Big Beat Steve

There were several CD series (but you would have to check availability and search a bit - some will probably be OOP and only be available secondhand): - The Birth of Surf (3 volumes) on the (UK) Ace label (a label that spells quality) - Rare Surf (6 volumes) - Lost Legends of Surf Guitar (4 volumes) on the Sundazed label Experts of early surf will probably be able to give you more information.

If this is the typical company the Kirk band gigged with in 1947 (Ray Sneed aka Snead! Billy Wright!), it is no wonder that the music they played in "Killer Diller" had started to lean towards R&B here and there.

I admit I had understood you exactly the other way round. Bashing Little Richard and going all excited over the Beach Boys - another one of those who can't praise "Pet Sounds" enough. (iIt CAN happen .... ) Anyway, greatness is in the ear of the behearer - always, and "tin ears" are not always where those who use that term to bash others' tastes think they are.

A history lesson indeed. Thanks for the link! That tune by the Kirk band, "Gator's Serenade", really cooks but unfortunately it seems to have gone unrecorded. And I cannot think of any later release of that movie excerpt on one of those "Jazz on Film"-style records either. For a sequel to your history lesson and a look at how things evolved I'd recommend this one from 1955:

Including claims that it's "a waste of space", then.

See? There we go ... Tastes differ and the lines very often are not even drawn betwen the Beach Boys and Little Richard. By the same yardstick that you hint at one might say '"Albert Ayler is a waste of space. Listen to some Billie Holiday for a few days, then you can come back and tell us about how "its all good". The "discriminating" criteria that you suppose there are just are NOT there. There is no universal, overriding truth in these fields of music.

The committee is still out (and won't be let back in) ... P.S: My Ellington/Kenton ratio is almost 2/1. That sounds a bit better, at least as far as Ellington is concerned?

+1

Tommy James is cited elsewhere on this subject matter, and I think he was quite a radical case of being held "hostage" by the label.

Agreed. The depth of his tastes is impressive, particularly since he really goes out of his way to obtain what he really is after. OTOH the notion of "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" is a very relative one these days, it seems. In my collection the Louis Jordan LPs, for example, outnumber the John Coltrane LPs by about 10 to 1, and the Stan Kenton vs Trane ratio might even be some 15 or 20 to 1. So by the standards of a lot of THIS forum's "typical" ("mainstream"? ) jazz record collections, mine might look like a decidedly non-mainstream one. Luckily tastes and priorities differ so there's room and space for everyone when it comes to browsing the record racks and sales lists.

A seminal figure in Scandinavian jazz. 100 years ... that's a really long run. RIP.

Same to you.

FWIW, http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-artist-and-artiste http://www.english-for-students.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Artist-and-Artiste.html http://www.gingersoftware.com/english-online/spelling-book/confusing-words/artist-artiste http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t3967.htm In short,"artist" will do, particularly if you stress the CREATIVE side of the artist's efforts (not the least important criterion in jazz, isn't it?). And as for the example I mentioned in my question, I still feel the author was unaware of how this term might sound pretentious (and certainly did NOT want to play down the creativity of his favorite music and artists. Nuff said.

Ah, going snarky again. Plowing through others' statements. What you call cutesy was nothing but an attempt at asking a question in a halfway polite manner. And did I refer to an earlier instance where I came across this word or not? We are talking about areas of fairly popular art where this term looks out of place to me, and yes - the use of this term in THESE contexts was new to me and I still find it odd and still am wondering if all of a sudden it is all the rage to refer e.g. to pop "artistes". Regardless of whether there are others out there who prefer to use "pseudo-French" in other fields of "art". So ... you are known for putting things in other people's mouths that just aren't so but don't try to intimidate me. You just don't have the class or authority for that. C'est la vie ....

Ah, getting wisecrackish again? I am quite familiar with the word as such (and certainly not only because I happen to speak French too) but in the contexts I named I just find it odd, to say the very least. Because to me it has connotations that simply are out of place and out of style, at least in the examples I referred to, and given that general writings about the subjects on hand seemed to have coped quite well without it for decades, even when the discussions got quite art-heavy. Of course, if you want to elevate things to some uppity level of art(e) - whereas Webster seems to narrow thisdown to an "often humorous or facetious" use -, then go ahead and be happy on that cloud up there ... And, BTW, just to level things a little, you are welcome to lead this sort of "splitting hairs debate" in a language that is NOT your mother language. Now where would that leave you, I wonder?

Copies are around. If he is that heavily into Little Richard I'd be surprised if he did not have that one too.

Well, various internet profiles of MG have him down as "a stalwart of the Scandinavian free jazz scene" or "free jazz heavyweight" or "prolific free jazz saxophonist". YMMV, though (as they say around here ): At any rate, I found his explanations quite interesting and if you think about it they do make some sense (at least to me). This IS one possible approach.

