Big Beat Steve

Read the sequel to this to get a somewhat more balanced picture, if you will and if you care to ...

Thanks! Must have been a Swedish all star get-together. Right away I see Domnérus and Persson among the horn men. Wonder when they broadcasted this on our "Bayern Alpha" TV station. Must have been one of those late-late night specials that you tend to miss.

NOW I know where I had come across his name in the line-up of a record I played not long ago. Thanks for the reminder.

+1

My deepest apologies - really. I am aware of your musical inclinations and certainly did not mean to dismiss YOUR jazz. No offense meant - honestly - what I DID try to do (hence this "generalization" in QUOTATION MARKS) is to describe the reactions to jazz by many non-jazz fans as I unfortunately have encountered them myself time and again. And to make this clear - this "far out weird noises" description (that sums up how THEY'd describe it, not me) would have applied indiscriminately to anything from Bird via high-note big band sounds such as Maynard Ferguson's or their more recent equivalents up to Coltrane (even before his "free" period) and to any other sort of more forceful modern jazz. I.e. what they experienced as "weird" was not necessarily free jazz/avantgarde - quite to the contrary and to my dismay. But that's how it all too often is ... unfortunately ... I have tried some convincing there myself and sometimes have even succeeded, but not by playing them more of what they'd file under "noise" at first hearing but something a LITTLE less alien to them (to give them a chance to adjust their ears gradually instead of forcing a sonic assault on them in one single go the first time around). As for this statement of yours .. These potential new listeners might, in fact, find more subdued or historical forms of jazz limited in sound and not nearly aggressive, bracing, striking or intense enough based on many modern forms of music that include many sounds/approaches that they have listened to - sounds that the free jazz and avant-garde masters have incorporated into their music over the past 50 years. Why the best of these forms remain vibrant, fresh and alive. Because they are still in the process of creation. Often seemingly timeless - but if one's ears are open, the music is there to be heard. This is exactly why you don't give current potential jazz listener's ears the credit they deserve. Many are much more likely (as I was 25 years ago) to be more turned on by current jazz/improv than historical music - let alone by sorry ass recreation of such music. ... I hear you and I'd be the first one to appreciate being proven wrong. And if they get into your favorite style of jazz via that entry route - fine. But how come, then, that everybody is complaining about "jazz" (again: WHICH style of jazz?) being such a dying music form? If sonic experiences overlap to that extent and the kids are all open for this kind of jazz there should be no lack of fresh blood? As for that "sorry ass recreation", well, i won't go into this at length, except that I'm wondering whose ears aren't open enough now (to nuances, anyway). Maybe a generation gap thing? I have been told the younger'uns need utter intensity and extremeness in order to be really stimulated, otherwise they won't be stimulated enough at all. (Which should tie in with your "aggressive and intense enough" statement above ... ).

Maybe that formulaic radio programming of most of your radio stations is to blame in part that people just don't get exposed to anything but the most obvious acts and styles of music? OTOH I hear ever so often from people over here who spend some (holiday) time and travel in the U.S. that they were amazed how they were consistently able to tune in to some radio station (not internet but in their car) that played their favorite music (which in the case of those people is older music off the beaten paths of pop charts, ranging from older styles of jazz to pre-1960s R&B, country or rockabilly, i.e. not some typical oldies/nostalgia Top 40 either). Who ARE these radio stations airing their sounds to?

Like I said - it really is a a subculture/underground/"niche market" but consistently viable enough to keep a number of venues, events and gigs going on a regular basis (though of course you don't get to hear this music every weekend). IMO it is all about giving people a chance to get exposed to that music in a setting that does not frighten them away (such as at more "formal" concerts where any 30-year old would be by far one of the youngest ones and where the atmosphere to the younger ones would be a bit ... er ... "stifling" if you know what I mean ) and creating enough of a stimulus for them to explore the music further on their own, even if slowly and piecemeal.

