Fellow Travelers -

I have found John McNeil's "The Art of Jazz Trumpet" to be truly helpful and inspiring. The exercises presented are tough, though-provoking, and very cleverly focused on amplifying skills that appear - to me at least - to be genuinely useful in a jazz setting. Personally, I see the value of this book less in the applicability of specific lines ("licks") to tunes, and more in improving the improviser's ability to present his/her own ideas with more propulsive articulation, fluidity, and melodic confidence.

There is, of course, a significant (in terms of wood shed frustration) cost factor here - but most players, I suspect, will feel that the improvements are deep and fast enough to fall well within our pain and patience thresholds.

Thanks John for a terrific contribution to the field, and for my (small but enjoyable) personal mini-breakthrough - it has been a long time, and I'm really enjoying the experience.

Bravo.

The discography alone makes the price of the book worth it to me. The history and pix of trumpet players is also a nice addition to what is an excellent method for jazz trumpet. Its exercises are tough but sound very cool and all would be great arrows in your improvisation quiver. I've already started practicing and am enjoying myself more than I have in a long time. Thanks, John.

The Art of Jazz Trumpet is by far the best book on the subject I have seen to date. The exercises sound incredibly hip and were challenging to play. The ideas for playing over chord changes have totally changed my conception of the horn. The history of trumpet is also fascinating, and McNeil's take on influences is truly unique. I highly recommend this book.

John D. McNeil's Comprehensive Introduction introduces the reader to the Academic, Humanistic, Social Reconstruction, and Technological philosopical views of curriculum. His even-handed treatment shows how each philosophy can be valuable for curriculum development. I think his book is especially important for practicing teachers. From a teacher's viewpoint, this book helps us think beyond the day to day demands of the classroom to the greater point of our curriculum. When we think about subject matter, the academic philosophy can guide us to either within discipline ideas or cross-disciplinary ideas like multiple intelligences. Humanistic perspectives are important for understanding the affect of our students. Social Reconstruction enables us to see society as a source for curriculum: we can adapt to problems out there, i.e. offer AIDS education, or work to change fundamental power relationships. Finally, the technological philosophy trains us to task analyze our curriculum, making sure each problem is broken into understandable, component parts. McNeil deftly shows us how to combine and consider each philosophy, with reference to curriculum classics like Ralph Tyler's Rationale. His chapters on politics, and directions in the subject matter fields remind us that curriculum philosophies are subject to influences from the outside world. Yet the book leaves teachers with a sense of empowerment, that they can make meaningful curriculum in their classrooms and schools.

This book has been the standard history of Calvinism since it first came out. McNeill is NOT a calvinist but I don't detect any really biased statements. The narrative is quick and moves from the start of the Swiss reformation through the impact of Calvinism on modern culture. Of course, the last section is the least developed since it was written before the current revival of Calvinism and the rise of Reconstructionism and the "reprint Puritan" phenomenon. Still the best.

Is war justifiable for a Christian? This is one of several "hard questions" John Calvin answers from the Bible in this book. John McNeill has edited the works of Calvin to indicate what he has to say on the various aspects of government. Calvin wrote at a time when he was exiled from his native France due to religious persecution. He discusses the role government has in carrying forth God's will in human society. Magistrates have a high calling from God he maintains. He says anyone going against a legitimate authority is opposing God because scripturally all authorities have been placed by God. However, those in authority have an obligation to serve as unto God and are accountable to Him for this stewardship. In answer to the question of war, Calvin says it is the responsibility of those in authority to declare war at certain times. He uses a logical inference from the Scriptures to back up his claim. This book provides helpful insight into the mind of one of the great Reformers. While his writings were done during an era of monarchy, they have application still.

Awsome pictures of Alaska's brown bears at the McNeil River. This book is essential for anyone going or planning a trip to photograph the bears on the McNeil river.

This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Heard the taped version of WHAT IF?: THE WORLD'S FOREMOST
MILITARY HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, edited
by Robert Cowley . . . I often speculate about lots of things, and so do the contributors to this book--including Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCollough, and James M. McPherson (to name just a few).

For example, what if:
George Washington had never made his miraculous escape
from the British on Long Island in the early dawn of August 29, 1776?

a Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost General Robert E. Lee's plans for invading the North?

the Allied invasion on D Day had failed?

These and a whole host of other questions are considered . . . the resultant answers are often fun, but at the same time, sometimes frightening . . . as in, Hitler's case . . . had he not attacked Russia when he did, he might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, thus helping it retain its power in Europe . . . can you just imagine the present-day implications for that scenario?

If you're a history buff, this is a MUST read . . . but methinks
that others will enjoy it and become much more interested
in the subject as a result . . . I know that I'm now looking
forward to Coweley's follow-up effort, WHAT IF? 2.