AllenLowe

With Woods I wonder if it's a kind of warped technical mastery - sometimes you can play so much that you lose your editing capability. Another possibility might relate to something Barry Harris said to me once, which was that when Bird died a lot of players seemed to lose their way musically (and otherwise), so dependent were they on Bird and on his the next record, and so rudderless did they feel without him (we were talking specifically about Al Haig's 1950s problems, but Harris thought they applied to quite a few musicians) - I think there very well may be something to this, given the timing of Woods's decline.

SUV or compact?

I'd like just side 2 of the Teagarden -

well, listen to Armstrong at that Ellington session - eg; It Don't Mean a THing - complete re-birth - I'm in agreement on Zoot, who I always admired but never really LIKED all that much - but than there are many players like that - also, can't stand Phil Woods's playing - too much on automatic - like a bebop windup toy -

also, it's misleading to say that Euro jazz musicians ONLY found their voices post-free jazz - what about Django? Jutta Hipp? Lars Gullin? Kenny G?

I knew Heffley years ago, and he's a bright guy, but my hackles tend to raise when I see "Until the 1960s American jazz, for all its improvisational and rhythmic brilliance, remained rooted in formal Western conventions originating in ancient Greece and early Christian plainchant," as these statements strike me as unprovable and uncertifiable in that charming, academic way.

I have the Kamuca plays Bird LP, and it is wonderful,and his playing certainly evokes Bird, but in a different way - the 1947 sides with Eager and Bird are quite astonishing to me - he really apes Bird's phrasing in a way that is very difficult to do, even including the little rhythmic asides that seem to characterize Bird - I actually had to listen a few times because I wondered if the liner notes were incorrect and if Bird was playing - however, the solo has some embouchure sloppiness that indeed proves it is Eager, unaccustomed to the smaller horn - one interesting footnote, the word on Eager is that he had a bad ear - this was said by some of his peers, apparently, and told to me by Bob Mover - it could mean he was a little slower to pick up on tunes than his fellow players - or, maybe, that they simply did not like him - of course, when your peers are Stan Getz, Serge Chaloff, and Al Cohn, having a "good ear" may quite relative -

Reviving this because I just picked up the Eager, who is an old enthusiasm of mine, and wanted to comment on a few things - to my ears the earlier recordings (1947) sound better than the late recordings (1953), not surprising in view of the very weak sounding Eager from the album Handyland (1954, I think); also, the most interesting cut to me is the one on which Eager and Bird change horns - but not just for Bird's fasicnating tenor playing. Eager on this, despite struggling with the alto mouthpiece, is as Bird-like as any non-Bird alto I've ever heard - with a much stronger grasp of Brid's rhythmic conception than I would have expected, he's got some of the phrasing uncannily correct. I have heard no other alto player from this time who approximates the Bird-like feeling more accurately (except maybe Schildkraut, but he was going for something else), in spite of some technical lapses. To add, I was at the Wein concert that Gitler mentions in which he brought Eager back for a Prez tribute (1981), and, contrary to what Gitler writes, I felt Eager played badly and was quite out of shape; I also had a bad encounter with Eager about this time, as I was dying to interview him for a magazine I was working for, and he was a complete SOB when I spoke to him on the phone, vain in the way that only an out-of-shape and sadly washed up ex-junkie can be. I had always wanted to meet him, so this was quite a letdown -but I do think he peeked in the late 1940s and than fell victim to his own junkie delusions. It's quite unfortunate, as the 1953 recordings on the Uptown, while much better than on Handyland, show the beggining of the kind of musical lethargy that would really end his career -

oh, let him get political (as long as he agrees with me) - he's pointing out, correctly, a very American strain of anti-intellectualism -

Curtis Hasselbring -

This is the core of her argument: "Our task is not to find the maximum amount of content in a work of art, much less to squeezes more content out of the work than is already there. Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all. The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art--and, by analogy, our own experience--more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means." it is a rather radical proposition given the way most criticism is performed today - especially since so much contemporary work mystifies people who look for the kind of "meaning" that they are accustomed to - and why Charles Olsen's comment,to those perplexed by his poetry, that "the object is it's own meaning" is so essential -

"Against interpretation" has little to do with Dr. Rat's comments - and is a welcome antidote to the wrong kind of contextualization, the kind that drowns a work in academic obscurantism, critical careerism, and personal obsession -

