Thomas Chapin Trio "Haywire"
plus strings

John Surman "Adventure Playground"
Paul Bley
Gary Peacock
Tony Oxley

Lee Konitz and Red Mitchell "I Concentrate on You"

Art Blakey "Buhaina's Delight"

Christopher Fox "Topophony"
WDR Sinfonieorchester
Axel Dorner and Paul Lovens
John Butcher and Thomas Lehn

Thanks for this. Will take a closer listen to the Ginastera quartets, the Schubert piano trios and the Johnson quartets. Regarding the Schubert, is there a particular recording that rises above the others?

You really need to take that advice.

There doesn't seem to be much point in reporting your posts to the mods as this was the response I was given from a mod:

Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

In a way it's kind of funny. You, @Tom Storm and @Fooloso4 are like a group of school girls who back each other and think that what they believe is true simply because they each have the backing of the other girls. Also like them, for all intents and purposes, you're fungible.

Why do you keep evading the issues? — Fooloso4

Present a cogent argument that isn't a straw man and I'll be happy to address it.

lol. From what I gather, most are well aware of your low quality posts. For example, from a mod:
Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

Take this a wake-up call to step up the quality of your posts. Thus far, in your responses to me on this thread and others, it's been nothing but a steady stream of low quality posts and baseless accusations. Seriously, in the main they have been laughably bad. — ThinkOfOne

Why should anyone take you seriously? You're nothing more than a troll as you keep demonstrating.

lol. From what I gather, most are well aware of your low quality posts. For example, from a mod:

Banno will never change.

But despite the rudeness and lack of substance in many of his posts, he has a proper education in philosophy and is expert in analytic philosophy. I guess this means that his misbehaviour is sometimes tolerated by the staff.

Take this a wake-up call to step up the quality of your posts. Thus far, in your responses to me on this thread and others, it's been nothing but a steady stream of low quality posts and baseless accusations. Seriously, in the main they have been laughably bad.

You lay emphasis on:

the importance of HIS words.
— ThinkOfOne

The words He spoke while He preached His gospel.
— ThinkOfOne — Fooloso4

The above was written in an entirely different context. To understand those snippets you'll need to read them in the context of the entirety of that post within the context of @Art48's post.

Why do you keep taking everything out of context? Have you not yet realized that it's a poor methodology that often results in false conclusions? You really need to reassess your critical thinking skills. Wouldn't hurt to brush up on your reading comprehension skills as well.

Curiously, it's a methodology often employed by Christians when interpreting scripture. They often take verses or snippets of verses out of context, then cobble them together as if the individual contexts don't matter. As such, they also often draw false conclusions.

Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed.
— ThinkOfOne

Is your claim that concepts you deem to be of superior quality are those taught by Jesus, and those of lesser quality are not his own? — Fooloso4

To understand that sentence you'll need to read it in the context of the entirety of that post within the context of @Tom Storm's post. He seemed place import on the quantity of records kept instead of the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. Go figure. Tried to explain the fallacy of that to him, but he kept getting lost.

And yet another low quality post from @banno. What else is new?

Interesting that you choose again to attack and belittle rather than to clarify. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are challenged by this kind of discussion. Take care — Tom Storm

As I explained in my previous post as you've once again intentionally omitted from my post:

Well, it's clear that you can't be bothered to keep track of our discussion. Why should I be bothered to keep explaining what you keep missing because you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work"? — ThinkOfOne

Well, it's clear that you can't be bothered to keep track of our discussion. Why should I be bothered to keep explaining what you keep missing because you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work"?

You're really something.

↪ThinkOfOne Oh, and are you able to address my response? Particularly this which you can't avoid with a scenario which doesn't remotely match the situation we are discussing.

