Blindfold Test # 2 Answers

[Dan Gould]

Also, the comment about Eric Alexander was interesting. He's sort of been identified with a lot of the people who record for Criss Cross although he only made a few albums there.

Brad, the Artist Index page for Criss Cross shows no fewer than twenty five releases with Eric Alexander.

********************************

And Alexander, if you really wanted to listen and post your responses on the Discussion thread, there was nothing stopping you. That was the idea of a discussion thread and an answers thread-so that people who get a disc late or are just slow to get around to listening can still participate, if they can control themselves and not open either thread til they are ready to post.

[Alexander]

Oh, I know that Dan. But when I saw that the answers had been posted, I couldn't resist! Again, great disc. Nicely done!

[Dan Gould]

Well, I'm glad you liked it.

You know, another theme could have been "crowd-pleasing" jazz, as none of the tunes were especially challenging and I thought that they ought to go over well with most jazz fans (of course, its possible that Dr. J. and Jim R. aren't like most jazz fans

[A Lark Ascending]

I lent it to my music teacher, who plays jazz, and his comment is somewhat similar to Jim's.  He said that DiRubbo is technically impressive but that it sounded like that he was going through the motions, that he had no soul or feeling and that you have to have emotion to play this music.

I've yet to meet a human being who does not have emotion!

Edited September 27, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

True enough, Bev. but I've met quite a few who get so wrapped up in the mecahanics executing a particular task that THAT sort of becomes their primary emotion, at least at the time of executing said task, and I think that's what some of us feel is happening with players like this.

It's not that these people have NO emotion, or conversely, that players who we feel warmth towards are ALL emotion and no intellect (although their is a romantic notion amongst some that such is the case), it's just that there are levels of development, and the "highest" one, at least in my opinion, is to use the technique of one's craft as a tool of free expression, not to hone that technique into an ever more precise, less flawed, tool as an end to itself.

The thing about music (and not just music) is that is is both craft and art (note the lower case "a" ). The craft involved in the music that Alexander is pursuing is a time-consuming one in which the bar has been raised to almost superhuman levels where there is perhaps nothing "new" to be found (and there are some schools of though that ask, wisely in my opinion, if a bar that has been raised that high is worth striving for in full, or if it is better to go looking for other fields to plow, excuse the mixed metaphor). When there is SO much technique and theory involved, when a player does not come through it through osmosis and has to CONSISTENTLY be "thinking" about EVERYTHING they play, and every aspect of it, one of two things is going to happen - either one day it's all going to soak in and click, and the cat's going to be a true monster of a player and artist, or else the pursuit of the improvement of the craft will eventually become an end unto itself. Now, I get a lot of pleasure and enjoyment out of hearing that kind of music, if the "craft" being pursued contains elements of emotional signifiers that I can relate to, but it's NOT, by ANY stretch of the imagination, music that moves me to the point of having to have it on the proverbial desert island, if you know what I mean. It's the sound of people doing a job as well as it can be done, as opposed to the sound of people opening doors and expanding our consciousness. Both are worthy and admirable, but I'm sure we can all agree that the latter is somehow more "special" to us (if it reaches us) than the former. And that the differentiation betwee the two categories is largely a subjective one. and one that might not always be clear cut and sometimes have an overlap or fourteen.

I wouldn't rule out the chance of players like Alexander ripening into deeply expressive voices in time, but the indicators this far are not promising. Nearly all the players I really dig have had that expressive quality in place from the git-go, even when their chops were ill-formed, mal-formed, or flat out UNformed. But there are exceptions, and Alexander might be prove to be one of them.

Stay tuned, as they say!

[Brad]

Brad, the Artist Index page for Criss Cross shows no fewer than twenty five releases with Eric Alexander.

Dan,

I meant as a leader; AMG shows only 3 or 4 of those. But obviously, he's well indentified with their sound, especially when you say he's been on some 25 sessions.

[A Lark Ascending]

I have a suspicion that when we hear 'emotion' we're actually hearing music we like the sound of. This 'emotion' thing is highly subjective.

I was driving along the M1 today listening to a jazz programme and they played a track from the forthcoming Tommy Smith CD - a CD with Lovano, Scofield, Bill Stewart, Patitucci and John Taylor, one I'm intrigued about but half expect to be something of a studio 'all star' gimmick. After a brief head Taylor flew off on the first solo and I was mesmerised. This was 'emotional' stuff to my ears. Yes, definitely one to get. As the other guys took their turns my attention wandered. By the end I was thinking, 'Well, Taylor was great but I can hear him do this on a Kenny Wheeler disc with players who are much more 'emotional.'

