Well, another poll has come and gone. The results this time were:

• Chicken - 20%
• Egg - 50%
• Some wacky chicken/egg combo thing : 30%

These results conclusively prove that 30% of those polled are very silly. As for the rest, it seems that there are two ways of looking at it (not counting Paula's refreshingly original take). First, as Miss Cellania pointed out, eggs were nothing new by the time that chickens came around, unless we're talking Old Testament Creationism here, which I am not. Thus, eggs came first. I have always felt, however, that it was a given that the question pertained only to CHICKEN eggs. Otherwise, the answer is obvious and the question itself of no importance.

If only chicken eggs count, then the wicket is a bit stickier. I do have my own answer, which the lovely and talented Lucy (who hails from a country where this week's Trolling the Underground answer was very popular and influential) anticipated. In fact, she hit the nail right on the head. Way to anticipate genius, Lucy!!!

We'll start with two basic and justifiable assumptions. First, we'll assume that chickens came about through evolution, not the hocus-pocus named two paragraphs above. Second, we will assume that any egg-laying animal lays eggs that match it's own species, not another. Ducks don't lay chicken, owl, or platypus eggs, for example.

You see, in the evolutionary process, A species that was not a chicken eventually became a chicken. This occurred through a slow, methodical series of mutations over millions of years. At one point, there was something that was not quite a chicken (although it probably tasted like a chicken). This not quite a chicken layed a not quite a chicken egg (what other kind of egg would it lay?) and the final mutation occurred within, spawning the first actual chicken. That chicken was the first to lay an actual chicken egg. Thus, the chicken had to come first.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

I thank all of you for helping to advance the causes of both Biology and Philosophy. How often do you get to kill THOSE two particular birds with one stone?

There's a new poll posted to your right. Don't forget to support your vote in the comments!

I was raised by a "Hee-Haw" fiend. Dad never missed it, and this being in the old days, before the tradition of having a television in every room, he took control of the TV whenever he wanted it. It was usually my que to leave the room.

I heard it, though, and not only because Dad was half deaf (WWII will to that to you), but because I was half listening. I didn't care much about the country music that was playing - I was a prisoner to Kenny Rogers and Tom T. Hall whenever I was in Dad's car - but the bluegrass always caught my ear. I dug that pickin' and grinnin', even though I wouldn't have admitted it to Dad even under threat of insidious torture.

There's just something about bluegrass that forces the toe to tap, and it also feeds the head of a virtuosity freak such as myself. Bluegrass requires technical excellence. Poor musicians can play bluegrass, but not for long. It soon becomes obvious when someone hasn't got what it takes.

Even though their act broke up in 1969, Flatt and Scruggs are still among the most famous bluegrass acts ever, for two reasons. First, they had a long, illustrious career together, starting in Bill Monroe's band before forming their own band , the Foggy Mountain Boys, for a 21 year run. Second, they did the "Beverly Hillbillies" theme song, "The Ballad of Jed Clampett".

Now, that show was IMMENSELY popular. It was the "Seinfeld" of the '60s, so to speak. Forty years later, just about anyone in America can identify that song, and most can sing a bit of it.

Once again, radio helps the hapless bootlegger. This week's selections come from an old radio show the Foggy Mountain Boys were doing on WSM radio in Nashville, Tennessee. It was a half hour of bluegrass pickin' and biscuit ads, and some of them were recorded for posterity. I happen to have one recorded in June of 1953.

Despite its' age and the fact that the disc came from a higher generation tape, it still sounds a lot better than many of the audience tapes from the '70s and '80s. I'm presenting two songs today, simply because they were so short. You didn't do long instrumental jams on the radio in those days. You saved those for the Grand Ole Opry, where people wouldn't get bored and wander off. Three minutes, however, was pushing it on the radio.

Here's The Foggy Mountain Boys playing "Earl's Breakdown"

Here they are playing "Get in Line, Brother"

The Foggy Mountain Boys featuring Ed Norton (front right).

Next week: This blues and jazz man from the south shocked his British fans when they finally saw his picture.

See how many of these you can get without Googling.........