@Larry Kart/Hot Ptah: I admit I cannot give comprehensive evidence of what effects of the "post-neo-swing" the were on jazz at large in the USA and to what extent they stimulated (or did not stimulate) the demand for jazz there but I can tell you this from over here: Before that neo-swing wave made splashes over here in the mid-90s (with a surprising amount of exposure in (music) mags not normally devoted to any music where you'd promote old masters such as the three Louises - Armstrong, Prima, Jordan, for example), live swing-style jazz OUTSIDE concerts by the remaining heroes from decades gone by really were very much a matter of compratively stiff concert played to a somewhat older seated audiences. Even in long-established clubs with a long tradition of hosting jazz gigs (local/regional bands but also touring artists/bands) there was hardly ever any dancing room. This changed markedly from, say, the mid-90s. (BTW, I doubt that concert by legend Benny Waters I attended here in 1997 would have attracted THAT many younger listeners if the neo-swing craze hadn't already been going on. ) And even after that neo-swing fad ebbed off things calmed down but a fairly healthy following has remained ever since. It still is very much a niche phenomenon but a stable one, and the share of younger people is really quite large (some of them being even too young to have consciously witnessed all of the mid-90s neo-swing craze, unless they started out really early). We have two local associations that do swing/lindy hop dancing classes and organize concerts as well as special events (such as Frankie Manning tributes - Norma Miller has been over at least twice), And even this is less than what's happening in places like Hamburg or Berlin. For EVERYBODY interested it is fairly easy to search out the venues and gigs where you can listen to swing (and dance to it, of course) - not just events featuring swing bands but also record hops where the DJ plays your records all night long. I've been to quite a few of these, have very occasionally DJed myself, and the music that the audience and dancers pick up on spontaneously is pretty amazing - a lot of stuff they cannot possibly have heard before ever (not nearly all of them are inveterate collectors) but many have asked the DJs "what's this, what's that .." so at least sometimes the curiosity to explore is there and one thing may well lead to another ... And even if this exposure only occasionally gets people to move consciously into other styles of jazz as well, it still is a good thing IMO that THIS style of jazz still has its subculture. And as long as cases like that chap browsing through my swing record crate at a 50s rockabilly festival late last year and enthusing about that Erroll Garner record I had for sale (because he thought "Errol was just great") can still happen I feel that not all hope is lost ... Like I said - easing people into jazz (even if only 1 out of 100 will then venture into any sort of bop or post bop or whatever) instead of alienating them via all too free jazz for a FIRST "jazz experience" is not the worst thing in the world and not something to be sneered at, even if it does not immediately help those avantgarde artists you wish to support. Jazz IS a wide field, stylistically speaking, and like i said here repeatedly, you cannot expect everybody to like every style of jazz to the same degree (I certainly don't either ). But whatever style of jazz those people I have referred to feel attracted to, it STILL is jazz. BTW, IMO all those Nat/Natalie Cole or Bette Midler tune examples cited above were just flashes in the pan compared to the swing subculture I have tried to describe. Here it is NOT a case of some elements of swing creeping into pop charts. Sustaining a subculture of ongoing events and venues that cater to this music and its lovers on a regular (!) basis is QUITE something else. It IS a niche segment of music but I'd BET you a dime many avantgarde/free improvisation musicians would LOVE to have that kind of audience on a regular basis.

