Big Beat Steve

Now you REALLY make me feel grumpy and old ...

:tup Another one in a similar vein: The German "one-affirmative-fits-all" phrase best translated literally as "I am with you (on this or that matter)" which is really getting used to death, even way outside any business talks. Why can't they just say "I agree"? I for one would certainly not want each and everyone at random to be (that close) "with me".

Buzz words in general. Getting worse (almost) by the hour, I feel, in the name of impact-making and customer baiting on the one hand and political "correctness" on the other. Speaking of which, just reading Tubby Hayes' bio (about halfway through). Great, but how much of a less trustworthy ("derogatory") term is "journeyman" in connection with a musician and his credentials as used TODAY?

:rofl: :tup

Received my copy of the biography today. Agree with the other forumists - briefly thumbing through the pages, the contents look very impressive and in-depth. I'll be looking forward to devouring it in the sun at the beach!

The person on the right is Mitch Miller I think. He played oebo on the first Bird with strings date. Bird is the one on the left I can't recall Bird ever having had a beard like that in any of the known photos. .. It is just a mustache, since the "goatee" is just the mouthpiece of the saxophone. I wouldn't say Parker sports even a mustache all that often, though I did see some footage of him with a scraggly looking one, nothing quite as luxurious as this... Moustache, beard ... never mind ... we are not talking about a Menjou pencil-thin moustache after all but something rather more substantial, handle-bar like in that drawing. And I did note that goatee-like mouthpiece too (though, again, making the mouthpiece look like a goatee is not something I'd rate as artistic freedom in this context either ...) Honestly, aren't you "picking nits" (of sorts)? ;) Let's face it, when it comes to capturing the essence of an artist (through his physiognomy) with a few deft strokes, this was one of the (much) weaker efforts of DSM and more of an awkward caricature. Maybe what I am saying here goes against the grain of DSM adulators (no, I'd not automaticaly rate you among them - just sayin ... ) but that cover just is very odd if it is supposed to portray Bird.

The person on the right is Mitch Miller I think. He played oebo on the first Bird with strings date. Bird is the one on the left I was referring to the one on the left. The picture that served as teh model for the DSM drawing on the right is familiar too. I know the one on the left is supposed to show Bird but somehow it looks very, very Miller-ish too. I can't recall Bird ever having had a beard like that in any of the known photos. Whereas a slightly trimmed Miller ... Don't know what DSM had ingested when the drew THAT ..

At any rate Bird's face on that DSM cover somehow looks like a caricature of Mitch Miller to me. (Note the beard, for example)

In fact I do understand you and in some places throughout the book i have felt that he leans towards working off a diary with dates, etc. too. And although OF COURSE I have not only never been there but also was born much too late to have been able to be there at all if I had just traveled there I approached the book from a totally different angle and like it just for what it is (to me, anyway): 1) It adds to the documentation of post-war jazz in Britain and fills gaps (stretching beyond the regional aspect of the book), including through its illustrations, that I feel won't be filled elsewhere - particularly since it adds to a lot of ground not covered by Jim Godbolt in HIS history (which I feel is nice for lack of a better one but I find it rather unbalanced and often scratching the surface only) 2) It essentially covers a key period of jazz that I am interested in and therefore avoids turning into a "history" book that purports to cover it all but ends up focusing too much on more recent decades because more recent material is easier available and researchable there and likely sales prospects are better if you feature artists still on "everyone's" minds 3) A strictly personal thing: I like those regional histories that IMHO flesh out the overall picture. Anyone can cover New York, London, as the no. 1 focus points and leave it at that, but ... I for one find lots of interest and merit in regional books on Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Boston, etc. I have bought over the years. Highly subjective, of course, and I would not expect too many others to attach the same kind of importance to those criteria. BTW, I would not consider it "essential" overall either but rather a very good "special interest" book.

Yes, very good. My only grumble is about its very amateurish crummy visual design. It may be about music that's sweet to the ears, but it's an eyesore to look at. I agree that the layout could have been more inspiring (although I certainly would not call it an "eyesore"). And a couple of photographs from the late 50s and 60s are evidently dated incorrectly (the pics clearly are of more recent origin). But on the other hand, how many faults have we seen in professionally edited and published books, and then there were/are those books (not all that rare) on subjects of great interest to us where the layout admittedly is much more exciting and accentuated but the illustrations, repros of ephemera, etc. are that shoddily thrown together that you really regret what a waste of time and printing space all this was because there would have been so much better and varied material available?

Am keeping my fingers crossed my copy will arrive in time .. Received my shipping notice from Amazon today. And while everybody seems to be into plugging books on British jazz right now, well, I would still like to give a thumbs up for the one below. It is not a biography but rather a ("special-interest") documentary but particularly in view of the fact that it is SELF-PUBLISHED I find the book rather amazing. http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/NRB/keeper_of_the_flame.htm http://www.amazon.co.uk/Keeper-Flame-Bill-Birch/dp/0956667007

Another one where I had no idea he was still around. So RIP now - you played a lot fo memorable music on many memorable records.

A keeping my fingers crossed my copy (ordered almost a week ago) will arrive (through amazon.de) before we depart for our holidays next weekend, but so far no shiping notice. I need some meaty beachside reading matter!

"How Are They Making Milk These Days?" Well, that's what my mother asked herself when she visited her uncle and aunt in Steelville, Mo. for a lengthy stay in 1953 (her first and only U.S. trip). The milk sold there in Tetra-Paks (unknown here yet) tasted not bad but so totally unlike any (bottled and - yes - pasteurised indeed) milk known over here that this question kept haunting her every now and then ever since.

Some nice album! Wouldn't have minded stumbling across that one for my collection. Particularly since the Prestige reissue LP of that muisc is one those relatively few that I almost wore out in countless spins through the years ever since I bought the LP at age 16 while still in high school and was immediately fascinated by the entire album.

Are you, in your quest of doing well as a society, willing to extend this protection of "legitimate" property rights to ANYONE involved in the process of creating such "intellectual property", even if only in a partial (but (indispensable) area and - along the lines of what Shakespeare did - not only limited to musical works? Remember this will fast include ANYTHING in the area of "technical writing" too, for example, and there would be no reason why such rights should be relinquished by the authors to the publishers/product companies (or else recordings artists being coerced into recording for a flat fee and no royalties ever would be quite OK too). You are treading in a minefield! Because - by your generalizing yardsticks, ANY line that you draw will be an arbitrary one and open to dispute.

Indeed it appears to be so. Anything marketed anywhere will have to go through the composer/publishing door, and apparently there is no way you can avoid that once you want to get your goods into any sales outlet/distribution channels. I remember an example a friend told me who produces, presses and distributes 45rpm EPs featuring rockabilly (and similar) bands of today, i.e. recent recordings but VERY much a niche product and one that is off the radar of almost anybody in the music and publishing "business". The up-front composer royalties he had to pay to the company that handles this for every record produced and sold was not so negligible for a pressing run of only 500 45s and no more. And this despite the fact that those 45s almost always hold self-penned tunes (written by the singer or some band member). But the REALLY strange thing is that these royalties paid up front do not go straight back to the artists/composers in question but into one huge pot the contents of which are distributed through the entire artists'/composers' spectrum according to some complicated formula which benefits "name" composers/artists disproportionately more. So in the end a good deal of the royalties paid for music recorded by niche artists go - in part - to the big names - and only comparatively little goes back to those indie-produced artists/composers. The small ones subsidizing the big ones! I think the only way you could avoid these composer royalty payments (beyond a token fee if you had a batch of "demo" recordings pressed) was if you really sold your records only at your very own gigs from the trunk of your car or the like but that limits your exposure severely, of course (I know a recent case like that too - in that case the object being an LP with a pressing run of 200 or 250, more of a hobby project, in fact).

Or, third option (why are there always just two "or"s in discussions like this?) - do we do for ourselves what these labels are doing for us? Simple .. because this third option is irrelevant to some (or maybe many) people. "Sorry I don't do downloads, not even payable ones" or "No, I don't use my PC as my main LISTENING source for my music" - does that ring a bell? Some (me included) just don't care for sound files randomly lurking one one's hard drive and the inconvenience of having to shift them around and get them into a playable format on where one prefers to listen to them. Not very many of those P.D. CDs or box sets can be THAT bad in their presentation that they would be worse than a downloaded file that comes with exactly NOTHING for additional information in final form. Quite apart from the fact that "legit" reissues from the majors have been known to exist and be marketed in just as bare-bones, cheapo presentations. And if the bottom line of some of those box sets in the quality/presentation/price tradeoff is OK to some (particularly in countries where they are perfectly legal by the P.D./ copyright expiry laws of those continents) then that's that. People making their own decisions based on THEIR criteria. End of discussion. Pointless of ranting or trying to pass allegedly morally superior (or just plain smart-aleck) "judgment" over and over and over and over again. Dead horses being beaten, you know ...

Very valid points. And probably all too near the truth. Though in a way it is a sign of the times and of THIS forum that the musicians mentioned are for the most part from the 50s onwards. As is probably known to ANY jazz fan worth his salt around here, Count Basie was screwed badly by Dave Kapp when he signed that initial recording contract for Decca in 1936. John Hammond who had been trying to negotiate a contract with Columbia on (by the then standards) much fairer terms was beaten to it by a fast-acting Dave Kapp taking advantage of the not so business-wise Count Basie. Above all that contract included no royalty arrangements whatsoever. Alarmed at the throat-cutting rates that term held Hamnmond tried to obtain a better contract for Basie with Decca but was only successful to a VERY limited extent. Now I have yet to see conclusive proof that Decca and those conglmoerates who have owned the Decca catalog ever since (MCA etc.) have substantially updated those intial contract terms and paid Basie (and his musicians and his estat etc.) the royalties that ought to have been due him for those reissues that have come out evers since. Particularly since, as linked to above, apparently the music from that era would NOT YET be in the public domain by U.S. copyright laws and therefore also ought to offer some royalty protection to the artist. Reason enough for outcries and calls for boycotting buying Decca/MCA stuff because of those unfair terms or just a case of shrugging your shoulders ("you can't do anything about it anyway"), buying anyway and moving on, never mind the (30s, not 50s/60s! ) artists ...? Which would be a stark contrast to what is discussed about 50s artists/recordings where, like Duane set, it would indeed be doubtful too that royalties on nthe umpteenth reissue are actually being paid everywhere. So are the majoros that much better than some of the P.D. labels that take advantage of the 50-year rule in effect in Europe which makes these totally legal products in Europe? (Offering these CDs in the US where strictly speaking they might be illegal is not something to blame the labels for, but rather the U.S. retailers. If you need to complain, take your complaints there, please ...) Actually in this entire reissue field the only really fair royalty project (which was not based on what one was required to but what seemed ethically fair) that I'd know of was what Jonas Bernholm from Sweden did with with his Route 66 label and its subsidiaries throughout the 80s where he always paid the featured artist advance royalties on a basis of a pressing run of 2,000 LPs each (no idea what the eventual average pressing runs of those LPs were) but of course never paid the recording companies a dime. Which strictly speaking made them bootlegs. Many of the featured artists were on record at the time as being extremely grateful to him for those royalty checks because often this was the first time they had seen ANY money from those late 40s/early 50s recordings in a long time or at all ever since the day the might have let themselves be lured/pressed into recording for a flat session fee (Hermann Lubinsky, etc., anyone? )

Your stance is known. It has been regurgitated often enough. Yet there are people out there who prefer a tangible product (where the price/quality balance appears OK to THEM) instead of some audio files lurking on one's hard drive. Not to mention that enough reissues by the majors could be named where fidelity and presentation (or lack of latter) don't look any better than those of many of those PD sets, so ... Your EuroPorn insinuations won't make anybody feel guilty about these sets anymore anyway because - exaggerating only a little - for every PD set that you call that way there is bound to be a JapPorn set (remember: "Not for sale outside Japan" ) and a YankMajorConglomerate deadbeat. So a niche is being filled (that is left stupidly unattended by others) and that's all there is to it. TTK put it well: It doesn't break my heart when perfectly legal reissues may be depriving giant corporations from royalties on recordings they don't even know they own. As I wrote in a similar thread, the majors saw the European public domain law coming down the pike, and they could have either preemptively reissued recordings, or worked with the independent labels on producing high quality reissues. I saw some of the former and barely any of the latter.

Thanks - your first paragraph answered what I awas about to reply to Daniel. it just is so that indeed I hapen to have quite a few friends and diehard collectors in the hillbilly/country/Western Swing field and know how much they cherish THEIR favorite music and its history and devour the accompanying liner notes, booklets, discographical details etc. with just as much fervor as we jazz fans do (yes, in a way I see myself in both of these camps so I am a bit partisan about this). If they, in turn, wanted to get an introduction to this or that style of jazz, then, as you say, some of the cheap jazz box sets with skimpy packaging might see them a long way through for a starter. And if jazz is just a minor interest among their entire musical spectrum they might be satisfied with remaining there. Just like many jazz fans are satisfied with more superficial box sets covering THEIR side interests. Still better than not listening in and getting familiarized at all IMO. In the long run you cannot absorb everything with the same kind of intensity. I agree with your final paragraph. Aside from financial aspects where you just are not willing to pay big/full price for what is a musical "side interest" to you (see my earlier post), this ... "The Carmen McRae set had several of her Bethlehem albums which are now OOP on CD. Sure I could track them down and buy them individually as used CDs, but then the singer's estate receives no royalties from used CD sales either. And when might the Bethlehem CDs be reissued again in the current music market?" is exactly the core of the problem. You have no other way of finding the music you are interested in in any other reasonable way or with reasonable outlay so you take this option which is about the only feasible one remaining. And at this point I must add one thing (not aimed at you, mind you ... ): When this "no other way of finding the music you are interested in" argument comes up, somehow some of the retorts that are bound to come up in response sound very much like "Too bad for you if you weren't around to buy that record new in a record shop at $2.98 in 1959" or "Too bad for you if you cannot outbid the Japanese/Korean/whatever pay-any-price-for-any-record speculators on the auction sites" or "Too bad if you haven't subscribed to all the Japanese reissues that go OOP after 4 weeks"... Not statements to be taken seriously, these ... honestly ... Going by the laws applicable HERE, Public Domain is Public Domain and that's that if a P.D. product does exist. The rest is just a matter of whether the price/packaging/fidelity tradeoff suits you or not. BTW, that Bill Haley accordeonist who had you intrigued was Johnny Grande. A nice chap who died not long ago. Saw him a couple of times on stage with the revived Bill Haley band of the past 2 decades featuring the surviving original band members plus a Haley soundalike lead vocalist, and including guitarist Frannie Beecher who will be found as guitarist Francis Beecher in the discographies of some of Benny Goodman's c.1947-49 big band recordings.

