Big Beat Steve

Just watched the video of that pink-clad Leo P. doing "Better Git It In Your Soul". Fun, entertaining and foot-tapping, for sure, but how many tunes played one after another like that (with THAT "shtick" as some are wont to say around here ) can you stand in such a setting without a feeling of things becoming just a wee bit repetitive? (The second video equaled the score a bit, but that dancing-honking thing seems to be his core act) And what's that string (as opposed to "jazz on string instruments") section doing there? Waters everything down for commercial appeal with the broad, non-jazz-minded masses? Ho hum ... But the REAL thing: HOW MANY of all those art-minded "serious" jazz connoisseurs (including quite a handful of forumists ) out there have been moaning for soo long about those bad, bad, commercial R&B sax honkers and jump blues men who showed in the 40s and 50s that jazz CAN be played AND danced to AND get a foot-tapping groove going that gets you going but had to take the whipping from the ivory-tower "art" jazz crowd for "dumbing down" the oh so lofty art of the jazzman-turned-artists and certainly NOT entertainer? Even soul jazz had to take an unfair beating time and again later on ... Totally ignoring that there are MANY ways to skin a cat, that music serves a purpose and that jazz is a VERY wide field and one approach doesn't necessarily invalidate the other if the purpose is taken into account. So, take note, Leo P.: The REAL Leo P. (PARKER ), Big Jay McNeely, Chuck Higgins et al. did that thing (and more) 60 years ago ... And the novelty NOW only is because we don't have much period video footage to speak of and only Bob Willoughby's photos to try to re-live the onstage impact ... And is his pink stage attire in those videos a coincidence? Reminds me of a horn-blowing Brian Setzer trying to jump on the Cherry Poppin Daddies bandwagon. Nothing bad in itself - and I still feel there was much to serve as an inspiration for a new approach to ANOTHER strain of danceable jazz in the musically more successful parts of that retro swing movement of the 90s (that still hasn't abated totally worldwide, take note!). I've never particularly liked punk rock but found some interesting crossover influences at work there and producing an additional nuance in the wide field of jazz, some god, some bad (as EVERYWHERE), but the good added a welcome new facet. But how many "art jazz for art's sake and nothing else" exponents have ridiculed that movement from Day One in a heavy-handed, indiscriminate manner that did not even take note of those nuances. Seems to have conflicted heavily with their acquired attitude to how jazz was supposed to be enjoyed, whereas I'd bet quite a few of the same wisecracks decades ago went all overboard in their appreciation of other rock influences in jazz rock, fusion and whatnot ... And now jazz as such seems to have arrived in the intensive care unit to an extent that seems to require infusions (including "savvy" marketing gimmicks) by the ones discussed here ... lo and behold ... So ... ain't it 'bout time you high-brows (you know who you are, and maybe it's not actually you who are extrovert enough to be spurred into immediate reactions to this rant ) pay the forefathers their dues (including in RE-WRITING for yourselves the appreciation of the tradition of jazz!) if you feel the need to start drooling about those new-fangled Leo P's called in to give a "new" lease of life to jazz (which is only "new" to the unaware because they apparently chose to ignore what's been out there again and again (from the honkers to the retros) for decades ...) And don't bother retreating to an evasive line like "if you can't hear the difference" - look at and listen to the essence of the impact as it wants to come across and see where you are from there ... My rant, my 2c, but I stand by it ...

FWIW, referring to the 45 vs 33 rpm war and assuming you and your sources are implicitly referring to the 45 "album" sets as those GATEFOLD cover EP sets too, RCA and Capitol (to name just two) carried on releasing their LPs as 3-EP 45 rpm sets too for quite a while into the 50s (at least until c.1955, it seems). Some I have in my collection: - Nick Travis - The Panic Is On - The Don Elliott Quintet (the back cover lists Shorty Rogers Courts The Count, Inside Sauter-Finegan and Shorty Rogers & HIs GIants (Morpo, bunny, etc.) a.o. as being available as 45 rpm EP sets too. - JImmy Giuffre Trio (Four Brothers, Sultana, Nutty Pine etc. - 2-EP set) And this is from the inside cover of the Stan Kenton Showcase - The Music of Bill Russo 2-EP set: (This listing does not look just like random 45 releases but like consequent programming of the contents of entire 33 rpm albums as 45 rpm EPs too, and not just as excerpts like they did later on):

Not mine. I listened to several to of the popups from the first series and wasn't overly impresed. That Venice gondola thing reminded me of a sort of modernized single-sax Billy Vaughn. What kind of exposure does one need to let herself be put online in a video surrounded by barebellied, potbellied beach crowds shooting handy videos of oneself? Must be in dire need of attention of ANY sort ... And where's the swing? With the best will in the world I cannot even make it out in the way Jimmy Giuffre aptly said about the beat of some of his 50s avantgarde music: "It is understood".