Certainly true, overall, but the non-presence of jazz (which again invariably raises the question "WHICH STYLE OF JAZZ are we talking about"?) in the awareness of the music-listening public AT LARGE to a certain degree is of the own making of the jazz "in-crowd" (the self-professed "true jazz fans"). Small wonder many occasional listeners would not venture into jazz places if the only jazz foisted unto them was "far-out weird noises" that they could not relate to at first listening. You cannot expect people to embrace music (which ALWAYS is a matter of very personal TASTE) if you confront them with something radically different they have never been exposed to before instead of EASING them into it and providing them with opportunities to gradually find their way into the music and then let them decide for themselves. Expecting people to expand their cultural horizons when it is just about a night out in a bar is maybe not the best approach for hardcore jazz zealots to make converts. In the 90s certain styles of jazz (yes, Neo-Swing or "Retro Swing" or whatever you would like to call it) was indeed comparatively big and had its following (and some of it is still going on today). And of course the keepers of (self-professed, again) "true" jazz faith had nothing better to do but to blast everything from that corner - too diluted, too much watered-down, not enough art in it, musically dissatisfying, pale imitations, etc. etc. And all this without even bothering to distinguish between what's good (there were/are good bands with quite some originality) and bad (yes, there were/are weak bands, just like eversywhere else - I'd bet avantgarde has its share of "emperor's clothes" cases too if you look closer). OTOH, even if hardcore jazz fans would fault many of these bands for the above in one swipe (which I still feel is unfounded if you do not differentiate) they'd have to admit a lot of what has been played by these bands (and still is, in certain places) is much closer to jazz than a lot of really non-jazz pop music that the general public is exposed to everywhere today. And those who went to live gigs by these bands (and not all of them had been diehard jazz fans before - far from it) certainly knew what a trumpet looked like and would have been able to tell a trumpet, a trombone and the various saxes apart (as well as their sounds). Regardless of whether you'd loathe these bands because, for example, they combined (oh horror!) punk rock influences with big band sax sections and lounge vocals. After all, where's the fundamental difference betwen the influences these band sworked under and the influences from non-jazz at work in some of those "world-music-cum-jazz" projects? One man's meat is another man's poison. Everywhere, all the time ... And at least over here, those neo-swing bands spawned a subculture of fans, listeners, dancers and bands that do keep playing their own variations on a SWING theme. They do listen to the old masters and just as much to current bands playing in that idiom. Can't find much wrong with that. There are MUCH worse stepping stones into other (maybe more advanced) styles of jazz. But if jazz cannot or won't reach out to the straw that might help to keep jazz above water, then ... well ...

Isn't it rather the other way round? There are those out there who flock to what today is being played in the swing idiom, for example (or maybe post-bop or classicist jazz like what Marsalis does - yes, I know, anathema to many!), and enjoy themselves immensely but sure as day and night then there there will be those who invariably will denigrate this as not being worthy of being considered jazz because the music these people (MANY young ones, at least in swing/dancers' circles, mind you!) enjoy is not innovative enough, not enough of real "art", not dignified enough - but rather just plain fun! It is great if there are those out there who find the other (relative) extremes of jazz entertaining, i.e. all-out avantgarde or whatever falls under that tag today. More, much more power to them. But is there anybody connected in any way with the world of jazz who is entitled in ANY way to postulate "ex cathedra" that this (avantgarde, free improvisation, whatever) is the ONLY acceptable type/style of jazz being played TODAY? Like you say, "there should be room for both". So in a first step, maybe the "legitimacy" (a dangerous term - I am not referring to this term as used in classical music, of course) of the ENTIRE spectrum of jazz as really being part of TODAYS' jazz that is still being performed live ought to be confirmed. And in a second step, IMO it wouldn't be such a bad idea if the question of "WHAT jazz are we talking about??" would be clarified first whenever questions/theories such as "jazz doesn't have an audience anymore" come up. Jazz covers such a wide variety of styles that hardly anybody (at least not nearly enough to make up enough of an audience for ALL styles of jazz) can be expected to like and embrace the ENTIRE spectrum equally. And if one style of jazz has more of a following than another style of jazz then the entire premise of such debates would be skewed if this fact weren't taken into consideration from the start. Like Scott says, this exclusive "jazz as high art" thing is the best way to alienate your potential audience. The point Scott makes about nervousness was brought home to me time and again when I tried to sell off duplicates from my LP ollection both at fleamarktes and at 50s-style events (I don't have that much stuff up for sale, but it's about 80 to 90% swing, plus some 50s modern jazz). When I had labeled that box just plain "Jazz" (because to me all of this falls into the category "Jazz" after all) there often were remarks such as "Jazz? Ah no, that's those funny sounds. That's too far out. That's not my kind." and people didn't even browse. So in the end I labeled the box "Swing/Jazz", and THIS had people check out the contents of that box far more often and make purchases.

