BFT 249 - Give The Bass Player Some

[clifford_thornton]

I was born in 1977 and the Desperate Bicycles weren't on my radar until 2008 or so...

Anyway, even though Rod guessed everything already, I am still quite enjoying the BFT. Was AWOL for November and will have to go back and listen to Sangrey's... sometimes life just catches up.

[JSngry]

I like how the Groovies play Beatles songs like a bar band who's not playing for anybody but the people in the bar. That's how it should be done, straight and to the point, no pretense, just drink up and let loos, nobody's in this but us. Like the Beatles in the Cavern Club. Just a really good bar band.

[felser]

4 minutes ago, JSngry said:

I like how the Groovies play Beatles songs like a bar band who's not playing for anybody but the people in the bar. That's how it should be done, straight and to the point, no pretense, just drink up and let loos, nobody's in this but us. Like the Beatles in the Cavern Club. Just a really good bar band.

Great description.  the Grooovies of that era did that so well.  I have a lot of their output from then, and listen to it.  Plus the contemporaneous Chris Wilson solo albums.  All much more convincing to me than their early Roy Loney rockabilly phase.

[JSngry]

Can't say that I live in bar band world much past the time it takes to play a gig and get paid. Not enough for me to hold on to after it's over. But the energy and communication (unevolved as it so often is)  certainly is real, and is missing from too many jazz gigs. No reason it shouldn't live there too.

[tkeith]

Pardon the interruption, but I need to make a housekeeping post.  (And John, I *will* get to this test in the next week.)

I've run into an issue backing up my site data and had to reach out to the support team of the host site.  The result was a warning about the amount of data.  I'm not fighting them on it, so I've got to make some changes to the encoding of the files.  I've edited the "how to" thread to reflect this and will not waste time/space here with that explanation.  I *DO* ask that *EVERYONE* who is going to present a test PLEASE review the How To (click the words "How To" -- it's an active link to the thread) as it really does make a huge difference in managing the data.  Sorry for the interruption and thanks for understanding.

 

[Dan Gould]

1 hour ago, tkeith said:

Pardon the interruption, but I need to make a housekeeping post.  (And John, I *will* get to this test in the next week.)

I've run into an issue backing up my site data and had to reach out to the support team of the host site.  The result was a warning about the amount of data.  I'm not fighting them on it, so I've got to make some changes to the encoding of the files.  I've edited the "how to" thread to reflect this and will not waste time/space here with that explanation.  I *DO* ask that *EVERYONE* who is going to present a test PLEASE review the How To (click the words "How To" -- it's an active link to the thread) as it really does make a huge difference in managing the data.  Sorry for the interruption and thanks for understanding.

 

So  I am understanding I can encode at 320 but you will convert to the lower bitrate? Is it better to just send you at 128 or you want downloads for those who do so to be a bit better?

 

 

[tkeith]

On 12/12/2024 at 9:19 AM, Dan Gould said:

So  I am understanding I can encode at 320 but you will convert to the lower bitrate? Is it better to just send you at 128 or you want downloads for those who do so to be a bit better?

 

 

I will convert to lower for the online. If people want the higher quality DL, that would be up to the presenter.  It's just a matter of space on the server (which should NOT be an issue, but somehow is, and I'm tired of fighting with people working from a script whose first language is not my own).  I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the online player chokes things down to 128, anyway, for "optimization".  Basically, I'd say this: If you want a high-quality download available, keep doing what you're doing.  If you're comfortable with adjusting the bit-rate, it saves me a hot minute on my end.  If you've glazed over by this point in the response, just keep doing what you're doing. 

[tkeith]

track 01 - Love the feel of this.  The piano is so understated it's just perfect.  No new ground broken here, but that's not the point.  Does just what it wants to.  And the lyrics are still incredibly pertinent (and, apparently, ignored).  I don't know who this is, but I love it.

track 02 - Sounds like one of those early-90s Charles Lloyd ECM dates, which is fine by me.  Piano is a heavy McCoy influence, but not one I'm familiar with.  Nice Africa quote on the bass at the beginning of the solo.  Didn't know this was live.  Another winner.  Whoo!  This bass player is burnin'!  Almost sounds like earlier Alex Blake in spots.  Maybe Avery Sharpe?  Tenor, unfortunately, is underwhelming, as is so often the case with practice room monsters.  Tremendous player, but doesn't make me care.  Unfortunate.  It drags on at the end.  What needed to be said has been said.  Move on.

