Big Beat Steve

A minor point but what struck me about the picture above is the typical look of the spines in his record racks. Looks very much like a 70s (and post-70s) album collection. Those albums where the colors/artwork runs right across the spine from the front to the back cover (often as part of gatefold covers), and all this in typical 70s U.S. pressing cardboard covers that got ring-worn, dinged and flaky round the edges pretty fast. I remember a lot of the (comparatively modest) record collections of my 70s buddies (who were into the then-current bands) looked just as colorful but also just as dinged, worn and flaking as this one - even back then. Quite a difference to the 50s/60s albums (or reissues) where the spines usually are white and the arrays of album spines provide a quite different look.

Yes it's a nice book but I must admit one single protagonist's "conversational" autobiography can wear you out a bit if that protagonist is not THAT consistently articulate (no, I DON'T expect an autobiography to be as full of wit and entertainment as Terry Gibbs' "Good Vibes"; for example ). Though I am a huge fan of Basie's music I found this "conversational" style sometimes a bit distracting in the way it apparently has NOT been edited/honed out a bit for printing here because some phrases that Basie seems to like to fall back on make the contents sound a bit vague and repetitive more than once and the story at times just rambles on. And this although the contents MUST have seen some editing - by Mr Murray? - considering how little balance there is between the various phases of Basie's career. While the details of the early years are interesting I was a bit disappointed in the way part of his post-war story was rushed through, as if in an afterthought

Also in the Jazz Masters series, Martin Williams' "Jazz Masters of New Orleans" and Richard Hadlock's "Jazz Masters of the Twenties." Could it be that the "Jazz Masters of the 40s" volume by Ira Gitler is being given short shrift here? Why? I may be biased because this was the first I read from that series (haven't read all of them yet anyway) and this was in my "formative years" so it had an impact but at any rate I Iike to revisit it from time to time, even though some of its findings may not reflect the latest state of the art anymore.B BTW, @Larry Kart: What exactly is it that you find faulty with Gunther Schuller's "The Swing Era", apart from the fact that he doesn't seem to appreaciate Art Tatum correctly, as you say? Really curious ...

Don't have the BN one, but had the Verve one given to me for x-mas and while it's certainly not a thrilling read or anything, I find it quite interesting, regarding the entire story of JATP, Clef, Norgran etc. The Granz book might be a better read, who knows, but the photos and stuff in the Verve book is pretty amazing, too - and different from BN, there were so many Verve covers around (so much stuff got re-packaged and re-compiled) that I really feel like I don't even know half of 'em. "I want to fight against racism, to give listeners a good product, and to earn money from good music." Fair enough, I'd think. I have both (though I am only partially through the books by now), and I think they complement each other well. I agree that the Verve coffee-table book is not the best read in the world but it is quite OK anyway IMO. I have seen others that were written much more badly yet had much higher pretenses. The capsule bios in the Verve book are quite OK for the primary target audience, and the illustrations (and their layout) and sheer amount of data are stimulating enough, though I would have appreciated a bit more detail on the often-overlooked artists (who also were part of the Verve LABLE history) outside the trodden paths of the biggies but then I suppose you could not have marketed that book that easily to the more casual listeners who have a handful of Ella and Oscar records and now want to get something to look at while listening ... As for the Granz bio, I agree about the fair enough "making money from a good cause" angle, and in the way he acted on numerous occasions Granz certainly proved that he did stand up for the rights of the artists he worked with. Remember the times most of this took place in. Like or face it or not, but from today's state of society a lot of this was the "dark age" and those who did not live through those times sometimes are a bit rash in faulting people like Granz for not going farther than they did or for not being more radical in their actions. And I have a feeling any bio of Granz by necessity falls short on what it could have accomplished simply due to the fact that Normal Granz went out of his way to destroy documents and evidence from his life and his business so a lot that would have been of immense interested for the evaluation by historians just isn't there anymore. What I don't like about the Verve coffee-table book, though, is that tendency (by THIS author??) to milk over and over again those William Gottlieb photo files at the LOC. The Gottlieb pictures ARE geat but as they have been used before in many cases and are publicly accessible on the LOC site they must be pretty well-known to anyone seriously interested in the music from that era by now, and besides, how many devades of jazz can you illustrate with photos from 1947 exclusively?? IMO this way of rounding up pictures from the same source over and over again is an wasy way out for the author and editor to save them the effort of doing some real searching for views from that era not seen too often before (which no doubt MUST be out there ...).

This must be more or less the equivalent what I don't like about a certain type of books about music usually written by the sociologically inclined ... They've got an agenda and stipulate their "findings" (in accordance with their personal agenda) FIRST and THEN present the facts and evidence in a way that reeks very much like they go out of their way to make that evidence fit their intended "findings". Not very convincing and certainly awkward to read in many cases ...

Well, I would very much like to read the memoirs of "jazz hustler" Teddy Reig (however short they may be) but the copies I have seen were really priced out of this world.

