Big Beat Steve

Escaped me at the time. It was interesting (and fun) reading it now. BTW, the online edition of a German weekly has a story on Pink Floyd drummer NICK MASON today. Headline: "My drumming is brilliant. Always has been." Any opinions? For each of the more insipid flash-in-the-pan British 60s bands there were dozens of sugary American "boy next door" schmaltzies who could (then) and still can (now) cause similar nightmares to those who like their (pop/rock) music with a bit of substance. Avalon, Clanton, Vinton, Vee, Rydell, plus all the lesser lights, you name them .. About time the British bands blew them off the stages back then and changed the course of pop/rock music for good ...

Talking about records with autographs you picked up, arund the year 2000/2001 I picked up a relatively early Verve pressing of "The Tal Farlow Album" that had Tal Farlow's autograph on the front cover and despite this extra bonus wasn't even priced excessively. And where did I pick it up? At PARIS JAZZ CORNER, of all places - the very same place that recently published the biography of Tal Farlow as their first book venture (great book, BTW).

Sounds fairly appropriate.

(Though no doubt you have googled all this by now) Bent Fabricius Bjerre. Notable among Danish studio and band musicians and jack-of-all-trades in jazz and other circles since the early postwar years. I found his "Alley Cat" (of his Bent Fabric period) rather inane, though. Like a lot of other stuff from that period where somebody who had been around for some time suddely came up with a marketable pop hit after trying all sorts of musical directions. As for the name, Bent is a common first name in Denmark (not unlike English Bernard/Bernie or whatever), so not any stranger than the names of gazillions of American acts overall before, during and after that period. BTW, looking at Atco/Atlantic inner sleeves during that period, have you never wondered about other odd names such as HUTCH DAVIE?

I'm still not too proud to turn down occasional gigs from a retired school teacher, who should probably be arrested each time he plays a woodwind instrument in public. As soon as he reaches for his clarinet, I know he's about to inflict SOTS on the poor, unsuspecting audience. It's pretty difficult to screw that one up, but this 'artiste' makes it sound like Albert Ayler! Mezz Mezzrow and, above all, Ted Lewis come to mind when this sort of quip is being heard.

I agree. (But of course, less information is available about any kind of people/activity a hundred years ago than this year.) MG Of course. But you can keep the imbalance within limits if you make an effort and do not yield to turning a history book into a fanzine for some quick sales. That was my main point.

Ah! Glad to see I haven't come across such books. BTW, even coverage doesn't do it. Importance has to be taken into account. But not to focus on one bit to render the other bits unnoticeable, of course. MG Yes, you are right, even coverage doesn't necessarily do it. But to give you one example in a totally different field (that touched me in my younger days, but not much anymore). Imagine a book about "100 Years of F.A. Cup Finals" where such an even coverage approach is imaginable. A fairly even number of pages for each year's final, right? Each final was as important as next year's in its own day, right, and ought to be so from a historian's perspective too? But how do these bookas look? About 1 page per year at most for the first 30 or 40 or 50 years or so, and for the MOST RECENT years you get 6 or 8 pages PER YEAR in full color and whatnot ... A bit skewed overall ... Or, for example, an imaginary book about the greatest stars of black music of all times. No doubt Charles Brown or Arthur Prysock were BIG in their day but would they be given nearly as much coverage as the most recent chart acts that happen to make the headlines NOW, though it is still unclear if the recent "stars" will be remembered anywhere 5 or 10 years from now? In order to get into such books that cover periods from the past up to the current present you would have to be an undisputed all-time legend if your heyday was, say, 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, whereas it would be sufficient to be a chart flash in the pan (who is long from proving enduring star status) if you are a CURRENT or very recent act. That's what I was alluding to about giving even coverage. "Greatest stars of ALL times" is not necessarily about those who are still considered great stars today after all those decades but about those who were the greatest stars in THEIR respective times. Which might be an aspect relevant to a book on BN too.

Sure, MG, but it all depends on the approach of the publishers. You see, I've come across history books that purported to show the ultimate "100-year history of ... (put in whatever subject comes to mind)", and where, on the face of it, this history ought to give exactly even coverage to each of these 100 years (or at least to each of the 10 decades of that century) but on looking closer you find that the "first" 70 or 80 years are glossed over on the first 30 percent of the book and then the most recent 20 or 30 years take up the other 70 percent of the book, including a large part devoted to whatever the most recent events or stars or celebs are, i.e. those that make headlines TODAY and are what such a books sells for to the superficially interested. Not what somebody interested in the ACTUAL history would want to go for.

Tell them to have a look at any TOP RANK 45. A Google picture search for Top Rank Record Label will yield about a million examples.

Done.

Now THAT sounds like an original way of adapting tunes. Why limit yourself to hearing "King Porter Stomp" played by Westcoast jazz musicians, for example, or Steve Lacy's first recordings for Jaguar? Why not the other way round, for once, too? Cannot recall having heard about them "at the time" (but probaby I just did not pay attention). Time to make up for that oversight.

As per their CD covers (those I own, anyway), I've filed them under "H"?

Just curious: What do you mean, "The BN story isn't that lengthy ..."? What makes up the bulk of the pages of that book, then? Thanks beforehand. Apart from that, anybody got any impression on the following: What is the balance of the contents like between the heyday of BN from its beginnings up to the end of the Lion/Wolff period and today's BN reincarnation with Norah Jones etc.? Where is the emphasis and to what extent? To typical hardcore jazz fans today's BN would only be an afterthought, but to those who would market the BN "brand" today, probably the reverse would be true. Hence my question.

