Big Beat Steve

Yes, this is a recurrent problem, not just in the field of (music) history books.

I just read the entire FB discussion linked above, and - apart from the fact that, for a FB page, this is some serious and enlightened discussion - he may indeed be making too much of this particular passage if this was the only sore spot. But was it?? I don't know so I'd not judge that book myself. In general, though, I'd find such nonsense almost as grating as Allen did. Why do these authors have to resort to such clichés? And why can't they link the elements of their reasoning more properly so the reader isnt left wondering what the author actually meant to say? Do they really expect that their bluff won't be called by some readers if it can be called that easily? (In fact they ought to be glad that readers out there read their elaborations that attentively, instead of just glossing over them ... ) I guess I've been overly critical with some books I've read and commented upon here on that forum too. But one basic premise just is and remains: Get your facts right!

A fine set and worth revisiting anytime. But IMHO it's a pity they focus quite a bit on the known names of the "usual suspects" who have been graced by reissues elsewhere too. So others "who also were there" (and who you come across when you leaf through "First Pressings" a.o. and then start wondering about them) fell by the wayside. But - yes, I realize you cannot please everyone and such box sets cannot easily be designed as "fillers of the gaps left by others".

Since this is a Decca/Brunswick release it cannot be part of that "editing" controversy that involved George Avakian and Columbia Records in the mid-50s for certain Louis Armstrong recordings and caused quite a bit of indignation in jazz circles IIRC. But others may have been going that route too.

Why leave out his Vanguard LP (for example), while you're at it?

I tend to agree, unfortunately. I added a few of these to my collection during recent months too and felt much like you did. Apparently contrary to how others on thos forum feel about these. (As shown in recent discussions here). Somehow his JATP and Granz Jam Session presence does more for me. But tastes differ and one man's meat, etc ... Congrats on your CC Benny Carter CD purchases. I bought two of these long, long ago to round off (more or less) my vinyls of his 30s and 40s recordings. Which I feel have a punch and edge that the backing groups of his later recordings somehow smother too often.

Re- "Ben Webster meets Don Byas" (SABA): You all sure made it hard for me to listen to this without any preconceived notions based on what's been written on that session. So I listened a bit closer now, and as I'm no musician nor a musicologist and not out to dissect such recordings academically, my bottom line is: "No desert island disc but no train wreck either." To my ears, Don Byas indeed sounds more assertive whereas Ben Webster is more in what has been described as his "coasting" mood. As for their interplay, we know why 2 of the 6 tracks are vehicles for one tenor only and elsewhere their cooperation sounds somewhat loose and disjointed, but not excessively so, at least to me and given the known circumstances. The way they alternate with one being up front and the other in the back has its moments too. Besides, weren't there many late 50s or 60s jazz recordings where anything loose or disorganized or everyone going off into whatever direction was just as likely to be construed by reviewers or listeners as "advanced" or similar, in a sort of "anything goes" state of mind? I'm not sure how regularly I'll targetedly revisit this LP; but it is a notable document of a phase in the careers of both of these legends. Warts'n'all.

I see there are a huge variety of different listening prefernces among Bird fans, either complete with all the laternates or master takes only. So, further to the JSP public domain set that Mikeweil showed, here is another approach that might satisfy those who like to experience the music in the exact compiling and track order of the original or "period" releases from way back. (Yes I know the CD set shown under the below link is one of those P.D. sets that some will immediately sneer at. But if found cheaply ... - My copy, for example, came my way at a clearout sale several years ago - and at 1 EUR for a TEN-CD set you cannot go wrong and might as well consider it a freebie ). Anyway ... this set combines the music "as is" from a number of 10" and 12" LPs originally released in the 50s and early 60s on Dial, Savoy, Mercury, Clef, Jazz Workshop, Le Jazz Cool and some others. So as a complementary item with a somewhat different compiling order it might serve some purpose here and there ... https://www.discogs.com/release/11693423-Charlie-Parker-Milestones-Of-A-Legend

So Büchmann-Møller did not dwell on the clash of personalities or animosities that seems to have developed between Webster and Byas during that session (as Con Chapman explained in his Byas biography)? It seems easy to imagine that they were not at their top on that occasion, given these problems. Will try to listen to that disc with a "blank sheet" approach anyway. @Late: Thanks for your feedback.

Sooo ...@Late: What are YOUR impressions of the presence of the harpsichord on that album, then?

Interesting ... and apparently totally under everyone's radar with all that "Listening" talk about Prestige during recent months ... But ouch ... what a hefty price. I'm tempted but am very much on the fence, given how many Prestiges are on my shelves anyway and how many have been shown "for art's sake" in previous books such as "East Coasting" and "Jazzical Moods". We'll see ...

Seems like I have the reissue you are referring to. Before listening in I'd have said (based on my strictly personal preferences) that I cannot see any real use for a harpsichord (beyond pure gimmickry) anywhere except with Artie Shaw's Gramercy Five. But you made me curious so I had a listen to tracks 9 and 10 first. I agree that Ben Webster pulls it off any time, but I do not find that thing that sounds like an amplified harpsichord here (unusual ...) all that disturbing. Not necessary but not all that unpleasant. However, please note my (and maybe "our") stance on the use of the harpsichord in jazz from that era is clearly a Euro-centric one as we have been treated to that baroque instrument elsewhere in jazz from the late 50s/early 60s (Horst Jankowski - note I am talking about his PRE-"Black Forest" days here! - or George Gruntz, for example). The harpsichord was easily resorted to by those who were out to "thirdstream" European jazz. So IMO the jazzier licks (at times almost organ-like) that come from the harpsichord here are OK and do not bother me. So ... just my 2c. Will listen closer to the "rest" later.

Certainly, and agreed about a set made up ONLY of one alternate of each would not mean a loss of quality overall (and no loss of listening enjoyment, particularly to newbies with "fresh ears"). But taking this idea one step further, this would require identifying them as such anyway. Because the MASTER takes still are out there. So what would we have, then? - A potential set of master takes (which already exists but will continue to exist) - A potential set of alternates (ie. one alternate of each). Certainly an interesting package. But how to call this? "Bird - The complete preferred alternates"?? Hmmm ... (Because like I said I see no way of not labeling them as alternates at all, unless you're fine with muddling it all up ...) I'd not venture a guess about what the "typical suspects" among the Birdophiles would reply. Particularly those who'd clamor again to go the whole way when digging into the alternates. And as the discographies tell us that NOT EACH Bird tune recorded on Dial and Savoy has at least three alternates, what would be next? How to label them NOT as something like "The complete alternate alternates" if you want to avoid resorting to something like "The connoisseur leftovers" or "Scraping the Bird barrel" or ...? (A fun thought, but also food for thought ...)

I would not wager against this. But I would NOT wager either that the discographically inclined among the reviewers, in particular, or other more knowledgeable ones would not cry out scandal for "upsetting the commonly accepted wisdom". "Hey, that's an alternate, not the master, and it doesn't say so in the notes. Sloppy compiling! Horror of horrors!" Has happened often enough, hasn't it?

Along the lines of "The Alternate Goodman" on Phontastic? Except that this time there should be an alternate of EVERY master take ever released?