DrJ

Good sound (though with the usual Columbia/Legacy harshness at the high end, characteristic of their reissues in the past few years), great music, lousy boxed set packaging (as noted, basically a bunch of individual CDs bundled together). Should have received more of a "Miles" type treatment.

You can the 2 CD set pretty readily a bunch of places...do an Amazon search and a bunch come up: Farlow

I am starting to become a firm believer that it really doesn't matter too much what the enhanced CD format is, if you have a good transport and DAC combo and a nice amp and speakers. I have all these in place now in my new listening room except the amp (tube amp is on order - but my old Denon is a workmanlike piece, not bad at all). What I've noticed is that with a good combo like this, regular or CDs can sound really amazing, and the enhanced format discs not always substantially better. You do probably get a little more detail out of HDCD and XRCD but not a ton and it varies from recording to recording. So I agree with the general comment that a well-remastered CD is a well-remastered CD, regardless of whether it features these format tweaks or not. A corollary - with my new system, SACD no longer sounds like a huge improvement to me like it did before...redbook CD on a good system is remarkable and approaches SACD. Now I will admit that one issue could be my SACD player - it's not a high end one, nowhere near the level of the rest of my system. But regardless, I don't have any plans to buy a bunch of SACD format stuff in the near future, except maybe hybrids where the regular CD layer is an improvement over prior issues too. Not when redbook CD can sound this good. I'd highly encourage people to put some time in listening to a good transport/DAC pairing (or a good all-in-one player of comparable quality) before committing to a lower-end player and going for more expensive "higher resolution" CDs. You might pay more up front for such a system but over time who knows, if you are a recording junky (who here isn't?) you could even save yourself some money.

Bev, I think more than the whole bad boy/good boy dichotomy, it boils down to rock for me needing to have what I'd call for lack of a better way of putting it "an edge." To me it's a defining aspect of the music. You can have good stuff without it, still music, but I can't really call it rock then. Now that might be an edge of lawlessness or even anarchy, but it can also be a deep, nagging, unmet emotional need or disturbing/unreconciled feeling that the artist expresses - not necessarily in over-the-top fashion, but something that is simmering just below (and sometimes just above) the surface. So in your list of artists who don't fit the "bad boy" mold, I'd take the example of Joni Mitchell. At her best (e.g. BLUE, HEJIRA, a few glorious moments scattered within the piecemeal DON JUAN'S RECKLESS DAUGHTER, NIGHT RIDE HOME) her work expresses a deep, deep sense of longing and unfulfilled potential and purpose. I think this applies too to what I'm familiar with from Fairport Convention, and DEFINITELY Nick Drake, and the best of CSN&Y. Taking CSN&Y as another example, the "edge" principle exemplifies for me perfectly why the first album worked out so well but the after that their recordings were spotty and inconsistent. Their "edge" boiled down to a sense of commitment to the work on the first album - and by contrast, you can almost hear the ambivalence among group members on their 2nd album, the lack of conviction that each seems to have about the other's whole approach and take on the world. For some groups, that inner tension would work, but it didn't really work for me with CSN&Y. So the second album is still a fun listen BECAUSE it's so spotty and multifaceted, but for me nothing on it approaches the level of "Wooden Ships" or "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes." So back to the Byrds, by my read, the few true classics have that "edge" but much of the rest lacks it. Just my take on it, and I totally appreciate and understand your (equally valid) alternative viewpoint.

Without any recent, decent sounding U.S. issues of this material (and if I'm not mistaken these were kind of gray market recordings to begin with), I did what I normally would not do and went for the Definitive group's recent 2 CD issue of this material, THE COMPLETE 1956 PRIVATE RECORDINGS. While the sound quality is not pristine, it is definitely more than listenable. The music, on the other hand, is unqualified genius. I don't want to deflate any bubbles related to the upcoming Farlow Mosaic, but as someone who has 90+% of the Verve material that will be in the box and loves it (Farlow ranks in my personal "big three" of jazz guitarists along with Grant Green and Jim Hall), I have to say that Farlow and Costa both in these private recordings with a creativity, abandon, and relaxed quality that they very seldom reached on those Verve studio sides. Thus my topic description above - I bought this as the appetizer for the Mosaic (which I'll still be pre-ordering, thank you), but it's so rich and satisfying it's really the main course. The expanded track lengths are part of the issue, as these two improvising giants have adequate time to let their long flowing lines fully develop. But to me it's more a matter of circumstances - you can almost hear Farlow's relief at not being in front of a studio mike; he sounds, well, at home and in his natural element. Costa responds in kind, and of course Vinnie Burke is rock solid and mightily propulsive in support as always. I had read similar opinions before but never quite believed them - figured it was just the mystique of these being private, sort of gray market recordings - but it's true, folks. The only fly in the ointment for me is a slight nagging guilt about lining the pockets of the Definitive folks, whose business practices bother me in many ways. Still, they done good with this one, and if anyone in the U.S. ever gets off the stick and gets this material out in an even better sounding reissue, I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. These are desert island recordings, some of the greatest jazz guitar you'll hear.

