Big Beat Steve

Dont forget that the name "Kuhn" exists even in Germanophonic countries - alongside "Kühn" but as a different name in its own right. So no need to suppose there "must" be an "umlaut". And if he is American it is no wonder his (or his family's) name has been americanized. This is quite natural. Just like in the case of Steve Kuhn. Contrary to Rolf or Joachim Kühn, for example, who are entitled to the correct spelling of their names no matter where they are being quoted or put into print.

Is there anything wrong (by "consensual wisdom" - by whomever ?) with the Okeh tracks? Did Earl Hines' playing slump that badly within a day or two or what is all the hullaballoo about the QRS tracks - to the exclusion of the Okehs? Or is it all about "rarity"? I've just listened in to some from both sessions and cannot find fault either way. Except that fidelity seems to be a bit better on the CBS reissue. BTW, isn't this maybe one of the cases and reasons where some might be a bit less than impressed by Mosaic's policy? Don't the QRS and Okeh tracks belong together in the discography of Earl Hines and in a thoughtfully done "comprehensive" reissue project? So Okeh was/is part of a major - fine, but would it have been that difficult to obtain some kind of clearance by whomever held the rights to the QRS or Hot Record Society (they seem to have reissued those tracks early on) masters/recordings and to those few tracks - provided they had not entered the public domain yet. Would this have been that difficult to someone "in the know" in the business?

Right .. the other 4, though recorded directly afterwards, were done for Okeh. Missed this detail. So this is why CBS limited their reissue to those 4 tracks.

FWIW, the QRS sessions were also reissued on 2 other LPs in slightly more recent times: 8 tracks are on "Earl Hines - His Piano 1928 - His Orchestra 1938" (Swing Classics ET 5) and the remaining 4 tracks (plus 2 takes each of his solo recordings from July 14, 1932) are on "57 Varieties" (CBS 63364 - No. 16 in the French CBS "Aimez-vous le Jazz" LP series): https://www.discogs.com/de/Earl-Hines-57-Varieties/master/656542 I think the CBS reissue is the earlier of the two (1973, it seems) so the Swing Classics collector's label (ferom Sweden) maybe intentionally chose exactly those tracks not included on the CBS LP (which may have been way more accessible here in Europe than the Milestone LP at that time) to complete the full run of his early solos.

That's the solution I came up with by trial and error too.

Thanks for the clarification/confirmation but I was just referring to the thread starter's post about "deleting" a post which might as well be understood to mean that the post disappears altogether and no trace of a post remains. This is different from an "empty" post (having to leave at least one character would be the same thing IMO). I guess that a forum software could be set up both ways, including in the case of opening posts of a thread and editing these. I.e. setting up the forum software in such a way that a normal forumist (as opposed to a mod/admin) can only remove the contents of an earlier post (including the opening post) but not the post as such should eliminate the problem of somebody "deleting" the opening post and deleting the entire thread at the same time.

Motion seconded. In fact, thinking about it, most of those other forums I visit(ed) where the problem of forumists deleting their posts (including their opening posts of a thread - sometimes) came up were forums based on pHpBB. And the way they were set up deleting a post actually meant EDITING your post, i.e. the contents disappeared but an empty post remained. I have seen threads where evidently certain posts were deleted altogether (making the remaining discussion even harder to understand) but IIRC except on one forum (where the forumists were able to completely delete their posts) these deletions were the result of admin/mod action. And the feature allowing forumists to really delete their posts was abandoned on that one forum after some time - just because this created havoc with the remaining posts that often made no sense anymore as afterwards nobody was able to figure out anymore who these posts were directed at. Replying to a preceding post that is empty now does not make that much more sense either but at least those who read those thread later will be able to see that originally ther WAS something supposed to be there. BTW, one approach I have often seen (and sometimes used too) in discussions that were likely to become heated and where you just figured somebody might back out was to reply QUOTING the post you replied to. Anybody can delete the contents of his posts but he cannot delete those contents of his posts that have been quoted by others (who have replied to him) in THEIR posts. Anyway ... wouldn't a feature allowing forumists just to EDIT their posts (including opening posts), i.e. removing just the contents, be sufficient?

