Big Beat Steve

Visibly this site has changed. Sadly not for the better. We've had discussions here on this forum in Feb./March 2023 of that Worldradiohistory site and of the Down Beats accessible online there. I then started to download the PDF files of each mag one by one for the years of most interest to me. As did others, it seems. But one forumist provided a method and link of how to "bulk download" these files in batches of several years at a time in one go. So I then downloaded ALL the Down Beats up to the end of 1969 by this method in almost no time at all. There also was a note that Down Beat objected to these being accessible online, so maybe this is why they changed the site again.

The recent discussion of the "Oop Pop A Da" bebop tune in the Percy France Thread reminds me of a discographical question I had meant to ask here for a while: Among the records I obtained from the estate of a deceased jazz collector in recent months I came into possession of a number of home-made CD-Rs with jazz radio shows from AFN radio that the owner apparently had taped from radio in his younger days and in more recent times transferred them to CD. Some of these dated back to the early 50s, in this instance one airing of the "Hot House" jazz show hosted by the "Baron of Bounce" (Ken Dunnagan) - aired at the latest in September, 1953, according to certain indications. One of the tunes, in particular, caught my attention - no announcement was preserved but the track listing identifies it as the CHARLIE VENTURA orchestra performing "Good Rockin' Tonight" (the Roy Brown tune first made into a hit by Wynonie Harris)! A live recording before what must have been rather a large audience, clocking in at 4:53, boppish backing but with a boogie piano, plenty of sax solo work (though the sax sounds a bit high-pitched for Charlie Ventura's baritone sax), spirited "Good Rockin' Tonight" vocals that somewhat sound like an extraordinarily freewheeling Buddy Stewart - not totaly impossible; from what I have found online there may have been a small time frame before the departure of Buddy Stewart from the band and after the tune had been released and become a hit in 1948. The vocals then go into "Do You Wanna Rock Children", supported by handclapping and some exuberant yelling in the style of Chubby Jackson, and for the last minute and a half or so the singer goes seamlessly into an "Ool Ya Koo" bop refrain. My obvious question: Does ANYONE know of any such a live recording of "Good Rockin' Tonight" by Charlie Ventura that may have been preserved somewhere else out there too? Needless to say, all the discographies or online sites I have been able to consult yielded ZERO. I cannot upload anything so this description will have to do but it should give an idea of the proceedings. Who knows ... it may be a case of misidentification and a different band after all but at any rate it's another nice example of that post-WWII cross-pollination of bebop and jump blues.

Yes, definitely. Oop Bop Sh'Bam was first recorded by the Dizzy Gillespie sextet on 15 May 1946 and released on Musicraft. Oop-Pop-A-Da was recorded by the Gillespie orchestra on 22 August 1947 and released on RCA.

As far as I can see the line-up on the Storyville site is ONLY correct for track 17 (Muskrat Ramble) taken from the 1947 Boston Symphony Hall concert. The booklet of the 4-LP set on MCA gives several different lineups and recording dates for the tracks that are included in the set shown under the Storyville link (and that make up the first 1 1/2 LPs or so of that set, except for track 4 which was not on that 4-LP set). Most tracks are from various dates in December, 1956, and January, 1957. In short, the information on that site is only an approximation.

Great Story!

Ha, a prime example of how tastes and perceptions differ ... I got this not long ago and will keep it of course once it's here (I might warm up to all of it eventually), but the tracks with strings definitely mar my listening pleasure. In most cases strings just kill the jazz content IMO the way they were applied in the 50s. For its jazz content, I like the "Cosmopolite" 10" LP on French Blue Star (GLP 6977) (that I've owned for some 27 years now) much better as it couples the 4 tracks with Oscar Peterson with selected tracks from the August 1952 session that in their original packaging were included in the "Alone Together" album and dispense with the strings.

Contrary to what the announcer says, somehow the vocals and "lyrics" sound more like "Oop-Pop-A-Da" and not so much like "Oop Bop Sh'Bam" to me.

Looks treacherously like record no. 1 and not quite half of record no. 2 of the 4-LP set that has been released and reissued countless times since 1957 under the same "Musical Autobiography" name on Decca, Brunswick and assorted other labels that eventually came under the MCA flag. https://www.discogs.com/master/411024-Louis-Armstrong-Satchmo-A-Musical-Autobiography-Of-Louis-Armstrong Not a particularly rare item on the secondhand market. Makes me wonder why anyone would want to hop on THAT bandwagon now ...