FWIW, here is a bit more info on this UNITED ARTIST(without the "S") label: http://www.45worlds.com/78rpm/label/united-artist Evidently not a complete listing at all, but giving a bit more context.

Yes, I remember seeing that in a newscast on TV after he had died. Falangists not even that "old" but relatively young (in their 30s or early 40s) saluting at his casket ... eerie ...

Whatsamatter? Looking on in bewilderment ... This thread clearly turning political and mods galore participating gleefully? Forum rules overturned, revised, ignored or what? That apart, this sums the gist of the discussion up pretty neatly IMHO: And there is plenty to address when it comes to the impact that gender discrimination has had on women jazz artists and jazz in general. But in the case of this thread and Grace Kelly, it seems to me some posters here simply find her not to be on par with the amount of hype and publicity she's received. Hardly the first time that's ever occurred in the world of jazz!

Sales assistants selling to themselves or among each other ... If this sort of "sales perpetuum mobile" would work it would have been invented long ago.

I certainly hope the do see the Savory set through until its release and marketing in due form (and for an appropriate span of time). That would be a major accomplishment as it makes NEW music available. As for whatever comes afterwards ... big shrug ... (after all that's gone on in recent months you tend to be more and more fatalistic about it ... )

I'd be interested in hearing about the DETAILS of what may not be up to snuff (by what criteria?) there or what "stories" there are anyway. (And of course it would be interesting to see if really all of the Uptown material would be new on the market) Besides, wouldn't it be sad and uncalled for, particularly among real jazz connoisseurs, if the Basie band were reduced to Lester Young only?

In what way? Curious to know .... Even in the vinyl days live recordings by the 40s Basie bands were fairly plentiful. Admittedly I have a LOT of Basie on vinyl but not nearly all of those airshot/live LPs issued in the 70s/80s - yet those I do own already include some 7 or 8 LPs with material from 1944. So what else is out there, I wonder, that transcends (on average) everything so far issued? Or doesn't it, after all?

I do hope they will stay around to see the Savory set through and release it.

The record in my copy is in a clear plastic sleeve and there is a sheet in Japanese (with a translation of the liner notes and some other info that may relate to the release of this album as it specifies "Not for Sale" in the midst of Japanese signs as well as a date of March, 1983, at the end. No tokens that I can identify.

Exactly. It does say Not for Sale in fine print on the bottom of the back cover too. Which is why I guessed it to be a promo. I had somehow overlooked this Discogs entry. Those I saw in the overview listings allindicate the 61007 catalog no. So it IS a promo, then. Thanks for pointing it out

Thank you!

I checked amazon.com and the price indicated there in US$ for the 5th ed. matches the price you quoted. I missed the "for rent" line on amazon.com (never seen that category before) for the 3rd ed.. My fault. So it is secondhand or pay up indeed. Secondhand copies on amazon.de start at $30 too, so ... I agree with your point about the style. I'd find that off-putting too, and I've been disappointed in a number of cases where interest in the subject matter made me jump for a book. I won't name a jazz book written by a board member here on a subject I find very interesting where reading is very, very tough going, and I am not sure yet if this is partly due to my lack of deep knowledge in music theory, but it is a tough row to hoe. I'd cut that one some slack (as no doubt it is very profound), but another one bought recently is to some extent overladen with what you call "academic verbiage". It is a series of essays on individual aspects of European jazz, and some are more "accessible" than others, but those that go overboard in their acedamic pretense - ouch ... If the most frequently used term seems to be "vernacular" then I am beginning to wonder ... Of course jazz (particularly its early history) is part of "popular" music rather than classic or "serious" music so if you have to circumscribe the notion of "popular" (in a looser or wider sense - we are not talking about dialects or folksiness etc.) to this extent by such academic deadweight, then .... And I can well imagine such academic lingo to be even more burdensome in a book on rock where the music and the target audience on average should be even more down to earth than with jazz (taken as a whole across all genres). Anyway, so this book has been settled for the thread starter, I guess ... BTW, talking about the UK and scholarly writing, did you ever see this one? https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Britain-Got-Blues-Transmission/dp/1138259357/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520081654&sr=1-1&keywords=How+Britain+Got+The+Blues The title sounds exceedingly scholarly but this book seemed to fill a niche in writings on my fields of interest in music I took the plunge, and I found it a surprisingly good read as an introduction to this subject from an angle not covered in other books touching on the "white British blues boys" phenomenon (particularly when read in conjunction with other related books).

