Big Beat Steve

Not all that surprising, given his early involvement with the Nashville scene (cf. that RCA LPM-2302 LP "After The Riot at Newport" by the Nashvile All Stars from 1960 where he received big billing).

Johnny Griffin was on MANY records by the Joe Morris Orchestra in c.1947-49. And the Joe Morris recordings from 1948 included such notables as Matthew Gee, Elmo Hope, Percy Heath and Philly Joe Jones. Will check and add a more detailed list other jazzmen present on R&B records/hits tonight (unless MG beats me to it with another highly detailed list of his ... )

Not the worst point to make ... In fact,, you got a good point there, IMO. This rehashing and recycling of KOB (and the apparently easy to forecast drooling of the target group about each and every new rehashing job) has also struck me as utterly ridiculous over time. The only objection to make to your statement would be if note-by-note copying is what you would truly call the work of an "artist" or if it isn't rather just a kind of gimmick (KOG?? ). Is this sort of copying truly a form of musical art or is it "just" some kind of musical craft? As for KOB having "turned it into a commodity, an object, which is fair game for any treatment or handling", would this mean, then, that the ultimate level of treating KOB as such a commodity would be reached if it were given the P.D.Q. Bach treatment, for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Q._Bach BTW, anybody care to comment on how the efforts of those KOB coypists would compare with, say, the works of Supersax, for example, when they played Bird's recorded works note by note? Does the scoring of unison or harmonized parts make all the difference? To the best of my knowledge, Supersax never came under fire for copying Bird's solos. But it MIGHT have been shrugged off as a gimmick too. If a musical artist wants to copy Kind of Blue note for note, or play 45 minutes of unaccompanied alto saxophone with no conventional melody or rhythm, or record an unremitting wall of dense sound for 45 minutes which strikes many listeners as sheer cacophony--who are we to pass judgment on their decision to do it? Who are we to say that they can't do it, or shouldn't do it? We may decide as a matter of personal taste that the artist's choice does not speak to us, but I think that is different from questioning the artist's right to produce the art. True, the right to perform such music should not be questioned, but there is another aspect to cases like the examples you mention. For every one who questions the right to play "45 minutes of cacophony" there is another one who holds those "45 minutes of cacophony" in such high esteem that they go around and proselytize up to the point of - AGAIN - negating anybody's right to be unmoved by this sort of thing, up to the point of proclaiming that "anybody who is not struck in awe" by those "45 minutes of cacophony" has not grasped jazz PER SE. Case of many typical discussions revolving around the works of Trane, Coleman, Ayler, Brötzmann et al.,. as you probably know ... BOTH approaches - rejecting the right to perform this music outright as well as refusing the right to reject appreciation of this music - are dead wrong. It would be futile which was first - the hen or the egg - but I have a hunch that if those proselytizers cut back on their missionary zeal that places those "45 minutes of cacophony" on such a high pedestal (within the wide field of jazz that has SO MANY facets anyway that do not all have to be taken in to the same degree by anybody) there certainly would be far fewer who refuse those artists the right to perform such music in the first place.

What I find baffling is that though I did register at AAJ at about the same time I registered at organissimo, I have not had a closer look at AAJ (let along its forums) for at least 6 or 7 years or so, lately (i.e. that past year or so) all of a sudden I keep getting "newsletter" mails from AAJ again (after not having heard from AAJ in any way for many years) touting this and that event or whatever ... Can't be bothered with the kind of activity THEY promote, but I wonder what's going on anyway - somebody digging up some age-old mail address list again?

all the way ...

I'd be prepared to shell out for a copy anyway. Great framework for a book of the subject, MG! A couple of random thoughts: - One link between R&B and jazz that I find important too: Leo Parker. See where you can fit him in. - Some careers might be long ones to describe and fall into several categories. Your list of "later singers" includes Ernie Andrews. I have several 78s by him which place him rather in the "Sepia Sinatra" category, i.e. stylistically and historically earlier rather than later. So ....? - Another key person: Red Saunders. Agreed about the club comedy part. Redd Foxx, Mabley/Markham? After all they sang too.

Very much so.

It's in JSangrey's post BEFORE the one (with the B&R excerpt) you refer to, MG. It's y 14-minute clip of a documentary on women in jazz hosted by Marian McPartland.

