Larry Kart

Great cover -- photo and design.

And second prize is two weeks in Gary, Indiana.

Anyone is free to weigh in on the original topic, which did inspire many interesting posts, but I don't see anything wrong with this thread going off in another direction, especially when it did so quite spontaneously -- no hi-jacking involved, or so it seems to me. Ideally, all the posts on trombonists could be removed and placed on a new thread about that topic alone, but a) I'm not sure myself how to do that and b) I expect that doing that would involve a fair amount of tedious effort. OTOH, if a fellow moderator knows how to do that and wants to, go right ahead.

Jeb Bishop

Sorry for misspelling his name above. He is something else and a very nice guy too. I was in contact with him for a good while several years ago -- we were planning that I'd write liner notes for an forthcoming album of his (the group that included Dave Binney) -- but the connection faded away during my late wife's final days and their aftermath and never got re-established. As much as I admire Schweizer's trombone playing, his genuinely long-form composing is at least as striking. Some echoes there perhaps of George Russell, but Schweizer is his own man.

Some who come to mind: Luis Bonilla Ed Neumeister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axpQVqkOqAM Conrad Herwig Also the Swiss trombonist-composer Christoph Schweizer

Those two are are only choices? I pick Dickie Wells.

Ok.

I would not have punished these acts differently, But to my mind, given who Ray Rice is as an athlete, I think there is some difference (but again not a difference on any scale of guilt or punishment) between a slap from him and the consequences of her then hitting her head as a result of that slap and the punch we saw Rice deliver, which looked to me like a full-force blow that (again given who Rice is as an athlete and also given the nature of her size relative to his) that could have killed or gravely injured her right then and there. But again I don't see this only through the lens of punishment: I also see it in terms of how and why. And the blow we see in the video looks to me like a blow (again given Rice's athletic skills and build) that easily could have been deadly. How does that matter? Well, if one has a weapon that one has good reason to know could be deadly, using that weapon tells me something about who that person who used it is or might be and what he was thinking (or not thinking, as in not considering) when he used it -- something that is or might be different than if that person slapped someone who then as a result hit her head and was knocked unconscious. No, no difference in terms of punishment or guilt, but some difference in what I would call the motivation for/the ramp up to the awful act. Why does looking at such things amount to, as you feel, an attempt to excuse? Is there, for example, no good reason to attempt to understand and differentiate between (if differences there be on the level of psychology, motivation, etc.) ) the behavior of, say, John Hinckley Jr. and Dylan Klebold?

I would say that it reveals or suggests something about the nature of their depravity and also why they committed murder. The act may stand alone in moral and a legal sense but not in a psychological sense. The ramp down from the unacceptable crime may tells us something about the ramp that led up to it. For instance, the situation I mentioned in post #53. One can imagine soldiers who recently had lost comrades to enemy action and were full of a desire for revenge that in some cases was not satisfied by the act of killing their antagonists alone. One can also imagine soldiers who felt up front that their antagonists were alien inferior beings who deserved not only to be killed but also ritually humiliated, and who felt that memorializing and sharing these acts of posthumous humiliation would bolster their self esteem. Meaningless differences? I don't think so. Right. In other words, a kinder, gentler murderer/rapist/domestic abuser is to be looked at in a different, perhaps more sympathetic light. I'm not sure why you keep reiterating that, yet at the same time demand that you're not saying that at all. Has nothing to do with kindler, gentler or looking at a particular "murder/rapist/domestic abuser in a different, perhaps more sympathetic light." Has to do instead with how and why particular criminals do what they do. Shifting the ground a bit to the geopolitical realm, in terms of their crimes against humanity, many would say (and I would agree) that Hitler and Stalin were both utterly horrific figures. But did they commit the acts they did in the same ways and within much the same historical, social, and geopolitical contexts and for the same reasons? Few historians would say so. And the differences, such as they are, are not in the least exculpatory. The need to defend/to punish etc. does not preclude the drive to understand (which again does not imply hand-holding but rather accuracy of insight into how and why). Indeed, a better understanding of how and why might lessen the dangers to humanity down the road. No need to reply BTW. We're clearly talking past each other.

