Big Beat Steve

Thanks for this info. Wish they had done this when VSOP was still all about vinyl. This would have made a gem along with their other facsimile reissues of West Coast Jazz. I have some of these tunes on reissues on various Tampa and AJ compilation LPs. Those Skylark Lighthouse All Stars recordings have always been a bit of a puzzle to me - e.g. was the honkin' sax "M.B.B." aka "More Big Boy" one tune under two names or two different recordings? Etc. Discographies seem to be contradictory at times

Thanks for elaborating on this but I think I did get you right about the distinction between "despite" and "because" (and agree with your correction that he should have said "because" from the start) . I am not even that surprised that he wrote what he wrote because all this "tastelessness" angle was what very often was held against Philips, Jacquet, Ventura and their brothers by the self-professed cognoscenti covering the music in writing. Regardless of how the audiences felt about it. It just was the common approach to how this form of musical immediacy of these artists was seen at the time by many who wrote about it. I just felt that when assessments like this are (understandably) singled out from TODAY's point of view then perhaps criticism of these assessments might want to dwell just as much on whether the "tasteless" tag was all that appropriate in the first place, considering at what time the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz (1st ed.) came along. The author really was a bit late to the game in regurgitating such labels that used to be applied to more extrovert forms of the music in the 40s or 50s. We all know what came afterwards and how soon these criteria became obsolete or at least extremely subjective.

As for Mercury itself and its jazz releases, don't overlook their WING subsidiary totally. (Yes this usually was a "budget" label where previous Mercury releases were given a second lease of life but one that allowed many artists to gain wider exposure) BTW, have you checked out the sublinks leading to the EmArcy series on this site? https://microgroove.jp/mercury/

If you (or whoever repeated this statement ad nauseam through the times) think Flip Phillips (or buy this story unchecked) was honking that extremely then you ain't heard many out-and-out honkers. And when it comes to "taste", all those honkers were just forerunners of the screechers and squeakers like Brötzmann et al. to come on in later decades anyway. YMMV (or one man's meat being another man's poison) indeed and off-tone phrasing can be interpreted in a number of ways as you can see, even if such analogies are anathema to some out there (yes I know ... )

Which bio-encyclopedia in this field would you two say this ISN'T applicable to in the days of the web, then?

Wait until others (who have actually used the 60s and 70s books in depth) provide their comments and opinions. They will be able to give a much more detailed assessment. I can only give general impressions, having browsed through the 60s volume here and there.

It depends on what (and what approach to the subject) you are looking for. The way I see it, Feather did acknowledge the new developments but approached them from the foundations of previous styles of jazz. In my PERSONAL opinion Berendt is one those others who went all overboard (way too much in my opinion) in embracing whatever was new-fangled and "current", often dismissing what had been going on before (and STILL went on by those from earlier decades who still were around and stuck to their guns) because by then whatever was the "latest thing" (I am not saying "New Thing" because the connotations are different as you know) in jazz seemed to merit all the attention, and it seems to me he only found these latest developments to be fully valid. Everything else was passé. And I must admit I never got to grips with his later writings when he even went so far as to say about the further development of jazz that "no, jazz doesn't have to swing. Swing is not needed for it to be jazz", and other utter nonsense. And this even before he went all esoteric ("out in left field", as Terry Gibbs would have described it) ... So in a way he was one of those "antipodes" of Leonard Feathers' approach. Though I would not say Feather was as conventional or traditional-minded as Stanley Dance, John Chilton or others in that vein.

All in all I agree with this assessment too. I've had his "Encyclopedia Yearbook of Jazz" published in 1956 as well as his "New Yearbook of Jazz" published in 1958 (both reprinted in the early 90s in one volume) as well as his standard opus "Encyclopedia of Jazz" copyrighted in 1960 (subheaded "The New Edition of the Encyclopedia of Jazz") and found this latter one a very useful reference work (and an interesting "period piece" when referring to the other feature articles included). Long before I was able to buy thiese books, I often browsed through the Encyclopedia published in 1960 in the library of our local Amerika Haus (still in existence at the time). They also had the Encyclopedia of Jazz in the Sixties which I found less interesting or essential to my interests at the time (I might think differently about it today but would not invest huge sums for a copy), much like his subsequent colume of the 70s. Gheorghe, from what i have seen these are not books focusing primarily on free or funk or fusion or whatever but "updates" of his 1960 encyclopedia, i.e. with updates of the biographies of the musicians included in the earlier book. New developments are featured too, including the folk blues revival. Like others have said before, his preferences become more obvious there but I would not hold this all that much against him. You just have to take these limitations into account. Others, when covering jazz of that period, dwelled exclusively on the latest fads that were all the rage and gave all those short shrift who had been around before (and STILL carried on), so overall the printed matter out there balances things ...