The thing is I am forever reading reviews of discs that John Taylor plays on that accuse him of being cold, clinical, overclassical, unfeeling. Yet he speaks to me directly! He's certainly a player who has done the business in terms of technique; but I'd say he also communicates the 'emotion'...if you've the musical context to hear it.

It's strange but I don't spend much time listening to the contemporary US mainstream but Eric Alexander is someone I really do like, not because of any technical cleverness (I don't have the musical understanding to recognise that beyond 'gosh can't he play fast' and 'gosh doesn't he play some funny intervals') but because he sounds to my ears...well...emotional. Whereas with a more highly regarded player like Joe Lovano I just feel like I'm on the outside looking in.

Explaining why a particular musician appeals or does not appeal is always difficult. But I don't think accusing players of lack of emotion in their playing is all that helpful. I suspect 'emotion' is actually a euphemism we're using for the myriad sensations we're bombarded with when hearing a piece of music. In the end we're all on different frequencies. Trying to pigeonhole musicians as emotional, less emotional, hardly emotional at all seems to fly in the face of that reality.

I'd imagine to some listeners with a strong taste for Coltrane or Mobley, Lee Konitz could sound all technique and little emotion. I don't hear him that way!

[Jim R]

An extremely minor and far less insightful sidenote here regarding Alexander (and for me it applies to many other artists as well). I'm not always in search of "great" players, great voices, boundary stretchers or ground breakers. Some contemporary players (Alexander being one of them) actually reached me first via their choice of material. I know I'm a little different than a lot of jazz fans in terms of my tastes and reasons for choosing who and what to listen to, and part of that is my love of melody. It's somewhat anti-jazz in nature, at times, but I can't apologize to the jazz community for that. It's simply a part of who I am, and part of the enjoyment I get from listening to the music as a whole. So, I can be attracted to a player and often moved to purchasing one of their recordings simply by hearing them play a head- especially if it's a tune that I really dig which hasn't been recorded much (if at all) by others. In Eric's case, it was his version of "Night Song", which I heard on the radio one day (thank you, KCSM). His solo on that was also attractive to my ears (if not demonstrating anything spine-tingling or new, in terms of style or voice), and I thought- here's a player who I'd like to get to know a little better. If someone's sound and style doesn't strike me as unique right off the bat, I'm usually inclined to think that it's me that needs to listen more closely, as opposed to thinking that the artist has nothing new to say. At any rate, I like his sound and enjoy his style on a very casual level, without analyzing what his shortcomings may be in terms of his place in jazz history (and if that sounds like a snide remark directed at Jim, it's not- I understand and basically agree with and accept what Jim said). Whether or not Alexander ever develops a voice that I can recognize instantly, I think I'll always be open to checking him out- especially if he picks some good tunes.

[Jim R]

Bev, I agree with you 100%. This subject had been on my mind lately, after reading that Art Pepper thread that's currently on the board. I didn't have the energy to respond to that thread when I read it, and I didn't want to crash the party, but... with all due respect to Art Pepper (who I do enjoy, but isn't high on my personal list of favorites) and the person who started that thread, I think a more broad-minded view of "emotion" in jazz is called for. I think it's more logical, and dare I say, more mature (the idea that there have only been a handful of artists in jazz history to have communicated with emotion, and the notion that there is a "best" player, etc, just makes me chuckle).

[JSngry]

Well, ok, to grossly simplify...

It seems that every waking moment of my life, and many of the sleeping ones, are spent with somebody trying to tell me something. Not just musicians, but family, friends, strangers, politicians, telemarketers, preachers (actual and would-be), neighbors, strangers, you name it. After a while, it all starts to blur together, to sound the same, because a lot of ti IS the same, either in content, or in delivery, or sometimes both.

I've got to be selective, to weed out what I've already heard and what I already know, from everything else. I simply do not have enough time, patience, or energy, to give full attention (or often enough, ANY attention) to that which seems redundant, or attractive yet ultimately hollow. Aand this goes for non-musical things as well as musical - I used to love sitcoms, now I don't watch any. I used to LOVE movies, now I hardly ever go. Etc., etc., etc.

I already know what I know, what I need to be finding out is what I DON'T know, so when something or somebody gives me an inkling that they might know something that I don't, and if it seems like something that I'd LIKE to know (an identifications that is sometimes immediate, and sometimes takes years to make), THAT is going to get my attention in a way that "nice, but..." just isn't. Like I said, the bombardment seems constant, so choices must be made.

