DrJ

I had heard much of the music in this set before it was issued as such, but a lot via CD-Rs with only so-so sound...it's a fabulous collection, already has become one of my favorite Mosaics. I personally love everything in it...including the Art Farmer date where he's backed by an orchestra (some tasty Oliver Nelson charts...well done). ART and PERCEPTION by Farmer and Golson's FREE and PICK A NUMBER... I would say these really are classics in their own right. The Jazztet stuff is of course staple material, any hard bop collection would be incomplete without it. This is a real winner, the type of set that, even though it's large and may seem pricey, is a real bargain considering the notes, and the sound, and the fact that there's nothing less than great here, AND it's historically important. Get it.

HEY JUDE was my first exposure to the Beatles, my parents bought it for me when I was in about 3rd grade, so must have been 3 or 4 years after they had broken up. It IS an awfully odd mishmash of stuff but somehow it works well and in truth I think it plays very well as an album rather than just a collection of odds and ends/singles/etc. It also has "Don't Let Me Down," one of the great neglected Beatles masterpieces...man I played that one over and over. After that I was hooked and snapped up anything Beatle-related I could find for a long time...including some of the pretty horrible mid- to late-70s solo records (EXTRA TEXTURE and RINGO'S ROTOGRAVURE, anyone?).

I have actually e-mailed them with my request Mike! However my box would look a little different - I would personally prefer a focus on just the Hutch/Land collaborations and would include stuff that's already been out on CD (because many people still haven't heard it, and they SHOULD!).

Noj, I'd be curious to know, of those Morgan albums, which would you consider to be outstanding (rather than merely good)? Personally I'd put LEEWAY, THE SIDEWINDER, and possibly THE PROCRASTINATOR in that category. I hedge on PROCRASTINATOR only because after a few stunning compositions it becomes more routine...but it's a strong one and OK, let's keep it in the top flight. What of the rest? SEARCH FOR THE NEW LAND I've always felt promises far more than it delivers (the title track is, for example, strong at start but ultimately overlong and never does quite reach the peak it suggests). Most of the rest you list are good but not great recordings, and TOM CAT I would say is frankly subpar, Morgan's worst for the label. Of the Hubbard dates you have (and the one you HAD, HUBTONES) I'd personally say all are classics except for BLUE SPIRITS which is uneven but quite interesting. By my scorecard, Hub way ahead based at the very least based on ratio of great to less than great ones...

A friend brought these over this weekend and I had a chance to do some listening...they are well-done from the standpoint of having a lot of life and clarity and a minimum of distortion...certainly they are very true reflections of the way the U.S. albums sounded. I continue to GREATLY prefer the UK versions of the albums (I just have inexpensive 80s Parlophone LP repressings and they still sound fantastic on a good system - boy would audiophile jobs on high quality vinyl sound WONDEROUS). But there is an undeniable charm to hearing the "duophonic" fake stereo and cavernous reverb - in other words, what these sounded like to millions of young people in the US in 1964 and 1965 coming out of car and transistor AM radios. I do wish EMI would get out remasterings of the UK albums (with contemporary EP/single tracks added to each at the end as bonus tracks)...including stereo "alternatives" of the first few UK LPs (even though many will still want the original mono as the "main" format). This is the friggin' BEATLES - both U.S. and UK versions ought to be perennially in print in best possible sound. The Stones reissues of a couple years back - which got out both U.S. and UK versions of albums like AFTERMATH, plus all were SACD hybrids and had exquisitely well done sound on both SACD and standard CD layers - should provide a signpost to EMI re: how to do it right.

Friend of mine brought the new Beatles CD remasters - 1964/5 stuff - and I A/B'd them with my 80's reissue pressing Parlophone LPs. Different animals I know, since the CDs are "Dexterized" versions, but in terms of overall sonic quality - the LPs win, but not by a whole lot. Yeah the CDs have that over the top reverb on some tracks ("She's a Woman" must set some type of record for reverberization) but they still sound kind of nice, very...well, 1964/5 American AM pop radio. The UK LPs are of course much warmer and from an audiophile standpoint much better done. But I'm not plunking for the CDs, regardless, since they flat out got it wrong with their approach (not being particularly nostalgic, I still think they should have been UK versions of LPs with contemporary singles included as bonus tracks, plus/minus the mono versions also included).

Wow, never heard of INNER GLOW, thought I had a pretty good handle on the Hutch BN discography! Just ONE MORE REASON that Mosaic URGENTLY needs to produce the following long-overdue box: COMPLETE CADET/BLUE NOTE HUTCHERSON/LAND SESSIONS (and if there are any other contemporary dates for other labels that this would miss, by all means add 'em on!) I have been revisiting some of the excellent dates that would be included and have not yet been on CD at all - CIRRUS, HEAD ON, PEACE-MAKER - and can't for the life of me understand why Michael Cuscuna hasn't done this one yet. A no brainer!

Agreed. It's really hard to prioritize. But again I'm banking that many of the more "famous" dates, even if they go OOP in current form, will reappear. So now chasing down many of the "Limited Editions."

A loaded question around here! My only advice is - check out both tube and solid state amps to find out which you prefer. If you've never had a chance to hear tube amps, you should check 'em out. Some very fine low-cost systems can be assembled, and in my view once you hear a good tube system you'll have a hard time listening to jazz on anything else. IF you decide you like tube amps, then you also ought to think strongly about a tube CD player or separate CD transport/tube DAC set-up. These low cost systems won't give you "mega high output" or floor-shaking bass, but then again, if you like acoustic jazz that's not important. What they will give is a very true, warm sound and NO digital harshness and the associated ear fatigue that goes with it. You can listen to CDs for literally HOURS without your ears saying "enough!"

Well couw, honestly speaking there WAS a bit of the provocateur coming out in me but there was a method to the madness - maybe I'm missing the mark but I think there is a knee-jerk tendency around here to praise Morgan's Blue Notes without really "hearing" what's going on, and the opposite tendency of slogging Hubbard because it's fashionable. FWIW, anyone who knows me well around here knows I am a very big Lee Morgan fan. But honestly speaking, when I look at the staggering consistency of greatness of Hubbard's studio Blue Note recordings and compare that with Morgan's track record, I think Hub kept the quality standard much higher overall. Morgan sure as heck DID turn out some great ones, but there was a time in the later 60s - before the LIGHTHOUSE dates and the last record LEE MORGAN, both of which re-upped the ante and showed a man reignited by a passion for exploration - where he was more or less on autopilot, a couple of nice moments (CARAMBA! for example) aside. If it was a really GOOD autopilot, I still find that mighty disappointing since we all know he was capable of GREAT. Just the same way I find Hubbard's post-BN output, taken as a whole (a few surprises aside, like THE BLACK ANGEL), hugely disappointing. So I'm not trying to disparage Morgan but simply to encourage an honest reappraisal of both of these giants' work. If people still then disagree with me, well OK, but I don't like the whiff of "dittohead" mentality I'm getting here.

Man, I will honestly never understand the slogging that Hubbard seems to take on this board, and in particular about his Blue Notes. These are as a whole such an impressive body of work! I can only conclude that many are not listening to the music but are "hearing" (in other words, projecting their expectations of) his later era commercialism and show-boating, and there's also a seemingly fashionable aspect to the drubbing he gets. I just can't see how anyone who enjoys some of, say, Lee Morgan's (many) middleweight Blue Notes (stuff like TOM CAT, CHARISMA, much of CORNBREAD even) can in the same breath rip Hubbard's high quality output for the label. Hubbard not only covered more ground musically and was far more creative (how many times can one hear Morgan play the same half-valved licks over and over again before it's enough?) but his tone at that time frankly put Morgan's rather pinched sound to shame. I know critical assessment is no measure of an artist's quality many times, but it is worth noting that Hubbard's Blue Notes are pretty much universally lauded by commentators of widely varying backgrounds and tastes - and it's the consistency of this high opinion that I think DOES mean something. Furthermore: his CTIs are to me WAY overvalued around here. STRAIGHT LIFE was one of the single most disappointing jazz CDs I've ever purchased...with that line up, and in the context of what Hub was attaining a scant couple of years earlier, it's amazing this mediocre rambling was the best they could come up with. If there are honestly folks who listen to that stuff with enthusiasm and can't hear quality in the Blue Notes, well, then that's all the proof I need in support of the concept of parallel universes! -_- Anyway, that off my chest: I do agree with the "uneven" assessment of BLUE SPIRITS, it's got some very nice moments but nowhere near the level of really coherent, more realized albums like HUBTONES, READY FOR FREDDIE, HERE TO STAY, hell pretty much ALL the other Blue Notes in my book. If you want "outish" Freddie, BREAKING POINT is a much better representation of that than anything on BLUE SPIRITS, which is his weakest of the BN studio sessions (NIGHT OF THE COOKERS takes honors as worst overall, by a wide margin).

Jim, thanks so much for the info about the CLASSIC MOODS session: I suspect you're right about this, there is a great deal of warmth in this recording, in addition to the amazing clarity. Thanks again!

GREAT news about Addey doing the Pepper and Hill sets...I have always loved the Aladdin Pepper material, sonic imperfections aside, easily my favorite of his stuff even given the excellence of the Contemporary and Galaxy material. CAN'T WAIT!

Not to derail the current discussion, but just wanted to chime in about something: I have been enjoying Ernie Watts' CLASSIC MOODS (JVC) - Watts, Mulgrew Miller, George Mraz, and Jimmy Cobb - and noted last night Jim Anderson did the recording. Just wanted to say "thanks," this is without a doubt one of the best-sounding recent jazz CDs in my collection. It's neither overly polished nor too grainy and rough, just sounds - well, balanced. Mulgrew Miller's piano sound in particular has never sounded this refined and breathtaking. I'd simply be interested to know if you have any recollection of this session Jim and if you have any particular "secrets" to share with how you got it to sound that good!

