Rok, I am afraid that your "opinion" is based on some inaccuracies and mistaken assumptions; I am not sure where to start. I hope that pointing these out is not felt to be breaking some "detente" and I'm sure you will appreciate some accuracy.
****Why were all the East Coast guys black and all the West Coast guys white?****
While it is true that most practicioners of "West Coast Jazz" were white, not "all" were; Buddy Collette, Benny Carter, Chico Hamilton and Red Callender, to name a few, were black.
****So, if I were a second rate horn player where would I go to earn fame and fortune? I could go to LA where Jazz had no history or establishment****
The idea that only second rate players were found in LA is absolutely not true and very unfair to the many great players who hailed from LA and were part of a movement in jazz that reflected a different stylistic aesthetic from that of the East Coast and not a reflection of lesser quality. Additionally, it is not true that in LA jazz had no history or establishment. There had always been a vibrant Jazz scene in LA with traditional jazz playing a very prominent role. Even your fave Jelly Roll lived in LA for many years.
LA was, in fact, were many great musicians went to "gain fortune". Many of the great LA jazz players were also very successful session players in the LA movie studios recording for the countless movie scores being produced. Unfortunately, that scene was racially segregated during the 40s and 50s, but players/arrangers like Benny Carter were able to change that situation for themselves and all that followed. There is an interesting connection between the existence of the Hollywood scene and the West Coast Jazz style. In keeping with, and perhaps as a result of, the demands of the movie industry for very well crafted and extended compositions for their movie scores, the West Coast Jazz style highlights the compositional elements of the music much more than the East Coast (hard)bop style which is typically that of a simple pass through the melody followed by improvised solos. The West Coast style features more intricate compositions with elements of Classical counterpoint and it was the first time that the very demanding concept of a jazz ensemble without a chordal instrument (piano, organ, guitar) was implemented; all this with a typically softer ("cool") instrumental tone approach as opposed to the harder edged East Coast style. Does this make it jazz that is less "real" and the other more real? Since when do the French decide what is real jazz? 😊
Oh, and btw, Benny Goodman was never crowned "King Of Jazz", he was first called "King Of Swing" in 1936; and for good reason. Swing (a very specific style of jazz) and the Swing Era was touched off by Benny Goodman well before most of the great players one can name. For perspective's sake, Bird recorded his first record in 1944.
Cheers. |
***It's Deja Vu all over again.*** for about the tenth time.
|
Re the intrepid poster:
I just don’t see it that way. He wasn’t dismissing the old stuff at all. For some reason he wasn’t aware of the fact that the new stuff is covered here as well. I would bet that he scanned the first couple of pages of the thread (old stuff) and posted. Too quick on the draw. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and get a better read on what he has to say. Are our skins really that thin?
Btw, I notice you took Corea off the “list” 😎
|
O-10, this is precisely the point when this thread starts to get in trouble. As far as I am concerned there is no room on a thread like this for making a comment "exclusively" for a specific poster; especially when others have been part of the same discussion. Seems to that if one wants to communicate "exclusively" one should send a pm. It also seems to me that this is a way to keep different viewpoints out of the discussion; not good. Btw, I don't agree with your comments re "recent music" and its supposed "lack of coherence". Would love to discuss this further and have everyone participate; or, would you prefer a pm?
All this in the interest of having a more robust and healthier thread.
As Acman3 said: "Deja vu all over again".
Regards. |
**** you have no idea how sad current music is ****
Imo, the only sad thing is how this thread has managed, for three or four years, to return over and over again to the same tired themes that are competely off the wall and not based on the reality of all that is widely considered truth in and about music. The "it's subjective" argument simply doesn't wash when it comes to very fundamental considerations about music and not simply preferred styles. Don't you two guys have something new to say? Needless to say, I don't agree with the comment about "how sad current music is" anymore than I agree with the idea that "most current music has no coherence or themes". Where's the substance to back up those comments? Now, although it should be obvious, I should point out that had I not been included in O-10's diatribe in a way that is inappropriate and at least a little provocative, I would have ignored and not responded to the commentary in the last seven posts or so eventhough I consider most of it no more than bs. Even worse, bs that ignores musical values and even a specific performance in order to make the commentary serve an e-social agenda.
