Big Beat Steve

Members
  • Content count

    5,715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Big Beat Steve

  • Rank
    Dr. Funkenstein

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Location Southern Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

7,777 profile views
  1. Pimuins Guide to Mal Waldron Records

    Rooster, please have a look at the "Jazz in M√ľnchen" book by Hermann Wilhelm and Gisela Kurtz published in 2007 by Lenter's in Munch. On page 104 (in a chapter dedicated to the "Domicile" club) they specifically refer to the concert with Benny Bailey and the Mal Waldron trio that according to the authors was a highlight of the concerts at the club after it reopened (following extensive renovation of the club) and became the very first live recording at the Domicile that was released on record (and was the first in a series of "Live im Domicile" releases). Besides, according to the credits Joachim Ernst Berendt (the jazz pope #1 in Germany and an authority in every respect imaginable at that time) contributed the liner notes. Would he have put his name under something faked up - like those cheapo US records with fake applause on Crown? At that time? With this overriding "art" approach to jazz by everyone involved? Really?
  2. What vinyl are you spinning right now??

    I do like a fair bit of the Kenton output but I was baffled too when I saw that at a local 2nd hand record clearance sale but (IIRC it's the "Stan Kenton in Hi-Fi" album with bonus tracks) but it's a nice item for the car CD player (though the label does keep amusing me even now, not so much about what the jazz world would have been like if Kenton had actually been a BN artist but about to what marketing lengths and idiocies some label image marketers go ).
  3. What vinyl are you spinning right now??

    Like Stan Kenton's Capitol albums from the 50s. That happened in the CD era.
  4. Bob Porter has died

    I guess many can chuckle because - as several forumists have hinted at before - this can be interpreted and discussed any number of ways and STILL be true because you just cannot generalize: - Very low pressing run = rare - but bad? Maybe yes, maybe no. - Poor distribution = rare. Bad? Maybe yes, maybe no. - A record that bombed and didn't sell because it WAS bad and therefore became rare? No doubt such cases exist. And I guess that in the flood of LP releases of the 50s (much bemoaned by many scribes st the time) there must have been quite a few of these. - Are there collectors who value rarity as an end in itself and tend to hear the music on the platter through rose-colored glases and find qualities in it that wasn't seen at the time (which is why the record dropped dead on release)? You bet there are! For a number of highly subjective reasons. Not least of all because criteria of "good" or "bad" can be subjective too. So this can be an endless discussion, with no definite judgment possible in many cases.
  5. All set to continue reading with Vol. 2 as soon as it hits my mailbox so I for one am rarin' to go.
  6. Pet peeves

    Some comments: 1) True, particularly with major names. But in the case of some artists there just may be conflicting (period) source material or evolving name uses over time. I realize this is probably not what you are thinking of (primarily) but this is a problem too and the boundaries can sometimes get blurred in certain niche releases. 2) What if the song titles deviated from the "published" titles way, way before the reissue was compiled, e.g. on the original label of decades ago? Try to turn back THAT clock too in each and every case? 3) Very true, but 100% accurate images may be lacking in some cases. 4) YES!!! This is one pet peeve of mine, though I have to admit that things have improved a lot since the 70s/early 80s when it was all too common to stick garish recent photographs on reissues from the 40s or 50s. An related problem (and part of my pet peeve, aside from using artwork graphics that don't fit the period of the music AT ALL) is: Don't EVER give in to the temptation to shift some work to some semi-talented "house artist" who just makes a blurred, blotched, ineptly abstracted mess of an existing photograph that those in the know clearly recognize but cannot help wondering what the point of "doing that up" was in the first place. 5) Obviously yes too. 6) Cardboard mini-LPs where you have a hard time trying to extract the CD from the all too slim and close-fitting sleeve are offenders too. 7) Could this logical order always be kept up over time? Just let some sort of change of company strategy happen and things get out of hand and numbering systems may change drastically.
  7. Pet peeves

    Understandable and certainly more convenient in several ways but what would you do in the case of BIG BAND releases/reissues involving multiple seesions with only slightly shifting personnel? No more place for liner notes, then? . Besides, I wonder how the magazine scribes would have fared if your approach would have been the norm throughout. How would record reviewers have been able to cope with space constraints if they had not been able/allowed to use the "replaces" shortcut? No more personnel listings at all, or only main soloists? I doubt this would have been more convenient overall. Besides, your approach can backfire in those cases where the "out" convention is used (a likely but common alternative to what you seem to refer to as the "except" convention). Re-list the entire personnel even if only one or two men drop out from the line-up for specific tunes? Wouldn't this be over the top? But if you conceded the use of "out", why not the others, some will certainly ask. I cannot quite see an easy and consistent way out.
  8. True, we are talking about a specific instance (and therefore horse). According to Google sources, some seem to disagree and use "the ..." in the same sense but I agree that, looking closer at it, this is not quite specific enough.
  9. Bob Porter has died

    From over here across the pond, thanks for the reissue productions, liner notes and the Soul Jazz book. The name "Bob Porter" on a record sleeve spelled Quality. RIP
  10. Anyway ... any way you look at it, actual use has run away from the definitions that you prefer that no doubt are correct by criteria agreed upon once upon a time but have become overly formulaic in the light of actual use. Not least of all because - as hinted at above - e.g. the degree of bodily reaction that you use as a criterion just isn't that rigidly applicable. Language evolves over time (for better or worse, but it does ...) Like it or not, "the horse done left the barn ...". But don't try to shoot me for it - I am just the messenger. "Nuff said" (on a totally different liguistic level). And apologies to Allen again for the off-topicness.
  11. In the end it all depends on the extrovertness (or emotionalness? ) of the person concerned. But I think we are getting dangerously close to splitting hairs - not least of all because language (and its use) isn't totally static. Now the cringe vs wince theme may be a pet peeve of yours but OTOH if such fine distinctions were drawn EVERYWHERE in the English language and its (presumed) correct use then you'd have a handful to take care of if you'd follow this through - including on this forum, e.g. its use of affected streetwise gibberish or group slang by some, etc. And talking about dogs, I have yet to see you step up and take offense at the use of the word "dog" to address PERSONS, for example. So ... relax - please! (My apologies to Allen ... )
  12. Yes, embarrassment for someone else seems to be the common denominator, correctly or incorrectly. (The way I have heard/read this used) But AFAICS this cringing CAN include embarrassment in the sense of almost feeling pain because of this embarrassment. Haven't we all at one time or another had a feeling that what someone else does or says makes you so embarrassed as to literally cause you bodily pain? No actual pain, of course, but the facial expression is there. So it's a fine line between wincing and actually cringing (for/about someone else) ... Mail sent. Thanks a lot!
  13. Linguistically inclined, I checked several online sources, including the Cambridge dictionary (trying to find a definition of the difference) but find that definitions of their meaning (of wince on the once hand and of the - in most cases - "informal use" of cringe on the other) are very much the same. I am aware of both words and their use and while I'd take your word for your reasoning, could it be that "the horse done left the barn" a long time ago? Anyway, back to the topic, good to see that the review has had its effect. I am more than ever looking forward to receiving my copy of Part 2 of the book that accompanies the CD set.
  14. Bertrand Tavernier (1941 - 2021)

    In today's world, Google is the all-time best friend of your memory.
  15. Bertrand Tavernier (1941 - 2021)

    Talking about films and jazz fandom ... Strange thing ... Of course I've heard the name of Bertrand Tavernier quite a few times and have seen some of his films, but whenever I hear his name it is automatically "Elevator to the Gallows" ("Ascenseur pour l'Echafaud") that comes to mind - before I realize "no, that wasn't Bertrand!"