Maybe I'm old, maybe I'm jaded. Could be that I'm both. But this is my life, and these are my decisions. I certainly can not denigrate the opinions of those who find pleasure in Alexander's work, because I can see what the attraction is - he's a good player with good taste in material who does a good job every time out. But my "room" for players who do that has long been filled, mostly by swing players of the 30s and 40s many hard bop players of the 50s and soul jazz players of the 60s. THAT particuar box is full, or darn near close to it. It's not as much a question of "emotion" as it is "can you interest me?". The world is full of emotion, what I'm after is somehing else, something I don't yet have an adequate word for, but it would be a combination of timelessness, uniqueness, personality, knowledge, local flavor, and a bunch of other stuff. We all have emotion, indeed, so that's not the issue, not really. It's more of a why should I listen to YOU?" kind of a thing.

I hear Alexander, and the FIRST thing I hear is that tone, which STILL strikes me as being far to close to George Coleman's for comfort. That's not enough for aautomatic disqualification, but it IS 2 1/2 strikes. I've listened to a LOT of George Coleman, dig the shit out of him in fact, and anybody using THAT tone THAT blatantly is setting up expectations that it is disingenous to not expect have met. A player's tone is the MOST personal aspect of their playing for me, and you don't use somebody else's tone to make a point unless it's for effect, jsut like you don't call somebody on the phone and impersonate somebody else unless it's as a joke or something. So when I hear that tone, I can't help but think "Ok, you dig George Coleman so much you took his tone. I can dig that. What ELSE do you have for me?" The other aspects of his playing just don't overcome that for me - I just don't hear anything beyond a competent player playing nicely. Now, I have far too much respect for the craft to dis him. THAT is ignorant, imo, and whn I read the snider remarks that make this guy out to be a nothing and/or a nobody, I get angry.. The guy's a HELL of a saxophonist. But I just don't have room for his particular brand of excellence - like I said, that bag's long been full, and I'm not currently taking applications, if you know what I mean.

And it's not just these so-called "neo-conservatives" who do this for me (or don't do, such as it is...). It's a lot of the current free players, electric players, you name it. I don't hear that much "new" music in ANY genre that is really telling me a story I haven't already heard, and/or with a slant I've not heard it told with. Maybe that's my problem, maybe I AM getting jaded, but I don't think so - when I DO hear something that strikes me as fresh (and it doesn't have to be "new" music either - it's not the age or the style that matters to me, it's the individuality), then I get all gooey in my nether zones just like I did the first time I heard Trane on record, or when I first heard a roaring big band (Basie, 1970) in the flesh, etc.

Again, to those who like Alexander, I'll not take an air of smug superiority (and I know there are those who will, and do). That's not my goal here. My goal is simply to explain why the cat doesn't so anything for me, and perhaps to let my situation serve as a "guidepost" of sorts for some of y'all who are still in the earlier stages of your jazz odyssey. After a while, you WILL find that there are things that yu used to have time for that you just don't anymore. I've seen numerous posts to this effect, so I know it's going on with a lot of you. And I know full well that we all have our "soft spots", things that we all like for no rational reason other than that they tickle us in our sweet spot. For a lot of people, that sweet spot is the "advanced hard bop" genre that Alexander works in. He gets a lot of airplay on KNTU these days, and I don't change the dial when he comes on. The guy doesn't repulse me by any means. But I don't think I own anything with him on it, and seeing his name is not going to induce me to buy something. He's in that zone of things I jsut don't care to invite further into my world, not because he disgusts me, but jsut because I don't have the room, I'm saving it for something that will hopefully give me more of a life experience.

So all I'm saying is, I know where you're coming from if you dig the cat, I'm just not there with you, and probably won't be. But have fun anyway! Life's too short not to. Besides, I've got a TON of "Eric Alexanders" in my world already. I got mine, y'all got yours. It's a beautiful thing!

[A Lark Ascending]

Yes, Jim R, I nearly weighed in myself on that Pepper thread with my fundamentalist relativist outlook but thought better of it! Although I know little of Jim Pepper's music I could identify immediately with Ron Thorne's 'emotional' appeal for the right to respect Jim as an equal to Art.

An example of this with specific reference to Blindfold #2.