- "Pittsburgh Jazz", John M. Brewer, Jr., Images of America Series - Arcadia Publishing - "New Orleans Jazz - A Family Album", Al Rose, Edmond Souchon, Louisiana State Univ. Press - "Goin' To Kansas City"; Nathan W. Pearson Jr., University of Illinois Press And here's one I just came across while checking some of the books from that Night Lights site (thanks for that list! Some interesting items new to me!) linked in the starting post: Minneapolis/St. Paul: - "Joined at the Hip: A History of Jazz in the Twin Cities", Jay Goetting, Minnesota Historical Society Press

I'm planning to get this one along with the next round of Uptowns (have 1 or 2 others where a decently priced source has so far been lacking).

Anyway, thanks to the thread starter for reminding everyone of this Tampa album. Had lined up the Rogers/Pepper "Popo" album on Xanadu for some listening and will now add the Tampa LP too.

Yes in a way you seem to be right. Those book threads I have now found in a Google search related to specific subcategories of jazz or authors, and the only generic "book recommendation" thread I was able to find is one on blues books. Surprising ... So a more general recommendation thread seems to be overdue indeed. Though it would probably run the course of many "favorite xxx instrument musician" recommendation threads: Pretty soon most every book would be mentioned by someone somewhere at least once as being a recommended read

This one here is interesting, but personally, I'd rather read about the good books. I could always use some guidance. Why not both together? Though, of course, opinions do differ, and some may definitely appreciate a book that is blasted by others. There are moments when I almost feel like "likes" and "dislikes" ought to be classified by assessments by mere readers/music listeners/fans/colectors on the one hand and by "scribes" on the other. Their approaches sometimes differ widely and this sometimes also has an impact on what one expects from how a given subject is treated. Not a matter of which one of those divergent approaches is universally better or more suitable, just different angles, I guess ... BTW, I distinctly sem to remember there is at least one lengthy thread about recomended jazz books around here. Not sure how long it has been dormant, though ...

Ok, since we're at it about "Chicago": The book I was primarily thinking of is "Come In and Hear The Truth - Jazz and Race on 52nd Street" by Patrick Burke. Not bad per se, but it took me a long time to gather enough stamina to plow ahead past the 30 or so first pages. It got more acceptable as I read on but yet: This writing style often is fairly dry and lecturingly IMO for that subject, the musical and musico-historical facts are told in a way that makes the jazz listener/fan say "stating the obvious and just scratchign the surface", the facts often are presented in a way that I feel relies a bit too much on secondary instead of on primary (contemporary) sources (though the sources cited show that enough primary sources were used indeed - or is it just a case of scholars citing each other liberally in an "Il scratch your back if you scratch mine" attitude? ), and above all, something that bugs me about quite a few books that approach this subject of music and society where the author obviously has an "agenda" of his own: Somehow a lot of the findings are highlighted such that the "finding" is presented first and the evidence to support this "finding" comes afterweard and appears to have been arranged until it corroborates the findings by all means instead of developing the history in detail first and then showing the conclusions that can be drawn from the historical facts - which (to me anyway) comes across as a bit a case of '"making the history fit the lessons I want to learn from that history". Not that this must have been intentional or that facts are skewed badly but this writing style makes for somewhat awkward reading.

I beg to disagree (at least somewhat) about the "University" publishing angle. I am not going to toot the horn of the individual books (this thread is about the opposite of that, after all) but I do have quite a few books by the University of Illinois Press and the University of Texas Press publishers which I find quite well to very well done (in some cases even teh definite word on the subject IMHO). Though I must admit there are one or two from the University of Chicago Press that I am a bit ambivalent about (though I would not say they are to be avoided).

I'd agree about the secular aspect too. This is how I understood it form the start. And no, to the best of my knowledge there indeed weren't many live R&B vocal group recordings "made" at the time at all. I've checked a few compilations where I figured something might be on there, but no - "just" single vocalists, instrumentalists, band features. What I figure was meant that it is surprising that no privately taped/acetate-cut live "on location" recordings, airshots or other non-official documents of live performances by vocal groups have surfaced in the decades since. An interesting field to plow, anyway ... BTW, do movie appearances of doo-wop groups in front of "live" audiences count, and are the Treniers a "vocal" group (in a way)?

Thanks. Will get on my "To do" list.

Crow Jim at work? Little doubt that happened too.

What are you getting at? At the pet word used by Down Beat reviewers when it came to putting down a record, particularly if non-U.S.: "DERIVATIVE"? Well, which U.S. records apart from the top and groundbreaking ones weren't too , strictly speaking, when playing in a given idiom and within a given substyle of music (here: jazz)? They all build on the influences/models that other people/forerunners have had on them. And in case this wasn't the case anymore in later decades when jazz started branching out in all directions and working in all sorts of (non-jazz) influences and more jazzmen acquired a sort of more "individual voice" (but under the umbrella of an "anything goes" atitude within what became to be considered jazz) and if they neverthelesse did not find wider acclaim (even in retrospect from today) then doesn't this raise the question if this "anything goes" approach managed to widen the appeal of jazz with the listening audience at large of if this didn't rather reduce the appeal to an even smaller audience who'd be capable of following this (potentially more demanding) styles of newer jazz?

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.