Finally the Blues

[aparxa]

NSFW, now I can get fired

[Hot Ptah]

I received my set today, two days after you mailed it out. Now the fun begins this weekend.

[Dan Gould]

Same here, I just hope I can squeeze in enough listening time.

[Chuck Nessa]

Mine was delivered today as well. It looks amazing, as expected. Now to find time to deal with it properly!

[AllenLowe]

I'm keeping my eyes on Ebay, guys, so no tricks - also, I have scouts at every used CD store in the country.

Edited April 23, 2010 by AllenLowe

[medjuck]

Just got home to find it waiting for me. Love that priority mail service! At first I wasn't sure about a cd Rom instead of a booklet but I dragged the contents to my desktop and love that I can enlarge the type. Also like that you've done a track by track commentary. (I did sometimes find it difficult to to find your comments on certain tracks of Devlin'.)

Can't wait to sit in my Eames chair, put up my feet with my laptop on my lap and start listening and reading.

[AllenLowe]

yeah, I wasn't crazy about the CD rom thing - however, one gets used to it, and it's also a major money saver for the company,

[Big Beat Steve]

Received my box set through Amazon yesterday and am looking forward to giving it a listen (though for the time being my find at yesterday's local record clearout sale - some 60 platters - will be given priority ).

Had a look at the CD "liner notes" booklet too. Nice booklet, an introductory chapter that looks very interesting and useful comments on the individual tunes. I guess I will print that one out before giving the CDs a closer listen as I hate having to scramble from my music room to where the PC is each time I want to read up on the individual tracks.

I cannot qute fathom, however, what the "Four-volume discography" is supposed to be. It sho' ain't no discography. Looks more like a release number listing to me, and one of inconsequent methodology: Some codes - such as GD - seem to be missing in the abbreviation list, and other releases seem to be incorrect if the listing is supposed to give the ORIGINAL release: e.g. was "The Wamp" really unreleased at the time or was it rather "The Vamp" on Bluebird, as borne out by Rust's discography where the track sequences of that session is the same as on the Tax LP quoted. BTW, that "GD" code is a case similar to that "Tax" example as it refers to a much later reissue of a track originally on Federal 12066, according to Leadbitter/Slaven.

And the listing by track name isn't really very convenient to this user either. A listing in the order of the CD track sequence would have been much logical IMO if such a listing were to be established at all. Anyway, if no discography in the proper sense of the word (i.e. session details) is to be included, then so be it (it's understandable all in all), but wouldn't it have been much more convenient to just give the original release number right behind each title and artist credits in the list of comments on the individual tracks? That would have kept all the relevant info in one place.

But no, overall this is no big deal, really, just a bit irritating.

[AllenLowe]

actually, Steve, you are incorrect; a discography, by definition, is not session detail (a mythology perpetuated by collectors) but rather a listing of recordings, dates, and leaders. Session detail may be a part of it, but is not essential (and I have this from one of the world's leading experts on discography, Ed Berger of the Rutgers Institute of Jazz Studies. )

and I'm not sure what the problem is - all 935 tracks are listed in order, for each cd, with individual comments. It was a hell-ish job, but I did it in the interest of accuracy and convenience of use.

The rest of your comments are somewhat passive aggressive, but point to the difficulties of projects like this, which are about the MUSIC and little else. As long as dates of recording are accurate, and lead performers/featured performers/soloists are accurate, the music is served. We have included a full list of tracks with code numbers to match a glossary of labels. These things were released on 78, cylinder, CD, and LP - so there is no way to be consistent or to mach everything internally. These are the ways of 2st century reissue. And of projects like these, which survive and thrive with no institutional support. These references are simply a guide. ALL THE MUSIC referred to, anyway, is on this compilation - so you already have an accurate discography if you own my set - WHRA-6028. Good, I've now saved us all a lot of time.

If you have disagreements about artistic merit - or can point out where I may have used a wrongly-named tune, or where I may have given out an incorrect date, THAT would interest me. But compare this to things like the JSP reissues, which have a fraction of the cuts, and also a fraction of the info I have provided. The point is that they are vitally needed, not for their discographies, but for their MUSIC. Something which collectors sometimes lose sight of.

However, if you want to spend a year of your life at no pay and compile a more complete discography, I would be happy to include it with the second edition,

Edited April 24, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Big Beat Steve]

Ok, Allen, then let me put it another way. I definitely did not mean to be aggressive.

What I did mean, though, was to point out that I really cannot quite see what purpose this list would serve ON ITS OWN and in its present form. As far as I can see and like I said, the information might have been included just as well at the end of each "header" line (giving the title of the tune and the artist credits as well as the recording date) in the file that includes your individual comments on each track (which - let me repeat that - I do find VERY useful!). This would have kept all the info in one place and the info would have been where it belonged, i.e. with the respective title.