Where is the equivalent of a journal with actual words in it as source material for the gospels which are copies of translations of copies of translations, written decades after the events? Your thought experiment is predicated on a real and ordinary person who has left direct first hand source material via a written record of actual words said. And only one person involved in the process which took those words and recast them in fiction. Can you demonstrate that Yeshua kept a diary? Can you demonstrate that any notes were ever taken of Yeshua's itinerant preaching? Can you demonstrate that there is any connection at all between any words as they appear in the gospels and any words said by any actual person?
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

I did address your response with the following:

Well, perhaps you don't understand thought experiments. Or you've lost track of the context of this thought experiment. Perhaps it's once again due to the fact that you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work." — ThinkOfOne

If you kept track of what I've written, understood thought experiments and kept track of the context of the thought experiment, perhaps you'd understand that your response is irrelevant to the point of the thought experiment.

f you are unhappy with a comment or an approach, just say so plainly. This is a dialogue. No need to embroider your comments with imputations of a person's motives or intentions. That isn't good manners, doesn't demonstrate good faith and muddies an otherwise interesting conversation. — Tom Storm

You're really something. As I explained:

It isn't out of character for you to omit text from my posts that is germane to the discussion, then criticize what you've quoted as if it were written without the omitted text. Have you considered that perhaps if you had it sitting in front of you, you wouldn't keep losing track of what I've written? Regardless, your omitting text isn't "inadvertent". As such, it's "intentional". — ThinkOfOne

Evidently you're hellbent on characterizing it as an " imputation of a person's motives or intentions".

What's more, how does your ongoing failure to keep track of what I've written show "good manners" or " demonstrate good faith"? You're really something.

I was well aware of the fact that you only cited those three articles earlier. The point you missed is that there are many self-centered people in this world who are vehemently opposed to what SHOULD "be everyday practice for ethical societies" when they see it as infringing on what they enjoy or even when they don't see a direct benefit for themselves. As such it should come as no surprise "how vehemently people object to [ethical veganism]".

Be that as it may, you're kidding yourself if you believe that there aren't people vehemently opposed to Article 5. That there aren't people opposed to Article 4. Also the article that I cited speaks to Article 3.

↪ThinkOfOne Sorry, I didn't read it carefully enough.

you once again intentionally omitted text
— ThinkOfOne

You need to watch this sort of claim. You don't know what was omitted by intention or otherwise. I usually read this stuff quickly during breaks at work. — Tom Storm

It isn't out of character for you to omit text from my posts that is germane to the discussion, then criticize what you've quoted as if it were written without the omitted text. Have you considered that perhaps if you had it sitting in front of you, you wouldn't keep losing track of what I've written? Regardless, your omitting text isn't "inadvertent". As such, it's "intentional".

So, in your hypothetical, the person is not a god or a miracle worker and not the founder of a religion. That's the first critical difference. Because if they were then there's a different kind of scrutiny involved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. They are not equivalent examples. Also, even an obscure and almost totally hidden 20th century scientist can be identified fairly readily using records and research.

That said - if the journal has actual science documented in it that can be tested empirically and validated, then we can accept that part of the information. The testable part. The other information we would be unable to confirm. It might not matter if Einstein was fictional as the methods described could be confirmed.

But now you have another problem. Trying to fit your hypothetical into the Yeshua/Jesus story.

Where is the equivalent of a journal with actual words in it as source material for the gospels which are copies of translations of copies of translations, written decades after the events? Your thought experiment is predicated on a real and ordinary person who has left direct first hand source material via a written record of actual words said. And only one person involved in the process which took those words and recast them in fiction. Can you demonstrate that Yeshua kept a diary? Can you demonstrate that any notes were ever taken of Yeshua's itinerant preaching? Can you demonstrate that there is any connection at all between any words as they appear in the gospels and any words said by any actual person? — Tom Storm

Well, perhaps you don't understand thought experiments. Or you've lost track of the context of this thought experiment. Perhaps it's once again due to the fact that you "read this stuff quickly during breaks at work."

