Larry Kart

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/sports/b...wanted=1&th Taking a Swing With Steroids By LEE JENKINS Published: June 14, 2004 In the four-tenths of a second it takes for a 101-mile-an-hour fastball to fly from the pitcher’s hand to home plate, the San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds sizes up the seams and gauges the spin, projects where the ball is headed and decides what he wants to do with it. One night this season, Bonds used this sliver of time to plant his right foot, jackhammer his hips and thrust his hands so violently that he got completely around on the triple-digit baseball and yanked the ball out of the stadium, about 60 feet foul. Around SBC Park in San Francisco, fans seemed torn between applauding the blow and debating it. In a press-box seat, one reporter said to another, “Steroids can’t do that.� And, inevitably, the response rang out: “How do you know?� Such is the interchange defining a sport divided — between those who speculate about the role of steroids in every game, and those in awe over a Bonds blast or some utility infielder’s opposite-field home run. Until last year, baseball spurned testing for steroids, partly because of the perception that steroids were for football players and bodybuilders. Ingrained in the American consciousness is the belief that baseball requires too many skills based on hand-eye coordination and savvy. When Bobby Valentine, the former Texas Rangers and Mets manager, was once asked about Bonds and steroids, he said, “Does he shoot them in his eyes?� Steroids, of course, are not injected in the eyes. But their uncertain influence on a player’s strength, bat speed, hand-eye coordination and confidence has become a source of debate and a backdrop to the 2004 baseball season, particularly in the wake of a federal investigation into steroid distribution in the Balco case and the grand jury testimony of Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi and other players. In subtle ways, steroids course through every artery of the game. To go through one at-bat with a steroid user, you would have to find him. No active major leaguer has been positively identified for steroid use, so only a composite is available. The player might have discovered an anabolic steroid while playing winter ball in Latin America, where steroids are widely available at local drug storesfarmacias. He might have remembered that the former major league slugger Jose Canseco once said that 85 percentÖ of major leaguers used steroids, or that another former player, Ken Caminiti, contended that 50 percent took them. Despite warnings that steroids increase the rate of heart attacks, the amount of cholesterol in the body and the risk of sterility, the player takes an initial cycle, either ingesting the steroids orally or injecting them into his buttocks. Some scientists have established that steroids add muscle mass even if the user does not train, but the player is eager to maximize results, so he continues a fierce workout routine. “Even those who don’t train get stronger,� Dr. Benjamin Z. Leder of Massachusetts General Hospital said. “But I don’t know of any world-class athlete who doesn’t train, so it’s always in combination.� Major League Baseball and the players union commissioned Leder and his colleague, Dr. Joel S. Finkelstein, to conduct a study on the supplement androstenedione in 2000, but baseball and union officials say no such study has ever been administered to determine the influence of steroids on baseball players. “We have to get away from the perception that steroids are just for muscle-bound bodybuilders,� said Frank UryaszÖ, president of the National Center for Drug Free Sports, an sports drug-testing company based in Kansas City, Mo. “In a perfect world, we’d take a pool of baseball players and give half of them steroids to see what would happen. But we’re not going to do that.� Better Workouts and More Confidence The broadcaster Bob Costas said that 10 years ago he believed there was no reason for a baseball player to take steroids. Now, he marvels at the accomplishments of contemporary stars, but he also wonders about them. “You still have to hit the ball,� Costas said. “If you put rocket fuel in a Honda, it doesn’t mean it would win the Indy 500. But if you had two genuine racing cars and one got the rocket fuel and another got regular fuel, then it makes a difference.� The difference shows up in various ways. As the juiced player continues his off-season cycle, he is able to work out longer and more often. Trainers tell him that when muscles are stressed, they usually become fatigued and break down, a catabolic effect. Anabolic steroids override the catabolic effect and shorten the recovery time from workouts. On opening day, when the player walks to home plate, he has a new build and a fresh outlook. According to Dr. Harrison Pope, director of the biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical Center, the player will have become more muscular in the shoulders, neck and upper arms. “He starts to look more male than male,� Pope said. During 20 years of researching anabolic steroids, Pope has had countless athletes tell him they feel invincible when performing with steroids, providing a psychological edge on par with the physical advantage. The first-year user could very well be a decent career hitter, already possessing the unique skills necessary to play baseball, but he has observed in recent batting practice sessions that his fly balls are carrying an estimated 15 to 20 feet farther. “I’ve never taken the stuff, but talking to guys who have, they get a lot of extra confidence,� Mets outfielder Cliff Floyd said. “They think, ‘When I hit the ball, it will go farther than when I hit it before.’ They have this different attitude, like they’re invincible, and they’re just going to crush it. I think that’s the real edge.