#also mariano is so so praise driven

[crash-bump-bring-the-whump]

Whumpril 2024 - Day 10 - Adrenaline

Mariano drives stick for a reason

TWs: blood, field surgery, fast driving, my questionable knowledge of driving techniques, touch starvation

"I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo," Mariano muttered, easing the gas pedal down to the floor. Manuel lay in the back seat, belt between his teeth as Izan worked on him to stop the bleeding from an awful stab wound. Laredo held Manuel's hands, giving him something to squeeze. Dimitri helped Izan, handing him tools as requested.

The road flew by, Mariano shifting gears as needed. "Drifting." He said, interrupting himself to call back the warning as he threw the car into a curve. The weight shifted, dust flew, and he guided them back into the straightaway.

"You need to give us more warning than that!" Dimitri snapped.

"Understood." Mariano called back, easing them back up to the blistering speed they were at before. He glanced back through the rear-view mirror, catching Manuel's pale face and Izan's steady fingers staunching a bleed.

There was a click and Luis' voice came through the headset, above the roar of the engine. "What's your ETA, over?"

"T minus five minutes, working on making it three." Mariano said, glancing down at the speedometer and the clock. "Emergency services requested, Conduit has lost a lot of blood, over."

"They'll meet you at the gates, Lumen. Drive safe, over."

"You'd better make it three, Rookie!" Dimitri all but snarled. "And also--why the fuck were you singing in Japanese earlier?"

"It helps me with the timing." Mariano said, voice steady despite how his heart thundered in his ears. "I don't need to flip us."

"Wait, wait, is it because it was on my driving playlist when I was teaching you?" Laredo asked, surprise winding into his voice. "I remember that!"

"I mean why were you singing in Japanese?" Dimitri snapped, passing Izan another tool. "I thought you only knew Spanish, there's no way you're bilingual."

"I'm not, I didn't want to just say random syllables." Mariano said, shifting through the gears as they approached another curve. "Fifteen seconds to drift, tools off." He added, raising his voice as he twisted the wheel.

Again, the weight of the car shifted as Mariano took them through the turn. The tires slid, dust flew, and as he hit the accelerator he felt the moment the tires caught traction again and sent them flying forward. "Clear to proceed, that was the last turn. Anyway, it felt racist to not at least learn the words."

"You're so fucking weird." Dimitri grumbled as Izan laughed for the first time since Manuel went down.

"I've just about got the worst of it under control. Thank you for driving us Mariano." Izan said. "I wouldn't have trusted Laredo with those turns at that speed."

Mariano's face burned and he felt his heart race with something other than adrenaline. He suddenly felt grateful that they were all focused on Manuel. "The first one was a little sloppy. I need more time on the track."

"I'm free Friday, maybe you can show me how Tokyo Drift helps you remember the proper timing for everything." Laredo said, reaching forward to grip Mariano's shoulder. "I still can't actually pull off a drift in the moment." Mariano couldn't talk, only nodding and giving a thumbs up in response.

When the paramedics took Manuel, Mariano heard one of them say that it was lucky he'd gotten to them so quickly or it could've been bad. Even an evening run hadn't been enough to erase Izan's quiet thanks. That night, Mariano's shoulder still hadn't stopped tingling where Laredo had touched him. Mind racing, he knew he wouldn't get enough sleep. He'd be exhausted the next day.

It was fine, Mariano thought. He'd acted weird enough to make Dimitri mad, but he'd gotten Manuel home in time, and Izan had thanked him, and Laredo wanted to learn from him.

It was all worth it.

[neokonewman]

Encanto spoilers

It’s interesting how many people see Isabela’s behavior as the stereotypical “awful older sister.” Like, no shade because it makes sense in a way. Mirabel is not only the protagonist of the movie, but she is also portrayed as the underdog due to being giftless. Most people love to root for the underdog. On the flip side, being the “golden child” of the family, it’s expected that people would see Isabela as a obstacle that Mirabel has to over overcome to get her validation. This is a pretty common trope when it comes to siblings being treated differently.

That being said, in my opinion, Isabela is a pretty simple character to understand once you have all the puzzle pieces. A major theme in Encanto is looking psss surface impressions of people in order to see them as human beings. With Mirabel as our protagonist, not only are we supposed to root for her, but she acts like a sort of viewing glass for us to perceive the other characters. Even her big music number at the beginning of the movie is used to established how she views each member of the family, thereby giving her viewpoint as our first impressions of the rest of the family. Alma is the main matriarch of the family who values hardwork and dedication. Bruno is a mysterious figure that is MIA. Luisa is super strong and reliable. Isabela is the perfectgolden child of the family. The movie then continues to show Mirabel (and in turn the audience) that these specfic characters are hiding their own insecurities and issues.

