Big Beat Steve

Wasn't that a major problem with a ton of jazz LPs released through the decades for many, many artists, regardless of location? @Paul Secor: I wouldn't disagree with you about Dootone. The aspect I was getting at was "Was there an opportunity of getting a record out there at all, even if not on PJ"? And still I wonder ... considering the other black Westcoast jazzmen who DID get on record in the 50s - was it maybe also a case of the SOUND the A&R men were after (and horn-led, hard bop-tinged blowing jazz not being their primary aim, certainly not before 1957/58)? Chico Hamilton, The Mastersounds, etc., and even Hampton Hawes (who did get a lot on record) were a bit different after all.

I would not doubt that some of this problem was at work there but to what extent overall? It will probably be for others with more facts on hand or insiders' knowledge to say if the West Coast of the 50s was that much more dominated by race issues than the East Coast of the same period and if the same was true for PJ, in particular (if so, they certainly made amends as the 50s turned into the 60s). Was Chico Hamilton then an alibi black bandleader for them on his numerous leader dates? Or was this a case of the sound they were after (which up to 1957 or so certainly may NOT have been hard bop and its typical exponents)? Like it had been said here before, what about overall recording opportunities there? Naming just one example, what about Dootone, for example? Dootsie Williams was the archetypical black record business entrepreneur, after all, and certainly not one affected by white sensibilities. Among the few jazz albums there, Dexter Gordon recorded for the label as a leader, and so did Carl Perkins, Buddy Collette and Curtis Counce (who all were present on other WCJ sessions on other labels in the 50s as well). Wouldn't Teddy Edwards have fitted right in there on Dootone? Or was this also a "Teddy Edwards thing" that may have led to him being bypassed, for whatever reason (that may have made him less of a choice artist for the record producers)? Just wondering ...

Sales of that book must be picking up fast, it seems. Got mine in October, and it was no. 137.

Well, right in the middle of that period he was with the Brown-Roach Quintet and recorded with them in April, 1954 (including "Sunset Eyes"). So he must have been around and present in some way ...

I agree that this is a good item price but would like to add a word of caution for interested parties OVERSEAS. The seller says he will ship overseas only through eBay's "Global Shipping Program". Basically shipping wrks fast that way but I have no idea how this works in the way it calculates shipping and (presumed) custom costs. I have come across this option several times in items I have bought through eBay and sometimes the rates quoted were just absurd. I remember two cases where I have been able to figure out beforehand from the bulk and size the object (printed matter) amounted to that shipping in a Global Priority Flat Rate envleope would cut the quoted shipping costs to about one half of the price this eBay scheme indicated. I told the sellers so and judging from their replies they had no clue how this scheme worked either but had used it only for convenience. They were happy to go along with my suggested shipping option and things worked out fine and did not take unduly long either. So if anybody from overseas is interested in this - get the shipping quote first and then figure out for yourselves (by comparing with the options listed on the USPS website, for instance) if this sounds reasonable or over the top.

How come that capsule bio above (no doubt picked up somewhere else) does not mention he name as part of the cast in a film that made her name ring a bell with more than one music (and probably movie) fan of a younger generation? She starred opposite ELVIS PRESELY in his second movie LOVING YOU in 1957. It may be a coincidence but this was the movie that came to my mind first when I read the title of this thread, and while admittedly I am no movie history fan (was briefly in my youth but that ebbed away early on) her face and those hairs would not have made that much of an impact on me in those 40s "film noir" movies that I may have seen - there was only ONE Veronica Lake - ever ...

I hear you, and I understand. But isn't my take even odder, then? I came to jazz in the mid-70s, can't even recall what the key early exposure was that got me into jazz, but it definitely was the classic jazz and swing from the 20s to the 40s (so probably those "DIxieland" revival bands had an early impact thought they were quickly forsaken for the real thing) and then got into bebop and other modern jazz up the mid-50s or so pretty fast too. By the time I was 17 I had embraced most of what there was from ODJB via Fats Waller via Basie to Django to Diz/Bird to Sonny Rollins (e.g. "Saxophone Colossus") (speaking of British jazz, BTW, I think the frist British act I ever bought a record of - when I was 16 or so - was Joe Daniels's Hot Shots, though German and other European jazz I explored initially included much more modern artists, but not beyond the 50s either . , ) All historical music even by the mid- to late 70s and something I never could have experienced first hand either. Yet the intense attraction was and still is there. And when I was played the then-current jazz (jazz rock, fusion, European Avantgarde), the gist of my reaction then was "Where's the jazz?" Usual disclaimer about personal tastes too. Those early stylistic preferences have conditioned my jazz leanings and still do so to this day, though the boundaries have expanded (even if not radically ) to include subgenres I did not (yet) get back then. So have I been a moldy fig for the past close to 40 years?

