Clipped and Shorn Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 "If I can bring just a few into the light it's all worth it! Bird lives." and ....A good reason to recommend that people wanting to know something about the history of this era of music should give a listen to the actual genius who was the inspiration and model for ALL of these lesser known players on rare and obscure collectibles, namely Charles Parker himself. The man known as "Bird" can be found on numerous recordings and reissued sets which are neither rare nor expensive and are truly the essential listening if one wants to know what this music was all about. All of these other players' creativity and ideas pale in comparison to the source: Bird. This was the very inescapable phenomenon of this "once in a century" genius, and players on every instrument were in awe of his work and innovations. My recommendation is to study and understand (dig) the source material before venturing into rare collectibles when you don't know the historical perspective. It is about being able to grasp this creativity and the excitement of the music, it is not about just pointing to one's rare and valuable collectible possessions....it is first and foremost about INFORMED music appreciation and the process thereof. Often when hearing these derivative players, one is inspired to track down where it comes from. In the end the jazz collector wants to get it ALL, just as fanaticism with any other obsession. Better to start with a wide historical perspective, in my opinion, then, later branch out to these other stylists and "imitators" and less "essential" practitioners of the trends. I wince at those who are gahgah over Getz who never heard of or heard why it is Lestor Young at the source. Another good thing about being invested in the source innovators, if you never went further in your collecting, you would still be highly informed about the music, and not really have missed all that much else...in a way. Granted it is all good, and any place is a good place to start, but before going further into a microcosm, my recommendation to the beginner, is to gain a perspective, which means, obtaining all the really "important" material which is invariably widely available at normal prices. -Taj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted April 25, 2004 Author Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 12:54:39 AM T_Shomaker wrote: Why are all of the records you like so expensive? ---------------- They're not. The Sonny Criss Prestige and Muse LPs routinely sell for between $10 and $20 in near mint condition--they have very little collector value. And I agree with Clipped. But most folks around here will not be able to get beyond the "lo-fi" nature of Charlie Parker's Dial and Savoy recordings. You have to listen to the music, not the fidelity, but that's a problem with most listeners. That's why I never reccomend pre-1950 recordings unless I know for sure this is not a big concern. And while some of the later Norman Granz Bird recordings are "hi-fi" you CAN'T start there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazman Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 7:24:16 AM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 4/25/2004 12:54:39 AM T_Shomaker wrote: Why are all of the records you like so expensive? ---------------- A lot of it has to do with showing off. Kind of like, My tastes are so exquisite that they cannnot be satisfied with normal-priced records. One reason these records were made in such small quantities is that very few people liked them, because the music is boring to most people. The music on them isn't the main thing anymore, regardless, it's their rarity. They are collectibles. ---------------- "There is no accounting for taste. I heard Janet Jackson sing for the first time recently, and was amazed at how weak her voice is. There are people that actually listen to her CDs?! But I certainly don't mind if people enjoy her singing; more power to them." More Parrot droppings. The ignorance and propaganda program of some people know no bounds! Klipsch out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted April 25, 2004 Author Share Posted April 25, 2004 Dave Koz is better than James Carter because Dave sells more CDs. Norah Jones is better than Cassandra Wilson because Norah sells more CDs. And if one argues that this is WRONG then they are an elitist a-hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:04:22 PM jazman wrote: More Parrot droppings. The ignorance and propaganda program of some people know no bounds! Klipsch out. ---------------- More Jazzman hatred. Personal attacks aren't allowed on weekends either, Jazzman. When the cat's away the mice will play, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:11:32 PM Allan Songer wrote: Dave Koz is better than James Carter because Dave sells more CDs. Norah Jones is better than Cassandra Wilson because Norah sells more CDs. And if one argues that this is WRONG then they are an elitist a-hole. ---------------- No one except you is trying to equate "better" to popularity. "Better" is subjective. Where the elitism comes in is when people are worried about their status among their peers. Take