� When fans and teammates get their first glimpse of the player, they may wonder quietly about his off-season regimen. They may check to see if his facial structure has changed, causing his helmet to ride high on his head. But Dr. Alan D. Rogol, who has worked with the United States Anti-Doping Agency, warns against such superficial judgments for any athlete under the age of 30. “A boy at 17 might finish growing, but your adult composition is in no way complete,� said Rogol, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia. “It could take 10 more years to get peak bone mass and muscle mass. Part of that is training and part is the maturation process. On the other hand, if you’ve been playing 10 or 12 years, and you’re 35 and put on 40 pounds and are ripped and totally different, that’s harder to deal with. Then I’d have to think twice.� In his first regular-season at-bat with steroids in his system, the player digs into the batter’s box and tries to calm himself. Scientists believe steroids can heighten aggression, which could help the player attack a pitch with greater force, or hurt him because he will chase too many bad pitches. Whether a result of power pitchers, smaller ballparks or steroids, recent years have had the most home runs in history, but also the most strikeouts. “Much has been made of ’roid rage,� said Dr. Allan Lans, a sports psychologist who has worked with the New York Mets and players for other teams. “In baseball, aggressiveness is to be a very controlled kind of thing. If you don’t have control, it becomes detrimental to your performance. Even at the plate, what’s required is focus and concentration. You can’t use steroids for something like that.� Scientists say they do not believe steroids improve hand-eye coordination, but because they agree the drugs help build strength, some extrapolate that steroids would also quicken bat speed. Better bat speed gives the hitter more time to wait on a pitch, to read it and follow it. The player most likely has an extra split second to decide what pitch is approaching and whether he wants to swing at it. “Steroids make your hands faster in that they increase muscle in your forearms and pectorals and numerous muscle sets involved in hitting a baseball,� said Dr. Charles Yesalis, professor of health and human development at Penn State. “If you need less time to get around on the ball, you have more time to tell if it’s a slider, knuckleball or curve. That makes complete sense.� When the player does start his swing, the steroids are really put to work. He is able to jerk the bat around faster, creating power from his arms, chest, shoulders and neck. “It’s basic force equals mass times acceleration,� said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, professor of medicine at New York University, who has spent 20 years studying doping. “The mass is muscle and the acceleration is the bat speed. There is a collision. The ball is being hit with more force than before and will go farther.� After the player makes contact, he looks up at the field and is met with surprise. The pitcher, who has faced the player numerous times in the past, appears suddenly suspicious. “You see guys who had warning-track power, and now the ball is going over the fence,� Mets pitcher Tom Glavine said. “We’re in a day and age when everyone’s suspected of something. There are players who work hard, but when a guy comes out of nowhere, you wonder what’s going on.� Pitchers have also been known to take steroids, not necessarily to throw harder, but rather to rebound more quickly from their previous start. Even though steroids can take away some of the flexibility and whip action that allows a pitcher to throw a baseball, they decrease the tissue breakdown that comes from throwing around 90 pitches a game. “I never thought there was a reason for pitchers to do it,� Glavine said. “I’m not so sure anymore.�’ A Burst Out of the Box As the player steps out of the batter’s box, he does not necessarily have more speed, but he does possess greater explosiveness, because of stronger fast-twitch muscle fibers. When Caminiti admitted to Sports Illustrated in 2002 that he used steroids, he said: “I’d be running the bases and think, ‘Man, I’m fast!’ And I had never been fast.� Wadler said: “Remember Ben Johnson coming out of the starting blocks in the 100 meters at the 1988 Olympics? It’s just like that.� (Johnson, a Canadian sprinter, was stripped of his gold medal after testing positive for steroids.) By the time the player touches first base, he can hear the cheers wash over him, and he accepts them without much guilt. Many athletes on steroids attribute their success to their strenuous superhuman workout routines, refusing to acknowledge that steroids often make those routines possible. “He’ll feel like, ‘I’ve earned this because I work out all the time,’� Lans said. “It’s a mind-set people have about success. Someone believes, ‘This will get me over the top,’ and they do it and then find a way to validate it.� Given the state of justice in Major League Baseball, the user will probably be punished only by his own body. As he continues to develop, he could lose flexibility and his muscles might become so strong that the tendons will no longer be able to connect them to the bone. Doctors have seen an increasing number of elbow injuries, knee injuries and tendon ruptures, in which the muscle strips completely away from the bone. “The muscle mass gets so great that the tendons sometimes can’t carry the weight,� said Dr. Robert J. Dimeff, director of sports medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. One of the easiest ways to heal from any injury is with steroids. Steroids can assist in the healing process. To strengthen tissue and put more time into rehabilitation, the player will be tempted to begin using again, starting the cycle over.

