Big Beat Steve

Which seems to explain why many ebay sellers flatly refuse to ship through Media Mail anymore at all. This "you get you you pay for" thing doesn't seem to be understood by all customers.

Scanning on arrival is understood and is all very well but if a shipment gets scanned (which is then indicated in the shipping status update) but then sits there for a week or so before it (apparently) is scanned somewhere else before even making any noticeable progres toward its destination I am wondering what USPS is doing there. Zigzagging across several non-coastal states for about 8 to 10 days (after delivery/pickup/initial scanning in the state of departure) before making it to a coast at all and then - lo and behold - making the overseas trek in not much time at all makes you wonder, and you do indeed ask yourself if maybe the parcel has been fogotten somewhere in Last Gap, Kentucky, or Sawdust Falls, Oklahoma (I am paraphrasing these places from an old Edgar Bergen show I remember ) ...

Same experience here. I've had rather mixed experiences with what USPS does in processing their shipments through various sorting centers during the past 2 years when my purchases from the US have increased considerably (not likely to continue, though, given the current exchange rates ): Most sellers (usually eb..) I bought from provided tracking info and there I've seen it happen more than once that shipments apparently zigzagged from one sorting center to another all across the US (only remotely along a straight line to either coast or, maybe, Florida), sit in one place (or two) in between for a week and then finally get going to the next center or some overseas destination at last. Rather unpredictable because at other times thigs went fairly rapidly. All this at shipping stages when the items had long left the sellers' premises. As for DG, Ive only bought from them once ever so far, and order processing, shipping costs, pre-shipment info, shipping info and tracking data as well as overall shipping times were stellar. And this for a small order from a first-time customer who'd not be that likely to place huge orders every other day.

Same here. If that reissue mateiralizes I will certainly pick up vols. 2 to 4 there.

No doubt Terry Gibbs felt comfortable with Buddy deFranco and played accordingly but Terry Gibbs IMHO was(is?) a superior vibes jazzman in his own right all the time. One of my favorites on that instrument.

Don't tell me there is a "Heino" category in your collection of "Exotica" records, TTK! That late-night party clearout stunt sounds familiar ...

Strange that Heino's name should come up on this forum with its decided U.S. slant. Yes he was BIG as a singer of German pseudo-folk music "schlager" pop for decades (often with decidedly old-fashioned lyrics) but his presence certainly was not limited to the Alpine region(s). Heino always was Heino and a category by himself. I can't say I really hated his records leaning on "German folk music" clichés - we rather tended to dismiss him as laughable in our age group, and as time went by it became clear he apealed mostly to an older audience, i.e. not just the younger fans he had in the early 70s that had grown older along with him but an audience that was decidedly older than that. It was pretty amazing when he all of a sudden started to go all "rock" and appear in leather attire and all that some time ago. Can't say many from my generation took this all too seriously - more a bit like that turnaround Tom Jones did in the late 90s when he suddenly sounded like a whitish James Brown. Though many younger ones apparently found this "new" Heino entertaining enough to go wild at his concerts, including at the no. 1 heavy metal festival at Wacken in Northern Germany here. A most unlikely venue for somebody like him. Never mind that interview linked above cannot be viewed here; I saw in on TV the other day and he probably said more or less the same things there. No matter if you like his current act or not , find it convincing or consider it just like a clever marketing plot - you've got to hand it to him: He does what he feels like doing, doesn't give a d.mn about what the music establishment says or whether he is taken seriously by everybody out there, knowing that he doesn't have to prove a d.mn thing anymore, and he clearly relishes the fact that, by his own statement, he has reduced the avarage age of his audience by 40 years. So in some way what he does now seems to be more sincere (by pop music standards ) than all those artificial "Pop Idol" casting show clones.

I came across this site years ago and haven't looked at it for ages but apparently the layout (prehistoric by website standards) hasn't changed much. The contents are instructive and really a very nice effort by the compilers and will definitely be useful to complete other sources (books etc. and flesh out the picture of the more obscure bands). What I do regret, though, is that the depth of the contents varies enormously and in rather an erratic manner (including some rather imbalanced bios). Both back then and now I've only glanced at various random entries but even there I am a bit puzzled. Just barely glimpsing at the "European bands" section, the entry on the Harry Arnold band is just abysmal! After all this band is VERY well documented in many places and therefore easily researchable, and U.S. compilers certainly ought to be aware of the connection between this band and the "Jazztone Mystery Band", for example, to rate some mentioning. And to readers over here the distinction between "British dance bands" on the one hand and "European dance bands" on the other certainly is mildly amusing. "Splendid isolation" rearing its head again? I may be wrong but I am under the impression the compilers of this site went all out in their attempts at gathering information on pre-swing era bands but sometimes were less zealous with later bands. A bit like Brian Rust in his works? And what also baffles me a little is that the contents are relatively imbalanced when it comes to white AND black bands (what?? No Red Calhoun??). If you include even the sloshiest of white sweet bands you might do well to dig just as deeply into black territory bands, I think. In short, if you use that site as a starting point for further explorations you will be fine.

The Bird is the word?

My jazz book buying has slowed down a bit in recent months but during the past few years there have been numerous moments when I was exactly under the same impression. Following a recent thread about local jazz history books here, my most recent purchase was "The Boston Jazz Chronicles - Faces, Places, and Nightlife 1937-1962" by Richard Vacca. Though one of the main target groups of this book clearly are Bostonians eager to learn about the past of their town in general, as long as real niche subjects such as this can still get published times cannot be THAT bad overall.

I love how you present this as fact, when the reality is that it's one of the sillier things that been said in this thread. I must admit that even I - an inveterate vinyl fan - would definitely not subscribe to this "statement".

As for lip service, I remember having heard more than one story (from a secondhand record dealer with a huge selection of jazz) about how he had received an order from a client to compile him a selection of BLUE NOTE vinyls to go with his hip, trendy, designer/loft apartment he had only recently had refurbished and furnished. Blue Notes displayed like coffee table books for the impressionable visitors of those lofts to marvel at? Combine this with the attraction that "jazz" still seems to hold to some who tend to label under "jazz" quite a variety of music not classifiable anywhere else and you have lots of lip service indeed. "Jazz" still seems to have some mileage left as a label associated with a specific image, but if you try to pin down WHAT kind of jazz (or muisc marketed as jazz) we are ACTUALLY talking about in any given instance, this seems to be getting harder and harder and might well be a reason why those you refer to above tend to shy away.

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 )