Oh Marty Jazz, please don't misunderstand - PAGE ONE is a stone classic, no question. But Joe was Joe, and his genius was such that he actually TOPPED that amazing debut, IMHO, with his next few sides. Let me put it this way, PAGE ONE definitely set the mold, but then OUR THING cracked it, IN 'N' OUT broke it, and finally INNER URGE melted the damn thing altogether. So my comment was simply meant to reflect that these later releases don't seem to get the due or respect I think they deserve, next to the almost knee-jerk kudos showered on PAGE ONE.

As I look at this further and with Larry's input, I believe he's right - this does appear to be a slightly later issue in terms of the vinyl being on World Pacific. It was placed in what appears to be an original PJ jacket, but then the inner sleeve lists titles in the World Pacific "reissue" or repressing program! So a hybrid. But it's still interesting that the tracks are intact in terms of original length. So this adds some clarity to the picture, it's not necessarily just "first pressing" PJ issues that have all the tracks intact as Larry emphasized, which brings a little more hope to people seeking the unedited tracks. I also want to modify my assessment of the vinyl quality on my copy, after listening more last night I'd say merely "good." Quite a bit of surface noise, although mostly of the background murmur variety. No skips and only a few more distracting pops. So probably $30 is a fair price, I suppose they could have gouged a la Ebay prices, based on the rarity, but the quality I think warrants a substantial dock in price. So I'm happy overall, but unfortunately can't say this is anywhere close to a mint copy. If people are interested in hearing the original versions, I'd be happy to make some CD-Rs at some point. We're in the process of moving in to a new home so there might be a little delay, but just let me know.

Dredging this thread up because I wanted to share my good find...found this album in a used store for $29 bucks, the vinyl is in very good condition although the cover has a lot of wear (still not terrible). So this gets more interesting - the label on my copy is an old World Pacific label, not Pacific Jazz, even though the sleeve says only "Pacific Jazz Enterprises" and the number on the cover (as well as on the label) is PJ 1227. But my LP sure appears to be an original pressing since all the tracks that were in abbreviated form on the CD reissue are present in their longer versions. So: 1. Was the original pressing on World Pacific, not Pacific Jazz? 2. Or, was there some second or later pressing under the World Pacific imprint that included the original tracks without overdubs that hasn't been discussed here? Curiouser and curiouser...

Funny, I would agree with you Jim about PAGE ONE, I've never quite understood why everyone goes so ga ga over that one when OUR THING and even moreso IN 'N' OUT and INNER URGE followed and had so much more on display of Henderson's artistry. But with NIGHT DREAMER, I wouldn't call it tentative or timid, just more quiet, maybe even subdued, but in a very appealing way. Oh well, to each their own, and I do get what you're saying for sure.

I know this has been touched on in some recent discussions about Basie's 100th birthday passing with little to no fanfare in the U.S., but I hadn't also realized about other jazz giants who would have been 100 this year, including Fats Waller, Jimmy Dorsey, and Coleman Hawkins, until I read a piece about this in Jazz Times yesterday. Sadly I find it little surprise that the general public hasn't made much notice of this. But in the jazz world, at least in the U.S., the silence is also deafening. For example, where are the boxed set tributes? Am I missing something? Are you listening Mosaic?

This is a really interesting thread, particularly hearing about the reactions to Wayne "back in the day" from Chuck and Larry. Can't say I agree from a much later vantage point though about his first couple BNs, while the Vee Jay material is really outstanding, NIGHT DREAMER in particular has always been one of my favorite slices of Shorter.

I've been trying to track that one down DTMX, will intensify the hunt!