Actually, the response I've gotten to the book from people here has been great, makes me feel like I've done what I usually tried to do -- start one side of a real conversation, which the other party can carry on with me, with others, or with himself, as situation or inclination suggests.

But "the sadly few" is my audience, perfectly described.

The strength you gain via steriods plus the right kind of exercise gives you the ability to RESPOND more effectively (more quickly in terms of response time and more powerfully in terms of bat speed) to the information your vision provides -- given the skills and talents that you already possess. Few skills, little talent, add steriods and the right kind of exercise, and you've got crap. Start with imposing skills and talent, add steriods and the right kind of exercise, and you've got Bonds or Soso or Clemens or any number of others. There are a host of mediocre ballplayers who've taken steriods and don't have a lot to show for it, for the reason mentioned above. Also, one would suspect that an athlete in the Bonds-Sosa-Clemens class, once he's processed the knowledge that his reshaped body can respond so much better -- more rapidly and powerfully -- than it did before, would find that his mental awareness of that reshaped body's capabilites has increased considerably as well, e.g. his ability to wait later on pitches that his pre-steriod self would have had to respond to earlier and probably less accurately.

Glancing at Routledge's webpage and going to books on music, I see that this is at the upper end of their normal price range: http://www.routledge.com/shopping_cart/cat...?parent_id=2409 at the upper end, probably because it's more than 600 pages and may include musical examples. How many signatures there are in a book is a major factor in cost/pricing, as I know because I was told that I had to cut 30-40,000 words from my book or it wouldn't be published, beucause at its original length it would have to be priced higher than they thought a book of its type should sell for, and thus it would not be a good proposition for them. Also, Routledge probably and rightly thinks of its market as being made up mostly of people at academic institutions, which means (so the publisher thinks) that the price can be jacked up further because it's the institution that pays. Take a look at some of the prices on scholarly English Lit. texts from Oxford University Press. They're edging up toward $250 a volume, may even be higher now.

I'm already on record, sick f--- that I am, in calling for Meadow's death. With that thought in mind, after Sunday's episode I had a vision of a potentially satisfying coda. There's a bloodbath of considerable scope in which folks such as Meadow and Carmella are among the targeted or incidental victims, but Tony survives. So there he stands or sits, literally or figuratively covered in the blood of everyone he cares about (I would say that he cares more for Meadow than he does for Carmella or A.J. or anyone else), and then and only then does he really see the nature of the bill that has justly come due to him for living the life he has lived. Perhaps because, despite many missteps there, I think that the Tony seeing a shrink strain is pretty crucial, the last step (or a step just before the last one, if Tony too gets whacked) demands that he fully realize that there is no piece of his life that is not corrupt -- and/or corrupted and potentially destroyed by his being in contact with it.

