Jim R

Chas, thanks. Interesting observation about the reissue vinyl. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm surprised that AMG (notorious for being slow to implement corrections to their data over the years) would have made a correction AND reversed that correction within this span of time. Knowing that there are people (like the person I worked with at the CDDB database) who find it very difficult to accept that a record company would make such a mistake, and that a tray card can be wrong, maybe it's not so surprising that AMG readers would have caused the correction to be reversed. Somebody probably assumed that the corrected data at AMG was more likely to be wrong than what was printed on their CD, and perhaps the AMG editors didn't have the time or the inclination to check into it. Oh well, at least the CDDB has it right (for now).

After 13 years (since the CD was issued, and I noticed the error and reported to Fantasy), it would feel good to get this sorted out. As I've said before, Fantasy sent me a replacement CD in 1998, but the error wasn't corrected. If somebody out there has a later issue of the CD which actually IS corrected, then we can put this to rest. So far, I have no evidence that this has occurred. I'm not sure I understand the importance of analyzing the original LP. There may have been an error in sequencing on that, but it seems irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the error on the CD, which I would assume is in far greater circulation and use at this point than the original LP. If there were errors on both, they don't even match up, thus I'm not sure that talking about the LP can shed any light on the CD error. Maybe there's an angle I'm overlooking, and I'd be happy to be corrected on that. Chas, the most intriguing thing to me about your post was the first line... "AMG did have the correct sequence at the time I posted - I remember I checked it against my own self-corrected CD inlay card." Chas, if you would, please explain in detail how and why you corrected your CD card. I see that you posted the AMG link in January '09. I just checked the AMG page, and as of right now they have it listed (same as always, afaik) with the same errors as on the 1996 CD. Current AMG listing: 1. Soft Shoe 3:54 2. Confab In Tempo 4:57 3. I'll Take Romance 4:32 4. Wisteria 4:05 5. Autumn Nocturne 4:59 6. I've Never Been In Love Before 3:49 7. I'll Walk Alone 3:55 8. Gone With The Wind 4:07 9. Alone Together 3:59 10. Pre Amp 3:35 The 1996 CD tray card (image taken from previous discussion here: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...t&p=443256) Okay, if a newer CD has been issued and re-programmed with the above track sequence that was on the tray card and in the booklet from 1996, then I've got an obsolete CD (I'm very doubtful of this). I put my CD into iTunes, and here is the track list with timings that I contacted the CDDB about and had corrected several months ago. In other words, I consider this to be the correct track sequence to match the programming of the 1996 CD: 1. Confab In Tempo 3:59 2. I'll Take Romance 5:01 3. Wisteria 4:35 4. Autumn Nocturne 4:08 5. Soft Shoe 5:03 6. I've Never Been In Love Before 3:53 7. I'll Walk Alone 3:59 8. Gone With The Wind 4:14 9. Alone Together 4:01 10. Pre Amp 3:37 Originally, I recognized the errors involving the first 5 tracks based on the fact that I am very familiar with the standards "I'll Take Romance" (I knew it mainly as a favorite from the Max Roach version on "Jazz In 3/4 Time" on Emarcy); and "Autumn Nocturne" (I have several versions of it, I know the lyrics, I've written chord sheets, etc). So, at least on my CD, I am 100% certain that "I'll Take Romance" is track #2 (5:01 in length, according to the iTunes tagging); and "Autumn Nocturne" is track #4 (4:08 in length). Based on this, I recognized that Fantasy had essentially taken "Soft Shoe" and incorrectly listed it first, bumping the actual first four tracks down a notch in the sequence.

I was dying to see Singletary drag him off the field by some small body part... or AT LEAST chew him out. I never saw that happen, but then I was so disgusted that I left the room for awhile. That has to be one of the greatest displays of buffoonery that I've seen in... well, not that long, now that I think about it.

I was gonna say... Art is not holding his trumpet on "Perception". But I've seen some absolutely butchered versions of this:

Thank you, Chuck.

