Big Beat Steve

Thanks! It was a shot in the dark but apparently I wasn't far off at all.

Any relation (after phonetic "anglicisation") to big band leader Nat Brandwynne there, I wonder??

Would't have been the first time pieces were written (on whatever subject matter) that started off by saying "this is NOT a parody" when in fact they were. Admittedly that piece read pretty non-satire - BUT: Didn't any of you feel that from the moment the author admitted his "brief and inglorious" association with jazz that this piece COULD only be less than straight? Because .... hey .... nobody who gets published would be dumb enough NOT to notice that THIS statement alone were a blatant invitation to being torn to shreds by the defenders of whatever he attacked in that piece, isn't it? You don't serve your opponents the ammo to shoot you THAT easily on a silver platter .... So ... big deal ... Honestly, as long as others put down other streams of music (including certain facets of jazz) - and they ARE out there and they DO get published - that THEY don't like or for some reason feel of lesser musical worth (by their personal yardsticks ultimately dictated by their own tastes and not by some higher truth) then he can go on about why he can't stand Brötzmann et al. To each his own ... simple as that ... and the caravan passes ....

Who ever said so? But jazz most definitely is not just all "screeching" either. And the entire rest of this debate (and similar ones) ultimately is just a matter of taste. And tastes do differ. Like everywhere else in everyday life too.

Satire or not, is he "putting down jazz" per se or is he putting down certain styles of jazz? Maybe this (misconception IMO) is part of the problem in the first place? Don't tell me you claim that free jazz/avantgarde is the beginning and end (or should I say culmination) of jazz? BTW, this here .... "The band starts a song, but then everything falls apart and the musicians just play whatever they want for as long they can stand it. People take turns noodling around, and once they run out of ideas and have to stop, the audience claps." very, very strangely reminds me of what some jazz insider (musician?) said or wrote about bebop when first being exposed to it in 1945. Can't find the exact wording of it right now (though it's been quoted and printed often). And anybody passably aware of the history of jazz ought to be aware of that quote so if you write something like the above then either it IS a put-on or it uncannily borders on one. And that thing about that "inglorious flirtation with jazz" makes the entire piece reek that much of sour grapes etc. that it is pretty hard not to see it as some sort of attempt at being tongue-in-cheek (never mind if that attempt was successful or not..).

See post no. 13 here:

Ouch ... Album covers that ought to have gone into the "Uuuhh" thread - because those last 2 bring back 70s "memories" (that were thought to have been forgotten forever ) that really make you go "uuhhh" (or "uugghh") now that they are forced back upon you ...

Somehow I have a feeling the effectiveness of THESE products is a bit open to question ...

No 2 without 3 ...

Yeah, rather predictable this was fast going to turn into a soul & funk free-for-all, so here's a little to balance that:

Word. As for the FIRST board; I'd venture at guess there had been interests among the powers-that-be at stake. As for here, things can only turn out better, much better.

Same here too. Anybody is free to listen to and enjoy whatever MOR singalonger they prefer but hey, not all that has a jazz label attached to it strictly for marketing purposes really IS jazz. Nor do they have to be jazz to be listenable to in their own right by those who like to listen to them, particularly because it would speak rather poorly for any artist AND their audience if they could stand on their own feet only on the strength of a "jazz" tag. But THAT is a debate that has been led ages ago, isn't it?

I can top that one: I have never downloaded any music. It's just not for me. I love my vinyl . (Yes, and I appreciate my CDs too)

Maybe it all is a question of whether you embrace what is perceived as a "mainstream trend" or whether you reject it just because it is "mainstream". It evidently was "mainstream" to dress up casually in the 70s (I'd date my musical awareness to age 14 in 1974 ) but pretty soon I found sharp stage dresses to be totally cool (probably because it was "anti-mainstream" then but most definitely because I HATED whatever casual dresses were en vogue in that period - including those around me ... yes, finding casual stuff I really liked to wear wasn't easy for me then ... ). Though I never saw much in "formal dresses" or even tuxedos on stage, band uniforms like they used to have all through the 30s to the early 60s (either Harlem big band outfitss or loud Bill Haley-type jackets) were totally cool to me. Quite a difference to the stage optics of other (usually much longer-haired ) rock musicians who'd obviously looked like they'd been dragged straight out of a trash can (not hygiene-wise but with such an utter lack of taste in what even FIT them ... talk about those shrunk-size T-shirts and lower abdomen-strangulating trousers to begin with, etc. ).