My, my ... Are you really that intent on derailing your own thread? Obviously you understood the context and intention because you are well-versed enough to take in the contents of a couple of lines at a time. What I wrote in that final sentence by inference of course referred to what I said before. Why repeat everything three times within as many lines? So - AGAIN: Any forum setup that can get you into a situation where by deleting one's own post (one's opening posts ARE part of one’s own posts) you can kill the entire thread is highly impractical and not really thought out IMO. This is what my post above said and that's all. So how about stopping splitting hairs? BTW, no beer here, hardly ever - feel free to help yourself instead ...

Now please ... no nitpicking .... you know better than that and should be above that ... I DID make that distinction by refering to the way other forums are set up: " where a thread starter can indeed delete his own posts too, including an opening post, but even removing an opening post does not remove the thread as such at all ". I am really surprised that you didn't make this association in my final sentence (that you quoted above) too. ANY setup where deleting one's own post will lead to a situation where the entire thread is killed (such as in this case of deleting one's own opening post) is less than ideal. Far less than ideal. Which was my entire statement. And yes - I resent that reference to "alternative facts"! This is nonsense and you know it - as you must have read (and understood) my post in its entirety. So please take my earlier statement as a simple reminder that it is not an inevitable fate of life that deleting an opening post on "a forum" will destroy the entire thread (as you - maybe inadvertently - insinuated when you said "Seeing as how that's where the topic title and whatever database markers reside, I don't see how it could be otherwise "). It is a weakness in the software of THIS forum, not in forums per se. FWIW, this is one option I had seen on another forum - one that had its fair share of flame wars and nasty characters - not trolls, just wisecracks who at times seemed to have made a habit of altering or deleting their earlier posts, making threads barely usable anymore later on once the entire input form one person (who had contributed a lot before) had vanished. The admins then altered the settings so that you could only modify your earlier posts within a given time frame (less than 24 hours IIRC) and not anymore thereafter. Which only shows that depening on the forum software used it ALL can be done.

Which means that the problem is with the way THIS forum is set up software-wise. I know of more than one forum (forums I visit regularly, as you may have guessed ) where a thread starter can indeed delete his own posts too, including an opening post, but even removing an opening post does not remove the thread as such at all. In fact, other forums being prone to disputes and/or just personal animosities too, this has led to more than one thread where subsequent posters have complained bitterly about thread starters who, being pissed off for whatever reason, had removed their initial post (and their subsequent interventions), which meant that the thread was now left hanging in the air (with replies being there but no question that the replies referred to, etc.) and therefore difficult to follow and understand for those who came along later. Not good but way better than any ill-conceived setup where anybody who deletes his own posts will at the same deleted the entire thread.

You wouldn't have guessed, looking at this (from the 1955 Metronome Yearbook of Jazz). So he must have had some publicity deals. A name that probably has not left much of a trace with the music history-minded outside the US, so it's one of those cases where, flipping through those old mags, you have to constantly remind yourself that just because the ad is in a jazz mag does not automatically mean it's a jazz artist who is featured. (That said, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a copy of that jazz LP that Angelo Di Pippo did for Apollo)

+1

I don't have many post-comeback Earl Hines LPs but among the few I have is this solo piano LP: Dinah (RCA), rec. 29/04/1966 Can't see that one on your list. What always baffled me about late (post-mid-60s) Earl Hines is how his new-found hairdo all of a sudden made it hard to believe this was 25-30 years after his big band heyday. I wonder if he ever cared to cover T-Bone Walker's "Your Wig is Gone" ?

The first Sonny Clark record I ever bought (one of those chance purchases at a misc. items record stall) back in the early 80s. Very fluent, allowing him to stretch out ... BTW, that's an interesting avatar you got there. I saw that movie at a local Art & Jazz exhibition here in late 2015. The contrast between the intense music and the very slow movements of the camera is amazing but makes you feel sort of restless as time passes - the movie could have benefitted from some editing IMO ...

How many bikers out there will have been caught off guard by that apparently misleading book title? (When doing your own maintenance you often need LOTS ot "zen" attitude when things just won't fit or you find there are some leftovers after everything HAS been reassembled ), thinking this may have been the motorcycle variant of THIS one (which was big at the same time too and was referred to as a "philosophy lesson disguised as a repair manual", incidentally)? https://www.amazon.com/How-Keep-Your-Volkswagen-Alive/dp/1562614800

Thanks for the info, but where does Flip Phillips fit into this Jump catalog? I cannot find his reissue in this listing (on the admittedly exceedingly crudely designed Delmark website).

What kind of label is this??? Is this the label that was resurrected/reissued by Zim on LP in the 70s, e.g. for an obscure early Zoot Sims date (with leader Dick Nash)? What's coming full circle there (or not)?

Thanks for the reminder about Joe Cinderella. I have the "Patterns In Jazz" LP. It must have been ages since I last spun it. About time again ... (later today ).

I''ve always been curious about him (to complete my range of 50s modern jazz guitarists). Too bad I missed out on opportunities to buy an affordable copy of the Japanese 10-inch reissue LP about 15 years ago. I have all the others that seem to have been compiled with him in one package (Sal Salvador and Tal Farlow on the one hand and Bill DeArango as well as Chuck Wayne/Brew Moore onn the other) so would be stuck with tons of overlaps and duplicates which is annoying. Oh well, one day maybe ....

Not sure which recordings you refer to (I don't know all of his post-war recordings - far from it) but I remember some where I found he had quite an attractive "bite" to his electrified sound (maybe due to some - intentional or unintentional - distortion?). YMMV as some are wont to say around here ...

Niko, I must admit I am not familar with the Frémeaux sets and have never checked them in detail (I've always had too much Django - though with gaps and overlaps, invariably - to warrant investment in any full-price CD box set or series because those invariably will add loads of additional duplications and will never be all-new). At any rate, this is how it ought to be done. Prime Django Reinhardt would have to include the QHCF period up to 1939 in depth, and apparently this period is covered only in a very spotty manner by the Vogue box set (I had thought the pre-war Swing recordings - remember that LOOOOONG "Djangologie" LP reissue series on Pathé? - had come under the Vogue banner too, but apparently not so). My first Django records ever bought (Vogue reissues too) also jump from a handful of 1935 sessions to the postwar recordings with Hubert Rostaing and therefore ommitted a LOT and therefore give a somewhat skewed picture. Seems like this is not fundamentally different here too, judging by the Amazon review above. And, BTW, re- the review, this is NOT what he recorded "for the Vogue label" - there was no such thing as Vogue in 1935 - but for those labels that the conglomerate that holds Vogue now has control over, e.g. Ultraphon. I've also briefly compared the track list found here ... http://www.freshsoundrecords.com/django-reinhardt-albums/5943-django-reinhardt-on-vogue-complete-edition-1934-1951-8-cd-box-set.html with the Rust and Jepsen discogrpahies (which may not be 100% up to date anymore) but am a bit puzzled about some of the postwar track listings. But too much work now to sort this out in detail (and no time accessing the Bruyninckx ). That said, at the price indicated above this 8-CD box set should be good value both as an introduction to the artists and as fodder for your car CD player any time.

IMO the "problem" with this set is that the Vogue recordings (just like others) have been out in so many guises that it is hard to keep track of what there is elsewhere or not. IMO a Django set purporting to be "complete" makes real sense only if it would encompass the DIFFERENT labels his recordings appeared on. Otherwise you always end up with the same kind of piecemeal hodgepodge affair where you wonder why this or that recording that you remember among his key recordings isn't "there" - until you remember too that it originally was out on a different label that now is part of a different conglomerate. Which IMO would make him a more than ideal candidate for a really comprehensive reissue by one of those European P.D. labels, BTW (though I think they, too, are aware of the fact that so much by him has been recycled so very often).

Don't forget Tommy Whittle, Sidewinder!

Yes, that looks more like it. Thanks for the reminder.

Maybe. it was a freely accessible site that contains more transcribed inteviews beyond those included in the book I cited (but referring to that Oral history project). I cannot remember having had to go through that many steps in the "Oral history" section before being able to access the transcripts. But the site may have been changed since i went there quite a few years ago.