For the most part, Mirabel describes almost all the members of the family in a pretty good light with a little humor peppered in (mostly at Pepa’s mood driven gift, but I digress), however the one real exceptions comes with Isabela. Rather than highlight Isabela’s gift and characteristics, Mirabel’s verse when describing her oldest sister is actually passive aggressive.

“Grows a flower, the town goes wild. She’s the perfect, golden child.”

Then later in the song when Mirabel quickly pulls Mariano in to warn him that his intended is dramatic right in front of a bunch of kids. From the very beginning, Mirabel painted a pretty negative picture of Isabela in a song filled to the brim with her praising the rest of her family. In doing this, it’s easy for us to take what she says about her oldest sister at face value so her bias becomes our bias.

Another funny little detail that displays Mirabel comtempt for Isabela is the look she gives to her in the background whenever Mirabel feels like Isabela is acting extra. Even in the scene right before the infamous hair flip, we see Mirabel give her sister a flat, judging look right until Isabela slaps her in the face with her hair. We also see the same look on Mirabel’s face at least two more times: during Isabela’s verse in “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” and a short little bit near the beginning of “What Else Can I Do,” but more on the latter later. Mirabel also isn’t shy of letting other people know her hostile feelings toward her sister, not only during the opening music number but also when she’s talking to her mother about “Senorita Perfecta Isabela” and again when she is upset with Bruno’s vision showing her that the key to saving the house is embracing Isabela.

In case I haven’t been myself clear (because I just love giving examples before getting to the point), Mirabel starts off as an unreliable narrator. Again the whole point of her journey is her perspective of her family being challenged. In challenging Mirabel’s perspective, the movie challenges our own impression of the characters painted by Mirabel’s opinion. By the start of the movie, Mirabel has already developed a bias against Isabela due to her sister’s flashy gift and less than humble way of presenting herself. Just like with Bruno, Luisa, and Alma, Isabela turns out to be more than just Mirabel “mean” sister.

This finally comes to a head after the disastrous dinner party. I’ve seen a lot of people state that Isabela is overly cruel and vindictive during the scene. However, I would argue that it’s our bias for Mirabel and against Isabela that blinds us a bit to Mirabel less than nice behavior in this scene. From Mirabel’s perspective, she is sucking up her pride to offer an apology to her sister in order to save the house. It’s Mirabel “taking one for the team” for lack of a better phrase. On paper it can be seen as a selfless act in order to save the house, but it was very much a shallow, and clearly forced apology as a means to an end.

On the flip side, lsabela is geunine in this scene, geuninely upset over the mess that happened at the dinner. Mirabel comes waltzing into her room with flowery (heh) words of “being a better sister” that has so much “I’m being forced to be nice to my sister against my will” energy that it understandably insults Isabela and only frustrates her more. The situation continues to go downhill as Mirabel continues her insincere offer to “hug it out” so Isabela snaos back that she should start being a better sister by apologying for “ruining her life.”

Yes, this is a very harsh and hurtful thing to say, but again, to Isabela at this moment it makes some sense. Not only is she frustrated with the situation as well as Mirabel’s fake apology, but at this point, it’s revealed that Bruno’s vision is believed to depict Mirabel as the cause of the magic to break down. Isabela also has no idea that Mirabel is trying to prevent it with by trying to get Isabela to hug her, so from her perspective, Mirabel isn’t taking the situation as serious as it is as well as not even remotely sorry for ruining her prospal dinner. So Isabela turns Mirabel offer against her by giving her something to actually apologize for, because if she is going to offer a fake apology, it might as well be something that could give Isabela some vindictive satisfaction from it.

Then of course it backfires when Mirabel finally drops the act and throws it right back to her face. This scene isn’t a onesided act of aggression. This is both of the sisters unleashing their built up resentment towards each other fueled by their biases. From Mirabel’s viewpoint, she is doing everything she can to save the house and the magic, but her “selfish” sister’s drama is ruining it. From Isabela’s viewpoint, she has been sacrificing a lot for the sake of making the family happy, but her hardwork is ruined by her “selfish” sister who causes trouble. The fight continues (shoutouts to the flowers punching Mirabel in the face and Mirabel just being so freaking done) until Isabela admits to not wanting to marry Mariano, but doing so because it was for the family.

It is at this moment that we get all the puzzle pieces that make Isabela’s character shine, before even Mirabel has a chance to really put them together. Coming back to Mirabel giving her sister another done (if a bit confused) look as Isabela admires the cactus she created, it shows us that Mirabel doesn’t truly understand the weight of Isabela choice to marry to make the family happy. In fact Mirabel just uses it as an excuse to continue to force the hug to happen. However, after she continues her big song about expanding her life outside of her bubble of perfection, Isabela finally puts down her metaphorical walls blocking Mirabel’s vision with two lines.

