Big Beat Steve

Well, no doubt that's true but part of that lack of awareness really is due to the sneering attitude of "pure" jazz fans themselves. Remember how almost each and everybody sneered at the "retro" swing revival of the 90s? I remember some discussions about this maybe 8 years ago when I started out here and on the AAJ forum (where one or two very, very open-minded jazz connoisseurs tried to "blow the horn" for the positive aspects of this retro swing movement) and the reactions by the self-appointed "real" jazz fans on AAJ were, well, condescending to say the least. And this was at the TAIL end of the initial wave of the retro swing movement which was quite a bit stronger in the 90s everywhere, yet I cannot remember the "serious" jazz world was that much more receptive to this retro swing in the 90s. OK, some of this mixture of swing and (Las Vegas) lounge AND punk is a bit cliché-laden, some of it leans a bit too heavily towards punk and is more punk than jazz (but hey, so what?? Why would a mixture of punk and swing be worse per se than a mixture of 70s rock and 70s electric jazz? It's just one brand of rock mixed with a certain brand of jazz serving as a relatively accessible introduction to bridge the gap between rock and jazz, then as much as now) but there were and are interesting bands out there that do add a new twist to the way swing has evolved through the decades. The gist of it: All those retro swing bands did and do provide an introduction to jazz to a LOT of listeners who eventually found out about Basie, Jordan, Waller, Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, etc., and later bands too. Yes, the Brian Setzer Orchestra or the Cherry Poppin Daddies or the Royal Crown Revue (or whoever ...) did accomplish that ... Happened often - I've witnessed it myself ... not that I am that much of an accomplished dancer but I am close enough to the Lindy Hoppers circles in many contexrts, for example, and there ARE bands that play live gigs in these circles and look beyond the classic big band sound and come up with very interesting combinations, e.g. incorporating gypsy swing, and strangely enough, the swing bands that play this (subculture) circuit include (from all I have seen on stage) musicians who quite evidently find playing to a DANCING audience (of ACCOMPLISHED dancers) definite fun compared to their other gigs playing to the typical seated audences in typical jazz clubs. But then again, the kind of jazz that would attract this kind of listeners not yet imtimately aware of jazz would have to be DANCEABLE. I.e. a music that fills the prime and original purpose of jazz of providing straightforward entertainment. Not some "far out" music where you just sit and nod your head in pensive contemplation, marveling at your own sophistication for being there ... (that kind of listeners is out there too, make no mistake, all those of you who can rightfully claim to be part of the understanding, knowledgeable, appreciative fans of the more avantgardistic kinds of jazz ....).. Mind you, there is a place for contemplativeness and/or "far out" sounds in jazz too, of course, but if this is the kind of jazz that newbies are confronted with for the very first time then it is no wonder many of them are frightened away upon their first contact with jazz. It's just too inaccessible for an initial exposure to jazz. Food for thought ... which needs to do away with any notion of which strain of jazz is obejctively "superior" or more "rewarding" than the other, though. Because, in the end, it is more a subjective matter of which kind of jazz does what for which jazz fan, and after all, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Thanks for your coverage of the LIBERTY Jazz In Hollywood series and the Aladdin-related releases. I've always had a penchant for the Jazz In Hollywood series (now THERE's an overlooked series of records) ever since I discovered an original copy of the LJH6001 compilation at Mole Jazz sometime in the 90s. Will be looking forward to exploring that blog in detail. P.S. Nice period pic of you and your Deux Chevaux next to that Chevy. Must have felt odd driving a contraption like that in US traffic at the time ...

A subject that has been researched and documented from almost any almost angle imaginable in jazz circles, and now it is going to be turned into a stage show, musical (or whatever)? Oh my ... That Grauniad story has some pretty silly nonsense anyway. Charlie & His Orchestra "some of the biggest stars of the war"? In what circles? Among the Allies? Not likely. They were puzzled, maybe amused ... Charle Schwedler's vocals weren't THAT great, intonation, pronounciation and swing-wise (OK, "straight" vocalists often were just as stiff, even in UK and US dance bands, but anyway ....) And after all, the principle of "propaganda swing" wasn't that unknown in WWII (cf. Lucky Millinder's "We're gonna slap that dirty little Jap" or later on Little Jack Little's "Waltz in Berlin", etc.) With the German public? Not sure to what extent these songs were broadcast large-scale over short-wave stations that the GERMANS listened to, but probably virtually the entire German radio audience never heard them anywhere anyway at that time. That alleged broadcasting "at home" is not borne out by thorough publications on that subject in jazz books. Among the musicians? Not likely too many of them talked about those recordings that freely to others during the war, and some even refused to "remember" their involvement 20 years after the war when the first reissues were produced here. So .... ?? And considering the number of documents and radio/TV feature produced and published on this subject, it certainly is no "under-explored area of jazz historiy" either. Overall, a bit sick IMO, this propensity for milking "anything nazi". I don't quite get it, honestly. And please ... don't let that Prince Harry use this as an excuse for another tasteless "masquerade"!

