patricia

MERRY MERRY Radissimo!! Who else but a drummer gets to work on a pedestal and is expected to be charmingly eccentric?? Nobody else, that's who. Have a great one.

WHY? All of us have CD players, probably audio-tape players, sound-systems for our computers with downloaded music AND I-Pods. And yet, there are still collections of fine music, even rare music available only on vinyl. YOU do yourself a favour and get a nice turntable.

"Faulty Towers" Of course. "Prime Suspect" Series 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. For that handful of folks who haven't seen it, do. ..................................................... I know that this is a thread listing series on DVD, but these on VHS are worth mentioning, so I will. "Traffik" the original series from BBC. Forget the Hollywood film. This is excellent and was the series on which the film was based. It reads like a documentary and is chilling. "The Newsroom" from CBC This was a mini series written by the great satirist, Ken Finkleman, who also starred. No laughtrack and subversively hilarious. "Rebecca" - The second series from BBC of Daphne du Maurier's book. There was also a series made in 1972. A strange thing connects the two. The first series featured Jeremy Brett [sherlock Holmes series] in the lead, co-lead by Joanna David as "the girl" who became Mrs. Dewinter. In the later series, made twenty-odd years later, in the nineties, the part of Mrs Dewinter was played by Emily Fox. Fox is the daughter of Joanna David and Edward Fox [Day of the Jackel]. Charles Dance played the Brett role. Both series are excellent, although the first one is not available even on VHS. I taped it, having waited years for it to be re broadcast on PBS. Worth the wait. "The Charmer" with Nigel Davenport. Another series from BBC. This is a very interesting con-man story about the title character's plot to marry and kill various elderly women. Perfect casting. "Danger - UXB" with Anthony Andrews - This was about the men in the British Army whose job it was to find and diffuse unexploded bombs after the war. Tense and well worthwhile finding. ................................................... OK. Back to series on DVD. Sorry for the digression. Still............

Well, if that vender is able to move his '78s at the prices he charges, that's why he charges what he does. It is true that it's unusual to find '78s in really good condition, just as it is to find '45s in good condition. Many people treated those as almost disposible and didn't look after them the way they did their LPs, which were relatively expensive. Ratched '78s are not worth picking up because they can't be listened to and are worth little if you intend to trade or sell them. Sometimes I've found those hard-covered albums, with amazingly well-preserved '78s, carefully slid into the heavy, parchment-paper sleeves, but that's unusual. Usually those finds are all of the same genre, or even the same artist. Obviously, the original owner felt they were worth looking after.

It's kind of like those cases in which an armed intruder breaks into your house and robs you. You respond by chasing him outside with a poker, catching him and beating on him. He sues. As was stated in the story above, "the danger was past". But, the audacity of anyone terrorizing your family and stealing you stuff fills you with anger and down the street you go. In cases in which burglers have been killed by homeowners, after they have left the house, by the homeowner, police often say that they should drag him back in the house, before calling 911. I don't know if they are serious. However, it is true that if the intruder is killed in your house, nothing will happen to you. So, who knows?

I almost never buy old '45s, mostly because they are usually in atrocious condition. However, the other day I found a few, in immaculate condition, still in their sleeves, for 50 cents each. I was really excited and here's why. The top one was "That Old Black Magic" by Keely Smith and Louis Prima. I remembered seeing this performed in a movie, whose title I've forgotten, back in the mid-fifties, but I never forgot Keely's very sultry version. And there it was!! Then, I looked through the rest of the pile and it included: Glenn Miller No.3. Remember the extended play '45s? Well this has Elmer's Tune, Moonlight Cocktail, Johnson Rag and Missuri Waltz on it. Perfect condition. This one has a heavier sleeve with a picture of Glenn on it. So, I snapped it up. Al Hirt - Mame/Seven Days to Tahiti. Perfect. I also bought the '45 of Prince's "When Doves Cry", which was in mint condition, still in it's original sleeve. So for $2.00 I picked up four '45s that I actually will listen to. Of course I have the Miller tunes on other records, but it's not often I find '45s in decent enough condition to even consider buying them. This was the exception. I must say that the pile of '45s was quite high and those were the only ones I bought. The others were mostly old rock, in the same condition that my old rock '45s were, ratched.

On the other hand , cheap LPs or CDs do allow you to widen your listening considerably. Most of the LPs I buy could be viewed as cheap, and almost all are spur of the moment ( backed-up by reasonable knowledge) choices.It is a constant battle to avoid buying mounds of really cheap stuff of limited interest . The other day I picked up. Dexter Gordon( Black Lion), Joe Venuti/Dave McKenna ( Chiasucuro), Earl Hines (Conifer), Joe Venuti (Decca), Duke Jordon (Charlie Parker Records) , Modern Jazz Trumpets (IAJRC), Benny Carter (Capitol) and three others for £15, can't be beat. I wouldn't have bought any of these at full price (save the LTD) Which proves my point. You liked these enough to buy them and luckily they were within your price range, when if they were more expensive, you might have coveted them, but wouldn't have bought them. My point is that if the only thing that prevents you buying an album you want is the high price and suddenly it's cheaper, then it IS a good buy. But, a CD or an album that you buy because it's cheap, while you may not regret buying it, still isn't a good buy. The limited interest comment is what I meant. Just their being inexpensive is not enough reason to buy a CD or an LP, in my opinion, if you don't really want to listen to it. All a CD or LP is is music. It has no other use, except to a collector of rare CDs or LPs. Then it has it's own value. People who collect rare music are not usually as concerned with the price as they are with the proposed purchase's place in their collection. So, great find is not always about how much, or how little a CD or LP cost.

Which brings up the cardinal rule for judging whether a find really IS a find. Because most old records that I run across in my regular life are inexpensive, it is a real test of my resistance to not snap them all up. However, I have come to adopt an approach that stems from my attitude toward bargains in general. Mostly it's because I only have so much shelf space. But an equal consideration is now given to whether I actually will listen to the new acquisitions. If I probably won't, I pass. My records are for my listening enjoyment. I know that many collectors add to their collections as completists, or because the record offered is rare and expensive. But, those have never been my criteria. But, the main rule for me is this: IF I WOULDN'T BUY IT AT IT'S REGULAR PRICE, I DON'T BUY IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOW RIDICULOUSLY CHEAP

I wonder if the sales pitch for the Patriot Missile was as clear and concise as this is. I suspect that whoever spends billions of dollars on armaments doesn't want to admit that they have no idea what this clown is talking about. Emperer's New Clothes syndrome.

Pay no attention to 7/4. The only way you will learn all the weird little things that people know and you don't is by asking. You'd be surprised at how pleased most people are that others are interested in what they are passionate about, particularly jazz. Also, who else would you ask? I've found that the people who gather here are as obcessed with vinyl, particularly jazz vinyl as I am. Ask away.

All 10" new [to me] acquisitions. So, a concert of sorts: Right now, Dixieland Jazz - Jerry Rood and his Rooders - Solitaire Manhatten label [a tiny Toronto label] Before that, Muggsy Spanier and his Dixieland Band - EmArcy label George Wettling's Jazz Band - House Party series on Columbia I Let a Song go Out of my Heart - Billy Eckstine, with Duke Ellington - MGM label

I love to dance and have three brothers who can dance. I thank my parents, who taught all of us to dance. I remember them dancing to big band music on the radio and going to dances with their friends. Those were the times they were closest. I danced on my father's feet as a little kid and later always chose to date guys who could "hug-dance" and do a passable tango. I remember my dad telling my brothers that knowing how to dance made him very popular with the ladies, as an incentive. He was right.

I got the impression, watching the tv film, that the plan was to take back the plane, when one of their number said he had a pilot's license. That plan seemed to have been seen to be unworkable because the passenger's experience was on single engine planes. But, even if they had taken over the plane, they were too low, finally, to land it. But, by fighting back they were doing something and not just waiting to die. So, in that sense they are certainly to be admired, for at least trying to save themselves. That was my impression when the event took place and I still feel that their heroism involved not doing nothing, which would have been easier, even though they knew that they were going to die.

Wow...that's such a classic "strawman" response, I thought I saw Toto and some ruby red slippers go by... It was a strawman response to a strawman query. But, the timeline was correct and Dan was wrong. Toto and some ruby red slippers [silver in the original story] didn't go by here. You must live in a different kind of neighbourhood than I do.

Having read all the comments I can't help thinking that nobody's minds will be changed about the events of Sept 11 and Flight 93, having watched the well-researched but still fictional account in both films. Some want to believe that the passengers were patriotic heros, with no real evidence that they had any knowledge of what the intended target was. Others grieve for the passengers as unwitting participants in a catastophic event, resulting in their deaths. We seem to want to put some significance to the deaths of the innocent passengers, beyond that they didn't want to die. There is nothing wrong with that. None of us want to die either. But, to want to put meaning to the tragedy, it seems to me that the public, and the film-makers have created what is the most palatable explanation.

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post. If you read my earlier comment, Dan, the point was not whether or not money was going to be made from either film. I'm prepared to accept that the films were made for purely altruistic motives, if that will us past the idea that there was a profit motive. The point I was making was my opinion that with the picking at the scab, almost daily, how is it possible for there to be any healing and moving on taking place? I was not saying that it was not a tragedy, or that those who died then, or have died since are unimportant, or should be forgotten. What I am saying is that as with any bereavement, and this was certainly a bereavement, it is not helpful to on a daily basis remind everyone of something that they are not likely to forget. Again, my comment was not about the money, one way or another. In my first paragraph I was commenting on Chris' annoyance at the commercial aspect of the A&E Presentation. I too was musing at the motives of producing the film, aside from it's sincere wish for Americans to remember the people who died on Sept 11. I do feel that there is an exploitive aspect of both. As for a possible upswing in support created by this film for the War On Terrorism, is that what you think I object to? This is a forum for opinion and that is mine. Of course, that is what all media do, for better or worse. BTW I think that 7/4's post#54 is right.

up. This is still current and I think that there is still discussion warranted, since the film is newly in the threatres.

Taking your point, Dan, shouldn't admission to the theatre be free then? Is the money being made from both the fictional television account last evening and the theatre release of the fictional feature film not money being made from tragedy? Isn't the money, in both instances, tainted in a way? The film makers in both cases would not have produced their films, if they didn't hope that they would make a profit. Although it was disconcerting to see ads last evening for ED treatment products , as Chris mentioned, it was the re-opening of the wounds for Americans that will not heal as a result that bothered me more than the commercials. It's as if moving on, rather than dwelling on the tragedy is to be avoided at all cost. Nobody wants to minimize the pain that the American people felt when this event happened. But, there are few, if any, who do not remember it, as it was happening. I fail to see how picking off the scab, constantly, is going to result in anything but reviving the anger and hatred and that is not how a country moves forward from tragedy. How is this different than the Bush Administration constantly evoking 9/11 to justify every move they've made in the last five years?

I'm watching the same film on A&E that you are Chris and the same thing occurred to me. I'm torn between two emotions about films made about this incident. On the one hand, it's usual that catastrophic events like this are made into films. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that 9/11 has been mentioned daily for the last five years, re-enforcing the fear of terrorism, just in case we have forgotten. These films may very well revitalize the impression that the Bush Administration is the only thing that stands between us and terrorists like these. So, I don't know how I should feel. It's not about how soon. It's more about why?

We do what we can. If we are careful with our records, not leaving them lying around, without any protection at all, putting them back in even just the cover, that's a step forward. IMO there is no way to totally protect our treasures from some age-produced deterioration, especially if they are just sitting there. We really can't get away from that. But the paper sleeve and the cover itself does help. Replacing the ratched paper, or plastic sleeves, even with homemade ones is not out of the question. It's easy and cheap. Just use the original as a template, taping three sides and, voila! Get some clean newprint paper from your local birdcage liner office, and clean moving company paper works too. You may have to give them some money, but that's OK. My late father had records which were decades old and most were in close to mint condition. He was absolutely obsessive about how he handled them [edges only]. He also paid a lot of attention to the condition of the needle and the turntable, making sure that they were regularly replaced and in the case of the turntable, clean. Dust and dirt are present in even the cleanest houses. So, it stands to reason that our record playing equipment and records would not be immune. But, it's surprising how much we can do.

I don't think that we want any one of our number to have their head explode, even if their political leanings are contrary to common sense. Puffy eyes may be the first sign of brain rot................or maybe Berigan is getting better and we worried for nothing.

Nonsense - haggis is fantastic. Some of the best ones are made by Charles MacSween in Edinburgh. They don't have intestines in them but rather are a mixture of minced sheep liver, heart and lungs mixed with oatmeal, onion, suet and spices and sewn up in a sheep's stomach. Yum! Haggis is traditionally served with mashed potatoes and swede. Thank you Phil. My late mother was Scottish, born and raised in Edinburgh, and according to her, haggis is much like her turkey dressing. Occasionally her dressing was oatmeal, eggs, onions and the stuff that came in that little bag inside the bird, chopped up finely and cooked inside the turkey. It was heavily spiced and is good, by itself, with mashed potatoes and lots of turkey gravy.

I'm assuming that you have, by now, seen a practioner of the healing arts and know what caused the swelling and have gotten it under control. If you haven't, do, for heaven's sake!! My own yardstick is if something seemingly minor gets worse, instead of going away, I do something about it. Maybe it's nothing. But, judging by what you've said, unless it's gone now, the whatever it is is getting worse. So, if you haven't already, see about it. The worst that can happen is that you will feel stupid because it's nothing. Otherwise, if it's a serious thing, the emergency room, or your doctor will treat it and you can carry on with your life. That's why doctors exist.

Whew. Thank you.

I don't think that the plastic sleeves on many of the post-fifties LPs were meant to remain on the records, after we bought them. Vinyl does not fare well in a non-breathable sleeve, much as a fur coat will deteriorate in a plastic cover. Both require a breathable one. It seems to me that records would even be better off in the cover with no inner sleeve, since the opening is to the back of your shelving. No, or at least little dust and dirt could penetrate, assuming that you take the record off the turntable and put it back in the cover, immediately. So, I throw away plastic sleeves and keep the record just in the light cardboard cover. But, if it has a paper sleeve, I keep that one and continue to use it. Am I doing wrong?