“I’m so sick of pretty. I want something true.”

It’s finally at this moment that Mirabel let’s go of her own bias against Isabela, admitting that she always say her oldest sister as someone whose had a perfect life since birth. Mirabel stops trying to make Bruno’s vision work, and instead embraces this new side of Isabela and continues to encourage her to branch out (hehX2) her abilities. This concludes their conflict by Isabela pulling Mirabel in a genuine embrace that helps fix the house.

So I guess, my point is as much some people still think Isabela was cruel for no reason, I don’t necessarily think she needs to verbally apologize to Mirabel. More than anything, both sisters had hang ups with each other that were finally resolved once they put them aside and metaphorically and physically embraced each other. Perhaps I over explained my point, but hey, analysis posts are fun, and now that I have the power of “read more” I can make my post as long as I want without being too annoying (hopefully).

[kithmet]

001 for Gilmore Girls!

YESSSSSS, A GILMORE GIRLS ASK. PRAISE THE LORD. 

Favourite character: Jess Mariano!!! Yeah, he’s a bit of a dickhead as he’s growing up, but I believe that’s for certain reasons. Also, he’s just my favourite little witty brat. I absolutely love how he grows up as the series progresses. He’s the only character that I can see a true positive character development arc in. 

Least favourite character: Should I be edgy and say Lorelai Gilmore or just say Dean Forester? Lorelai honestly bugs the crap out of me. 

5 favourite ships (canon or non-canon): I’m Literati through and through. That’s Jess/Rory, if y’all didn’t get that lol. Um, I don’t mind Luke/Lorelai. Oh, I liked Lane and Dave a lot! But maybe that’s just because of my giant crush on Adam Brody. Whoops. I also don’t mind the rarer pair of Rory/Paris sometimes.

Character I find most attractive: Jess. Duh. (MILO VENTIMIGLIA IS SO ATTRACTIVE IN ALL FORMS.)

Character I would marry: See previous answer. But uh, only the grown up version of him, lmao. I can’t deal with all that teenage angst.

Character I would be best friends with: Laaaaane!!! I love her. OH I LIKE PARIS A LOT, TOO, even if she’s insufferable lol.

A random thought: This show is a hot mess. Amy Sherman-Palladino is a hot mess. I can’t believe she wanted to end the original series in season seven with THAT. Like, are you good, woman?! I know it’s ~poetic~ to do the full circle thing, but guess what? I FUCKING HATE IT.

An unpopular opinion: I mean, I’ve seen this around a lot, but I hate Dean so much. I hate how he treated Rory. I also hate who Rory was when she was with Logan. AND I LOVE JESS/RORY BUT I HATE HOW THEY HAD HIM PINING AFTER HER LIKE A LOVESICK IDIOT AT THE END OF THE REVIVAL. GIVE MY MAN SOME HOPE!!!

My Canon OTP: Jess and Rory are not canon and I will forever RIOT over it. You know how much shit-baiting they did pre-revival? I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT BE CANON. [breathes into paper bag to calm down]. I guess the only ‘canon’ OTP I have for this show is Luke/Lorelai, but I don’t even care about them that much. Big sigh.

My Non-canon OTP: …see previous answer.

Most Badass Character: I honestly find Lane to be such a badass. ALSO, MRS KIM. I LOVE HER A LOT. Uh, does Paris count for this? Also her, I suppose.

Most Epic Villain: [snort] Well, Gilmore Girls wasn’t really a show with ‘villains’. I… don’t really think there’s a right answer for this question.

Pairing I am not a fan of: Dean/Rory (what are y’all smoking, I’m sorry), I didn’t mind Logan/Rory either by the end of the first series but by the revival? THROW IT IN THE TRASH. 

Character I feel the writers screwed up (in one way or another): [HEAVY BREATHING INTO PAPER BAG] RORY GILMORE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE REVIVAL TARNISHED HER FOR ME? DO YOU? I DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE REVIVAL. IT MAKES ME VERY SAD. She didn’t develop at all so many years later. What the hell was she doing fucking around with Logan? Also, driven Rory was so fucked up in terms of her employment?! I know that she isn’t perfect (hell no, she definitely isn’t) and it’s ~realistic~ to have her be unsure of her job, but JESUS CHRIST. AND THEN SHE GETS [SPOILER] KNOCKED UP. BY LOGAN!!!!! EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!! REPEATING HER MOTHER’S MISTAKE!!!!! Let me die, it would be less painful than this.

