Big Beat Steve

Sure, but where do you draw the line between what is "seduction" as you describe it (others might call it gallantry, even thought that's a term - and way of acting - apparently terribly old-fashioned now ) or outright sexual abuse or harassment? Some women seem to be all too touchy about what you correctly refer to as "hard-wired mind games" (while on the other hand they are not IN THE LEAST above trying to use their own hard-wiredness when it is to their ADVANTAGE, starting with soliciting little favors that - if they were being stringent with themselves - were a strict no-no to any self-respecting emancipated female able to take care of herself throughout!). Evolution has to take place on BOTH sides. BTW, referring to where you live: How is this problem handled with those parts of the population with a Hispanic background, I wonder? Don't tell me their own culturally conditioned "hard-wiredness" has all gone down the drain by now throughout. Or is this harassment thing starting from such a low level maybe more of a WASP problem?

A point that's often been made in those forums and to quote one long-gone noted comedian from here, "Everything's been said on it, except that it's not yet been said by everybody." And I am only half-surprised that this has come up straight away from the USA now as a first reply to my post as no doubt the example I quoted would have been found exceeeeeedingly non-P.C.-ish in many quarters (expats have story or two to tell at times, no matter how restrained they acted in their office work, having been cautioned before in a way that at times made them shake their heads in disbelief), even if it definitely was only meant in an appreciative way (and no, DEFINITELY no phone numbers asked ...) Of course each case depends on the actual situation and demands to be handled accordingly, and usually things like this ARE handled individually and decently, depending on what kind of relationship and interaction colleagues have at the office (which can be icy cold or just cordial without going overboard or into the closet - or anything in between). But as long as there are women out there who keep winking at the "good looking new office guy next door" and comment on the way HE dresses (which DOES happen not much less often than to women, by all accounts) there is no fundamental difference in which gender is allegedly worse than the other. In short, don't blow things out of all proportion unless you insist on slighting those who REALLY have reason to complain about true sexual harassment or even abuse (because the more of these non-incidents you lump in the more you downplay the really problematic cases that NEED to be addressed).

Good points. As for this ... (quote) I think of it all as a shop, where Wynton and his disciples are specializing in painting very good copies of old masters paintings, for some weird reason thinking that's exactly what humanity needs. Anything beyond impressionists is anathema to them. They started emulating Renoir and Monet, but eventually that appeared too modern for them, so they went back in time and started making (almost) perfect copies of Dutch Masters and now trying at Caravaggio and Raphael. If market is right, they may even adjust their philosophy and start making copies of Picasso- (almost) perfect- but copies nevertheless. That is not what jazz is about though. So, his (arguably) impressive technical chops aside, he's always been just an imitator and very likely will remain as such. (unquote) These pseudo-discussions about what's new are getting to be a bit wearisome. They have been led as long ago as at the time of the moldy figs discussions (remember how Ruby Braff was disparaged in the 50s by some self-professed progressists - or musicians like Scott Hamilton a bit later?) Of course if someone touts a specific style or period of jazz as the ONLY valid form of jazz then this is highly debatable and unjustified. Just as it is highly debatable to tout what's come as the latest fad that tried to sail under the flag of jazz (even if it was lumped in only there by marketing whiz kids because it did not fit in anywhere else either) as the highest, best, ultimate, unsurpassable expression of today's jazz. It isn't either. It's just different. Besides, if it was only about what's totally and absolutely new that "it's about, though", then what's been said about rock might also be said about jazz by now: "Everything that can possibly be played in the style of xxx (insert your pet love or hate style of music) has already been played somewhere, sometime out there." So what would remain? Burps? Grunts? But if you prefer to play in a specific idiom or style within the field of jazz that you like best and add new shadings, accents and nuances to that idiom (which I am certain Marsalis does - he is not one to do another series of Time-Life series recreations, after all ) then there is nothing wrong with it at all. Jazz takes many facets but it has a specific lineage that makes jazz music recognizable as belonging to that family (and therefore tradition) of jazz. IMO, yes ...

