www.moviemem.com sponsored the Smooth Jazz Top 20 Countdown on New Years Eve 2007 on Jazz Radio 94.1fm with Alan Kepler. The words "Smooth Jazz" are not always popular with the Jazz purists but this is often because many are not familiar with some of the wonderful musicians who are associated with this category. Artists like Lee Ritenour, Joe Sample, Dave Koz, David Benoit and Queen Latifah have all been referred to under the "Smooth Jazz" category but they all show influences of more traditional jazz music.

 

What did you think of the show? Did you enjoy the music and interviews? Would you like to see more programs of this type on Jazz Radio 94.1fm?

 

Let me know what you think and Happy New Year to all.

 I will be sponsoring the Smooth Jazz Top 20 Countdown for 2007 on Jazz Radio 94.1fm from 10pm to Midnight.

 

Smooth Jazz, also variously known as Comtemporary Jazz and NuJazz has been sadly absent from radio stations in Australia and I congratulate Jazz Radio 94.1fm on having the foresight to take this program on New Years Eve.

 

The show will feature many of the greats of Contemporary Jazz including artists like:

Candy Dulfer, Boney James, Queen Latifah, Chris Botti, Eric Marienthal, Paul Hardcastle, Keiko Matsui and many more.

 

Dont miss this Special Event on Jazz Radio 94.1fm

 

 Some years ago I acquired a leatherbound folder from the estate of Sammy Davis Jnr. The folder contains trumpet arrangements for many of the songs that the singer was associated with including "For Once in My Life" "Impossible Dream" and many more.

 

The majority of the arrangements are by George Rhodes and Morton Stevens. Some have notes in pencil and other markings.

 

If anyone has any information or thoughts about the history of these items I would appreciate it eg how rare these things are and where and when they might have been used.

 

Here are a couple of the arrangements.........

 

 

 I have spent some time in Los Angeles over the years and on one of my trips I arrived back to my hotel room just in time to see an episode of Who Wants to Be Millionaire with Regis Philbin. When I turned on the TV, the contestant had reached $500.00. In the next 15 minutes he proceeded to answer every question correctly before reaching the Million Dollar question. He spent a minute or two pondering the options and answered a question on astronomy correctly to actually win One Million Dollars. This all occurred in the space of about twenty minutes and was slick and dramatic TV.

 

Had this been the Australian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, the same contestant would have taken 2 or even 3 programmes to get to the same result while Eddie McGuire continually asked inane questions in a boring attempt to "humanise" the contestant. He would have most definitely delayed the answers to the questions so that he could "tease" the audience with "We will find out if he has the right answer after the break".

 

Booring.

 

The producers of the programme in Australia seem to have the mistaken impression that dragging out the time taken to answer the questions creates suspense and drama. In reality they are producing a crashing boor of a programme that should have been a guaranteed success if they had just let the format do its job without the "human interest" garbage.

 

Here is a clue for the programmers: The viewers want to see how much the contestant can win and they really dont care about the personal lives of the contestants. They can find that out later when New Idea interviews the successful ones.

 

Eddie McGuire rose to great heights as quiz and footy show host and eventually became Chief Executive of Channel 9, no less, before reverting back to a mere quiz show host. There is no doubt that he has now become passé and his career is on the wane.

 

It is probably too late for Eddie now but he should have watched episodes of the British or US versions of Who Wants to be A Millionaire with Chris Tarrant and Regis to see how it should have been done. The show is not about the host. Its all about seeing who can win a million bucks.....

 

......and that leads me to my theory that any number of run of the mill presenters could have successfully hosted this show. All they need was to ask the questions and let the format do the work. But maybe that is just too complicated......

 

 

Many different forms of music have been labelled as "jazz" with a great many interpretations as to what is and what isn't jazz music.

 

What do you think?

 

What is Jazz? What isn't Jazz?