There IS your cover: (and you may well classify Western Swing under a sub-species of jazz, incuding the original recording of that song )

No need to go to Brazil to fill the Q's in such lists if you do not focus on the leader's family name but include the names of the groups referring to the number of group members. Italy, for example, ABOUNDED in quartets and quintets in the 40s, 50s and early 60s that made many pop and sometimes semi-jazz recordings, starting with the Quartetto Cetra Quartetto Radar Quartetto 2+2 Quartetto Enzo Gallo Quattro Caravels Quintetto Fantasia as some of the more notable ones. Not to forget the orchestra of Bruno QUIRINETTA. (But no, speaking of qurtets/quintets, the Quintette du Hot Club de France really ought to be filed under Django Reinhardt and nowhere else. So who'd you pick for X in an A to Z show based on (jazz-oriented) ARTISTS? ;) Why? How about "XYZ" by the great Fatha Hines and his Orchestra? Some instrumentals could never do any harm in between and this one COOKS! Or in a much more modern vein in jazz programming, "Xenobiosis" by Albert Mangelsdorff, "Xibaba" by Donald Byrd or "Xlento" by Hank Mobley.

So nobody's got this?? (or another one by the same man)

Amazing ... considering how very, very PC-ish soooo many discussions run in the US, it is surprising nobody has considered THIS in "bad taste" yet ... What's the point of dragging the deaf into this and making fun of them?

Not such a big surprise, these records. Understandably someone who would have owned such records even after WWII would not have made them too conspicuous, hence the cover-up inside a different record album. If you know a good bookbinder (or are one yourself) you can do a professional job even as a one-off. I've seen examples of such cover-ups e.g. of 3rd Reich items (more recently thrown on the market as "antiques") that survived the 40 years of Communisn in Eastern Germany. But these records themselves have been around in numbers and there was nothing secret about them being pressed that way as they came as part of a book published soon after Hitler's rise to power. Actually I owned that book years ago (it had come as part of the estate of some distant relative who was of adult age in that period) but without the records; and since I did not really fancy keeping that sort of stuff around I sold it off along with the other books of that type long ago. Helped me finance a bit of my own hobby interests so they did do some good after all.

Is it sort of comforting that they don't drown you in an avalanche of the Billy Vaughn sax section? Or that tweeting of Curtis Stigers?

Sure (indeed there ARE many other more interesting works of music to buy), but then you wouldn't be among those who say "You can't do this with (or to) KOB", right?

Maybe THIS is exactly what bugged some? Those who have put KOB on a sky-high pedestal or in a sacred shrine to be worshipped all year round?

Excellent choices to commemorate him. RIP.

Will do - like his contributions to the Basie band, of course. Though he is not totally up to snuff on that "Basie Reunion" LP from the late 50s (but of course that was extremely fast company).

I didn't really get the original KOB for years, not until i'd been listening to Miles for a long time. It's one of the reasons that i rail against the conventional wisdom that it's a great default entry point for introducing people to jazz. At least it wasn't in my experience. My opinion exactly about that "default". I, for example, got into modern jazz more or less chronologically, starting with the 1945 BIrd and Diz recordings and venturing further and further onwards, easing my way in. My first Miles obviously was BIrth of the Cool (which I found totaly logical from the 1st minute) and I had no problems getting into all his Quintet recordings from the Prestige/Debut era (in fact I'd rate some of these recordings in that "space age bachelor pad" corner too, considering in what settings and moods you tend to listen to them), so what could KOB possibly have done for me when it came to "introducing" me to jazz? Not that I don't "get" KOB - I have listened to it time and again, and like others have mentioned here, I also find that lots of its elements crop up elsewhere in the overall "sound of jazz" from a certain stylistic phase in the evolution of jazz so KOB sort of set the "soundtrack" for part of what came later, but because it is so omnipresent and touted wherever you look and go, I never bothered to get myself a copy - knowing well that whenever I actually wanted one, i would be able to get some reissue/pressing in whatever format suited me at an instant's notice - day or night ... Reminds me of a chance encounter with a German jazz pianist this summer (he has records out though I had never heard of him; friends brought him and his wife along to our summer barbecue). Obviously we got into "talking shop" about jazz at length, and eventually we got to how people get into jazz. Sure enough, when I mentioned that I had never bothered to get a copy of KOB for the above reasons he was sort of baffled because KOB had been one of THE key entry points for him (though by his own statements he has wide ranging tastes and I cannot find traces of KOB in the CD of his he gave me, and he must be in his late 40s so by the time he could have gotten into jazz KOB was not "contemporary" anymore either). Totally different strokes, I guess ...

No, why? He came along AFTER Gullin, didn't he? So he is automatically less important? And/or less of a baritone saxophonist? My .... who says he is less important? Do you actually, really expect EVERYBODY here to rattle off the same who's who of baritone saxists of close to 100 years of jazz all alike? Each and everybody names his personal favorites of the styles of jazz he prefers and listens to most intently, not more, not less. There may be lots of deserving musicians who are off the radar to some but it is not always the same musicians that are off the radar (luckily ...). Remember the recommendations that the thread starter asked for always boil down to very personal matters and judgments. It is not (or should not be) about finger wagging of "you MUST listen to this (or that) one or else you are nowhere ..." It is only the SUM of all recommendations that fleshes out the picture. Besides, how many smiles does one have to put up to show the tone of a message? So PLEASE, relax, OK? ... ;)