Larry Kart

Not that bugged by the lame play on words titles, but some seem very apt to me, e.g. "Subconscious-Lee."

Never having met Driggs myself, my guess is that by interacting on a practical level with so many people who needed access to the material he had amassed he made himself part of the "community" in ways that the often high-handed Hammond did not. Maybe in this realm Driggs was himself very practical about how cooperative he was to whom.

"Klook's Clique" Mingus-Ah-Um" Also, David, the titles you mention are not puns but plays on words. Every pun is a play on words, but not all plays on words are puns.

The Bears' problem is not so much their offensive line as it is that minus Earl Bennett (who isn't great but knows what he's doing) and Roy Williams (eh) they have only three-quarters of a receiver left in the lineup (that being Johnny Knox, who can get open but makes mistakes -- fails to run out some routes, shies away from contact at crucial times). Hester downfield is virtually a zero (and how often does he line up wrong and need to be waved to the correct side of the formation?); he's good only for certain underneath routes and is far from sure-handed on those. And while on such or similar routes Forte is better of course, you aren't going anywhere dumping the ball off to Forte, especially when only one receiver deserves any respect. Also, the whole run/pass balance thing is almost beside the point and/or backwards if you have just three-quarters of a receiver in the lineup. Balance is a great, but in order to get that balance at least one aspect of the offense needs to be able to distort the defense some. As for Cutler, give him all day to throw (which of course he's not getting), and throwing to these guys he'd still have big problems.

Now they are.

Same delay for me.

John Marin at the Art Institute of Chicago. I was underwhelmed but think that probably was my fault. Just wasn't in the mood.

Chris -- Sorry to hear that. Any idea why Driggs is off-limits? I don't recall that being the case with John Hammond, whose record in life was also, shall we say, mixed.

Chris -- Have you tried to post there about Driggs and been rebuffed? I'd gladly try myself, but I have no direct experience with Driggs and thus if challenged would be unable to support what I'd said in what surely would be a highly contentious framework.

If I recall Chris' previous accounts, Driggs typically "borrowed" material (photos, etc.) from people (including Chris) who legitimately had purchased or inherited it -- "borrowing" this material, Driggs would say to those people, in order to make use of it in some supposedly worthwhile project; and some of those projects were worthwhile. But once Driggs got his hands on this material, he would never return it; it became "his." This is outright theft, not the way "libraries and archives have almost always been built." And it would seem likely that Driggs' extreme reclusiveness was in part a defense against those who might attempt to come after him for what he did. As far as reparations go, I think it's also likely that Driggs did the best he could to cover his tracks.

Thanks, Tom.

Wish I'd have said that.

I have all the albums by this band, as well as those made by Charquet et Co and Les Petit Jazz Band. They're all excellent IMO; when drums arrive, they're handled as one might wish. Also some of the soloists are superb, particularly clarinetist Alain Marquet (from Charquet and Les Petit) and saxophonist Michael Bescont. Also, while some of the materrial is re-creative, often with significant alterations, some of it is new. Steve, I would definitely look on YouTube for Charquet and Co performances.

Dan -- This may be what you were talking about on the baseball steroids thread, but the apparent consensus on this thread seemed to be that the thread starter was making the same points over and over again, while getting more and more indignant and accusatory, that this inevitably sparked some responses in kind, and round and round we were going. Of course, as one of the schlubs (i.e. a moderator) whose job it is to keep an eye on such things here, I may have a somewhat skewed point of view, but I could see no reason to spend much of the day doing that (and waiting for an explosion of some sort) when the content of the thread was so darn repetitious.

Just to be clear, the "Hanging Judges" thread can be found in "Forums Discussion."

The thread is unlocked/open now. Sorry, David, if you thought I was being rude to you; that was certainly not my intent.

OK -- I'll try to open the closed thread again (the "Hanging Judges" one) but first a little history here. Thanks largely to the behavior of one poster, that thread was (in the view of many here, including myself) spinning its wheels to say the least, and many people we're saying, "Please, close it down -- it's run its course." I said that I would do that shortly, but then David Ayers posted something that I found provocative but that I also didn't fully understand. I asked him some questions about what he meant, he replied, and I though that was it. As for Chris waving the Political Correctness flag, I don't see how any of that was involved here. Whatever, I'll try to reopen the Hanging Judges thread. Have at it.

"But Beautiful"? But seriously...

Cliff Edwards and Buster Keaton jamming in the movie "Doughboys":

Yup. Of course, it also depends on who's sleeping closer to the bedroom window.

Most women tend to feel the cold more readily than most men do? Or so they tell me.

For those who have Spotify, there are at least two must-hear Leo Watson recordings, with Vic Dickenson and guitarist Arv Garrison: "Tight and Gay" (on the changes of you know what) and "Jingle Bells"

Glad I asked because otherwise I never would have guessed. A few more questions. I know what composers are, but who might these "other ideators" be? Also, Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Art Tatum, Charlie Parker, Bud Powell (among many others) never worked that much within frameworks that were significantly determined by composers or bandleaders who "were keen to set the idea of the music above the desire of individual musicians to tootle." Were Armstrong, Young, Tatum, Parker, Powell et al. a passle of "toe-tapping gents" who were just "tootling" ? Finally, your final sentence: "That is all fair and fine but it's not really scalable and we should understand why jazz does not command massive popular support." What does "scalable" mean there? Measurable against something else, a standard of some sort? If so, what would that be? Or "scalable" as in, say, a barrier that could be climbed? And what could jazz's "scalability" (if there is such a word) have to do with whether or not the music commands "massive popular support"? What arts that command such support do so because they are "scaleable"?

David -- Lord knows I don't wish to prolong a thread that I was thinking about closing down. But while I understand what you mean by "jazz is musician-defined" (as is any art defined by what its practitioners chose to/manage to do), I don't understand what you mean by "To everyone else it is just background." Everyone else doesn't really care about it?/has no significant or meaningful relationship with it? What? And why do you think that we all are very pleased with ourselves?

John -- Glad you like N. Mazzerella. That's just the way I feel about him. Hatwich and Rosaly, too. Leeway -- Heard Laubrock with Mike Reed's Sun Ra project at the Chicago Jazz Fest and was very impressed. On the same gig Halvorson was excellent. Heard Anker last week with Taborn and Gerald Cleaver; she left me cold. Trumpeter Jacob Wick.