Larry Kart

My favorite (maybe) is Sleepy John Estes:

In college at the U. of Chicago in the mid-1960s I got to hear Big Joe Williams a good deal, as I'm sure Chuck did. That was a revelation. Big Joe hung around the U. of C. and, of course, at Seymour's Record Mart.

Saul Goodman http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/30/arts/saul-goodman-89-a-timpanist-who-made-drums-sing-is-dead.html

Leo Watson: http://www.allmusic.com/album/original-scat-man-r426575 In general, the later on the better.

I enjoyed Zitano a whole lot on some Boston-area recordings from the 1950s, particularly Serge Chaloff's "Boston Blowup." Nice Ray Santisi there, too. A fine date all around. I should listen again, but IIRC there was something special about JZ's ride cymbal beat -- nothing flashy, just personal, subtle, and very propulsive.

Chicago drummer of the late '40s, '50s and on. Played with Ira Sullivan. He can be heard backing the excellent singer Johnny Janis on an album from the early '60s but unreleased at the time, "Jazz Up Your Life" (Starwell), along with Ira, bassist Jerry Friedman, and Dodo Marmarosa. Some great stuff here. I got it from Janis' website, and it may still be available there. Link to a post of mine about Janis that discusses that album with Viveros. Unfortunately Janis' website seems not to be active:

Yup.

Shoot me for saying this, but I keep expecting Wynton to punctuate his solos with shouts of "Hey, Lordy Mama," like some guy in a straw hat and suspenders at the Red Garter.

Clyde McCoy is what I would have expected, but expectations aren't always met.

Sheep Trails Are Fateful To Strangers Dante would have blamed Beatrice If she turned up alive in a local bordello Or Newton gravity If apples fell upward What I mean is words Turn mysteriously against those who use them Hello says the apple Both of us were object. *************************** There is a universal here that is dimly recognized. I mean everybody says some kinds of love are horseshit. Or invents a Beatrice to prove that they are. What Beatrice did did not become her own business. Dante saw to that. Sawed away the last plank anyone he loved could stand on. Jack Spicer -- "The Heads of the Town Up to the Aether"

From several points of view, the pairing with Clapton may be the beauty part of Wynton's entire career.

I think the sticking point here may be the word "actually." If you're using it here to mean something like "Does this mean my lust for someone is hostility instead of lust?" (whatever one thinks the dynamics of "lust" or sexual excitement in fact are) no. What Stoller is saying, if one goes along with him, is that hostility is a significant component in lust or sexual excitement, for reasons he elaborates on. Intriguing idea. Sometimes yes, but always? Some in the field think that Stoller's theory goes too far. A very interesting book, in any case, as are his books on gender identity, perversions, and pornography. Those subjects (in order IIRC) were his original professional interests, and one could argue that they either slanted or brought insight to his views of how sexual excitement works across the board.

I think the sticking point here may be the word "actually." If you're using it here to mean something like "Does this mean my lust for someone is hostility instead of lust?" (whatever one thinks the dynamics of "lust" or sexual excitement in fact are) no. What Stoller is saying, if one goes along with him, is that hostility is a significant component in lust or sexual excitement, for reasons he elaborates on.

I spent some time with Priester a year ago last April on a tour of Amsterdam, Hasselt (Belgium), and Cologne by an augmented version of drummer-bandleader Mike Reed's People, Places, and Things band, which added trumpeter Art Hoyle, trombonist Jeb Bishop, tenorman Ari Brown, and Priester to tenorman Tim Haldemann, altoist Greg Ward, bassist Jason Roebke, and Mike. Julian was/is a terrific guy, soft-spoken but also justifiably proud of his achievements, and with a sly sense of humor. He played beautifully.