Favourite Friendship: I love Lane and Rory, I also adore Paris and Rory. And I even like Jess and Rory just as friends.

Character I most identify with: Lane, I think. Maybe Jess a little, too.

Character I wish I could be: Lord, please grant me the wit of Jess Mariano, the drive of Paris Gellar, the personality of Lane Kim, and … er. Idk what else. Make me Jess when he’s older if anything, lol.

Ask me fandom questions.

[raggywaltz1954]

This is an album I’ve been looking forward to writing about from the moment I created this blog.  The product of Playboy Magazine’s first jazz poll, Hugh Hefner decided to create an album to honor the winners of the poll.  By releasing such a project, Hefner and the folks at Playboy provided a snapshot of popular jazz circa 1956, in addition to accomplishing something rarely seen in the music industry- a truly cooperative effort that spanned record labels.  Let’s jump to the music!  Warning:  This being Playboy and all, there’s a couple of pictures that may make you blush.  Wink Wink.  Also, grab some water and some food; there’s lots of music to discuss!

The Music

https://raggywaltz.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/play-boy.wav

The Tune:  “Play, Boy!”

Recorded:  15 July 1957 in Hollywood, CA

Personnel:

Leader & Trumpet–  Shorty Rogers

Trumpets–  Conte Candoli, Conrad Gozzo, Al Porcino, Pete Candoli, Harry Edison, Don Fagerquist

Saxes–  Park Adams, Richard Kamuca, Bill Holman, Jack Montrose, Herb Geller

Trombones–  George Roberts, Frank Rosolino, Bob Enevoldsen, Harry Betts

Piano-  Lou Levy

Bass–  Monty Budwig

Drums–  Stan Levey

  https://raggywaltz.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-sophisticated-rabbit.wav

The Tune:  The Sophisticated Rabbit

Recorded:  25 July, 1957 in Los Angeles, CA

Personnel:

Leader & Drums:  Shelly Manne

Trumpet-  Stu Williamson

Alto Sax-  Charlie Mariano

Piano-  Russ Freeman

Bass-  Monty Budwig

  https://raggywaltz.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/a-playboy-in-love.wav

The Tune:  “A Playboy in Love”

Recorded:  31 July, 1957 in Los Angeles, CA

Personnel:

Leader & Guitar-  Barney Kessel

Piano-  Arnold Ross

Bass-  Red Mitchell

Drums-  Shelly Manne

  https://raggywaltz.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/pilgrims-progress.wav

The Tune:  “Pilgrim’s Progress”

Recorded:  3 August, 1956 at Stratford, Ontario, Canada

Personnel:

Leader & Piano-  Dave Brubeck

Alto Sax-  Paul Desmond

Bass-  Norman Bates

Drums-  Joe Dodge

  Quite simply, this is a cool album.  It was revolutionary when it was released, a spectacular example of multiple record companies working together to create something new.  In 1956, when Playboy Magazine was more glamour and less sleaze, Hugh Hefner decided to join the ranks of Down Beat and other jazz publications and start the Playboy Jazz Poll.  During its heyday, it was (in Hefner’s own words) the most successful and popular jazz poll around.  This may have been correct; I’m sure it was easy to fill out the poll when there were pretty girls on the opposite pages.  Hefner didn’t mess around.According to the album’s copious liner notes, there were more than 20,000 ballots and over 430,000 individual votes.  Pretty decent for a first poll.  The window to cast a vote was pretty narrow, and the whole operation was rather official in nature.  The first “page” of liners explains the rigorous process:

“In accordance with the rules of the first annual PLAYBOY JAZZ POLL, only votes entered on the official jazz poll ballot in the October issue and postmarked before midnight, November 15th, were counted.  In an unprecedented move to assure the authenticity of the poll’s results, all ballot envelopes were turned over, unopened, to Arthur Pos & Co., certified public accountants, who supervised the tabulating and verified the final count.  Votes were entered on punch cards and tabulated by IBM.  The final results follow, with the top 13 listed in each category.”

So there you have it.  Side note:  1956 was the year IBM introduced their first computers to use hard-drive disks, holding a stupefying 5 megabytes of data (or 0.005 gigs).  The computers took up a whole room, as this now quaint picture from ’56 shows. 

From the results of this poll, Hugh Hefner and the folks at Playboy thought it would be a groovy idea to press a special album comprised of the winners of the poll, an ambitious project requiring the cooperation of numerous record labels.  Against all odds, Playboy was able to do it.  The two-record album is like a large compilation album (which, technically, I suppose it is), with music representing jazz from all over the place, from a Stan Kenton track from 1940 to music recorded a few months the album was released in 1957.  This album was also rather special in that much of the music included on here wasn’t released anywhere else.  In fact, a few of the tracks were recorded especially for this project, making some of the tracks rare and hard to find.  It’s these types of tracks that I decided to spotlight, as I was having trouble picking tunes to showcase for this feature.