Prestige dates of that era often tended to sound like rather off-the-cuff, let's roll the tape and see what we get affairs, compared to Blue Note dates of the same era on which similar musicians were playing the same style of music. Alfred Lion opted for pre-session rehearsal and preparation, and Bob Weinstock typically did not. This album almost has a Blue Note feel to it. Far more typical of Prestige's "shagginess" would be, say, the Jenkins-Jackie McLean "Alto Madness," also from 1957, which has some fine moments on it but hardly seems to have been produced at all -- given the minimal writing and the blow-till-you-drop length of the title track, with its seemingly endless series of exchanges between the two altoists, intense though those exchanges are at times. Again, I have the feeling that Clifford Jordan was the de facto producer on "Jenkins, Jordan, and Timmons."

Don't know how I missed this one all these years since 1957, but I've heard it now, and it's a gem. Not as shaggy as many Prestige dates of the time -- I think because Clifford Jordan had a rather orderly temperament -- it finds John Jenkins in loose, at times glittering form, Jordan sounding so damn grown up, while Ware may be the secret ingredient behind the date's special air of urgency and relaxation. Two nice tunes too -- Jordan's "Cliff's Edge" and Julian Priester's lithe variant on "Groovin' High," "Soft Talk." Oh, I foreget to mention Bobby Timmons, who as Ira Gitler says in the liner notes is still in his Bud Powell bag. Whatever, he's in fine form, he and Ware seemingly thinking as one as accompanists.

Well, from 1976 or so to 1988 I was writing fulltime about jazz and other things for the Chicago Tribune, which was lots of fun for the most part but also meant that not that many people who didn't read that paper (that would include the whole East Coast, I think) seemed to know or remember who I was. Michael C. and Charlie Lourie did; they asked me to do the notes for the Mosaic Tristano-Konitz-Marsh set. So did my friend Bill Kirchner, who asked me to write a chapter for his "Oxford Companion To Jazz." So did Bob Belden, in his Miles fanatic guise, who remembered a 1969 Down Beat review I'd done of the Lost Quintet at the Plugged Nickel (I think he kept it in his wallet!) and got Sony to ask me to do the notes for the reissue of "Filles de Kilimanjaro." And so did Jim McNeely, who asked me to do the notes for a Vanguard Jazz Orchestra album and a Danish Radio Jazz Orch. album because he liked a review I'd done of an earlier VJO album and also, way back when, what I'd said in a club review about his piano work with Stan Getz. I've also done a few things for some of the younger Chicago guys -- Keefe Jackson, Josh Berman, James Falzone -- whose music I really like. But you can't do liner notes if someone doesn't ask, and I haven't had a writing perch in journalism for a long time now.

I ran in to Ben and Donny McCaslin back in 1986, when I was doing a story on Berklee and the New England Conservatory and was in a class at Berklee where they were playing. Nice guys, and it was clear they were both going to be very good -- they were already.

Just a guess, but at the time MC seems to be speaking of, I believe he was pretty heavily invested in Woody Shaw, both as a producer, a fan, and as a friend. I'm not saying that Shaw wasn't a terrific player, nor am I saying that the way he played was intended by him to be taken as some sort of "middle way" (in the context of the immediate aftermath of turbulent times), yet I get the feeling (based in part on dim memories) that something of the sort was in the air then -- both among some admirers of Shaw and associates (associates in both a narrow and wide sense) and perhaps on the part of Shaw and associates themselves. If so, that may where MC is coming from here. Also, if so, memories of actual old battles that MC went through as a producer in his Muse days may have something to do with this. Further, there's MC's link as a producer to the Braxton of that time, which may or may not have something to do with this.

Yes -- last season and re-runs. One of my favorites. Kyra Sedgwick (a.k.a. Mrs. Kevin Bacon ) can be a bit over the top at times, but then her character is meant to be a bit over the top; that's one of the premises of the show. Also, the interaction among members of the squad is as good (realistic, funny-relaxed, coherent over time) as I've ever seen on a cop show, with the possible exception of vintage "Barney Miller." Also, most of the scripts preserve a good deal of tension as to who the guilty party is, and when we find out, we usually don't feel tricked or cheated.

