Big Beat Steve

And so has been Bill Haley. And strangely enough, fairly early on Haley was belittled as being an "old father" not really suitable for being promoted as a teen idol by "virtue" of his "age". Whereas they at the same time clipped off 5 years off the actual age of Chuck Berry (5 years being a hell of a lot that may have made an enormous difference at that time and in that age bracket) when a lot of early (i.e. 70s, probably earlier too) rock encyclopedias (at least in Europe) all claimed him to have been born in 1931 while later on - after R'n'R had long ebbed off and turned into "rock" and the R'n'R heroes played the oldies circuit to their fans who had gotten older too - we were faced with the fact he actually dated from 1926 which made him almost as "old" as Bill Haley. And this despite the fact that Berry would have needed that artificial rejuvenating far less (just by the way he came across).

Ouch! Another era has come to an end. RIP

Be sure to let us know about the outcome.

Look, this is getting pointless. You of course are free to arrange your albums any way you see fit to. In the end it must suit your needs and nobody else's. But since you asked, I speak my mind: I just find it (I definitely do) odd to go by what other sources by other criteria do or tell you to do. Be your own man. Go by your own listening experience. And if you have an album of material not issued previously but originally recorded at a specific point of an artist's career, isn't it really quite a natural approach to listen to it from the starting point of what you know of his recordings before and after that date in the chonological sequence of recordings, i.e. as a part of this artist's development in his career? And this is where such an album IMO would belong. Because that is where the contents CAME from artistically. And once such an album has been released it becomes part of the artist's OVERALL (chronological) discography. Discographies are updated as new recordings appear. Release dates are secondary. Like Gmonahan explained above. As for the Sinatra album you mentioned, admittedly I am too lazy to look up the details now. But assuming it was compiled from previously released items from the 78 rpm era or from 45 rpm singles-only releases I'd file it just where it would fit best chronologically in the artist's recorded opus (see GMonahan's explanation above again). I certainly willl NOT file my original copy of Benny Goodmans "Mostly Sextets" LP on Capitol T668 featuring tracks first released in 1947 but first released in this 12" LP form in 1956 (like your Sinatra ) close to his "Benny in Brussels" LP of 1958 or after his "B.G. in Hi Fi" release from 1954 but of course and quite naturally among my other B.G. records (reissues or other) of early post-war recordings of the mid-to late 40s. Because this is where the CONTENTS of this LP belong. And OF COURSE B.G.'s "Carnegie Hall Jazz Concert" LP is MOST DEFINITELY filed among his studio (and live) recordings of the late 30s and not among his 1950 cuts (when those concert recordings were first released). The CONCERT made its impact in 1938 (and had a certain effect on B.G.'s other recordings of that pre-WWII period too, of course), not in 1950. So that's where it belongs.

Well, in this sense of anthologies, yes - but FWIW, I'd rather doubt that ANY Tony Bennett recording from the early 60s held back at that time would radically point far towards the future in singing, instrumentation, charts, etc. to warrant inclusion in a much later decade of MOR pop singing to adult audiences and be referenced as a major building stone of pop of that much later date. It's still a piece of its time - like most other artists' recordings not issued originally, including those okayed for release later on when every attempt was made at scraping the bottom of any accessible barrel to quench the unquenchable thirst of collectors for previously unheard recordings of their heroes (cf. that endless Grant Green debate going on elsewhere here again at this moment ).

So did I. Quite a while ago.

Discographers in the PROPER sense of the way a discography is bound to be organized no doubt will disagree any time. They'd just GOT to keep everything strictly chronological by recording dates. Rundowns of album listings are not discographies in the proper sense of the word the way the term "discography" is commonly understood. Album listings or release listings are a different matter altogether and serve their own purposes but should not be mixed up with discographies because by nature this kind of simple listings is incomplete discographically (I suppose this the kind of list you are referring to, but - no, I don't consider the Goldmine listings true discographies either. "Releasography" if you want - yes, but beyond that? ). And Discogs very often is flawed enormously when it comes to providing comprehensive overviews and not just "listings". In the same manner that all those so-called "discographies" which list only the A sides of 45 rpm releases (like they often exist in the pop field) cannot truly qualify as discographies either. Anyway - what's keeping you from filing a complete LP's worth of material issued decades later between the albums that it belongs to chronologically by its recording dates? That new addition to the artist's recordings adds to his recorded legacy from THAT period (and to how he sounded at THAT time), not from a later one. Just my 2c @TTK: The point you make might be true in some cases but this a door that swings the other way too: Just remember how many late, late first-time releases there were and are by name artists that make their influence felt NOW because they have been released for the first time NOW yet influence our perception of the artist strictly in the context of how he was THEN (case in point: All those first-time relases on the Uptown label). I just checked the Wiki entry on that VU album you mention. Isn't that a classic case of a recording adding to the discography of the time the album was actually recorded? Cutting-room floor snippets belatedly put into circulation? Never mind if it was ahead of its times. The music is primarily linked to a specific era (the era it was recorded). My point exactly when I wrote this: Anyway - what's keeping you from filing a complete LP's worth of material issued decades later between the albums that it belongs to chronologically by its recording dates? That new addition to the artist's recordings adds to his recorded legacy from THAT period (and to how he sounded at THAT time), not from a later one. BTW, I proceed just like you do with compilation albums. The best comon denominator one can possibly find. And yes, we are crazy (of sorts) to worry about such things. But once your record collection reaches a 4-digit figure (or several dozen just by one single artist) you'd better start getting some order into your filing system - or else ...

I read your sentence three times and still am not sure if I really understood it correctly. You mean to say a session released for the first time much later than when it was recorded does not belong into the CHRONOLOGICAL sequence of the artit's discopgraphy? Just because it was not released immediately after the recording date? Where else, THEN? And do you realize what kind of helter-skelter muddle this would make with discographies of many, if not MOST artists who have had a relatively long and fruitful recording career? Of of those whose recordings were rather spotty and blank spots were filled later by long-unreleased or latterly discovered recordings? What would you make of those sessions that were not released DECADES later but maybe just 3, 4, 5 or 10 years later? (Happened not that rarely in the hard bop era, e.g. on the Prestige label). Or what about all those 30s/40s bands (and orchestras, in particular) that have been preserved on LOADs of airshots, transcriptions, on-location live recordings, etc. - to the extent that sometimes up to 50% of their rcordings from any given year are made up of this kind of recordings (that STILL form a valuable part of their recorded legacy)? You are opening a can of worms there, IMO.

No, Basie. At least here. BTW, this entire discussion (and others, similar ones on OP) - which I find relatively pointless, BTW (mainly for the reasons outlined by Milestones - you CAN'T apply absolute yardsticks to subjective perceptions of art, and in writing this I for one am certainly not the biggest OP fan around) - reminds me very much of earlier, MUCH earlier discussions and lots of opinions put into print about ART TATUM. Written long ago, some while he was still alive, some not all that long afterwards. Plenty of virtuosity, chops - yes, but too much showing off, pianistic fireworks aplenty but this and virtuosity crowding out everything else, no jazz feel, so what he played not really being jazz, etc. etc. Yes - of course he is seen differently now but he did arouse a fair bit of controversies in various camps through the years too. And wouldn't really hold it against those who wrote it. Different strokes and perceptions that often change over time, that's all.

The ones I have are fleamarket finds from quite a while ago and therefore - I guess - pretty obvious choices (party record survivors , though really not in bad shape). - 45-1735 Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers - Moanin' Pt. I & II (two copies, actually - one with silver lettering on dark blue label, one with white lettering on light blue label in the upper half of the label and reverse colors in the lower half) - 45-1776 Jackie McLean - Greasy Pt I & II (silver lettering on dark blue label) (all 43W 61th St. N.Y. address on label, RVG in runout section)

"German Treasures" may be a somewhat stilted way of describing it, but the basic fact is that Weill's earlier (pre-emigration) works (particularly his co-works with Bert Brecht) have been present all along throughout the decades in various incarnations and have always had their place, the Three Penny Opera and "Mackie Messer" being by far the best known, of course, but Mahagonny and others are well-known quantities among the target group of such works too. In short, IMO the article is skewed in this respect. His US works are "obscure" over here for sure, but given how his earlier works have been perceived and presented for decades now, his U.S. works more or less come from a "different Weill" to the German (or European?) audience and - probably unfortunately - were lumped in with "Broadway" productions at large.

Me too. Compared to what "Mäckie Messer" still is over here, September Song is certain to be just nowhere. All in all your explanation nails it.

Just listening to the Mosaic "Classic Capitol Jazz Sessions" CD box set. Someting's gone wrong in the booklet inside the box to accompany disc III: In line with their session coding running from A to B through AA to AAA to ZZZ, the back cover lists the Deane Kincaide session as session R and the Scatman Crothers session as session S (plausibly so in accordance with the sequence of the tracks on the CD). Looking up the discographical details in the booklet, though, the Scatman Crothers session is listed as session R and the Deane Kincaide session as session S (in that order). Whatsamatter, Mosaic? Your proofreader been taking five when the texts were okayed for printing?

I can very well imagine these records sitting on the shelves forever at the time, lack of interest in the golden days of WCJ being one factor, and the utterly nondescript, cheapy cover artwork being another. I bought a couple of them secondhand at really low prices during the past 15 years and do not regret having bought them. I will certainly snap up others whenever I come across them. They DO fil a gap if you are into WCJ (or just plain "jazz") from that era. But - again - admittedly even if I had been wise to what they contain EXACTLY and what to make of them in the historical context at the time they were new I probably would have passed them by when they sold at full price. Their presentaiton just was subpar - as were a LOT of reissues or belated first-time issues of "older" jazz in the 70, unfortunately.

Is that the official, historically definite spelling of his first name according to latest research?

Some of mine (yes, like Mingus said - depending on the type of jazz one listens to ): - Keynote Recordings (Fresh Sounds CD box if you cannot source the 21-LP Japanese LP edition or any comparable one - which very likely will be the case) - Complete Nocturne Recordings Vol. 1 (Fresh Sounds - there never was a Vol. 2) - The full run of the Svensk Jazzhistoria 2- or 3-CD box sets on the Caprice label and - depending on one's personal tastes - quite a few BEAR FAMILY box sets (Mosaic is far from being the only bright star on the box set sky - particularly if FIRST TIME REISSUES are concerned)

Of course. Unfortunately. Actually records are even more difficult to "cover up" than other "used" items. For a time I bought quite a lot of mags and paperback books from the 40s, 50s and early 60s from the US. Can you imagine to what kind of repackagings and splittings into multiple smaller parcels and envelopes I sometimes had to resort to (and talk the - sometimes stubborn - sellers into) in order to keep the costs PER SHIPPING within limits so as to slip things past customs with only a minimum of customs fees due? Global priority envelopes made this possible (despite their price increase over time) because the cost actually increases in an almost LINEAR manner according to weight. So 4 times 4 lbs did not cost significantly more than one parcel of 15 or 16 lbs. Records (particularly record SETS) are more difficult because once customs people check things you cannot get by with "used" sets stated at an all too low"nominal" value only. And LP- or box-set-sized parcels ARE more conspicuous and invite inspection even more readily than Global Priority envelopes containing printed matter.

Unfortunately by then the customs people would rip me off BIG TIME.

Only 500 to go to make it a memorable total.

So you asked for it ...

Saundra HUMMER? See earlier discussion in this thread. I doubt it's got any further during the past 5-6 weeks.

And some of his also-rans too, I guess (considering it is the COMPLETE sessions). Actually I'd spring for it (as I think I'd even be able to unload - at a quite decent price - the full run of 80s Pathé and Route 66 LPs with about 2 thirds to 3 quarters of this stuff that I already have) but shipping from the US over here just is too prohibitive. So - no way, sadly ...

Ha, so I wasn't far off the mark at all. Thanks, Niko!

I don't think they are that rare. Offhand I can think of a handful of those "Unipaks" (had no idea they were called like this) from the late 50s and the 60s that I have among my own records: Examples: Lionel Hampton - The Mess Is Here (Bertelsmann 61017) (original pressing, it also existed with a standard non-foldout cover) Epic Encore Series reissue LP series of 30s Brunswick/Vocalion etc. recordings, e.g. Artie Shaw (Free For All) and Earl Hines (Hines Rhythm) (I one picked up a couple of LPs from this series with vinyl in excellent shape dirt cheap at a fleamarket that came from someone who apparently was so terribly bugged by this "leftie" design of the covers that he CUT OFF and discarded the front gatefold cover, making the back (track and personnel listing) the front cover and the liner notes the back cover of a "standard" "rightie" LP. From what I have seen in sale bins, this type of sleeve seems to have been even more common in the field of classical music in the late 50s and 60s.