O-10, as OP, and as an OP that wants a leadership role in the thread, imo, your style of leadership leaves a lot to be desired. Do you really think that I or anyone would be remotely interested in expressing an opinion about a performance that you have already panned without offering a single detail as to why you feel it needs to be panned.
**** Never the less, we continue to express our opinions and plod along. ****
And I just expressed mine. If you would prefer a more polite version in the future please consider the above and don't speak for me. "plod along"....exactly; sad.
Ghosthouse, if you're out there, check out the guitar player in the Blanchard clip; interesting player. |
**** The notion / sense, that Jazz must 'progress' or 'Improve' or move on to something Mo' Better is the major problem. It is only in the Jazz genre that we have this situation. ****
Always hated the term "progressive" as used in political circles. I don't believe anyone has used it here re music; and certainly not the term "improve". Evolve, yes. But to conflate that with "improve" is very telling of the mindset of blind protectionism that wants to draw that circle around a certain period in the music. Btw, this is another one of the themes that is continually misrepresented here and needs to be corrected. As was pointed out, "déjà vu all over again"... and again, and again.
**** I could junk Mozart in favor of Philip Glass. After all, his music is 'Modern'. Yeah right ****
That's like saying "I could junk Bird in favor of Kenny G"; while ignoring all the great modern jazz artists because, just as during the "Golden Age", there are some knuckleheads out there producing crap. See, that's the real problem, too many broad strokes and not enough depth of thinking about all this. Of course, you are mistaken about how the notion applies to other genres. All music (all art) evolves and is widely recognized to do so. You don't like the notion and that is why you don't like a Classical music that has evolved beyond Mozart and Beethoven. It is ideas like "most current music lacks life" that are so ridiculous and need to be countered. It is not that the music lacks life and coherence; it is that some listeners are locked in a narrow sphere of awareness and are of a personality type that needs that idea as a security blanket. "Knowledge" that has notions like that as a backdrop is questionable at best.
Cheers.
|
O-10, yeah, yeah; but, nope, I don’t think so. As always, "Mars and Venus"; too bad. Btw, kindly explain (with example) where I "took that opportunity to blame those two comments for the fact that it hasn't rained new contributors to this thread".
|
Good for you. Nice Terrence Blanchard clips. I like them and very timely to the previous Blanchard "issue" and they go to the heart of the matter. Personally, I find the clip that O-10 posted infinitely more interesting. While I like the clips that you posted I don't see (hear) the point. Why should I listen to a hard-bop performance that offers nothing new compared to much of what Freddie Hubbard and Woody Shaw did decades previously and did it at a much higher artistic level; while I liked them, Blanchard is saying nothing new on the clips you posted. When I have dozens of Hubbard and Shaw recordings would I pull the Blanchard off the shelf? Unlikely. What O-10 posted held my interest if only to see where he was going and there were many truly interesting moments. Not once, while listening to the clips you posted, did I not know where he was going. What's the point of that?
|
|
I thought you said you were keeping your word 😁
**** since I know where they are going,****
I doubt it. |
|
Larry Coryell was a monster player. RIP. Thanks for that clip, Acman3. |
I would be glad to answer you, O-10. Look, it’s obvious that you and I live in very different universes, both as concerns music and as concerns interaction on a forum like this; not to mention other ways that are probably best left alone. Just look at how you have ignored what it was that started all this (I made it very clear) and how conveniently you pivoted to the subject of new posters. Huh?! You seem unwilling or incapable of understanding the important aspects of what I have said on the subject of new posters. All I can say on the subject now is that the series of posts that I mentioned earlier further make my case and prove my point. If that is all a little too abstract for you I can’t help you, but it is perfectly in keeping with our respective tastes in music.
Btw, I am glad you liked the Lewis clip. I am also relieved that you liked it since the significance of George Lewis in the history of this music is huge and anyone who doesn’t undertand this has no business claiming to be a jazz "aficionado". Thank goodness. |
|
Well, as I said previously, it is obvious (as it has been for a long time) that some of us live in different universes as concerns music and other matters; honest self-awareness, or lack thereof, of what is behind our respective motivations for saying what we each say here being one of the most glaring examples. Let’s first, and once again, point out what it is that started this most recent "bru-ha", to use O-10’s expression.
