Avetis

Tony Bennett

37 posts in this topic

Hello I'm new here and my name is Avetis. I registered so I can ask some questions about Tony Bennett's discography and I hope someone can help. 

The album named Base Swings/Bennett Sings, was that the original name? Or was it Strike up the band?

im not sure if I should be saving it in my collection as Basie/Bennett with blue cover or Strike Up The Band with white cover. Which would be the official?

Thank you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help. Maybe some more experts can help out here.

I'm trying to also name it properly. Do you know if it should be called Basie/Bennett (like on the Complete collection) Or Basie/Bennett: Count Basie and His Orchestra Swings/Tony Bennett Swings, similar to Sinatra-Basie: An Hisroric musical first. Not sure if Bennett & Basie just refers to artist names or if it's part of the name of the record. 

Or is it simply Count Basie and His Orchestra Swings/Tony Bennett Swings?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If wikipedia is to believed, it should be "Basie Swings, Bennett Sings"  . . . 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Up_the_Band_(album)

The oldest covers I've found on the internet support this in a way:

R-5981179-1408045361-8936.jpeg.jpg

Though it's hard to say what to call the album from the cover as it has "Baie/Bennett" in bold letters and above that is printed "Count Basie and his Orchestra Swings/Tony Bennett Sings" . . . .

I haven't found any images of the actual LP label, that in fact could tell us the exact title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I feel like the Basie/Bennett on the cover refers more to just artist names that made the album rather than name of album. But I don't know for sure. See cover below for instance. It has TONY BENNETT written in similar style as BASIE/BENNETT, which just means he made that album. Name is The Beat of My Heart. I just want to organize properly and know what label calls it on official release. I've so far seen:

Basie Swings/Bennett Sings

Basie/Bennett

Basie/Bennett: Count Basie and His Orhestra swings/Tony Bennett Sings

Count Basie and His Orhestra swings/Tony Bennett Sings

Count Basie Swings/Tony Bennett Sings

 

IMG_1811.JPG

Also here is the back cover. Which makes me lean more towards: Count Basie and His Orhestra swings/Tony Bennett SingsCS640074-01B-BIG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first, welcome to the Board, Avetis! In the booklet that accompanies "Tony Bennett: The Complete Collection," the booklet page and cd are both labeled "Basie/Bennett."  The cardboard sleeve for the cd has the original cover that Lon (Jazzbo) posted above.  I don't know where that all takes you, but there it is, for what it's worth!

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, gmonahan said:

Well, first, welcome to the Board, Avetis! In the booklet that accompanies "Tony Bennett: The Complete Collection," the booklet page and cd are both labeled "Basie/Bennett."  The cardboard sleeve for the cd has the original cover that Lon (Jazzbo) posted above.  I don't know where that all takes you, but there it is, for what it's worth!

 

 

gregmo

I've seen that too. Which is even more confusing. From looking at many pictures of covers and releases online, it's my understanding that they started calling it Basie/Bennett starting for the CD release. Sometimes for CD released of albums they stray away from original names somewhat. I haven't seen any of the original Vinyls calling it that though except of course for the large Basie/Bennett on the cover. Which I guess may be the name after all? In that case maybe I'm leaning more towards Basie/Bennett: Count Basie and His Orhestra swings/Tony Bennett Sings. Similar to Sinatra-Basie: An Historic Musical First

What do you think I should label it?

51rfR3OzKXL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your query sent me into a small pile of ancient "Schwann Long Playing Record Catalogs" I still have (why, I ask myself, do I keep all this stuff around?!), and this album is listed there under Basie's name, interestingly (not Bennett's) as "Basie Swings, Bennett Sings." Schwann generally shortened album titles to fit the catalog, but the fact that they didn't shorten it to "Bennett/Basie" supports your contention that the longer title may have been the intended one.

Edit to add that this particular catalog dates from April 1964.

 

gregmo

Edited by gmonahan
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow great info!

The longer title is on the front cover so i'm almost sure i should be calling it that, i just don't know if i should have Basie/Bennett: in front of it, like Sinatra-Basie: has.

1 hour ago, gmonahan said:

Well, first, welcome to the Board, Avetis! In the booklet that accompanies "Tony Bennett: The Complete Collection," the booklet page and cd are both labeled "Basie/Bennett."  The cardboard sleeve for the cd has the original cover that Lon (Jazzbo) posted above.  I don't know where that all takes you, but there it is, for what it's worth!

 

 

gregmo

We can also trust name on record too right? Do you know what the actual record says? I've this which says Count Basie Swings/Bennet Sings, which makes it even more confusing. At least its not Basie/Bennett though

basie-bennett-vinyl-record-lp2.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as the label reads "Count Basie Swings, Tony Bennett Sings". . . if it were me that would be what I would tag or label the album. But then I'm not anal about these things. . . but for some time I've considered the label on a record to be the deciding factor as far as title and artist. . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very anal lol. The front cover and back cover though have the longer name and I feel like name was maybe shortneded for the vinyl record itself because maybe it wouldn't fit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever you do don't title it "Strike up the Band." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone familiar with the album On The Glory Road? I'm not sure where I should add this in my discography. 