 

I have always tended to think that the correct way to pronounce Louis Armstong's Christian name is "Loo-is" but I know that many others swear that it should be "Lou-ee". In one of my recent Saturday afternoon Jazz programmes on 94.1fm I asked listeners to phone in with their thoughts on how Satchmo's Christian name should be pronounced.

 

On the day, the overwhelming consensus of calls insisted on "Lou-is" but I did have a long conversation the following day with another listener who swore that it should be "Lou-ee".  The funny thing is that some listeners get quite annoyed when Louis Armstrong's Christian name is not pronounced the way they prefer.

 

I always thought that the film Hello Dolly was a pretty good indication of how his name should be pronounced. He opens with the line "Hello Dolly, this is Lou-is Dolly" etc etc.

 

Another indicator comes from the man who is apparently Louis Armstrongs grandson. In a recent article Herb Armstong says "I remember everyone liked my grandfather. That's Louis (pronounced Lew-is) not Lou-ey. He liked to be called Louis (Lew-is)."

 

However if you have a look at Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that cannot always be relied on, they suggest that the correct pronunciation should be "Lou-ee".

 

What do you think? If anyone has any thoughts on this please let me know. Feel free to add a post to this blog.

 

Regards

John

 

 Stan Zemanek passed away recently after a long illness. To those outside Australia who are reading this, a word of explantation. Stan Zemanek had a reasonably successful career as a "shock jock" - a talk back radio personality who made a living out of being agressively rude and arrogant on Sydney Radio. You probably have similar types wherever you are in the world. There are a number of these species on Radio Stations like 2UE and 2GB in Sydney and the king of them all is John Laws, the man with the golden microphone who commences his programme with the rather immodest intro of "Hello World this is John Laws".

 

These "shock jocks" are often paid obscene amounts of money to be controversial and opinionated as broadcasters. They generally follow a formula whereby they control the content completely and manipulate the calls that they receive. Stan Zemanek was fond of using various endearments to describe his listeners with adjectives like "boofhead" "bludger" and worse. He had his array of stooge followers who would ingratiatingly shower praise on him and agree with anything he said and he was always happy to give them airtime but anyone who disagreed was generally abused and ridiculed. No chance whatsoever for any intelligent debate. Just follow the formula of entertainment by ridicule. Alan Jones is another who is a master of this craft using his fader and dump buttons to get rid of callers who dont agree with him.

 

Now, I guess there is nothing really that wrong with this providing that these guys are not taken too seriously. The worrying thing is the fact that Alan Jones has been referred to as the "most influential man in Australia". His opinions have been said to influence an election. You must be joking. The man is a great broadcaster and entertainer but the fact that so many take him seriously is a real worry.

 

Zemanek wasn't in the league of Jones and Laws but he did follow the fairly simple and successful formula. This is not unlike the reality shows that are so popular on TV these days. The public love to see another person ridiculed. Its all basically entertainment. I heard John Laws say recently that he does not consider himself to be a journalist despite the fact the he expresses opinions on many subjects including current affairs and politics. The reality is that these guys are simply entertainers and should not be taken too seriously. The trouble is that it appears that they are taken very seriously indeed when they express their outspoken opinions on anything that is controversial. They are masters at stifling debate and promoting their own views.

 

From what I hear, Stan Zemanek may have been a pretty good bloke who was devoted to his family and his career. That aside, the thing that I found completely over the top was the extroadinary eulogies and adoration that were given to him after he died. For Petes sake, they even televised his funeral. The fact is that the guy was a late night talk back host who made a living out of taking cheap shots at his callers. He had a moderate career on television in a similar role in "Beauty and The Beast". Of course, he was the Beast.

 

To talk about Stan Zemanek as a "great Australian" is a huge stretch. He may have been a wonderful husband and father but his career as a "shock jock" should never have elevated him to the heights that were seen shortly after his death.

 

I'm sorry if I offend, but my memory of Stan Zemanek's programme is of an arrogant, rude, crass and boorish individual who made his living out of taking nasty cheap shots at his callers in the name of "entertainment".

 

Let me know what you think.