I for one would probably not have been able to get to the point where I feel I am now without critics helping to show the way - in my early days, particularly, Dan Morgenstern (primarily through liner notes) and Martin Williams, and than Ira Gitler (per-Jazz Masters of the 1940s); also Dick hadlock's book on the 1920s; and the collection Jazz Panorama. A critic who is good enough will send me back to the source, especially if he does not like something that I have liked (Larry and Bill Evans is a good example here); or will illuminate something clearly: read Mike Wellstood's notes to the Donald Lambert LPs. This, as I mentioned, has also been crucial to my understanding and enjoyment of film and theater (Stanley Kaufman and Richard Gilman). You might also, related to this topic, read the brilliant Susan Sonntag essay "Against Interpretation" which deals with many of the issues we are dealing with in this thread. Her point is that many critics, rather than accepting a work on its own terms, often apply very personal, and often irrelevant, standards in an attempt to make a work personally understandable. The mediocre critic, rather than get inside a work, will reduce it to the conventional, applying conventional concepts of meaning in place of a true depth of understanding. Here's a few relevant quotes: 1) from Beckett, I believe, on the requisite meaning for an artist: "He has nothing to say, only a way of saying it." 2) Poet Charles Olsen: "An object is its own meaning." Words to live by.

Was told it would be ok to post them here: Before I put them on EBAY (will hold for sale until 1/5: Marantz 630 CD recorder; a few years old, not a lot of hours. Works fine. $275. Fostex A-8, 8 track analog open-reel tape recorder. Excellent shape, serviced and tweeked by my tech, heads are in great shape. $225. Tascam series 3 mixer. Tweeked by same tech, works great with 8 track. Microphone pre-amps sound as good as any contemporary board I've heard by Mackie, et al. $125(will sell with 8 track together for $325). Prices do not include shipping, which will be at cost - thanks - Allen Lowe

We need to broaden our horizons here and understand that important works of criticism have informed all arts and fields - think Walter Benjamin, Richard Gilman, Stanley Kauffman, James Agee, Roland Barthes, Eric Bentley, Susan Sonntag, Stark Young, even Beckett ( his book on Proust), Lionel Trilling, Isaac Rosenfeld, the list goes on and on. A good or great critic makes as great a contribution to the field as an artist - as a matter of fact great criticism is an art form - and sometimes more so. To make this more personal, I got more out of Larry Kart's recent book than about the last 10 new CDs I listened to - and I do not exaggerate. The problem isn't crticism but bad critics, and jazz is not unique in this way.

Hey - Jimmy Dorsey was an EXCELLENT alto player, in my opinion. As a matter of fact several years ago I did sound restoration for a Jimmy Dorsey project that never came out (the 78s they sent me were in such rotten condition); it was his band from 1940-42 - and Dorsey's playing was a revelation, clearly an influence on Bird in more than just his virtuosity - a lot of very clean solos and very even 8th notes - ...Johnny who?

I may have overstated my case; what I should have pointed out was the difference between good work and brilliant work, helped by having the right setting or showcase -

Bravo on the Guitar Slim - very early use of overdriven guitar/amp combos. Also love the Holy Modal Rounders: amphetamine folk - and I love Wallington - try also the Savoys, if you can find them, with Max Roach and Curley Russell -

James P: Early stride recordings 1921; go all through the 1920s, can't go wrong, and you can watch the style developing, particularly as the influence of Armstrong hits. A particular peak, however, are the 1939s, which include If Dreams Come True. For boogie I like Jimmy Yancey, more subtle than the others, very deep. Other stride - there are some Lucky Roberts recordings on George Buck's label, can't remember the dates, probably 1940s, but they are the earliest things available (other than 1919 accompaniments to the Black Crows, I think); Look for Donald Lamberts LPs from his comeback(don't know if they are on CD; great notes by Wellstood) - there are some Eubie Blake Lps which include recordings from the early 1920s; very East Coast in their lack of deep swing with one or two exceptions (Sounds of Africa, Ma). Interesting, though. Look for Jimmy Blythe, also - pianist from Chicago, less known, recorded with both jazz and blues people, and has a 1924 recording which may be the first with the boogie bass line (can't think of the title right off).

Well, I'm not saying all were bad - but the leader recordings of John Handy, Jimmy Knepper, were ok but nowhere near what they did with Mingus; Danny Richmond's , ok but nothing special; Clarence Shaw's recordings as leader, ok, but not nearly as good as with with Mingus; Kirk I find notoriously inconsistent; Shafi Hadi didn't do much outside of that band; Bill Triglia, pianist, played his best with Mingus (and on a recording for Debut); Horace Parlan - Ellington sidemen - well, Rex Stewart and Cootie Williams are two who never approached their work with Ellington, when recording as leaders (except on early work as "Ellingtonians," which were really Ellington recordings); same with Ray Nance. Also: Lawrence Brown, even Johnny Hodges (a controversial pick, I know); Bubber Miley as sideman, not nearly as good as with the band; Harry Carney -

The "I's" have it - and let's not forget that the night has a thousand eyes -

let's just start with the first 2,000 -

I agree about standards - either find something not played to death or give it a unique spin - and I love standards and know a lot of odd ones - but I think that's a different issue -

For sale, new in the box - 4 CDs - $30 plus shipping (can do media rate or priority) - email me at alowe@maine.rr.com thanks -

That's it - Tommy was a great bassist and nice man -