Trumpeter Shorty Rogers wrote the tune “Play, Boy!” to celebrate being ranked (4th place) in the poll, and it’s a swinging number.  Rogers occasionally led a big band, and this track features his big band, yet the music still breathes and swings like a small group.  The arrangement is catchy and uses some wild, dense voicings, with the Candoli brothers screaming on the trumpets.  The big band is made up of the West Coast’s best and brightest jazz men, with guys like Frank Rosolino, both Pete and Conte Candoli, Bill Holman, Herb Geller, and even Harry Edison, to name a few.  I’m not sure who the saxophonist is who takes that initial solo, or the guy who takes the trombone solo (I suspect it’s Mr. Rosolino…), but I’m pretty sure Lou Levy takes the piano solo, and Herb Geller gets a brief couple of bars to make a statement as well.  Shorty Rogers manages to sneak in and take a brief solo himself.

Drummer Shelly Manne took first place in the drum category, and thus decided to also write a special piece for the album.  I like what the liner notes say about it (written by the great Leonard Feather):

“In “Sophisticated Rabbit”, written for and dedicated to the mascot of a certain men’s magazine that shall be nameless, Shelly offers a provocative minor motif in which his sidemen-trumpet, piano, tenor, bass-all have their turn at bat, with Shelly in the spotlight toward the middle of the performance.”

Shelly Manne was one of the more tasty, melodically-driven drummers jazz ever saw, and this track aptly makes that case.

In keeping with the obvious theme, Barney Kessel’s original tune “A Playboy in Love” is another example of a tune written especially for this project and thus appeared only on this album.  The recording is less than five minutes, yet Kessel manages to fit an entire jazz suite into that time span.  He introduces the theme in a slow, no-tempo opening, moving to more rhythmic variations, then turns the tempo up again for some good old jazz blowing.  The melody is simple, yet effective; it’s like something you’d whistle while walking down the street (do people even whistle while walking down the street anymore?).  To quote Mr. Feather once again, “It has form and continuity; composition and improvisation; a beautifully integrated rhythm team, and, above all, the mandatory intangible known as soul.”  Needless to say, Mr. Feather designated this tune as the best thing on the album.  High praise indeed.

Lastly, but certainly not least, we come to the longest track on the entire album, laid down by big winners of the Playboy Poll- the Dave Brubeck Quartet.  Full disclosure:  this was the main reason (ok, the only reason) I tracked down and bought this album.  This live performance by the 1956 edition of the Dave Brubeck Quartet was originally only available on this album.  The tune is an original of sorts, in that it’s a spontaneous exploration of the blues in B-flat minor.  While Paul Desmond and the Brubeck brigade explored the minor blues numerous initially in 1954 and numerous times after that, this version is slightly different in that they stay in the minor key the entire time instead of moving into the adjacent major key.  The title, “Pilgrim’s Progress”, almost certainly came post-performance and was almost certainly Paul Desmond’s idea.  Desmond and Brubeck’s minor blues performances were all shades of Desmond’s original tune “Audrey”, but on this occasion, it was sly named after another woman, namely Playboy’s favorite playmate at the time named Janet Pilgrim.  Ms. Pilgrim was quite the looker in the mid-1950’s, as a Google search quickly showed.  It’s easy to see why this performance was named after her for its inclusion in this album, but with Desmond, there’s more than meets the eye.  During Desmond’s solo on the track, he quotes Stravinsky’s “L’Histoire du Soldat”, or “History of a Soldier”.  It’s not hard to see how Desmond’s mind could make the leap from “History of a Soldier” to ‘Christian soldier’ to ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ (a story about a guy named Christian soldiering on to the Celestial City) to Janet Pilgrim.  That’s the mind of Paul Desmond for you.

Recorded live in 1956 at the Stafford Jazz Festival in Ontario, Canada, the tune features some haunting playing by Desmond and some climatic piano from Brubeck, with a short but tasty bass solo from Norman Bates (no joke.  That’s his name).  Drummer Joe Dodge provides kicks and interjections here and there to prod the musicians along.  Writing the liner essay for Brubeck’s selection, Leonard Feather, who wrote an absolutely scathing review Brubeck’s album ‘Time Out’ (which of course is one of Brubeck’s most popular albums), reluctantly conceded that “No matter what the polemics in which we critics have indulged concerning the technical value of the contribution by this and that combo, there can be little doubt that with the help of Dave and Paul, their records and their in-person college tours, much has been accomplished toward the end of establishing jazz intellectually as music to listen to, to enjoy and study and dissect, rather than simply as an incitement to dancing or foot-stomping.”