And nowhere did I claim that it was. Let's connect the dots here: True, but... ...meaning only that power, control and violence are indeed part of "normal" sexuality as well. And I'm not just talking about "rough sex" either, oh HELL no! A really good, hard fucking (and remember, not just men fuck, women fuck men too, they don't just get fucked by them, and in the context of this thread, men fuck and get fucked by other men too, and women...women can do damn near anything, one way or the other, and yes, that is a source of wonder, terror, and envy in many, many men) will bring out a lot of power, control, and violence activity from everybody involved at one (or more) point alone the way far more often than it won't. And thank god for that! I could provide countless examples, I'm sure most of us could, but none of them are really "suitable". All of which is to say that if behaviors of "power, control and violence" occur only in actions of assault, then sex itself would have to be viewed as being at root an act of assault, and ain't no way I'm buying that. Surely you can appreciate the difference. Wow...Merriam-Webster got issues! Check out the late psychoanalyst Robert Stoller's IMO brilliant book "Sexual Excitement: Dynamics of Erotic Life." Baldly stated (as he admits), Stoller's theory of the origins of sexual excitement (i.e. what gets you hot, not what inspires the feelings we call "love," though of course there are connections there) is: "In the absence of special physiologic factors (such as a sudden androgen increase in either sex), and putting aside the obvious effects that result from direct stimulation of erotic body parts, it is hostility *** -- the desire, overt or hidden, to harm another person, that generates and enhances sexual excitement. The absence of hostility leads to sexual indifference or boredom. The hostility of erotism is an attempt, repeated over and over, to undo childhood traumas and frustrations, that threatened the development of one's masculinity or femininity. The same dynamics, though in different mixes and degrees, are found in almost everyone, those labeled perverse and those not so labeled. *** Stoller adds: "I prefer the word 'hostility' to 'power,' for it has a crisper connotation of harm and suffering." Stoller continues: "I came to these hypotheses as I sought -- and failed to find, as many others (including Freud) also had failed -- a line on the continuum of sexual behavior that could separate 'normal' from 'perverse.' Looking at the manifestations of sexual excitement or the enticements to it that are accepted by society at large -- as revealed in such communications as the entertainment media, advertising, books, jokes and cartoons, newspapers and journals, and pornography for the masses -- I felt that either the mechanisms to be described were not restricted to the perversions or that most people are perverse (as others of more cynical persuasion have long been saying). How you want to put it is your choice; the evidence for either statement is the same. "The following, then, are the mental factors present in perversions that I believe contribute to sexual excitement in general: hostility, mystery, risk, illusion, revenge, reversal of trauma or frustration to triumph, safety factors, and dehumanization (fetishization). And all of these are stitched together into a whole -- the surge of sexual excitement -- by secrets. (Two unpleasant thoughts: First, when one tabulates the factors that produce sexual excitement, exuberance -- pure joyous pleasure -- is for most people at the bottom of the list. Second, I would guess that only in rare people who can indefinitely contain sexual excitement and love within the same relationship do hostility and secrecy play insignificant parts in producing excitement.)" Stoller's book also includes the most detailed and IMO scrupulous account of a psychoanalysis I know of.

That's "Bones for the King." Well, I often confuse my blues and my bone.

That's "Bones for the King."

Now that's a Mosaic set I'd buy in a second! At least some of those Vanguard sessions have been reissued on CD. I have a few. But boy did they get chopped up. And the booklet notes in several cases were marred with errors.

Sorry -- don't have strong memories of it. I do very much like the "The Big Sound" date on Verve and the RCA Hodges-Strayhorn big band album, plus the Hodges 1956-61 small-group things that Granz recorded and that came out in a Mosaic box. The The Big Sound date is included in the Hodges 1956-1961 Mosaic set. Talk about failing memory -- I bought "The Big Sound" separately a good many years after I bought the Mosaic set.

Sorry -- don't have strong memories of it. I do very much like the "The Big Sound" date on Verve and the RCA Hodges-Strayhorn big band album, plus the Hodges 1956-61 small-group things that Granz recorded and that came out in a Mosaic box.