Reading about upcoming jazz gigs on this forum and elsewhere featuring names that are totally unknown to me and that I would not even be able to situate stylistically - even broadly - in fact I have often wondered about who of these would figure AT ALL in some future in-depth history of jazz (that includes more recent decades). We have been discussing minor figures such as Steve White and many other collectors' discoveries within the scope of jazz from the pre-1960 era here but which minor figures from today's jazz would ever find their way into jazz books today, even only with a passing mention? I think all of the earlier posts above contain a bit of truth, but couldn't it also be that jazz from the more recent decades is so fragmented style-wise that it is hard for those who "basically" would be interested in "jazz" to know what they're getting at all if they tried some jazz gig by some relatively unknown just on the premise that it is "jazz"? I have a feeling this is particularly true for Europe (certainly not just the UK and maybe even for the USA)? Maybe the fact that there are so many totally different streams being lumped in under the general header of "jazz" makes it unrealistic to expect all of the niche audience of jazz (that is and has alway been small overall) to embrace them all? Like a reputed German jazz collector, writer and reissue producer once remarked to me (referring a.o. to styles that lean towards the "world music" and the experimental ends of the spectrum): "If it cannot be categorized anywhere else it is called "Jazz" today." I mean, look at rock music. Would you expect any rock fan with clear-cut tastes (no matter how wide-ranging they are) to love soft rock, today's Brit pop, grunge, heavy metal all alike (and I am only naming a scant few of the streams within rock)? There never have been many of that sort who like all substyles of "rock" across the ENTIRE spectrum alike and you would not expect there to be, would you? ? And I'd imagine that today's "anything goes" attitude that some hardcore fans and exponents of today's jazz proclaim (up to the assertion that "no, jazz does not have to swing anymore for it to come in under jazz anyway") would strain the tolerance of many other listeners' tastes even more. As for Scandinavian jazz, from all I have read I have a feeling that Swedish jazz underwent a major slump in the 60s (particularly as far as the national audience and live music spots were concerned) but regained some momentum later on. And from the little I have been able to follow there, the various facets of the jazz scene there seem to be fairly stable and vibrant ever since. Same for France and Germany the way jazz developed there from the 70s. And they do have their contemporary local/regional heroes in various styles of jazz, though of course all in all it REMAINS a niche market limited in size.

Good points. Some years ago I bought a copy of Cannonball Adderley's "Somethin' Else" / "47 West 63rd Street, N.Y. 23" pressing, DG vinyl and RVG in the dead wax at the princely sum of 1 euro at the annual clearance sale of a local collectors' record shop. Sure enough, the record is scratchy (some very feelable), scuffed, has some heave "sideswipe" scuffing all through Side 2 but the pops and crackles do not yet overwhelm the music and it plays through fairly well and teh cover is halfway presentable. So at that price I have no reason to complain about such a "period document" that still testifies of the "party action" it apparently saw ... But the past life of some record (orignal 50s pressings 'n all) that cannot be remedied anyway and avoiding further deterioration today are two differnt stories altogether after all ...

Honestly, that's more of less the way I do it. Not about being "familiar at all" but asking very, very politely not to get their fingers on the playing surface, etc. as a measure of protecting the surface etc. However, you have to be clear and act fast (if you need to tell them at all) because once they get their fingerprints on the platter the next one will sneeer at that very record, claiming lack of care for the record, etc. etc. And then there are those who by the way they act must have been into all this for a very long time and YET they seem to have utter trouble coordinating their fingers to get a record out of its inner sleeve (more so if it is just a LITTLE tight). No doubt you know the kind .. those who press their fingers together to "grab" a record (as if in a vise) to get it out of the inner sleeve (as opposed to those who SPREAD their fingers out (octave!!) to hold the record at the center hole and outer rim and nowhere else). Clumsiness revisited ... Quite a bit like those who NEVER seem to manage to get antique books correctly out of their slipcase without tearing its edges. And yes, this does give me the jitters. Not to mention that it keeps baffling me how vinyl can attract hermit-like geeks of the kind who at best cut their fingernails about twice a year (let alone clean them ...) Although records are only a small sideline (duplicates from my collection) at my usual fleamarket stalls that I hold once or twice a year you learn to tell those characters apart pretty fast, particularly since I am far more often on the buying side at those events and always try to treat the objects I inspect with the care I'd expect myself as the owner.