When compared to the essence of jazz and related styles of music where personal interpretations and retransformations of the "source material" are what it is all about - certainly. Just imagine somebody in the field of classical music taking an opus of composer X and setting to recording it on the premise of "I feel like playing this in double time throughout" or other radical diversions from the original, wouldn't this be heresy to many hardcore classical music partisans? Or just be treated as a "gimmick" of no artistic value? Of course this is an oversimplification but still ... Too bad you probably don't read German, but the problem of an interpretation of a works straying too far from the original in classical music (which by the standards of jazz would amount to still being a copycat through and through ) is well described here in the section of "Werktreue" ("faithfulness to the orignal"): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28Musik%29 (the English version of this entry unfortunately approaches this subject in a totally different manner).

As you can see, MG, I had not read the entire article yet. Just the beginning and the very end. The discography, then, is an even bigger mess if the entries are presented like that and this recording session is made to look like two. Uncommon for B&R. By the way, MG: Blues & Rhythm started out in early 1985 or so. Could it be that it was BLUES UNLIMITED (of Mike Leadbitter fame) that you did not buy?

No, not really old news. My "collection" of Blues & Rhythm is rather spotty. So - thanks for the link. Makes you wonder if maybe this would be the time to buy another load of back issues from the publishers. B&R is a goldmine of information but the discography to THIS ONE leaves me slightly puzzled: 1) Is that initial LP on that Gateway (?) label really a different recording from the Design LP listed further down the list? Re-recording the same tunes with the same (sometimes provisional? cf. Blues #xxx) titles TWICE? Did they do an aural comparison to establish that these are two different recordings? Really odd ... Hollywood was a budget label with relatively hissy pressing quality (with nice cheesecake cover pics, though) that issued or reissued various R&B and jazz tracks throughout the 50s. I have several of them (some featuring R&B, maybe sometimes retitled à la Crown, some featuring - of all places - SWEDISH jazz recordings). Design was a budget label too so who knows who shifted which masters where ...? 2) That RCA session: The EP should be the one that MG mentioned earlier. The way the LP contents are presented is rather strange, though. The way the personnel and tunes are listed this reads like it is Selby and Barton all the way, with some vocalists comng in here and there. I've listened through the LP yesterday, and unless the backing musicians changed their playing radically the tunes featuring the "Kids" and "Jimmy Sedlar" sound like different sessions and musicians (decidedly white sound, like white cover versions of R&B tunes). Will listen closer again when I get around to it but I have my doubts. I received an excerpt from another discography (Lord??) when inquiring about this Design LP and there the only RCA tracks listed among the Dayton Selby entry are the 4 feature tunes from the LP (which also make up the EP). This sounds more credible to me. Oh yeah, and lest it be overlooked: Dan Kochakian managed to sneak in a colossal blunder in the opening paragraph of that article: Vi (Elvira) Redd never was with the International Sweethearts of Rhythm. That Sweethearts' Vi (for whom "Vi Vigor" was penned) as Vi (Viola) BURNSIDE (as mentioned further down in the article).

Well, since you wondered in that "other" thread what this album is like - am just listening to it right now. I'd say it is rather in the Lockjaw-Shirley Scott bag. A bit more conventional, maybe, and some might argue that the "change of genders" is discernible. Not bad, though.

Some VERY belated input as I had been made aware of this thread only now: There is at least one other LP by him: "The Feminine Sax" - The Dayton Selby Trio featuring WiIlene Barton (Design DLP 37).. recorded some time in the late 50s (so the discographies say). Will have to give it a closer listen again ... According to discographies, four more tracks by Dayton Selby (org) and Willene Barton (ts) were on an RCA Victor LP in 1957. UPDATE: Ha - just checked that RCA Victor LP online, and it is one I actually have: "Teenagers Dance" (Victor LPM 1540, a compilation party-type LP to cash in on the teen r'n'r craze, also featuring studio (?) group obscurities "The Kids" and "Jimmy Sedlar"). Not earth-shaking but a nice document of its times that goes fairly well with the "Big Beat" R'nR of those years. The Selby-Barton tracks come across like the RCA in-house version of Bill Doggett and the "Big Beat" sax blowers like Sam The Man Taylor, Plas Johnson, Al Sears, etc.

No, MG, i did not. So thanks for the hint. I've just taken a look at it - very good ov erview you gave there. Actually, I've got a bit of trivia to add/complete your info (a b it belatedly but maybe it cannot do any harm resurrecting that thread this way ....

No, which one? Seriously, I haven't corrected anything AFTER reading your above post.