@John Litweiler: Thanks for that list, though I for one would find many of these recordings to be essentials for anybody interested in jazz from that period. I haven't dug that deeply into what would best be referred to as "traditional jazz" (i.e. stylistically pre-Swing era) so have only part of what you list there (but a pretty representative cross-section anyway) but have probably 100% of your swing-era recommendations. In short, I am a bit surprised that you consider them "overlooked". By those who've never gone to the trouble of exploring pre-Bird at all? Yes, that would make sense. Maybe I got the idea of this thread wrong but I understood those recommended "overlooked" recordings to mean unhailed heroes, musicians' musicians, recordings unfairly neglected in reissues, recordings not quite as easily available (and not discussed quite as often) as others but just as fine, etc., and all this WITHIN the style(s) of jazz one might already be familiar with. Anyway, thanks very much again.

Looks like this is the CD version of the Vol. 1 two-LP set (AFAIK Vol. 2 never was issued on vinyl). I was delighted when I discovered that Vol. 1 twofer at the time and I definitely spun my copy a LOT. So it wasn't underrated here (in fact my above post about those "Early Bones" LPs made me think of pulling it out again).

Hi Daniel, thanks for your recommandations. Been just streaming your selection. Frederiksson must have listened a lot to Long Tall Dex. I hear a lot of Gordon in it. Now just listening to Staffan Abaleen Quintet. To me up til now totally obscure - but this is very good! Will come back to it again. As a big admirer of Lars Gullin I know a lot of him and got a handful of his recordings. A gentle giant and real poet. Next I will listen to Hallberg of whom I know only some pieces.. Now again my recommendations of Swedish jazz: Arne Domnerus Favourite Groups 1949-1950 (Dragon) lots of beautiful clarinet in it. Rolf Ericson Miles awaý 1950 -52 (Dragon) love his tone and phrasing Daniel, I must admit my KEY interest in Swedish jazz STYLES fizzles out as of the early to mid-60s but I have PHYSICAL copies of some of your "older" recommendations (Gullin, Johansson, Lindberg) and can confirm these are very much worth exploring. Same for the two recommendations by Balladeer (two of my favorite Dragon reissues). Yes I am afraid this is VERY true (one reason why I have sometimes commented in a bit of a mocking tone about those to whom - by their own admission - even Bird is "old hat" or at best as far back as they'd want to go, because they are so focused on hard bop and beyond but not before). So far, so good (tastes differ, and to each his own, and it would be catastrophic if everybody were hunting down exactly the same records) but still it is a pity IMO because those whose tastes run in that direction are missing out on the FOUNDATIONS of everything that came afterwards. Now, John, if you would like to list your 100 overlooked pre-Bird jazz recordings, I know that I for one would be VERY interested in seeing that list ...

OK, I plead guilty (of sorts ..) to having mentioned "vulgar Bill Harris" first of all which may have led to this name dropping (like autumn leaves) ... Sooo ...just to get back on track in every respect (Prestige and 'bones), tell me, everybody ... are Prestige 7023 and 7030 (J.J. Johnson, Kai Winding, Bennie Green) UNDERrated in the discographies of the respective artists, maybe? In the sense of being recordings that everybody immediately thinks of FIRST when discussing the KEY recordings of these artists...

Well put, MG! A very special character. RIP.

No, I think that's when the footage was shown for the first time on some newsreel or so. At any rate, the 1961 festival took place from 17 to 23 July.

Can I please see Candy Dulfer do the same?

My update crosed with your post. See above ... It wasn't Lars Bagge. As for "evergreen-slentrianen", well, let's call it "evergreen sloppiness" in English.