I cringe BIG TIME. I cringe particularly heavily (deep inside, though I have had people tell me they noticed me cringe by the look on my face ) when I see people do this who ought to know MUCH better: Other (self-professed) collectors, deejays, record dealers, etc. In the case of other collectors, as long as it is their LPs they are free to do with their platters as they see fit, like Paul Secor said above (though I don't quite get it why they do it) but it is annoying when it's those who take a closer look at MY surplus LPs I have up for sale at fleamarkets. I tell them politely but in no uncertain terms to NOT TOUCH THOSE GROOVES! (By the look on their faces I often seem to be the first to tell them this in their entire lifetime ...) Hey, after all when they just take a look at the disc it's not theirs yet so they'd better be careful with someone else's goods... (And sometimes I have half a mind to yell at these jerks "If you cannot reach an octave with your hands then DON'T MESS with longplayers!!" ) As for deejays, this seems to be a particularly frequent occurrence. Beats me why when it comes to collectible music or "vinyl only" DJs where the records aren't easily replaced. Even if you can clean fingerprints away you can only go so far ...

Well, sgcim, I cannot be authoritative on that subject because I have heard only a few of his later recordings (and admit that to a degree I am going by "conventional wisdom". Can't say I find his "Return" and "Cooking on All Burners" albums really a letdown (apart from the fact that I dislike Gary Mazzaroppi's bass playing which sometimes crowds out the guitar). He may well have been in a slump in the 60s (maybe during that unrecorded hiatus period?) but IMO if his playing "deteriorated" then it was from an exceedingly high level to a level that still was very, very high, and on a level many other guitarists would have wished to achieve ever. As for that person you cite, are you sure he has the full first-hand picture through several decades? After all Tal Farlow's life after the 50s continued for close to 40 years and he WAS prolific in the recording studios as well as on stage later on so there ought to be enough evidence for everybody to judge by himself. The author of the book by PJC seems to have been close to Tal Farlow too in his later years, BTW, ever since he staged a concert tour for him in the early 80s. And Tal Farlow's dislike for life on the road and large audience settings indeed is stressed repeatedly throughout the book.

Talking about Nocturne: http://jazztimes.com/articles/9065-the-complete-noctourne-recordings-jazz-in-hollywood-series-volume-1-herbie-harper-with-bud-shank-harry-babasin-bob-enevoldsen-virgil-gonsalves-lou-levy-and-jimmy-rowles Jim Sangrey's comments on Steve White had made me curious. Must get a copy of that Nocturne Steve White LP not included in the FS box set (and was unaware of the Fantasy reissue until now), but in fact his Liberty LP was one of the few from the Liberty "Jazz In Hollywood" series I had never been tempted to get (with the best - or worst? - will in the world I just cannot get into most of those "hey I can sing too" jazz musicians' vocalizing from that period). Steve White's Nocturne LP must indeed have sunk pretty fast at the time because DB's review of his Liberty LP starts with calling that Liberty LP his "debut LP" (and goes on to call his vocalizing "extremely ill-advised for just about every reason in the book" ). I have most of the others from that Liberty series and "Sam Songs" is a favorite from this series here, BTW. And, before maybe getting back to a few other statements made here last night, may I add this quote from the above review to maybe tip the scales in the "arranged" bit about WCJ some more? It is conventional wisdom in some circles that West Coast jazz was over-arranged and anemic. You would not think so from hearing these records. For the most part, they have much in common with the Prestige (East Coast) modus operandi of the time: Show up, agree on some tunes and blow. Exceptions are the tight ensemble writing of Paich and John Graas for one of trombonist Harper's quintet dates, the compact charts of Virgil Gonsalves' sextet, and Rogers' quintet writing for the Bud Shank date. Still, ensembles are one thing; improvisation is another. These dates had some of the most unrestrained playing of the period. And certainly Nocturne is all-out WCJ all the way by every yardstick too, right? One of those cases, I'd say, where it is for historians or discographers to bring this aspect back to light just to complete the picture that may have been incomplete at the time (not wanting to fault anybody for anything, but asking those of you forumists who have lwitnessed that period first hand - how many of you were keenly aware of the Nocturne releases back then?)

