John L

You will have the vast majority of it. As mentioned above, the Savoy recordings are not included. Also, there are essential early small group recordings made for Commodore and Columbia (Kansas City Six sessions). Then there are the Jubilee sessions, and, of course, his work with Teddy Wilson / Billie Holiday.

Yes, the 1936 alternates were discovered after the previous set was already issued. What is the "Sony material?"

Yes, too bad. This would be the perfect place for it. When I was at the Jazz Museum in Harlem, I found about 20-30 minutes of small group material with Pres on it. If they would just go ahead and take the risk...

There is Ti-Pi-Tin from March, 1938 - a studio Benny Goodman track with Lester sitting in and soloing beautifully. Freddie Green and Walter Page are also there. If you have been listening to the three-disc Basie Decca set, you are in for a treat. The sound quality on the HEP releases of that music is SO much better, and I am sure that Mosaic will work at that level.

Excellent. I would pay the price just to get those new alternates from 1936! Mosaic remastering of the rest of it is another plus. I don't usually buy for sound upgrades, but this is some of my very favorite music.

Basie/Lester - Maybe a small group (i.e. Kansas City 6) set that could start out with the still unreleased alternates from the first 1936 session. Gathering all of Basie's or the Basieites' small group sessions from the 30s, 40s, and maybe early 50s would be a pretty substantial set, although it would probably require too many copyrights for Mosaic. Or could it be a complete Basie live at the Lincoln Hotel 1944 with Lester?

This was an unexpected shock. RIP John Taylor

Very nice! Thanks, Paul

Interesting that the CD on Amazon costs $16.99, but an MP3 download will run you $18.99.

That is a large bag of worms. I think that the book is interesting, and has some worthwhile information and perspectives. But there is one thing that really irritates me about it. From the very beginning, Wald paints himself as a rebel who is carrying out a campaign against what he calls the "blues orthodoxy." But notice that there is not a single footnote or reference in the entire book to any examples of statements from the blues orthodoxy that he is taking issue with. So a lot of his attacks end up being on straw men. In the end, the book is not nearly as revolutionary as he claims it to be. John, Wald's not a trained, self- or otherwise, historian per se so I won't go THAT far in defending his book's apparatus etc but it's a VERY good book and his targets are NOT in the least straw men: they are Columbia Records, they are Greil Marcus, they are numerous bullshittin' (ersatz) 'blues' (and black culture) scholars (nearly all white), they are every guitar magazine and rock star ersatz 'blues' turd who collectively birthed and perpetuated this asinine myth of not just Robert Johnson's artistic and creative eminence-- we can disagree on that, fine-- but also his VASTLY overstated "originality" or influence on then contemporary modes of black expression etc. So .... what is this jury's current verdict on "Escaping the Delta" by Elijah Wald, then? (Just curious, really ...) That is a large bag of worms. I think that the book is interesting, and has some worthwhile information and perspectives. But there is one thing that really irritates me about it. From the very beginning, Wald paints himself as a rebel who is carrying out a campaign against what he calls the "blues orthodoxy." But notice that there is not a single footnote or reference in the entire book to any examples of statements from the blues orthodoxy that he is taking issue with. So a lot of his attacks end up being on straw men. In the end, the book is not nearly as revolutionary as he claims it to be. John, Wald's not a trained, self- or otherwise, historian per se so I won't go THAT far in defending his book's apparatus etc but it's a VERY good book and his targets are NOT in the least straw men: they are Columbia Records, they are Greil Marcus, they are numerous bullshittin' (ersatz) 'blues' (and black culture) scholars (nearly all white), they are every guitar magazine and rock star ersatz 'blues' turd who collectively birthed and perpetuated this asinine myth of not just Robert Johnson's artistic and creative eminence-- we can disagree on that, fine-- but also his VASTLY overstated "originality" or influence on then contemporary modes of black expression etc. were social misfits cum fanatical record collectors & the depths of THEIR knowledge has yet to be fully tapped... Moms - As I wrote, I agree that the book is worthwhile and thought provoking. But if he is going to attack something called "blues orthodoxy," Wald should be clear exactly who he has in mind, and what particular statements are wrong. In my mind, the "blues orthodoxy" should refer to the people who I named above and a handful of others. So which one of them ever wrote that Robert Johnson had commercial success on a national basis, that Robert Johnson was as influential a figure in the blues as Leroy Carr or T-Bone Walker, or that he towered head and shoulders above other blues musicians? Greil Marcus? I don't know. I have trouble understanding a lot of what he writes. While we don't want to overstate Robert Johnson's influence on the blues, we don't want to understate it either. His spirit certainly lived on in the great Chicago blues of the 40s and 50s through Elmore James, Robert Lockwood, Muddy Waters, Johnny Shines, and a few others.