Track One had me thinking: "Yes, very pleasant, but when is something going to happen?" Track 5 had me grimacing during the theme, reminding me of that 50s 'mainstream' style that was embraced by a certain type of UK jazz musician and seemed to dominate so many live BBC broadcasts when I wanted to hear Mike Osborne! You can still hear the BBC Big Band playing like this today. Once the soloing started, however, I was engaged! In a way track 6 affected me the same way - throwaway, standard theme statement followed by some marvellous soloing.

By contrast track 4 drew me in instantly - I loved the way the tenor smeared the melody slightly out of shape during the theme. Possibly standard bluesy tricks but they affected me.

The track that jumped out for me was no. 11 - 'Footprints.' A tune I must have a million versions of yet I loved the way the pianist (I'd never even heard of Michael Cochrane!) peeled off each chorus of variations. This is a disc I'll definitely seek out. It will make an intriguing contrast to the Enrico Pieranunzi Trio's sublime (to my ears!) 'Plays the Music of Wayne Shorter'.

I don't claim any of the my statements as definitive comments on the music (there's a fair chance I'll react differently as I listen to the disc more); but I bet what I did and didn't find emotional will not be the same as others.

Edited September 27, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

And oh yeah, I couldn't agree more about something not having to be "great" to get my attention. Most of the time, in fact, it's the "non-great" stuff that I notice these days. But it's got to have some distinctive quality, some element that stands out as being totally personal, and in a way that I can feel some kinship with.

That may or may not be a form of "greatness" in and of itself, I don't know. But the idea that something must be radical or groundbreaking or in some way redefine our existence in a fundamental way is not one that I subscribe to, not at all.

After all, that's the kind of mindset that gave us Stan Kenton! ;)

[A Lark Ascending]

JSngry,

I hear exactly what you are saying. And in a way you are illustrating what I'm saying! Alexander sounds to you too much like his influences. Then of course he's not going to excite you much.

I, by contrast have far less experience of listening to those influences. So he sounds fresh to me. The sounds he makes go direct to whatever part of my brain tugs the 'emotion' string whereas in your case your brain immediately intervenes and says, 'Hold on, we've heard this many times before, havn't we.'

Now in the wider scheme of things there might be some academic value in someone pinning down who is a total original and who is to a greater or lesser extent derivative. But we all lead short lives and if I hear something that makes me smile then no amount of being told that it's a copy of earlier people is going to make me frown. Maybe in a few years if I get to hear more of the originators I might grow unsettled by Alexander and put him to one side. But I'm not going to let the academic fact that he is playing in a style gathered from others interfere with the fact that he actually moves me.

Interesting comparision with Coleman. I've loved George since hearing 'My Funny Valentine' and 'Amsterdam After Dark' in the late 70s and have many of his records. I never made the connection. Maybe that's why I warm to Alexander!!!!

In the end music is just patterns and the disruption of patterns to me. When those patterns are pretty but disrupted enough to be unsettling then I get that 'emotional' feeling. But I tend to believe it lies in the patterns, not in any real emotion being communicated.

Different ways of looking at the world. Where would we be without them!

Edited September 27, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[Soul Stream]

I can relate to Jim's comments about sitcoms, movies...and certain musicians playing in a box (hey, I count myself as one. So no disrespect. ). Here in Austin, there are a LOT of great musicians who play out of the strict Buck Owens/early Haggard style. They're great and I appreciate what they do, but...on some level it rings hollow. Same thing about seeing the umpteenth summer action blockbuster move. Or hearing Sonny Stitt on, seemingly, autopilot. Or hearing Eric Alexander play George Coleman. Or Joey Defrancesco play Jimmy Smith. Or Wallace Roney play Miles Davis. Hey, these guys are all SUPERIOR musicians. The best of the best. But as a LISTENER....I get bored with it at times.

And yes, it IS because we're jaded. THAT's the definition of jaded.

There's nothing new under the sun. But every once in a while somthing or somebody comes along to dispell all that! Thank goodness.

[A Lark Ascending]

Maybe there's alot to be said for being less soaked in the jazz greats.

I'm currently revelling in a host of releases by current UK players - they're on my player every evening, accompanying me to work and back and I'm as happy as a sandbag.

Now I don't doubt for a minute that these musicians are far from being originals. But because I've not o.d.'ed on the originals I've lost none of the excitement that comes from hearing this music which is new to me.

I havn't, for example, a clue as to who Soweto Kinch is drawing his sound from. All I know is I can't keep his debut out of the CD player! Now I've no doubt there's a critic somewhere getting his daily dose of joy expounding how worthless this disc is because it was all done so much better by X. Well, whatever makes your day...