Norah Jones for instance. It was okay to like her before she was popular, but now it isn't cool among certain folks, because she is popular. To be in the elite crowd, one has to have somewhat unpopular tastes. People who really love music don't care whether it is cool to like something or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazman Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 It seems when anyone speaks the truth about Parrot droppings, instead of re-evaluating your statements, you always choose to cry "personal attack". I stand by every word I said. If the moderators of this forum consider my statement is unfit and decide to ban me, so be it. How or what someone chooses to spend his hard earned dollars on is their business!!!!! AND What does Janet Jackson have to do with this thread?????????????, other than your preoccupation with the Jackson family???????? You're like a kid in elemetary school who creates disharmony on the playground, then runs yelling, teacher, teacher, attempting to point the finger toward someone other than himself as the problem as soon as the other kids are ready to trounce him for his behavior. How you survived to adulthood is indeed a mystery. Klipsch out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 This thread is a GREAT example of how this forum can really be a waste of time. It started out with a nice rec. and good info. from Allan. It is quickly turning into another one of those threads where the reader has to go searching for the good info. (i.e, C&S's reply) amongst the cheap shots and attacks. I guess my last post in this thead was also guilty of not really adding much to the topic as well. At least I can honestly say I opened this thread looking to read what Allan was offering instead of looking to use it as a platform to continue an ongoing personal thing. If you don't like the author and you know you will disagree with whatever he or she says, it would be best if you just stayed off of the thread. Parrot doesn't like Allan, Jazman doesn't like Parrot, Nos and Parrot don't like Kelly - we get it. I don't need to freakin' read it every 4 days when a thread goes to hell. You all contribute so many good things to this place - it's a shame that recently more harm has been done than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 "And I agree with Clipped. But most folks around here will not be able to get beyond the "lo-fi" nature of Charlie Parker's Dial and Savoy recordings. You have to listen to the music, not the fidelity, but that's a problem with most listeners. That's why I never reccomend pre-1950 recordings unless I know for sure this is not a big concern. And while some of the later Norman Granz Bird recordings are "hi-fi" you CAN'T start there!" I agree with Alan, the fidelity is an issue with the historical material, the problem is even more complex with Prez because you have to hear the definitive solos in early Basie material from the late 30s. So, screw fidelity, if they cannot dig where the music is coming from with the pre 50s recordings, maybe they have no business there anyway. So yes, a later recording is a good place to start, and there is certainly a mountain of great jazz after the 50s, but to progress in jazz appreciation they should read good books about it and then learn how to listen for the soul of the music in the earlier recordinsgs. Plenty of nicely recorded hi-fi material by important and essential players: Coltrane, Miles, Monk, Dexter Gordon, Wayne Shorter, Mingus, and on and on...... No need to get overly skewed into Getz, Art Pepper, Chet Baker, Sonny Criss, Tina Brooks, Herbie Nichols etc. while missing more essential, basic, and less obscure readily available recordings by the major monsters of the music. If you do not know Monk, why start out with some Herbie Nichols recordings.....that is my point. The good thing about Alan's recommendations is that he is giving you leads to good music that is well recorded, records you will be proud to own, so hopefully your satisfaction with those recordings will pique your interest and lead you to wanting more information and context. So if you like Sonny Criss, you will be in a good place to dig the more "historical" recordings of Bird and you will have fun realizing....hey that is what turned Sonny Criss on..... etc. -Taj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted April 25, 2004 Author Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:22:30 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:11:32 PM Allan Songer wrote: Dave Koz is better than James Carter because Dave sells more CDs. Norah Jones is better than Cassandra Wilson because Norah sells more CDs. And if one argues that this is WRONG then they are an elitist a-hole. ---------------- No one except you is trying to equate "better" to popularity. "Better" is subjective. Where the elitism comes in is when people are worried about their status among their peers. Take Norah Jones for instance. It was okay to like her before she was popular, but now it isn't cool among certain folks, because she is popular. To be in the elite crowd, one has to have somewhat unpopular tastes. People who really love music don't care whether it is cool to like something