Big Beat Steve

It would be a pity if it went belly up. I have bought quite a few CDs from this series a couple of years ago and found them very nice as they do add to some artists' discographies in a very interesting way.

Are you referring to Savoy 12084 recorded on July 9, Aug 8 and Aug.20, 1956?

People who don't know better will think there are LPs in there, so you're actually very hip with these around. You could even discuss the latest newspaper article about the thrill of collecting old cheap vinyl over a cup of tea. One reason I like my Bear Family boxes (and my not all that numerous Mosaic boxes too). They actually sit on my vinyl racks in between all the vinyl where they belong style-wise or in the A-Z run of leaders' LPs. And in some cases they make nice "section dividers" between the LPs of two different styles of music that are filed separately on the shelves.

Yes, great news about that second box. Though I sincerely hope this box won't duplicate the rest of those early 2000s black Vogue CDs I already have. The first box had a fair share of overlaps with the ones from that series (but was still worth the money) but the more I browse through 50s copies of JAZZ HOT the more I see there is so much out there on that label that has NOT been reissued. So I hope the second box will cover some of that ground ...

Yes, great news about that second box. Though I sincerely hope this box won't duplicate the rest of those early 2000s black Vogue CDs I already have. The first box had a fair share of overlaps with the ones from that series (but was still worth the money) but the more I browse through 50s copies of JAZZ HOT the more I see there is so much out there on that label that has NOT been reissued. So I hope the second box will covber some of that ground ...

Am now into reading this book. VERY interesting and I am devouring it for the subject matter's sake, but ... whew ... heavy stuff and rough going ... this IS scholarly indeed, and there is a lot in there where the musical contents (and the alleged focus on same) really (and unfortunately IMO) get crowded out by an onslaught of academic (or should I say "high-brow"?) prose. And I don't quite buy into the all-out emphasis on religious aspects evoked as the overwhelming motivations throughout when it comes to Panassié's stance on what he considered "real" jazz either. (No definite judgment here yet, just a case of fairly advanced bewilderment ... ) More probably in due course ...

Thanks, Ghost! Saw in the header of the review that a PB version is listed and as it also is on Amazon now I ordered it right away. Looking forward to it!

Might turn political faster than you think ... They say that France's Hollande was mightily p....d off when Belgium launched a commemorative coin in remembrance of the 200th aniversary and they eventually melted it down again. A case of "powers-that-be", I wonder?

Man, I still miss listening to Jazzbeaux on Sat. & Sun. nights on KCSM. The man was as cool as the Purple Groteaux itself! I wish radio still had room for personalities instead of cookie cutter hosts. Was this a latter-day spelling of his nickname? Both the East Coast Jazz Scene LP on Coral and the sheet music published around the same time as well as that "Riding Hood" disc have him als Al JAZZBO Collins.

Maybe it's best just to approach it when one is ready for it without even being aware of the marketing hullaballoo and just take it for what it is? Just like with sooooo many other jazz albums, really ... Maybe a case similar to why some just don't go head over heels for KOB either, for example, just because everyone else says you NEED to go for it ... I literally stumbled across this album in the mid-90s while browsing the racks at MOLE JAZZ in London. The lady behind the counter in the vinyl department upstairs spun records for some jazzical background moods and then up came this live piano LP ... Something, the overall feel, caught my ear and just got me hooked and when I was told what that one was of course my thoughts were "Oh so THAT's the one" (I had heard of that "landmark" LP, of course, but probably had never listened to much from it consciously before). Needless to say I added it to the stack of vinyl I had picked from the bins. At that time I already owned quite a few Erroll Garner records but almost all of them covered the period up to c. 1949, including his 1944 beginnings, the Dials, Savoys and others, but nothing much from his Columbia heyday yet. Maybe not the worst idea to explore a prolific artist somewhat chronologically ...

That's what struck me too. Must be a sort of watermark of his. Can't recall having read this word before, except in expressions such as "rent asunder" (which no doubt has the same linguistic roots). Otherwise - a compelling read, yes ... Have progressed to 1966 and so far I found it hard to put down (though I do not have much leisure to continue with the rest right now).

Yes that's the really bad thing about overemphasising the motivation of what you're supposed to do. And to make matters worse, OF COURSE they want you to be "passionate" about what THEY consider "consider excellent customer service" only as long as this means they can turn a fast sales buck. If they'd be REALLY passionate about providing such "excellent customer service" they'd a) of course replace their customers' defective itmes free of charge (and no questions aked) ALTHOUGH the warranty period has just elapsed, b) not mind one bit if you, their customer, rush into their shop two minutes before closing time with a list as long as your arm of items you immediately need and of course they'd fall all over themselves turning their shelves upside down to fill your order at once, and so on and so on ... Pretty rare, though, that they'll be THAT passionate ...