Don't know if "decline" is the right word to describe TF's doings after the 50s. "Voluntary retirement" or maybe "seclusion" would be more apt, I think. And by all recorded accounts he did not actually decline. Dont know what you expect to find on Costa and Burke. The trio is covered but without going into bios of Costa and Burke themselves. His post-1960 period is covered extensively. BTW, the book was published bilingually from the start and if I get the acknowledgments right it was written in both languages by the author (without subsequent fine-combing, editing and proofreading of the English text by an English native speaker). Though the French/English texts running in parallel sometimes make it a bit confusing picking up where you left off on preceding pages (with the page(s) in between taken up by photographs). Speaking both languages I find myself alternating randomly between both languages and then either repeating or omitting some sections and having to go back and forth to pick up at the right place again (the layout of the French and English-language pages obviously is not the same because the illustrations are there only once, of course, and the space they take up differs from page to page). But that's a minor detail ...

Thanks, Larry. Food for thought ... but I for one wil certainly need time to digest this in full. I remember that final chapter and now that you dwell on it I seem to remember too that it struck me at the time I first read it (in 1994 or 1995) that quite a bit of the essence of that final chapter (probably the statements that you quote) ought to have been stated in the introduction. That said, I agree with what ArtSalt said about the basic intentions of Gioia's book too. And to me this does totally contradict the quotes you highlighted. It may well be, as you say, he avoided elaborating on it because this would have required a different structure for the entire book, but on the other hand it could just as well have been a case of offering the reader the near-full spectrum of "Jazz on the West Coast" (as opposed to WCJ in the stricter sense of the term as used by A/R men and contemporary writers) from that period for the reader to choose which field he'd like to explore more in depth in order to get a fuller picture. This might explain why he did not elaborate on this, and maybe the conclusions that you feel were left pending and unexplored would have required another - sociological - book on the subject anyway. Now, just to get the full picture, and without wanting to take too much of your time, how would you rate Robert Gordon's book on the same subject by comparison? He bases his narrative much more on the surviving recorded evidence of WCJ and may therefore not have faced the dilemma at all that Gioia (acording to your conclusions) may have giotten into when he summarized the conclusions of his own work. Good or bad? Having said and read all this, I am really beginning to regret it (again) that the volume on "West Coast Cool Jazz" that had been announced in "Bebop - The Essential Listening Companion" published in the Third Ear series (Mille Freeman Books) in the 90s did not materialize. Those "Swing" and "Bebop" books could have done with follow-ups!

That "something wrong" attitude seems to be not so rare. I remember such a scene being worked into the plot of some German TV series (focusing a.o. on typical tourists' blunders abroad, including the USA) some 30 years ago. So this experience must have been current then too if it was singled out there. Tipping in restaurants, bars etc. usually is around 10% over here. Which is the commonly existing and accepted average (give or take a scant few percent) across the board of service quality unless it's really lousy in which case I dont feel bad about reducing it. I even tip some when I am in France (less than 10%, given that service is expressly included indeed, but rounding up the total a bit). 20% being the expected (and apparently tacitly enforced) norm sounds pretty hair-raising to me and like ejp626 says, if this is a way for employers sneaking out of paying halfway decent wages (a global problem, the wage level in these professions ...) then, ho hum ...

Hadn't heard of that Tal Farlow book (by Guy Littler-Jones) before (seems like it is not distributed through the usual worldwide channels ...) but maybe that was for the better even though you can't go much wrong at $12.95. Last fall I bought the Tal Farlow bio produced by Paris Jazz Corner (author Jean-Luc Katchoura). Excellent in every respect and I haven't regretted shelling out the money (344 pages, limited edition - 1100 copies or so). If this is the one that sgcim's rumours allude to, then I for one would recommend it any time. http://www.amazon.fr/TAL-FARLOW-Parfait-Biographie-Biography/dp/2954962607/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1423050661&sr=8-4&keywords=Tal+Farlow