or not. ---------------- I love music. Not ALL music. Can't stand rock and roll for the most part--especially what I hear these days. Some Country music is OK--I really like hearing ALison Krauss whenever she pops up on the radar. I like Lyle Lovett a lot too--I even have a few of his CDs. Tom Waits is brilliant. I could go on and on. But these are artists I don't know all that much about and I don't feel at all qualified to jump into any discussion about their music. I guess you could say I'm not PASSIONATE about it the way I am about Lee Morgan or Hank Mobley or Stanley Turrentine. Hmmmmm. I like Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Dre, etc. just fine. They're VERY popular! But I'll bet you don't consider this stuff music, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:34:51 PM jazman wrote: It seems when anyone speaks the truth about Parrot droppings, instead of re-evaluating your statements, you always choose to cry "personal attack". I stand by every word I said. If the moderators of this forum consider my statement is unfit and decide to ban me, so be it. How or what someone chooses to spend his hard earned dollars on is their business!!!!! AND What does Janet Jackson have to do with this thread?????????????, other than your preoccupation with the Jackson family???????? You're like a kid in elemetary school who creates disharmony on the playground, then runs yelling, teacher, teacher, attempting to point the finger toward someone other than himself as the problem as soon as the other kids are ready to trounce him for his behavior. How you survived to adulthood is indeed a mystery. Klipsch out.---------------- Paul, Did you put your tail between your legs after this post ? I will have to admit this is the best I have ever heard from the keyboard of Jazzman ! Not saying this is true or false mind you just hilarious ! Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Tom Waits! Man, I really should get together with this cat. He lives right here in my neighborhood and records at a studio around here.....people keep telling me that he would dig my instrument collection etc. I keep waiting for the lead that will get us together......I see him around here....like at a gas station....or at the video rental place.......one of these days..... -K6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 I agree, Craig, that was Jazzman at his finest. Absolutely hilarious. Tito Jackson has more talent than Michael and Janet combined, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 12:47:08 PM Allan Songer wrote: They're not. The Sonny Criss Prestige and Muse LPs routinely sell for between $10 and $20 in near mint condition--they have very little collector value. ---------------- And the CD reissue by Gitanes Jazz is a whopping $8.99 CDN at the record shop near my place. So much for the "my exclusive and expensive taste" theory. "Jazz in Paris" is a marvelous line of reissues mostly from Brunswick lps. They have a decent remastering. They also have reissued old Django's lps that would be otherwise unobtainium now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:43:57 PM Allan Songer wrote: I like Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Dre, etc. just fine. They're VERY popular! But I'll bet you don't consider this stuff music, do you? ---------------- That's utter garbage. Rich guys posing as angry toughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Hey, thanks Alan, I didn't have all of that Sonny Criss material, I will go asap up to Amazon and get them, I don't mind CD reissues, I don't have the time or the inclination right now to be tracking down rare vinyl for every darn piece of jazz out there. C&S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Speaker Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, in this corner we have Allan Songer, audiophile extraordinaire a virtual walking encyclopedia, blah, blah, blah and all that Jazz. And in this corner wearing the bright blue trunks is paulparrot, informative electronics guru of the highest order..... LETS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted April 25, 2004 Author Share Posted April 25, 2004 ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:58:09 PM paulparrot wrote: ---------------- On 4/25/2004 1:43:57 PM Allan Songer wrote: I like Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Dre, etc. just fine. They're VERY popular! But I'll bet you don't consider this stuff music, do you? ---------------- That's utter garbage. Rich guys posing as angry toughs. ---------------- You know not of what you speak. While I'm not all that in love with some of their recent work, the accomplishments of this trio in the years from 1988-1993 or so is ASTONISHING. Rich guys? They grew up in some of the NASTIEST, dirt-poor nieghborhoods of Long Beach and Compton. Just becuase that through thier GENIUS they were able to become wealthy it's not really fair to say they are "rich guys posing as angry toughs." It all started with the BRILLIANT "Straight Outta Compton" in 1988. When I first heard this record I was floored by both the lyrics and insane beat of the music. This is visceral, honest and important art and it made me proud to be an American when I heard it (I konw that sounds corny, but its true!)