...until I've heard the following music: Johnny Mathis - MERRY CHRISTMAS (Columbia) - yes, I mean it, NOT a Mathis fan but grew up hearing this one every year and I have to say that it's one of the most perfectly done holiday albums ever...more so for the arrangements than his vocals even. Dexter Gordon - "The Christmas Song" and Miles Davis/Bob Dorough - "Blue Xmas" Both of the latter from the excellent JINGLE BELL JAZZ (Columbia) compilation:

So far really only know these guys from the three Herbie Nichols Project discs (LOVE IS PROXIMITY, DR. CYCLOPS' DREAM, and STRANGE CITY)...and for Kimbrough, from a few sideman spots (a really fantastic one with Maria Schneider for example), and Wilson a single leader date (AS WAVE FOLLOWS WAVE, with Dewey Redman and Cecil McBee!) on Palmetto. I really LIKE what I hear so far...those Nichols "tributes," so much deeper in every sense than the usual recording of that type, are excellent, if (IMHO) not quite up to the level of exploration and excitement established by Rudd and Mengelberg and Lacy. I'm particularly fond of Horton and Kimbrough's playing based on those Nichols discs, but I am eager to explore stuff by all, including the much-vaunted Medicine Wheel stuff led by Allison.

What a great listing! Can't wait for all of them. Mosaic does it again and again and again. One relatively minor point about the Pepper: awhile back I picked up a Japanese paper sleeve 24 bit remastering of THE ART OF PEPPER Vol. 3, my personal fave of those Aladdins, and was quite disappointed in the sound quality - really not much better and in some ways worse than the old U.S. editions. I'm hoping that these Select versions are going to truly be "newly remastered" meaning that someone like Malcolm Addey had another go at them.

Well I for one am happy that I still have ALL of Jackie's Prestige albums to explore...outside of Blue Notes, I just have DYNASTY (the "comeback" mentioned above) and FAT JAZZ which was I think on Jubilee and I really dig the tuba there. No Prestiges at all. With the possible pending demise of much of the OJC catalog, I will begin my Jackie Prestige exploration SOON. Just one other comment on all this "this label output was artist X's 'classic' stuff, while this label output was inferior" stuff. OK, maybe so on one level, but why is it that often I find that for my favorite artists the less "perfect," less heralded dates are the ones that I find myself returning to more over time? I think it may vary for different listeners, but I find that a steady diet of the sublime would make for a boring, boring existance. It's more fun sometimes to fill in the gaps and have your brain ask "what might have been?" for merely good music.

I ordered a bunch of the "Limited Edition" titles today - figure those might go first if the deletion axe swings. A couple I'm particularly looking forward to given their reputation:

Pryan, I have seen him a couple times...most memorable was with the Cedar Walton Trio, both he and Johnny Griffin were guesting as horns for shows at Yoshi's in Oakland, CA. He was very, very impressive there, I finally "got" what all the fuss was about. Seen him at some shows in Monterey as well. It's really a shame he's seldom come across so well on recordings.

Booiingggg!

Oh, you can shampoo him alright, just make sure you lather up his SCALP, not his BRAIN.

OK, mildly interesting stuff, but there are literally DOZENS of equally scary-seeming test-tube studies published EVERY WEEK out there...and obviously 99.9% of these things never pan out in clinical studies to be of concern. Hey I'm up for caution as much as anyone, but this type of stuff always amazes me the way it's portrayed in the popular media as a real major, pressing concern. Pouring a chemical (one that's intended to kill bacteria at that) directly on to developing nerve cells is a LONG way off from concluding that shampooing with it is an issue...that would mean very high concentrations would need to somehow cross into your blood stream, which seems HIGHLY unlikely. A great example of the way science is routinely botched in the press. Classic quote from one of the articles from the scientist: "Can I say that these products are safe to use? No," he said. "Can I say that these products are unsafe to use? No." Gee. Thanks. Another telling comment: Again, Aizenman is quick to point out that there is no direct evidence linking MIT to (any of) these disorders. And this classic from some Assistant Professor at Vanderbilt: "There is a healthy dose of skepticism that needs to come when using any products or being intensely exposed to any compound," she said. Uh, OK - could we be any more sweepingly vague? OK. So given that time and money are limited at the governmental and every other level, hows about we worry about really PRESSING, proven health issues rather than fretting about stuff that will likely never pan out to be remotely important? My personal favorite, other than test tube studies like this one being made to sound like they're clinical studies, is when they quote observational studies (you know, the kind that finds associations between some exposure and some bad medical outcome) as if they are firm evidence, when in fact they are weak and can NEVER confidently be used to infer causality in the association (the exposure CAUSED the outcome). One not too long ago about television watching and ADHD just killed me; no way to determine whether TV "caused" or contributed to the ADHD or if parents (either in desperation, or due to neglect, or whatever) simply parked the kids with ADHD behaviors in front of the TV more than those of non-ADHD kids. Classic chicken or egg thing. Everyone who's interested in this type of ruse needs to read the DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS couplet of books, readily available on Amazon.

Sounds very worthwhile, will pick it up. Thanks friends!

For sure if you based your opinion of Hargrove on his track record as a recording leader, you'd say he was vastly overrated. But once you see him live you understand what all the fuss is about.