Actually, don't you feel that doing things that way would have made things EASIER for you because you would not have had to compile that file all by itself? Especially so since those who consult that file would probably be doing so because they want to know about the original release of a particular tune. Now if they had been given that info right after the artist credits and recording date in the listing that includes your comments it would all have been there (because this would be where they would have STARTED their search anyway if they were interested in that info on any particular tune). No need to look up another file, no need to go down an alphabetical list (a longish one as it covers 36 CDs), no to and fro, no nothing.

Now about inconsistency: The two examples I mentioned are just two examples that I happened to notice when taking a VERY superficial glance at that list.

I take it, then, that you took that Pete Lewis track from a Gusto LP and that Boots & The Buddies track from that reissue on the Tax label. Nothing wrong with that; who would be able to take such a huge amount and wide variety of music from original first pressings throughout? However, I did understand the meaning of this "discography" (your statement on what would suffice as constituting a discography in the stricter sense of the word is noted ) to provide information on the ORIGNAL release of the tracks (just like it is done with MANY other reissues as some collectors might find it useful to know which label a given recording originally appeared on, e.g. because some labels may evoke certain artistic or stylistic connotations). If this is so then I find this sort of inconsistencies a bit confusing. However, if that list actually is meant to indicate only where you took the individual tracks from for your particular project then I stand "corrected" and will take note of this.

As for "wrongly-named tunes", well, referring to that Boots & His Buddies track again: To me at least, the misspelling - Wamp vs Vamp - looks fairly obvious as the title sequence for the session that this tune came from is exactly the same both on the Tax LP and in Rust's discography. So the spelling error on the Tax LP looks fairly obvious to me, especially since Rust's spelling (Vamp) is also found in other sources (but NO, I do not have a label scan of the original Bluebird on hand ).

That's all I meant to say regarding the release info. And like I hinted at, of course personnel details (where known) would have been nice (sort of extra icing on the cake) but indeed I can live perfectly well without that on a reissue of this calibre.

BTW, why should I doubt the artistic merits of the tracks included in any way? Who am I to judge that across the entire field covered here? I'd be the first to encourage anybody to look beyond predefined stylistic "boundaries" and explore cross-influences and will be eager to do so myself. Which is why I will be looking forward to the upcoming volumes, the above (minor) criticisms (which I prefer to see as suggestions for further improvement) notwithstanding.

Good luck with your further work

Edited April 24, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[jostber]

Just ordered one! This is great work.

[AllenLowe]

I actually like the title "The Wamp" better - hadn't realized it was a typo.

and thanks for the order, Jostber -

[rostasi]

I wanted to mention that I have gone thru the collection

and made the artist and/or title corrections where needed

(Disc 8 was particularly vexing) and uploaded these to the CDDB

which, as of last week, didn't have any of the discs listed,

so I'm hoping that soon you guys with new copies will be able

to just load up your discs and have the corrected info pop up

instantly for you.

Love these discs - they're getting regular iPod/iTunes play

around here. Looking forward to the next installments!

®ø∂

[AllenLowe]

can you tell me what artist/title corrections you've made?

for future reference -

[rostasi]

Yes. At first, I was keeping track, but then kind of gave up and

just made the changes. I'm in the middle of some travel booking now,

but I'll get it to you as soon as I can.

®ø∂

[AllenLowe]

I hope you're using the actual notes as a reference - the general list that they published at the beginning was done without their informing me, and generally has some errors - also, don't confuse some of the extra dates on that list, which refer to year of composition and not recording, which was necessary for Euro copyright compliance.

[rostasi]

When it came time to put all of the info for the disc into iTunes (and, later, CDDB), I used your "Notes on the Recordings" where you have a comment for each tune. I started typing them in and started noticing inconsistencies (like the Polk Miller track that I mentioned earlier) and so I started checking online sources - many of which there would be an actual picture or video of the 78 in question or I'd check my own recordings. This searching was usually preceded by the << ding! >> question mark that would go off above my head - sometimes warranted, sometimes not.

A few examples from Disc 8: Teschmacher vs Teschemacher; "Every Day of the week Blues" vs "Every Day in the Week Blues"; Sam Ku’s West Harmony Boys vs. Sam Ku West's Harmony Boys; Rosa Mae Moore vs Rosie Mae Moore; Boyd Senter and his Sentipedes vs Boyd Senter & His Senterpedes and so on... Plus there were a few name additions that some bands needed: "The" before their names for instance and some song titles I expanded from what was mentioned in the notes: "Alley Rat" vs. "Alley Rat Blues". Sometimes, there would be a full name of the performer and/or ensemble and sometimes there would just be a last name listing of performers. ex: "I Found a New Baby Teschmacher<sic>/Spanier/Sullivan/Krupa" which could've been reduced simply to "Chicago Rhythm Kings." ...and then there's the decision as to who's name should be used for a work: Should that tune "School Girl Blues" really be under Rosa <sic> Mae Moore or, instead, Charlie McCoy w/Rosie Mae Moore? I kept it under Moore's name, but...

