Cecil Taylor
Amos Omondi
A huge pimple on the face of jazz.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
vali...@my-deja.com
After reading your Taylor threads we may come to the conclusion that
you don't like Cecil Taylor's music. Thanks for the information Mr.
Omondi.
-Chuck
JC Martin
news:963oov$6vv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
>
>
> A huge pimple on the face of jazz.
A desperate troll he is.
-JC
Ulf Åbjörnsson
JC Martin skrev ...
> A desperate troll he is.
>
pimple theory sticks.
Ulf
crib
<< A desperate troll he is. >>
he has seemed rather desperate lately, hasn't he?
listening suggestions and passive tactics aren't enough for him, recently; he's
felt the need to go on rather frequent active attacks, and he doesn't seem to
be stirring up much response.
i almost feel sorry for him. i mean, when he was just proudly offering his
listening suggestions, and laughing at all the idiots who responded and took
shots at him, he was funny (and right). this, though...
...this is getting pathetic.
crib
Xpunky Bash
Your exophoric references to Cecil Taylor are difficult to fathom. How
about an explanation ?
Xpunky Bash
arovo
Amos Omondi
crib...@aol.com.go.away (crib) wrote:
> listening suggestions and passive tactics aren't enough for him,
recently; he's
> felt the need to go on rather frequent active attacks
Surely, that would be in the spirit of the Burns-Marsalis month.
>
> i almost feel sorry for him. i mean, when he was just proudly
offering his
> listening suggestions, and laughing at all the idiots who responded
and took
> shots at him, he was funny (and right). this, though...
>
> ...this is getting pathetic.
>
> crib
I agree; and I urge to to stop.
Amos Omondi
crib
<< Surely, that would be in the spirit of the Burns-Marsalis month. >>
well, there's a response, and a distinction.
the response is: "well, why would you sink to their level?" i mean...hell, i
agree with you; i got sick of the burns tirades loooong ago. i just chose not
to read 'em. you might have done the same. either way, i certainly didn't
decide to post thread after thread of "burns comments = waste of bandwidth"
sermons.
the distinction is that while this anti-burns campaign was waged by more people
than i care to count, this anti-taylor response (like taylor and burns are
archenemies, or something...seems like an attack on keith jarrett would be more
fitting) is being waged by...well, you. the effect is *quite* different. when
it's coming from a bunch of people, it's aggravating; when it's coming from one
person, it's just kinda pathetic. it's the difference between mob lunacy and a
guy mumbling to himself while he rummages through a garbage can.
crib
Igor Danilishen
"arovo" <aro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MIkh6.14$BW5....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> =King of Jazz
>
>
>
Amos Omondi
crib...@aol.com.go.away (crib) wrote:
> amos responds, re: my "frequent active attacks" comment:
>
> << Surely, that would be in the spirit of the Burns-Marsalis month. >>
>
> well, there's a response, and a distinction.
>
> the response is: "well, why would you sink to their level?" i
mean...hell, i
> agree with you; i got sick of the burns tirades loooong ago. i just
chose not
> to read 'em. you might have done the same. either way, i certainly
didn't
> decide to post thread after thread of "burns comments = waste of
bandwidth"
> sermons.
The answer to the question: Because I am a man of the people; when
circumstance demands it, I will speak their language. The rest of your
comments quite interesting. In the present context, you could say that
I am inspired by the people who day after day would scream here about
the documentary -- how it was just the way the knew it would be, how it
was totally useless and they'd given up hope of anything useful, etc. --
but never seemed capable of tearing themselves away from the tube.
The other reason I find your comments interesting is that they contain
a message I have often tried to send -- with little success, I'm
afraid -- to people who respond to postings by one poster with very
strong pro-jazz views.
> the distinction is that while this anti-burns campaign was waged by
more people
> than i care to count, this anti-taylor response (like taylor and
burns are
> archenemies, or something...seems like an attack on keith jarrett
would be more
> fitting) is being waged by...well, you. the effect is *quite*
different. when
> it's coming from a bunch of people, it's aggravating; when it's
coming from one
> person, it's just kinda pathetic. it's the difference between mob
lunacy and a
> guy mumbling to himself while he rummages through a garbage can.
You seem to believe that the might of numbers makes right or
automatically confers some advantage. I disagree: in the lunatic mob,
each member strives to prove that he or she can shout the loudest,a nd
so nobody hears anybody else; on the other hand, the solitary nut is at
least guaranteed the opportunity to continually listen to interesting
conversation -- and on subjects of his own choosing. Besides, I take
my example from that great Jew who stood for the truth, and tried to
lead his fellow man to it, but was rewarded by being nailed to a tree.