track 03 - Electric bass and I just don't agree.  I'm certain Tim and I will disagree about this one.  Works a lot better when the guitar comes (but takes awhle to get there).  Sounds more acid-rock to me than Jazz, but on that basis, it's fine.  Got a bit of an Allman Brothers feel in those guitar harmonies.  Drums are a bit more proggy than that.  Mayhaps The Byrds (or adjacent?).  I don't like the bass either way but the rest of it (the group as a unit) works very well.  In the right mood, I'd take second helpings of this.  Runs a bit long, but could be as much my mood of the day as anything about the music.  Something very familiar about those drums.  Loses me with the vocals.  Doesn't bring what it thinks it does.  Cut it at 7:22, and you've got a winner.

track 04 -  YES!  The REAL McCoy.  Gilmore, Strozier, Thad, and his little brother.  Easily one of my favorite cuts, ever.  I remember working an overnight for a pump test when I was working environmental.  Had a truck with a decent stereo and this came on (forget if it was my cassette or a DJ with taste), and I CRANKED it.  11PM, sitting in the middle of a well field in the cold losing my mind with the radio cranked to 11.  Worth the whole duration if only for Elvin's break at the end (but really, not a weak moment on this track).  Gilmore is a god to me.  Poor Frank has to follow that guy.  Does it, but man, that had to be stressful.  And Jimmy holding it all down... man, what a great moment.  That bottom lip rolled over, moaning.  So great. Elvin -- ELECTRIC!

track 05 - Not a fair programming choice, bud.  This would be in the same category as track 3, but following that last track, it's hopeless.  But if I'm GOING to listen to rock, this is the sort of thing I like.  Has that grooviness of late-60s to early-mid-70s that I like.  For a guy that was never into the drug scene, I sure as hell did enjoy the music.   

track 06 - Not into the snake charmer, but this bass!!!!  Yes, please!  It's like listening to Tim with that beastly low-end.  I might give the pianist the Eddie Coyle treatment if he doesn't step back -- lemme hear that bass, man!  OOOOOH!  Okay!  Seven Minds.  That's not Sam, is it?  Jesus!  MOSTROUS!  Obviously Billy Higgins.  I want to say Walton on the chords on the head, but then he gets much more greasy than I'm used to for Cedar.  Seems a bit more angular than Cedar, but every time we get to the top of the form, it feels like Cedar.  I probably have this and have just neglected it (I HOPE so!).  Such a great tune.  Okay, I got impatient.  Apparently, based on the track time, it IS the full magic triangle from Sam's album where this is the title track.  Man... this digs in.  Strange to me to hear Cedar this aggressive.  When I saw him (about 10 years after this) it was straight bop and the Eastern Rebellion stuff, but no angry left-hand.  Man, I LOVE this.  Sam is so filthy.  So was that Walton playing whatever wood flute-like item that was?

track 07 - Obiously Mulligan from the 70s (my favorite period for him -- don't judge me).  I love how he dug in during this era. There was something heavier about his approach to my ear.  That certainly sounds like Chet, so this is the Carnegie Hall Concert.  Love this record, even if it IS CTI!   

track 08 - Another weird transition.  Alternate take?  Vocals seem more compressed, but does sound like them.  Purchased the box set awhile back and sprung for the British Mastered version -- huge difference compared to the shit they put out here.  Like hearing it all for the first time.

track 09 - You know I'm in.  Has a later Sonny Simmons feel early on.  Doesn't quite maintain that, but it works.  Bartz influence here, but this isn't him.  Like Bartz feel with more of a Sonny Criss sound.  Busy, but it works.  Okay, hold on, now THAT is actually Bartz.  Got that tenor-ish edge to his alto sound.  Guy just has something.  I assume this is more recent as his time is not as aggressive as when he was younger.  Maybe with one of his students?  I'm not familiar enough with the names that would encompass, but that's him, for sure.  Not in love with the melody, but it's a means to an end.

track 10 - You'd have a good Jazz side and a good rock/pop side if this were pogrammed that way.  This way, the rock stuff suffers for me. (I suppose a "rock guy" would feel just the opposite)  This is gray day music (which today is).  Not sure my mood was solid enough for this, today.  This one's a bit Gilbert O'Sullivan for me at the moment.  My cousin would say, "that's a real wrist-slitter."  Dark, but accurate.  No idea who it is.

track 11 - No idea what this is.  Perfect pairing with the last track, though.  This is certainly your most eclectic mix that I've heard.  Think I might re-listen with the tracks programmed into sides by genre.  

Cool set, John.  Predictably, I enjoyed the vast majority, to different degrees.

 

On 12/1/2024 at 3:03 PM, Dan Gould said:

Feeling baritonists less and less lately. Not sure why.

I feel very attacked.