Jazz Hot mentions two tunes: "Amen", a solo vehicle for Netz, and "Lester Left Town" where Färnlöf was excellent. But no mention of the rhythm section in either of them. Update: I did a search in my 1961 copies of Orkester Jornalen and there they are, picture and all (Sept., 1961 issue): The rhythm section was Göran Lindberg (p), Sven Skantz (b) and Ulf Söderholm (dr). Not to be outdone, OJ said they met with well-earned success (despite some initial nervosity) and the public was particularly impressed by Lars Färnlöf, but the scribe did not fail to mention some foreign critics had seen fit to find the sound too thin (see above ), but at any rate the originals were said to have made a nice change from all those groups who played nothing but covers ("evergreen-slentrianen", a word colorful not only in Swedish but also perfectly understandable in German too but would lose in any literal translation so I wont even try ). Anyway, there you are ... no doubt you will be able to make more of those names than anybody else around here.

Well, I did find a copy of that OJC Joe Holiday CD on Amazon today so am looking forward to hearing more of him at leisure. As for Bill Haris, that Ex-Hermanites LP on Mode is a gas indeed. Must pull it out again (though I must admit I used to listen to it not so much for the trombone part but rather for Terry Gibbs). BTW, for those who cannot locate a copy immediately, Xanadu LP 191 "The Bill Harris Memorial album" has the same contents. BTW, a very nice characterization by JSangrey, that "eloquently rudely wry". Might explain after all why some came to call his style "vulgar" at the time. And, Niko, thanks for the link to that Wother" forum! Wasn't aware they had a jazz forum there too. One to bookmark ...

Fascinating! I never knew there was footage of Netz. Interesting that the band is billed as Netz's group. The diminutive trumpeter is Lars Färnlöf, who wrote the tune ("Pia") as well as all but one of the tunes on the Abeleen albums mentioned above. Thanks for posting that. The French JAZZ HOT magazine covered the festival in Antibes-Juan les Pins in their September 1961 issue (no. 168) and they mentioned Björn Netz as the leader of that group too. According to the mag, they did a "cold" show which yet was said to be fully in the Blakey-Silver tradition. Björn Netz, in particular, was mentioned for his cool tenor sound, and Färnlöf was lauded as the best solist. The German JAZZ PODIUM mag covered the festival in their Sept. 1961 too and found the Björn Netz quintet to be somewhat pale, though talented and showing good conception, but lacking in maturity and assuredness required to convey their ideas in a really convincing manner. (Just quoting ... ) At any rate, clearly it was Netz' group.

I have this OJC cd - 23 tracks in all: Thanks Chuck! Must search that out ... Apparently a CD that passed me by at the time it was released. TIme to be able to listen to this whenever you feel like it and not just via some original 10" somewhere else.

O.K., I'll throw a hat in the ring too. One (early) Prestige artist that seems to have been bypassed consistently in vinyl times was JOE HOLIDAY (and this despite very comprehensive Prestige reissue programs through the decades). And offhand I am only aware of a Fresh Sound CD that couples some of his Prestige recordigns with his Decca LP. From what I have heard I find his recordings quite intriguing (including his jazz-cum-latin excursions). Maybe his style just wasn't fashionable enough on its own terms in the jazz periods that followed but surely he deserved a bit more reissue "rating" than being ignored totally?

Like I said, it was a quote and certainly needs to be seen in the context of its times. Just because it is often interesting to see how some initial judgments come about. They say a lot about the impact certain musicians had at the time. No matter what judgment posterity eventually settles on. Hence my question.

@Larry Kart: :) As it happens, I am just listening to Woody Herman's First Herd (that news item about the discovery of that Franklin expedition shipwreck made me want to spin "Northwest Passage" again ) and in fact the last tune that just came up was "Bijou" (before I saw your post). For all the qualities you mention in that solo, by certain yardsticks, some of Harris' solo there may indeed be considered not that tonally "delicate" compared to other players of the time (relatively speaking), so I do see the point some may have made back then and your explanation makes sense. In fact some of those "vulgar" comments may have been related to JATP appearances of his where he may have gone all out even a bit more (I don't really recall). Anyway, thanks for your asessment.

Talking about those trombonists and their stylistic subtlety (or non-subtlety), where would Bill Harris fit in, then? I have read contemporary (50s) sources (jazz mags/books) where his playing is described as "vulgar". How about that? How would such a judgment come about, comparatively speaking? (Note that I am not judging, just quoting )

While I agree with you generally, you're way wrong about this. If you look at the stuff Chuck Nessa (and if he can't be described accurately as an 'avant garde listener', I don't know who can be) likes and thinks important, you find ALL sorts of stuff. And he's not the only one here; Larry Kart, Jim Sangrey, John Littweiler have all got very broad taste and can point out important stuff from beyond the avant garde. Hot Ptah, too, now I come to think of it. And Ubu. And Moms Mobley. Oh, Alan Lowe, too. Oh hell, I bet all of the avant fans here are WELL aware of the history of jazz and can identify important prior stuff they love to bits. (And some of them can even identify important soul jazz recordings they love to bits ) MG Wow .. this thread moves way too fast for me ... there you are off the web for an hour or two to take care of other matters, and pow ... 2 more pages of posts ... Anyway, MG; I really did not want to refer AG-inclined forumists here but to the avantgarde audience "at large". My general impressions there (you get into contact with all fields of jazz fans over the years) are summed up in what I wrote above ... So maybe this explains that. As for avantgarde and BN and why BN may have signed up artists from that field: Couldn't it have been a case of just staying in the limelight there after all? Avantgarde may never have sold much in objective quantites but this segment of jazz made the headlines. Collecting jazz for me has always included jazz magazines and I find it very instructive to read up on specifc matters in CONTEMPORARY sources and not just through historians' writings. And from what I have seen in various European jazz mags (of which i have fairly comprehensive runs up to the mid-60s) is that as the 50s turned into the 60s, the jazz fields that got coverage increasingly focused on three areas only: Soul jazz, avantgarde and rediscovered old blues heroes (field recordings etc.) from way back ... This was what many headlines and an increasingly large share of the record reviews were made up of. All other fields of jazz were increasingly limited to reissues and the timeless heroes like Ellington etc. Cannot say to what extent this was profoundly different in the US media, but maybe this may explain after all why you probably just had to get on the avantgarde bandwagon too if you wanted to be covered comprehensively in the jazz press and therefore remain in the headlines of the jazz public? Just wondering ....

See everybody, that's just about what I meant in an earlier post. This attitude of being focused on what and whom one is "supposed" to like in order to (rightfully? duly?) like jazz per se ... So what about somebody who is a definite, hard core lover of oldtime jazz and embraces it in all its facets? What would or could Miles (from any period) (or Trane, for that matter) do for him? And STILL this person would be a definite lover and fan of "jazz" as such. Just like those to whom anything prior to hard bop is old hat can (and do) claim the same label for themselves too. In short, just shuck anything that sounds like what one is "supposed" to like. There IS no '"must do" beyond one's favorite STYLE(S) of music (including jazz). WITHIN one's favorite style(s) - yes, that's what recommendations are for. But "must hear" BEYOND that spectrum? Nah! Most avantgarde listeners would not accept any oldtime/classic jazz "must hears" either. Jazz is and remains a wide field and one man's meat is and remains another man's poison. Which does not prevent anybody from exploring other fields of jazz if he himself feels like it - but "must" expore? Nonsense. BTW, referring to liking or not liking "Miles", which Miles anyway? I'll state frankly that I have a lot of Miles from his Capitol Birth of the Cool band through most of his Prestige quintet albums (and whatever there was on other labels during that period) and I like and enjoy them for what they are, but beyond that the only more "recent" Miles albums I have are Sketches of Spain and Seven Steps to Heaven (both of which I got more or less accidentally yet find them interesting enough to listen in sporadically - but no, I don't even own KOB! It would be around anyway anytime I wanted to OWN it). And whatever "Miles periods" came AFTERWARDS ("Electric Miles" or fusion in particular) just don't do it for me. So ....?? (Yes, this span of Miles platters incidentally more or less corresponds to the styles and periods of modern jazz I primarily enjoy - a wide enough field as it is anyway, but if the rest of Miles just is of no appeal to me (going by what I have heard), then who is to pass judgment on that, unless he thinks himself a "superior" jazz listener - which of course first of all would tell a lot about those who pass judgment in that way ... No offense meant, but those points just had to be made

You mean they are just as shot as my copy of "Something Else"?