I would say that it reveals or suggests something about the nature of their depravity and also why they committed murder. The act may stand alone in moral and a legal sense but not in a psychological sense. The ramp down from the unacceptable crime may tells us something about the ramp that led up to it. For instance, the situation I mentioned in post #53. One can imagine soldiers who recently had lost comrades to enemy action and were full of a desire for revenge that in some cases was not satisfied by the act of killing their antagonists alone. One can also imagine soldiers who felt up front that their antagonists were alien inferior beings who deserved not only to be killed but also ritually humiliated, and who felt that memorializing and sharing these acts of posthumous humiliation would bolster their self esteem. Meaningless differences? I don't think so.

I'm not saying that in the realm of the unacceptable there are levels of unacceptability but rather that in the realm of the unacceptable some versions of or variations on the unacceptable tell somewhat different stories than other versions of or variations on the unacceptable do, and I feel that those differences have meaning and are worthy of some attention. For instance, you may recall that in Iraq on some occasions some U.S. troops killed captured Iraqis. Unacceptable, right? But those troops in some cases also urinated on the corpses of the men they had killed and took pictures of themselves doing so. To me that says something potentially meaningful about what was going on the minds of those troops in the first place.

Rice's apparent indifference does add something to me. And while I hope you don't have me in particular in mind, don't think that my position is one of manic outrage.

Not sure what you're saying "Um, so?" to. I thought the question was whether the in-the-elevator video added something pertinent to what we knew before. I explained why I think it does -- because it shows not only the actual violent act but also Rice's apparent indifference afterwards to Janay's well-being, this when it was still just the two of them in the elevator, with no need as yet to tell anyone a story about what caused her unconsciousness. Then, as post #45 states, there also is a dispute/disagreement between two Ravens officials, GM Ozzie Newsome and team president Dick Cass, as to what the NFL report said that Rice did -- Newsome stating that the NFL report said that Rice did to Janay what the tape shows he did, Cass stating that the NFL report did not say that Rice did to Janay was what the tape shows he did, that the report instead said that Rice slapped Janay and that she then fell and hit her head. Not that the latter act of domestic violence wouldn't be reprehensible, but one would think that there might be some difference between a slap from Ray Rice and a full-bore punch from him. And if indeed Cass is right about the difference between what the report says and what the tape shows, that means that either Rice lied about what happened in the elevator or that he told the truth and the NFL report for some reason covered that up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/11/whether-nfl-had-tape-obscures-question-of-whether-nfl-needed-it/ More reason why the inside-the-elevator video might be significant: The question of whether the NFL had the Ray Rice tape obscures the more important question of whether the NFL actually needed to see the tape. If Ray Rice told the team and the league exactly what happened in the elevator, there really wasn’t any need to see the tape. In the only two interviews given in the aftermath of the release of the Rice video, Commissioner Roger Goodell stopped short of saying Rice lied about what happened, pointing vaguely to an ambiguity with Norah O’Donnell of CBS and an inconsistency with Christine Brennan of USA Today. When the hammer dropped on Rice three days ago, many assumed that the team and the league had concluded that Rice had lied about what he did, and that the new punishment arose not from the incident for which he’d already been punished, but from the fact that he essentially obstructed justice in connection with the league’s investigation. After all, Mike Vick and the Saints learned the hard way that Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness To The Shield. While the football-following world was reeling from the report that the NFL actually had the Rice tape as early as April, a bombshell emerged from Ravens G.M. Ozzie Newsome: Ray Rice didn’t lie. Ray Rice didn’t lie. Which means the story Rice told was consistent with and not ambiguous in relation to what the video showed. Which means that, regardless of whether the tape was or wasn’t sent to the league office and whether it did or didn’t snake its way to the guy at the top of the organizational chart, the NFL knew what Rice had done. But the issue remains unclear, because team president Dick Cass suggested that someone told the team and the league something other than what the tape shows. “There’s a big difference between reading a report that says he knocked her unconscious or being told that someone had slapped someone and that she had hit her head,” Cass told the Baltimore Sun. “That is one version of the facts. That’s what we understood to be the case. When you see the video, it just looks very different than what we understood the facts to be.” So did Ray Rice lie, or didn’t he? Did Rice create ambiguities and inconsistencies, or didn’t he? Newsome, who per multiple sources was in the room when Rice met with Goodell, says Rice didn’t lie. But Cass was in the room, too. And Cass is sticking with the notion that he was told Rice had merely slapped Janay, and that she then hit her head. Etc.