The Dave Brubeck Quartet featuring Paul Desmond was riding high among jazz fans during the mid-50’s, as the Playboy Jazz Poll aptly illustrates.  Individually, Brubeck and Desmond came out well on top in their instrument categories, with Brubeck surpassing Erroll Garner by almost 2,000 votes while Desmond carried a lofty 2,581-vote lead over Bud Shank.  If that wasn’t ego-boosting enough, Dave Brubeck won the best instrumental combo category with a comfortable 2,000-plus vote lead over the Modern Jazz Quartet.  Pretty good for a group that burst onto the scene a mere five years earlier in 1951.

The rest of the album features the other winners of the poll, with people as varied as Louis Armstrong (who was featured with a live song unavailable anywhere else for decades) and Charlie Ventura to more ‘modern’ guys like Bob Brookmeyer and Chet Baker.  Stan Getz’s featured track is a cooking blues “Blues for Mary Jane”, which comes from his album ‘The Steamer’.  The music overall is fantastic and noteworthy, particularly for the more rare tracks that for the longest could only be heard on this long out of print vinyl album.  In the case of the Brubeck track, the album points to the fact that there’s tapes of live material languishing in a vault somewhere.  As great as the music is, however, there’s some real visual treats in the album.  To the album itself we go!

The Cover

Raggy Waltz Rating:  B-

I’m sure some readers will be confused as to how this apparently bland cover art garnered a ‘B-‘.  For some reason, I truly like it.  It’s clean, simple, yet modern in composition.  The way the title is printed and displayed across the middle of the cover with various colors draws you in, while the names of the winners (in lower-case, because of hipness) descends vertically to give your eye somewhere else to go.  In the middle is Playboy’s famous mascot, the rabbit with bow tie.  This could have been made in 2018, and looks just as stylish now as it probably did back in 1957.  Emmett McBain  of Playboy Magazine, good on you.  The cover was printed in that unique mid-50’s style of heavy gloss and laminate, which I happen to love.  It feels durable, like it’ll last another fifty-plus years.

The Inside

There’s quite a few pictures here.  You’ve been warned.

 It’s not a gatefold album, and it’s not an album with inserts.  It’s an album with a lengthy booklet directly attached to the inside.  Ten pages, to be exact.  It’s loaded with fantastic pictures, information, and even mini discographies for each artist.  And of course, the all important results of Playboy’s first annual jazz poll.  Written by the elder statesmen of jazz writing, Leonard Feather (who also happened to be Playboy’s Jazz Editor, which makes me wonder what he was writing about jazz in the magazine to result in these poll results), the liner essays are expertly written and full of analysis of the music and the artist.

The results of the poll are immensely intriguing on many accounts, namely how it serves as a sort of snapshot of what jazz fan’s tastes were in the early years of jazz’s golden era.  It’s a revealing look at the readership of Playboy Magazine in the mid-1950’s, as well.  Looking at the names that made the rankings in each category and the names that actually took the top spots (and which names didn’t even make it at all), one gets the idea that Playboy’s main demographic tended towards one direction.  They favored the newer West Coast jazz musicians, intriguingly enough, yet also liked the older jazz musicians from the early days of jazz like Jack Teagarden and Louis Armstrong.

What’s glaring is who’s NOT the winners, or even ranked.  For it to be 1956 and not have Clifford Brown (they included Art Tatum and Tommy Dorsey, who also died in 1956), Sonny Rollins, Art Pepper, or even Horace Silver make the top 13 is pretty incredible.  And if that’s not enough, the people we would record collectors and modern jazz fans would consider the greats are buried in the rankings.  Miles Davis and Art Blakey are both in 8th place in their respective fields.  Cannonball Adderley is 7th in alto sax, with Sonny Stitt right above him.  Numerous conclusions can be drawn from this.  I’d encourage you to go through the poll results when you have the time, as it truly is fascinating to see who Playboy readers of the 1950’s were listening to.  Like Frank Sinatra.  Not a surprise that he was the favorite dude singer of 1956, but it’s a pleasant surprise to see Nat King Cole and Sammy Davis Jr. coming in second and third.

The Back

I really like this artwork.  Other than the fact that it’s printed crooked on the album, this is a neat concept.  This would make for a cool poster.