In and of themselves, off what value are the underlying concepts conveyed by the journal entries in the novel?
— ThinkOfOne

The key difference is we can readily demonstrate that Einstein actually lived, was a real person and we can demonstrate what he did. And we can readily compare the real person to the novel he inspired. So it's a very different situation. But I get what you are trying to say. — Tom Storm

C'mon. Even here you once again intentionally omitted text from my post that is germane to the discussion:

Perhaps a thought experiment will help.

Let's say that Einstein passed away in obscurity, but prior to his passing Einstein had fully developed his thoughts and fully documented them in a journal. Let's say that an author came across this journal and wrote a fictitious account of a scientist and liberally interspersed the novel with quotes from Einstein's journal depicting them as entries from a journal kept by the fictitious scientist. The author then destroyed Einstein's journal after the novel was published. — ThinkOfOne

Did you miss the fact that it's a thought experiment? Did you miss the fact that in this thought experiment
"Einstein passed away in obscurity...The author then destroyed Einstein's journal after the novel was published"? As such, in this thought experiment we CANNOT "readily demonstrate that Einstein actually lived, was a real person and we can demonstrate what he did." In this thought experiment, it is NOT a "key difference".

Given the sheer scale of our contempt for other sentient sepecies and given that we profess today to be deeply interested in just treatment of others, it seems to me that veganism is entirely consistent with our everyday ethics and as such open to being considered a standard ethical practice. It surprises me how vehemently people object to this idea. — Graeme M

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The above also "should be everyday practice for ethical societies". Unfortunately there are many in the US, for example, who are vehemently opposed to the above. There are a lot of self-centered people in this world. How is it that you are surprised "how vehemently people object to [ethical veganism]"?

Perhaps a thought experiment will help.

Let's say that Einstein passed away in obscurity, but prior to his passing Einstein had fully developed his thoughts and fully documented them in a journal. Let's say that an author came across this journal and wrote a fictitious account of a scientist and liberally interspersed the novel with quotes from Einstein's journal depicting them as entries from a journal kept by the fictitious scientist. The author then destroyed Einstein's journal after the novel was published.

In and of themselves, off what value are the underlying concepts conveyed by the journal entries in the novel?

How important are reading comprehension skills?

How important is it to understand context?

From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records.
— ThinkOfOne

Much of the other stuff based on Mark, which is still decades after the supposed events. The gospels are anonymous documents which are copies of translations of copies of translations etc.

The first task here is to demonstrate that the Jesus story in the books comports with an actual life and words of a real person/god. Until anyone can do this, they are, it seems to me, just doing book reports. — Tom Storm

Telling that you intentionally omitted the following from my previous post:

Interesting. Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. Evidently you place import on the quantity of records kept instead. — ThinkOfOne

Pay particular attention to the sentence I placed in bold.

That's quite the straw man. I made no such argument.

It's kind of ironic because as far as we know there are no records of Yeshua ben Yosef words or whoever the first century figure was who may have inspired the legends. So how much should we care about this? — Tom Storm

Interesting. Seems reasonable to place import on the quality of the underlying concepts conveyed. Evidently you place import on the quantity of records kept instead.

From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records.

Jesus. The Bible. St. Paul. Take your pick. They all failed. — Art48

Perhaps the most prevalent theme in the gospel preached by Jesus was the importance of HIS words. The words He spoke while He preached His gospel. Not the words of the Bible on the whole. Not the words of Paul. HIS words. Jesus went on and on about it. Emphasized the point time and again. Issued warning after warning.
Hear His word.
Not just hear His word, but understand His word.
Not just understand His word, but believe His word.
Not just believe His word, but follow His word.
Not just follow His word, but abide in and keep His word.

It is the failure of Christians, including Paul, to hear, understand and believe His word. Instead they hear, understand and believe the words of those other than Jesus. Ultimately this is what makes "true Christian doctrine" futile.