25 years into jazz listening and most decidedly unjaded!

Edited September 27, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

Now in the wider scheme of things there might be some academic value in someone pinning down who is a total original and who is to a greater or lesser extent derivative. But we all lead short lives and if I hear something that makes me smile then no amount of being told that it's a copy of earlier people is going to make me frown. Maybe in a few years if I get to hear more of the originators I might grow unsettled by Alexander and put him to one side. But I'm not going to let the academic fact that he is playing in a style gathered from others interfere with the fact that he actually moves me.

Well, Bev, that's my point entirely! If you dig and others dig the cat, go with that, and those of us who don't, go with that too. It's not like this is a musician who is getting into the deepest areas of musical. sociological, metaphysical, or some other such thought. This is a cat playing some tunes, and if somebody like the results, well then, mission accomplished!

For better or worse, though, I tend to enjoy either that which I've known for a long time and that I've become intimate with, something that is undeniably (whatever THAT means) new AND substantive (ditto and ditto) or else that which startles me with an intriguing blend of ingredients, all of which may be familiar in and of themselves, but are put together in a distinctive, unique combination. And how one recieves those stimuli is such an idiosyncratic procedure that I'll be damned if I'll claim to understand how it works for ME, much less for anybody else.

I DO get bugged, however, when people make claims for a personal favorite that just don't hold up by any rational criteria. If somebody says, "I dig Eric Alexander. I like what he's doing and am interested in hearing more.", well, cool. Pleasure is a beatiful thing. But when somebody goes the extra mile (ordinarily a GOOD thing, right?) and says, "Eric Alexander is one of the most important musicians on today's scene, a force to be reckoned with. Keep you eyes and ears on Eric Alexander, HE IS THE FUTURE OF JAZZ!", well, I don't know whether to lauch or cry, because by no objective criteria do THESE claims hold up. There HAVE been players who have expanded the pallates of both their instruments and the music as a whole, both technically and emotionally, players who have changed the way that everybody ELSE thinks about music. THOSE are the "Giants", and they are very, very few. Then there are the "near giants", and on and on.

No, I don't think like this when listening to music. Some of the stuff I listen to is mundane beyond belief, but I don't give a rat's ass - I like it for my OWN reasons, and that's all me or anybody else needs to know. I too go for the pleasure factor first and foremost. But I will get "academic" about it when hucksters or other false prophets try to sell me a steak and convince me it's a whole cow. I know better. A LOT of us know better. But not all of us do, and if enough people get to thinking that a steak IS a full cow, then the next time I go into the grocery store, I might be faced with the possibility of paying for a herd when all I want is a few steaks. And if a steak has become a cow, then a Big Mac becomes a steak, and down the spiral we go. It's "real", and it's all relative, of course, but is it REAL? You know what I mean, hopefully.

My listening philosophy, to broadly paraphrase Charlie Parker, is this - "First you learn what's important. Then you learn what's real. Then you forget all that stuff and just have fun!"

[A Lark Ascending]

Oh, I'm with you totally on the hyperbole directed at new players. "Y" is let out of the traps and is immediately proclaimed the greatest thing since sliced milk. Yes, I get just as bugged by that.

But I get equally as bugged by the over-reverence for the 'greats' of the past. Of course, these people were wonderful, provided the foundation of the music etc etc. But there is a tendency to overload them with cosmic virtues to the point that no new musician stands a hope of ever living up to them. "Shakespeare was so great. Why does anyone bother writing plays these days!"

There are obviously a multiplicity of ways of responding to jazz (and music...and literature...) and those of us who post in places like this obviously feel some need to do so. Expressing how music affects us matters. But I notice two very broad strains:

a) Those to whom a recording excites them, who want to express that excitement and, perhaps, analyse a little as to why.

B) Those who, when listening to a recording need to consider it in the broad history of the music, who need to decide its place, its significance, its importance. Who don't seem at ease with their liking for a recording unless they can prove it matters.

I'm not saying either has a monopoly on enjoyment, understanding or wisdom. I just find it interesting.

JSngry, as always I hear exactly what you're saying and have the utmost respect for your opinions - you're a musician which puts you in a very different place to me and you clearly have a much more extensive grasp of the history of the music than I do.

Having said that, I do hear things rather differently.

Which, I hope, is a good thing.

[p.s. That bloody smiley is supposed to be a 'point b']

Edited September 27, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

Maybe there's alot to be said for being less soaked in the jazz greats.