You mean to say there is a WIDESPREAD opinion around HERE that all those women ought to have spoken up that much, much earlier, come what may and that it discredits them speaking up only now? Well, not on my part, for example. And from what I have read in this topic I cannot see very many others who think that way. So what's the bone of contention, really? But - again - the range of possible options of how to deal with it is not all black-and-white in the way you react. Because all in all I still feel Pitt's reaction was better and gutsier than that of Affleck (cf. what Rose McGowan accused Affleck of). Because at least it was a START of a reaction (even though I of course would not expect everyone affected to have someone on hand to stand up for her. But if someone did, then what's wrong with it?).

Disregarding the fact for a moment that "offensive" is one of those terms used in such an inflationary manner these days (particularly in AMERICAN English) that its essence and content are getting lost more and more through "one-accusation-fits-all" overuse, I am not even sure there is such a huge difference of opinion on this. I totaly agree that it IS difficult to talk about these things in public and that those who decided not to cannot be blamed (particularly if the perpetrator is one who had some sort of control about their professional lives and careers - which is bad enough anyway). But I still feel that below the threshold of public accusations there are steps that can be taken in that direction - like Paltrow and Pitt did when Pitt stepped up and told the perpetrator in no uncertain terms (which is way more than apparently can be said of other male actors who now all of a sudden feel soooooo shocked). And apparently it did have some effect on the addressee (if the stories accessible on the web are to be believed). So the perpetrator knew the word was out and he'd better watch his step there. A bit like the case of that old "If ya don't clean up yer act we're gonna hafta send da boys round". One FIRST step of taking action. But of course it takes friends with guts to help in such cases. On a side note: This is creating splashes everywhere over here too and again it seems like this is getting out of focus and out of hand. Sexual harassment is a strict no-go and should never be tolerated, but this "metoo" business is turning more and more hysterical. Where do you ACTUALLY draw the line betwen what sexual harassment is and what is just an attempt at trying to be nice and showing an minimum of politeness in everyday life? Forums over here are full of complaints about workplace situations where simple, innocent-enough remarks like "Good morning - oh, you look great today" invariably elicit fits of hysteria about "I feel INSULTED! He is reducing me to my outward appearance and is ignoring my professional competence and his remark turns me into a sex object!" whine ... whine .... Similar case if you hold the door open for a woman to pass through when you enter a building "Hey, I can do that myself!" nag, nag .... How ridiculous can you get and isn't THIS the TRUE insult of those ACTUALLY suffering from sexual harassment? (BTW, I'd probably set the threshold of what might be considered making an unwanted sexual pass at someone lower than others would - but not THAT low!) Yes I know it will be difficult to get points like this across to those living in the more puritan parts of the US of A but this IS a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater! So focus on where the REAL problems are and tackle THEM, but don't go overboard in fits of hysteria in those cases that can and should be solved easily by sheer common sense. Remember this is a door that swings BOTH ways!

Along the lines of some recommendations from the last few days, here is one that I find is rather overlooked:

No, I don't think he is. She told someone and apparently there was someone who then took action (regardless of whether he would have followed through or not if that unshaven character had carried on ... this we don't know ...). So there WAS a way to get the word out and make it understood that this is not glossed over everywhere and by everyone. So IMO this is ONE aspect that does relate.

Oh come on .... Google is your friend too (and answers the question for anybody half-curious enough to do a search ... ) https://www.riverfronttimes.com/artsblog/2017/10/11/brad-pitt-once-threatened-a-missouri-whooping-on-harvey-weinstein