As but a few examples:
John 12
46 “I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
50 “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”
48 “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

John 18
37...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

John 10
27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

Why did you frame the futility of "true Christian doctrine" in terms of what "Jesus taught"? In light of the fact that Christian doctrine is based on what the Bible on the whole says rather than what "Jesus taught". What's more what Paul taught serves as the basis for interpreting the rest of the Bible rather than what "Jesus taught". Ultimately this is what makes "true Christian doctrine" futile.

Larry Ochs "The Fictive Five"
Nate Wooley
Ken Filiano
Pascal Niggenkemper
Harris Eisenstadt

Rodrigo Pinheiro "Red Trio"
Hernani Faustino
Gabriel Ferrandini

Daunik Lazro "Some Other Zongs"
Solo baritone sax

Dans Les Arbres "Canopee"
Xavier Charles
Ivar Grydeland
Christian Wallumrod
Ingar Zach

Linda Catlin Smith "Dirt Road"
Mira Benjamin: violin
Simon Limbrick: percussion

John Carter / Bobby Bradford "Seeking"

Ran Blake Quartet "Short Life of Barbara Monk"

Stephen Scott "Aminah's Dream"

Ben Webster "Music for Loving"

Linda Catlin Smith "Ballad"
Apartment House

Before that was

Mal Waldron, Hard Talk
Mal Waldron, Quadrologue at Utopia
Mal Waldron, Crowd Scene — Srap Tasmaner

On Waldron’s next easily accessible recording, 1969’s Free at Last (the first ECM record), everything is reduced to the drone and the riff. His touch has gotten more secure and elemental. As far as I can tell, Waldron wouldn’t really develop further until his death in 2002. Nor would he need to.
While on the ’50s records he threads changes, the mature Waldron doesn’t give a damn about making guide tones connect in satisfying or surprising ways.The right hand is an incantatory shaman sitting atop the chugging, low-register left, insisting that a short stutter of melody will fit anything: any harmony, any place in the beat, any tune. If the changes are noticed, simple lines are repeated in unvarying sequence.

Waldron’s best music also has a darker side that’s not decipherable in sense-based or spiritual terms. H. P. Lovecraft’s word unnamable might be appropriate. The piano playing seethes and burbles without coming to a climax.

Not everybody likes it. While many jazz fans have easily connected with Waldron’s emotional power, some professionals find Mal Waldron’s mature music merely amateurish, probably because it doesn’t play by the rules of sophisticated jazz. It’s certainly not that swinging, in part because Waldron frequently pushes ahead of the beat.
---Ethan Iverson

From <https://ethaniverson.com/rhythm-and-blues/on-mal-waldron/>

The dark brooding nature of Waldron's music is imbued with a hypnotic quality that I find quite likeable.

Marian McPartland "Plays the Music of Mary Lou Williams"

George Lewis "Shadowgraph"

Guy Klucevsek "Stolen Memories"

Art Blakey "Mosaic"

Toru Takemitsu "Chamber Music"
Robert Aitken

Thanks for this. Ginastera and Grisey are unknown to me. Had come across Gubaidulina and Dutilleux. I'll have to check them out.

Schubert I only have the late quartets, the string quintet and a couple of the late piano sonatas. As with Beethoven, the late works are what catch my ear.

Tom Johnson? Anything besides "An Hour for Piano" that I shouldn't miss?

Evan Parker "Imaginary Values"
Barry Guy
Paul Lytton

Tyshawn Sorey "Verisimilitudes"
Cory Smythe
Chris Tordini

Art Pepper "Modern Art"

William Duckworth "The Time Curve Preludes"

Rob Brown Trio "High Wire"
William Parker
Jackson Krall

Michael Bisio "MBEK"
Eyvind Kang

Gyorgy Legiti "The Legiti Project II"

Michael Vincent Waller "The South Shore"

That's interesting. Like you, I grew up where a meal wasn't a meal without meat. It was the best part of a meal. For the most part, vegetable matter was something you ate only because you had to. "It's good for you".