I was included and involved in commentary by O-10 in an inappropriate and provocative manner; something that he has yet to acknowledge. Of course, this came on the heels of an acknowledgment by him that, yes, it was inappropriate to address posters "exclusively" during a general discussion. I fully expected there to be fallout for my temerity in pointing this out to him as there always is in similar situations. I was right. O-10, you nor anyone here gets to decide when "it should be the end of that" as long as the dialogue remains respectful; that’s all. Besides, why then was it not "the end of that" for you?
Rok, your indignation re my George Lewis comment is very telling. Classic, go for the indignation when one has nothing substantive to say. What is most telling is that you failed to see the humor/sarcasm in that comment and chose instead to see it as some sort of violation or intrusion into what you consider your purview, that of keeper of all that is "Nawlins" and "Roots" in jazz. Of course, all the time ignoring the frequency with which I have posted and written about early personalities in jazz and their relevance to its history and these discussions; more than anyone here (including you). You think that by acknowledging and, God forbid, the "new" one "disrespects" the "old". Nothing could be further from the truth and this notion violates one of the most basic tenets in jazz and any creative art form; a tenet that the very folks you feel need your protection and indignation held dear. How’s that for irony? As I have reminded you many times eventhough it is obvious, I have posted and written about every era and style in jazz. However, since you can’t relate to my universe, a universe that sees jazz (all art) as a continuum you keep trying to relegate me to status of promoter of "new jazz" or as you used (?) to say "noise". The psychology behind all this is really rich and its probably best if I stop here and hope for the best.
O-10, I have nothing new to add to what I have already tried to convey to you re our recent exchanges. I do think that if this thread is going to get out of its rut and not just "plod along" the bs needs to be called out. It’s really all pretty obvious and, as always, I am moving on; I suggest you do the same. As always, hoping we can do better moving forward.
Regards.
Btw, how does one dance the "floy-floy"? Would love to see that.
|
Badass piano player. I love Red Garland. One of the most individualistic piano players in jazz. He introduced the block chording idea to jazz piano where he plays block chords with the left hand in the same rhythm as the melody in the right hand. This gave him one of the most distinctive sounds of any player and he did it with an amazing amount of feeling of swagger. This has always been one of my very favorite jazz performances that I have on record; by any artist. A real classic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3UnzDeZ8lIBtw, a not commonly known fact is that Red Garland was an accomplished boxer who actually fought Sugar Ray Robinson at age nineteen; he lost badly. Fortunately he decided then to concentrate on his other talent. |
|
One of the most misunderstood things in and about jazz (all creative art) is the "process" that artists embark on when developing their craft. It is easy to be seduced by the very romantic idea that the creation of the art (improvisation as concerns this thread) is almost entirely the result of the expression of the "creative muse"; a force that takes over and simply flows involuntarily from the artist. Words like "process", "develop" and "craft" can seem to be in opposition to the romance. The reality is much more complicated than that and is a combination of both sides of the coin. The great jazz artists have huge intellects and voracious appetites for learning via study and discipline; things that may seem to fly in the face of the free-wheeling attitude that they sometimes portray in their public personas. The greats studied not only the music of other great musicians in other genres, but also meticulously studied and had an encyclopedic knowledge of the classic recorded solos played by other great jazz players. They would learn and often transcribe (write down) these classic solos. All this becomes a part of the musical frame of reference that they draw from on their way to developing their own unique sound or style. This is a great example and may be of interest to some: One of the classic solos that became famous among players like Red Garland and was carefully studied and analyzed was the trumpet solo that a young Miles played on the tune "Now’s The Time" on a Charlie Parker recording from 1945. Thirteen (!) years later on the Miles Davis recording "Milestones", on the tune "Straight No Chaser" which has similar chord changes as "Now’s The Time" and faster tempo, Garland would actually incorporate Miles’ 1945 solo in his own solo and would play it note for note in his distinctive block chord piano style. Amazing! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b5bQErnsIhgThis is Bird’s 1945 recording in its entirety with Miles playing the famous solo: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c1n4yr4SmA4Miles’ 1958 "Straight No Chaser" in its entirety. Garland plays Miles’ 1945 solo at 7:30: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pthTtLZINHQ |
|
Interestintg set of mentions, mikeydee; nice post. One of the most interesting things on YouTube giving some insight into Gary Bartz, while talking about Miles. Great player, Bartz; he sounds amazing on the clip behind the interview footage: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QCLqDOmMB3w |
|
|
|
Fantastic opera by Bizet. I believe you refer to the scene in Act 2 when Carmen sings and dances for Jose who has left his military post to be with Carmen. The bugle is calling him back.