Right. Outstanding point. I hadn't even considered that particular angle. Music is supposed to be fun. Entertaining. Not some exercise in snottery like a bunch of old rich guys sitting around comparing their excruciatingly banal wine tasting notes. Only to look down their nose at others who simply drink wine without going through all the extremely silly ritualistic contortions before even taking a sip. Yes, what heathens... They'd rather simply drink wine and enjoy their company than sit around looking like a jackass staring at it from all angles, swirling it around in the glass, smelling corks... Jazz really lost its way when its fan base decided it had become a deified art form that had to be worshipped in ceremonial deference. Or that only those with I.Q.'s above 150 need apply. There's no more assured way to turn someone off to your product than to talk down to them as though they are ignorant children. Very good points. Fully agreed. This more or less sums up what i tried to get across by way of concrete examples in my earlier post today. You and I, we may not agree on the exact style(s) of jazz that we find most entertaining but I think we do agree that something went seriously out of balance when those who had the "muscle" (thorugh the media or wherever) tried by all means to elevate jazz to a status if "high art" for "serious", dignified appreciation and ruled out entertainment of the kind that had been the core of jazz up to, say, early post-WWII (and in some areas of jazz even well after that - jump blues! soul jazz! And you CAN jitterbug to bebop ...) as being lowly,, "commercial" and unworthy of remaining at the core of what jazz is (supposed to be) all about.

Spot on. You nailed it. My son (going on 15) is deeply into Heavy Metal ever since he started developing his own musical taste some 2 years ago. Not my cuppa ("too noisy" - yes, I am generalizing) but this scene thrives, has plenty of active and up-and-coming bands and attracts huge audiences (and from what I have so far been able to observe, all in all more peaceful and more sane audiences than, say, the Techno scene where the connection between the music and certain drugs would be a bit too close for comfort - to us as parents, anyway). And strangely, the "old heroes" among Heavy Metal music fans really date back to bands we knew from our youth from the Hard Rock circuit right from the early 70s (Black Sabbath being one main act). And since the "old stuff music" that jokingly comes up at home every now and then when my kid is exposed to my jazz and R&B records, on calculating I was amused to find out that the music of his all-time legends actually is distinctly older than my preferred music was when I got into music at his age. At 15 in 1975 the stars of many of my preferred styles of music had been "current" between 10 and 30 years before whereas quite a few of his big heroes made their biggest splashes some 40 years ago. Now some may say those who are into that music today are again listening only to copycat bands of 70s/80s music but even with the scant few items I have seen and heard there are plenty of bands who add a totally new twist within that style, including e.g. those who play the music on reproductions of medieval instruments, etc. - with songs and lyrics and stage acts to match. Which is about what there is to today's jazz bands playing in the swing style. It exposes a new generation to this music and can serve as an "accessible" entry pass to other artists, either the old masters or maybe more contemporary bands with more modern touches but close ties to swing, bop, etc. and with a distinct audible lineage that new generations of listeners can relatively easily relate to in their phase of being "eased into" jazz. It works in a number of ways. When my wife and me took some swing and lindy hop dancing classes about 2 yearas ago this a.o. had the positive effect that my wife (our common musical interests are 50s rockabilly and rock'n'roll) who has always tolerated my jazz but never could relate to it in a big way - particularly Bird and beyond, of course - now is much more open to jazzmen like Louis Jordan, Fats Waller, Andy Kirk, etc. in that vein and won't flee our music room anymore if Shorty Rogers' "Courts The Count" plays on the hi-fi, for example. Dancing to the music is a good way of finding a new access to a music you so far have not been able to relate to. Now again some may put on their "grumpy old fart" hats and bemoan the fact that whoever presents swing for dancing audiences like this today is again just imitating the 30s bands and is just a copycat. All this on the (false IMHO) premise that everything that could possibly be played in classic jazz and swing (and bebop too?) has already been played and there is nothing (and nothing new, above all) left to be played. A condescending attitude that - honestly - is starting to gall me no end, because these people apparently have never made a COMPREHENSIVE and open-eared (and, should I say, passably sympathetic?) effort to listen closely. Of course the basic framework of those earlier styles of jazz has been around for decades and the pattern has been set, but new angles and new twists, variations on a theme etc. are being added all the time. Would those people deny the Hot Club of San Francisco or the Hot Club of Cowtown (as a "crossover" band in THEIR version of cross-pollination between styles), for example, the right to play their music as jazz and to have it APPRECIATED as jazz just because the Quintette of the HCDF has already been around decades before? Etc. etc. I can understand some may have tired of the older styles and demand something totally new in jazz in order to experience the excitement they are after. But how much REALLY new is there left to be played in jazz or any style of music from a certain point of time anyway? In a way, after a while EVERY combination of sounds has already been played somewhere sometime and even what is recombined then is only a variation of elements that have been around before. The scope of those musical (or maybe not so musical anymore?) sounds that have not been played before would narrow down beyond all reasonable limit and end up in some far-out collage of noises. And besides - talking about Brötzmann being jazz (I consider him part of jazz too, though he and his ilk certainly are not my preferreed cup of tea), who says that whatever screeching on free jazz/avant-garde saxophone that you could possibly screech hasn't already been screeched by now too? So whoever comes after Brötzmann and plays free sax might just as much be labeled an imitator and copycat or clone?? Even in "free improvisation" you have been around the block after a while and will run out of the possible combinations of sounds available that make sense to somebody somewhere.

