this could be a rewarding read. Otherwise, this could be a slog. I've read that this was Nabokov's least popular book, and that it was widely panned at publication. I'm not really surprised. I don't think time has vindicated it either.