Someone on another site asked a question about the Eddie South/Mike Simpson LP "Music For the Birds". I tried some online searches, but couldn't find an answer to the question, which is... what was the personnel on this session (besides South and Simpson)? I believe the album was released in 1959; Mercury MG 20458/SR 60141 (later reissed on the Mercury/Wing label) Thanks.

Thanks for the info, jeffcrom.

I'm looking for some clarification regarding this recording (that is, the famous one that is so prevalent in the media). From the info I've been able to find online, it appears that there were at least two versions released, but it's unclear to me which one is the famous one. I started searching for details about who the arranger was, and found that there were two orchestral recordings done roughly three years apart, with different personnel and different arrangers. According to this website, it was recorded in August of 1967, and released on an ABC Paramount 45rpm. The arranger on this is given as Tommy Goodman. It was also recorded in May of 1970, with Oliver Nelson arranging, but it's unclear to me what label that was released on. From general searching elsewhere, it appears that versions have been released on: a Flying Dutchman LP "Louis Armstrong and his Friends" a GNP CD (?) an RCA/Bluebird CD "What A Wonderful World" (the title taking advantage of the posthumous popularity of the recording as a result of its use in "Good Morning, Vietnam"). So, I guess what I'm mainly wondering is which recording (the '67 or the '70) is the famous one, and has anybody even heard the other one? Any other thoughts or observations would be great too.

Biff Marty Ernest Borgnine

Yep, a 350 with a CC added in place of the neck P90. Barney Kessel's beloved Gibson was also a 350 with a CC in place of a P90. Barney modified/altered his a lot more, though. I think I have a few beauties, but there are a LOT more beauties that I had to sell or trade in order to get the next beauty I wanted. Still married to my high school sweetheart, though. I'll try to get a photo up for you.

I've been following the vintage market closely for over 20 years, and it always surprises me how many 150's actually come up for sale. They're really not as elusive as some people would have you think. I think part of it was the declining demand for archtops for many years, particularly non-cutaway archtops. Now an ES250 is another matter altogether. Those are extremely rare. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I had one back in the mid-80's, which I traded a couple of guitars for at a shop in SF. It was a '53 (pre-switchmaster), sunburst, and a beautiful, clean, all original example. It played and sounded fine, but I eventually traded it for a '51 ES350 (two pickup version) plus an amp. The 350 was more practical for my purposes (I tend to prefer just using the neck pickup on most multi-pickup guitars), and played and sounded even better than the ES5. Does anyone remember the Gibson ES350? 350's originally (and generally, throughout the years they were produced) had laminated maple tops, but they did make some (between '52 and '56, apparently) with laminated spruce tops. They were never carved, though, unless somebody did a special order or something. They originally had just one pickup, but soon went to two. ES175's are smaller (16 1/4" body, as opposed to 17" on a 350), and 175's have sharp cutaways.

I've been following the vintage market closely for over 20 years, and it always surprises me how many 150's actually come up for sale. They're really not as elusive as some people would have you think. I think part of it was the declining demand for archtops for many years, particularly non-cutaway archtops. Now an ES250 is another matter altogether. Those are extremely rare. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I had one back in the mid-80's, which I traded a couple of guitars for at a shop in SF. It was a '53 (pre-switchmaster), sunburst, and a beautiful, clean, all original example. It played and sounded fine, but I eventually traded it for a '51 ES350 (two pickup version) plus an amp. The 350 was more practical for my purposes (I tend to prefer just using the neck pickup on most multi-pickup guitars), and played and sounded even better than the ES5.

I wonder if that could be PLANET EARTH above the trees on the right. Nah... somebody probably removed a "Nice Price" sticker. Btw, did the owner think this album was just "O.K.", or was the owner Otto Klemperer? ... or maybe Oliver Kahn ...or ?

What's the vintage of your L5N/CC??? And what are those CC pickups really like??? My L5 is a '66, which was special-ordered with the CC. CC's are somewhat tricky animals to control, but to me, even if you have to sacrifice some aspect of the sound to control noise, they're still magical. I recommend this article: http://www.kokomomusic.com/pages/corner.html also interesting: What makes a Charlie Christian pickup a Charlie Christian pickup? Thank you for posting that link. I've literally been scraping together bits and pieces of technical information about CC's for years, and this will add nicely to what I already had. By the time I get it all figured out, I'll probably be playing another instrument... like a harp.