While these books are no discographies, they should be useful to outline the overall picture and flesh out pure discographical details and provide input for additional research according to your tastes: "The Dance Band Era" by Albert McCarthy "Big Band Almanac" by Leo Walker "The Wonderful Era of the Great Dance Bands" by Leo Walker (plus, obviously, George T. Simon's "The Big Bands", in case this needs to be mentioned at all )

Ha! Excellent! I have had this among my Youtube donwloads for quite a number of years and enjoy it every now and then. Butch Stone is a gas anytime. At the same time I downloaded this (which I had caught in a jazz history program on TV close to 30 years ago but never have found it on LP anywhere so was glad to get it there at last): Pretty much arranged through, but very crisp and driving, and some nice Dave Pell too.

In a way - yes, but apart from the fact it depends on where you draw a line between copying and just "playing in the idiom", if you (not you, Paul, but those who make statements like the one you refer to) exclude from the start all those routes into jazz that will help to EASE people into jazz in an entertaining way (what's wrong about entertainment anyway?) and to provide them with an incentive to venture further into other RELATED fields of jazz step by step and if you insist instead on wagging your finger at your target audience and lecturing them about what they are supposed to like then you should not be too surprised if they turn their backs on you. After all, given the wide field of music and the wide field of tastes, music (including jazz) is a buyer's market, not a seller's market.

Very true, John L. (Just the same here.) The only young people getting a taste for jazz nowadays are the tiny handful who learn about it on music education courses in colleges and universities. And another group: Those who get into jazz from a DANCING angle. From alI I have heard and seeen online and (to a more limited extent) witnessed locally, the subculture of Swing dancing and LIndy Hopping is going strng, including among younger people. I have taken a few classes with my partner in early 2013 and I was among the older ones (sad for me, good for the scene ). Yes I know, many will dismiss that kind of jazz (swing, jump blues etc.) as pure nostalgia, but those dancers do become aware of swing-style jazz and for all I have witnessed they search out the music on CD or via downloads - and bands who play that music for this audience at live gigs ARE around - and one thing may well lead to another and incite them to explore other forms and artists of jazz GRADUALLY and step by step. At least as far as danceable jazz is concerned. No doubt forumist Swingittrev (if he drops by here) wil confirm this because he likely has a much closer experience of this than I have. Obviously those swing dancers are not likely ot embrace "challenging" avantgarde/free styles of jazz outright where what avantgarde fans experience as "challenging" will be experienced as "alienating" by many others. But is avantgarde (or world music free-for-all or whatever) all there can be to the wide field of jazz today, and is being able to enjoy your jazz through dancing - including at concerty featuring those "neo-swing" bands - really too low-brow to many "serious" jazz fans"? Maybe this explains that, as far as OVERALL popularity is concerned? And after all - does this mostly young crowd look like they are not enjoying their jazz? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL28h1SS7qw

I find these theme-specific record covers amusing - up to a point: If it were all about each contributor showing record covers only from HIS OWN collection that match that category - then, OK . Picking a record cover from an internet site - particularly if it is a record the contents of which you could not even stand listening to if you were forced at gunpoint - is not something overly original or even creative, OTOH, particularly since googling such covers is no big deal these days anymore. So you can round up any amount of record covers on any subject just via the internet. Or beyond ... By coincidence, last weekend I had a talk with a colleague from the classic car field who told me (I had been totally unaware of this) that he collects records too and has come 3,500. And what does he collect? Records with cars (any age, any country, any style) on the cover! Never mind (in most cases) the music ... If you were to take the file of his scanned record covers (which he has) you'd be just one step from flooding such a topic to death forever ... And yes - the repetitiveness of what is posted in these threads is a problem too. Which is why I visit those threads hardly anymore either, though I have long been a fan of those record cover art books that were arranged by theme. But to each his own ... Now as for advancing the appreciation of music, I can see that point, but aren't there quite a lot of discussions going on in that field at any time? Or is it about the complaint that people are not appreciating enough of what they are SUPPOSED to appreciate? I guess THIS is difficult to achieve, because tastes do differ. though I can understand the zealousness of those who feel this or that contemporary artist ought be more widely appreciated. But still ... And in this context it is not helpful either if whenever certain artists, records or subcategories in the wide, wide field of jazz are mentioned you can almost set your watch to see how soon the detractors from among the partisans of "jazz as high art" rear their heads and dismiss the music outright as not being substantial/serious/advanced/musically complex/aspiring/challenging etc. (take your pick ..) enough. Not a very constructive attitude either if it is all about getting today's jazz out of the corner of a scant few followers, even if this means EASING people into jazz through something relatively accessible that they can already relate to right from the start.

Well ... is it really just fetichism if one is pleased to find an interesting record from way back at a very good price that allows you to enjoy ALL aspects of the record (inlcuding listening to the music, but not only so), i.e. all the artwork, from the sleeve to the inner sleeve to the label in its original form as originally thought up and intended by those who published that object (record)? I'd agree it is nothing but fetichism if you pay insane top, top, top money (up to 4-digit figures) for an original/first/early pressing just because it is a platter that some geek had in his grimy, grubby hands way back in the 40s/50s/60s. No music can be THAT great if you pay something like 10, 20 or 50 times what a decent later pressing or reissue goes for (particularly if it is a well-produced facsimile reissue that evne gives you a decent reprodution of the orignal artwork). But if you find an original or early pressing at a very good/affordable/low price in spite of what the "market price" would be then why not enthuse and share your enthusiasm with others? And isn't that all that THIS thread is about? @jcam_44: As for obscurity, Chuck has a point but only to a very limited degree. At least as far as collecting goes. If it all were about only going after the big names, big artists, big disks, then a lot of valuable music would be unjustly overlooked and forgotten and history would be all the poorer for it. Besides, a lot of deserving music was unjustly neglected and overlooked back then and therefores is obscure now. 'bout time to resurrect some of it now if you can. Or else you might as well dump all those "Complete Works" box sets by all the major artists because - by that reasoning - why should anybody want or even be be entitled to collecting even the lesser and less successful works or even outright duds (even most major artists have been guilty of some of these)? No doubt a lot of those "obscurities" by obscure artists would be better and more deserving than the duds comited to wax by the major names on a not so good day. Anyway you look at it, this sort if swiping dismissals is a door that ALWAYS swing both ways.

