Larry Kart

IMO, Mose Allison is a stretch. (Would like to have Baraka's take on that one.) Were she still alive, in that general bag I would have preferred Blossom Dearie, if one has to go there. On the other hand, looking a list of all the NEA Jazz Masters from 1982 until now, who among the still living is worthy? But then among those honored one year was jazz immortal Luther Henderson. Next up, Sammy Nestico. As for advocacy and the like, hasn't Jamey Abersold has had more of an impact on the music than Lorraine Gordon? And what of Cuscuna? Quite a track record there. http://www.nea.gov/honors/jazz/jmCMS/JMalpha.php

Yes, Marc Copland played alto and tenor in the D.C. area in the '70s, under the name Marc Cohen. Don't know about the reasons for the name change (perhaps there was another player around of the same name?), but the switch to piano was pretty remarkable, because Copland has become a pretty amazing keyboard executant. Copland interview, where he talks about the switch to piano: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=17196

BTW, I vaguely recall an ancient Village Voice piece by Stanley Crouch at his most obnoxious in which he wondered why Art Farmer was using this unswinging, un-balls-y pianist (IIRC, Crouch came close to saying limp-wristed, but I didn't pick up on the allusion at the time because I didn't then know that Hersch was gay) when there were so many deserving African-American pianists around. Crouch may even have cast aspersions on Farmer himself for his choice of Hersch, implying that that Art was trying to cover his "white" flank, a la his previous use of Jim Hall. Can anyone link to this piece, if indeed I'm not imagining it?

Reading the Blindfold Test alongside the interview helps to bring things into focus for me. Ego? I'd say, perhaps instead, defensive certainty. OTOH, his opinions are at least based in genuine musical issues, and this gives one something to respond to/think about at the least. It's not like you have to agree with him in any or every case. Besides, these are more or less "what's your opinion?" situations. It's not like he's walking down the street carrying a dis Horace Silver sign or calling up people at random to raise doubts about Bill Evans. BTW, a slightly Hersch-like dig at the man himself. A veteran NY-based jazz musician I know, referring to the care that Hersch takes in the studio on his own dates in particular, once told me that "Fred isn't the best pianist in town, but he does make some of the best records." Also BTW, I wonder what Hersch's take would be on Marc Copland. Not a pianist that all here would like, and at times I myself find him a tad too romantic (for want of a better term), but it seems to me that he and Hersch are quite comparable figures and that Copland at best has a real "schwung" to his playing that the arguably too-careful Hersch typically lacks. Finally, FWIW, my favorite Hersch recording is his solo Rodgers and Hammerstein album -- a real melding of minds. His Monk, not so much.

What does this mean? It's turned down so low, when it's used at all, that all it does is give a slight fuzz to his tone. One hardly notices it.

Thanks to Marc Meyers for recommending this one (which combines two '60s LPs) on his blog: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000000ZF0/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00 Stitt is in very relaxed and inventive form, backed by rhythm sections led by Jack McDuff or Gene Ludwig (with Pat Martino on the Ludwig tracks). Stitt used the Varitone on the Ludwig date but not so as you'd know it.

Ordered the Hamp box (even though I have the RCA box on LP), the Benedetti -- the latter long overdue for me -- and, in a weak moment, the first of the two Helen Merrills. The Braff I didn't like back then (just an uncomfortable date IMO, and I love Ruby; he may have found the Berigan-tribute premise a bit off-putting, and Nat Pierce's neo-Basie comping is a drag at times). Have the Farmer, which is very nice; have the Slide Hampton, which I don't much like (Lateef doubters like Allen Lowe will find their doubts confirmed here); have the Zeitlin, which is great if you care for him; have much of the Cohn,Newman, Greene stuff on various RCA CDs and LPs; have Blakey's "Hard Bop," Duke's "Cosmic Scene"; also have a nice collection of etchings in my attic.

He's an LAPD homicide detective.

In Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch novels, Harry often listens to Art Pepper and Frank Morgan recordings.