I think what Dmitry was aiming at is whether the free jazz players really have gone where they are now because they have exhausted every "conventional" possibility of their instrument and of the music and now have gone beyond the "conventional" contents of the music onto a "higher" (in the sense of "superior") level of the muisc that - according to diehards of free/avantgarde jazz - is the only way to go and to progress because everything else is just old hat and worn out. If this was so then any of the top free saxophonists would have to be able to play, say, ANY Hodges, Prez, Bird, Rollins, (yes, eben Bostic and his often.-acknowledged technical mastery of the instrument) etc. forwards and backwards and inside out and will just not remain there because he has played everything there. Or isn't it rather so that they have gone out on a DIFFERENT branch that is just that - different. But definitely not "superior" or "higher" in an evolutionary sense of the word. Which is fine and perfectly legitimate to do for those who prefer to go into that direction (preferences differ ...) and occupy their own niche there, but of course invalidates that oft-held notion of free or avantgarde being "superior". It's just different sides of a multi-faceted coin. And one is as valid as the other. In EVERY stylistic direction. But this is getting us off course. I for one find rather more interest in what Mats Gustafsson said in his interview about the closeness (in HIS understanding) of free jazz and certain old-school honkers on the one hand and punk and their 2-chord structure on the other. Normally he ought to have come under heavy fire by avantgarde jazz "traditionalists" for that.

Very nice introduction to the subject!

Uh oh ... Just checked and discovered I am only 4 years his senior. (I was under the impression he was quite a bit younger) I know one of these days I will make lists and instructions about my collections to let the NEXT generation know what NOT do do - so as not to be ripped off. And if they decide not to heed my advice then so be it ... I'll be gone anyway. I trust that Mats Gustafsson will be even much, much more thorough about this, given how "archival" many parts of his collection seem to be. Happens every generation. During the past 6 to 10 years I had to unload what my father first got rid of and then left behind - tons (almost) of architecture books and art and cultural history books. Almost worthless except for a relatively small percentage of really old and collectible architecture books from the 1910s to 1950s. If you - like me - feel that uneasy about throwing old books away then it IS a chore passing as many of them as you can on to where they might be appreciated. So the heirs of almost any vinyl collection are likely to fare better. You invariably will start to scale down one day. But that's beside the point - whatever you decide to let go is no longer part of what matters to you so it's out of the equation of what you still will get around to listening to. And I am pretty sure many of us will STILL hold on to more than they can and will listen to. The ultimate question of that kind is: Where will John Tefteller's collection of 78s go?

Think about which "matters" exactly?

There is a moment that we record collectors all reach sooner or later when we realize that there are records in our collection that we definitely will never again listen to for the rest or our life (simply because there won't be enough time). The problem, though, is: Which ones? We will never know. Because we will never know what we will exactly listen to in our future listening hours. But we'd like to BE ABLE to listen to them. So we keep all of them anyway (at least those we bascially do want to keep). Inevitable ... such is life ... And - no, I for one don't believe in working off my records in a bookkeeper's fashion. I have bought secondhand records before where the inner sleve carried handwritten dates which apparently were those where the previous owner listened to that particular record. Not for me ...

@ lp / clifford thornton / rostasi: It think it Is way more than 5000. Not wanting to brag one bit, but I have about 7,000 LPs, 1,000 45s and 1,000 78s (in fact the last time I counted them I did it the way Rostasi suggested - measuring the space taken up by 100 LPs and then multiplying). Altogether they take up about 30 running meters. That's quite a bit less than Gustafsson's 47 meters. My LPs, in particular, ARE a tight fit on the shelves (too tight in places - storage space running out ...) but not THAT much tighter than what I see in those pictures. I'd say that at best I'd be able to fit in about 20% more if I stored them somwhat looser the way Mats Gustafsson did. So I'd definitely say his are at least 10,000.

I still disagree. I don't think i am reinforcing what you worte - I am reinforcing what Jim said. Again - for the question raised NOW it is of no importance today if the same thing happened in the past because jazz was more or less part of pop music then. The only thing of importance now IMHO is that as long as such requests happen (and according to Jim they still do) that grate with the musicians - totally regardless of whether this is a majority or minority thing in the public's taste - then it can also happen that the musicians react the way Jim did or the way they did in the past to discourage these requests (see the panels shown and mentioned). Same thing. And - again - regardless of whether 99% of the casual listening audience out there knew one requested tune from another - as long as the requests of the remaining 1% grate with the musicians then the situation exists. That's all. As for "greater musical value", that's beside the point too. Those "standards" or "classics" do have their value (to those who appreciate those tunes) which does not diminish one bit because one band prefers not to play them. A given standard tune or "classic" isn't for everybody, after all, and the repertoire of band A does not necessarily overlap with that of fit band B by even one percent, even if both play within the same style. So why should any band or group of musicians be under the obligation to play what is not on their set list (or is somebody else's repertoire, in fact), UNLESS they are HAPPY to oblige (for their own fun too)? This has got nothing to do with "musical value". Those values are in the ear of the behearer (including those who perform them) and NEVER absolute values. BTW (no mockery intended - I am really wondering ...), is "artiste" a new way of spelling this word? Or is there a finer connotation or difference of content to set it apart from "artist"? Some time ago I bought a (privately published) book on the history of early post-war country music, and the author steadfastly used the term "artiste" throughout. Looked quite odd in printing to me ...