Exactly ... What we're seeing here is a permanent form of musical "crossover" before that term became fahionable (as you know, if you listen closely there are a lot of instances where the boundaries between R&B and bebop blurred right from 1945), and you are perfectly right about the "art vs entertainment" aspect. This has been the plight of this segment of jazz for decades. Compared to 1945-55 R&B and bebop, soul jazz is relatively unknown territory to me (and I only have a handful of basic records from that field so far), but a book that tackles the story of post-war R&B and jazz from THAT angle to show how R&B and specific segments of post-war jazz evolved into soul jazz and how things continued from there would be a book I'd really be looking forward to.

Ah yes, in fact it was them I was thinking of when mentioning that second address. I have bought from both in the past but Croco indeed has more to offer than Dame Blanche (though even Crocojazz is much smaller than PJC). And the one who runs the Crocojazz shop (unless the personnel has changed since i last was there a couple of years ago) is a very nice person for a little "shop talk" about matters jazz and collectionitis. Strange that PJC don't give their exact Rue Navarre shop address on their website. This has misled me too.

From what the two of you say, this sounds like a very interesting approach. Post-war R&B has by now been covered in writing quite extensively (though of course there should be room for more) but a history of the more down-to-earth, more danceable, no-frills jazz bands and artists such as the ones named by MG (which are often given short shrift elsewhere) would indeed provide an interesting background to soul jazz (as understood in the stricter sense of the word). Maybe the book ought to be retitled "YES YOU CAN DANCE TO JAZZ - A history of "jazz for partying" in the Black community 1945 to 1975" to make yet more headlines?

Has this ever been scheduled for anything else but a Kindle publication? As for the subject on hand, I am a bit puzzled by the period covered (1945-75). From what time did "Soul Jazz" actually become known as such? 1957? 58? 59? And by when was this no longer the commonly used term to describe this type of jazz? Late 60s? (MG, please advise! ) The reason I am asking is that I wonder about how the subject will be approached if the entire period from 1945 were to be covered in depth. Postwar blues blossoming on all those indie labels? Postwar swing-style jazz turning towards blues and becoming R&B because bebop no longer was "danceable" and "gutsy" enough for the majrotiy of the audience? Bebop unraveling into more R&B-ish jazz again from sometime in the 50s when the "intellectuals "of bebop had gone towards hard bop? Etc. etc. All interesting aspects and something that falls squarely into my key areas of interest in the history of jazz, for example, but how often has this period and subject matter been dealt with in depth before and how often can you approach the subject from YET another angle to come up with something major that is all-new just in setting the stage for the history of "actual" soul jazz as commonly understood? Or would "soul jazz " here be something to describe ALL the gutsier, more apporachable forms of postwar jazz as opposed to more intellectual, artistic, "far out" jazz? Just wondering ...

What typo, MG? BTW - thanks, Trane, for making me check out the PJC website. That Tal Farlow book they have released looks like a beaut - could not help it and ordered it straigthaway (though I have no idea where to put it in an orderly fashion on my overcrowded music bookshelves )

Record shops - as always: Paris Jazz Corner 8 rue de Nancy (10th Arrondiissement) Also: La Dame Blanche 47 rue de la Montagne Sainte Genevieve (5th Arrondissement) (smaller than PJC but worth checking out for records you won't find elsewhere) No idea if the new & secondhand CD sections of the GIBERT JOSEPH book and CD store still are worthwhile but if you want, do an online search fo their shop addresses and stop by if you are nearby. There are more small shops that have jazz sections but you will have to wait for answers from persons living in Paris to see which ones are still worth visiting (I am there much too rarely).

OK, just so straighten things out: My remark about "for sale in japan only" referred to the problem of the status of Japanese (re)issues as such which somehow seems to be glossed over when discussing the status of European (re)issues. Remember that longish discussion about Bethlehem reissues thrown on the market in Japan last spring? I bought only one of them (Hank d'Amico) but lo and behold, the fine print on the back says "Not for sale outside of Japan". How come? What's up? Hard to believe this was the only one that carried that notice. Could it be, just maybe, that by whatever deal Solid Records (who??) negotiated with VMG, this reissue was okayed for the Japanese home market but nowhere else? Or what other reason would there be for such an explicit statement? At least one likely conclusion should be fairly self-explanatory yet I find it strange that no clear-cut explanation seems to have been given here. Uncomfortable discussing this at length because that would group them (and/or their buyers) too close to those oh so bad European reissues and those who buy them? Call it holier than thou, call it double standards, call it whatever you want, but short of a detailed explanation (by whomever) that demonstrates convincingly this kind of reissue is perfectly legal for sale OUTSIDE Japan the gist of the debate of when to complain about bootlegs and when not to complain seems a bit skewed to me. That's all. Now blame me for going off on a different aspect of Japanese reissues that is outside this topic if you will - I will have to admit that (but I can take it ... ) And no, I don't bitch about removing links to what is perceived as being a bootleg by some. I can live with that. But it might be argued that the term "bootleg" might possibly even extend to "items that are off-limits to those who do not buy them ON SITE within the territory where these items are sold legally". As for JOKER, those Italian LPs were all over the place (usually in the budget-priced bins) here throughout the 70s and 80s. In the 70s they did some well-programmed reissue series (Jelly Roll, Bix, and others) but fidelity was so-so (I remember buying an NORK LP on Joker - nothing else available at the time - that was virtually unlistenable due to hiss and distortion that did not come from the condition of the original recordings). In the 80s those JOKER LPs sounded better but most often were bypassed because programming of reissues often was done quite randomly and erratically and records that looked like first-time issues had a fairly cheap look and feel to them and looked more like latter-day "also-ran" recordings by an artist that had somehow been dug out and thrown on the market (many of them live recordings indeed IIRC) but obviously did not figure high on the priority lists of those who wanted to gather the key recordings by a given artist. As we see here, this may be a different matter for completists TODAY but back then and over here the Joker LPs usually were not cnsidered much to write home about. As for the bootleg status, some must have been aware of that aspect back then. I remember attending a Bo Diddley concert in the late 80s where everybody tried to get their LPs signed after the gig, and one friend had brought an Italian LP from one of those reissue compilation series (pretty erratically programmed at that, and with post-50s material at that), and when Bo Diddley saw THAT LP his face took on an utterly displeased look. It took him a while to return that LP and before he did so a roadie stepped up to my friend and asked him where he got that LP - which left my friend in a mild state of shock because of course he was unaware of what this was all about (he probably had bought that LP on a whim just because it was very affordable). He did get it signed but clearly Bo and his entourage made a note of the title, label, etc. to maybe follow up that trail later.

JLH weighed in about that track above. Yes, but ultimately that doesn't tell all that much as far as I can see: Edit: Jonathan, I just saw your comment on this thread, thanks!... I don't know what sources you used for this transfer, but are they that quiet that the Parker samples on the Mosaic website have no discernible background noise?.. ... I found some sound samples online from the Fremeaux Charlie Parker edition, and in particular the "Cool Blues" one does have more top end to the cymbals sound. Also I hear more distortion, probably because they did not work from pristine copies. Thanks. The sources we used were from Mosaic as provided. I won't go into details ... Not taking sides in this debate, just wondering (and being puzzled ...)

And a fair number of Prestige albums were pressed/distributed by Saba in Europe. My copy of Don Patterson's 'Soul happenin'' says, at the bottom; 'Prestige records im Vertrieb der Saba-Schalplatten' etc. MG That was before Mikulski, ZYX and others came in. And probably after Metronome handled the distribution/pressing of Prestige records here. Saba also did some recordings of their own before that line of "Black Forest" recordings became MPS. To sum it up in an oversimplified manner, quite a few 60s SABA recordings/productions are "MPS before there was MPS".

JSngry, you feel concerned? Too bad, that was not my intention. But you know as well as I do that there are others who will jump on the bootleg-complaint bandwagon anytime. No problem if you outlaw links to bootlegs. If forum rules dictate thant, then that#s fine with me. I don't need links to issues like that and can live darn well without them. But overall the situation situation often is more complicated. Just one example: Up to the present time nobody has given a clear-cut and all-encompassing answer to the question of whether ALL of those Japanese reissues (or belated first-time issues) that are touted here whenever a batch of them crops up ACTUALLY and DEFINITELY pay all those artist royalties that others (that are under fire here) do not. And nobody has explained those "For sale in Japan only" fine prints either AFAIK. Though I wonder what they are there for in the first place if they are there at all. And somehow I wonder if this ain't a case of holier than thou, for example. Crying out "Bootleg! Shame!" is easy, but looking at the ENTIRE picture seems to be a bit too much to expect, it seems. As for taking acid trips, I'll leave that to those who feel like they have to indulge in streetwise behavior in every reach of their lives. Not my cuppa. Nuff said. @Clifford Thornton: Valid point. The problem MIGHT go further when it comes to whether the artists benefit or not. See above.