Took home two total obscurities today - found at 2.50 EUR each in the special offer bins: 1) Joe Burton Trio, "Subtle Sounds" (Joday Records JD-1000): https://www.discogs.com/release/16826433-Joe-Burton-Subtle-Sound Clearly a reissue (despite what Discogs says), but I am sort of amazed at the prices this seems to sell for elsewhere. Looks like one of those 80s facsimile reissues that are neither Fresh Sound nor VSOP but likely US-based. BTW, in case anyone knows: Am I right in assuming that this Joe Burton is NOT the pianist Joe Burton listed in the discographies (e.g Bruyninckx) who recorded for Trend, Regent and Coral from 1953 to 1957 and is lumped in with the above LP artist in the listing there. His bio in the digital version of Bruyninckx does not read like any of the info on the back cover of this Joday LP. (No, I had not been familiar with any of these Joe Burtons but at these prices I am inclined to take chances with obscure records from the 50s/early 60s) 2) Swiss All Stars (CD reissue of a rare recording from 1964) on Sonorama (!) C-59. https://www.discogs.com/release/2999445-Swiss-All-Stars-Swiss-All-Stars Nice to find a Sonorama item at such a giveaway price.

Thanks, looking at history that explains a lot indeed.

So a question to those who've read it: How does this book rate compared to "Kansas City Jazz - A Little Evil Will do You Good" by Con Chapman? I already own the books on Kansas City jazz by Ross Rusell, by Nathan W. Pearson Jr. and by Frank Driggs and Chuck Haddix. And as much as I am interested in the history of Kansas City jazz I am unsure if there is significantly more (that's not found anywhere else) to be gained from owning ALL that have been published. And a general question on this subject that I cannot recall I have found any explanation for in any of the three books above: How come that "Kansas City jazz" as a muscial hotbed happened almost exclusively in Kansas City, Mo., but not in Kansas City, Ks.? Though on the map they look like twin cities. ("Map" because when I read these books I've often referred to a 1948 Shell map of Missouri and Kansas City that my Ma brought home from her visit to her uncles in Steelville, Mo., in 1953 ). Was this only because of the Pendergast regime as an "enabler" on the Missouri side?

Not least of all because you did a very good job at documenting his doings.

I don't think many would have noticed that. (I for one wouldn't ...) Particularly since there are certain non-Anglo names that are spelled incorrectly all the time. But your attention to detail is to your credit.

This confirms what I figured. Hazevoet's work certainly is second to none, and this becomes evident to the reader. Yet it seems to me that somehow the reader does not gain much additional information if he is just reminded over and over again in the footnotes that the dates and places mentioned were researched and documented by Hazevoet. Since his work IS such a cornerstone among the available sources it should be evident that this is where the information comes from. I frequently referred to the footnotes just so see what additional info there might be. And most of the time all I saw was "oh this is where he got it from". Fine, but shouldn't the reader have assumed anyway that a diligent author uses reliable sources? Discographical details in particular, once researched in a definite way and documented accordingly (which clearly is the case here), IMO should be taken as hard facts where there is no need to prove to the reader in each case where the author looked them up. This, too, would have helped to unclutter the footnotes. As for overdoing things with the footnotes, about the time I finished this book and got ready for another purchase (the "This Is An Orchestra" biography of Stan Kenton), I came across an online review (by a professional reviewer) of this book, and the reviewer complained about the huge number of footnotes caused by the author quoting so many musicians verbatim. Well, the Kenton bio has some 540 footnotes for 308 pages. Now what would this reviewer have said about the quantity of footnotes in the Byas bio? (And no, the huge flow of footnotes in the "Saxophone Colossus" biography of Sonny Rollins does not deter me. This is an altogether different concept IMO. ) BTW, I did notice you were credited. Well deserved! And I agree that overall the Byas biography is important. To make it clear - I did not at all regret buying it. And some vinyl purchases of latter-day Byas recordings that, by coincidence, I made in recent months appear in a slightly more nuanced light now that background info on the sessions has been provided in this book.