--I know of no other place where an album like this could come out of NOWEHRE (Compton) and sell in the millions--especially considering the brutal truth of the lyrics. This is one of the greatest albums of all time--and I'm talking ALL genres and types of music! The albums that followed from this core of artists over the next five year are incredible with Dre's "The Chronic," Ice Cube's "AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted" and "Kill at Will" and Snoop's "Doggie Style" being real standouts. http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drf600/f601/f60172iv73v.jpg http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drc500/c570/c57034necut.jpg http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drc300/c391/c39105tjo29.jpg http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/dre700/e763/e76321uhg2o.jpg I believe that THE single greatest pop "single" of the last fifteen years was Ice Cube's "It Was a Good Day." This one packs such a wallop it will leave you staggering if you're not ready for it. It is so eloquent, so sad, so RIGHT-ON and hilarious too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 It is interesting that a $10 to $20 album can cause such an uproar. I'm glad to help Allan out, as I have lusted after an album by Stackridge for twenty five years called Fotheringay, I believe. It has the song "Slark" on it, a fifteen minute British pub skiffle song about a mythical lady of the lake type character. It's a great song to drink beer by, and I'm sad to say I knew this song by heart when I knew Sonny Rollins only from his sax Break on Foreigner's "Urgent." What a dummy It is rather disconcerting when you can assume you will get attacked if you post any type of advice or guidance. We still have vestiges of free will, so do try to let us do a little exploring without the requisite much ado bout nuddin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Alan is an informative jazz buff, not an angry tough. But anyone who knows the music of Mingus, for example, knows that "anger " and "toughness" are part of the underpinnings of jazz.....which is not sentimental, saccharine, or wompy, when it is good. The problem with detecting WIMPs is that they rarely interact with 'normal matter' other than gravitationaly. from the world of Modern Physics: MACHO = "massive compact halo objects" WIMP = "weakly interacting massive particles" What is the Dark Matter dear? C&S Today there are two main groups of candidates for the role of dark matter (while there are definitely more than two, these are the most plausible). The first group is made up of MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). Machos are non-luminous (do not reflect light) objects that make up halos around galaxies. Astronomers believe that Machos are made up primarily of red dwarf stars and black holes. Red dwarf stars are an accumulation of hydrogen which has collected under it's own gravity. The principle which governs our sun, is that when a mass of hydrogen collapses due to it's own gravity the pressure starts a nuclear reaction emitting radiation and light. Due to the relatively low mass of red dwarfs, they do not have enough gravity to ignite when they form. Therefore they are non-luminous, but they do have a large enough mass which can account for gravitational effects. Black Holes on the other hand have an over abundance of matter. Due to it's own enormous gravity all that matter collapses into a relatively small area. Since the black hole is so dense, nothing that comes close to it can escape it's immense gravitational field, including light. For this reason Black holes are truly black. Stars which are at a 'safe' distance from a black hole will circle it, this is in fact one of the main reasons why black holes were first theorized (stars orbiting a seemingly non existent point). Together in a large halo, Black holes and Red dwarfs theoretically would comprise enough matter to account for the observed motion of galaxies and the luminous objects within them. The second group of candidates for dark matter are called Weakly Interactive Massive Particles (WIMPs). Particle physicists theorize that WIMPs are tiny non-baryonic particles that usually only interact with baryonic particles gravitationaly. Therefore they would pass through 'normal matter'. The problem with detecting WIMPs is that they rarely interact with 'normal matter' other than gravitationaly. In order for WIMPs to be a plausible candidate for the explanation of dark matter there must be millions of WIMP's passing through 'normal matter' every few seconds. While some would argue that WIMPs were only theorized because they gave a 'quick fix' to the problem of dark matter, most physicists believe that they do exist in some form. MACHO's are sought after by astronomers and WIMPs by physicists. Therefore there is little agreement between the two fields on the nature of dark matter. But most astronomers would agree that MACHOs alone do not make up enough accountable mass. Therefore there are some scientists who believe that dark matter may be a combination of both WIMPs and MACHOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts