Big Beat Steve

@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.

That colorful "hang-it-all" is funny. It must have existed in lots of variations. I bought one in that style (though the wire arrangement is simplified) at a vintage fleamarket in the UK sometime in the 90s but in the end didn't fit it because our (50s) coat racks out in the hall are quite different (though based on a wire design too) and offer more room to hang stuff. It still must be stowed away in some box somewhere. That's the kind of odd objects you can get carried away with.

I know. I was thinking of the R&B bit. For want of a more jazz-oriented tome on that subject ... BTW, anybody know of an affordable source for that Teddy Reig autobio?

Got my copy a couple of days ago and am impressed with what I have read so far, but what can I say after all that Jim Sangrey and MG have said? Not much .... Just this ... Though many of the facts are known to collectors he manages to put everything in perspective and ties strings together that have been left separate too often and too long. This book provides the overall picture that deserved to be painted, showing the evolution and continuity of the music to its full extent, INCLUDING all those who were important to the black community and laid out the foundations before the actual term and style of soul jazz really came up. Wherever you look up the book, the capsule bios and references to artists and tunes along the way make you want to (re-)explore them in various directions. Not the worst thing for a writer to have accomplished ... Actually, its broad outlook did not come as something quite as new to me as I had figured after reading earlier comments. The details and narrative may be different but the overall approach of including the "forefathers" and giving them their due reminds me of Arnold Shaw's "The World of Soul" first published in 1970. I read its German edition in the early 80s and appreciated the book above all for its presentation of 50s R&B: The book is about halfway through until the first major building stone of soul music proper - Motown - comes up for the first time. And this does not appear incongruous at all. As for who surprisingly isn't mentioned: Judging by the index, one omission left me puzzled: No mention of Big John Greer? Hmmm ... And about organists, was Hank Jacobs too much of a minor player to be mentioned even among the also-rans? But these are minor quibbles. As for the book not containing enough about record producers, DJs, distributors, MG: Time to re-read "Record Makers & Breakers" by John Broven, then?

Neither do I. Fascinating .... Mine is from 1967. Been in the family from new and found its way to my home in 2000. My preferred relaxing chair, obviously, for listening to my music and reading. I had to have most of the leather redone by a Vitra specialist in 2012 but it was well worth it. Those radios shown above are just fantastic. I have a few older sets, though for reasons of overall style of the "rest" of our house most of them are from the (relatively) advanced European school of design of the 50s (Braun, etc.). As for non-music collecting finds of the past year, not much in my "other" collecting hobby - classic cars and some automobilia that go with them (no, I am no Jay Leno, not even by a VERY, VERY long shot - my wife would kill me ), but a couple of nice finds (that might actually go with the radios shown here earlier, style-wise) were these mags on Paris 30s/40s motor shows:

Talking about reviews, no doubt the way the concerts were set up in Zurich was far more sympathetic both to the artists and to the audience - as opposed to the marathon all-star line-up with one group chasing the other - 9 in all - as part of the mammoth package tour elsewhere during the tour. Orkester Journalen had this to say about the Roland Kirk part of the Oct. 3 concert in Stockholm (otherwise labeled a "fantastic jazz gala"): (It was already 2 am when the set PRECEDING Kirk - featuring the Charlie Parker memorial bop All Stars - started and distinct signs of general fatigue both among the audience and the musicians had begun to make themselves felt:) "Well, the public was lucky to have multi-instrumentalist Roland Kirk - who was in fresher shape - blow some fresh life into them when his turn came, though this hardly worked in the case of Clarke whom he took over from the bop group along with Potter. Kirk himself is a phenomenon and it is nice to see he is appreciated by so many. His phrasing is not all that noteworthy but what he does he does well. His appearance on stage is also a nice feast for the eyes. Kirk put a final point to what in a way was the most remarkable jazz evening that I (the reviewer) have witnessed in Sweden."

This reminds me of the changes that underwent our national #1 jazz scribe, "jazz pope" Joachim Ernst Berendt - only that his engagement with life later on turned out to be a very special one when he went all esoteric. As for Hentoff, maybe time to revisit the archives of his "Jazz Review" on the Jazz Studies site again?

Knew about the German translation but never saw it (it was OOP by the time I got into jazz) but bought a secondhand copy of the original UK printing in 1998 or so at a London secondhand bookseller - and reading it set the stage in an ideal way for Ira Gitler's "Swing To Bop" oral history that I bought not much later. Both desert-island reading matter.

More or less same here. In much the same way that Ira Gitler did he provided lots of interesting info on the back sleeves. RIP.