Nice analogy ... Firmly in the FREE idiom ...

O.K., as another non-native speaker but very interested in language and its nuances too, may I weigh in here? About "awesome". I fully agree with those who find it highly inappropriate in its inflationary use today. So if you seem to have used it often yourself and now wonder about synonyms, just think about it from that angle: Consider the ACTUAL and KEY meaning of "awe" in its original sense and decide for yourself if what you think is "awesome" reallly is that "awe-inspiring" that it TRULY deserves being called that. Are there that many instances in our everyday lives where what we experience holds us that much in awe? Particularly if people make a habit of calling their morning cup of coffee "awesome" just because it tastes good - or their ride to work if for once they have not got stuck in a bad traffic jam but just were able to zip through. See what I mean? If you (not YOU in person - I don't know how you use the word exactly, but the people out there at large) use those superlatives wherever you go and move then it all gets numbed down from over-use. And if you consider everything "awesome" then in the end NOTHING is REALLY "awesome" anymore. So why not just nuance things in your use of the langueage? Is there any shortage of words to express your appreciation, ranging from "nice" to "great" to "excellent" to "marvelous" to "cool" to ... whatever ... ("whatever" HERE meaning any number of other words that aren't really difficult to think of but no point in rattling off Webster's Dictionary ) Now, about "whatever" in the sense you complain about, I see what you mean and sometimes you no doubt are right that it just shows indifference and unwillingness to get into an exchange, but I beg to disgree in your generalization. I can think of a dozen situations where that single-word reply "whatever" sounds more like a CONCLUDING verbal shrugging of shoulders rather meaning something like "We've tried to discuss this and I have tried to make my point and get through to you but you just don't want to listen or to take up that argument to take the discussion further so I have said all I could possibly say. Make of it whatever you want but don't bug me anymore now, will ya?" You see, it's all about nuancing, and sometimes I can understand people who cut things short this way instead of getting too verbose over and over again. I've witnessed it among native speakers in quite a few cases in this sense as the culmination of an exchange which in the end turned out to be fruitless, at least to the one who cut things short with that one-word reply of "whatever". Hope I've been able to get through to you with that ...

Time to spin this record (60s Danish Atlantic pressing). (Yes, Steve R., you and I know we deeply disagree about the overwhelming importance of "free jazz" to jazz OVERALL, but for the record, I always could see the continuity of the music on that record and where it came from in the long line of jazz (unlike that of some other - European, in particular - free exponents). I'll go on record as saying that many other jazz heroes did more for my love of jazz but he WAS a true giant. RIP and I doff my hat.

Bin ganz bei Dir! And I add: "gerne". Has crept into local dialect, likely because of the German diaspora in Zurich. Freaks me out, it's just wrong. "Bitte" is the right word to utter in reply to "thank you". :D Am not quite sure about where "gerne" comes from in this context (though I agree with your feelings about it). If it comes from Germans over in Switzerland then they certainly don't originate from here (SOUTHwestern Germany) but from elsewhere. We would rather say "gern geschehen" ("you're welcome") in some cases (when being thanked for a service rendered, for example). I only use it occasionally in a very pointed manner ("aber gerne!") to emphasise that what I was being thanked for was a natural and easy thing to do ... However, replying with "gerne" to a simple "thank you" in this context sounds very much like Austrian German to me: "Thank you" - "Gerne, Herr Rat - küss die Hand ..." BTW, know that age-old joke about formulaic politeness in Germany? A foreign guest had taken a hotel room high above a downtown street where work was going on on a street construction site, and one morning he woke up from what sounded like a subdued "chuggety-chuggety-chuggety" train sound from that construction site down there. So he opened the window to listen, and sure enough, a row of workers passed along paving stones from the truck to where they were being laid, and between each worker the stones changed hands with an endless stream of "bitte-danke-bitte-danke-bitte-danke ..." :D (My apologies to "non-Germanophonics" for this excursion into another language ...

I'm with you on that one. And most people think it just "famous". Ha! There goes ... See my post of yesterday, 1:51PM. You just meant to say "I agree with you on that one" but want to "side with him" (almost "cuddle up with him"??) at the same time because that implicitly intensifies the notion of agreement, right? Of course this may be allright between members of a common forum such as here, for example , but its's really being used to death these days. Because it levels out any nuancing in how you want to "agree" with someone if it is being used all the time. Like I said, just agreeing with someone is a mile away from "embracing someone in agreement".

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)