Well no offense was meant in my comparison, to each their own. But really Guy, while you may disagree, I hardly think my comparison can be considered "unfair." Harder-edged rock 'n' roll, blues, and r&b had been around for years before the Byrds or any of the other artists I mention, after all. Maybe you were interpreting my comments about The Who to pertain only to the "loudness" or distortion on the guitars, but it's the whole package that determines edge and impact for me in rock. So people like Little Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis from 10 years or so earlier, well, their stuff still makes what the Byrds did look a little tame and even a little precious to me, even though there's no screaming guitars in those 50's tunes and the recordings were murkier (maybe it's even BECAUSE of those things). Yet the Who's best work holds up for me when placed alongside even those rock n roll greats. To each their own. Don't also forget about less heralded (in terms of record sales) younger white artists who would have no doubt been well-known to hip musicians like the Byrds - e.g. Clapton and the Bluesbreakers - who had already crossed into much more sinister, edgy territory either at the same time as or even a little before the Byrds took flight. So I don't think the Byrds sounded tamer simply because they didn't know about other options; rather they made some conscious choices, adopting a folkier (and later a country-inflected) aesthetic but implementing it with electric 12-string, and this resulted in a very distinctive sound and great influence. But with 30+ years hindsight I'm not personally completely compelled by the bulk of their stuff - the sound is undeniably seductive and distinctive, but I can't say I feel they threw up more than a relatively small handful of truly great tunes. And I don't find personally that the Byrds' LPs have aged real well as albums that hold interest over 30-40 minutes. Yet I still enjoy their best tunes and their influence on the sound of pop and rock and roll that came after is undeniable - and that is to me their greatest legacy. Heck, groups like REM would probably have never even existed if it weren't for the Byrds, and McGuinn's influence lives on (exemplified by stuff like "Fifty Years After the Fair" on Aimee Mann's WHATEVER album, on which he plays 12 string).

Thanks for the heads up Dave, the Bennetts and Lafittes look mighty tempting.

You beat me to the punch, Dan! I ordered a copy yesterday from Peter. PS - love your Steve Martin quote. The last bit of that little song always slayed me: Be pompous, obese, and eat cactus. Be dull and boring and omniprescent. Criticize things you don't know about. Be oblong and have your knees removed.

A huge, huge loss. Rest in peace.

Great idea

Very interesting! I've been really enjoying Spaulding's SONGS OF COURAGE CD (Muse 1991), outstanding stuff and I actually prefer it by quite a margin over the more widely-discussed and also good BRILLIANT CORNERS (last out on 32 jazz, also a Muse). Will check this out.

Putting in a good word for Crosby, at least in his "prime." Goofy dude and now a media charicature, but undeniable, tremendous talent in the most natural, idiosyncratic way - although largely squandered before 1968 and after about 1970 onward (a VERY brief peak!). Some of the shit he wrote or contributed to CSN was just unreal, and the "jazz sensibility" comment by Bev is spot on. I also agree with comments about some (most?) of the Byrds albums sounding more like a few great singles held together with unmemorable filler. I don't think the majority or maybe any of the albums belong in anywhere near the same league as the best work of the Beach Boys, Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, or Who (put any of their LPs alongside something like THE WHO SELL OUT and it's a no-contest victory for Mr. Townshend, for example). Still, their greatest singles were glorious slices of pop. And yet ultimately the Byrds now sound tame, almost quaint with this many years' hindsight. They sound much more "of the 60's" too than the greatest artists of the era to me. Some of the comments above seem to me to be commenting more on their INFLUENCE - their sound and elements of it as filtered through other, later artists' prisms, which is probably their greatest legacy - arguably, they have had more DIRECT influence on the SOUND of rock and pop guitar bands than any of the other artists listed above - than on the staying power of the music the Byrds actually recorded. The contrast between a great Byrds single like "Eight Miles High" and the Who's greatest for me, "I Can See For Miles," is instructive. Townshend and company still sound as though they are exploding out of my speakers, whilst the Byrds twitter (albeit pleasantly) in the background. I think one can even argue that an "unintended consequence" of the folk and country touches the Byrds introduced, undeniably a breath of fresh air in small doses, was to drain American rock of a little bit of its more sinister, blues and R&B derived edge. Good, bad, or indifferent depending on your point of view, but an issue to be confronted.

Damn, a Mosaic of the Verve Basie material would be VERY VERY nice...can't imagine someone hasn't thought of it there and isn't working on it.