It's soul jazz which is 'primarily aimed at entertaining black adults' and it wasn't my intention to express a view that there was lofty concert artistry in any of the live soul jazz albums I've come across, which I feel is music to accompany the party. It's a pity none of those live albums include material such as 'Happy birthday to you'. That would be more authentic (By the way, that's how Bob Porter defines - perhaps too tight a word for what he means - soul jazz. I don't disagree; I seldom disagree with Bob Porter on soul jazz issues ) MG I did get you right. What I meant to say (tongue-in-cheek and deliberately exaggeating a bit) was that I have a feeling there are quite a few out there who evaluate jazz from that period in terms of strictly artistic accomplishments in a concert setting and tend to use this as a yardstick for how "modern jazz" is supposed to be appreciated. Straightforward entertainment and "having a ball "with the jazz platters? Some might frown indeed ... No quite appropriate in my opinion. Case in point, some time ago I picked up a copy of Cannonball Adderley's "Something Else" as a VERY early pre-Liberty deep groove pressing at a local record store clearout sale. The record plays relatively OK and is listenable but clearly the vinyl is shot and has seen some heavy party abuse (no greying, wine-sipping, head nodding "serious" collector would leave scratches and scuffs like that on a record ....). But then it cost me the princely sum of 2 euros ... And actually seeing this record has provided enjoyment to many partygoers in its day makes up in "authenticity" for whatever audible scratches (and that skip in one place) are embedded in the grooves now ... Enough of this digression, though - would not want to get in the way of the avantgarde discussion that has evolved since you replied to my post which I saw only now.

Oopps, had half forgotten about this thread. Thanks for the pointers to other books (some of them I have, some of them I have heard of and might be tempted), but what I was SPECIFICALLY aiming at was to get some feedback about the two books I mentioned in my opening post. So ... to bring things up to date, I have since bought both of them. The Dicky Wells "Night People" book is a nice read as far as I have advanced (maybe one third, it was one of my holiday beach reads but due to circumstances it has since been shelved again, to be picked up later). I like the way he tells things, and I must say I find the book a more enjoyable read than Count Basie's autobigraphy (with Albert Murray), for example, where I feel the principle of leaving the words "as said by the man himself" has been a bit overdone and the "authenticity" and "casual" tone at times turns into a bit of aimless rambling that can get on your nerve if you read the book in huge bits (which I did, due to HUGE interest in the subject matter). Not that I would expect each and everybody who writes his autobiogrpahy to be as witty and articulate as Terry Gibbs, for example, but still ... Dicky Wells strikes the perfect middle ground for authenticity and readability IMO. About the "A Golden Age of Jazz Revisited 1939-42" book - weeellll .... I did buy the book (minus the 2 CDs as I have about 90% of the music anyway and the price gap between the book with and without CDs was a bit steep, at least with Amazon.de). I am part way through the book and the jazz events of the time and the social backgrund are presented clearly, insightfully and very much to the point. I.e. the book gathers together quite a bit of information in one place that otherwise would have to be gleaned from a lot of different sources. I am a bit less impressed by the record reviews - they are OK and do provide useful information to complement the tracks but to those (like probably most of us forumists here) who've been around the block a lot with that music, quite a bit of it reads like "stating the obvious". Also, some of the (uncaptioned) musician photos used to illustrate listsings of "landmark" events in jazz in the introductory sections to each chapter are odd, to put it mildly. The layout looks like the photos and the texts correlate - but they dont't (though they could have if a bit more common sense had prevailed in the selection of the photos). A minor point but something I find unnecessary and irritating. I like the book for what it is but it clearly is a book aimed at those who are not yet diehard colectors of jazz from that period but want a to get a solid introduction. It is not a book that I can't resist devouring from cover to cover in one go but one I will gladly pick it up again when I feel like it. I had half expected (or should I say "feared?" ) this book to be one that does not break much new ground (wishful thinking that somebody might unearth truly NEW information on the swing era and make a compelling book of it ...?) so this was one reason why I would have been interested in reading the views of others here (who have their own considerable experience with and knowledge of jazz history) about that book ...

I like your down-to-earth approach to the subject, MG! In discussions like this I often have the impression people let themselves be guided far too often by what "one is SUPPOSED to listen to and appreciate" in order to "appreciate the magnum opus of the label/artist for its ARTISTIC value" instead of just admitting that this or that record "just doesn't cut it for me" and standing by it (after all one man's meat is another man's poison only), regardless of whether that record may have been elevated to 5-star status by somebody somewhere sometime. But "music primarily aimed at entertaining black adults"? Be prepared for some raised eyebrows about how lofty concert artistry can possibly be dragged down to such a "gutbucket" level.