In fact that Basie shirt should pass. I remember a couple of latter-day Art Pepper pics, for example, that just made you feel uncomfortable just by looking at that shirt. Signs of the times ... As for Zoot, he was one of those who came to mind when I wrote my earlier post. A CD of a German concert recording of his dating back to 1958 recently released for the first time contains some mighty fine music. But why oh why did they have to chose a fairly puffy 70s image of his for the cover? Where's the visual link to the music? Why couldn't they have selected an on-stage shot from that very concert?

Thanks, ArtSalt and Captain Howdy, for reminding me that I am not the only one who does pay some attention to the style, looks and "attitude" of the era. I, too, find it fairly depressing, when I purchase music (reissues) from the 50s, for example, and the "art(??)"work directors saw fit to slap some 70s picture of the featured musican on the sleeve. The 70s therefore were a pretty depressing period when it came to buying reissues. That thing about late 60s and 70s hippy flares, etc. and utterly badly fitting jackets and shirts seen on musicians who had already been around and made a (visual) name for themselves made matters even worse. That era just WAS bad, even when it wasn't about casual attire at all (and even if you DID wear a casual outfit then that T-shirt likely looked like it was 3 sizes too small on you) ... Some may call all this superficial, but hey, if you have a choice between the visual impact of some really sharply dressed zoot suiter or mid-century cool musician who LIVES and RADIATES the music he plays (if only to bring up an image of the setting where that music thrived - e.g. Harlem ballrooms or Westcoast beach clubs, to name just some examples) and then compare this to garish 70s garb that would be more at home in a funk or disco setting while the music played by the musician in question hasn't changed all that much towards that direction at all then is it really that difficult to understand this indifferency to those attempts to (awkwardly) stay with the times? I'd make an exception e.g. for the outfits Miles wore during his "Electric" period and beyond (ín a way all this WAS in tune too), but apart from that??

Well put, Art. If you had to "go casual" or don some garb that was supposed to make you look younger, then the period of c.1970 was about the very worst period you could have selected, sartorially speaking.

Yeah, to those to whom 50s music also brings up a certain visual impact, those musicans who'd been around and active in the 50s (or even in the late 40s) just stopped looking sharp from around that date in the 60s. Of course it's quite natural that, like BillF said, jazz (and R&B) musicians tried to stay with the times, but honestly, if you look at some of those sharp R&B dudes from the 40s and early 50s and then compare their attire from the 70s (as documented on photos e.g. by the ubiquitous Norbert Hess) when those (by then) middle-aged, grey-haired performers caught on stage in garish 70s garb that would have befitted a Johnny Guitar Watson but not, for example, a Charles Brown, then some of these pictures were a bit sad to see. Particularly since 70s fashion was a no-no anyway ... I have a feeling somehow many elder jazz men have managed to age with more dignity in their stage presence through the decades.

Must have been on a blowout sale for a long, long time, that book. I got my copy from a friend in 2005 who had bought it dirt cheap from a "remainders' stock" bookstore over here and kindly got me another copy after I saw the book at his home.

Agreed about Desi Arnaz. From what I've heard his recordings may be a bit "hollywoodized" but they are nice starters into Latin big bands from that era. MG, you might want to read up on this subject matter in THIS book: http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/latin-jazz.html This should give you an expert overview of whom to search out. And then there are the reissues from the HARLEQUIN label (part of the Krazy Kat/Interstate labels straight from the UK): http://www.interstate-music.co.uk/harlequin/harlequinindex.htm No idea how well distributed they (still) are at this time as the label(s) seem to have slowed down their reissuing activities a lot in recent years so some may be OOP for good.

