AllenLowe

there could be some speed variation - or difference in header or footer time - when I have a chance I'll check it out.

yes, they are both the same recording (the two versions of Helen Morgan) - I think also that I transferred both an LP version and a CD version and didn't realize they were both still on there. Unless they sound exactly the same, in which case I think I was confused by the matrix numbers - one of which was 090290289089082908908920890892089082908208908984787676732456563724 a and the other was 090290289089082908908920890892089082908208908984787676732456563724 b (I was trying to confuse Big Beat Steve) -

funny thing was that as I mastered the thing I kept confusing Helen Morgan with Ruth Etting - very different singers, yet somehow with a similar aura. I'm hoping there are few if any actual mis-identifications of tracks - as far as I know there are 2 on That Devilin' Tune, not bad considering that it, too, had over 900 cuts. Really the Blues was mastered on hard disc - Devilin Tune on DAT - so Really the Blues was a lot quicker and easier to do, and less prone to confusion. Typos are another matter, as I did only some of the proofreading; in the graphics stage there was some assistance, but it's unfortunately an occupational hazard in the reissue world.

well, I would call them clarifications - corrections are in order for title mistakes (eg The Vamp/The Wamp) and spelling. I worry mostly about date and personnel/leader errors. So far I have not really seen that kind of problem (except the McCoy/Rosie/Rosa Mae Moore, which was based on an apparently inaccurate LP notation) - disliking my the method of formatting (which is based on the old reference librarian idea of point of most common reference) is somewhat different. To me, if you can look at it, know who was playing and when, and then see supportive notes that are accurate and in depth and have relevant emphasis, than the job is done. And I don't really lose sleep over certain kinds of shorthand. Corrections are fine - I think the problem is a certain collector's righteousness (and I don't ascribe this to you, Rosatsi) that is meant to intimidate the uninitiated as less pure in intent, and that can have an inhibiting effect on projects like these. as for "two takes of Helen Morgan singing the same song on the same date? " - mastering error. Either that or I just can't get enough of that heavenly warble....

now if Joe Biden looks like one of the New Orleans Rhythm Kings, then we'll have something -

I'm gonna have to give you co-authorship. Thanks for the work.

just defending my work and happy to talk about all of this. I think these are legitimate questions/issues. Just a matter of reaching real-world conclusions.

it's called reality - this project would not get done if I were required to get that level of detail. One person, one basement, one studio, one year, 3000 choices of music to narrow down to 925 cuts - each requiring individual restoration, mastering, sequencing, and then notation - 80,000 words of text, the equivalent of a small book (maybe 150 pages of text) - no assistance, financial or technical. Just me. So,not perfect but done because of the importance of the overall project - and truthfully, anyone listening and reading knows what was recorded and when it was recorded, and has some substantial historical perspective on the recording itself, from the prime movers in each performance to some of the technical/social/historical issues. The notes (which one critic has called "a work of art themselves") are detailed enough, I believe, for the scope of the collection. Anyone wanting further detail and explanation has plenty of options. As far as I can see, no one else has even attempted something like this in terms of integration of styles and collation of sources. and ultimately that is, I believe, of greatest importance - and it may seem impertinent, but you are perfectly free to try something of similar scope. See you in a year.....

stephenrr - in case you're reading this - I'm having some problems with my messenger - but I have plenty of boxes left -

thanks, Chuck, though I like basic corrections - I think with collectors there are sometimes issues that are worth engaging. Of course, I also kick myself for missing stuff. actually, I think Barrelhouse may have James P. on piano, though I'll have to look for my discography - as for Zez, I know very little about him, though I think everyone was listening to everyone else in those hot house days - however, I have noticed on some of his solo pieces how much he sounds like Eubie Blake, sometimes uncannily so. I do not know if this is a coincidence or not.

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.

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.

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.

can you tell me what artist/title corrections you've made? for future reference -

I actually like the title "The Wamp" better - hadn't realized it was a typo. and thanks for the order, Jostber -

by the way - and this is actually an accurate post - I would try to find out what's going on in Brooklyn, which is becoming the last NYC bastion of real music. On Fridays the Times does a jazz listing, but you might also do a search for Brooklyn jazz clubs -

well, I have some idea what it's worth - but I'm not sure, guys, that a public forum visible to the entire world (including the occupants of San Quentin) is the best place to post a figure.

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,

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,

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

perfect example of what's wrong and right with Lees - good interview, but a black musician telling a white writer what he wants to hear - that jazz is color blind, yadda yadda yadda - not that Dizzy was insincere, but black musicians almost never really talk to white writers the way they talk to other musicians. just my opinion.

too bad you guys aren't ordering from me - I try to put a large piece of metal in each box so the detectors go off, usually resulting in the arrest of whomever ordered the cds. As a matter of fact, here's Englewood after receiving HIS box:

I like All that is Tied but the piano does not sound like a good one - Christine Correa I can live without. Dullsville.

don't forget the Open Door - Bird will be there on Sunday night. And Tony Fruscella sometimes shows up.

this is a shocker - he annoyed the crap out of me (see his old Diane Krall interview; also his statements on Joyce and modernism) but he was an excellent interviewer, a triumph of observation and native intelligence over his own middle-brow tendencies.