thedwork

gotta be stevie nicks and prince

i know i can always count on getting the most up to date info on Woody Allen by coming to the Mahavishnu Orchestra thread but seriously, thanks for posting this. i assume this is a new documentary? Woody is getting on and the more attention paid the better afaic; no matter my, or anyone else's, opinion on his later output, scandals, etc... i'll see if i can get my folks to dvr this so i can watch it at a later date. thanks mjzee...

cool. thanks man

finished it. not for me, but i see how others would enjoy it.

Correct, thedwork! Jan is not the leader on the album, but he is manning the keys. Your other guesses caught similarities I'd likely miss, but they're incorrect. I probably should have written down all the discography info, I just had to check one at a time to see if you were right, hahaha. I'm glad you enjoyed it! i got one! cool. i guess i put you to work looking up that other info. sorry man

by no means sure of any guesses here, but had a good time listening . here goes: jan hammer @ 47:47 and again @ 48:57? this guess is way out there, but a very young mccoy tyner at 52:12 - 54:00? kai winding @ 59:00? mulligan @ 1:04:00? (killer solo!) don't really think it's him, but reminds me of george adams @ 1:07:00 thanks noj

i use Meyer's Gigue from Suite No. 5 in C minor at work often to demo speaker systems. tremendous. he's kind of a freak imo. in the best sense... why and how did they get charlie haden to pose for that album cover photo on a serious note, i'd love to hear an interpretation of these suites by haden. maybe a complete 'pizz' version...

on the recommendation of my step-mom: i'm a bit more than halfway through and i'm not enjoying it at all. i actually rather dislike it, as opposed to simply disliking it in a 'disinterested' way, but will finish it out of respect for my step-mom. we'll see what happens. maybe since i've been reading so much non-fiction for the last 5-6 years i just don't like reading fiction much anymore? could be...

i don't know what that means, but i'm fairly certain it's not good...

L. Ron Hubbard always ate breakfast last. It's science...

This may classify as some more internet forum gobbledygook, but where's your THIRD 'quick and unnecessary' point? oops let's see... 3) Breakfast is the most important meal of the day!

three quick and unnecessary points i feel compelled to post: 1) Scientology is batshit crazy freak-show nonsense. 2) this thread is some classic internet forum gobbledygook.

thank you sir

i grew up watching 60 Minutes every week when i was a kid and a teenager. i always got a kick out of Rooney's bit and thought the program was great. not so much on either account as i grew older over the last 20 years or so... but kudos to Rooney just the same. RIP. when i was working in the Borders Bookstore 4-5 years ago in albany, Rooney came into the store. i was luckily working the welcome/info desk at the moment and spotted him immediately. he was in town for some sort of book tour thingie or other. very cool to speak briefly w/ him as he was very pleasant and friendly. after i spoke w/ him and he went on his way about the store i turned in amazement to my fellow co-workers to talk about how cool it was that Rooney was in our store. none of them recognized him or knew who he was. they were all 10-20 years younger than i. it felt odd. in my mind i was thinking to myself, "You don't know who Andy fucking Rooney is?!@#$% What the hell is going on here?" but i guess that's just how it goes...

x2

I have no opinion, as I've never listened to him. Kevin Hayes was selling this CD at the Kitano, but I opted for a trio recording. did you get his Live At Smalls recording? if so, i'd say money very well spent. totally awesome recording...

you will be receiving a private message shortly...

