Really bizarre, embarrassing shit from The New Yorker (merged)

[JSngry]

Yeah, but you know how long "now" lasts - just long enough to suck you the soul out of you.

[JSngry]

BTW - WTF is that at 1:47, hitting/pounding the last bar of the modulation? The combination of YouTube Sucksational Audio and my punkass PC speakers has it sounding like a toy piano!

[mjzee]

There's nothing like Jim when he's riffing! Love it!

[JSngry]

Please don't feed my ego, especially when I'm on the 'roids.

[Rooster_Ties]

Yeah, whatever....don't pick on the old men.

Thank you. That was also a big part of my beef; you don't (or shouldn't) fuck with old people like that.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, whatever....don't pick on the old men.

Thank you. That was also a big part of my beef; you don't (or shouldn't) fuck with old people like that.

WTF?!

What does age have to do with anything?

You can fuck with young folks, but not old?

What age is the cutoff line?!

The lunacy of this threads just keeps growing and growing.

[Scott Dolan]

There's nothing like Jim when he's riffing! Love it!

I'm glad someone finds his flowery brain dumps entertaining.

How you see Jim:

How anyone not fooled by intellectual con artistry sees Jim:

Edited August 7, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[erwbol]

There's nothing like Jim when he's riffing! Love it!

Nay!

[Face of the Bass]

I would love for Gold to have done this piece about Jim Hall, a dead man. That would have removed any suspicions about how clueless the whole idea - and the magazine - was from jump, to not just pick on an old man, but to pick on an old, freshly DEAD man!

It works for Sonny Rollins because he's regarded as the greatest living jazz musician. If you substitute in somebody less famous or less well-renowned, it wouldn't work.

There's nothing like Jim when he's riffing! Love it!

I'm glad someone finds his flowery brain dumps entertaining.

How you see Jim:

How anyone not fooled by intellectual con artistry sees Jim:

Yeah, it's actually pretty sad. Writing that many paragraphs about a satirical piece about Sonny Rollins....you'd think that the author ran somebody over with his car or blew up a school bus.

[Stefan Wood]

In other news, this week's New Yorker has a good article on Nina Simone.

[7/4]

I would love for Gold to have done this piece about Jim Hall, a dead man. That would have removed any suspicions about how clueless the whole idea - and the magazine - was from jump, to not just pick on an old man, but to pick on an old, freshly DEAD man!

It works for Sonny Rollins because he's regarded as the greatest living jazz musician. If you substitute in somebody less famous or less well-renowned, it wouldn't work.

Keith Jarrett.

....and it would actually be funny.

[JSngry]

And they could use Keith's own words, most likely!

[ghost of miles]

And they could use Keith's own words, most likely!

[uli]

And they could use Keith's own words, most likely!

Yeah but they would have to do a little work/research for that. If they had used Ornette they only had to change the name and the picture. For Jim Hall - I guess- they would have to change the little quibb about the sax,

[Scott Dolan]

Keith Jarrett.

....and it would actually be funny.

Yeah, had the protagonist been Wynton Marsalis the title of this thread would have been, "Hilarious article about Wynton Marsalis!" And everyone would be in here would be hooting and honking about how much "truth" there was behind the satire, etc...

But because it's someone that most around here like, well then it's just an outrage!

Yeah, it's actually pretty sad. Writing that many paragraphs about a satirical piece about Sonny Rollins....you'd think that the author ran somebody over with his car or blew up a school bus.

Hey!!!! Stop acting like this article didn't destroy entire continents, leaving survivors sick and hungry with no hope of living! Or else Jim will have to aim his next intellectual Three-card Monte screed at you!

[paul secor]

Scott, I'm curious whether you ever actually listen to music and post on actual music discussions, as opposed to discussions on equipment or threads like this one, the Norah Jones thread, or others where you can argue endlessly. A simple yes or no and some examples will suffice for an answer.

[Scott Dolan]

Scott, I'm curious whether you ever actually listen to music and post on actual music discussions, as opposed to discussions on equipment or threads like this one, the Norah Jones thread, or others where you can argue endlessly. A simple yes or no and some examples will suffice for an answer.

Hahaha...

The old, "I don't like your style, so now I'll demand to see your credentials" bit, eh?

Sorry, Paul. The search function isn't just here for its looks.

And of course, I recently spent thousands of dollars on equipment upgrades just so I could play pink noise through it.

[JSngry]

Word, Paul. I was just about to ask him to give me more than one and less than three samples of anything he's posted here that should give me pause to take him seriously about anything I care about.

Otherwise, the schtick is always the same - he's right, and either you agree with him or else you're wrong - it's DOLAN, DAMMIT!

Defend yourself - you are guilty until proven guilty, and then you are guilty!

There's just nothing this guy has ever said that lets me take him seriously as anything besides an Angry Clown with Audio Stats in hand, I think it's kind of cute, really, although as with all things cute, there is not enough substance for it to ever become beautiful.

And now I wait to again be accused of the usual charges of ego-driven pseudo-intellectual slight-of-hand, perhaps even of being a danger to humanity. Again. Like I said, cute is cute, but it's sooo one-dimensional.

I know the dude was scarred for life as a child, I read his memoirettes on Jazztalk, so, really, I do understand. I just don't care.

[Scott Dolan]

Oddly enough, having been in "meaningful" and polite discussions with both of you at times, this whole thing is rather amusing.

Since I won't feign the manufactured outrage you both expect for this grievous hit piece, suddenly I'm nothing but a shit talker who doesn't listen to music and never participates in music discussions.

What a couple of cutie pies.

[Face of the Bass]

Keith Jarrett wouldn't be as funny. I hate having to explain this, but the thing that makes the Rollins thing funny is that it DOESN'T fit his persona or image. You could do a similar piece on the most revered living musician in other genres.