While it is possible to simulate the effect of getting closer and closer by playing in the orchestra pit and starting to play softly and then progressively louder, in opera (and also in concert pieces calling for a similar effect) the player will literally be off stage in the wings and will play from a distance while walking closer and closer to the stage where the singers are, creating a much more realistic effect. Many opera scores call for singers and/or musicians to sing or play off stage in the wings in addition to the orchestra in the orchestra pit and singers on stage.
|
|
Great one, Acman3! I actually had that in my post after the Joe Henderson version, but deleted it because there is so much to say about that cut and wanted to keep the post concise (for a change 😉). Interesting version of this great tune on several counts. It’s on one of Phil’s less known (but very interesting) records featuring his fantastic talent as an arranger. He overdubs/multitracks himself to create a great sounding saxophone "section" led by his own soprano and goes on to play a swinging soprano solo which itself is a bit of a rarity since he recorded mostly on alto. Nice string writing, too. Great record, and what a loss his recent passing was. Thanks! |
|
Fabulous clips of a fabulous and very haunting tune. Late Joe Henderson was indeed very sweet. One of my very favorite tenor players who never relied on sheer volume and "saxophone splitting at the seams" attitude, instead playing with a lot of nuance and inflection; unusual for a player with such a modern harmonic vocabulary. It might be interesting for the geeks to know that he chose to play on a mouthpiece designed for Classical music performance; this surely contributed to the sweetness in his sound. Thanks for the great clips; Acman3! More Strayhorn: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EK21QOuY7mwhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RBLuFOrAa_0O-10, thanks for bringing up Strayhorn. |
|
**** listening at a deeper level and the same music doesn't sound the same anymore, it sounds better. ****
That is the goal and the whole point. Glad you feel that way.
|
And, of course, there’s the best known Stayhorn tune of all. Often credited to The Duke, "Take The A Train" was actually penned by Strayhorn and the story behind it is interesting. Duke’s band already had a "signature tune", but when Duke’s publisher raised the fees for broadcasts of it’s catalog (remember, radio was everything back then), Duke asked Strayhorn, who had a different publisher, to write new material for the band. Fletcher Henderson is reported to have rescued the tune from a garbage can as Strayhorn was initially unhappy with it (!?!?). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ggcQk67Mco |
Correction, I meant and should have written :"the LATTER approach creates......" Sorry....that second language thing....😀 |
|
I love George Benson's guitar playing; I like his musical attitude. The problem I have always had with Creed Taylor productions (even some of the Freddie Hubbard and Stanley Turrentine projects which I generally like) is that, imo, they always demonstrate a heavy handed production style. Producers take one of two approaches come recording session day: they create a vibe in the studio that says "you guys do your thing and I will capture it on tape and maybe tweak it a little bit in here", or "this is what I want and I want it like this...". The former approach creates an atmosphere where the players are too concerned about everything being perfect. CTI recordings, as good as some are, seldom have much sense of spontaneity to them for me. Everything sounds controlled and stylized, from the extra reverb on the horn section to percussion that sounds a bit too careful. Benson always sounds great though and this is one of his best from his CTI period. |
|
Just finished listening to this record. Had never heard about this project. It is a great record; liked it a lot. Great playing all around and with a really tasty feel on all the tunes. I like the rhythm section a lot, particularly the drummer. A little research showed that it is one of a series of three "Tribute To Wes M" records, each featuring a different set of guitar players. G-7 is the second in the series, and it has a Vol.2. I came across this for anyone who wants to know who is playing on each cut: Thanks, O-10. https://www.discogs.com/Project-G-5-A-Tribute-To-Wes-Montgomery/release/7115516 |
Without a doubt one of the ones I would grab if my house were on fire 😱 Gorgeous record. Jim Hall on guitar, btw. |
**** What exactly does a record Producer do? ****
So sorry to burden you with an answer to your question:
A music producer does very much what a director does in the making of a film. A distinction should be made between the executive producer and the music producer when both are listed. The executive producer handles the financial aspects of the project. The music producer can be the person that conceives the project and chooses the backing musicians and arrangers (when necessary) when there is a featured soloist and the recording engineer unless there is one on staff in the case of an artist under contract. As discussed previously, producers have different styles; some choose to let the players do their thing and exercise little influence on the final product while some can be very controlling of every aspect of the process; choose the tunes and even the tempos. For many of the classic recordings discussed here there is relatively little "producing" that is required since there is usually only a rhythm section and horn front line involved in a pretty standard live-performance-like setup; or it could be as simple as a piano trio or solo piano. In these situations the producer may help choose the material and assist the engineer in developing how the recording will "present" the music. The producer may be chosen by the record label that the artist is under contract with or may be chosen by the artist to assist, manage and realize the artist’s vision for the project.
