Larry Kart Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Damn it -- I did it again, deleted the whole new Wooley thread. And this time I know what happened. I was adding a post, and it quoted my previous post, which I didn't want to do. I couldn't get rid of the quoted passage, so I painted it and hit delete -- and the whole thread disappeared! Quote
Steve Reynolds Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Uh Oh the great Larry Kart did it again plus this time the thread was getting good Quote
Larry Kart Posted December 9, 2015 Author Report Posted December 9, 2015 I think my time as a moderator is at an end. Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Ogden's Nut Gone Flake. Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 I feel like I've been raped! Quote
TedR Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Just more evidence of fascist leanings. B-)) Quote
JSngry Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 1 hour ago, Larry Kart said: I think my time as a moderator is at an end. No way, there is no way that the sequence of events you described should have produced that outcome, not without there being some serious bug in the software. I suspect there are some serious bugs in this software that have yet to be addressed by the developers. If there's not, then the only other sane explanation is that you are a fascist taliban raper. Assume the position. To move the discussion forward, we were looking at this: Strictlyn terms of technique/vocabulary/etc, no, I don't hear anything that's never been done on the trumpet before. The instruments been around in its current form long enough that people have pretty much figured all the options as far as basic sound production and manipulation. Ovverblowing, multiphonics, "trick" fingerings, mouthpiece manipulatons, waht you blow into/against/away from, it's all been done, at least all of this has. Believe me. Again, broken down to the level of "devices", the basic building blocks of his statements. What I do hear is a real, evolutionary and virtuostic mastery of these techniques, which is as it should be, people fgure out how to do something, next people figure out how to do it more naturally, without the "experimental" distance, and so it goes. At some point, it peaks and begins to decay, but that can happen in any numebr of ways and take up any conceivable number of timeframes. Nate Wooley is definitely not participating in any sort of decaying thing here, no, it's great to hear somebody this comfortable with this much technique doing these things with it, it's got a real populist feel to it, and I mean that as a high compliment, it's like DUH, this is so NOT mysterious, this is everyday speech, and AFAIC, yes, it is, and yes, it should be. Quote
mjazzg Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Damn....woke up this morning looking forward to how the discussion may have moved on.....I recognise what Larry did as something I've had to do but without such dire consequences Anyways, what JSngry says above puts it so much better than I tried to last night when responding to my first listen of this track Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Got through the first "disc" of The Nows last night. Simply phenomenal stuff. Rather pricey on iTunes ($17.99), but possibly the best $17.99 I've spent on music in a really long time. Looking forward to burning through the second "disc" when I get home from work today. As for Wooley's technique, I'll your words for it that you've heard everything he did on that piece before. I certainly hadn't, but I bailed after 60's Free Jazz and never got into the free/European improv stuff, so I probably missed out in that regard. Quote
king ubu Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Just asking a technical question, as I'm a moderator on another board: don't you have the option to delete for good vs. restorable? A very helpful feature I'd say ... no idea what software is being used, it looks less fancy but is actually nice to handle (i.e. simple text editor is default, inserting things is a bit straigher, less java crap it seems to be, but I don't understand the technical side of things at all). Quote
JSngry Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 18 minutes ago, king ubu said: Just asking a technical question, as I'm a moderator on another board: don't you have the option to delete for good vs. restorable? A very helpful feature I'd say ... no idea what software is being used, it looks less fancy but is actually nice to handle (i.e. simple text editor is default, inserting things is a bit straigher, less java crap it seems to be, but I don't understand the technical side of things at all). The old software had an easily accessible "dump" for deleted threads. This newest version does not. That's pretty damn chagrin-inducing. What Larry was doing - I was adding a post, and it quoted my previous post, which I didn't want to do. I couldn't get rid of the quoted passage, so I painted it and hit delete - how does that delete an entire thread? Our Moderation Actions menu are on a drop-down at the very bottom right of a page. They don't appear unless you consciously look to perform a moderation task. ] The Quote system in this new software does seem to have a mind of its own, and although I found it useful in the past, I;ve also found it a bit unwieldy in terms of being able to easily delete what sometimes . Now it looks like it's possible for at least one user to get tangled up in the quote box and get his poster-delete code to hop on and bareback on his moderator's delete code. Something ain't right about that. This code be buggin'. Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 As I said before, the quote function here is even more broken than it was before. Not surprised it's even worse on the moderator side. Quote
fasstrack Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 16 hours ago, Larry Kart said: Damn it -- I did it again, deleted the whole new Wooley thread. (In a twist of an old joke) That was just God: He thinks he's Wynton Marsalis... Quote