Does it go after My Heart Sings but before I Left My Heart in San Francisco in 1962  

Does it go under 2011 albums since thats when it was released. 

Or just in the Misc folder and not along with all other studio albums since it was never officially released until it was made available as part of he collection. Which didn't really give it its own proper release treatment but more like just made available. 

Thank you guys for being helpful as I try to navigate my way though all these albums  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the complete set, it's located between "Mr. Broadway" and "Left My Heart in San Francisco."

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, gmonahan said:

In the complete set, it's located between "Mr. Broadway" and "Left My Heart in San Francisco."

 

 

gregmo

Yes I saw that as well. But that's only in complete set which came out in 2011. Up until then that wasn't part of album discography. And it's not listed as such anywhere except complete collection. 

I feel like when when an artist has an unreleased album come out it shouldn't get slotted back to when it was originally recorded and become part of official discography. Just my thoughts though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Avetis said:

I feel like when when an artist has an unreleased album come out it shouldn't get slotted back to when it was originally recorded and become part of official discography. Just my thoughts though. 

I read your sentence three times and still am not sure if I really understood it correctly.


You mean to say a session released for the first time much later than when it was recorded does not belong into the CHRONOLOGICAL sequence of the artit's discopgraphy? Just because it was not released immediately after the recording date? Where else, THEN?

And do you realize what kind of helter-skelter muddle this would make with discographies of many, if not MOST artists who have had a relatively long and fruitful recording career? Of of those whose recordings were rather spotty and blank spots were filled later by long-unreleased or latterly discovered recordings?

What would you make of those sessions that were not released DECADES later but maybe just 3, 4, 5 or 10 years later? (Happened not that rarely in the hard bop era, e.g. on the Prestige label).

Or what about all those 30s/40s bands (and orchestras, in particular) that have been preserved on LOADs of airshots, transcriptions, on-location live recordings, etc. - to the extent that sometimes up to 50% of their rcordings from any given year are made up of this kind of recordings (that STILL form a valuable part of their recorded legacy)?

You are opening a can of worms there, IMO.

 

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the topic involves the operations of Morris Levy's Roulette label, it's advisable not to ask too many questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I read your sentence three times and still am not sure if I really understood it correctly.


You mean to say a session released for the first time much later than when it was recorded does not belong into the CHRONOLOGICAL sequence of the artit's discopgraphy? Just because it was not released immediately after the recording date? Where else, THEN?\

Does such a recording not equally belong to the year or decade in which in made an impact?  

The Velvet Underground's VU album sounds like an 80s album to me.  It came out at the peak of their influence, and fit in so perfectly with contemporaneous releases.  It is just as much a 1985 album as it is a 1968 album. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

I read your sentence three times and still am not sure if I really understood it correctly.


You mean to say a session released for the first time much later than when it was recorded does not belong into the CHRONOLOGICAL sequence of the artit's discopgraphy? Just because it was not released immediately after the recording date? Where else, THEN?

And do you realize what kind of helter-skelter muddle this would make with discographies of many, if not MOST artists who have had a relatively long and fruitful recording career? Of of those whose recordings were rather spotty and blank spots were filled later by long-unreleased or latterly discovered recordings?

What would you make of those sessions that were not released DECADES later but maybe just 3, 4, 5 or 10 years later? (Happened not that rarely in the hard bop era, e.g. on the Prestige label).

Or what about all those 30s/40s bands (and orchestras, in particular) that have been preserved on LOADs of airshots, transcriptions, on-location live recordings, etc. - to the extent that sometimes up to 50% of their rcordings from any given year are made up of this kind of recordings (that STILL form a valuable part of their recorded legacy)?

You are opening a can of worms there, IMO.

 

I guess it depends how the album was released. If it was released as part of a box set or a collection and it did not see a proper release treatment then it might not belong to studio album discography. As evidenced by Wikipedia or Discogs.com. On the Glory Road album is not listed on either site as part of Tony's discography. 

In 1961 My Heart Sings was released. In 1962 Mr Broadway was released (which was a compilation and not a studio album). And then I Left My Heart in San Francisco was released. So I personally wouldn't put On The Glory Road as a 1962 Album because it was never released then. So if we add albums chronologically why would it be added in 1962 if it never came out then?

In my opinion it was just released in 2011 as part of unreleased music. I haven't seen a website that had listed is as part of Bennetts discography as a 1962 follow up to My Heart Sings. Probably because it was part of a collection and not a stand alone release. 