@Larry Kart: This thread has evolved far too fast for me to catch up so no need to get into every angle, but thanks for getting back to my post yesterday in such detail. And what struck me about Jim Sangrey posts that have accumulated since yesterday (which word my own impressions of the whole subject pretty accurately, FWIW), my basic impression of Ted Gioia's book really was summed by him pretty well too: I got no such impression nor is that what I admire it for. There's no attempt that I can remember to diminish the music of the "West Coast Jazz" music at all. In fact, it is largely spoken of in quite admirable terms. Credit not only given, but quite often enhanced. If you're telling me that this book was written by a guy who was not a fan of, or harbored any beef/agenda against, "West Coast Jazz", I'd have to ask you if we were reading the same book. On a side note, I listened to that West Coast vs East Coast LP on MGM last night that I had mentioned yesterday. Its concept is a bit gimmicky and maybe this reflects in the music but on first listening (and not trying to dissect it) I actually found one or two of the Eastern versions of the tunes played to sound more "Western" than the Western versions. Just my impression, though. I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at when you speak of "redefining the reality of what actually was a part of jazz history". Do you find it "revisionist" to narrow down the scope what is considered as being typical WCJ to heavily arranged or even classically tinged jazz now, or do you find it "revisionist" to expand the scope to include black California artists of the 50s, for example, who may have not been typical "Lighthouse/beachside WCJ" exponents but very much present on the 50s California jazz scene as such? I am all for using contemporary sources as primary sources in exploring history (50s jazz in this case) but to what degree should we let what the period headlines and printed features accessible to posterity splurted out back then dictate our evaluation of that history to the exclusion of most everything else? Couldn't it have been that what had been touted as WCJ then by those who had the muscle to get their stories in print was part and the core of the story but not the full story, and if you looked closer (possibly with the scholarly approach of a dyed-in-the-wool historian, for better or worse) you'd find there was much more, though maybe not making quite the same headlines everywhere - and YET it was there? Isn't this what is done in any other fields of history (including in other areas of jazz history)? Where does historical presentation and evaluation (or "archeology", if you will) end and where does "revisionism" begin? I'd really like to know, because I have no set, "one-approach-fits-all" opinion on this either. You see, one aspect I had mentioned briefly before (because it touches on two of my favorite styles of music from that period) would be this: How come the Lighthouse All Stars did recordings like "Big Boy", "Big Girl", "M.B.B." (More Big Boy) first on Skylark and then on Contemporary? How come these recordings made it into their book? They are all-out sax-led honkers mimicking (in the way whites were apt to do) those honking saxes of black Westcoast R&B acts like Big Jay McNeely. What kind of interaction or influencing was there? No matter how much these recordings were a sort of "fun project" for the Lighthouse All Stars (much like their somewhat later, even fiercer recordings as "Boots Brown & The Blockbusters" on Groove and then RCA), I have a feeling that such tunes might have featured in their live book. Maybe to keep the dancers happy at their live gigs? After all there was some interaction and cross-pollination between black and white musicians in California at that time even in R&B (cf. the integrated band led by drummer Jimmy Wright - often spelled Wrieght). And the audiences at many of those honking R&B concerts often were integrated from the very early 50s too (almost before Alan Freed started his thing on the East Coast) - see that famous photo series by Bob Willoughby as ONE example. This is a minor side aspect of WCJ but it IS an aspect, and doesn't it at least show that WCJ artists did do things that may not have been in the typical WCJ mold yet were part of what they did back then, and wouldn't this be an aspect that would be left for posterity to be covered? It would not change the essence of what is understood to be WCJ but it just might add a little extra to the picture. Would it be "revisionist" to dwell on this now or wouldn't it rather be "reactionary" (or whatever term might fit) NOT to dwell on this now because at the time such cases of breaking down the racial barriers were hushed over in the media and were therefore not perceived widely then?

I did notice and understand that but even if I go by what I have read about that in CONTEMPORARY sources (which may not even have given the full picture) I still feel that more than that WCJ "arranged from A to Z" and "classically tinged" or "emotionless" playing was promoted/marketed/sold under that tag. Besides, some of what has been lumped in with WCJ (including in this thread, understandably) met with stern opposition from those concerned (cf. Gerry Mulligan). So do we concede that if Gerry Mulligan did not want to be seen as part of the WCJ "movement" then we should look elsewhere or do we treat this opposition as a mere footnote in history? I am unsure about this myself but to some degree I think I see his point, e.g. not all that was "cool" in jazz at that time was necessarily WCJ just because it was "cool". It is a difficult subject but to me it is not a matter of confusion. My bottom line is that even what "has stylistically become known as West Coast Jazz" is a wider field than what the key criteria mentioned above would include (particularly if these criteria were to exclude everything else the way it seemed to be the case in some posts here). And this even if Harold Land, Teddy Edwards and others from that part of the spectrum were deliberately excluded (or, if you want, Shelly Manne at his Blackhawk period, too - as opposed to his earlier "Men" which to me are very much WCJ) .

Why not take in the "West Coast vs East Coast" LP on MGM E3390 too, then? Yes I know the fact that this session (much like various preceding "Battle" 10-inchers) was masterminded by Leonard Feather will be grating enough to many to dismiss this outright and consider it unworthy of close listening, but hey (hey, there I said "hey" too! ), the Westcoasters have Enevoldsen and Fagerquist (a.o.) in their lineup! Seriously, I doubt Jim at any time meant to say those East Coasters were carbon copies/duplicates of WCJ in their sound, arrangements, etc. but is Al Cohn (and his surroundings) such a far-fetched example of Eastern jazzmen who did their own (Eastern?) thing apart from Hard Bop that was different but not a million miles away from those WCJ segments that were NOT all "classically influenced" etc.? Why all this insistence on narrowing down the many facets of WCJ to such a narrow excerpt that seems to qualify as the primary "typical" WCJ today? Sorry again for taking this up but this IS puzzling to me, and all credentials aside, may I sum up what baffles me in the following remark just from one forumist to another? Is this really a matter of "Larry Kart's West Coast Jazz is what Larry Kart's West Coast Jazz is and just will not be all of what West Coast Jazz was and, by all recorded evidence, still is?" My sincere apologies if this sounds disrespectful - it really, really is not meant to be, it just baffles me no end coming from your corner of the jazz world. Somehow what Peter Friedman said above both about the necessity of having categories (not to pigeonhole in the narrowest possible way but to establish overall, general references of what an artist works within or how a jazz style functions) but of reappraising the music at the same time within those terms sounds much more down-to-earth to me. So you did not like the WCJ history by Ted Gioia? What is it that you did not like or what do you fault him for? Realy curious to find out ... It's funny - among the many jazz books I have read and hang on to, this is one of not very many (Ira Gitler's " Swing to Bop" is another one) that I find myself pulling out time and again to start reading it again from any chapter that suits my mood and each time I feel like immediately being fully immersed in the subject and find it as fresh as the first time I read it. IMHO he strikes a very nice balance between the background, the overall setting/framework, the life and music of the artists to present the full picture and the whole scope. Gordon's book which focuses more on the recordings and has more of a "record review" slant complements it quite well and brings out the wide range of WCJ nuances too. Not to forget the JWC book by Alain Tercinet published in 1986 or so that also has that "record review" angle but covers an incredibly wide range of artists and ties a lot of loose ends together, IMO (and it does dwell on East Coast-West Coast comparisons/evaluations, including from the "arranged" and "classically influenced" angle too, BTW). Enough coverage of the subject available, then, that adds insights that became apparent "after the fact". And regardless of the fact that Tercinet's book was published in French, it does have its merits and adds to Gioia and Gordon and if it is off the radar of those who do not speak or read French then this does not invalidate the book or make it irrelevant but rather is the loss of those who don't read French.

I have an original (German Brunswick) of "Byrd in Paris" (aka "The New Donald Byrd Quintet") and a later Brunswick facsimile reissue of "Parisian Thoroughfare" (apparently French-pressed, no trace of "Fresh Sound" anywhere) but I also have both "Jazz In Paris" CDs with the same contents (bought before I was able to get the vinyls, and for some reason not yet sold on - this "old school" listener prefers vinyl if he can but - yes, that's only me...). Will have to do some aural comparison again to freshen up my impressions but even the vinyl reissue sounded quite listenable compared ot the CD JiP reissue when last listened to. So I wonder to what extent the SAM reissue could provide an improvement impossible to pass up compared to the JiP CD reissue (assuming you are NOT in it primarily for the vinyl format) . P.S. First impressions on listening to Parisian Thoroughfare now: On the JiP CD the piano may be a bit more up front and clearer than on the Brunswick facsimile reissue, but not really significantly so IMO. Wonder if the SAM vinyl has the same kind of difference.