In a similar vein: One that stuck in my mind for quite a while in my younger days (I was 16 or 17 at the time) after having heard it on the radio (at a time when there still were substantial and regular jazz shows on radio) and that still brings back similar vibes today: ST. THOMAS Made me grab a copy of the Saxophone Colossus LP soon afterwards.

If you include straight-ahead SWING tunes then there are plenty. Of course some of these are standards but anyway ... (they have become jazz chestnuts long ago) Off the top of my head, a scant few personal all-time jazz earworm favorites: Four Brothers Stompy Jones Perdido Jumpin' At The Woodside Caldonia (in fact, a lot of Louis Jordan tunes) - do I hear someone say "too pop-ish"? Well, YOUR loss! ) Turkey Hop Blue 'n' Boogie Zoot (not the Hans Koller composition, the other one ...) Sax No End Ha, another one for the list - but not your "So What" (Miles Davis, right?) but the Gerry Mulligan tune also known as "Apple Core"

I KNOW this is what it means and what I meant (typo or not). I just don't quite know what it would TAKE for this album to elicit this "bowling-over" reaction (from you or anyone else). All this to say that I am quite happy with that album and the way it has been done. Maybe for me it left enough of an impression that he basically "swung" the tunes in his idiom instead of pumping them out on a (church) organ, for example (no doubt there would have been others who may have found it more approriate to reflect more closely on the religious origins of the "source material").

Having bought his trio recordings as well as his All Night Sessions (yes I LIKE these! ) and his FOUR LP plus the early Xanadu live dates all within a fairly short timeframe before, this one was a natural to pick up when I came across an early reissue not long afterwards. I like it a lot and pull it out every now and then for late-night listening. Not sure what the album would have to do to "boil someone over" but I found it quite refreshing how he transferred these tunes into an all-out jazz context and brought out their jazz essence without (apparently) becoming totally overwhelmed by the religious background of the tunes. It would have been a pity if he had handled them as a sort of instrumental Mahalia Jackson. Some might say he "jazzed up" these tunes but I feel he did it very fittingly.

Did Arnett Cobb make you go on a honkin' sax binge? Decided to join in some too:

As for the list of female vocalists Walker lists with the Messner band and just for an aural comparison, here is Gladys Tell singing:

Mine too. Yes, disguised as a Swedish release, but very thinly so. Not lasting longer than until the first one who reads Swedish comes along. At the top right it translates as "From the States, from Swedish Blue Station" (WTF?) The insert at "Tribute from Sweden" says "These are lots of fourteen from the United States" (WTF??? 14 tracks??) And below the pic it says "I am too tired to see anything where can we get something to drink?" (Any more questions? ) To the amusement (?) of those who have the LP, the Swedish babble below each tune sez thus: Left column: My foot is bleeding and is swollen It's bad here With more light You said this was going to cost Adjust the brake linings A soft drink Within an hour later Right column: I've got nothing to declare (at customs) Are we going to stop overnight en route Please change the oil How much will the extra weight cost Put this on the shelf Can you repair this by any chance A pillow linen bathroom mat (WTF again???? Did they pillage a tourist's phrase book??) As for what's not available elsewhere, I have not listened to the Christian side right now, but this discography ... http://www.djangoreinhardt.info/charlie-christian-discography/ ... provides some info on the titles (even rarer ones such as Song of the Islands, but others exist in multiple versions, of course) but does not give release information either. If the "hits" found there are anything to go by, most of the tracks on this LP come from Old Gold shows.

Thans, no. Like I indicated in my post, I bought it some years ago - I have it on a 80s CBS LP and I am fine with that pressing. But somebody else, maybe ...

Well, she does look a bit like Raquel Rastenni (Danish band vocalist from the swing era who also worked and recorded in Sweden and later had a pop career in Denmark) but I doubt it was her you were thinking of. FWIW, Johnny Messner looks familiar too: Like an ofay Cab Calloway. Quite a character. And looking at him and the girl singer in that soundie you posted (and others by the band), it really is extremely difficult to define what must have been the "color line" in those times. These two could easily have passed as very lightly-skinned "colored" persons.

