Big Beat Steve

He did. See the two preceding posts.

Exactly. Some time ago I listened to his post-war recordings made in Belgium and they do sound quite amplified/electrified to me (and certainly not for the worse ...). Some French sources even describe him as a "fervent adept of the amplified guitar" following his 1946 stay in the USA.

Clearly, having something burnt is a lot easier than setting up some perpetual estate, but quite frankly, if you want it done that badly, burn the stuff yourself before you die. Don't burden your heirs with this stuff and your demands. Let them deal with it as they see fit. Setting up some perpetual estate - yes, that would reek of being a control freak ... but clear instructions that this or that is DEFINITELY to be destroyed after one's' death and is NOT to go anywhere else, regrettable though it may be for others, well, they ought to be respected and fulfilled. Remember you cannot possibly do this in your lifetime because how many are out there who know exactly they have exactly one week or one month to go and then it's definitely going to be over (and in that case you likely will have other, more pressing things to take care of anyway)? So either you will have to start doing it yourself too long before you bow out (which is not what the intention could possibly be) or you will not have enough time (or health/stamina) left to do it yourself. No, look at it any way you want - us outsiders peeking in on what someone else may have that we would oh so much like to enjoy after they're gone, we have no business peeking in there unless we formally are okayed to do so ... Besides, let's not forget the context of the times: In that particular case of Django Reinhardt, even if that tradition of letting one's personal belongings go after the person has gone would not have existed and carried out to that extent, remember that we are talking about a period when Django may have won much acclaim from the general public and society, but the "manouches" at large probably very often still were marginalized in the "majority society" so what incentive could they possibly have had of turning over Django's items to non-"manouche" persons (i.e. "them", not "us") who'd probably make money from it that Django's heirs and family would not have seen much of?

Selmer-Maccaferri, to give the more exact and descriptive name. Not to be confused with other lines that went by the Selmer name. @Greg M: I am not normally one to be too lenient with what comes under the general excuse of "cultural" traditions or peculiarities (particularly since this notion is VERY abused today in many areas of everyday life - yes, highly political, I know ... ) but in cases like the one described in my initial post I still feel it is not for ANYONE outside the community of those who belong to that community to pass judgment. This is a strictly personal and intra-family thing that was and is ONLY for them to decide. I regret that loss of documents of art too but I can understand the basic feelings that may have led to that tradition (if a person goes, he goes entirely) - as opposed to what heirs elsewhere (outside that community with its own traditions) throw out for no good reason at all; after all THESE heirs are not bound by any such tradition and beyond what really may be very personal objects that are for no one else to see they act out of a sheer could'nt-care-less attitude. Now would YOU like to see strangers indiscriminately sniff around your belongings when you bow out? Or assuming that - for whatever reasons - you make a will that specific belongings that you have are not to go anywhere else, would you appreciate it if your heirs do the exact opposite?

Well, who are we to judge about strictly private and personal cases like these that do not affect any third parties or outsiders and do not force anything on these third parties? Remember how much has been thrown away elsewhere ON PURPOSE for much, much more mundane reasons that have got nothing to at all with cultural traditions (however odd these cultural traditions may appear to be). Particularly in the name of "consumerism" long before such a term was even coined. A case in point, starting with non-commercially recorded tapes (potentially comparable to those mentioned in my initial post): All those tapes of live music shows (either radio or TV) that used to exist at most major radio/TV organzations for a long time, only to be erased and/or dumped before any collectors or persons truly interested in the musical contents could lay their hand on them and save them for posterity (e.g. at BBC - ask the English around here ...). Now if the (alleged) public purveyors of culture through the (public) media don't see fit to treat those cultural documents with the respect due, why should any individuals be expected to do so?

According to a lot of reports indeed they did ... In the book "Django Reinhardt - Swing de Paris" they say that a"symbolic guitar" was placed on the coffin to be buried with him. Is this the "symbolic guitar"? At any rate, according to gypsy tradition, the belongings of the deceased would be burnt after his death, and so it happened with Django Reinhardt's belongings too. According to history a lot of privately recorded tapes were burnt along with the other objects, so it would have been surprising if his guitar(s?) had been spared.

It may indeed be an oversimplification (as TTK says) but from my own experience (with my parents - as hinted at earlier and also with other people from that generation) I think you nailed it - particularly when thumbing through old volumes of our own German mazz mag JAZZ PODIUM. "Third Stream" in all its facets (starting with the MJQ - I remember my mother enthusing about their "Fontessa" album) and the entire subject of how to obtain "respectability" for jazz got a lot of room there for quite a few years. OTOH, Lionel Hampton's concerts were blasted as if they were the lowest of lowly gateway to juvenile delinquency (not surprisingly ). This entire aspect of classically trained middle-class people somehow trying to get to grips with jazz is a VERY European thing and probably not comparable to the typical "average" U.S. experience. As far as I can see you are right about the non-presence of "horn-led" jazz (and the presence of a token few piano jazz albums) if artists outside of "Third Stream" were purchased too. Just checked up .. the Swingle Singers album I "inherited" from my mother is "Going Baroque", BTW. In the same batch were George Gruntz' "Jazz Goes Baroque" Vol. 1 and 2, Loussier Vol. 1 and the above-named "Fontessa" by the MJQ (I had bought my own copy of that one long ago by then but here came a DG black label U.S. Atlantic pressing, so who am I to complain? ). The tyical fare of classically-eared middle class people from over here who ventured into jazz. At the time this kind of jazz all sounded extremely odd and sometimes downright gutless to me by my swing, oldtime and bop jazz standards. I then got into the MJQ fairly early on but overall I still cannot warm up much to Loussier and the Swingle Singers are an acquired taste (though I do like the Double Six of Paris' Quincy Jones album, for example). As for Bossa Nova, come to think of it, I think Bossa tunes were also heavily featured on that Austiran radio show I mentioned earlier (I remember that seemingly casual, uninvolved, low-key singing struck me as pretty strange too back then, though lately I've warmed up to Bossa Nova as part of those very 60s-ish sounds too )

Talking about the ubiquitousness of amplification and PA systems and all, maybe musicians can provide some insight on this (related) question: How come nobody feels comfortable playing without monitors on stage anymore even in smaller groups/combos (claiming without monitor they cannot hear what they are playing and/or singing)? Is it that today's PAs overwhelm everything that they would otherwise be hearing of what they are playing? As far as I know, stages for smaller groups had the usual microphones and PA systems for the singer(s), guitar(s) and other amplified instruments way back in the 50s too (though of course smaller amps and speakers etc. than today) but AFAIK monitors were unheard of. A side aspect of loudness too or just different conditioning of the musicians? Just curious ...

Yes, this early exposure to the Swingle Singers occurred in the mid-70s. I did listen ot a lot of jazz radio shows up until the mid-80s or so (at the time there still were many more interesting jazz programs than there are today) and got many inspirations there too, and lots of the records played were ear-openers (in some cases only fulfilled decades later when I finally tracked down the records). As for the context the Swingle Singers were aired in the above radio show at the time, I did a quick Google search and found the theme of the show actually was a Swingle Singers rendition of a piece by Bach, and one of the host's other often-played artists was Leroy Anderson! Yikes ... what company! So now you have the setting ...

I have strange feelings and reminiscences about them from my very early days of jazz (and interest in music at all). My parents had the odd Swingle Singers LP (I think I have inherited the Swinging Bach LP) as part of what they found "respectable" in jazz when (and only when) merged with classical music (yes, MJQ, Gruntz and Loussier were others among the handful of jazz LPs they ever had - typical 60s European target customers of "Third Stream" )). Not what I considered the CORE and ESSENCE of jazz both older and modern in my formative teen years at all, but oh well ... Generation gap, I guess (though my interest in jazz was in the older forms from Day 1). But the more unsettling listening experience around that time was a late Sunday evening radio broadcast which I think was taken over from Austrian radio (the host was Austrian) called "Schlager für Fortgeschrittene" (something like "pop hits for advanced people") that aired an extremely odd mixture of records that sounded to my - then - ears of a 14 to 15-year old teen as if they had been recorded and pressed along the principles of "Yes they do make records like that in spite of what the listeners out there would buy at all". Actually I now and then tuned in to that program because I found the usual radio hit fare rather boring - but on the other hand, THAT ..??) . I cannot recall the programming in detail; it was made of all sorts of 60s/early 70s sophisticated "adult target audience" singing (and if it had not been for the vocals, the dominating instrumental sound patterns of the records would have been more like "elevator music" - to this teen's ears, anyway), but the Swingle Singers recordings were featured regularly, and at the time I found this kind of singing rather disturbing. Not that I had problems warming up to other vocal groups such as Lambert Hendricks & Ross or the Double Six of Paris or others later on, but the Swingles sure struck an odd chord with me and whenever I listen to them today (not often, admittedly) those times in the 70s come up again ....

Or, rather, this:

At any rate, this cover looks VERY much like a later pressing to me, particularly that centered STEREO typeface at the top looks looks VERY 60s-ish (or even 70s).. The original LP number was UJLP 1201 and the cover shown here ... http://www.popsike.com/COLEMAN-HAWKINS-ACCENT-ON-TENOR-SAX-URANIA-UJLP-1201-OG/140651071950.html ... looks much more like a 50s cover. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. Might as well spin the LP later myelf.

Now that wouild be an interesting topic if posted in the "Misc. music" section. Quite a few jazz/R&B etc. cases might come to mind ...

What made me wonder in quite a few of these (and similar ones ...), though: We all grow older and have or develop our own (sometimes age-related) weaknesses (and AFAIK some drawings may have been a way of Robert Crumb psych-treating himself )) but how come these ultra-collectors are SO OFTEN depicted as always being people past middle age and all bald, fuzzy-bearded or ill-shaven, heavily bespectacled (invariably short-sighted), sloppily garbed and bad-teethed nerds that look like they never ever left their record hoarding rooms (or rather, basements), not even to breathe a sniff of fresh air every once in a blue moon? Are they (or us) that bad and removed from the world?? Granted I am getting ahead in years too and my eyesight isn't quite what it used to be in my younger years anymore either, but is it only because I also have been moving around in rockabilly and western swing collecting circles too that fanatic dyed-in-the-wool collectors who are more of the "ducktail greaser, leather jacket and turned-up jeans" or "hawaii shirt and chino trousers" faction are not unknown to me at all? Aren't there any other typical collecting characters but those basement geeks to be caricatured? After all ... depending on what kind of BOP you like to listen to, it can be this ... ... just as much as it can be this ... :g

fair? fare???

Ever since the start of this thread I had waited for SUCH a quip to come up .... "Are we not men? We certainly are NOT Drevo!! "

As for why the original title was mistaken for LANCE A. - easy to explain in my opinion. A topic (ANY topic) about THIS jazz person would have been much more appropriate inside the jazz forum (Artists? Misc. Music? Jazz in Writing?) and not in a multi-topic "non-political" forum outside the actual jazz forum. After all, the minutest trivia of the lives of other jazz personalities are evoked and discussed inside the forum too.

More in the same vein? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-30679108

Now all this hullaballoo has prompted me to pull that album out again (after years ...) and give it a spin. Nice, yes ... totally ... and I can get the groove that this album radiates, but please ... no need IMO to go overboard like that ... it IS nice, but I know from the little I have heard of the Scotts (Shirley and Rhoda), for example, that there is plenty out there that will get open-eared listeners in just as much of an organ-led groove in not such a different vein at all (organ isn't all Jimmy Smith or McDuff or ..., is it?). Harold Land may be more straight-ahead "modern jazzy" here and less gritty, "soul-jazzy" than Jaws in his cooperations with Shirley Scott (MG, what would YOU think?? ) but that should not be the main factor ...

Same here - almost. Must have had it for some 15 years now. Different from the Wiggins date that originally was on the DIG label that I had purchased earlier but a safe bet anyway.

Yes ... like in many countries, which is why it was Bora Rokovic here (see earlier post by Niko) but Borah Minevich in the States.

OK, thanks - I will correct the entry in the book.

Lucky lucky lucky. Lucky indeed .. ... though a belated question (I noticed this thread only now): I pulled out my copy of Bill Birch's "Keeper of the Flame" book, hoping to find photos of that concert, but the text (and picture caption) mentions Larry Gales (b) and Ben Riley (dr) for the 1961 (May) concert of Monk at the FTH. Same musicians as for Monk's 1965 concert at the FTH. Who's right, who's wrong, I wonder?

Klaus Schulz uses the spelling "Drewo" throughout in his "Jazz in Österreich 1920-1960" book and in the liner notes to the Austrian All Stars CD (RST 91549-2), and as an Austrian and expert on Austrian jazz he really ought to know. I'm not going to check my old volumes of JAZZ PODIUM to find additional evidence but I have a feeling "Drevo" is strictly wrong (as for why this happens, ask the record production and artwork people - if they can get away with designing records by "Charley Parker" they can get away with anything, it seems ... ).

Yes that makes sense. At least the "intensity" part of it ...