I'm not so sure. I knew that he hit her and knocked her unconscious, as we all did, but actually seeing it was something else. The blow itself, but also his reaction or lack of reaction to what he had done. He just stands there for a while, seemingly indifferent or pondering what he's going to do with her limp form, when some people might have thought that the blow had caused grave injury or even killed her. Larry, he dragged her out of the elevator. He didn't pick her up and carry her out, he dragged her. He showed complete disregard for her in that original lobby video. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could have seen that differently. It's like Dan Patrick said on his show the other day: "Can you politely knock someone out?" Yes, but IMO what we see him do and not do in the elevator after he knocked her out adds a good deal to his eventual complete disregard for her in the lobby. Again, he doesn't (as far as I can tell) even check to see if she's still breathing. Further, though we can't see it in this video, law enforcement officials who have seen an enhanced version say that Rice spits on her unconscious body before he drags her out of the elevator.

I heard Harris with Herman at the Blue Note in Chicago in 1955 or '56. He drove that band like crazy. IIRC Cy Touff was in that band, too. If so, quite a combination.

Will never happen. Also, what's good about keeping an account open that I never used and didn't/don't want to use? Don't even remember now why I opened it. A request from someone I knew probably.

I'm not so sure. I knew that he hit her and knocked her unconscious, as we all did, but actually seeing it was something else. The blow itself, but also his reaction or lack of reaction to what he had done. He just stands there for a while, seemingly indifferent or pondering what he's going to do with her limp form, when some people might have thought that the blow had caused grave injury or even killed her.

Excellent essay about Bill Harris from bassist Steve Wallace's blog: http://wallacebass.com/?p=2565 Now a JATP trombonist who arguably could be pretty vulgar was Tommy Turk. Solo begins at about at the 3:05 mark and includes some notable farts toward (so to speak) the tail end.

I'm a big Bill Harris fan. By J.J. standards his tone and phrasing might have seemed rather blatant to some back then, but his tonal variety, melodic imagination, and rhythmic drive and subtlety were superb. Hear "Bijou" for example. Great post on Harris on the blog of Phil Woods' former bassist. Search for it; it was mentioned and linked to on Organissimo recently.

Yes, but in my experience he makes a buzz saw sound subtle. Also, don't tell me about "tradition." In the glorious history of the trombone in so-called traditional jazz, I don't know of anyone who ever played the horn as crudely as Gordon does, at least not willfully. Does that mean that Gordon can't play well, or that he can but makes bad decisions? MG It means IMO that some early jazz trombonists -- e.g. Kid Ory, Honore Dutrey, Ike Rogers -- played in an arguably crude, blatant, awkward manner (rhythmically, in terms of timbre, phrasing etc., albeit not, at best, without significant emotional power that served the ensembles they were part of) because they didn't have much if any choice about it. The trombone in their hands was, so to speak, still a relatively blunt instrument; it would be up to players like Jimmy Harrison, Miff Mole, and Jack Teagarden to change things/present new options. As for Gordon's making bad decisions, that judgment is in the ears of the beholder. What I meant is that Gordon chooses to play with IMO considerable timbral crudeness and to fairly often phrase in a similarly blatant manner when he almost certainly knows his way around the instrument more than well enough to play somewhat otherwise. This, again I think, was not the case with figures like Ory, Dutrey, and Rodgers. I brought them up BTW because I have the impression that some of Gordon's fans think that he plays the way he does because he's honoring and elaborating on the tradition of trombone playing in early jazz. My experience of trombone playing in early jazz suggests suggests that this would-be connection is stylistically and historically dubious. Further, and perhaps most important, if one has a taste for big-toned blustery trombonists of many eras, as you do, I see little or no relationship between the playing of Gordon and that of the big-toned, non-J.J. inclined, trombonists that you've mentioned and admire.

Yes, but in my experience he makes a buzz saw sound subtle. Also, don't tell me about "tradition." In the glorious history of the trombone in so-called traditional jazz, I don't know of anyone who ever played the horn as crudely as Gordon does, at least not willfully.

Bless you, Shawn. Resetting Safari, then resetting my password (that page was now active), then plugging my password into the "Deactive your Twitter account" page, did the trick.

No such luck. And when I try to reset my password, even though the "new password" and the "verify password" boxes are there, neither of them is active. That is, I can't type in them. Sounds like a browser issue, try a different one. You may be right, but do you mean I have to install a whole new browser other than Safari in order to deactivate Twitter? If so, that sounds to me like way more trouble than it's worth.