1. What was Hoss's real name? (The character's name, not the actor's) (Eric - Raging Lunatic)
2. Who was Peter Gunn's gal? (Edie Hart - Raging Lunatic)
3. Who was the first actor to start on TV and go to movie stardom? (Steve McQueen, star of the TV series "Wanted: Dead or Alive")
4. What Star Trek device was the result of budgetary constraints? (Transporter - that special effect was cheaper than shooting endlesss shuttle scenes- Fez Monkey)
5. Where did the idea for "Sanford and Son" come from?  (Steptoe and Son- Fez)
6. What is the longest running evening drama in TV history?  (Gunsmoke- Jeff)
7. What successful show had three successful spin-offs starring supporting characters? (The Mary Tyler Moore Show- Paula)
8. What TV show was inspired by a series of cartoons in New Yorker Magazine? (The Addams Family - Jeff)
9. What show featured a black man in a lead role for the first time? (I Spy - Miss Cellania)
10. What show did Mel Brooks create and then leave almost immediately? (Get Smart - Fez)
11. What was the name of Tonto's horse? (Scout - jollykay)
12. What was Lucy Ricardo's maiden name? (MacGillicuddy - Jeff)
13. What actor played a western hero in the 50's and starred in a science fiction show in the 60's? (Guy Williams - jollykay gets 1/2 credit for knowing the shows)

Winner gets kudos.

Well, it looks like we're willing to be Amish when it comes to entertainment, but not when it comes to work. Television won the poll (28%) as the item we would most likely be willing to do without, followed by vibrators (22%). These were followed by air conditioners and microvaves (tied at 17%). No way is anyone willing to complicate life by doing without the laundry machines (and I have a couple batches going as I write) or stove. Oddly enough, only a few people were willing to do without the DVD player that would be utterly worthlesss without the TV that most people would be willing to do without. For me, it is the DVD player that makes the TV indispensible, and I live in a desert and need my AC,  so I chose the microwave. I use it every day to heat the water for my tea, but without it I would just heat the water on the stove, so I could easily live without it.

This weeks poll is possibly the oldest on record, and the problem has never been solved. Let's do the world a favor and solve it at last, shall we? Please take a moment to explain your vote in the poll's comments. It's to your right and down a little.

I've long been of the opinion that "alternative" rock stopped being "alternative" the moment it was packaged up and marketed as "alternative". It then became another branch of mainstream music, fed to the masses on the radio and given a section of the record store floor, just like "rock", "rap", R&B", and "country". The music really didn't take that many chances, but deviated from the top 40 a little and gave people who wanted to seem like seekers and intellectuals a way of feigning such without the toil of intellectual seeking. "Oh, THAT stuff's dumb. I'm alternative!"

I've found that if you want a real alternative to the mainstream, you have to go outside of the mainstream to find it. That means avoiding the major radio stations, and tuning in to college stations. It means taking a chance on something at the record store because you like the cover or because you've read something about the band. It also means hanging out with like-minded people, and listening to their records. The last method is how I got turned on to King Crimson.

King Crimson will is a band you never heard on "alternative" stations, because they have always been too much so, which is what led me to my conclusions about the "genre" that has been created. If they have a genre, it would be "progressive rock" but they are about the only band in that genre to continue progressing their sound past the early eighties. But then, as guitarist Robert Fripp has said, KC isn't so much a band as "a way of doing things".

Since it's inception in 1969, King Crimson has gone through six completely different incarnations, with Fripp as the only common thread. The band stay together until Fripp feels that the musical statement that it made is done, and he dissolves it. The hiatus period has lasted as long as 11 years. Then, when he is in the mood to play music that only a King Crimson can play, he assembles a new King Crimson to play it, and the cycle goes on. The various former mambers have gone on to perform in bands such as ELP, Bad Company, Foriegner, and UK, among others. Some have solo careers. The diverse personnel contributed to a diversity in sound over the years. In fact if you took an early album, "Islands", the mid-seventies "Red" and 1982's "Beat" and played them all to someone who didn't know them, that person would very possibly never suspect that it was ALL King Crimson.

It's actually a surprise that KC isn't on any lists banning electric trading of unofficial stuff. Few bands have so vociferously protected their rights as artists, and they aren't always very concerned with niceties. Anyone caught smoking during a concert will be shown the door, and if Fripp sees a flash go off, he stops playing immediately and announces that he will not continue until the camera is surrendered. He has stated, however, that he realizes that most tapers are not looking to profit off of him, but instead do it for the love of the music. Seeing that, he has made a LOT of professional recordings of live shows available, and even makes boxed sets of more recent tours in their entirety. Since reputable Bit Torrent sites don't allow torrents of officially available music, I guess Fripp doesn't feel threatened by them.

What I share this week is a stunning soundboard recording of the most recent lineup performing at the State Central Concert Hall in Moscow on June 12, 2003. Soundboards of this band are few and far between, which makes me wonder if this one might not be available officially by now. Ah well, it was fair game when I got it, anyway!

This song is called "The ConstruKction of Light" and features Fripp and Adrian Belew on guitars, Pat Mastelotto on drums, and Trey Gunn on Warr guitar. Adrian sings. This is the sixth King Crimson.