You see this is ONE point that had gotten me thinking only yesterday. As it happens, my current bedside reading matter is the 1945 Esquire Jazz Book (have had the magazine-sized edition for many years but bought an incredibly cheap hardback book copy last Saturday and found it is about time for a re-read). This book includes a recap of the situation of the jazz scene and its major exponents in 1944 - written by Feather himself. In that chapter he also mentions the Eddie Condon jam sessions and Town Hall concerts and dwells (almost at length so, given the length of the total chapter) on how many of these concerts and get-togethers turned into a musical near-shambles, how many of the musicians present resented being limited to a Dixieland repertoire, how Joe Marsala hated playing this or that tune, how Edmond Hall found himself ill at ease and him and others felt they were never able to give their best in these settings, how George Wettling hated being pigeonholed as a Dixieland drummer and so on ... This has set me thinking ... What's really to this? Pretty sharp contrast with how these concerts and jam sessions are seen in the history of that facet of jazz everywhere else (except by stern anti-moldy figs, of course ... ) and how often all those involved were present at those Condon concerts and sessions for years and years in the 40s and beyond, etc. (Was it all about the money, was there that much money to be made, were they strong-armed into participating?) Feather did not mention any of this in his "The Jazz Years" book when talking about his Esquire days - so ... What was to this story in 1944? Have these feelings by the musicians been reported elsewhere? And if so, why would Feather have omitted pointing out all this gleefully in his Jazz Years book? As he did in other cases ... Or did he inflate all this because he had a bone to pick with Condon in 1944 and rubbed it in on that occasion but made his peace with Condon later on? Or ....?

Thanks - the second Discogs link is the LP listed in the catalog, and I may in fact have seen it in the jazz section of our #1 local used record store (but may have been frightened away by the "Zen" tag on the cover as this has quite didfferent connotations for me). Am listening to "Pluck it" now on that Discogs site and think I can see what my mother heard in it. Though to me it sounds less like typical Third Stream than like some of the more ethereal WCJ recordings of the time. Other tracks on the LP have more classical music-like overtones.

I agree with your point of view. Someone who was present when the events took place is a better source than someone who either is an outsider looking in or someone who came along much later. IMO in order to understand the historical developments it still is preferable to consult CONTEMPORARY documents (to the extent possible) from when the events actually took place, i.e. PRIMARY sources. We are in the comfortable position today to be able to obtain information from a lot of documents written at various points in history and can therefore judge things in a better way as it is easier to obtain an overview of contrasting statements and opinions and descriptions of events. And as we hopefully are relatively well aware of blind spots or one-sided views that some authors and scribes of the past (such as Feather) may have had we wil be able to make our own judgments in a better way (particularly since it is far from sure that today's writers are that much more objective - many of them have their OWN agendas too). I for one know that in most cases I am gaining more insight about the history of the music by reading contemporary sources from, say, the 40s or 50s than from books of latter-day self-proclaimed fans or experts of the music written much, much later that all too often amount to rehashing the "accepted wisdom" as seen TODAY. Those "tertiary" sources have their place in writing about history but compared to original source documents they have to be very, very good, in-depth and comprehensive (and fact-based instead of being all about personal opinions) if we latter-borns are to REALLY understand today how history happened and not how we are SUPPOSED to see today that history happened. P.S. I also agree about your assessment of the typical Verve liner notes too. They all too often are just laughable. It is amazing how even a label not usually touted as a prime jazz label such as Decca often came up with better and more informative liner notes that tell you something about the contents that you would be able to use as source material for historical essays today, for example.

Interesting ... May I solicit your expert opinion for a moment? I have a German jazz catalog of 1960/61 here that I was given by my mother in my early jazz collecting days in the mid-70s. In this catalog she had pencil-marked the World Pacific PJ1231 LP by Fred Katz and underlined the "Pluck It" track with a fat pencil stroke some time long ago. However, she never bought that LP (or else I would have usurped it long ago ... ) I never saw this LP nor heard it anywhere. Now ... can you tell me what a casual jazz listener inclined toward "Third Stream" (my mother's record buying in those 50s/60s never extended beyond the MJQ, George Gruntz and Jacques Loussier, except for 2 or 3 "party jazz" EPs) would find in Fred Katz and that particular LP? I understand Katz was classically trained but I have no idea how his works compare with the others named above so I am just curious ... (BTW, the Goldmine Jazz album price guide did not find this album worthy of inclusion ...)

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: