Big Beat Steve

What's your opinion on the whole book? I bought it several years ago, started reading it, got though about the first quarter and then put it aside for some reason I no longer remember (but was neither bored nor displeased with what I read) and somehow never got back to continuing my read. So some opinions would be interesting to hear.

How about post-Soul?

By all means do so. I certainly won't try to prevent you, and no hand wringing either, just some snickering at what some characters out there come up with. Ha, where did all those concert flyers with those "speed-trash-cum-garage indie" et al. band and genre descriptions go? They sure were/are fun in their explicitness. And to top things, you can string together almost anything and still trigger the reader's/audience's imagination.

You see, that makes some sense - just like Post-Bop does to me: You have gone beyond (I guess) the usual stylistic boundaries of a subgenre but where end up at still shows where you came from and you still are within "rock" (or jazz in the case of Post-Bop). But if you go beyond THE all-encompassing major genre (such as in "Post-Rock") where DO you go from there? And "what is it", actually? (This to get back to your yesterday's question - which is not for me to answer, BTW, but for those who are INTO that genre - but it hasn't been answered in this thread yet, except if by those who refer to it as progressive independent instrumental or experimental - which would certainly make more sense to me than "post-rock". Will ask my kid tonight if he has heard of Post-Metal and where he locates it.

In fact I did like the mood conveyed by most of your tunes I've listened to on Youtube. It's just that even jazz music you imagine with 40s "noir" films often has a somewhat different overall sound to it that is very much linked to that period. But I do see your point that you wanted to do a timeless playlist. BTW, as for this ... ... I wouldn't be that much of a purist anyway: In fact I found that "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" toon movie and its 40s "film noir" setting quite amusing and it could have benefitted from some jazzy "film noir" music scores, including maybe some of yours. However, a long string of one "générique" after another (which is what your playlist might be interpereted as) lacks a bit of dynamics. Like I said, the pace of such a movie can and does vary enormously and it cannot do any harm reflecting this in the music. In fact I did like the mood conveyed by most of your tunes I've listened to on Youtube. It's just that even jazz music you imagine with 40s "noir" films often has a somewhat different overall sound to it that is very much linked to that period. But I do see your point that you wanted to do a timeless playlist. BTW, as for this ... ... I wouldn't be that much of a purist anyway: In fact I found that "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" toon movie and its 40s "film noir" setting quite amusing and it could have benefitted from some jazzy "film noir" music scores, including maybe some of yours. However, a long string of one "générique" after another (which is what your playlist might be interpereted as) lacks a bit of dynamics. Like I said, the pace of such a movie can and does vary enormously and it cannot do any harm reflecting this in the music.

Thanks for this additional info. I have # (2) of the original editions. Found it at what was quite a good price in those pre-internet days in the very early 90s when the market was much less transparent and less chance of finding an outrageously low-priced copy. About the Taschen edition, Taschen indeed had listed this huge deluxe book edition with the 4 large prints at 1,000 euros ($1,250). I kept the descriptive page from their old catalog with my copy of the 25th aniversary "standard" edition of the book so was able to check their prices now. As for the other photo books that Berendt was involved with, copies of "Jazz Optisch" indeed are around (particularly the smaller-sized "Fan Edition" with identical contents) and are nice to look at, though I would not consider it a precursor to Abe's book. It is much too slim for that. As for the comparison with Keepnews/Grauer's "Pictorial History of Jazz"; disagreed again. That book for its time had sensational contents but the PRINTING quality of the photos of "Jazz Optisch" was indeed far better. To me it seems that the editors of the Keepnews/Grauer book goofed with their printing runs. In my early collecting days I regularly perused a library copy of the 60s US edition which was printed in Czechoslovakia (!) and the printing quality was OK to me, given the then standards. Later this copy had disappeared from the library and been replaced by a copy of the 1955 US edition printed in Yugoslavia (!!!) which was decidedly worse. Many pictures came out way too dark. My own copy which I have had for a long time is the second printing of the UK edition of the 60s issue (printed in Czechoslvakia too!). Printing quality (to the best of my recollections) is quite comparable to the 60s US edition printed in Czechoslovakia. Not earth-shattering (as you can tell by identical pics printed in better resolution in other books since) but OK. I wonder what these publishers were up to anyway, getting their stuff printed behind the Iron Curtain in the middle of the Cold War? Did this sit well with everybody in the US or elsewhere in the West? About "Foto Jazz" , this is indeed beyond any sensible price range. Just as costly as the original Dutch edition by Ed van der Elsken. But that recent reprint of the Dutch edition is so well done (and affordable) that one can easily live without shelling out big bucks for the original edition. At least I can. @medjuck:The 2008 edition weighing 9 pounds or so is unwieldy indeed but is even a bit smaller in size than the deluxe edition selling at 1,000 EUR (and weighing about twice as much as the 2008 edition). The 2016 edition that Taschen now has listed is a wee bit smaller in size but the difference amounts to less than 10% if the indications on the sellers' websites are anything to go by. As for this book fitting your bookshelf, it all depends on where you put it: My copy sits next to the Bob Willoughby photo portfolio published by Nieswand in the 90s which is yet larger in size (though much slimmer). Next door are the "Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock'n'Roll" and "Grand Ole Opry - The First Fifty Years 1925-1975" by Jack Hurst which both are a bit larger than Jazzlife too (though not as thick). So - no, my copy does fit the bookshelf and does not look that out of place on it either.