[JSngry]

Oddly enough, having been in "meaningful" and polite discussions with both of you at times, this whole thing is rather amusing.

Since I won't feign the manufactured outrage you both expect for this grievous hit piece, suddenly I'm nothing but a shit talker who doesn't listen to music and never participates in music discussions.

What a couple of cutie pies.

"polite", yes. Fairly often.

"Meaningful", no, not really. They always (and this is not just with me, this is with anybody you feel is not seeing things your way, the"right" way, the DOLAN way) lead off with a barrage of HEY BROTHERs rapidly followed by the DEMANDS to justify myself, and dammit, then, no broader possibilities are considered, the beginning and end of the game is the Defending The Dolan Point, THE Point, End Of Game.

In this case, even though over the length of this interview, sonny rollins went on at length about how sensitive and irked he was at the general vibe/attitude of the New Yorker piece in the context of how he has experienced the media in his life, and even though, yes, there's a few general statements about, well, of course you can be humorous in and about jazz, the simple math adds up to but not like this. Any fool (well, almost any fool) should be able to see this, it's not "reading between the lines", or "confirmation bias", it's basic looking at something in context and being sensitive to the speaker's history and inclinations. I myself didn't find the piece funny, but I didn't really find it offensive, either, except in the sense that not being funny with something like this is the biggest offense of all!

But this is not about what I thought about any of it, it's about gauging Sonny's reaction. If you can weigh a few general, polite "acceptances" against a lot of long (perhaps even rambling, gee, the guy even goes to great pains to point out that he's not in favor of kicking dogs) irritation/agitation and not get an accurate weight of the overall tone and feeling...I've known drug dealers who measured like that...

...very easy to see what's going on, reliving/projecting previous unpleasant and no doubt intense persecutorial experiences you've experienced on to others, refusing to admit anything but, at best, "well you might have a point, BUT I'M STILL RIGHT, always with a "Brother" thrown in, and at worst, there's all these projected images of your haunted past about abusive authority figures, which, hey, that is what it is, and that's your burden to bear, Good luck, brother, I guess.

Please understand - I don't want or need, much less crave the respect of people who play the game of Argue With Me Long Enough And I'll Begrudge You Some Respect, I mean, really, that's just Angry Clown bullshit right there. Amusing for a moment, but finally, disposable. I laugh at your "attacks" until I yawn. And then I go to bed, or to the piano, or someplace where there's a real imagination to play with instead of some...repeater pencil.

You sir, are a repeater pencil.

So tell yourself that this is all about your "defense" of the New Yorker piece. It's not.

[Scott Dolan]

Reading for comprehension, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

I have repeatedly stated the piece was both stupid and unfunny.

I also stated earlier that they should apologize to Rollins and pull the article.

But man oh man did you destroy the shit of that strawman!!!

Yep, if you can't make points based on fact and merit, just make something up. Unfortunately for old school con artists like yourself, stuff posted on the internet tends to stay there for others to see.

[danasgoodstuff]

Oddly enough, having been in "meaningful" and polite discussions with both of you at times, this whole thing is rather amusing.

Since I won't feign the manufactured outrage you both expect for this grievous hit piece, suddenly I'm nothing but a shit talker who doesn't listen to music and never participates in music discussions.

What a couple of cutie pies.

"polite", yes. Fairly often.

"Meaningful", no, not really. They always (and this is not just with me, this is with anybody you feel is not seeing things your way, the"right" way, the DOLAN way) lead off with a barrage of HEY BROTHERs rapidly followed by the DEMANDS to justify myself, and dammit, then, no broader possibilities are considered, the beginning and end of the game is the Defending The Dolan Point, THE Point, End Of Game.

In this case, even though over the length of this interview, sonny rollins went on at length about how sensitive and irked he was at the general vibe/attitude of the New Yorker piece in the context of how he has experienced the media in his life, and even though, yes, there's a few general statements about, well, of course you can be humorous in and about jazz, the simple math adds up to but not like this. Any fool (well, almost any fool) should be able to see this, it's not "reading between the lines", or "confirmation bias", it's basic looking at something in context and being sensitive to the speaker's history and inclinations. I myself didn't find the piece funny, but I didn't really find it offensive, either, except in the sense that not being funny with something like this is the biggest offense of all!

But this is not about what I thought about any of it, it's about gauging Sonny's reaction. If you can weigh a few general, polite "acceptances" against a lot of long (perhaps even rambling, gee, the guy even goes to great pains to point out that he's not in favor of kicking dogs) irritation/agitation and not get an accurate weight of the overall tone and feeling...I've known drug dealers who measured like that...

...very easy to see what's going on, reliving/projecting previous unpleasant and no doubt intense persecutorial experiences you've experienced on to others, refusing to admit anything but, at best, "well you might have a point, BUT I'M STILL RIGHT, always with a "Brother" thrown in, and at worst, there's all these projected images of your haunted past about abusive authority figures, which, hey, that is what it is, and that's your burden to bear, Good luck, brother, I guess.

Please understand - I don't want or need, much less crave the respect of people who play the game of Argue With Me Long Enough And I'll Begrudge You Some Respect, I mean, really, that's just Angry Clown bullshit right there. Amusing for a moment, but finally, disposable. I laugh at your "attacks" until I yawn. And then I go to bed, or to the piano, or someplace where there's a real imagination to play with instead of some...repeater pencil.

You sir, are a repeater pencil.

So tell yourself that this is all about your "defense" of the New Yorker piece. It's not.

OMG, thanks.

[JSngry]

Have a nice day, Scott.

[Scott Dolan]

You do the same, brother.