These are great recordings, IMHO, not Hope's "best" but still excellent. Not the finest fidelity, but highly listenable. If you have a turntable, you might consider getting the Japanese vinyl editions (2 LPs) of these if they are still being offered by Mosaic...they sound quite good and were reasonably priced as "going OOP" items a while back, although I haven't A/B'd with the CD issues.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of Snoop as Miles...he's not a talentless hack, first of all, though I don't count myself a big fan. And second, OK, personally he's kind of an idiot, and tiresomely "in the media" 24/7, but all that aside, you never know, it might just work. Whoever plays Miles convincingly would need an attitude, and a certain "outside the mainstream" detachment, as well as the ability to convey the need for fame and the drive to cultivate a mass audience...hmmm...maybe, just maybe. Those things will be far more important than physical resemblance IMHO. One thing I've discovered is that I would starve to death as a Hollywood casting person...some of the casting decisions that have made me groan the most upon hearing about them ended up working out really well, and vice versa.

Wow, interesting stuff - also wasn't aware KELLY GREAT was his first "confirmed" recording session (missed that somehow) and definitely wasn't aware that there appears to have been another earlier one awaiting firm confirmation...hopefully Avakian will respond with some info (and plans for a reissue!).

Thanks for the tip Jim! This is the type of session I would never have even known about probably if not for this board. I've been on an Elmo Hope kick since last summer, when I snagged the Celebrity and Beacon trios on vinyl. Most lately I've been marveling at his composition MINOR BERTHA as covered on James Spaulding's SONGS OF COURAGE (Muse) CD from 1991. Spaulding's group tears it up, and I am utterly hooked on the major/minor thing and hip bop rhythmic displacements in the composition. Anyway, if there are some parallels with Hope, and also given the other nice things you say about Hewitt, I'm on it. Will order today.

I am intrigued by the whole idea of music "for" or "not for beginners." My take on it is that there is actually no distinction - and in fact those of us with more listening hours under our belts are probably least qualified to make that judgement. Rather, new listeners should just listen to what they feel like listening to and will probably do just fine that way. I came to become a jazz diehard after being a really eclectic listener, mostly to pop but a little bit of everything and a lot of "border music," stuff that skirts the edges of many genres like Frisell, Wayne Horvitz, Metheny, etc. So here's the thing: the more I have listened to mainstream, bop and post-bop acoustic jazz, I have experienced the phenomenon of "beyond the boundaries" jazz actually sounding MORE alien on first few listens. Now that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, and in many ways with more listening experience I find that it hits me at a much deeper level after being assimilated, but the point is that when I was a "jazz neophyte" I could listen to that stuff and often it would sound LESS alien to me. This is also no knock on acoustic straight ahead jazz - I'm not saying it lacks adventure when in skilled hands, it's still my "first love," but what I am saying is that there are definite ground rules that people follow in this setting - even someone as adventurous as Cecil Taylor, the framework is still there. I think all this makes perfect sense - after hours and hours of listening, my ears have become attuned to the usual elemental ground rules (in less inspired situations, conventions) of acoustic "straight ahead" or closely allied types of jazz, so other stuff sounds funny at first - not bad, but jarring a little until immersion. An example from my early listening to jazz days was Ornette...basically, at that point, it just sounded like great music and I didn't see what all the fuss was about in terms of his "revolution." With hindsight and the ability to mentally compare his work with other contemporary players, I get that now, and if anything I think his music sounds just a bit more "alien" now every time I put it on the player. Now maybe that increases my INTELLECTUAL estimation of his music a little, but not at an emotional level. If anything, it takes me a bit longer to "get into" the Ornette mindset sometimes. A more recent example is James "Blood" Ulmer's ARE YOU GLAD TO BE IN AMERICA? I finally caught up with this recording a couple weeks back, and have been enjoying it a lot ("jazz is the teacher but funk is the preacher!"). It's not "out" music to me at all but it's definitely pretty far outside the acoustic jazz mainstream...there was a time about 10-12 years ago that it would have sounded perfectly "normal" on first listen, but it took me a couple listens to warm to it now, and I realized it was because it was outside the mainstream mold and my ears just needed a little time to adjust - to the timbre of the instruments (many electronic), the mix, everything about it that is quite a bit different than what one encounters with a typical acoustic set. So again, it's not about fogeyism or shutting other stuff out, but a relatively steady diet of acoustic bop/post-bop will DEFINITELY affect my "ears" and how they perceive other music on first listen. As a related issue: if I take a break from acoustic bop/post-bop, listening to other types of music for a while and then come back to it, my enjoyment of the acoustic jazz is sometimes GREATLY enhanced...basically, my ears seem to hear the music differently, everything sounds fresh and new. Anyone else experience these things?