The Vinyl

Hugh Hefner was truly a visionary.  From a small loan of $600, Hef built a magazine publishing brand and company, clubs, merchandise, and a tv show.  Oh and a record label.  The history of Playboy Records is a story of how humble beginnings can turn into a something much bigger.  Started by Hefner in 1957 for this project, the label continued to grow, peaking in the 1970’s with a few huge hit singles. 

In 1957, Playboy Records relied largely on the expertise of other record labels.  George Avakian of Columbia Records and Norman Granz of Verve played a particularly special role in the making of this album, and Contemporary Record’s Les Koenig handled the tape and record pressing and supervision.  In fact, upon looking at the all-important runnout info in the vinyl, it reveals that Koenig had the album pressed by Contemporary Records.  Side one has “P B-1957-12-1- D1”.  I’m not sure what the 12 means, but I’m pretty sure the other part is the label and catalog number, followed by side 1.  According to London Jazz Collector, the D1 signifies a first pressing.  An ‘H’ in the runnout indicates it was pressed by the RCA Hollywood pressing plant.  The other codes in the runnout have ‘D1’ or ‘D2’.  The vinyl is deep-groove, with first edition Playboy labels.  I like how they made it so that the eye of the rabbit is the actual record hole (is there a more official term for the middle of the record?).  One annoying thing about this album and old double-record albums is how they number the sides.  Why is side 4 on the back of side 1?!  Why is side 3 on the back of side 2?!  It makes absolutely no sense at all, and nobody has been able to adequately explain the logic of this practice.  Why wouldn’t you put the records in consequential order?  Can somebody explain that to me?

The sound on this album is fantastic, particularly the tunes recorded in the studio especially for this project, leading me to think Lester Koenig had a bigger role in the album’s production.  Even the live track with Brubeck was recorded excellently, given the circumstances.  Of course, this is all in glorious mono, recorded on the eve of that shiny new toy called stereo’s life.

The Place of Acquisition

eBay.  Nothing too special, other than this was among the first albums I bought on eBay way back in 2015.  Playboy released two more projects like this one, with the production and packaging acquiring more bells and whistles with each release, with their final release in 1960 being the grandest.  I will own them all sooner or later, as they’re all highly collectible.  According to reviews and Hugh Hefner, these albums were pretty popular.  Of course, Hefner was able to utilize product placement and milk it for all it was worth…

Speaking about the third and final Playboy set, Hefner said that “A three-record set produced by Playboy based on the first Festival was a smash hit that has since become a treasured collector’s item.”   Luckily they’re not too hard to find, as most they rate pretty low on the totem pole with most record collectors, particularly the record collectors with money.  Which, naturally, is fine with record collectors with no money, like myself.

  Back in the 1950's, Playboy Magazine was more about jazz and glamour. This unique album shows how important jazz truly was to Hugh Hefner and Playboy's early image. This is an album I've been looking forward to writing about from the moment I created this blog. 

[helloworlddemo1122-yahoopar-blog]

EXCLUSIVE: Milo Ventimiglia Satisfies His Creative Curiosity With ‘This Is Us'

Milo Ventimiglia isn’t looking for validation. Not anymore.

“The older I’ve gotten, the less I’ve been interested in [chasing] the grand success of a young man, where you think you’re going to take over the world, you’re going to win awards, you’re going to be the biggest movie star,” Ventimiglia tells ET one balmy April afternoon on a secluded hotel balcony overlooking the Sunset Strip. “Those things fade into ‘I’m a working actor,’ and that is one of the most satisfying things in an industry that has no guarantees.”

Each moment he puts himself in front of the camera, he says, is one he won’t get back. So it had better count. “If I don't put my whole heart into it because I'm thinking about successes or what the next job is, I'm undercutting why I'm even there,” Ventimiglia says of a dramatic shift in perspective for the veteran actor, who has quietly amassed a career that’s surpassed two decades and includes a handful of signature roles, such as bad boy Jess Mariano on Gilmore Girls and crusader Peter Petrelli on Heroes. “You get one moment to live in it and it happens to be right now, so you better appreciate it and you better be in it and you do your damnedest.”

EMMYS 2017: The Standout Performances on TV

And as one of the leading men on the year’s most successful hit, This Is Us, Ventimiglia is inching toward uncharted territory. On the NBC drama, he brings the soul to Jack Pearson, devoted husband and caring dad of three, a character that has quickly become, to many viewers, a surrogate father figure. “People are transferring this love for Jack onto me,” he says, almost in astonishment over the groundswell of admiration his character has received in a rather brief amount of time. He is too modest to suggest that he may be a big part of the reason why. “Hopefully, he can stay revered and not fall as fast as he rose.”