king ubu Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 16 hours ago, JSngry said: The old software had an easily accessible "dump" for deleted threads. This newest version does not. That's pretty damn chagrin-inducing. What Larry was doing - I was adding a post, and it quoted my previous post, which I didn't want to do. I couldn't get rid of the quoted passage, so I painted it and hit delete - how does that delete an entire thread? Our Moderation Actions menu are on a drop-down at the very bottom right of a page. They don't appear unless you consciously look to perform a moderation task. ] The Quote system in this new software does seem to have a mind of its own, and although I found it useful in the past, I;ve also found it a bit unwieldy in terms of being able to easily delete what sometimes . Now it looks like it's possible for at least one user to get tangled up in the quote box and get his poster-delete code to hop on and bareback on his moderator's delete code. Something ain't right about that. This code be buggin'. Okay, so you can only delete hard and for good, one click and all is gone, no confirmation/reason for deletion, prompt for password? That's crappy indeed, no wonder stuff gets lost then! Quote
JSngry Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 If you delete something though the moderator control, you do have all the normal checks in place. What appears to have happened to Larry was that he was trying to delete content from inside a post that he was in the process of creating, and it ended up deleting the entire thread, with no indication that that's what was going to happen. As far as restoring once deleted, that happens so rarely here, but the few times I've had to do it in the past, there's always a repository of deleted content in the Moderator CP where one can go to restore it if need be. Larry and I both looked pretty much everywhere for such a place that might serve such a function and might house the two deleted Wooley threads but to no avail I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work. Quote
Guy Berger Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Want to chime in on one thing that was brought up in the prior threads - the irritation that these threads devolved into a discussion about Wynton. Let's be honest, Wooley must have known that recording this would generate controversy/hype and boost sales.  (If he didn't, he is incredibly naive.)  There's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't preclude artistic merit and we all have to pay the rent - but it's off-the-mark to complain "Can you guys stop discussing extra-musical controversy"... Guy Quote
JSngry Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Towards that...it's irrational to some extent (and certainly inconsistent, considering all the shit I have bought and will buy), but I have a great hesitancy to purchase this record simply because I don't want to give Wynton any composer/publishing royalties. Not saying that I'm not going to hear it, I most certainly will. And I might actually buy it after hearing it. But, you know, it's in the digital realm. Lots of options that don't involve funneling funds to somebody/something I'd just as not subsidize personally any more than possible. If Wooley puts it out for real that Wynton has waived all royalties for this project, ok, I'm buying it yesterday. Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) I haven't checked, but it should be on Spotify. Only problem I have with going that route is that you're taking more money out of Wooley's hands than Wynton's. I mean, hey, it's your conscience and your money. But, the little bit that kicks back to Wynton in royalties will be of far less consequence to him than the lot more that Wooley collects will mean to him. Just a thought. Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Dolan Quote
MomsMobley Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, Guy Berger said: Want to chime in on one thing that was brought up in the prior threads - the irritation that these threads devolved into a discussion about Wynton. Let's be honest, Wooley must have known that recording this would generate controversy/hype and boost sales.  (If he didn't, he is incredibly naive.)  There's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't preclude artistic merit and we all have to pay the rent - but it's off-the-mark to complain "Can you guys stop discussing extra-musical controversy"... Guy Absolutely and while Wooley admirers aren't wrong to extol his other work, THIS is pure politics and/or piss poor taste. To think the composer of those tunes-- dead-ass on arrival at "best," insipid dogshit at worst (including the solos & rhythm sections)-- is getting even one kouruna in royalties is nauseating. Why not, if Wooley's songbook was light or he wanted a challenge, pay homage to Bobby Bradford, the composer & the trumpeter? Side Q: when has Wynton / Jazz at Lincoln Center done their tribute to John Carter? Or was he not black, virtuosic, intellectual, or composition enough for their "curatorial" blah-blah? If Wooley wanted the attention, fine; he & his fans gotta live with the blowback also. The composer is Bobby Bradford, sho' nuff!   Edited December 10, 2015 by MomsMobley 'entropy' Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Always enjoy reading yet another outburst from our resident cartoon character... Quote
JSngry Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 If I want to give Wooley my money, there's numerous other way to do so. Hell, I'm sure he'll take cash. I know I sure would. Gladly! Realistically, there's far more people who will buy this for the Wynton association than will not buy it for that reason. Net gain for Wooley. Also realistically, this release is creating a broader awareness of Wooley's work outside of this project and will probably a sale or two of other items. Another net gain for Wooley. Can't be whining about lack of visibility and then an effort to gain visibility in the same breath. Different breaths, sure, why not? As far as Moms, cartoon or not, the point re:John Carter is very much on point as far as things in general, and at all levels specifically. In a perfect (in more than one way) world, there would be a repertoire orchestra for, at least, Carter, and there would be a media/resource push to get the information out past where it already is. Nothing to do with Wynton/JALC/LCJO, this music is beyond most if not all of their scopes, stated or otherwise (although if Wynton's not gotten his head around Bobby Bradford in strictly trumpeting terms by now, I'd be surprised). Not going to be a lot of people, relatively speaking, who will want in once they find out, but there are more than just one or three, I'm sure. If nothing else, establish the "narrative", people love narratives these days. Attach the music to the narrative, hey...stuff often grows once planted. This is obviously not that perfect world, but a man can dream. Quote
Scott Dolan Posted December 10, 2015 Report Posted December 10, 2015 Other ways, yes. Regardless, if you refuse to buy the album you're still taking far more money out of the hands of Wooley than you are Marsalis. That was my only point.  Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.