That is a large bag of worms. I think that the book is interesting, and has some worthwhile information and perspectives. But there is one thing that really irritates me about it. From the very beginning, Wald paints himself as a rebel who is carrying out a campaign against what he calls the "blues orthodoxy." But notice that there is not a single footnote or reference in the entire book to any examples of statements from the blues orthodoxy that he is taking issue with. So a lot of his attacks end up being on straw men. In the end, the book is not nearly as revolutionary as he claims it to be.

John, it has nothing do with "popularity" or un--. And "Terraplane" is a good record-- maybe his best-- but decontextualizing Robert Johnson from the music of his time and the cultures/social groups he travelled within has accomplished exactly what? Unfortunately, nearly all efforts at gleaning RJ's 'meaning' among his peer group of surviving musicians-- rather than the black record buyers who mostly didn't buy RJ records--is colored by ofay insistence, i.e. if white boy keeps insisting Robert Johnson was so "important," so "haunted," etc... fuck it, say what he wants to hear. (And even so, not everyone went along with this, inc. John Lee Hooker.) Instead we have seven decades of mostly insufferable ofay bullshit, each iteration more insipid than the next, though Greil's attempted lyrical analysis are an apogee their kind. But I trust-- as a sage listening artist yourself (really)-- you & others hear "Terraplane" as the comic song it is, yes? Moms - I agree with you that the a lot of the deification of Robert Johnson as King of the Blues came from people who didn't know the context or the real history. Many bought his records in the 60s and beyond only because of praise heard from a favorite Rock star, but many of them were also genuinely moved by the music. Clearly, Robert Johnson's music has the power to move even people who don't know the context. On the other hand, it strikes me that the writers on blues who did know the context (Paul Oliver, David Evans, Robert Palmer, Mack McCormick, Peter Guralnick, etc.) usually wrote largely sensible things about Robert Johnson, more sensible than what has come from the newer wave of so-called revisionist scholars out to prove that Robert Johnson was not an original artist, the case for his musical importance comes from false myths, there was no real deal with the Devil at the Crossroads, and the like.

That is close to my feelings as well, except that I don't really need the 60s either. Just the 70s is enough for me. Certainly, they played a lot of good music after the 70s. But the 70s were still the 70s. That is what I reach for when I want to hear Garcia and the Dead.

I think that if Robert Johnson had recorded nothing other than Terraplane Blues, he would still be in the Pantheon. These days, it is popular to accuse Robert Johnson of being derivative. But where did Terraplane Blues come from? The whole rhythmic approach to that song strikes me as being very innovative.

Excellent post, Jeff. Thanks.

It used to be fashionable to place Robert Johnson up on a pedestal as superior to all others. Now it is fashionable to bash him down to nothing. Both views are wrong. Not that Moms is a person of fashion. I am just saying...

"Re-Entry" on 32 Jazz was also from the Half Note, partly with Woody Shaw. I wonder if this is a different recording.

I really enjoyed my interactions with him. RIP

This really makes me depressed, like when Martin Luther King was murdered. The first thought is "damn, all it takes is one crazy idiot to set us back completely as a nation." Then you start to think that this is not just simply an idiot who fell from the sky, but a true product of the USA. That is what is most depressing.

Same here. I've never really understood the attention that this record gets relative to other recordings by Erroll Garner, but maybe this reissue will do it for me.

I also heard a story that Max Roach stood outside Ornette's house one night and screamed for him to come out and get his ass kicked.

I'll buy the iWatch when they make one that holds at least 500 gigs of music.

What a shock! RIP There will certainly never be another like Ornette.

Fine album, indeed. There are no liner notes, however. So you are not missing too much not having the (although attractive) digipack.

I guess that this must be the first time that Mosaic has issued a set that consists mostly of music already issued on another Mosaic set.