Maybe these changes wouldn't mean much to most people, but I felt that if I now had the task of putting these in my archive on my harddrive and also felt the need to upload them to the CDDB, then I wanted to try to do it accurately. If there are still inaccuracies, they can still be corrected and re-uploaded to the online database for others.

[AllenLowe]

shoulda had you as a proofreader, thanks - the shortcuts on personnel where just intended as guides, and I added names to allow identification of soloists on the jazz sides, but the title stuff is important. Sometimes it reflects whatever I found on old LP sources, which, in the early days of blues research were notoriously inconsistent. Also, the blues discographies are somewhat varied.

[Big Beat Steve]

Sometimes, there would be a full name of the performer and/or ensemble and sometimes there would just be a last name listing of performers. ex: "I Found a New Baby Teschmacher<sic>/Spanier/Sullivan/Krupa" which could've been reduced simply to "Chicago Rhythm Kings." ...and then there's the decision as to who's name should be used for a work: Should that tune "School Girl Blues" really be under Rosa <sic> Mae Moore or, instead, Charlie McCoy w/Rosie Mae Moore? I kept it under Moore's name, but...

Maybe these changes wouldn't mean much to most people ...

Make no mistake about it, Rostasi ... They do mean quite a lot, at least to me, for example.

E.g. if that Rosie Mae Moore tune originally was actually released under (leader?) Charlie McCoy's name then it most definitely should be indicated and referenced e.g. as Charlie McCoy feat. Rosie Mae Moore.

Actually the same problem had been discussed here quite extensively in the case the Devilin Tunes boxes where the same thing occurred with quite a few tracks.

I find this quite irritating (and unnecessary) as it can be misleading.

Now in the case of OTHER (more commercial) producers' boxes I'd be really sore. Take that Guitar jazz box released by Proper. It includes "Floyd's Guitar Blues" credited just to "Floyd Smith" on the box track listing (and website IIRC). Of course it's the recording by the Andy Kirk band. But you would have to look inside the booklet (inaccessible inside the sealed box before purchase) to find out. Now how plain silly is that??? Because as it happens Floyd Smith DID (re-)record that tune with his own combo for an indie label right after WWII. So how is a really interested fan of the music supposed to know what he's getting??

If you e faced with multiple cases like that it can reqally drive you up the wall.

So this may explain why correct and unequivocal artist credits are vital IMHO.

P.S: Rostasi, can you provide a link to where your corrections are accessible so they can be filed with the info on the "booklet CD"?

[rostasi]

Well, I can understand that it's a massive undertaking

and I give thanks to Allen for putting these together.

I'm nearly done with a Germany/Austria travel booking

and either tonight or tomorrow will send a link to a -

maybe crude - PDF that I'll create that'll just be an

iTunes screen capture of each disc's revised info.

Rod

[Big Beat Steve]

Of course, the selection of the music is excellent and should offer new insights in the music.

But as far as I can see the artist references are not really related to that. Like I said, with a project like this I guess everybody will make concessions in cases where the information isn't easy to come by, but sometimes it is just confusing if only a couple of names are rattled off instead of the name of the actual band "featuring XXX, YYY".

BTW, don't know if you picked up this: All the sources I am aware of list country artist "Doc" Boggs as DOCK Boggs. Not to be confused with stages names such as "Doc Watson".

[rostasi]

BTW, don't know if you picked up this: All the sources I am aware of list country artist "Doc" Boggs as DOCK Boggs. Not to be confused with stages names such as "Doc Watson".

Yup, I caught that too. Like I said, the ones that I mentioned a while ago were from Disc 8.

The ones that I mentioned about a week ago were from Disc 1. I didn't want to keep posting about them,

but I hope that I can show a completed, hopefully fully corrected list here soon.

[Chuck Nessa]

Since this was published by a Canadian company, why no translations?

[AllenLowe]

I disagree with Steve on most of this - of course, spelling errors should be corrected - but it's a question of understanding who played the music and when, and while Chicago Rhythm Kings is indeed the name of the band, I would rather know who was in it, especially from a perspective of 80 years. It's like calling all of Charlie Parker's sides as being by Charlie Parker - not by Charlie Parker's All Stars. Or James Brown, and not James Brown and the Famous Flames. Silly to worry about that kind of thing.

As for the Rosa Mae Moore, it's been cited both ways, apparently - and she's the singer, the significant performer (and I actually was not aware, from the source used, that McCoy was on the recording). But perhaps Steve sums it up best:

"Of course, the selection of the music is excellent and should offer new insights in the music. But as far as I can see the artist references are not really related to that."

I agree.

Edited April 24, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Chuck Nessa]

Relax.

It is a great and important set. No reason to fight criticism/disappointment. You did good and if this sends customers off on searches for more info, you win.

Relax.