A bit over the top, really, that kind of money ... I do not think I saw this 2005 discussion before but what I do regret is that Stateside the ACTUAL name of the author - Joachim Ernst B erendt - seems to have slipped into oblivion (probably furthered by the unfortunate cover layout adopted by Taschen). Not wanting to blow a local hero's horn (Berendt never needed that from anybody), but it was Berendt who was instrumental in setting up the trip and Claxton went along for the ride to capture the pictures. Text and pictures form an indissociable unit and equal credit ought to be given to both. They did give this equal credit in the original edition of the early 60s. I have had this original hardcover edition for at least 25 years but nevertheless ran and snapped up the 552-page 2008 edition (which has no CD, BTW) when it was on sale for something like 30 euros or so at the local Zweitausendeins shop here in late 2011. I never regretted this purchase , though I do understand to some extent what Neveronfriday complained about in 2005. They COULD have included even more new material. I wonder, BTW, if the 700-page book discussed here in 2005 really holds that much more content or just has a different layout that fit into 552 pages later on. Taschen only refer to their "updated" version of 2003 throughout even in their publicity for the subsequent printings, including a 2016 printing of that book that they have now listed on their site.

Thanks! You beat me to it. Referring to this return question ... ... I was about to post the below when your comment and the answer by Scott D. came up. Who am I to coin a term for a (sub-) genre? Experimental it is for sure. Somehow the overall feel this generates in places reminds me of the music to experimental short films (dating back to the 60s/70s) I saw before (and I can assure you I haven't seen many), and other sounds are reminsicent (at least to me) of some of the German 70s avantgarde jazz we had here, including some of the vocaleseing out to produce sounds where the human voice was put to non-vocal use. What had me puzzled about this "post-rock" term and its implications of going BEYOND the MAJOR overriding genre of today's popular music (which I doubt it does throughout) is just this: If you want to coin a term to describe a music genre or sub-genre, then say what it is but NOT what it is not. See what I mean?

@Scott D.: Thanks for this START of a description/definition. But where do Sea & Cake fit in, then, for example? The exception to the rule? (No coincidence I mentioned them for the third time. The few tunes by them I checked on Youtube I found quite intriguing somehow ... But "post" (beyond) THE major genre of popular music today? Not by a long shot IMO) And before this starts to run in circles, please allow me one final comment: If this description is what it's all about, then it sounds like a tag used "for want of a better fitting one". A lot of past acts would have fitted into that category. So that term blurs rather than defines. Anway ... to each his own ... Enjoy! (sincerely ... )

It's no personal affront. And no injustice. Not at all. I just try to figure what meaning this is supposed to convey. Because any such label normally should communicate a meaning (in the sense of a common denominator that immediately comes to mind) to those GETTING INTO that music too, shouldn't it? Everybody knows what they're up against when it says "Heavy Metal" on the bill. "Death Metal", "Speed Metal", whatever ... just finer nuances (or sub-subgenres) to the initiated but all of them flying under the Heavy Metal tag - at least to those getting into the music (just an example, this ... because my son is heavily - literally - into this and is distinguishing all sorts of sub-sub genres, just like us jazzmen distinguish between all sorts of subgenres even within the various styles of jazz and immediately associate specific sounds and contents with most of them). Or to name an example closer to my own stomping grounds of way back, I'd even perfectly understand if, say, Psychobilly were labeled "Post-Rockabilly". In more way than one that's what it was/is. But "Post-Rock" used in the same sense? A subgenre going PAST the OVERALL genre? Again - where ARE you heading stylewise in that subgenre, then? Look, to cut it short - of course you can call any subgenre anyway you want, but if it gets that pretentious then don't be surprised if somebody out there calls "Emperor's Clothes" about this MARKETING tag.

Well, enlighten me, then. What's the common stylistic denominator that will give those intrigued enough to want to explore this subgenre an offhand indication of where they're heading? (And don't tell me any such genre label must be an "anything goes" label today) As for familiarization, I DID listen to several clips by a couple of acts on Youtube just to get some overall impressions. Hence my post , although in fact I found some of these (e.g. Sea & Cake) quite attractive in a way. Helpful or not, I find this subgenre term fairly pretentious in its insinuation of an all-encompassing "breakway" from everything that came before, as if they had managed to fill a stylistic vacuum. If you listen and explore closely (those who REALLY know all those earlier acts will certainly be able to give you examples) you cannot help but notice in some of these cases that that field's been plowed before. Some of those Godspeed You clips I've listened to, for example, remind me strangely of some of those 70s way out Krautrock recordings from over here, for example. Not all that groundbreakingly new to warrant such a "getting beyond everything else" label IMO Just my 2c - like it or not.

"POST-Rock" ... How pigeonholish can you get?? What's that supposed to be and what's their common denominator? Offhand only Björk sounds familiar among the names mentioned but from what I have casually heard she sounded to me like she still occupies one of those many cross-pollinated substyles of rock today (a stylistically wide enough field anyway these days). And some Youtube clips by some of the others named above (Godspeed You etc.) confirm this - at least IMHO. If you want to take a closer look you'd probably even find 70s rock acts who have gone those routes before. Just listened to some "Sea & Cake" on Youtube - out of sheer curiosity. Nice moods conveyed but conventional enough overall to my ears. Where does this warrant such a new label that signals a departure from everything? I could get some sense out of labels such as "post-bop" (meaning e.g. that it goes into something more/new beyond the essence of bop/hard bop but still audibly coming from there WITHIN the genre of jazz) but "post-rock"?? After all "rock" is the overriding name of the genre anyway. This is a bit like labeling some new noises out there "post-jazz". (Or is there already such a "style" ?? ) Now where do you go when you go "post-rock"? What's beyond that? Or do you fall off the cliff into .. well, into what? "Anything goes", maybe? Or to put it another way: How many marketing tags do you need and why OTOH do they insist out there to lump in all sorts of stuff with "jazz" even though there isn't even the slightest tenuous stylistic connection with the tree of jazz (including free jazz). How come the music makers all of a sudden seem fit to stand on their own feet with some niche rock that is no longer supposed to be rock but elsewhere they still try to fly under the jazz banner even though the continuity (in in the loosest terms) is long gone? Anyway ... I'd know of enough acts flying under the "jazz" banner today where a label such as "post-jazz" would be much, much more called for.

That's what I like about those compilations released by Fantastic Voyage that I linked to in the other thread. They pick up music that might be more in tune with the subject and plot of some of these noir movies. A sort of back alley hangout jukebox. Generally speaking, I've listened in to several of the modernish/recent tunes from the Youtube Playlist. Nice feel and nice late/after hours tunes for various occasions and quite imaginable as film soundtracks but for an "old" (meaning 40s) "film noir" quite a few of them IMHO just don't have the overall instrumental "period" feel. Just too modern and it just doesn't jell the way those 40s/50s tunes (or even the original non-jazz scores) do. But the approach is nice. OTOH, if you want to use the playlist for a modern movie with a "noir" setting then that's an altogether different thing. BTW, not all the music to those "film noirs" did come along at a balladesque snail's pace. IMO in the long run all those "slows" strung together sound a bit too much like a sequence of theme music from the opening sequences of (imaginary) movies. So a bit more pronounced change of pace here and there (to account for the evolution of an - imaginary - plot) would not have been out of place. I know, YMMW (as some are apt to say around here ), but that's my stance on it.

A couple of CD compilations have hit the market since this discussion came up originally: http://fantasticvoyagemusic.com/jazz-noire-darktown-sleaze-from-the-mean-streets-of-1940s-la/ http://fantasticvoyagemusic.com/drink-up-light-up/ No soundtracks but enjoyable jazzy "mood" music for a 40s "noire" setting. Maybe to go with this "movie" here which is sorely missing its sound(track)?

I suppose you are NOT talking about The Whistler?

Isn't that a different topic and discussion altogether again? Compared to what this book is all about and to what you found inapplicable about MG's latest statement re-Black & Blue?

Aren't we mixing up two different discussions here? Artists having an audience within the Black community (regardless of what the stylistic categorizations and boundaries may have been according to conventional jazz scribes and historians) on the one hand, which is what the focus of this book is on, and artists who no longer had this audience (their original audience) finding a new audience elsewhere (such as expats or touring musicians recording in Europe and showing that they still had their chops) on the other, which is part of the history of jazz too but outside the scope of this book?

Pierre Omer's Swing Revue from Switzerland playing a downtown club. https://www.voodoorhythm.com/125-artists/pierre-omer-s-swing-revue/218-pierre-omer-s-swing-revue.html Small-group swing (including some gypsy swing influence) with a somewhat different modernized twist showing new directions this style of jazz can take.

Always enjoyable! This one shows they have done some listening to the Treniers. Their earlier mid-40s sides (reminsicent of The Cats & The Fiddle etc.) were covered quite nicely in the vinyl days by reissues on Krazy Kat and Dr. Horse, and Bear Family did a nice CD reissue of their 50s RCA recordings. Their Mercury recordings where they seommetimes seemed to try to jump on the R'n'R bandwagon (like the Deep River Boys, the Du-Droppers and others) have been a bit under the reissue radar though, it seems. Two months ago I found this one at a local record store clearout sale. Rather on the sentimental ballad side (except for one somewhat more swinging tune) but the cover alone was worth the (very low) price of admission any time. The entire disc is somewhere on Youtube, BTW, for those inclined to listen.

I doubt he PERFORMED like that:

I must admit that "Ain't Nobody's Business" had totally slipped my mind. Overall, this sums up the essence of this book very well: What I like, love, actually, about this book is that it does not function to change any notions of what we already know/believe/whatever. Instead, it gives us more to know, enlarging the context, not redefining it. It's in no way a "revisionist" history, it's a broadening history! I

Of course, if you go strictly by chart criteria then these omissions are quite justified. Again, the names that have been mentioned missing seem to be very minor complaints to me. But isn't it so that some of these artists might well have played a role in shaping the music due to their "live" presence on the "circuit" where the public was exposed to them and reacted to them? The evolution of the music - any music - (even in hindsight) is defined by more than just chart presence. But no - this does not detract from the value of the book IMO.

I did find a scant handful real BN 45s at fleamarkets years ago. Inevitably someone had had some fun with them before, though. So whenever I decide to have some fun with them these days ol'man Pop'n'Crackle will always join in the party and have his say too.

Jay McShann has five entries in the index, Sammy Price only one (only in conection with his presence on 52nd Street and in the studios in the mid-40s - indeed a bit too little to do him justice, but maybe his lengthy absences from the US in the 50s kept him out of the focus of this book?).

The problem with this kind of collectabilia is that you have to have a huge apartment or house in order to set up these items in a somewhat natural "habitat". Items that are natural "collectables" (or fit for accumulating) such as records or books can be hoarded in almost unlimited quantities, but lamps and chairs or tables and wall decoration items and the like? Once you exceed a certain quantity of stuff you have this makes it difficult four you to budge in your own quarters and therefore awkward. Another problem with some items that you intend to really "live with" is that they have to fit your needs at least to some extent too. Some of those shelving units are very nice but what can you do with them if the paper you accumulate exceeds a certain quantity (but the space available doesn't)? I've seen very nice pieces of shelving and storage units in period photos and the settings ARE striking, but they were usually set up holding maybe 5 to 10 books, a mag draped out nicely and one or two other objects and that's that. Otherwise they might fast look crowded. So I am fairly pleased I have been able to use all those 50s Scandinavian "String" bookshelves all along, for example. As long as there are walls (running out fast now, though ... ) I can add more of the same and yet keep everything in style.