I see we agree. (As elsewhere before ...) I also value footnotes that indicate the sources and - above all - provide additional info (that would be of use to those interested in the finest details but might throw more "straight-ahead" readers off course and therefore is not necessarily needed in the main text). But what annoyed me somewhat in the Byas bio was that not so few of the numerous footnotes by Chapman (approx. 965 footnotes for a 180-page biography really is A LOT!) only served to indicate that facts and dates about recordings, gigs, meetings, personal events were taken from two overriding sources by a Dutchman named Hazevoet (a discography and a "chronology" that - without having seen it - must be something like the diaries/itineraries by Ken Vail). This does not, however, tell much to those readers who do NOT own these sources. And in a book like this that is no Ph-D. thesis there is not that much need to show off over and over again that you are able to cite your sources in an academically correct way. A general statement (in a prominent place in the book) that info like this was taken from the Hazevoet sources would have been sufficient IMO. Most readers would probably give the author the benefit of trusting that he checked and reported the discographical details, dates and places correctly anyway. (Though, BTW, depite all these footnotes Chapman here and there screwed up the timeline anyway )

Did Chapman go as overboard with his footnotes (often for no gain in information to the reader) in the Hodges bio as he did in the Byas bio?

That session of 16 March 1956 (Captain Jetter/Nuzzolese Blues, etc) is very nice indeed. Pulled it out the other day during a "U.S. visitors to France" moment. The session recorded the day before for the Club Francais du Disque (I Found A New Baby/Charlie Was in Rouen/Crazy Rhythm/Charlie Went To Cherbourg) is also worth a listen. I now see I discussed it briefly with King Ubu in this thread in 2007 (19 years on now ... this decidedly makes me feel OLD! ) For some reason the French original 10" has always gone for insane prices. I had found a clean copy of the German 10" release of this back in the early 90s and later was surprised to see the prices the French 10" on CfD went for on eBay even in the early 2000s. But it's been reissued several times by now. That 1961 Paris session has escaped me so far. Apparently reissued a million times in Japan but nowhere else ever. Will have to check it out anyway.

"Remastered" should not be impossible at least in those cases where there are no source tapes in the first place (which often is the case if the recordings are old enough). In the same manner, my guess is that many do start their remasterings from actual records, turn them into "enhanced needle drops" and call them "remasterings". As for what actual improvement this yields, it all depends ... (Isn't it so that there are enough buyers out there who do not approve of certain "recent" remasterings - on perfectly "legit" labels and reissues - either because these above all have been remastered to make the music louder - in accordance with what the reissuers perceive is today's listeners' preferences? ). And no doubt there also are PD reissuers whose remastering claims are either wildly exaggerated or a case of usurpation because they re-use previous reissues' remasterings.

In short, those packagings are a big scam. BTW, I do assume "copy write" in the opening post is supposed to mean "copyright" (unless it's a clever play on homophony ). Since liner notes are probably inexistent with downloads there is not likely to be much "copy write/writing" there.

I must admit that when i wrote my post above I had not thought of his later Pablo recordings. I do not have many of these, but what I have picked up along the way is rather amazing. Will have to look into more of this, I guess. Agreed about the man of many parts and "The Legend" - and "Kansas City Suite" too. This sort of combination of Carter and Basie is something special.

If you look beyond the Norman Granz Jam Sessions that Benny Carter participated in, IMO his Verve years, while certainly fine, tend to be rather middle-of-the-roadish, i.e. mainstreamish on safe ground, and probably not all that distinctive above and beyond what else there was in major-label mainstream recordings of the 50s. And quite a few noteworthy recordings that he put his special touches to were under the leadership of others. Personally I find his early 30s and late 30s and 40s big band recordings as well as his European recordings from the "in-between" 30s period more stimulating to explore as a whole. But of course YMMV.

Sounds like you've given up on the subject.