I think you could have come up with the same answer via a little judicious research yesterday. No doubt. But I preferred to talk to a vastly experienced professional in the field whom I knew personally and therefore, because of his track record, felt I could trust, rather than take the word of authorities I don't know. Of course, one often is in the latter position of necessity, but this time I was not and decided I should take advantage of that fact. No doubt you could have Googled the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. It's not exactly unavailable on the web. If you have never really dealt with the fallout from adults who prey on children for sex, then I apologize. But I think the ages of Sandusky's victims kind of spells things out. (8, 10, etc.) Yes, but as I said, I preferred to talk to a real person in the field whom I knew and trusted and who also could respond to any questions I might want to ask. Further, while the iterations of the DSM over the years all strive to be "scientific," in some areas they also are or can be "political" (i.e. responsive to various societal pressures), and I wanted to talk to someone whom I thought would tell me the truth as he saw it regardless of whose nose might be put out of joint, my own included.

I think you could have come up with the same answer via a little judicious research yesterday. No doubt. But I preferred to talk to a vastly experienced professional in the field whom I knew personally and therefore, because of his track record, felt I could trust, rather than take the word of authorities I don't know. Of course, one often is in the latter position of necessity, but this time I was not and decided I should take advantage of that fact.

Sonnymax and others -- Since my posts yesterday here, I've talked to a professional in the field of human psychology, and he convincingly explained that your position is essentially correct and mine is essentially wrong. That is, pedophilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different kinds of behavior/states of being. Apologizing (see above).

The standard answer is that most abusers were abused - makes sense to me. But this is a complex subject and not one on which I feel I can speculate. It's a very difficult thing - almost like trying to put oneself inside the mind of an abuser, and I definitely don't want to go there. I find it hard enough to deal with the news about Sandusky et. al. as is. Well, I do want to put myself inside the abuser's mind insofar as that's possible because I think that is necessary; one needs to grasp (or try to grasp) what's going on there before reaching for a solution that better than "Put the heads of those aliens on pikes." Not that putting heads on pikes might not be what one wants or needs to do, but again IMO not alien heads; rather, all-too-human heads.

Seeline -- OK, Sandusky preyed on boys of that age. Does that invalidate the rest of what I said on my post? In particular: "...that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness." To this, I would add (should have said the first time) "...something about his own young male self in relation to" etc. I'm not say BTW that it doesn't invalidate what I said. I'm asking a honest question. Also, I didn't say anywhere that this isn't about pedophilia; rather, it's that I think (perhaps mistakenly) that pedophilia arises from grave distortions in the process of human development and thus is not utterly unrelated to the normal processes of human development, that these are not acts of alien-to-the-human-condition evil but acts of all-too-human evil.

Well, we can disagree about how much/in what ways/how often, etc., but not any? It's almost as though you've proved my implicit point, that we human beings have an understandably powerful need not to see what is/has been/can be there. I'm trying not to overreact to Larry's seeming comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia. I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation of his post, because this position is an erroneous and harmful misconception that continues to be espoused by many people within certain religious and political communities. If we follow this illogic, then what is sexual assault by an adult male on a female child, heterosexuality? Sandusky is a sexual predator, a serial rapist, and quite possibly a sociopath as well. The fact that his victims were male (at least the ones we know of so far) does not make him a homosexual. Even hinting at such a connection is dangerous, as it promotes ignorance, intolerance, and often violence. SonnyMax -- Sorry, but I don't see the illogic, not entirely. Yes, pedophiles clearly belong to/in a special category, but are you saying that pedophiles who are adult males and who chose as their prey adolescent boys (that seemed to be Sandusky's pattern) are utterly unmoved/unshaped by anomalies (for want of a better term) in their own childhood and adolescent sexual development, anomalies that were not unconnected with erotic feelings toward their own sex? Yes, those feelings were no doubt powerfully blended with issues (again for want of a better term) of power, but still.... As for your "If we follow this illogic, then what is sexual assault by an adult male on a female child, heterosexuality?" I would ask, "Is this behavior utterly without some shaping experiences behind it that have something to do with graves flaw in the pedophile's own sexual development, in this case something that has to do with his feeling about his own sexual identity vis-a-vis that of girls. Is the behavior, then, an example of heterosexuality per se? No. Does it bear some relation to feelings/fantasies about heterosexual behavior? I would say, yes. Or are you saying that pedophiles are only or essentially shaped by having been themselves of victims of sexual abuse, and that, if so, even the gender of those who abused them has no bearing on what they then go on to do? Tell me why I'm wrong, but I think that if the both the gender and the age of a pedophile's victims remains consistent, then a male-on-male pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to maleness, and a male-on-female pedophile is saying something about his fantasies about his own male self in relation to femaleness.