Are we talking CD or vinyl? I bought Vol. 1 on LP (80s reissue) about 20 yars ago and not all that long afterwards came across Vol. 3 as a Japanese facsimile pressing that looked like Vol. 1 and 2 except that the script on the front cover wasn't red but brown and that where the catalog no. was to go (1507 or 1508) this pressing had just ???? on the front and back. I was intrigued by this as I was only aware of Vol.1 and 2. As the shop owner told me and as the liner notes (by Michael Cuscuna) confirmed these had remained unissued and had been dug out later on the Japanese (who else?) for release on LP. https://www.discogs.com/Jazz-Messengers-The-At-The-Cafe-Bohemia-Volume-3/release/3510742 Contrary to the above and similar listings, however, my copy does not have the 61007 no. anywhere but just the ???? (and no "limited edition" text next to the High Fidelity in the top corner either. Just a no. DY 5805-01 in small print in the bottom left corner of the back cover and on the label where the actual no. would be supposed to go. Do I have something special there? A promo pressing?

The book/edition of "What's that Sound" (a line that I am pretty sure comes up in quite a few other rock songs too, FWIW) shown by the thread starter retails from $15 or so. Is the new (5th?) edition that you seem to be referring to (and that IS expensive, according to Amazon) worth that much extra money? If the 5th ed. has been updated only with more recent developments since the previous edition then it probably is not what the thread starter is looking for (as he says he has a particular interest in 60s/70s rock). Amazing, BTW, that the newer the editions, the older the cover layout seems to get. This 5th edition shown on Amazon looks like an early 70s PRINTING to me. Baffling! The kind of effort to recapture a "period" feel one only sees very rarely these days in book artwork. As for the "short shrift/no shrift" problem - maybe a general problem with books that set out to cover an all too wide field in one single tome (considering the diverse developments in rock since the 80s alone)? I've often found that many authors writing about a "history" in the field of popular music are very much skewed with too much of a bias towards the most recent happenings (with the possible exception of jazz). What's been big in the, say, 10 past years figures prominently in there but the preceding periods are almost only covered by the huge, huge names that still are fairly huge (or remebered through recycling in omnipresent oldies shows) at the time of writing, and this slant becomes more pronounced the further back you go in history. Whereas, if you were to do the subject justice, you'd have to give each decade fairly equal coverage to highlight those that were big in THEIR day (but may have been forgotten except to REAL fans and collectors since) in an even manner that reflects the TIMES and presents the ENTIRE picture of the history in a balanced way. Because who knows who from the most recent years given huge coverage now will still be a household name 10 or 20 years from now, particularly if you take today's increased media exposure into account?

And how and when is this going to become part of ROCK history? Any today's Dylans singing about "The times they are a-changing" out there yet? Just wondering about on-topic/off-topic matters, you know ...

Ha, Jayne Mansfield!! https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85h,_en_s%C3%A5%27n_karl!

Sounds like an interesting record, particularly that west coast-ish jazzing up of classical themes. BTW and FWIW, just going by the tune titles, I'd not really have assumed this was a Third Stream-influenced recording. These plays on words weren't new at all. Red Ingle & His Natural Seven (a comedy/novelty band from the 40s, based on the West Coast, BTW) had done "Moe Zart's Turkey Trot" (a spoof on "Rondo alla Turca") in 1947.

Maybe the intention of the thread starter just was to highlight the opposite of those who might have been asked by Lester Young where their "left people" were (as the anecdote goes).

These tracks have been released before (in the same order) - on the "By George!" LP on Swing House SWH 25. Bought this secondhand at Mole Jazz in London some time in the 90s. Nice music and IMO there is enough to appreciate in his 40s recordings or surviving airshots (as issued by Hep) on their own terms, regardless of whether Artie Shaw's shoes maybe were too big for him or not - and as for the rest, I guess it's best to just focus on the music and not think too much about backstage and off-stage behavior. (In some cases where artists turn out to be pricks offstage you cannot help wondering what would even have come to light if there had been a #metoo then? Probably better not to know ... )

I have the Fresh Sound facsimile reissue LP of this one (FSR-588 - it has all 12 tracks indicated by L. Kart above). The back cover gives the pianist als "Hac" Hanna in the line-up listing and as Roland "Hac" Hanna in the liner notes by Barry Ulanov. But no reording date is given either.

Yes it was (and is) - since 1919 - but not as a RECORD LABEL, by all accounts. And this is what was the subject matter here. Again - trying to make it clear: United Artist and United Artists (as record labels) were not the same. But whether or not there was an "S" at the end of the name was NO factor BY ITSELF that would have determined whether these two entities could have beenc the same. So making a point of this "S" is strictly beside same (the point, that is ). That's that.

Let's face it - there have ben PLENTY of labels through the years that underwent minor changes of their name (and changed their logo) and YET remained the same unit (so this alone would not be a criterion). But not in this case. The gap between the (probable) demise of the one and the start of the other was too huge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists_Records