About six months after I became a vegetarian, I remember going to the grocery store. As I was paying to check out, the woman behind me placed a large roast on the conveyor belt. I looked at the bone-in roast and thought "that's a slab of dead animal flesh". What I saw was bone with muscle and a layer of fat around it. It really surprised me. Prior to that I would have thought, "Nice looking roast". It would have looked like food to me. For a long time now, I have had absolutely no desire for meat, much less a "love" for it.

Most aren't satisfied with what they do have. At least not for long- even if all their needs are met. That they aren't points to a lack of emotional maturity on their part. In fact, many could be satisfied with owning much less than they do. In some cases much, much less.

Besides health concerns and the ethics of killing sentient animals for food, there is also reducing the impact on the environment including climate change, land usage and water consumption and others. Following is the intro to an article detailing reasons to become vegetarian.

If we really want to reduce the human impact on the environment, the simplest and cheapest thing anyone can do is to eat less meat. Behind most of the joints of beef or chicken on our plates is a phenomenally wasteful, land- and energy-hungry system of farming that devastates forests, pollutes oceans, rivers, seas and air, depends on oil and coal, and is significantly responsible for climate change. The way we breed animals is now recognised by the UN, scientists, economists and politicians as giving rise to many interlinked human and ecological problems, but with 1 billion people already not having enough to eat and 3 billion more mouths to feed within 50 years, the urgency to rethink our relationship with animals is extreme.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment

At what point does a human being rationalise it’s consumption ? — Deus

It's been said that the ego generates excuses and rationalizations for the desires of the id. By and large, people primarily eat meat because they like, or in your case "love", eating meat - not because it is reasonable to do so. For them, its rationalizations all the way down.

For the most part, those who eat meat have been conditioned by their parents and themselves to desire meat . They are capable of reconditioning themselves. Instead they mindlessly buy the excuses and rationalizations that percolate up from the ego.

Marian McPartland "Live at Maybeck"

Urs Leimbruber "Quartet Noir"
Marilyn Crispell
Joelle Leandre
Fritz Hauser

Nate Wooley "Mutual Aid Music"

Taku Sugimoto "Opposite"

As a matter of curiosity, what Cage have you listened to? What do you think of Morton Feldman?

Since you come from a classical background, what recordings of the various combinations of strings or strings plus piano would you highly recommend?

I'd also be interested in hearing what modern classical has particularly impressed you.

Eddie Prevost "Touch"
Tom Chant
John Edwards

Tyshawn Sorey / Marilyn Crispell "The Adornment of Time"

Morton Feldman "Only: Music for Voice and Instruments"
Joan La Barbara

Sonny Rollins "The Sound of Sonny"

Gyorgy Ligeti "The Ligeti Project III"

Evan Parker / Eddie Prevost "Tools of imagination"

The Sealed Knot "Twenty"
Rhodri Davies
Mark Wastell
Burkhard Beins

John Cage "Sixty-Two Mesostics RE Merce Cunningham"
Everhard Blum voice

Michael Vincent Waller "Moments"

Compared to jazz and its derivatives, my exposure to classical and its derivatives is fairly limited. Heavily weighted toward the 20th and 21st century. The modern ideas are more interesting to me. Earlier than that its mostly the various combinations of strings and strings plus piano. Especially like the Bach sonatas and partitas for solo violin and the Beethoven late string quartets. They seem to have modern elements. Reger for the same reason. Other particular favorites from prior to postmodernism are Satie, Bartok, Shostakovich and Weinberg. Less so, Tartini, Paganini, Ysaye and others. What about you?

Marian McPartland Trio "Personal Choice"

Urs Leimgruber "Statement of an Antirider"
Solo sax / flute

Grigori Frid "Piano Quintet / Phadra"
Elisaveta Blumina
Vogler Quintet