Big Beat Steve

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.

Maybe because it's not a "group" in the stricter sense of the word but the jazz unit of the WDR (WestDeutscher Rundfunk) radio station based in Cologne/Germany. So by its nature it's a fluent project that above all has provided the jazz big band backing for many different featured artists, something that probably would be hard to work into the framework of a "box set". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDR_Big_Band

At least ONE purpose is: Money-making bait for starters or casual listeners that they want to lure into buying more later on.

O.K., so we largely agree there.

Agreed that the borderline areas of what is or isn't jazz, such as the genres you mention, ought to be included at least in passing in any open-minded discussion or historical overview of jazz. As to the depth of coverage, YMMV. However, among the genres you mention, it would be useful to define "R&B" a bit more exactly. I have a hunch what you mean is not what I understand to be R&B in the first place (stylistically speaking, without any real limitations to its timeframe): post-Swing era, mostly pre-Rock'n'Roll and clearly pre-Soul Black Music of the danceable, popular variety and as a subcategory of Blues. I.e. broadly in the way that Tad Richards argues for its recognition as part of jazz in his "Jazz With a Beat" book. I realize R&B is used in different, more recent meanings too so it would be useful to clarifly which is which in any given context. As for how and when the appreciation of certain styles of jazz or artists may change over time, a word on this statement of yours: You may be surprised to learn that Hugues Panassié clearly and outspokenly praised the recordings of Jimmy Smith in his publications of the 50s and early 60s! Yes, him, the eternal "moldy fig" and bebop hater! So would this "seal of approval" have devalued, in turn, Jimmy Smith in the opinions of all-out modernists, I wonder?

Rather an animated discussion in such a brief span of time, so you touched on a subject that either is a bone of contention to many or a log-felt oversight to others. Personally I'd side with the basic statements made by Dan Gould, Niko and Kevin Bresnahan further up in this thread about how things ought to be weighted when the WIDE field of jazz is discussed. But OTOH I have to admit that while I'd never add anything typically "smooth jazz" to my collection there are such recordings out here that when listening to them accidentally you sort of get at least a "jazzish" vibe that is not off-putting. And besides, aren't the limits of this "smooth" genre rather fluid? I'd wager a bet that some of the MUCH more commercial efforts from the output of Wes Montgomery or George Benson, to name just two, would not be a million miles away from what is commonly labeled "smooth jazz" elsewhere. As can be seen from the track listings on many compilation "smooth" or "lounge" or "for lovers", etc. jazz CDs that have been thrown on the market since the 90s. An inevitable trend, of course, in all this is that once such a genre on the outskirts of straight-ahead jazz is admitted into "jazz" then there will be many who claim this now is what jazz is all about and what all jazz fans will have to embrace in order to be with it and this is where all the marketing clout goes under the flag of "jazz". Happened with jazz rock and then fusion in the 70s, etc. And of course this does not sit well with many. Rightly so. Not to mention that there has been quite a lot of music during recent decades that tried to sail under the banner of "jazz" because "jazz" always had a "hip" enough marketable image to it but all that seemed to have been "jazz" about that music was that it audibly was neither rock nor pop nor Black Music nor folk/ethno. So what remains as a tag to paste on? Jazz. For what good? To ACTUAL jazz and to jazz listeners, in particular? So IMO in the end it all depends on how you emphasize a "borderline" subcategory such as "smooth jazz" vs outright "straight-ahead" jazz in the overall presentation. And this is where I think many jazz listeners, fans and collectors willl sternly disagree in accordance with their personal preferences and preconceptions of what is jazz and what isn't. It seems to depend on what kind and degree of "crossover" (which means "dilution" of jazz to hardcore jazz followers anyway) you are prepared to accept. I remember the outcries or horror by many purists when Neo-Swing was all the rage througout the 90s (before abating to a trickle that goes on to this day but is under the radar of most). Visibly this kind of "crossover" cross-pollination of swing-era jazz, R&B and lounge pop with various styles of rock (from rockabilly to punk) did not sit well with many. Though Neo-Swing never claimed to be what "jazz is all about now" (contrary to jazz rock and fusion way back then ...). I always found and still find quite a bit of it enjoyable and entertaining WITHIN my jazz listening (when the time is right ...), contrary to all that fusion stuff, for example. In short, different strokes . .. and a debate that probably can never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Nothing really to add to what has already been said. Like others I have a countless number of his LP productions on Prestige, Onyx and Xanadu. Thanks for all these productions , cover art and all the other contributions. A life well lived. RIP.

This looks like another re-re-rerecyled reissue for incurable upgraders. I'm extremely selective about what Sinatra records I feel I need in my record collection anyway, so I for one will stick with my reissue by Dutch Capitol (Vol. 4 in the "The Frank Sinatra Story" LP series).