It's quite amazing how things are perceived differently. I have always had mixed feelings about the MJQ. My mother had several MJQ records and when I became interested in jazz (at 15 in the mid-70s) at about the same time I became interested in buying records at all (jazz wasn't my only interest) she touted the MJQ as well as others in a similar vein (e.g. George Gruntz) as the begining and end of jazz and what jazz was supposed to be all about. Easy to understand - to that generation deeply conditioned by classical music and the listening habits that went with it, here at last was some jazz outfit that had the aura of respectability and seriousness that was compatible with listeners' ears brought up on classical music. As I of course leaned towards much more meaty, straight-ahead, outright blowing jazz (from classic jazz of the 20s via swing - both big and small bands - to my early bop discoveries), in the beginning I found the MJQ utterly odd and it took me a long time to figure out what "Fontessa" (her preferred MJQ record) was all about. In fact I bought my own copy eventually (figuring that there must be something to it) as well as "No Sun In Venice" but to this day the MJQ I prefer is the one where things focus on Milt Jackson and his soloing. Those where John Lewis takes control of things I cannot always warm up to in full, and in general (and particularly from a historical point of view of the European scene) I still find that all that "Third Stream" fetish and "jazz must attain the respectability of classical music by being married with it" attitude was a dead end and a huge disservice to the evolution of jazz over here and therefore something that I find needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. IMO this overly zealous attitude (particularly widespread among Germans, alas, including certain jazz scribes) to use classical music and their "respectability" as the yardstick by which jazz is supposed to be judged (which was one major reason why the MJQ concerts always were huge and much-lauded events here) has often stifled the development of real, down-to-earth no-frills jazz here that is allowed to develop fully and be appreciated on its OWN terms. In between more pop-oriented bands where jazz came to the fore very occasionally and high-art, high-brow Third Stream there was not that much room for other, IMO healthier and more straightforward forms of jazz. Between being not commercial enough (to make a living) and not "respectable" enough, jazz led a hard life. And the MJQ and its success had a huge role in setting that scene, alas. Did you check out the "MJQ at Music Inn" LP (feat.Jimmy Giuffre)? That's a start, at least. Bought it on a whim at a clearout sale years ago, not something I can take in often, but maybe I should again one of these days...

Leo Walker's "Big Band Almanac" lists these girl singers with the Messner band: Gladys Tell Jeanne D'Arcy Mindy Carson Take your pick. She doesn't look linke Mindy Carson, though. And she's also on here: Compare the voice of Jeanne D'Arcy here: Does not sound like her IMO.

That's strange. Try the following: Access your message using the "Edit" option, mark the text you would like to edit/change (set the cursor to the beginning of the text segment you would like to mark, press Upshift and keep it pressed and set the cursor to the end of the text you would like to make - which should mark the entire text), open the "Size" field, click on "14". If this does not change the size of your marked part of the post then click on "12" which should make it appear rather small. THEN click on 14 and it should be the same size as the "correctly sized" parts of your post. This is how I edited the message I quoted from your initial post using exactly the "Size" option so 3 of your 4 sentences appear in the correct font (14) in my quotation. And afterwards I edited my own message to try and access those fields too and it did work again. Same now: Here is my message again selecting an extra large size (18) from that "Size" option to repeat my post That's strange. I edited the message I quoted from your initial post using exactly the "Size" option so two of your three sentences appear in the correct font in my quotation. And afterwards I edited my own message to try and access those fields too and it did work again. And to try again, here I copy-pasted a paragraph from your post and edited it back to normal size (14) using the "Size" option again. : 11. “Abide with Me/Blue Monk” : Richard Stoltzman . 1985. Stolzman clarinet, Bill Douglas piano, Jeremy Wall synthesizers, Eddie Gomez bass. Stolzman is regarded as a great classical clarinet player. I have several of his non-classical records and have seen him perform a Steve Reich piece he commissioned. I used to run into Bill Douglas in Toronto at the John Norris/Bill Smith Jazz and Blues record store. Bill was a huge fan of Bill Evans so it's fitting he got to play with Eddie Gomez. Hope this helps a little.

Why not edit your message and try the "Font" and "Size" option fields on the upper right above the message? What (oddball?) word processing software would YOU prefer instead of Word?

Another case of one man's meat being another man's (or, here, two men's ) poison. I like them a lot, even though I found the praise heaped on them in the WCJ books a wee bit too much. If these sets don't do enough for others out there then I have a feeling this might be because they are just "too straightforward" for those who elsewhere might above all enthuse in the "angry young men" of the times, avantgarde or other more "advanced" styles of jazz. OTOH I'll freely admit my jazz preferences lean towards the swing side and go on from there towards more modern forms in an evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) manner. And I'll also admit I prefer to let the music as a whole act on me and not so much dissect every single note. I'd rather enjoy the flow. To each his own ... I may be able to see where you are heading from an expert writer's/reviewer's impressions (but again, a listener who takes in the "whole" is bound to see things a bit differently), but if you apply these criteria, wouldn't you have to tear to shreds about half the discography of Bud Powell? (After all, if these criteria were to apply then to me "being out of it but trying anyway" is not something that excuses each and every fumble)

Yes, by now I know.

Maybe we misunderstood each other. I had understood your reference to Dolphy as referring to his CONCERT appearances with Coltrane ("the band") - and therefore I'd have seen a parallel there. This may have been the source of the misunderstanding. Actually the "proactive" thing actually is beside the point by now. I had made this point (and stand by it) only because - as you no doubt know - what I said about todays' worshippers of past hereos falling all over themselves in defending their idol against critics who voiced their criticism THEN and therefore operated from a totally different (but IMO no less valid) "period" point of reference is something that did and does happen. And I find these hindsight-based approaches inappropriate in many cases. So - as far as I am concerned - "don't even try."

"But" ...?