While all the Felsteds are at least interesting, IIRC the only ones that are top-notch are the Hawkins (which is sublime) and the Hines half of the one he shares with Cozy Cole, which I believe was the first recorded evidence in a good while that Hines not only remained a ferocious improviser but also might be getting more ferocious with the passage of time). Seemed to me that the roughly contemporaneous Prestige Swingville dates were a good deal more successful overall, not to mention the various John Hammond Vanguard albums of a while before (led by Vic Dickinson, Sir Charles Thompson, Jo Jones, et. al.) and the Columbia Buck Clayton jam sessions. If so, I think that's because the producers of the Felsted dates (Stanley Dance and, unless I'm mistaken, Albert McCarthy) were a shade too deferential to the sensibilities of the players involved in assembling the bands and in guiding the proceedings in the studio.

This is one of those things where New York players talk about themselves among themselves and people who don't know any better think it really matters to them, right? So it would seem, though I still have to send away for my Secret Decoder Ring.

If he wasn't being sloppy, he can only have meant that Dizzy and Hendricks had some significant CP or CP-ish associations (what "pinkish" meant), and that to some extent their socio-political views were shaped by those associations. I would be very surprised if this were so -- can't imagine anyone telling Dizzy, for one, what to think and making it stick. Could Gennari be thinking of when Dizzy mock-ran for president in 1960 under Ralph J. Gleason's aegis? I remember Dizzy saying in a Down Beat cover-story interview that he was going to name Mingus Secretary of War and make Miles head of the CIA. And Peggy Lee was going to be his Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare "because she treats her musicians so nice." Subversive stuff.

Found it! But I won't identify the writer of this snippet or the subject being written about (other than to say that he/she is the head of a major theater company) because I'm going to quote from an email exchange I had with the writer (actually a very bright, nice person with a great instinct for the stage), and I don't think one should quote from private emails without the other person's permission: In any case (and sorry if this too "inside baseball"): "Controversy. Spectacle. Scale. Unctuous auteurism. "Such has been the hallmark of [X's] theatrical work in [cites Z and Y] during the last five years or more." My e-mail: '"Unctuous auteurism" doesn't mean "self-regarding," or "over-the-top" or "extreme autuerism," which from the context seems to be what you might have meant. Rather, "unctuous" has a specific set of negative meanings -- "servile," "falsely flattering," etc., Thus, "unctuous auteurism" not only is quite insulting in tone but also in this context doesn't make much sense that I can see (in relation to whom or to what is [X] the autuer being "unctuous"?) If that is in fact what you meant to say about [X's] work, so be it (though if so, again I don't get it). If it's not what you meant, I'd apologize to him. The writer replied: 'Well I certainly didn't intend it as a compliment. What I might have meant by that was that [X] was "a slave to autuerism." My response: 'I think that even "a slave to auterisim" is rather wobbly. Do you mean that [X] makes certain choices because he wants to be thought of as a genius "autuer" (that would be one thing, a kind of semi-cynical status game he's playing with the audience)? Or do you mean that he's honestly (but, in your view, somewhat delusively) convinced that he is a genuine genius "autuer" and that everything on stage therefore exists to express his personal vision. If you meant a bit of both, or that it's hard to tell the difference, I might have have suggested instead: "Auterism at all costs."' I think editors earn their pay.

I wonder, too, but, believe me, in my days as an editor I saw stuff that was just as weird, especially when the writer was focused on "attitude," on cutting a figure. It was as though certain words/terms like "pink" that were brimful of attitude retained in the writer's mind only that sense of edginess, detached from the term's origin and actual meaning. Indeed, I discovered that such writers tend to have their private little storehouses of "edgy" (but in their minds virtually contentless) words and phrases. Well, not quite "contentless" -- I think it was more that they liked the image of themselves wielding a sharp sword but had lost contact with the fact that it could actually cut someone. Wish I could find one of the chief examples I'm thinking of, but I can't seem to do so.