What's the vintage of your L5N/CC??? And what are those CC pickups really like??? My L5 is a '66, which was special-ordered with the CC. CC's are somewhat tricky animals to control, but to me, even if you have to sacrifice some aspect of the sound to control noise, they're still magical. I recommend this article: http://www.kokomomusic.com/pages/corner.html

Wow, thanks for that. Don't miss the comments section following the article.

CO-wrote. I don't think anybody's mentioned that here so far. He wrote the music, and Bob Russell the lyrics, as I understand it.

Well, I know you love vintage guitars. Me too. But I've been really really pleased with the top of the line USA Fenders produced this decade that I've played, I think they're real quality to rival the past with new innovations electronically, etc. and much more affordable. My "Deluxe" Strat and basses are works of art that play wonderfully. I'm a happy camper! Oh, I hear you Lon. The vintage thing is just one of my quirks, which ties in with my good fortune of having started buying and trading guitars back at a time when the whole investors market hadn't quite started yet. I've really been fortunate to have been able to try out so many great Gibsons from the golden era. It also tied in with my passion for "antiques" (which technically was the wrong term to use, as I was into 20th century decorative arts from the 1930's-1950's era). I just dig old stuff, even if it's not better than things being made today. But you know, buying my Strat really loosened me up from my old ways to some degree. I now look at some of the nicer quality reissues (sunburst Les Pauls and such, even though I've never really been interested in Les Pauls) more seriously. I think one of those John Lee Hooker Sheratons might actually suit me fine... the key would be the sound of the pickups. I really have a thing for the sound of those 60's Sheratons and Rivieras, and I've never owned one. At any rate, I'm really happy for you, that you're bonding with some great instruments and having fun making music!

Yes, but Albert King called his guitar "Lucy." Again, I direct your attention to his Stax recording "I Love Lucy," particularly the line: "Lucy made me a star. I know what you're thinkin'. The Lucy I'm talkin' about is my guitar..." I don't think anybody's arguing with that, or at least they shouldn't.

Nice looking axe, Joe. Hey, what's with the fellow in the painting being mic'd up?

That's a nice looking Elitist reissue. Much nicer than the "Sheratons" you typically see for sale these days (asian knockoffs with awkward body shapes, that don't even include mini-humbuckers). There's also a nice "John Lee Hooker" reissue version that appears to be nicely made. I haven't played or heard any of these, though. I'm crazy for vintage guitars. Here's a '61, a transition model with the smaller, more traditional type headstock, but without the "new york" type pickups and knobs... Then again, red is always nice... Or maybe a blond...

Didn't know you had a 4X10 Bassman reissue, Lon. Great amps! That's been my main amp for over 15 years now. I used to have a 60's Gibson "Vanguard" (tweed, one 15" speaker) that I loved, but I sold it after I'd had the Bassman for a few years. I also had a '64 Twin Reverb that I had restored, but it never sounded anywhere near as good to me as the Bassman. I've been playing my Strat ('99 custom shop '62 reissue) more than any of my Gibsons over the past year or so. It's a little nutty I know, but it resonates so nicely, I enjoy just playing the thing unplugged a lot of the time. It really is a fabulous instrument. I still love the Gibsons, though, especially my Gobel (which has almost become part of my body over the years) and the L5N/CC (my avatar). Don't play the Johnny Smith or the Super 4 much these days. My latest persistent craving: an early to mid-60s Epiphone Sheraton.

You have that right.

Obviously, I'm only imagining that I would feel like they were beating me over the head (no offense to anybody who uses or likes them, btw), because I've always had them turned off. I do visit a few other boards though, where I haven't bothered to turn them off because I spend far less time there (and the traffic is more sparse), and I do notice them and find them pretty useless. Anyway, I guess I envisioned that they would be somewhat difficult to ignore here, where I read a lot of posts by the same people every day. So, if you see it as useless verbiage, and pay no attention, why do you have them turned on?