There was a time when Ventimiglia would have been anxious about the next big role or aiming haphazardly for success. But as the actor prepares to say goodbye to his 30s -- he turns 40 on July 8 -- he’s less worried about individual acclaim and more interested in satisfying his own creative curiosity. Ironically, it’s this change in mandate -- something that has happened in the past few years -- that’s brought him the critical praise (and Emmy buzz) he now contends with following the breakout success of This Is Us.

“I'm a working-class guy. I appreciate the hard work and I'm uncomfortable with any kind of accolade,” Ventimiglia says, shrugging off any undue attention that may come with playing Jack.

“Someone telling me I need to do better makes me want to do better,” he says, acknowledging that the role has “softened” him around the edges. “I’ve played a string of very serious men -- action-driven, science-fiction, fantasy-driven -- and now I’m just a dad with babies who have sh*tty diapers; teenagers who have freak-outs; and 8-year-olds who want to run around and splash kids at the pool. It’s softened me up to make me a little more accessible to people in life.”

On a deeper level, This Is Us has fortuitously paralleled the values and ideals Ventimiglia strives to live by each and every day. “[The show] has reaffirmed views that I have on life, on love, on kindness, on dedication,” he explains, specifically calling back to the final scene of the season, where Jack assures his wife, Rebecca (Mandy Moore), that the kids “are going to be fine” following their breakup. “They do the best they can [as parents], but at the end of the day, what happens to them is bigger than who they are.”

It’s also added a new perspective on “parents out there,” and the way he thinks about his mother and father. “There’s a lot that reaffirms the way I try to live my life,” he says, adding that it’s “more than the discovery of ‘Wow, I never looked at life that way.’”

ETONLINE

It’s not a stretch to say there isn’t a clear point where Ventimiglia ends and Jack begins; in fact, the blurred line between reality and fiction is something the actor has wholly embraced. “I also think there was inherently a lot of Jack already in me,” he offers, suggesting he’s more than OK with being forever tied to this character. “I think I’m always a hopeful person, but I’m also fiercely protective. And while this is Jack and this is Milo on two sides of a coin,” he gestures to an imaginary quarter, “there’s now a rounded ball and there is no difference between the two.”

As Moore tells it, both men are simply one and the same. “[Milo] is so remarkable as a human being -- his constitution, his view of the world and how to treat people, men and women. He walked on set the very first day and every day he shakes everyone’s hand on the crew.” By day two, she says, Ventimiglia knew everybody’s name. “He’s an incredible man and he brings that foundation to Jack. So, so much of Jack is Milo. The good parts of Jack are solidly Milo.”

Ventimiglia has spoken candidly about how his father has influenced his approach to Jack, whom he sees as the “stoic” presence of the Pearson family, citing the first time he saw his father break down in tears as an unforgettable moment.

“I didn’t see my father cry until I was 21, until the passing of his father, and it made me think about how my father raised me and gave me strength where maybe other people may crumble,” he says.

“It doesn’t mean you don’t have those moments of doubt, [it] doesn’t mean my father doesn’t have those moments where he has to keep himself together. I would see how people looked up to my father and the way he spoke to them. For me, this character was able to allow me to relive moments I had in my own upbringing, and hopefully convey a strong patriarch who loves his family and who loves his wife.”

Even so, Ventimiglia confesses he doesn’t put Jack “on a pedestal,” though his parents -- especially his mother -- sometimes do. “After an episode airs, I get a message from my mom: ‘Oh Milo, that was beautiful.’ ‘Oh Milo, I can’t believe this!’” But it’s “terrifying” being billed as the “perfect TV dad,” he admits with some anxiety. “I still look at him as a man who is fighting daily for his family and his marriage, through the good and through the bad. It’s like the shark that keeps swimming.”

If there is one thing that has been an unexpected adjustment since This Is Us became an undisputed hit, it’s been the public’s collective fascination over the mystery of his character’s death, at first inconsequential to the plot but now a driving force on the show. While there were plenty of character revelations through the season, some fans were left disappointed after the finale failed to provide adequate clues about how Jack died.

“People want answers, especially in the world we live in today,” says Ventimiglia, who is constantly fending off requests for spoilers from fans and media alike. “There’s an instant gratification and satiation associated with social media and the news. They’re all accessible in your hands. So, crossing that culture with traditional television, where you have to unfold stories week in and week out, we can’t give you everything."

But that’s not to say questions, particularly about Jack’s death, don’t linger at the forefront of their minds. “The answers are going to come as they’re supposed to come,” he says, not knowing what lies ahead for season two, which starts production in July. “We are not doing it to toy with the audience. We’re not doing it to lead them down a path and say, ‘We’re getting there’ or ‘We’re not going to give you [answers].’ I think that’s something important that people need to know.”