DukeCity

Yeah, but the film is catching more grief about the role Ben Stiller plays.

Jimmy Cobb is gonna be rackin' up the frequent flier miles!

I was thinking of this one, too. The story I heard is that apparently Larsen is an amateur jazz guitarist and a a big Jim Hall fan. When the record company approached Larsen to do the cover, he said, "OK, my fee is one million dollars...OR...a private lesson with Jim Hall." Apparently calls were immediately made to Hall to find a time for the lesson.

I'm gonna go with being WAY early for the next one: Happy Birthday, Mark!

I received word that vocalist Chris Calloway, daughter of Cab Calloway, died Thursday. She was a fine vocalist and entertainer. I had the pleasure of playing a few gigs with her (she spent the last several years of her life living in Santa Fe), and even though she was often in great physical discomfort from bone cancer, she never failed to deliver. In addition to her own talents, she was a fascinating link to great jazz figures of earlier generations. She spent the last 20 years of her father's life touring with him and his band, and she had TONS of stories. R.I.P.

Loved him in "Original Kings of Comedy". RIP.

Don't forget "Sleigh Ride!"

For me, that element of sweetness and sentimentality in Cannonball's playing is crucial to his Cannonball-osity. When I hear him play Seranata or Poor Butterfly, he embraces the sweetness of the tune when he plays the melody, but then he tempers it when he starts blowing. Even on Dancing in the Dark (and yeah, maybe it doesn't really fit the vibe of the rest of Somethin' Else), if you get past the head, to the blowing, it's just Cannonball playing a ballad. How 'bout Cannonball with Strings? Now there's the saccharine taken to the gagging extreme. But even then, on Surrey With the Fringe On Top, when he plays his solo break, it puts the juxtaposition of the sweet/corny tune and the jazz playing of Cannonball in its starkest relief. (Even though I can't take more that a a tune or two at one sitting from that record, "I Cover the Waterfront" never fails to warm my cockels). And it seems that Cannonball had a sincere affinity for pretty/sweet/corny tunes in a similar way that Sonny Rollins does. They aknowledge exactly what the tune is; don't try to "hip up" the tune; but then they do their thing on it. What makes it cool is how unapologetic they are about taking the tune as it is. On a saxophonistically technical note, I think it's Cannonball's vibrato (along with his tone) that most immediately establishes when he's in "sweetness" mode. Considering that he recieved college training at FAMU, I wonder how much studying of "classical" saxophone he did. In that kind of training, there's lots of work done on getting control over the speed and depth of vibrato (check out the first long notes he plays on Dancing in the Dark). And one would assume that he also had to spend some time with the saxophone "literature" and other classical pieces.

What? Come on! Better than Card Sharks? Better than High Rollers? I don't think so...

Yeah, but the information that the cell is conveying is dependent upon us being aware (on some level) of the whole song. The electric piano BOINK would be just a BOINK if you didn't already know the entirety of Mr. Magic. The effectiveness relies on a certain amount of "cultural literacy", and that runs both shallow and deep. Sampling a whole phrase of a Ludacris song doesn't require a huge amount of awareness from the listener to "get it". Picking up on a BOINK from a GW, Jr. record from 30 years ago is a little more subtle. I totally agree. My point is just that there's now this entire musical...realm that is built entirely upon this sort of thing, a realm that can accommodate both the subtle and the blatant, the sublime and the ridiculous, the beauty and the beast, the fish and the fowl, the alphabet soup (incorporating the fowl) and the omega-3 fatty acids (incorporating the fish). If this realm not only exists but is organically active and evolving, as it certainly seems to be. then it seems to me that any "questioning of its validity" is little more than backwards looking wishful thinking, and that attempts to create a legislative protectionist environment against it are either doomed to fail out the gate or else can succeed only by the heaviest of heavy-handedness. Which simply means that this realm is like any other - that there can be both good and bad music made from the same basic tools, and that failure and success in this regard is a function of the artist, not the artist' tools. Even more simply, this boils down to substance trumping style. Again. Same as it ever was. The classics never go out of style! mmmm...Soup!

Yeah, but the information that the cell is conveying is dependent upon us being aware (on some level) of the whole song. The electric piano BOINK would be just a BOINK if you didn't already know the entirety of Mr. Magic. The effectiveness relies on a certain amount of "cultural literacy", and that runs both shallow and deep. Sampling a whole phrase of a Ludacris song doesn't require a huge amount of awareness from the listener to "get it". Picking up on a BOINK from a GW, Jr. record from 30 years ago is a little more subtle.

I know! Just when you start thinking, "Surely, in the next phrase she'll sing something in tune.", she seems to respond with, "Nope. Not yet." The "suspense" was killing me.

I wouldn't say I have "Olympic fever" or anything, but I'm sure I'll tune in for bits and pieces. Often I'll get sucked in by one event or another, and for a moment or two get interested in who wins. It's still pretty impressive to see such a high level of skill/achievement from the athletes. We got a new flat-screen TV and hi-def box recently, so I'm looking forward to seeing how NBC's broadcast looks...

I can't even wrap my brain around the idea of software that could take apart a record like that. I was assuming that someone had found original multi-track master tapes and just posted them one track at a time. But you know what happens when you assume... You make an ass out of Uma Thurman....

