chris

The interview is really great-- he seems very down-to-earth, very humble... hard to believe he's so young. I thought his agreement that ballads are more difficult to play than up-tempo numbers, which feature technical virtuosity, were pretty mature. When I was that age I was wailing away on the electric guitar trying to combine Eddie Van Halen and Yngie Malmsteen-- I Was damn proud of what technical chops I had! Ah, to be young again

NPR just had a story on Eldar with an interview and some interesting sound clips. Man, those are some serious chops...

Until this article, I'd never heard of Red Nichols. Can anyone suggest recordings to hear this person who Louis Armstrong said could "blow them all away?"

Crouch on Percy Heath/MJQ

I received an email catalog from Chuck a few days ago and he said: I'm sure he'll let us all know when it happens!

They're repeated because they make a good point and as often as they might be intended to shut off conversation they are also intended to get people to calm the fuck down when wires start getting crossed over a subjective topic being discussed in a tangential medium. Doesn't mean that it isn't wise to keep in mind the limits of language anyway, particularly when crossing mediums. Sometimes it's good (and I'm speaking of people and how they talk to themselves) to just remember to "shut up and listen to the music/look at the painting/eat the pastry"

The thing about a good description is that it can bring to light something that we didn;'t hear in the music. I mean, we all listen to the same piece but we don't all hear the same things. So when someone uses a description like some of the "artsy" ones just quoted, they are only valuable to me as far as I haven't really noticed or made the connection before. And since I believe in the deep emotional engagement that good music brings, I'm not put off by emotional adjectives being used to lead the way into music. That being said, good analysis is harder to find (and I suppose much harder to do) because it is somewhat less subjective ... or at least it grafts the objective on. I can clearly understand: But it might not mean the same thing to everyone. But some analyst would be able to talk about modes and glissandi and harmonies and all that. It won't ever prove the tie to the rhythms of life, but it can be much more specific about what portion of the music the speaker is referring to

And lovin' every minute of their misery too

I'm assuming that the Charlie Parker "Complete Verve Master Takes" set includes all the tunes on the "Best of the Verve Years"? EG there are no alt takes on the "Best of the Verve Years"? I'm thinking about grabbing the complete master set with the current BMG sale, wondering if I should then give away the other!

Excellent news! However, figuring out how much of this I already own in my MANY volumens of C&H is more complicated than trying to figure out similar predicaments with CDs

What are the good resources for learning more about the international jazz scene. Browsing through the Jazzis site just reminds me how little I know about jazz outside of the US... Are there good references/books/etc on the European scene in general or specific countries?

They're oft-repeated for a reason... so far no one's come up with anything memorable in *this* thread

I won't buy any music with copy protection or digital files with DRM. Regardless of sound quality, just on principle. I refuse to feed that animal, where technological applications are driving de-facto legislation on what I Can do with my music!

Satriani's "Always With You, Always With Me" from _Surfing with the Alien_ will forever by one of my favorite solo guitar pieces. I love that piece.

Thumbs up Jsngry-- my daughter is about to turn 14 and even as a soccer player some of her teammates want to get those relatively tight shorts with writing on the ass. I mean-- there is no other reason to put writing on the ass unless you are trying to get someone to look there, and if I catch someone eyeing my daughter I'm liable to give them a fistful of pain and suffering. She may look 16 or 18 but she's my daughter and mentally she's very much 14. Those "bring it on" style movies-- when they feature high schoolers-- are a great example of something that I agree is wrong. College/adults/pros-- that's a different story... but these are KIDS even if they don't look like it!

I don't-- but after receiving a *CD-R* a few days ago of a Brad Mehladau promo I ended up placing an order for three of his discs. I guess that's kind of what promos are for...

Thanks-- that's what I was looking for!

My understanding is that the clarinet has fingering similar to the saxophone and it was quite popular until Bop came around. Why'd it become so much less popular. Just circumstance or was there a technical reason? It really has a beautiful tone... maybe too smooth

The version of Wynton Kelly's "Interpretations" featuring Hank Mobley that I currently have is missing one track from this performance: "If You Could See Me Now"-- I see that this track does appear on Fresh Sounds 1031, which appears to be the complete session. Does this track appear anywhere else?

Why not? (not being ass-y - genuinely interested why you wouldn't cos for me S Dan really reached a level of excellence in popular music/rock. Difficult to compare what they did with the achievements of Parker & Coltrane but I have no problem putting them in the same group in my mind. I personally don't have a problem with putting rock/pop/r n b artists on an equal footing with jazz or classical artists). I don't know, really. In compositional complexity, perhaps SD is up there, but in performance? I'll have to think on it some more. It's like putting a guitarist like Steve Vai in with Django Reinhardt. Steve Vai is an amazing talent, fleet of finger, not afraid of complexity, he has all the chops-- but it's not as if he revolutionized music particularly, which is what I think of when I think of genius. Jimi Hendrix was a genius in my book for that reason. Doesn't mean my jaw doesn't still drop at what Vai can do with the instrument. But maybe Steely Dan does fit-- they certainly do their own thing and do it well, making that unique mix...

You really need to learn to read. It's not that hard-- just take the letters one by one-- they make words and sentences. This thread has evolved into a discussion of genius and the difference between recognizing genius and differentiating between that and one's own emotional affections for a musician. And it includes pop music. Notice that I didn't mention Stevie Wonder? You would have had you been reading. I don't know his music well enough over a broad range of time to say where I'd put him. It has nothing to do with my post, which is about bigger ideas and responding to some other items in this thread (try reading those too). It becomes a numbers game-- if my definition doesn't include as many folks as yours in the "genius" category, then someone has to get left out. If I go with a multiplicity of geniuses, some for every genre and field, perhaps Steely Dan, to use a recent example, would fit in. As it is, I just know I love their music and I'm not likely to put them in the same group as Armstrong, Parker, and Coltrane in my mind. And more to the point, even if someone disagrees with my labels, it DOESN'T offend me-- and it shouldn't offend you either. It's a personal trip. That's why I like the advice to just think "hey, I'm lucky that Chuck or Chris or whoever doesn't get it and I do."

I've come to the point where I just skim these threads looking for Chuck's posts... they always make me smile. I myself am perfectly willing to express my great fondness and love of a lot of music which is not composed or performed by geniuses. I listen to a lot of jazz (duh), but I also listen to a lot of pop/indie/rock/etc. Off the top of my head-- Wilco, Elliott Smith, The Postal Service, Coldplay, Counting Crows, Green Day, Ben Folds, G. Love & Special Sauce, The White Stripes, Verve, Radiohead. I love some of these guys (and gals), listen to them, enjoy the hell out of them. They're great examples of what they do. But they aren't geniuses! I adhere to the old Dick Hugo saying, when asked how he can love the work of X, Y or Z that the questioner hated, he responded "Just lucky I guess."

You guys are far too sophisticated for me. My most recent purchase was the first season of Magnum PI. Takes me back to my childhood...

I see what you are saying, but doesn't the argument of "if it's too expensive to get the legal stuff then I'll take the illegal distributions" feel a little uncomfortable? I know it does for me. OOP stuff is a different story, but just because it's only available at $17 per disc (mosaic prices) feels different. Fred Meyers and Sam Goody routinely charge 17.99 and 18.99 for current pop music, why are people casting Mosaic as impossibly expensive? Again, OOP being a different story, because if something isn't available at ALL elsewhere, then what can you do? That's why I don't think twice about someone offering a CDR of a CD that is OOP and someone might have to wait years to find (though if I do, I would want to upgrade to the real thing when I could), but I find it harder to understand when the sole issue is that something routinely available is too expensive.