maybe not isolating people's quotes out of context would help understanding: JazzWax: Is part of jazz-fusion's surge a desire by musicians to relate to younger audiences using electric instruments and volume? Chick Corea: Yeah, that's part of it. My opinion, generally, is that all music lacks value and humanity and feeling and depth when it's devoid of an audience. I mean, if you think of me sitting in my room playing music just for myself, I mean there's nothing wrong with that, it's a great activity. But in terms of music as a culture and a society, you have to take changes in audiences into account. JW: Is that what you did with your form of jazz-fusion? CC: I've found that musicians always want to communicate. You don't want to not communicate, right? You want to get something across. But you can't just do what interests only you. My own personal tastes in music would turn everyone off. It would probably turn you off. So back then, I differentiated my own personal tastes in music from my attempt to bring my love of music to audiences that were looking for a new relationship with it, a new sound. aside from Chick's double negative ( ), this should make it a bit more clear as to what he meant. certainly nothing earth-shattering or particular illuminating. the thing to remember with this is that he specifically says he's talking about music "in terms of culture and society." imo, that's a different thing from speaking about it as just "art." some might say that's semantic observation; i think it's just being specific. seems he's just saying that if you wanna be understood, make sure you're speaking a language in which those you're speaking to can understand. deciding whether or not you care to be understood, and deciding who it is you care your audience to be, are other matters entirely. personal thought: Chick likely didn't mean for this to be extrapolated from what he's said here, but i've thought about this quite a bit myself and his comment kind of suggests it: People are more important than art.

"Speculators On The Moon." rock on Noj. outstanding [*] - did you get that $400 million figure from the current "clear channel" thread?

Some people also buy mid-grade gas and put mayonnaise on a pastrami sandwich...but that don't make it right. back when i used to play more, i remember pretty regularly playing Cmin(Maj7) at the top. always liked that sound there...

agreed. and i already posted at length weeks ago on a longer video that included the very same footage that's been thrown up here. recycled bullshit for the mindless. i certainly won't be explaining that thing again... i was listening to "Low Spark Of High Heeled Boys" today. seems to fit the movement somehow: The percentage you're paying is too high-priced While you're living beyond all your means And the man in the suit has just bought a new car From the profit he's made on your dreams But today you just read that the man was shot dead By a gun that didn't make any noise But it wasn't the bullet that laid him to rest Was the low spark of high-heeled boys If I gave you everything that I owned And asked for nothing in return Would you do the same for me as I would for you Or take me for a ride And strip me of everything, including my pride But spirit is something that no one destroys And the sound that I'm hearing is only the sound Of the low spark of high-heeled boys... High-Heeled boys

Seem quite logical to me -- why are you dubious? You didn't have to be Jewish to take notice (it was certainly all over the news) and to respond positively to the founding of state of Israel. Also, Carisi's teacher Wolpe had lived in Palestine in the 1930s and written many pieces there that made use of modal procedures, as "Israel" does (Wolpe having been inspired by modal strains in Jewish and Palestinian music). when i was in school we studied "Angkor Wat." amazing piece of music and Carisi was an amazing composer. and i wasn't aware that "Springsville" was a Carisi composition! ridiculous that i didn't know that. those two compositions sound perpetually modern to me. great writing - and performing! that shit is very hard to play. i know you guys in this thread think i'm an ass when it comes to Israel and i can, in a way, understand that. so i wasn't gonna chime in on the little discussion/comments started on Carisi's "Israel." but it's interesting and i'll be brief and non-confrontational. seems unquestionable to me, considering it was written in/around 1948, that the title refers to the newly created State. and while it's a somewhat safe assumption that it was a "positive tribute," that is an assumption. the tune is, after all, a minor blues. not trying to be cute here. if anyone has direct source quotes from Carisi or Wolpe on that issue it'd be interesting, but probably not very 'important.' interesting quote found from painter Mordechai Ardon on Wolpe: "He was from this group. As he was in Israel, something happened to him too. Not in a political way, and not in an artificial morality, not Zionist. It was something like destiny. He felt that there is something he belongs to. He was a Jew by description, but not a Jew. He became involved, not in Jewishness, but in some primary feelings. He was not brought up as a Jew, but he suddenly had a feeling for these strange roots. He felt that it is something for him too. After the war in '52 or '53 he came back, he was searching for this strange point. This was the purpose of coming back, nothing more. He didn't find it, and went away."