Lets take the Beatles as an example because they're easy. They had 13 studio albums and consensus generally agrees on their albums and order by year. Please please me, With the Beatles, A Hard days night, Beatles for sale, etc. they have an official discography and albums listed in order chronologally. So if they have a collection of unreleased songs come out in 2019, does that suddenly alter their studio album discography and slot in after a 1964 album? In my opinion no because it was never released on that date. I personally would put it in misc folder with other unreleased and compilations. But I guess everyone sorts their collection diffeent. I just want to go by official studio record discography as one would see when checking tony bennets website and clicking on albums. Or Wikipedia. Or discogs.com etc. 

hope it all makes sense. I promise I'm not crazy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, what matters is the development of the artist, and in that sense, I think strict chronological order of her/his work is what matters. Tony Bennett recorded the album then and not later. His song selection, the quality of his voice, his accompaniment--those were all decisions made at a specific point in time, and I think the album belongs with others made at a similar point in time. Compilation albums are tough. I usually shelve them chronologically based on when *most* of the selections were recorded. If they cover a huge period, then I shelve them by the earliest selection.

Of course, what those of us who actually care about this kind of thing are demonstrating is the kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder that might well merit counseling! In other words, we are, in fact, crazy.

 

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discographers in the PROPER sense of the way a discography is bound to be organized no doubt will disagree any time. They'd  just GOT to keep everything strictly chronological by recording dates. Rundowns of album listings are not discographies in the proper sense of the word the way the term "discography" is commonly understood. Album listings or release listings are a different matter altogether and serve their own purposes but should not be mixed up with discographies because by nature this kind of simple listings is incomplete discographically (I suppose this the kind of list you are referring to, but - no, I don't consider the Goldmine listings true discographies either. "Releasography" if you want - yes, but beyond that? ^_^). And Discogs very often is flawed enormously when it comes to providing comprehensive overviews and not just "listings". In the same manner that all those so-called "discographies" which list only the A sides of 45 rpm releases (like they often exist in the pop field) cannot truly qualify as discographies either.

Anyway - what's keeping you from filing a complete LP's worth of material issued decades later between the albums that it belongs to chronologically by its recording dates? That new addition to the artist's recordings adds to his recorded legacy from THAT period (and to how he sounded at THAT time), not from a later one.

Just my 2c

 

@TTK: The point you make might be true in some cases but this a door that swings the other way too: Just remember how many late, late first-time releases there were and are by name artists that make their influence felt NOW because they have been released for the first time NOW yet influence our perception of the artist strictly in the context of how he was THEN (case in point: All those first-time relases on the Uptown label).

I just checked the Wiki entry on that VU album you mention. Isn't that a classic case of a recording adding to the discography of the time the album was actually recorded? Cutting-room floor snippets belatedly put into circulation? Never mind if it was ahead of its times. The music is primarily linked to a specific era (the era it was recorded).

 

 

2 hours ago, gmonahan said:

For me, what matters is the development of the artist, and in that sense, I think strict chronological order of her/his work is what matters. Tony Bennett recorded the album then and not later. His song selection, the quality of his voice, his accompaniment--those were all decisions made at a specific point in time, and I think the album belongs with others made at a similar point in time. Compilation albums are tough. I usually shelve them chronologically based on when *most* of the selections were recorded. If they cover a huge period, then I shelve them by the earliest selection.

Of course, what those of us who actually care about this kind of thing are demonstrating is the kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder that might well merit counseling! In other words, we are, in fact, crazy.

 

 

 

gregmo

My point exactly when I wrote this: ^_^

Anyway - what's keeping you from filing a complete LP's worth of material issued decades later between the albums that it belongs to chronologically by its recording dates? That new addition to the artist's recordings adds to his recorded legacy from THAT period (and to how he sounded at THAT time), not from a later one.

BTW, I proceed just like you do with compilation albums. The best comon denominator one can possibly find. And yes, we are crazy (of sorts) to worry about such things. But once your record collection reaches a 4-digit figure (or several dozen just by one single artist) you'd better start getting some order into your filing system - or else ... :D

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, and I passed the four digit figure...a while ago.

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

@TTK: The point you make might be true in some cases but this a door that swings the other way too: Just remember how many late, late first-time releases there were and are by name artists that make their influence felt NOW because they have been released for the first time NOW yet influence our perception of the artist strictly in the context of how he was THEN (case in point: All those first-time relases on the Uptown label).

I just checked the Wiki entry on that VU album you mention. Isn't that a classic case of a recording adding to the discography of the time the album was actually recorded? Cutting-room floor snippets belatedly put into circulation? Never mind if it was ahead of its times. The music is primarily linked to a specific era (the era it was recorded).

I'm not suggesting that it does not make sense to consider the music within the context of the time of recording, but it is also worth considering within the context of the time of release.  This is why Emily Dickinson is frequently anthologized in collections of 20th-century poetry - because that is the century in which she made her impact and influenced other poets.  I'm saying that both approaches are valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member