@felser said

"Interesting take.  That pianist has been called many things, good and bad, but I don't remember "pedestrian" being one of them!  I agree the tenor solo is the low point, despite the pedigree."
 

Might I assume this is Ravi, then? 

[Dan Gould]

2 hours ago, tkeith said:

 

 

I feel very attacked.

 

 

Just wait until January.

<green smilie>

[felser]

3 hours ago, tkeith said:

track 01 - Love the feel of this.  The piano is so understated it's just perfect.  No new ground broken here, but that's not the point.  Does just what it wants to.  And the lyrics are still incredibly pertinent (and, apparently, ignored).  I don't know who this is, but I love it.

Was hoping that you and others would like this one.  In a total fluke, this album went to #1 on the pop charts three years after it was released, with a corresponding fluke #1 pop single.

track 02 - Sounds like one of those early-90s Charles Lloyd ECM dates, which is fine by me.  Piano is a heavy McCoy influence, but not one I'm familiar with.  Nice Africa quote on the bass at the beginning of the solo.  Didn't know this was live.  Another winner.  Whoo!  This bass player is burnin'!  Almost sounds like earlier Alex Blake in spots.  Maybe Avery Sharpe?  Tenor, unfortunately, is underwhelming, as is so often the case with practice room monsters.  Tremendous player, but doesn't make me care.  Unfortunate.  It drags on at the end.  What needed to be said has been said.  Move on.

You and everyone else in this neighborhood are familiar with the pianist and the bass player.  I totally agree with you on the tenor player, who has never done anything for me (though his father wasn't half bad).

track 03 - Electric bass and I just don't agree.  I'm certain Tim and I will disagree about this one.  Works a lot better when the guitar comes (but takes awhle to get there).  Sounds more acid-rock to me than Jazz, but on that basis, it's fine.  Got a bit of an Allman Brothers feel in those guitar harmonies.  Drums are a bit more proggy than that.  Mayhaps The Byrds (or adjacent?).  I don't like the bass either way but the rest of it (the group as a unit) works very well.  In the right mood, I'd take second helpings of this.  Runs a bit long, but could be as much my mood of the day as anything about the music.  Something very familiar about those drums.  Loses me with the vocals.  Doesn't bring what it thinks it does.  Cut it at 7:22, and you've got a winner.

Yeah, I though about Tim when I chose this one.  I often do stop this cut at 7:22 when playing it.  The vocalist is the bass player, so you can focus on who the bad guy is!  I like both aspects of his musicianship.  The other cut on this album side is, to me, one of the landmark recordings in rock history, though not universally recognizes as such.  Recorded around the same time the Allman Brothers were recording their first two albums.  British group.

track 04 -  YES!  The REAL McCoy.  Gilmore, Strozier, Thad, and his little brother.  Easily one of my favorite cuts, ever.  I remember working an overnight for a pump test when I was working environmental.  Had a truck with a decent stereo and this came on (forget if it was my cassette or a DJ with taste), and I CRANKED it.  11PM, sitting in the middle of a well field in the cold losing my mind with the radio cranked to 11.  Worth the whole duration if only for Elvin's break at the end (but really, not a weak moment on this track).  Gilmore is a god to me.  Poor Frank has to follow that guy.  Does it, but man, that had to be stressful.  And Jimmy holding it all down... man, what a great moment.  That bottom lip rolled over, moaning.  So great. Elvin -- ELECTRIC!

Agreed on all points, nothing to add!

track 05 - Not a fair programming choice, bud.  This would be in the same category as track 3, but following that last track, it's hopeless.  But if I'm GOING to listen to rock, this is the sort of thing I like.  Has that grooviness of late-60s to early-mid-70s that I like.  For a guy that was never into the drug scene, I sure as hell did enjoy the music.   

Late 60's L.A.  Great group to me.  I'm the same as you in that I always was way into the psychedelic music scene without being in the drug scene at all - that was true for me in real time when the stuff was being recorded/released (thank you WEBN, who used this cut as a theme song, & WMMR!), and remains true to this day.

track 06 - Not into the snake charmer, but this bass!!!!  Yes, please!  It's like listening to Tim with that beastly low-end.  I might give the pianist the Eddie Coyle treatment if he doesn't step back -- lemme hear that bass, man!  OOOOOH!  Okay!  Seven Minds.  That's not Sam, is it?  Jesus!  MOSTROUS!  Obviously Billy Higgins.  I want to say Walton on the chords on the head, but then he gets much more greasy than I'm used to for Cedar.  Seems a bit more angular than Cedar, but every time we get to the top of the form, it feels like Cedar.  I probably have this and have just neglected it (I HOPE so!).  Such a great tune.  Okay, I got impatient.  Apparently, based on the track time, it IS the full magic triangle from Sam's album where this is the title track.  Man... this digs in.  Strange to me to hear Cedar this aggressive.  When I saw him (about 10 years after this) it was straight bop and the Eastern Rebellion stuff, but no angry left-hand.  Man, I LOVE this.  Sam is so filthy.  So was that Walton playing whatever wood flute-like item that was?