just found out about this recent release today: Modern Music on Nonesuch from Kevin Hays and Brad Mehldau. Listen to the wonderful title track at this youtube link: Hays/Mehldau Modern Music totally digging this on first listen. all the tracks i've heard are fantastic ('bout half the record). Mehldau has tons of exposure, but Hays not so much. i've posted about him here in the past; particularly his Live At Smalls trio recording (tremendous!). hopefully this new recording will get people to check out Hays more and more. enjoy...

right when i joined this board 1-2 years ago, Dan was immediately, completely, and unnecessarily rude to me. so i made it my policy after that to not directly quote or engage him. and i've done well with that. but i have to make an exception here because what he's written is too perfect to pass up. his quote above is maybe the best crystallization i've seen on any forum of the totally amoral attitude, combined with the willfully manipulative bad logic and language, that conservative corporatists love to regurgitate. they/he thinks the attitude represented by his little money worshipping aphorism above is witty and somehow profound. it's not. it's the selfish, and self-righteous, LIE that the grossly wealthy try to spin to make it seem like it's OK that a very few have nearly everything while the masses struggle w/ comparatively next to nothing. it's gross and everyone knows it. it shows a level of contempt for working people i've not yet witnessed on this, or any other, board. i guess it's just a barometer showing how bad things have gotten that this type of disgusting attitude is now so brazenly out in the open. "I don't live my life hating the successful." let's take a good look at that sentence. problem #1: "successful." i don't even have to leave this thread to make my point of how this shit gets so grotesquely blown out so fast. who's the example in this thread as someone "liberals would live their lives hating because they became successful?" Rush Limbaugh. He's making $400 million from CC? on top of his likely other multiple millions? anyone who merely calls this 'successful' is intentionally understating. INTENTIONALLY UNDERSTATING. it is a gigantic sum of concentrated wealth by any standard and everyone knows it. so he's not just 'successful.' compared to most of the world's population, let alone in our country, someone here in the states making $100,000 is very successful. a child can do the simple math of comparing $400+ million to $100,000 to see they're not at all comparable. so whether or not you want to admit it, calling someone who makes $400 million simply 'successful' is a gross, willful manipulation of language and is a LIE. Rush Limbaugh isn't just 'successful.' Rush Limbaugh is insanely, grossly wealthy. and, yes, this goes for anyone else who makes that kind of money - left, right, woman, man, whatever kind of label you wanna slap on a person. if they make that kinda money, it's their moral obligation to help out people who have next to nothing. and everyone knows. problem #2: "hating the successful." when you're lacking a good moral argument, just name-call the person you disagree w/ a "hater." that'll get 'em. nobody likes a 'hater.' that'll throw up a nice wall in the conversation. except that a person w/ a better functioning mind can see that it's possible/more productive to hate the concentration of money/power without hating the person. "hating the successful" is a bullshit phrase. people who realize that the alarming and exaggerated gap between the rich and the poor is ruining the world don't hate people. that's a LIE. we hate the system that promotes the ever-widening of this amoral gap. it is UNSUSTAINABLE. problem #3: "I don't live my life..." oh, OK. so you're saying that people who think things should be more equitable than the way they are right now spend all the time of their lives "hating the successful." news flash: that's a dirty LIE. people who are struggling and believe that things should be fundamentally changed generally don't have time to waste hatin' on the successful. they're working 2-3 jobs to make ends met. they're working their asses off trying to make this world a better place for EVERYONE. they're exhausted from spending all their physical and emotional energy on getting through the day. "living their lives hating the successful..." gimme a fucking break. and maybe the biggest problem w/ these LIES is that many folks who are emotionally susceptible to media messages due to having it so rough and being just plain tired, are often the ones who end up lapping the message up and defending those who they should, by all rights, be railing against. it's a fucked up world y'all...

i had the same reaction to merely reading the title and its subtitle. then, proceeding to read through the entire article just made matters worse. dreadful...