Yeah this is a great disc. It may seem obvious, but watching this DVD was much more akin to attending a concert than it was listening to a CD. By that I mean that each sound is directly linked to what you see happening. Its interesting that Brian's descriptions above go into detail about exactly what Lucio was [i]doing[/i] as opposed to the more abstract description of the sounds he might otherwise have written if this was an audio-only release.

The danger of this for me is that I become more involved witht he process pf the musicam king rather than the music itself. I personally have made an audio rip of the sound on this DVD, not to replace it in anyway, but just so as to experience the music differently, without the link to how it was made. This of course is not really possible, as now I find myself trying to remember how each sound I hear was generated...!

Anyway, great music.

Here's the opening line of the second paragraph from my post above again, with the appalling typos corrected... sorry!

"The danger of this for me is that I become more involved with the process of the music making rather than the music itself."

Thought you'd come up with an alternative term for eai.

You're correct that that descriptions enabled by a DVD rather than an audio disc are going to be more precise if one chooses to go that route, which I did. I thought briefly about not doing so but, admittedly, it comes as something of a relief when one's given a chance to latch onto something definitive instead of the normal grasping for descriptives. Even so, I'm sure that the first piece would have come across as a bit more episodic than I'd ideally like to hear.

"Thought you'd come up with an alternative term for eai."

Heh, I'm using Sound Casserole from now on :)

yea, nice writeup brian
i must admit i had problems with the pacing of the first track too, when i first saw it. though, with the added help of the immediacy of the visual element, it soon sucked me into its own logic

Walto & evilxxx - I removed the various comments on re-naming eai. I'm always hesitant to do so (actually, this is the first time for me) but I think they were doing a disservice to Capece's release. I'm sure there are past threads where the comments might be more appropriate. No less silly, but maybe more apt.

Hey Sankt Olewnick, since this is a "first" for you, I take the freedom to point out that you are stepping on your own dick.

"Thought you'd come up with an alternative term for eai."

I don't get the selective editing of tangents here, but whatever.

Admittedly, there can be a fine line between tangents and sneering trollery, but I thought this was degenerating into the latter. (Jesse, your post was snagged in the offing not because of its inherent annoyance factor, but only because it led in to the others). I found Richard's typo amusing and added my own comment but the bulk of that post was substantive. (Thanks for the dick reference, Uli) Like I said, I'm sure there's a "What is EAI?" thread or its equivalent somewhere here, feel free.

I’m with Brian on this. Bags has been historically lax on editing/eliminating comments (particularly in comparison to the policies in place at other forums), often to its detriment. Mileage will obviously vary, but I don’t think it’s such a big deal that several ‘clever’ eai name variants were excised at his discretion. No one raised objections when I did the same to that bout of anti-Shipp boxing screeds a few weeks back, so give him a break.

And in response to any “slippery slope” conjecture, I’m secure in the opinion that it’s just a “blue moon” sort of thing.

I intentionally wrote "selective" and "here", as I agree with your description of Bags' moderating laxity, Derek. It was simply a suprise to find Walto's patented (and harmless) curmudgeon schtick excised (not to mention my own semi-annual contribution to this site). The flame wars here, including exchanges you have participated in, have unspooled at improbable lengths, un-excised. I don't mind your exhortation to "give (Brian) a break", but find the "moderating" here random and incoherent.

C’mon, Jesse. This is a molehill if ever there was one. If you’re calling the kettle black, I’ll freely admit to the pigmentation. As to the level of “moderation” at Bags, there’s nothing random about it. I’m averse to “moderating” in general*, but I pulled the plug on the Shipp stuff because it seemed esp. inane. Brian explained why he did what he did here. You obviously disagree, but what’s not to get? As to your “semi-annual contribution", please swing by more often and maybe a method to the madness will present itself.

In the interest of honoring Brian's original intention (steering thing back to Capece), let's continue any discussion of this offline. Cool?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to exhort the virtues of proper handwashing to an audience of captive employees. :-)

Of course it's a molehill, Derek, all these engagements are molehills. What does minimizing my point accomplish?
To clarify, my suprise was at a self-pruning thread that edits asides to maintain the focus on the music under discussion. It is hardly a controversial point that this is an exception to the tangential tendrils of most threads at Bags. Hence, my characterization of such moderating as "random."
And as I have told you offline, I swing by here a great deal for the music reviews. Brian has his eye on the cup, and I share his interest in the area(s) under discussion.
My reluctance to post, however,continues. It is unlikely to change the dynamics here to continue pointing out, as others have done, that this is largely a playground for habitues, which is why, imo, you see little change/growth in participants here.

I was glad to hear that boxing stuff wasn't Shipp's idea, personally.
His best idea is to play the piano with other likeminded good musicians, like on his great new trio cd, "Piano vortex".
I agree with cutting out the silly EAI names, the biggest problem wiht EAI was naming it in the first place.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with your point, Jesse? Damning out of one side & praising through the other. I understand the origin of your surprise. What I don’t understand is your indignation (but maybe that’s too strong a word), it being a molehill after all. If Bags is such an inhospitable place, don’t post. That’s fine. If you don’t like some of the content, pay it no mind. What internet forum ISN'T composed of habitues? I thought Brian explained his actions well. And we still haven’t heard from Walt, the other party supposedly slighted by the excision. Anway, let’s discuss it further in person over a couple of Oolongs, my treat.

Who the fuck has time to read all this shit?

Indignation is too strong, Derek.

My point was made as clearly as I can articulate it, perhaps another reader than yourself might see merit in my perspective(perhaops not).

Of course speakeasies consist of habitues. I was addressing the relatively stagnant state of contributors here, clearly a topic that riles you up.