You can listen to it here.

I've read that there is a seventh King Crimson in the works, with Trey Gunn doing his own thing while Crim veteran Tony Levin returns to the fold. I hope it's true.

Next week: During their 21 year career, this act known for their breakdowns did a song that almost everyone in America has heard.

I remember one time when I was living at the old place, and a new neighbor moved in. I had been given two garbage dumpsters at my house seven years earlier, but since the house next door was a duplex, each apartment got one. While it was vacant, someone stole the one that had gone to one apartment.

When the new neighbor moved in, I told her that and suggested that she ask the landlord to get her a new one, and she could use mine in the meantime. I came home a few days later to find one of mine moved over to her door. She then informed me, in front of her friends and relatives, that she had spoken to Waste Management and there was just one per house, and that that one was hers. Well, I hit the roof. I don't give a shit what the garbage collectors say. I KNOW how many damn garbage bins I've had for the past seven years. This issue was, to me, black and white. I knew I had two, and had for seven years. I wasn't just IMAGINING having two, and I wasn't trying to steal hers.

By this time the landowner who had made the initial arrangements (that is, the extra bins) was in very poor health, and the property manager wasn't willing to do anything about it. A few days later, though, when I got home from work, my neighbor met me at the fence with a beer and a gift-wrapped joint. We talked, and settled the garbage bin custody issue. Evidently, someone let her know that it WAS possible for extra bins to be delivered, and she didn't see me as liar and bin thief any longer. We never did get a new bin, but we each kept one and used each other's when needed. We found the answer not in the black and white, but in the grey.

Had I stuck to my insistence that she see and acknowledge me as being 100% right, we not only would not have become the friends that we did, but would probably have argued about those damned bins for the entire year and a half that we lived next to each other. After all, I WAS right. I may not be in MENSA but I can count  two goddam garbage bins with a high degree of accuracy. The facts were plain, simple black and white. The same would apply if she, instead of offering an olive branch, had tried to get me to admit to stealing her bin and lying about it. After all, she was pretty certain of her information, too. It seemed black and white in her mind.

Facts can exist quite comfortably in the black and white. Solutions, not so much. This is an abstract that can be applied to almost any problem solving situation that hinges on opposing points of view. Say, for instance, international relations.

Say you're in Country A, which would be a nice place if it weren't for Country B, which has a nasty tendency to hurl bombs over the border and deny your right to exist. You know for a fact that these people suck ass and so do many other nations. However, the people in Country B know that you're the one who sucks ass, and many other nations know you suck ass as well. They say you stole their land and murdered their people. These statements- bombs, denial of existence rights, theft of land, murder- all exist in the black and white. Some are not debatable. The bombs and the denials are all well on record. Other, like theft of land, are debatable, but NOT TO THE PEOPLE IN COUNTRY B WHO SEE THEM AS BLACK AND WHITE.

So, are we going to solve this issue by waiting until everyone sees the same black and/or the same white? Or will we merely find this a useful method for prolonging it?

I don't have the answer to these countries' issues (and in no way want to imply that this is the only major conflict that this theme could apply to- I'm trying to stay with abstracts here), but I do know that the only way to settle a conflict while remaining in the black and white is to eliminate anyone who doesn't see things your way. For these countries, that would mean thorough eradication. Genocide. Which, due to the fact that there are citizens of each living in more remote areas, is still not likely to stop the fighting altogether. If you don't want to eliminate entire countries, you have to go to the grey.

Doing so does NOT mean that you admit to being wrong. It simply entails that you allow your mind to open enough to see that the other party sees their reality as being every bit as black and white as you see your own as being. It requires that you acknowledge that other points of view exist. These points of view may be absolutely contrary to verifiable fact, but they aren't going away. They have reality for people who are willing to act upon them. Thus, in order to find a solution, those points of view must be met, just as the holders of them must meet yours. Somewhere. In the grey.

Anyone who isn't willing to do this simply isn't looking for peace. That person wants only to be right. And who doesn't, sometimes,  want to be right? Being right, however, can prove a bit Pyrrhic to those who happen to be under the bombs. Or even  those who just want to dispose of their garbage without a hassle.

And I wouldn't pretend that no one wants to find a solution in the grey, here in my little example. I'm certain there are those on both sides that do, although those from Country B are fewer and far less likely to speak their minds freely, due to an advanced form of peer pressure. The point is, however, that BOTH sides have those that do not. Seeing the grey, for those on one side, is accepting the theft of their birthright. For those on the other side, the grey represents negotiating with terrorists. Whatever can or cannot be proven, these things are all indelible facts to those that think them, and no peace can be possible until the others admit how wrong they are and how right we are. These people, on both sides, will not only fail to solve the problem, but can also hinder those who might have a chance at it, especially when they hold positions of power. The "grey-blind" become part of the problem, instead.