He later rose from the dead. Either that or his followers twisted
biology.
Ulf Åbjörnsson
arovo <aro...@hotmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:MIkh6.14$BW5....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> =King of Jazz
>
>
The overstatement of the last two millenniums!
Ulf
arovo
>>
>The overstatement of the last two millenniums!
well your post gets the biggest lie of the week award
cheers
arovo
>strong pro-jazz views.
correction.
respond to one poster with extreme "fuck you this is jazz" views.
cheers
Anus Amongus
Whip: Nasty dried piece of skin from
a dead domesticated animal.
Nils
>
> << A desperate troll he is. >>
>
the intelligent response is no response;
the constructive discussion is silence.
n
_____________________________________________________
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll
Jeanie McWeezl
wrote:
>A huge pimple on the face of jazz.
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
Y'know Amos, I think maybe if you just added "IMO" to the end of your
posts, nobody would have a problem with this. It is, after all, in
the eye of the beholder (behearer?) ;)
Cecil Taylor is by no means *easy* for me to listen to either...given
my choice, I would gravitate in most cases to more lyrical music,
things I consider a little less difficult to listen to. But I am
determined to stretch my boundaries as a music aficionado,
particularly when it comes to jazz and classical, and I force myself
sit down and listen to things that are not *easy* for me so I can
grow. I found repeated listenings to difficult music can payoff in
expansion of musical horizons.
I believe you have some valid opinions, and as a newbie on the group,
I have to say that I don't consider you a troll, otherwise I would
killfile you. If you don't want to listen to Cecil Taylor, it is your
right not to do so. But for those of us who choose to investigate
this particular branch of the jazz tree, I firmly believe you would
get more respect from the regular readers of this group if you just
admitted that ALL music criticism is a matter of personal choice.
So, I'm curious what your opinion of Eric Dolphy is. When I first
started listening to Dolphy several years ago, I found some of his
music challenging, but when I hear it now, it brings a smile to my
face like a treasured friend, especially the "talking" between Dolphy
and Mingus, which wasn't easy for me at first... although just about
anything he does on flute sends me into absolute orbit...
-Jeanie McWeezl
Amos Omondi
Nils <jaco...@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> crib wrote, re: amos omondi:
> >
> > << A desperate troll he is. >>
> >
> > ...this is getting pathetic.
>
> the intelligent response is no response;
> the constructive discussion is silence.
>
> n
Right after you, Nils! By the way, please update my F.A.Q. page: the
statistics are not accurate, and I can't remember the last time I "lay
low" for months, to await newbies. Thank You.
CineStudy
am still am having trouble enjoying is Albert Ayler who makes Cecil Taylor much
more accessible also now, but still hard to completely enjoy, even if I think I
can understand.
Rick
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Jeanie McWeezl skrev ...
> Y'know Amos, I think maybe if you just added "IMO" to the end of your
> posts, nobody would have a problem with this. It is, after all, in
> the eye of the beholder (behearer?) ;)
>
Is that really necessary, Jeanie?
Aren't all postings in fact IMO?
Does anybody post opinions IYO (in your opinion)?
Ulf
Amos Omondi
>
> Y'know Amos, I think maybe if you just added "IMO" to the end of your
> posts, nobody would have a problem with this. It is, after all, in
> the eye of the beholder (behearer?) ;)
Fair enough. I don't add IMO for the same reasons that most people here
don't add it to theirs: it is usually clear that the stated opinion is
mine.
>
> Cecil Taylor is by no means *easy* for me to listen to either...given
> my choice, I would gravitate in most cases to more lyrical music,
> things I consider a little less difficult to listen to. But I am
> determined to stretch my boundaries as a music aficionado,
> particularly when it comes to jazz and classical, and I force myself
> sit down and listen to things that are not *easy* for me so I can
> grow. I found repeated listenings to difficult music can payoff in
> expansion of musical horizons.
I have actually given Taylor and his product a fair ago. In fact, there
are some Taylor recrdings that I recommend even to people I have no wish
to offend. But some of the other stuff! On second thoughts, I'll just
quit while I'm ahead ...
> I believe you have some valid opinions, and as a newbie on the group,
> I have to say that I don't consider you a troll, otherwise I would
> killfile you.
Thank you. You undoubtedly have a sweet and gentle soul.
If you don't want to listen to Cecil Taylor, it is your
> right not to do so. But for those of us who choose to investigate
> this particular branch of the jazz tree, I firmly believe you would
> get more respect from the regular readers of this group if you just
> admitted that ALL music criticism is a matter of personal choice.
I'm not saying that people should not listen to it. They should, if
they want to. What I am saying is, by way of an example, that if we
went over to classical music group or the heavy metal group or whatever
and started saying that Lee Morgan was a great classical or whatever
musician, we might have a bit of trouble. Categories do exist for a
reasn, and *this* newsgroup exists for the discussion of jazz. So, it
seems to me that one can, and indeed ought to, question whether
everything that is discussed here is jazz or has relevance to jazz. If
"it's all just music, man; just two categories -- good and bad", then we
ought to immediately disband r.m.b.
And why have Burns and Marsalis been so heavily attacked for their
personal choices? Why don't peole just mind their own business and
ignore them?
(By the way, wait till they get into one of their sessions of Kenny-G
bashing.)
> So, I'm curious what your opinion of Eric Dolphy is. When I first
> started listening to Dolphy several years ago, I found some of his
> music challenging, but when I hear it now, it brings a smile to my
> face like a treasured friend, especially the "talking" between Dolphy
> and Mingus, which wasn't easy for me at first... although just about
> anything he does on flute sends me into absolute orbit...
I love most of Dolphy's music. There is no doubt that he was involved
in some rather disturbing things and that he teneded to generally teeter
on the edge, but mostly he managed to stay on the right side of what is
acceptable. And for his small, questionable activities, we forgive him,
on the grounds that he had, like you, a sweet and gentle soul.
Marc Sabatella
> > Y'know Amos, I think maybe if you just added "IMO" to the end of your
> > posts, nobody would have a problem with this. It is, after all, in
> > the eye of the beholder (behearer?) ;)
> >
> Is that really necessary, Jeanie?
>
> Aren't all postings in fact IMO?
Most are, certainly. I agree, the mere three letter abbreviation means very
little. It is the overall tone of the post that makes some look like they
believe they are stating absolute facts about the music as opposed to their
personal reactions. No little acronym tagged on at the end will change the
rest of the posting, so there is little value in adding one to a post that
already takes an inappropriate tone.
For instance, consider the difference between the following:
1) Lous Armstrong was a poor musician who made terrible music.
2) Louis Armstrong's music doesn't move me very much.
It is quite clear from the tone of these postings that the first one is
trying to pass of a personal opinion as absolutle fact, and one would
suspect they are doing it for the sole purpose of inciting controversy. As
such, someone who posts something like that would rightly be criticized.
The second post, even without an "IMO", makes it very clear the author is
discussing his personal reaction to the music, and while it would surely
generate discussion, I doubt personal attacks would come into play.
If everyone could learn to make posts more like #2 rather than #1, the world
would be a better place. IMO.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Adam Bravo
Rome is a city. Is that IMO? No, it's a fact.
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:9685ic$spa$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
Jeanie McWeezl
Miles Davis put out the album "Sketches of Spain" in 1960 that is a
fact; if the poster adds that it is the greatest (or worst) jazz album
of all time, that would be opinion.
I'm not great with words, and another poster after me put it much
better--he hit it right on the head - there *are* better ways to
phrase your thoughts rather than a statement like "Cecil Taylor (or
Wynton Marsalis) is a pimple" or whatever. It's just so negative.
Obviously Cecil Taylor is thought by the majority of music fans and
critics to be a jazz artist. You will find entries for him in the
Penguin Guide, All Music Guide to Jazz, Musichound Jazz, etc. And as
another poster brought up, you will always find his music in a CD shop
in the jazz section.
I'm here to learn and hope the conversation will start going in the
direction of something more positive from here on out ... like what
Mingus albums you would recommend. Think I'll go start a new thread..
* So Much Music, So Little Time * -Jeanie McWeezl
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:38:31 GMT, "Adam Bravo" <mra...@home.com>
wrote:
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>I'm not saying that people should not listen to it. They should, if
>they want to. What I am saying is, by way of an example, that if we
>went over to classical music group or the heavy metal group or whatever
>and started saying that Lee Morgan was a great classical or whatever
>musician, we might have a bit of trouble. Categories do exist for a
>reasn, and *this* newsgroup exists for the discussion of jazz. So, it
>seems to me that one can, and indeed ought to, question whether
>everything that is discussed here is jazz or has relevance to jazz. If
>"it's all just music, man; just two categories -- good and bad", then we
>ought to immediately disband r.m.b.
Fair enough, but what category do you put Cecil Taylor in if not jazz?
He gets discussed in jazz magazines and jazz newsgroups, his
recordings are mostly on labels associated with jazz, you'll find his
CDs in the jazz section at the CD store, etc. I don't think he
considers his own music jazz -- he'd probably rather not be put in a
category at all. But if you must put him in one, where if not jazz? (a
legitimate category, please, not something cute like "in the garbage")
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Adam Bravo skrev ...
> No, but look at this:
>
> Rome is a city. Is that IMO? No, it's a fact.
>
this ng.
Ulf
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Jeanie McWeezl skrev ...
> Well...there are facts and there are opinions. If somebody posts that
> Miles Davis put out the album "Sketches of Spain" in 1960 that is a
> fact; if the poster adds that it is the greatest (or worst) jazz album
> of all time, that would be opinion.
>
Doesn't everybody see when it is a fact and when somebody posts his/her
opinion?
IMO is (almost) always NOT a necessary phrase.
Ulf
Amos Omondi
> Obviously Cecil Taylor is thought by the majority of music fans and
> critics to be a jazz artist. You will find entries for him in the
> Penguin Guide, All Music Guide to Jazz, Musichound Jazz, etc.
>
analysis.
An example: Nina Simone does not appear in the Penguin Guide but some
very questionable female singers do. What should I make of that?
> And as
> another poster brought up, you will always find his music in a CD shop
> in the jazz section.
>
Not really; I've been to several that do not. Example: most recently at
Birdland, the
best CD store in Sydney, for jazz, blles, and avant garde.
> I'm here to learn and hope the conversation will start going in the
> direction of something more positive from here on out ...
>
Did you really manage to stay through the Burns-Marsalis month?
Tom Walls
It's an indicator that the poster is aware of the subjective nature of their
statement, and thereby preempts an argument made on that basis. It is also an
expression of humility. Dig it, Ulf, Amos: humility.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
____________________________________________________________________
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Amos Omondi
> It's an indicator that the poster is aware of the subjective nature of
> their
> statement, and thereby preempts an argument made on that basis. It is
> also an
> expression of humility. Dig it, Ulf, Amos: humility.
>
line a bit funny, given
your contributions to these threads? Newbie.
blanny
>
> Jeanie McWeezl skrev ...
> > Well...there are facts and there are opinions. If somebody posts that
> > Miles Davis put out the album "Sketches of Spain" in 1960 that is a
> > fact; if the poster adds that it is the greatest (or worst) jazz album
> > of all time, that would be opinion.
> >
> And are those things hard to separate from each other?
>
> Doesn't everybody see when it is a fact and when somebody posts his/her
> opinion?
No Ulf. The other day you mentioned that jazz had to swing and have a
melody to be jazz (otherwise it's not jazz). This was in response to
Coltrane not being jazz. Ergo, you've implied that Coltrane didn't play
jazz (in the 60's). Why couldn't you just say, "I don't like all jazz, the
style that Coltrane plays is one I don't care for", instead of "this isn't
jazz".
Jeanie McWeezl
wrote:
>Did you really manage to stay through the Burns-Marsalis month?
Ha! I came in on the tide that Burns washed up. Seriously, it was a
fellow poster from another group who said people in this group were
discussing the documentary, and since I was enjoying it, I was curious
what hard-core jazz fans had to say about it. The program re-ignited
my curiousity...I started listening more to jazz albums I already had,
and bought some CDs to boot. (No, none of them were Cecil
Taylor...but then again, none of them were Marsalis--I got some discs
by Monk, Mingus and Blakey for now).
Also, because of the documentary (and the suggestion of a poster
here), I went to the library today to check out Gary Giddins book
"Visions of Jazz"...I hope to delve into it seriously this weekend.
Adam Bravo
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:96alvs$iv4$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> The other day you mentioned that jazz had to swing and have a
> melody to be jazz (otherwise it's not jazz). This was in response to
> Coltrane not being jazz. Ergo, you've implied that Coltrane didn't play
> jazz (in the 60's). Why couldn't you just say, "I don't like all jazz,
the
> style that Coltrane plays is one I don't care for", instead of "this isn't
> jazz".
>
>
truth IMO.
To be called jazz music has to fullfil some criteria, for example to swing
and to have a melodic value. IMO JC does not live up to those criteria when
he went on his "sheet music" road.
Ergo: JC's music is not real jazz.
Ulf
Ulf
Amos Omondi
> ----------
> From: Jeanie McWeezl[SMTP:muzik...@NOSPAMqwest.net]
> Posted At: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:55 AM
> Posted To: bluenote
> Conversation: Cecil Taylor
> Subject: Re: Cecil Taylor
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:05:41 +0800, Amos Omondi <ASA...@ntu.edu.sg>
> wrote:
>
> >Did you really manage to stay through the Burns-Marsalis month?
>
> Ha! I came in on the tide that Burns washed up. Seriously, it was a
> fellow poster from another group who said people in this group were
> discussing the documentary, and since I was enjoying it,
>
It's very brave of you to admit here that you enjoyed it!
Funkifized
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:96dbhj$9lg$1...@cubacola.tninet.se...
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> Ergo, you are not a real jazz fan...
>
Ulf
atom
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" wrote:
It's a fact.
Matt P
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Ulf
JC Martin
Sheet music??? *LOL* His "sheets of sound" period that you're referring to
pre-dated his avant garde output ya goof.
-JC
JC Martin
You're the only man I've ever heard who said John Coltrane is not a jazz
artist. So, your single opinion is meaningless in a sea of dissent.
-JC
Top Catt
<JgEi6.2760$wb6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net says...
> >
> > To be called jazz music has to fullfil some criteria, for example to swing
> > and to have a melodic value. IMO JC does not live up to those criteria
> when he went on his "sheet music" road.
>
>
> Sheet music??? *LOL* His "sheets of sound" period that you're referring to
> pre-dated his avant garde output ya goof.
>
> -JC
Aww, man, don't correct Ulf... he's too entertaining, the way he
is. Why spoil the fun?!
T.C.
Nils
>
> You're the only man I've ever heard who said John Coltrane is not a jazz
> artist. So, your single opinion is meaningless in a sea of dissent.
good thing we practice ideological purity here on
r.m.b. i think we should have a test which
posters must pass in order to qualify for our
exalted logorrheic status.
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>> From: Jeanie McWeezl[SMTP:muzik...@NOSPAMqwest.net]
>> Posted At: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:55 AM
>> Posted To: bluenote
>> Conversation: Cecil Taylor
>> Subject: Re: Cecil Taylor
>> ... I came in on the tide that Burns washed up. Seriously, it was a
>> fellow poster from another group who said people in this group were
>> discussing the documentary, and since I was enjoying it,
>It's very brave of you to admit here that you enjoyed it!
Not really. I enjoyed it, too, and have admitted as much several times
in this newsgroup. I've also criticized it. There is a middle ground
between "it was absolutely perfect" and "it sucked".
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Jeanie McWeezl
Thanks Dennis--that's *exactly* how I feel. It was good, but it could
have been better. In any event, it sure got me interested in jazz
again, so I'm glad to have seen it. -jeanie m
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> artist. So, your single opinion is meaningless in a sea of dissent.
>
> -JC
You'd better listen more attentively then.
Ulf
Funkifized
research a bit, too. "Sheet Music" stage? If you don't know something about
what you criticize, your criticisms are worthless.
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:96g2se$52k$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
JC Martin
news:l4Xi6.165$cd2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Sounds to me like you need to listen a little more attentively. And maybe
> research a bit, too. "Sheet Music" stage? If you don't know something
about
> what you criticize, your criticisms are worthless.
Exactly.
-JC
leedavid1449
>
> To be called jazz music has to fullfil some criteria, for example to swing
> and to have a melodic value. IMO JC does not live up to those criteria when
> he went on his "sheet music" road.
>
do you mean his "sheets of sound"? That was a phrase coined by Ira
Gitler. If I'm not mistaken, his style got tagged with that phrase
early into his career as a leader. So your cut-off point might be
Coltrane/Prestige 7105?? I'll admit, I skipped over "Bakai" for
years, but at that time, I couldn't bear some of the more
unconventional harmonies. Since then, my tastes have expanded. To
say Jazz has to fullfil some criteria is loaded to begin with, yet you
fail to even deliver so much as a 'poof' when you say "to swing and to
have melodic value" , no offense, but I don't think you even know what
melodic value is. How about saying "I like Coltrane's lyrical work better
than the more 'out' jazz he played later in his career."
marc
JC Martin
news:wkr90zd...@hotmail.com...