As for my contributing a critical challenge to the state of things here, even as I praise Brian's work, I hardly see that as "damning." Every forum is a mixed bag, eliciting a mixed response.

Lastly, your admonishing me for stating my take strongly is silly, given your own impassioned, at times apoplectic, reactions to matters of opinion and taste. I only point that out as you are, annoyingly, taking umbrage with my umbrage.

Let Bags be a forum for such occasional challenges, Derek.No harm, it could stand to be a larger tent.

Indignation is too strong, Derek.

I figured it was, sorry. To return the favor, “riled” is too strong a word for what I am when it comes to the state of things here. I would just naturally like to see more activity and don’t feel it’s necessarily a function of habituation or stagnation. The reviews are updated regularly; the blog side, less so. From my end, it’s more a function of structure. The layout is out-moded in relation to the nature of current contributions, but I sadly lack the design skills to do much about it.

Again, I understand your point (if not completely, your “critical challenge”). I’m inquiring more as to what you’re trying to accomplish by making it. Also, where exactly did I “admonish” you, let alone exhibit “apoplectic” behavior? Please point out some examples (this isn’t a rhetorical request). To the contrary, I find myself being accused frequently of being “too nice” whether it’s in relation to some of the shit that goes on here or in the context of my own reviewing efforts. I’m just asking you to respect Brian’s intent and move this discussion elsewhere. If that’s not possible, then so be it. Seriously, let’s both take a step back before either of us types something we’ll regret. I kind of feel like we're talking past each other. And once again, Capece gets the shaft.

By the way, that Oolong is now on your dime. ;-)

"Critical challenge" refers to my raising the issue of how moderation is employed here.

I generally hope I provoke thought/reflection on the matters I raise, of course, become part of the ol' dialogue. Are you really puzzled at what I wish to "accomplish?"

The tone and intent of your 1:07 post above owns a whiff of admonishment to me, Derek. When a criticism is rejoined with "why are you even bringing this up?", I think it serves up an admonishment over advancing the dialogue.

When I referenced your apoplectic reactions, I had in mind specific exchanges you've aired here with Abbey.

I will shove off from the Capece thread. I hardly expect Brian to refrain from tangents on other threads, so I continue to not understand how the expectation can be different on this one.

As you know, I am an infrequent poster here and elsewhere, Derek. On occasion I like to throw my take in. It all really is sound and fury...

There is, btw, no chance I will type something I regret, where you are concerned. I think you are aces.

If I am buying, it's oolong for me, Makers for you. That'll put things in perspective... : ^ )

Fair enough. I didn’t intend any odor of admonishment & I respect your bringing up the issue of “moderation”. I just felt like things were explained sufficiently by Brian in his post, but it’s for him to elaborate further. My subsequent posts were attempts to curtail the discussion here & move it elsewhere, as per Brian’s original intent, but they ended up backfiring. Best laid plans…

Any apoplexy in relation to Jon isn’t a function of differences in taste; it’s in response to what I perceive as his general disrespect and contempt toward certain individuals who posit opinions other than his own. I’ve got no beef with his taste*. It’s obviously quite different in mine, though similar too, in some areas. Certainly not bettter or worse, in the larger scheme, just different. I also respect his work with his label.

Re: your frequency of posting here and elsewhere, I think you know that I wish that you would feel comfortable doing so more often. I understand that your point here was to explain in part why that isn’t so.

As to the Oolong-Makers confab, let’s do it soon, though in terms of cost ratio you’re likely to be outdrinking me to the tune of 3:1, so a perch close to the baños is probably preferred.

*caveat: His “jazz is dead” bait has admittedly hooked me in the past.

walto and I's little whimsical aside gets exorcised and yet the above discourse remains intact?

puzzling,

by the way I still liked shintonalism

If Jesse & Damon were cool with it I'd zap everything after Brian's last post.

I need to find myself a copy of this Capece so I can comment on it.

Derek has always been a random moderator (good word, Jesse), and as I've told him before, very bad at this kind of thing. At times, he gets people mixed up and admonishes somebody for something somebody else has done (or he may have done himself). It's a bit like Lucille Ball at the helm: lovable, but ditzy.

On the other hand, I don't think Brian's deletion here was random at all. I think some buddy of his put him up to it.

Cooler, by my lights, if you zap everything following Kostis' remarks.

I thought the removal of the earlier posts was supposed to refocus discussion on Capece. It doesn't seem to have happened. Personally I'm against any form of censure; let the flavour flood out, as an old commercial for Tetley Teabags used to say. If you want clean, freshly ironed and largely sheets of chitchat to fall asleep in, go to IHM.

While personally Bags is the most important place for me to read a review, it is not the only place. If an album is worthwhile it will get reviews plenty of places without the comments feature. In

I'm given to understand my above-stated theory was incorrect. Sorry. Just seemed very out of character to me for Brian to delete wisecracks.

FWIW, I don't really mind the deletions, but the idea that tangents somehow "harm" or "detract" from reviews seems silly to me. It's not like moustaches were drawn over anybody's pixels, making the original hard to make out.

Also, in case this wasn't clear to visitors, nobody is required to read commentellen.

Thinking about this yesterday, it's possible I was a little hasty but I had visions of this thread turning into a never-ending string of silly (imho) alternative names for eai. I put myself in Capece's place and imagined what I'd think seeing a relatively serious discussion of my work degenerate into that and, frankly, I was embarrassed. As Jesse pointed out, I've nothing against digressions as such by any means, but there was a snide quality to these, at least as I interpreted them, that I thought entirely out of place. So apologies to Walto, Jesse and whoever that other person is if they were offended; hope you can get past it and hope you stick around.

Can't see why he'd be all that put out, to be honest. If it were me, I'd find it all rather amusing.