He sure couldn't be talking about the Charles Tyler I know.

Nice night. Here's an e-mail I sent to a musician-friend who is also a friend of trumpeter Jaimie Branch: "Caught Jaimie's group last night. Guess I hadn't hear her for good while (or almost anyone else, for that matter), because the growth was remarkable and in some ways reminiscent of what happened with you way back when. That is, it sounds she's been practicing like crazy and partially as a result of that jumped over or stepped around several hurdles that are at once technical and conceptual. To put it another way, she sounds very relaxed and confident, and when you're relaxed and confident, you think of doing and are able to do lot of different things. "Michel Zerang had the flu and couldn't make it, which left a Rempis/Bishop/Kessler trio. I tried at one point to just listen to Jeb as carefully as possible and let everything else take care of itself, which worked out nicely because there's something about Rempis at times that basically reactive and decorative (though very much in good, strong ways IMO). Aside from his sheer ability to play his instruments, what strikes me most about Rempis is how clear everything is, though that clarity seems related to the fact that (or my sense that) his music takes place on one plane only, more or less -- though again this works for him. It's like a Jimmy Dorsey thing, if you know what I mean (though I'm not sure I do myself). Kessler took a really fine solo at one point. It had a definite middle-aged-man-within-sight-of-the-far-horizon feel to it, which appeals to me, as I'm about to turn 65."

Go here: http://www.jazzdiscography.com/Lenox/lenhome.htm for much more information about the Lenox School of Jazz from sometime poster Michael Fitzgerald.

If body and soul co-operate, I'll be there. BTW, my son informed me yesterday that he bestowed the name Battlecats on Battlecats.

If Tony were a real person -- and for moment, I'll assume he is -- the reason he turned against Hesch is that Tony displayed weakness or vulnerability to him; he had to borrow money from Hesch, couldn't pay it back right away, and Hesch knew why. Not a good thing if you're a mob boss. Likewise, I'll admit that it was a nice touch that Phil's approach to Vinnie's son was totally cruel, crude and obtuse, while Tony's up to a point was based on a fair degree of insight and empathy -- but then Tony's eventual remedy (paying to have the kid hauled off to some deprogramming camp) turned out to be far more brutal (and quite likely will be more destructive to the kid's well being) than anything Phil could have dreamed up.

Nah, I think it was more of a sign that Tony is trying to get it together and the gambling problem is history. I would agree this season is much more interesting than the last couple. I could have done without the kid taking a shit in the shower, but I'm enjoying the story line between Phil and Tony. If Tony's gambling problem is now history, then to hell with them for introducing it.

They mean that his note choice is not grounded in conventional theory. And sometimes they're right, and sometimes I really do think that Murray skates (or has skated in the past) in that regard. It's one thing to go outside the changes with direction, it's another thing entirely to flat out play wrong notes. They also mean that he's worked up a set of easily-contrived "devices" that he uses in lieu of conventional saxophone technique. And again, sometimes they've been right. But he's refined and expanded a lot of those devices to the point where I think that they can now be considered a legitimate personal vocabulary. They also mean that his swing is funny. And that's something that still bugs me about him. He can swing his rapid-fire shit like a mofo, but his eighth notes still sound funny to me. And I don't know if he's yet to discover that between the eight & thirty-second notes lie the sixteenth note... But still, he does what he does and I have to think that his sense of swing is his own. If he really wanted it to be otherwise, it would be by now. They also mean that his time is funny sometimes. And sometimes it is. Sometimes there's a sense of rushing (both within the line & in terms of the structure) in his playing that I find pretty distasteful. But only sometimes. So yeah, the guy has not been without flaws. And as Larry Kart somewhat noted a while back, if you want to hear this style tenor really played really right, check out Ed Wilkerson & get on with it. But to say that Murray just flat out can't play is so much inbred anality, as is the "white critic's darling" which almost always translates as "Gee, I put in hours learning to play this instrument correctly and nobody cares." Well hey there, Mister Phil Woods In Waiting, big fucking shit. Try using that "skill" for an end other than itself and we'll share a tear. Until then, go get a gig where people who don't know any different think you're a hero who's gotten screwed over by the world. Opportunities abound! You can't buy the kind of smarts Mr. Sangrey has. Sometime I'm going to carve a Sangrey "collected works" out of what he's posted on Organissimo, plus some stuff of his from the BNBB that I hope I've squirreled away, and see if it can't be preserved and disseminated in some form.