But I think what Ulf is saying is that Coltrane is not a jazz artist, nor
can he swing.
Do you really believe Ulf has taken the time to explore Coltrane? I think
not. "Sheet music" period? *LOL*
-JC
Tim
<aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>To be called jazz music has to fullfil some criteria, for example to swing
>and to have a melodic value. IMO JC does not live up to those criteria when
>he went on his "sheet music" road.
>
>Ergo: JC's music is not real jazz.
I doubt if any music Jesus Christ created could be called jazz. I'm
not sure if "sheet music" had been invented yet though. My
understanding is that in those days they played strictly from memory.
This allowed much room for improvising however, so maybe it could be
legitimately called jazz...
/tim
sixti...@yahoo.com
leedavid1449
> But I think what Ulf is saying is that Coltrane is not a jazz artist, nor
> can he swing.
>
> Do you really believe Ulf has taken the time to explore Coltrane? I think
> not. "Sheet music" period? *LOL*
>
> -JC
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... it's funny, but kinda
depressing at the same time. Oh well, Ulf's loss, not mine... I think
I'll just go ahead and laugh. Heck, I think I'll laugh *and* point
.... arm extended and pointing at Ulf, marc goes " heheheehahhhaah haaaaahh
hehe haahahhhahhhhaaaaaahh ... ohhhh haa whee ahahaahhhh aaaaah ha ha
ha haha 'WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!' hahahaha haha eee hhheeeee hoooo
hahahaaaaa!! etc, etc, ad infinitum"
marc
Amos Omondi
We all know what Ulf meant. But I suppose the level of wit here
is such that going to town on something that tiny is about all some
folks can do. Also, at no time did he state that the period in question
coincided with Coltrane's avant thingy period.
Top Catt
<0CF260C495FED111A661...@mail3.ntu.edu.sg>,
ASA...@ntu.edu.sg says...
Trouble is, you guys keep feeding us wits all these incredible
straight lines--! I'm not even going to touch "avant thingy."
(Momma told me not to touch it, when I was in knee pants).
Hey, that's kind of catchy! [hums] "My Momma done told me, when I
was in knee pants..."
[walks off, snapping fingers a la Sinatra]--
T.C.
Top Catt
sixti...@yahoo.com says...
Some of it's preserved on papyrus "charts," which have long since
crumbled; the Dept. of Forensic Musicology at the University of
Shabbati Zvi is trying to extract some of the original notation
out of the two tablespoons of dust that have been positively
identified as part of "the lead sheets." One of the more complete
segments is something called "Magdalene Stomp," and a performance
version is in progress.
Prof. Feitelbaum, head of the project, says, "Using an electron
microscope, we can determine which of the fragments had ink on
them, and which didn't. That's a start, anyway!"
Some extremely fragmentary documents make reference to a band
called "Mel Chisidek and his Sinai Stompers," with one "Yeshua
ben Nazari" listed, on vibes, xylophone, and baritone sax. This
could be an error of interpretation, of course, since the other
generally accepted translation of the same line is, "My God and
my Father, who made me alive through a mystery of what He wills,
do not let the days of this world be prolonged for me."
Ken Burns is getting right on it, and we'll have the *real*
answers any day now. Stay tuned (to PBS).
T.C.
Tim
wrote:
Presenting Ken Burns' 777-hour Very Extremely Importantly Long
Documenary, "Jesus"
Fade up on a grainy old papyrus scroll with a very small jewish man at
a piano wearing a very dapper toga.
Narrator: Mel Chisidek and his Sinai Stompers were the first to
advance the art of jazz beyond the brothels of Jerusalum.
Wynton Marsalis: I'll tell you what Yeshua
ben Nazar sounded like. He had this big rippling sound, and he always
phrased off the beat, and he slurred his notes. And when the Roman
bands were still playing De-bah-de-ba-ta-da-tah, he was already
playing Bo-dap-da-lete-do-do-do-bah! He was just like gumbo, ahead of
his time.
...
/tim
sixti...@yahoo.com
leedavid1449
sorry, but Ulf had it comin'.... anyone that can make such a
ridiculous comment fairly well deserves to be ridiculed.
marc
JC Martin
news:0CF260C495FED111A661...@mail3.ntu.edu.sg...
He didn't need to.
-JC