In the case of projects like many of the CTI recordings where the music is very "arranged" with the use of horn sections, string and woodwind sections, extra percussion and perhaps even backing vocalists it all becomes much more complicated. In many situations like these the producer’s vision can supersede the artist’s; of course, it is usually a combination of both. It should be easy to understand how going this route opens up many "cans of worms" on the way to the final product. A producer or record lable may have a certain sonic aesthetic in mind for their product which they feel can only be achieved by separating all the players or singers and putting each in separate "booths" where they are each isolated from each other and they listen to each other via headphones. This can work, depending on the skill of the engineer and quality of the studio, but the results are seldom as musically organic as they are when the musicians have some physical connection in the same room and can hear each other acoustically at least in part. Some music lends itself much more to complex production values. Imo, generally speaking, with jazz (particularly acoustic jazz) there occurs a kind of clash when there is complex production involved, while electric jazz and pop can really benefit from all the electronic tools available to musicians and producers; in these genres these tools can be considered and used as musical instruments themselves. Of course, it is the producer’s skill and musical integrity that determines whether these tools serve and benefit the music or do no more than create a mess.
|
**** Some of us have been wandering why we don't have more regular posters; there are more reasons than we can think of, and many that we never thought of ......Whatever the reason, let me know when yall find out. ****
O-10, I respect your passion about the issues facing our democracy, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of your analysis. As concerns your passion about the more relevant (to this thread) issue of new posters, and since you asked, I would respectfully suggest that some of the comments in your last post are one example of why there aren't more regular posters. You asked, please don't shoot the messenger.
|
O-10, as always, this is a case of "Mars/Venus"; two very different outlooks, frames of reference and interpretations of reality. I could stress that it is you that keeps bringing up the subject of new posters, but I think it is more productive, since I DO care that there be more posters, to point out (WHEN ASKED BY YOU, YOURSELF) what I think the reasons are for why there aren’t more. Now you claim that you don’t care one way or the other. Convenient?; or just sad? Look, O-10, you want to control the exchanges in this thread; it just doesn’t work that way. You want to be able to express views that relate, directly or indirectly, to other or all ACTIVE participants here, but you want specific individuals to just "ignore" you. Really?! As has been suggested before, if you want to be "exclusive" with comments, especially comments with which you express some sort of "moral or intellectual superiority" over all other ACTIVE participants, don’t you think that the best way is to pm the individual that you want exclusivity with? Or, is your goal to force all the "non-exclusives" to witness your "superiority" by posting your comments in a PUBLIC forum while allowing no means to express other views other than your own? I hope that you are able to see the arrogance of this goal and I hope this is not the case.
Regards, and I hope we can get back to the subject of music without too much damage.
Btw, you being the OP, and if you care about the relevance of this thread, I would encourage you to go back over the past posts that you feel "harassed" you and hopefully the passage of time will help you understand how much you have misrepresented what really happened and was going on at the time. |
Imo, one of the most beautifully produced records featuring a jazz artist. All the things that can become a "can of worms" in the hands of a lesser producer: the use of arrangements that use strings and woodwinds compliment the overall attitude of the music and, most importantly, the style of the soloist beautifully. George Avakian, producer. https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLQQLNys0yJ0sI-DMKnb0JAJ49VfNYnC_d&v=_2cTgUK3MQY |
O-10, I stand by what I said on the subject and believe your attitude about this is misguided and self-serving. I was very clear about why I wrote what I did and I believe it was all very reasonable. In the meantime, a friendly suggestion: put aside your apparent need to keep these little squabbles alive, drop the subject and let the thread get back to what it is supposed to be about. |
|
|
That was a great post, Rok. I agree, biases are not necessarily a bad thing. The key and hard part is to learn to recognize them; especially in ourselves. |
|
Nice clips, Alex. Al Cohn on clarinet! ... new one for me. Very nice and relaxed playing in that early swing style that I like very much. Thanks for those.
No TV and no newspapers!? I would hate to think that you get your news and opinion on politics and social trends from this thread 😉. I agree with you that there is room for comments on those topics on this thread.....in theory.
|
Gorgeous rendition of "I've Grown Accustomed To Your Face" with Bud Shank and Bob Cooper sound wonderful. It is recordings like this that should put to rest the issue of wether West Coast Jazz is valid or not.
I take a different approach re educating myself about the political landscape. We are bombarded with "news" and opinion from both sides of the political spectrum and all steps in between. The vast majority of it is heavily biased. For me, the first step is to recognize that we, ourselves, bring our own biases to the table while often wanting to feel that we are "pure" and free of bias. While I make no claim of success, I prefer to work as much as possible on self-awareness of my biases and then read and absorb as much as possible of the information that is out there, from all sources. Learning to recognize our own biases helps a great deal in recognizing others' biases and helps to separate the facts from the bs and agenda-driven commentary. Regards. |
Well, except for that part....😳
|
I am comfortable with the fact that my sense of what is ethical and just is shaped mostly by my religion; a religion in which logic cannot be the end all and there has to be at least a degree of faith, a great symbol of our humanity, in the mix. Just as the religious (to some degree) individual cannot always embrace logic as the final arbiter of what is ethical, neither can our government function as it was designed by removing the concept of God and religion (faith) from its conceptual makeup. The movement to remove religion and spirituality is, as I see it, the very cause of so much that is unethical and unjust. In spite of our many disagreements in the realm of music and the offshoots of those disagreements, my feelings about all this align pretty well with Rok's. |
Alex, as you know by now, I also consider you to be a thoughtful and intelligent person. Obviously, these are very complicated and personal topics and I would welcome an opportunity to have a few drinks with you and exchange thoughts about this with perhaps some Chet Baker in the background. Not enough time now to expound too much on what has been previously expressed; but, I would like to point to something that "jumped out" at me in the comments already made. I mention this because I believe it is important (to me) in its relevance to this issue and because in some ways it says more to me than the remainder of your comments. I also mention this with the full understanding that it is difficult to accurately express our and understand others’ thoughts on a forum like this and I don’t mean to disrespect nor to provoke gratuitously.
This is not the first time that you have responded to me this way when discussing/debating a non-music topic. I refer to a comment from you that suggests that because you consider me to be intelligent you are then surprised that I would hold the views that I do. In the current example it is around the issue of secularism vs. (as in my example) the idea that there are benefits with the presence of religion or spirituality in government (and particularly in education) and the ensuing problems when it is removed. The implication seems to be that it is unlikely that a person who holds these views can be intelligent; along with the assumed superiority of secularism and "logic". In my experience many of the most thoughtful and intelligent individuals that I have met are also religious, sometimes deeply so, and share these views. From my vantage point this is a perfect example of what I referred to earlier: the importance of being able to recognize our own biases. Obviously, there is much more that is tied to this and would very interesting to discuss. I prefer single-malt Scotch myself. Regards. |
Alex, thank you for your response. As I said, it is unlikely that we can do this topic justice here; especially right now since, as before, I have very little time. Of course I know that your intention is not to offend and to say so seems redundant at this point. I don't disagree with what you wrote about the principles involved. The problem is that these principles (diversity, fairness, political orientation, etc.) are not always easily defined as they relate to every day life. I don't consider your commitment to these ideals as a bias at all and that was not the bias that I referred to and that you did not address: the idea that someone who believes in the importance of spirituality and religion in these matters cannot also be highly intelligent. THAT is the bias. I don't adhere to that kind of absolutism about these matters and would never present my views and end the expression of those with "Period". Truth, in my opinion, is often more fluid than that and to have some fluidity in one's views is a better path to a viable "truth". Btw I prefer the Highland malts and some of the Speysides. Regards. |
"Exclusive"? Hypocracy. Bad form. Shallowness. Desperation. Simple nastiness... so rich, so sad.
|
|