On the contrary. Music will be bought secondhand if you want the music but not badly or perfectly enough to pay full price for a new item that is guaranteed to have no ticks, props, crackles, blemishes, sleeve/box/jewel case wear, nothing, never. If you can do with a record/disc that visibly (and in the case of vinyl) audibly has been "enjoyed before" then you will take advantage of the lower price of a secondhand item. Just like with every other kind of goods where the choice betwen these options exists (or between any option of "OK and cheaper" vs "better but more expensive"). Actually, IMHO buying secondhand music illustrates the question of why those cheapo box sets (or individual discs) have a market at all: Just like you might be satisfied with an affordable (or downright cheap) secondhand copy in decent but not perfect condition you might be satisfied with a new (but cheaply produced and cheaply sold) copy in listenable OK fidelity but not ultra-super new re-remastering that would be (sometimes disproportionately) more expensive. Always assuming those cheaper discs relate to material that is in the public domain and we are not talking about a blatant ripoff copy of something that has just been reissued immediately before.

So why do you have these sets, either "beyond jazz" or from Proper? Let me guess ... because they did not figure high enough on your priority list as far as presentation etc. was concerned so that you would necessarily have been willing to buy full price sets/individual CDs, as opposed (maybe - I am taking a wild shot again ) to hard bop or other areas of modern jazz where you'd value presentation (and other content that represents value) much higher. Fine enough and fair enough ... but don't you think there are others to whom music from the 78 rpm era or music from the fringes of jazz (at least fringes of jazz in a HARD BOP sense) woud matter higher and the'yd rather go for the "real deal" there and frown upon box sets like those on Proper whereas they'd be curious enough to listen into hard bop or other areas of jazz covered by those typical P.D. box sets or individual discs but would not be that keen to shell out big money there? Case in point: Why should anybody drool about the Wynonie Harris box set on Proper when all his recordings have been reissued "properly" on Ace and why should it be OK for them to drool about such sets while they condemn Lone Hill reissues (naming just one example) of material from the hard bop segment of jazz at the same time? How likely is it that major, groundbreaking remastering has gone into that Proper set after Harris' recordings had been prepared for reissue in the typical painstaking Ace fashion? (I am mentioning him because he was named among those Proper box sets bought by forumists - probably "as an introduction" - who otherwise leaned towards hard bop etc. in a much earlier discussion of this topic here where the Spanish/Andorran labels came under constant heavy fire whereas some UK labels were cut a surprising LOT of slack). You see, as long as we are talking about music which just happens to be in the Public Domain, in the end it boils down to which area of music you just want 100% perfect in every respect of presentation and which music you just prefer to limit yourself to some bare-bones package, maybe as an introduction, maybe as an "essential listening" package without digging as deeply into it as you would in your CORE area of interest. This entire subject is one where the door swings both ways, really ... BTW, there ARE people out there to whom the music by Chet Atkins and Bill Haley is music with a history (and therefore worthy of liner notes) too. No need to be that condescending, then - that is, unless you acept that there are others (maybe from the Chet Atkins fan field?) to whom "themed" cheapo jazz box sets without liner notes beyond the lineup and recording dates will do perfectly well as an introduction or "essentials collection" too. One man's meat, another man's poison, you know ...

I know Fresh Sound have explicitly concluded deals with a number of original labels/owners for reissuing their material, going back to their LP reissue era (they would not get away legally if their statements to the effect of "released/pressed by agreement with ..." were outright false. That would place them too far on a limb, legally speaking.) A clear case among their CD reissues is the NOCTURNE label box set, for example. As far as I can see these deals don't cover all they reissue so Fresh Sound obviously does take advantage of the European 50-year Public Domain laws but OTOH quite a bit of the swiping, generalizing accusations raised against them and their subsidiaries to me seem to be levied against them by people who think along the lines of "Oh it cannot be that over there they reissue all this stuff that nobody back home has ever reissued. That cannot be and it is not for them to step in and reissue these items at all!"

Good to know, Jcam. Probably not worth it, then, for those 1 or 2 otherwise rare discs.