I have no clue how the white critics feel about him, but the "couldn't play at all" claim is crap -- whoever told you that has no clue what they are talking about. Guy Leaving me out of this -- and please do -- if that "well known Coltrane-linked saxophonist" that Soul Steam cited is someone whose music you respect (BTW I don't know who that saxophonist is), would you still feel that there is no room at all for disagreement here?

Not this white critic.

Teachout gets some things wrong: He writes, "prior to 2004, Pulitzer [music] juries consisted of four composers and a critic," but even though that's what it says on the Pulitzer website, from the inception of the Pulitzer music award in 1943 until the early 1990s (more about that later), Pulitzer music juries consisted almost exclusively of composers (usually three of them). The only exceptions to this, I believe, were, on one occasion each, critic Irving Kolodin and conductor-writer Robert Craft. Second, to say that "the Pulitzer Prize had ... a bad reputation among music professionals" is a statement so baldly incomplete as to border on being back-ass-wards. The problem with the music Pulitzers from the very first until recent tinkerings were undertaken -- and one can argue about how much of a problem it was and what the solution to that problem might or should have been -- is that the music Pulitzer juries consisted ENTIRELY of music professionals of a certain sort or sorts: American composers whose works were being paid attention to by other American composers of so-called "serious" concert music. Within this bag, there were fluctuating waves of fashion over the years -- Copland-esque Americanists, university-based serialists, etc. -- but Pulitzer music juries, again, consisted for better or for worse entirely, given the nature of the world or worlds of American classical composition, of people who can only be called professional composers. So who were Teachout's music professionals with whom the music Pulitzers had a bad reputation? Professional composers by the standard mentioned above who were not in tune with the compostional in-group of a particular time -- say Samuel Barber-esque neo-Romantics during the height of the academic serialist phase? Or by "music professionals" does Teachout mean professional performers and conductors? If so, that would be a whole differerent matter, and a whole different set of considerations would have to be brought to bear. (For one thing, how many performers and conductors are able or willing to become familiar with the current state of American composition. In practice, in my experience, the performers and conductors who do that are no less, or even more so, a group of specialists than the composers who have been on all those Pulitzer juries over the years.) In any case, before we go any further, here is a list of the Pulitzer music winners from 1943 to 2001 (though as I'll explain in a minute, things began to get weird behind the scenes in 1992): 1943 William Schuman (b. 1910). Secular Cantata No. 2: A Free Song for full chorus of mixed voices, with accompaniment of orchestra. 1944 Howard Hanson (1896-1981). Symphony no. 4, op. 34. 1945 Aaron Copland (1900-1990). Appalachian Spring. 1946 Leo Sowerby (1895-1968). The Canticle of the Sun. 1947 Charles Ives (1874-1954). Symphony no. 3. 1948 Walter Piston (1894-1976). Symphony no. 3 1949 Virgil Thomson (1896-1989). Louisiana Story. (Score for a documentary film.) 1950 Gian-Carlo Menotti (b. 1911). The Consul. (Opera.) 1951 Douglas Moore (1893-1969). Giants in the Earth. (Opera.) 1952 Gail Kubik (1914-1984). Symphony Concertante. 1953 Not awarded. 1954 Quincy Porter (1897-1966). Concerto Concertante for Two Pianos and Orchestra. 1955 Gian-Carlo Menotti (b. 1911). The Saint of Bleecker Street. (Opera in three acts.) 1956 Ernst Toch (1887-1964). Symphony no. 3. 1957 Norman Dello Joio (b. 1913). Meditations on Ecclesiastes. 1958 Samuel Barber (1910-1981). Vanessa. (Opera.) 1959 John La Montaine (b. 1920). Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, op. 9. 