Dan -- The problem for me here is to establish the category "sickos" or the like in such a way as to imply that the line between them (and/or their needs/desires/impulses) and the rest of humanity were at once crystal clear and as broad as the Grand Canyon. No, we don't behave that way, thanks be, but we are IMO not of another race/wholly different order of being; we just managed to grow up more or less in one piece and not in significantly f---ed-up fragments.

Well, we can disagree about how much/in what ways/how often, etc., but not any? It's almost as though you've proved my implicit point, that we human beings have an understandably powerful need not to see what is/has been/can be there.

JETman and others: Anyone who's been around an athletic team setting, academic or not, and at just about any age level, ought to be aware that there's some (for want of a better term) potential homoerotic component in the air. Worst case or cases -- we know that that is/they are. OTOH -- and I certainly don't know how to handle these shadings (if "shadings" is the right term) -- but I think that a good deal of this is unavoidably part of all that's in play in boys becoming men/shaping their identities (and in girls becoming women, for that matter). And of course, among the adult mentors/coaches/hangers-on, there have been and probably always will be a certain number of people whose "issues"/desires/what have you significantly reside in that somewhat homoeroticized atmosphere. People like Sandusky who put their fantasies into action, and mobilize the resources of coercion and charm in order to do so, are, I would say, both a significantly different crew and not that different. For one, are not coercion and charm the twin poles of behavior that most significant leaders of teams effectively put to use? (In that, I'm reminded that in addition to everything else, Sandusky seems to have been a highly gifted football coach who taught several generations of celebrated Penn State linebackers their craft.) What I'm trying to say here, is that the world of organized sport, male and female, cannot be walled off from homoeroticized thinking and at times behavior -- it's on the table there because it's on the table in terms of general human development, especially when one is in the hands of (sorry about that) mentors, because that's the nature of situation and also because one sometimes needs/desires some mentoring. My point, I guess, is that to think in the face of the Sandusky-Penn State disaster that this is essentially a matter of "quarantine the alien vileness" and/or "hang the alien bastards high" or "purge the Augean stables" is to ignore the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that to some degree we live and/or lived in those stables, too, and for a reason, even of necessity.

Larry, The "substantial developments" came today in the form of the 8 month old commission report headed by the former head of the FBI being released, your two cents and voice of reason post , this is NOT going down the same road; rather new developments based upon information carefully collected with persons clearly pointed out who conspired individually and collectively that allowed 14 additional years of attacks on children to continue. This serves to substantially move information forward which may have been the source for argument among rabid former Paterno supporters, put to rest for all with reasonable minds. I said "subsequent substantial developments," i.e. developments subsequent to the release of th Freeh report and what it contains. For example, if Graham Spanier blew his brains out next week and left a detailed "I fess up" suicide note, that would be a subsequent development.

Hey, everybody. Just my two cents at this point, but now that we've got the Freeh report, and barring any further subsequent substantial developments in this sad and ugly matter, do we really want to again go down the same road we went down before -- i.e. one where most of us on the one hand express our indignation at how bad what went down at Penn State was and is and how heinous an act/crime child sexual abuse is, while on the other hand Goodspeak parses Joe Paterno's role in this situation in as narrow a manner as possible (though one that makes sense to him), whereupon a good many of us express anger or sarcasm at him in attempt to ... what? Nothing, it would seem, is going to move anything or anyone here ("here" being this thread), unless again there are further substantial developments to ponder and discuss. I'm remind of my favorite line from Audie Murphy's WWII memoir "To Hell and Back," grunted out numerous times by a weary veteran in Murphy's platoon as they slog there way through France and Germany: "Save yo' breat."

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Cole

Perfect!

This may not be quite on your point, but I don't recall the last time a male musician posed in the equivalent of the kind of garb Krall is wearing. Please no one post the naked Herbie Mann cover. Oh, right.

Agree about those wrong-headed remarks about Bunk Johnson, but they probably are pure "Bixing" because they're almost certainly borrowed from another person's semi-ancient formulation -- can't recall whose it is, but it's not Shaw's; fifty years ago I read something dismissive about Johnson that was very close to those phrases. Hey, it could even have been Leonard Feather.

This may not be quite on your point, but I don't recall the last time a male musician posed in the equivalent of the kind of garb Krall is wearing.