Again, spot on and nothing to add, and of course, thought of Tim for this one also.  This is the track which inspired my BFT name choice.

track 07 - Obiously Mulligan from the 70s (my favorite period for him -- don't judge me).  I love how he dug in during this era. There was something heavier about his approach to my ear.  That certainly sounds like Chet, so this is the Carnegie Hall Concert.  Love this record, even if it IS CTI!   

Also my favorite Mulligan period.  I love his work with Brubeck.  And a CTI gem for sure.

track 08 - Another weird transition.  Alternate take?  Vocals seem more compressed, but does sound like them.  Purchased the box set awhile back and sprung for the British Mastered version -- huge difference compared to the shit they put out here.  Like hearing it all for the first time.

You probably are hearing this version for the first time.  Right song, wrong group!

track 09 - You know I'm in.  Has a later Sonny Simmons feel early on.  Doesn't quite maintain that, but it works.  Bartz influence here, but this isn't him.  Like Bartz feel with more of a Sonny Criss sound.  Busy, but it works.  Okay, hold on, now THAT is actually Bartz.  Got that tenor-ish edge to his alto sound.  Guy just has something.  I assume this is more recent as his time is not as aggressive as when he was younger.  Maybe with one of his students?  I'm not familiar enough with the names that would encompass, but that's him, for sure.  Not in love with the melody, but it's a means to an end.

You nailed it as Jim also did - Bartz showing up one of his students on their album.  Interesting that no one has ID'd the composition (that I recall), and that you don't care for it!

track 10 - You'd have a good Jazz side and a good rock/pop side if this were pogrammed that way.  This way, the rock stuff suffers for me. (I suppose a "rock guy" would feel just the opposite)  This is gray day music (which today is).  Not sure my mood was solid enough for this, today.  This one's a bit Gilbert O'Sullivan for me at the moment.  My cousin would say, "that's a real wrist-slitter."  Dark, but accurate.  No idea who it is.

Gilbert O'Sullivan was a one-shot (to me, a no-shot).  This guy had releases from 1958 to 2021, in several styles, and was a pretty big deal in the 60's and early 70's.  This was a top-5 album in 1968 and a landmark in pop psych, his masterpiece.  I love the production on it, and the words sounded great in 1968 and still ring true today.

track 11 - No idea what this is.  Perfect pairing with the last track, though.  This is certainly your most eclectic mix that I've heard.  Think I might re-listen with the tracks programmed into sides by genre.  

Yes, you were able to get what I heard, how well this track paired with the previous track.  That's why it's on here.

Cool set, John.  Predictably, I enjoyed the vast majority, to different degrees.

Thanks for listening and responding (and hosting!) Really glad you enjoyed so many cuts.  Thought I would let my freak flag fly some this go-around, knowing I would likely take some heat for doing so.

 

I feel very attacked.

@felser said

"Interesting take.  That pianist has been called many things, good and bad, but I don't remember "pedestrian" being one of them!  I agree the tenor solo is the low point, despite the pedigree."

Might I assume this is Ravi, then? 

Yes indeed!

 

[JSngry]

"that's a real wrist-slitter." 

Anybody who could be talked into actual suicide by any kind of a pop record deserves their fate.

Although, accepting personal responsibility for thinning the herd if to be commended, I suppose.

This is more like it. Good old-fashioned self loathing rage. And living to collect the royalties!

 

 

[felser]

26 minutes ago, JSngry said:

"that's a real wrist-slitter." 

Anybody who could be talked into actual suicide by any kind of a pop record deserves their fate.

Although, accepting personal responsibility for thinning the herd if to be commended, I suppose.

This is more like it. Good old-fashioned self loathing rage. And living to collect the royalties!

 

 

How much extra credit oo I get  for completing the circle?  All caught in the same Web(b).

 

[JSngry]

Lacks bite, but circle of self-pity duly noted!

For the record, Rivers did fine (sometimes definitive) work in the self-pity mode, but that song needs edge.

[felser]

3 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Lacks bite, but circle of self-pity duly noted!

For the record, Rivers did fine (sometimes definitive) work in the self-pity mode, but that song needs edge.

This one doesn't.  And it even went to #1 on the pop charts:

 

[JSngry]

And that is what I mean about definitive work in the genre.