True, the subject has been covered well. Maybe what is and remains most interesting about all those stories (particularly from the 78rpm era) is not so much about collecting in the sense of adding the 10,001th item to one's personal collection but the stories about how those discoveries were made in the first place, e.g. if you read the stories about "collecting hot jazz" in sources such as Ramsey/Smith*s "Jazzmen" of 1939, in the 1944 Esquire Jazz Book, in "Black Beauty White Heat" ... Anybody probably wishes for a time machine, if only for a one-day visit. And IMHO anyway, those stories of incredible finds on the Old Hat Records website just remain fascinating. Since every such story of rare finds or finds in unlikely places is a personal one, those stories wil always strike a sensitive chord with some because those who collect in one way or another can relate to them. Just like in all other fields of collecting.

Did you ever get close to or move in the circles of classic car collectors? I've been into that scene for almost as long as I've been listening to and collecting jazz (a.o.) records (and have accumulated my share of items there too ) and I can tell you that "collectionitis" can get just as much out of hand and assume colossal proportions as in the case of record collectors, and the stories surrounding those explorations, finds and discoveries can be just as bizarre (and fascinating, of course). Apart from the fact that the objects of those collections tend to be MUCH more cumbersome, all other facets are very much comparable and probably even worse, i.e. even more obsessive, than in the case of records, because as often as not those collectors tend to accumulate "related" collectabilia too - very often with every car stored away go NOS parts, books, catalogs, garage signs, gas pumps, whatnot ... as long as the things are considered worthy of keeping by whomever ... and the distinction between collecting and hoarding is a very, very blurred one. Just for a teaser, check out the videos on the LEE HARTUNG COLLECTION on Youtube. and then see if you can find any record collector who has hoarded THAT much (comparatively speaking) AS WELL AS associated items (printed matter, for example) that go with the music on those records. Which one would that be? In Search of The Blues? I may be mistaken (it's been a while since I read it) but i cannot recall it dwells that heavily on the collecting aspect of exploring blues music.

Recommended. This is one odd 50s "crossover" jazz record if there ever was one. Very intriguing and very enjoyable to listen to.

Not really. Considering what as a matter of fact IS PLAYED under the label of "classic rock", you cannot lump in just what you feel is "classic" by your terms. That would be rather irrelevant to the term "classic rock" the way it IS applied. Of course "classic rock" is just a marketing label but things being the way they are "classic rock" just refers to rock from the 70s "Hard Rock" era plus some (a bit before, a bit after, a bit different style-wise ....) but that's that - as pointed out by others above. To those who came of age in their listening habits in the 90s, 90s rock may well be "classic" by now but by and large that isn't what is being included in "classic rock". Claiming "Hey, that's the rock I find "classic" so that's classic rock" - sorry - not so. That tag has different connotations. Just for a comparison, the "rock" I prefer and consider "classic" to my ears is just the REAL rock'n'roll and particularly rockabilly and black r'nr roughly from the 1954-59 era (plus selected recordings and bands from the years after, up to maybe the mid-60s) but that's just me (and it's music for the most part recorded before I was even born ...). And OF COURSE I don't pretend I'd ever like to sail under the "classic rock" banner with the rock I prefer to listen to. BTW, Shawn has nailed it IMO as for the lack of imagination in their programming. Same thing here - for the most part ... Seems like they insist on doodling music where they are sure that ANYBODY (even those who were the most casual listeners back then) can sing along. Not much that would mean a new discovery of hidden gems only those in the know are immediately familar with. Talk about soothing your listeners' audience ... Not any more discerning than MOR pop radio stations where the MOR pop on the airwaves is just "golden oldie" singalong fare too.