RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Introduction
- Always a pleasure to read Howard and I have learned that a mention of
Panassié can usually elicit a substantial and interesting contribution.
OK. I withdraw 'mainly historiographical reasons' and substitute 'also
historiographical reasons'. His criticism of players he liked can be
I agree also Sudhalter, so great a writer on what he likes and such a
bigot -- to be given short shrift ? -- on what he does not. It proves the
dangers of pontificating on music, the vocabulary of which one does not
I have just flicked through Harris 'Jazz' to try and find some ludicrous
conceit or judgment but have so far failed. I did find :-
' bop should be looked upon as a dialect of the jazz language. Like jazz
proper, it is Negroid in origin and its basis is the same : free
improvisation over a regular pulse.' Which is not Harris but Steve Race. I
observe, at least, that Harris has not pontificated on a vocabulary he does
not understand but has brought in an 'expert'.
'Jazz On Record ' 1960 is valuable for the criticism of Alun Morgan and
particularly Charles Fox. But :-
'he plays an often exciting and driving kind of music which invariably, at
some point --- declines into vulgar noise-making, the natural resort of the
non-Negro musician who cannot achieve his excitement through rhythmic
subtlety and flow'.
which must be Peter Gammond, revealing the ultimate in Crow Jim prejudice
derived from Blesh and/or Panassié.
Who? Bill Davison, one of the great white originals of our music.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I do not intend to send such messages once a year, but at this point I think
I need to remind new subscribers that this group is run according to the set
of information, recommendations, and rules which Michael Rader and myself
edited in 2004, available from the group's "files" section:
It needs revising, obviously, since today's Internet users are not the ones
who used to enjoy email communication in eGroups' time (and this may also
mean that our groups are obsolete... however, I think they maintain a degree
of courtesy and privacy which can hardly be found anywhere else).
Among other things, it should be recalled that Yahoo groups are basically
mailing-lists (even if some prefer reading on the Web), and that all members
are supposed to provide valid email addresses.
In that regard, and considering the first spam message which briefly
appeared on the board this week (and, fortunately, no-one seems to have
received), I am not sure I will be able to accept more subscribers with
disposable yahoo.com or hotmail.com addresses in the next future, unless I
can individually check their purpose.
For two reasons:
- the potential danger of such easily hackable accounts (please note that,
even with private mail, the apparent sender is seldom the actual "spammer");
- the increasing number of people who bypass Yahoo's rules by providing
secondary addresses they *never* check.
The document I am inviting all "Web only" subscribers to read and understand
also failed to state the obvious, which is that Yahoo groups are run by
private individuals, not by employees or slaves anyone is allowed to
command, or publicly blame.
We have been able to maintain total freedom of speech as far as the group's
topic is concerned, but whatever regards management is supposed to be
addressed to me, not to the 850+ people who just cannot do a thing about it
(and those who helped me build this group from the start know that anyone
claiming he cannot get in touch with me is a liar).
I have always spent as much time as necessary whenever someone asked for
help, requested information, or reported an incident, I am open to all
suggestions, I would not even mind giving ownership by now to anyone likely
to run this list better than I do, BUT I have no time to waste with
trouble-makers who ignore my private requests, and repeatedly attempt to
flood everyone with their ins(is)tant demands (fancy we also have a right to
sleep at night). Such rants will never reach your mailboxes, and this is
what moderation is for.
Thanks to everyone's self-discipline, the total number of people I happened
to ban from this group in eight years' time only amounts to FIVE, plus a
couple of "silently removed" subscribers who did not even notice it - all of
them because they thought the cleverest thing to do was to "piss me off" (I
think Alan Balfour taught me this phrase) and claim they had a right to do
Might "work" with... somebody else, not me.
Early Winter greetings,
Patrice - firstname.lastname@example.org (and it works)