I agree all the way with Jeffcrom, and would ask you, Jeff, to stay around, and keep posting. Please! Yes, this thread IS about antiquarian obsessiveness, and I enjoy it, though I am thousands of miles away from where many of these finds can still be made at all, and yet I am not envious (well, hardly ever ). I don't see any point either about dismissing the joy one experiences in finding an old, original, rare or otherwise desirable (PERSONALLY desirably, or else the one who make the find would pass the item up!) record, particularyl if you are able to find that item at an unbeatable price. This is part of the joy of ANY collecting hobby in ANY field out there. So - sorry, Mr Nessa, I don't quite get your point (or your sore spot) in this discussion either. Like Jeff said, the "Great Finds" title pretty much sums up what one likely would talk and report about here, and rightly so IMHO. And like corto maltese says, the excitement in finding a CD just is not the same. Finding a CD with music you have been looking for is nice and can be a satisfying experience, but unless you are all focused on CD or even newer methods (download etc.) it still remains "second best" to those who still treasure analog media. BESIDES: How come I have not heard this kind of complaints or dismissals in those endless threads about "upgrading" the umpteenth re-re-reissues of this or that CD that had already been around the block a zillion times and YET masses of CD buyers droool about the (alleged) virtues of this or that latest/newest/best/superlative mastering/digitizing etc., although the sonic improvement often is marginal at best on most sound systems? Is it always about the music in THOSE discussions or isn't there some navel-gazing going on too, and isnt it often just a case just being able to say "Hey I got this latest of all latest remastering of this CD and the issue that YOU have is just old hat"? As for it being about the music or not, are finding the music you have been looking for (and finding it at a good price) and finding it on the medium you prefer (here: vinyl) mutually exclusive? So it IS about the music after all, and as for the music being good or not, that is for the respective buyer and for no one else to decide. One man's meat is another man's poison, and certainly it its not for anyone to proclaim that what others are supposed NOT to enjoy.

FWIW, Phineas Newborn was indeed not on the "Rocket 88" session (so the Sun discographies say) but at the time that record hit the shops he recorded with B.B. King (including on King's "She's Dynamite") at the Sun studios and later that year (1951) was on Brenston's follow-up record "Tuckered Out").

Silver didn't single out a specific pianist. Rather he said, in Down Beat in 1956, "I can't stand that faggot-type jazz," by which it was understOOd that he meant the predominant West Coast jazz style of the time. Horace said that, not me. And I was responding to post #69, which brought up what Horace said but got the quote a bit wrong. Talking about depth, if Horace Silve actually said that (referring to "West Coast Jazz" in one swoosh), then this shows a pretty evident lack of depth of musical perception. You certainly can fault SOME West coast Jazz for being "faggoty" - but that entire style? Musicians with open ears and minds ought to have known better. Anyway, by those "angry young men" hard bop standards there must have been "faggot" jazz from other coasts too.

This should not be a point of contention anymore anywhere today anyway. And if it still is with some then everyone else should be entitled to shoud out loud: "Crow Jim!"

This album would let me know that I stand right in front of a cutout/clearance sale bin and drop this right back where I had inadvertently pulled it up from.

Don't tell us this is in the "I WANT TO RE-LIVE MY YOUTH" corner of your record collection!

Bill Grauer, 40, Dies Suddenly, Billboard, December 28, 1963 https://books.google.com/books?id=SwsEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA4&dq=bill%20grauer%20riverside&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q=bill%20grauer%20riverside&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AUUEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&dq=bill%20grauer&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=bill%20grauer&f=false Now, is it "possible" Keepnews was the 'brains' and 'soul' of the operation and he considered Grauer nothing more than a useful hustler? And is it also possible Keepnews rarely spoke of Grauer out of politeness, not egotism? Seems highly unlikely but... Makes you wonder, though, what Billboard, politically correctly (??) tried to hint at by stating "The mistakes he might have made were done with the same boldness he built the firm".