Of course it is. Rock'n'Roll may have been a name initially coined to describe R&B marketed to white audiences or R&B(-influenced music) played by white artists. But during the heyday of actual R'n'R (not just - later - "Rock") during, say, 1954 to 1959, there were both white and Black R'n'R artists, bands and sounds that all added to this mix. And of course Black music did continue to evolve outside of the R'n'R spectrum. During the R'n'R era some Black artists didn't change their style much and yet were part of the core of R'n'R - e.g. Fats Domino. And the Treniers from that video always remained themselves both in pre-R'n'R years and in their R'n'R movie appearances, etc. And yes, the Treniers would have deserved a place in the "Which Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record?" book too. Whereas the Atlantic recordings of Big Joe Turner fitted seamlessly into R'n'R, but of course he would not have had anything even remotely resembling teen appeal. So it all depends on which criteria you highlight to what extent. Like GA Russell said: It's the music on the one hand and the perception on the other. As for the presence of the tenor sax as a solo instrument as a key criterion of what constitutes R'n'R (as Dan Gould said) - I'm not convinced. The sax was very present on many BLACK R'n'R recordings but I'd see this largely as a holdover from the evolution of R&B since 1945. It was much less dominant on white R'n'R records (with the possible exception of the featured sax in certain backing bands). In general, one major facet of SELF-MADE (self-played) white R'n'R (which of course includes rockabilly as one subgenre) was the preponderance of the guitar as a solo instrument that set the general sound patterns. To an extent hitherto unheard. Not that surprising as most of the white artists came from the Country side of the two main ingredients that combined to form R'n'R. But again, I think the common consensus in all these debates of where and how R'n'R started and what makes up R'n'R has always been and still is that to qualify, no recordings will have to meet ALL criteria of music (style) and perception (image). One that did not clock up much mileage beyond the singer's or listener's bedside.

See? The Stones as a whole are definitely OUT by the usual European definition within the R'n'R subculture (even if certain tracks - as with the Beatles' oeuvre - would fit into R'n'R, stylistically speaking). Haley, Lewis and Berry are IN. But they cover only SOME aspects of the ENTIRE spectrum of R'n'R. To varying degrees. And that "driving around getting teenage kicks" that you mentioned about the "Rocket 88" lyrics is ONE aspect that would rate this recording as "early" R'n'R. Whereas the recordings by Wynonie Harris (that often rock even harder) might not qualify that easily because THEIR lyrics - about boozing and the pimp making love to the preacher's wife in the kitchen - address a rather different audience. His "adult R'n'R" or "adult R&B" recordings therefore lack the "teenage/youth audience" angle that sets R'n'R apart as the first specific style of music geared specifically to the YOUNG'UNS. Not to what the elders would condescendingly allow their kids to listen to in the pre-1954 days. (Not that WHITE parents in 50s US of A - or parents in the UK or Germany, for that matter - would have been enthusiastic about their kids listening to Wynonie Harris, but I think you get what I mean. ) OTOH others (like me, incidentally ) may find the strictly adult lyrics no hindrance to R'n'R status if the music has the right vibe. So it all depends on what importance you place onto what aspect of the individual recordings. Not a question that can or will ever be settled.

"Rocket 88" may be considered the direct precursor of the more outgoing, rougher small-group (usually Black) R'n'R recordings with a driving, rocking, no-frills rhythm. Of course the stylistic boundaries did overlap, so "Rocket 88" is just as much straight-ahead R&B as it may be labeled very early (i.e. pre-)R'n'R. But at any rate Rock'n'Roll is a many-faceted genre. (I.e. REAL R'n'R of the pre-Beatles and preferably pre-assembly line Teen Idol era à la Avalon, Vee, Rydell etc. - and specifically NOT the blurred U.S. "definition" of R'n'R that would even label almost anything among later Rock as "Rock'n'Roll", from Psychedelic via Hard Rock and Alice Cooper et al. to Heavy Metal) So it depends on what elements you hear in what tune from the pre-R'n'R era that might inspire you to see it as the first blossoming of musica traits that were omnipresent in c.1954-63 R'n'R. Perennial food for thought and discussions of this will be found in "What Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record?" by Jim Dawson and Steve Propes. This book discusses 50 recordings that might qualify (depending on what aspect of R'n'R it is all about) - ranging (chronologically speaking) from "Blues Pt. 2" by that JATP crew of 1944 (for Illinois Jacquet's tenor sax solo as the father of all rockin' saxes) to Elvis' "Heartbreak Hotel" of 1956 (which would conform to rather a narrow, mainstreamish definition of the genre), and lots of in-betweens that all deserve some reflection. One overriding criterion of what would qualify as the "first" R'n'R record certainly is if these early recordings would alienate the typical crowds of the 50s-style R'n'R subculture when they are worked into the flow of tunes at record hops of if they would fit seamlessly in. From my own observations at such events I can tell you they would NOT be out of place there. (O.K., maybe some narrow-minded purists might object to a number of them, but they would quibble about certain authentic R'n'R tracks too) And then there are some that aren't even listed. E.g. "Diggin' My Potatoes" by Washboard Sam that for its rhythm alone may rightfully be considered the ancestor of most rockabilly tunes.