No solution - to a war, a political issue, a personal dispute, or even a crossword puzzle- can be reached without an open mind. No matter how much it may hurt.

Preceded by Cheezy and O'Tim.

1. One book that changed your life? I Robot by Isaac Asimov (which has little to nothing to do with the movie of the same name), which showed me the difference between "space operas" and real science fiction, and began a lifelong love for the latter.

2. One book you have read more than once? "Sez Who? Sez Me" by Mike Royko


3. One book you would want on a desert island? "How to Build a Boat Using Common Items Found on a Desert Island"

4. One book that made you laugh? "Farmer Giles of Ham" by J.R.R. Tolkien


5. One book that made you cry? I can't think of one that actually made me sob, but "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes came close.

6. One book you wish had been written? "How I Did It" by Victor Von Frankenstein

7. One book you wish had never been written? I honestly can't think of one, other than perhaps anything by Rush L. or Ann C. Still, I don't hate the idea of opposing ideas that much. They can always be fought with better ideas.


8. One book you are currently reading? "Hitchcock" by Truffaut


9. One book you've been meaning to read? "Gulliver's Travels" by Swift

10. Now tag 5 people: Tag them yourself. I ain't yer bitch.

Well, it was neck and neck all week, but the last vote came in just as the poll closed, and Samantha edged out Jeanie by a narrow margin of 54% tp 46% with 13 votes total. That means that Sam won by one vote. I still think that Jeannie's raw aggression would beat Samantha's greater education, but I think we would all agree that this catfight would be HOT. I mean, yum.

I am very happy that there were 27 comments on the poll, and a few more spilled over into other threads. That is, after all, what it's all about. Thanks to all for participating.

Time for a new poll. Please, take a moment to vote and comment. It's to your right, or left if you're lysdexic.

BTW..... I knoww "computer" isn't on there. If you could live without that, you wouldn't be here, would you?

People who trade underground recordings as a hobby are people who tend to think outside the box a bit. Of course, some will build their OWN boxes, by being very specific about what music they will collect. I'm not one of those.

I am always looking for something different, if not necessarily new. After all, if I've never heard it before, it's new to me, even if it was recorded decades ago. This hobby is, if nothing else, an invitation to experiment with different sounds. When you're in a store BUYING a disc, you may want to stick more to the tried and true, so your money isn't wasted. When you can legally download something for free, however, you can take a few chances. After all, if you don't like it, you can always just delete it. It's even better when you are familiar with one of the artists, though. Then you know from the onset that you might be on to something exciting. That's how it was when I stumbled upon this recording.

I discovered Max Roach when I first decided to educate myself on the mysteries of jazz. Naturally, Miles Davis was one of the first artists I listened to, notably one disc called Birth of the Cool. Max played on that. I noticed his name more and more as I bought more discs by Miles, as well as Charlie Parker. Then I saw him perform at the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. Taking that short walk to that tent was a fantastic decision.

I really wasn't sure what to expect. I mean, I knew that I was about to see a jazz legend, but in what condition? After all, it was 2001, and the guy had been recording since the 30's! I was elated to find that his hands were as nimble as I knew from the records, and it was a fantastic show- definately one of the high points of my experience at the Fest. After that, I made a point of exploring the different aspects of his career.

Thus, when I saw a recording of the as-yet-unknown-in-my-experience Max Roach Double Quartet on my favorite download site, I had to check it out. The description of the music fascinated me. Max had combined a jazz quartet with a string quartet, fusing jazz with classical in a way that serves both the heart and the head. That is what I am sharing with you this week.

The band consists of The Max Roach Quartet:

1. Cecil Bridgewater, trumpet
2. Dwayne Armstrong, sax
3. Phil Bower, bass
4. Max Roach, drums

along with The Swedenburg String Quartet:

1. Lars Holm, violin
2. Ulrica Jannson, violin
3. Anders Lindgren, viola
4. Kerstin Elmquist, Cello

at the Jazzfest Berlin on October 25, 1983. The song is called "Bird Says", an obvious reference to his former bandleader, the legendary Charlie Parker. Give it a listen, and let us know what you think. You're not likely to hear anything else quite like this again anytime soon.

It's right here.

I've been told that age has caught up with Max's hands in the last five years. I guess that was inevitable. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to see the magic happen while it was still there, and that there is still enough recorded magic for me to discover over the rest of my life. Thanks, Max.

Next Week: This band's name was coined as a synonym for Beelzebub, and the band has been described as "a way of doing things".