Very nice post - thanks, and even as someonoe from a later and geographically removed generation I can totally relate to that. Your final paragraph sums up what I, as a latter-day listener to WCJ, have tried to get at too in my posts here: Take it for what it is, don't try to compare apples with oranges and see what you find in there and proceed from there and ABOVE ALL, don't try to pigeonhole it by narrowing donw its scope to one or two aspects that you may find particularly typical, though other traits may be just as plentiful, or even more so. And your post also makes me realize that maybe the approaches to such styles of music that by now have entered history really do differ if you approach them much later. As someonoe who got into this music about 3 decades after their heyday (on average) I have never warmed up that much to Hard Bop. I do like quite a bit of it but I've always found the contrasts of 40s Bebop and 50s WCJ much more stimulating. Bebop for its intensity and power that always is focused and very much to the point on the one hand (yes, playing times might play a role there, and with Hard Bop "stretching out'" and "rambling on" sometimes are all too close together, at least the way I prefer my music and the more easygoing, relaxed (though IMO no less intense) feeling of a lot of WCJ.

True, but West Coast Jazz is the way the music was peddled in its heyday. Like Chicago style modern jazz (post-Jug, -Jamal, &c.), Detroit style, Philadelphia style, maybe there are consistent or shared features of southern CA jazz of the 1950s that we can call Black CA style. (Did Savoy's Black CA albums ever make it to CD?) 1) Yes this was how it was marketed, but (no, John, I am NOT addressing you ) is this any reason for artifically narrowing down the scope of the music that is perceived as representaitve exponents of WCJ today? Cf. that "classical/arranged" tag which IMHO falls FAR short of describing the entire spectrum (or even the most "coast-"/"beach"-/"sun"-/"California-"-ish examples ) There are moments when I get the impression the predominance of white jazzmen in WCJ still seems to bug later generations of some jazz people so much that they try to narrow WCJ down to that "arranged" etc. aspect. Would this make it easier to give it short shrift? Why not just take the music the way it is and for what it is within the entire scope of jazz? If you like it - fine, if you don't like it - fine too (nobody will like each and every style of jazz or all artists alike), but don't dismiss it just because the "WCJ" lable is sttached to it. Isn't there room for every style? Beats me why so many other jazz styles get so much advance bonus whereas WCJ often seems to get an advance malus whenever these jazz styles are discussed. Does the thorn of commercial success (however fleeting it was) achieved back then still sit that deep today after that many decades with many who (however inappropriately) feel that other musicians from other coasts or regions would have merited that success more? Or is "Crow Jim" at work there somewhere even today? 2) I'd bet there certainly are consistent features of Southern CA jazz that could be refered to as black CA jazz, but wouldn't that be just as heterogeneous if you stir deeper? If you take, say, the 1947 Pasadena Civic or Shrine concerts as a starting point, then whatever black West Coast jazzmen came afterwards would cover a pretty wide range too. And speaking of the happenings in California's African-American community you probably wouldn't get the whole picture if you totally rule out all the black R&B honkers (yes, horror of horrors to the "seated-audience concert jazz" fraternity, but can they really be dismissed if one tries to get the full jazz-oriented picture of the black community of those days? Weren't the boundaries rather blurred there at times too?). 3) The Black Claifornia albums on Savoy DID make it to CD but only in abbreviated form. Personal experience: After having enjoyed Vol. 1 on vinyl immensely but never having been able to find Vol. 2 anywhere I finally came across a CD copy of Vol. 2, bought it as the second best choice, only to discover it only contained about 2 thirds or 3 quarters of the twofer LP contents. Luckily not long afterwards (mid-90s) I did find a clean copy of the 2-LP set of Vol. 2 and - lucky again - was able to sell the CD almost at once (having Slim Gaillard on it helps if you have collecting friends in swing/R&B circles ).

Word. As for the color barrier, to the best of my knowledge the East Coast studios weren't that much more integrated at that time either. So racial barriers were there everywhere. Another detail that just might shed some light on some other preconceived notions about the "white/black" issue: What was the share of African-Americans among the overall population on the West Coast in the 50s and what was that share on the East Coast in the 50s? (Couldn't find anything conclusive in a quick Google search) BTW, "Central Avenue Sounds" is interesting indeed but IMO it shows the limits of such "oral histories". All of the interviewees have very interesting stories to tell but some of them aren't really the most articulate persons and do not seem to be aware of how to keep a story going but instead ramble on and on. So where do you start doing some careful editing and polishing in the interest of legibility but without sacrificing authenticity? A narrow line, it seems ...