Mind if I give that line to my daughter to paraphrase the next time she flubs a History exam (which, if the recent past is any indicator, could be as soon as next week!)?

[A Lark Ascending]

She'll only flub that History exam if she fails to provide the interpretation required by the marker!

Just as many contemporary players get damned for failing to play within the tradition preferred by the particular critic!

[Jazzmoose]

Having been bitten by that one myself, I hereby call for the banning of the "point b" smilie!!

[JSngry]

Expressing how music affects us matters. But I notice two very broad strains:

a) Those to whom a recording excites them, who want to express that excitement and, perhaps, analyse a little as to why.

B) Those who, when listening to a recording need to consider it in the broad history of the music, who need to decide its place, its significance, its importance. Who don't seem at ease with their liking for a recording unless they can prove it matters.

I guess I'm a bit of both. I can fully enjoy any number of things, do so in fact, without having the least concern of how they rank "historically". I mean, MR. SHING-A-LING changed the world and has about as much "profundidty" as my Aunt Donna did, but I'll groove on it HARD when I play it. just as hard as I do something like CRESCENT or a Bartok Quartet. Because they ALL make me feel good, albeit each in a different way. And I'd not be without any of them, ever.

But I think we both agree that having an "educated" background on the history of ANYTHING makes us better rounded individuals, and allows us to enjoy things on what is, if not necessarily a "purer" level, then definitely a "broader" one than just digging on something because it's all we know and don't have any benchmark to compare it against (and comparisons need not be solely for the purpose of merely decicing if something is "good" or "bad". Those are the cheapest kinds of comparisons, imo, the kind that imprison rather than liberate, and I despise that which does that!). If anything, I find that the more I know, the more I CAN enjoy "less important" stuff from the past and the present because I have the perspective to see how it both fits in and stands out from the general currents of the times, and I can better enjoy and appreciate for what it may or may not ACTUALLY be, as opposed to what I, with a limited background might percieve it to be. "Seeing" things clearly, not for the purpose of judgement, but to better grasp EXACTLY what something is (to the extent that it's possible to ever do that with anything, which probably isn't much!) is a great tool to have at one's disposal, I think. And yes, it takes time to acquire it. But what doesn't, other than various appetites, the tencency to gain weight as one grows older, and the appreciation of a good nap?

Of course, on the primal level, pleasure is pleasure, right? It's ALL good. But you're an educator by trade, and I was trained as one, so I think we can both agree that although historical knowledge is certainly not a prerequisite for enjoyment of anything, and that it's quite easy for the intellectual knowledge of history to obstruct or otherwise interfere with simple beauty of enjoying something because it makes you feel good (period, no questions asked, none needed!), that ideally, and I stress, IDEALLY, a balance between the two gives one the greatest capacity for satisfaction in the end.

Having said all that, I can only add that this latest installment of "Dances About Architecture" was NOT brought to you by a grant from the NEA, so don't bother your Congressperson about it, ok?

Edited September 27, 2003 by JSngry

[JSngry]

She'll only flub that History exam if she fails to provide the interpretation required by the marker!

So when she tells the teacher that the Declaration Of Independence was signed in 1941, and the teacher counts that as a wrong answer, I should just tell her to tell the teacher that that's HER interpretation?

Just kidding!

Edited September 27, 2003 by JSngry

[Jim R]

Jim and Bev,

Let me see... how can I put this... do you both have to be so fucking eloquent? I'm trying to remember what I want to say AND construct correct sentences over here!

Mark,

I once posted a large amount of discographical data here (from a Mosaic set or something), and then noticed that I had created about 50 of the B) smilies. Every time there was a "B" (for "bass") in parentheses, I created our good friend Mr. B) Oh well, he IS one of my favorite smilies. B)

[JSngry]

Jim and Bev,

Let me see... how can I put this... do you both have to be so fucking eloquent? I'm trying to remember what I want to say AND construct correct sentences over here!

Dude, in real life I'm a stutterer. This is my only outlet for fluency. Be a pal and work with me, will ya;?

Besides, I MORE than (de)compensate by some piss-poor typing skills. Show mw a post of mine that's more than a sentence or two long that's not been edited, and I'll show you one with some horendous spelling. I can spell, but I can't type. I've learned what little skills I have entirely by posting to these jazz boards.

Now THAT'S sad!

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, imagine if Jim had my golden pipes and his eloquence: He'd be saying "That's Mr. President to you, pal"!