1960 Elliott Carter (b. 1908). Second String Quartet. 1961 Walter Piston (1894-1976). Symphony no. 7. 1962 Robert Ward (b. 1917). The Crucible. (Opera.) 1963 Samuel Barber (1910-1981). Piano Concerto no. 1, op. 38. 1964 Not awarded. 1965 Not awarded. 1966 Leslie Bassett (b. 1923). Variations for Orchestra. 1967 Leon Kirchner (b. 1919). Quartet no. 3 for strings and electronic tape. 1968 George Crumb (b. 1929). Echoes of Time and the River. 1969 Karel Husa (b. 1921). String Quartet no. 3. 1970 Charles Wuorinen (b. 1938). Time's Encomium. 1971 Mario Davidovsky (b. 1934). Synchronisms no. 6. 1972 Jacob Druckman (1928-1996). Windows. 1973 Elliott Carter (b. 1908). String quartet no. 3. 1974 Donald Martino (b. 1931). Notturno. 1975 Dominick Argento (b. 1927). From the Diary of Virginia Woolf. 1976 Ned Rorem (b. 1923). Air Music. 1977 Richard Wernick (b. 1934). Visions of Terror and Wonder. 1978 Michael Colgrass (b. 1932). Deja Vu for Percussion and Orchestra. 1979 Joseph Schwantner (b. 1943). Aftertones of Infinity. 1980 David Del Tredici (b. 1937). In Memory of a Summer Day. 1981 Not awarded. 1982 Roger Sessions (1896-1985). Concerto for Orchestra. 1983 Ellen Zwilich (b. 1939). Three Movements for Orchestra. (Symphony no. 1.) 1984 Bernard Rands (b. 1934). Canti del Sole. 1985 Stephen Albert (1941-1992). Symphony RiverRun. 1986 George Perle (b. 1915). Wind Quintet no. 4, for flute, oboe, clarinet, horn, and bassoon. 1987 John Harbison (b. 1938). The Flight into Egypt. 1988 William Bolcom (b. 1938). 12 New Etudes for Piano. 1989 Roger Reynolds (b. 1934). Whispers Out of Time. 1990 Mel D. Powell (1923-1998). Duplicates: A Concerto. 1991 Shulamit Ran (b. 1947). Symphony. 1992 Wayne Peterson (b. 1927). The Face of the Night. 1993 Christopher Rouse (b. 1949). Trombone Concerto. 1994 Gunther Schuller (b. 1925). Of Reminiscences and Reflections. 1995 Morton Gould (1931-1996). Stringmusic. 1996 George Walker (b. 1922). Lilacs for soprano and orchestra. 1997 Wynton Marsalis (b. 1961). Blood on the Fields. Oratorio. 1998 Aaron Jay Kernis (b. 1960). String Quartet No. 2, Musica Instrumentalis 1999 Melinda Wagner. Concerto for Flute, Strings, and Percussion. 2000 Lewis Spratlan. Life is a Dream, opera in three acts: ACT II, Concert Version. 2001 John Corigliano. Symphony No. 2 for String Orchestra. As it happens, I'm familiar with a fair number of those works and think of the following Pulitzer winners as either outright masterworks or very notable pieces: Copland's Appalachian Spring, Ives' Sym. No. 3, the two Piston symphonies, the two Carter String Quartets, Barber's "Vanessa" and his Piano Concerto, Thomson's "Louisiana Story," Kirchner's String Quartet No. 3, Powell's Duplicates, Perle's Wind Quintet, Sessions' Concerto for Orchestra, Del Tredici's In a Memory of Summer Day, Toch's Sym. No. 3, and Martino's Notturno. Schuman is a talented composer, but I don't know his Pulitzer-winning work. I also don't know the Husa String Quartet No. 3, though I admire other works by him. So that's a success rate, by my own subjective standard, of about thirty per cent -- which I don't think is too bad for an award that is constrained by its annual nature (that is, if a number of major works crop up in say, 1959, only one going to win) . Also, FWIW, the stylistic range of the pieces I've just listed is pretty darn wide, no? Now all that needs to be modified by a list of the great or notable works that didn't get Pulitzers. Leaving aside for a bit the question of the kinds of music that arguably ought to get into the Pulitzer mix that haven't or didn't over the years, I'd have to think about this for a while to be sure, but the only names that leap to my mind right now are John Adams (and he did get a Pulitzer in 2003 for his 9/11 piece "On The Transmigration of Souls"), John Cage, and Morton Feldman. Teachout's list probably would include Adams, but not Cage or Feldman. Who else he feels has been unjustly left out I don't know, unless and until we open the music of other kinds bag -- though when it did in fact get opened or begin to get opened in in the Pulitzer world in 1992, it was inextricably part of a bureaucratic power struggle that would lead directly to the IMO infamous arm-twisting award to Blood On The Fields. Here's the visible, widely reported story of the 1992 music Pulitzers: "A controversial music Pulitzer was awarded in 1992 and spawned a tidal wave of responses and commentaries in newspapers throughout the country. The Pulitzer music jury, George Perle, Roger Reynolds, and Harvey Sollberger, unanimously chose Ralph Shapey's "Concerto Fantastique" for the award. However, the Pulitzer Board rejected that recommendation, choosing instead the jury's second choice, 'The Face of the Night' by Wayne Peterson. The music jury responded with a public statement stating that the jury had not been consulted in that decision and that the Board was not professionally qualified to make a decision. The Board responded that the 'pulitzers are enhanced by having, in addition to the professional's point of view, the layman's or consumer's point of view.' The Board did not rescind its decision." A whole lot more went on being the scenes here, about which I can't comment in public. But suffice it to say that Pulitzer music juries have been more or less packed (in a new and quite deliberate manner) since '92 (this is when journalists were added to the jury), and that it was one such journalist, Howard Reich of the Chicago Tribune, who engineered the award to Blood on the Fields, in conjunction with felllow jury member John Lewis, recipient of a commission from J@LC. Reich BTW has writen quite freely about how he accomplished this. The problem here is that while some jazz works are works in the sense that the Pulitzer music prize outlines, many of the most important acts of jazz creation are not works in that sense but more sequential affairs that call for if not a literal lifetime achievement award, something of that sort. Just think of Lee Konitz, for one. Obviously ineligible by strict Pulitzer standards, but... Back now to Ornette's Pulitzer and Teachout's piece. After what occurred in '92, which initiated the jury-packing process that first bore the fruit it was designed to bear with Blood On The Fields, I'd say that most if not all bets are off here, and that that is the real story with the music Pulitzers. So Ornette's award is a lifetime achievement award in disguise, and Sound Grammar was a fine album IMO but not a work as the music Pulitzer defines a work. Well, if that's the standard, we'd get very few jazz-related "orthodox" Pulitzers ever, only actual lifetime achievement awards or such awards in disguise. And if that's what Ornette's Pulitzer really is, I don't have any problem with it, although I will freely admit that the music Pulitzers are more or less fixed now, even when they go to someone who arguably is deserving. On the other hand, I'd be just as happy, maybe even happier, if there were no jazz-related Pulitzers given unless they fell under the orthodox Pulitzer standards. If that means Bob Brookmeyer gets one, that would be nice. But I'm afraid it would go to Maria Schneider -- either that or, once other claques are heard, it would be, as Teachout the neo-Mencken says, prizes for everyone.

The place to begin with Handy is his writing for Boyd Raeburn, e.g. "Tonsillectomy," "Dalvatore Sally," and "Forgetful."

Thanks to Fer Urbina for posting that DB review of "By George." Amazing the things you can selectively remember from 52 years ago. Makes me understand how it's possible to, say, memorize the Koran.

I know some of Wilder's chamber music for winds but had no idea that George Russell had recorded this MGM album. Curiouser and curiouser, because I think Wilder 's music would strike Russell as fairly bland. Maybe it was just a gig for him, or maybe Wilder's credentials among jazz "progressives" at that time was much I higher than I would have thought. Personally, I rate Wilder's better pop songs much higher than I do these instrumental pieces.