I'm TOTALLY fine with that. Edit to add: Why the hell did you just change it? Oh, and just to keep the thread going: illegal downloading is wrong, and the music industry is in a time of transition where major paradigm shifts are occurring which will require the various stakeholders to think outside the box to create a synergistic win-win....

Just had a chance to check out the SU record with Farnon. Holy Cow! There's some really nice stuff there. A couple of observations after the first listen: The restraint in terms of the orchestral weight makes the accompaniment a much better fit for SU than when they record with a "regular" big band like the Boss Brass. The Hi-Lo's thing has more of an "up" energy that can withstand the popping and powing of a full band. But the SU bag works best (for me) when they're not being "pushed", especially when they split into 6 and 8-part vocal writing. That's not to say that Farnon's orchestrations are bland by any means. Nice string writing, flute/clar writing. I'm curious as to how much of the arranging/reharmonization was done by Farnon or Puerling (assuming that the voice writing was done by Puerling). The stuff that really gets me is the wacked out endings on tunes like "The More I See You" and "I Get Along...". Takes the idea of the "deceptive cadence" to a kind of bizarre level. Sometimes reminds me of some of those slick barbershop quartet endings where the high tenor is holding the last note and the other 3 voices are resolving six ways to Sunday before they finally wrap it up. And what about that high string line at the end of "Sentimental Journey"?!?!? (nice piccolo stuff on that one, too) And finally, as much as the Puerling/Farnon writing is hip/colorful/slick, and as much as the SU nails the thick harmonies, the thing that probably grabbed me the most (having not really listened to SU for a few years) is the ridiculously perfect unison singing. Not "just" in tune, but blended and phrased together as well as anything you'll ever hear. I've always been curious about how they recorded that stuff. All four singing at once, then overdubbing extra parts, etc. If there's any documentary footage of a SU session, I'd love to see it!

Congratulations!

OK, I'll cop to the fact that SU is a guilty pleasure of mine. And specifically, the A Capella stuff is really the orientation that I have. Even more specifically, the Christmas album; a mixture of fairly traditional carols and a handful of Puerling-ified arrangements. I don't think I even have the record with Farnon, but now I'm intrigued. I'm not sure if you'll find any of those sides that will float your boat from start to finish. At least that's the way it was for me (I haven't pulled those out in a while). GP's writing is never less than good, and the singing is damn near flawless. But the records have a mix of pop tunes (Lennon & McCartney, etc.) which can be the biggest hit-n-miss element for me. The standards (Sweet Lorraine) and especially the ballads tend to be the ones that I'm least likely to fast forward through. As an aside: I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, where most school music programs do a vocal jazz thing of some kind. The term "Swing Choir" was the equivalent of "Stage Band" that was used to avoid the "J" word. So from 7th-12th grade I was usually participating either by playing or singing or both. Then I put in a few years with Paris Rutherford. So I have a pretty good feel for what that bag is about. And it can definitely run the gamut in terms of cheesiness/corniness/over-sentimentality with occasional moments of really beautiful, fairly deep writing/arranging. (plus, there were WAY more cute girls in the choir than in the jazz band).

Different bari player every take! The whole saxophone section! The driver keeps missing the car seat so....fire the band. Maybe only one take a day? I thought that was part of the joke, reinforced by the increasingly compressed rhythm of the editing and the anxiety displayed by Jack Lemmon and Louis Nye at one point -- that the whole shtick was so elaborate that when they screwed up everyone had to start over from scratch the next day (with subs in the band being inevitable). Also, as a commentator on YouTube explains, when the actor finally lands in the seat properly, he takes a puff on a cigarette and says (in the English-language original), "Man -- that's coffee!" I need to see this movie. And the Hi-Los are fabulous -- that "shake"! Different conductor, too (or at least different clothes). AND the Hi-Lo's are wearing different clothes on each take: Sweaters, then shirts and ties, then jackets. CONTINUITY!!!!! As for the budget on corporate ads, yeah some companies spread the dough pretty thick. I took some arranging lessons with Manny Mendelson in Chicago and he had/has the account with United Airlines for all of those Rhapsody in Blue ads. Every time they did a new ad, even if they wanted the essentially the same music, they would pay Manny to "re-orchestrate", then book the studio downtown, then contract a small orchestra (usually CSO players) and re-record the whole thing. Session after session... And the sessions would be long enough to record :30, :60, :15, :20 spots (as opposed to editing in post). There was a guy (or group) at United Airlines or an ad agency who runs the ad campaign, and his (their) salary was justified in part by the size of the budget for what they're working on. The bigger the annual budget, the more important that guy must be. There apparently was also a rush near the end of the fiscal year to "zero out" the account by doing a whole bunch of ads in a short period of time. Thus justifying the big budget for this year, and a bigger one for next year. Nice work, if you can get it.

Side 1 on the front. Side 2 on the back.

I can't help but think of this when you compare a Tootsie Roll to Mr. Hanky: Maybe the doctor will start some group sessions...

Yep. Boy, what a tomato! And a nice pair a' gams. She was just the cat's pajamas!

Thanks for the heads-up! I set my DVR to record all of these.

Showing signs of wear...

I think there's an album cover there somewhere. uhhh.... I'm sorry...what were we talking about?