Big Beat Steve

OK, OK, folks, your avalanche of plugs for that book has convinced me. I'll be on the lookout for that (should complement other jazz record guides i have, ranging from "The Jazz Record Book" to the "Essential listening companions" published by Third Ear). Not wanting to derail this thread further, just one more question: I assume this is a record guide compiling the "essentials" from what was IN PRINT in 1975? (i.e. directing the listener to specific records/reissues) And not a listing of essential recordings/sessions regardless of whether they were long OOP in 1975 or not? (We all know that there may be records that from a musical/historical point of view were essential in their first pressings but shamefully were not reissued for decades). Not that I would mind working on recommendations current as of 1975 (an awful lot of my vinyl is from that era and I think I am fairly aware of what was in print and/or accessible then).

Will pull it out to read and see what it's all about the next time I spin a Warne Marsh record. BTW, anybody any opinion on Alun Morgan's "Modern Jazz - A Survey of Developments since 1939" book published by Gollancz in 1956? (seen in the context of its times, discounting any "hindsight" effect, i.e. whatever we know better with the benefit of all the later events and of the knowledge that has become more easily accessible since) The reason I am asking is that I read rather positive reviews of that book before I picked up an antiquarian copy about 15 years ago but (contemporary) reviews I happened to come upon since made it look like some kind of a mixed bag.

Well, my Vogue 12" pressing of "Grand Encounter" (Vogue LAE 12065) has Whitney Balliett's sleeve notes on the back, just like the US pressing it seems (see that other thread somewhere around here where these very notes started such flamethrowing about the oh so unforgiving attitudes of certain jazz scribes towards all those "Angry Young Men" in those mid-to late 50s ).

Yes of course I see what you mean, and CT does indeed look like he wanted to say "I'm the boss of you all". It's just that at first glance there is that similarity with Ben Webster IMO. Quincy Jones seated up front certainly does not look like the bandleader in that pic. But he may have been taking it relatively easy with such outward aspects of status back then? (I doubt he would have adopted the pose shown on the cover below - dating back to about the same time - in later decades ...)

Trying to facially "out-Ben-Webster" Ben Webster?

Remember even according to the new EU regulations anything recorded and first released prior to late 1961 remains in the P.D. in Europe and even by U.S. standards anything recorded prior to early 1943 (currently) is P.D. in the U.S. (70 years!). And even a 1943 cutoff date covers quite a lot of those "Chronogical" platters. In short, most of the swing era definitely has gone P.D. by now.

Same here. Please elaborate, ejp626.

Given the muddy situation described and linked to above even the non-Storyville releases sem to be rather hard to pin down. And like others said before, somehow I cannot imagine Storyville would go into outright bootlegging, particularly since this is not a recording by an artist known only to insiders who had releases on a small indie label that any (potential) rights holders would give a damn about so enforcement risks would be only minor. This is a major artist on a major label. Would Storyville get themselves into water that is (potentially) THAT hot by marketing their items even to the US?

Actually, it was late 2011. Yes, my slipup. But that still locates the recordings we are talking about here firmly outside the scope of applicability of the new 70-year limit.

Just to do some maths: These recordings were made in January, 1960. The EU copyright change came about in late 2012, which makes it 52 years (plus a few months) past the recording date (and close to that past the original release date of these recordings). In short, these recordings had already been in the P.D. for some time by the time the new EU copyright laws came about. So the new legislation clearly is not applicable here. As for that other question about any justification of why I included "my" link (provided it IS a bootleg and there is no "official" agreement behind it): Maybe as a "BUYER BEWARE" gesture? (Hey, with THAT kind of packaging? What else but seamy could such packaging be?) Acceptable enough as a reason?

Can't remmber there still were listening booths at Dobell's (in either of the two shops) when I went there in 1975 to 77. I have vivid memories of the shop overflowing with goodies (and therefore appearing relatively cramped) but no booths. But I may be mistaken and it may just have been so that I didn't even dare to approach those listening booths as by that time they were a thing of the past in our local record shops at home (except for one shop where you could listen to a record through a sort of telephone receiver at a sort of bar counter but it was the clerk who put the record on the turntable for you so that was mildly discouraging to the potential listener too). Anybody with more distinct memories of what happened when?

Talking about reissues of this session, WTF is this??? http://www.amazon.com/At-Large-Stan-Getz/dp/B00AYJCCSA/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1358554229&sr=8-5&keywords=Stan+Getz+At+LARGE Bill Perkins forced to pass for Stan Getz?? Another one for the liner notes/booklets goofs threads?

Unknown by what yardstick? I can assure you that Jan Johansson and William Schiøpffe (he's Danish) are quite well-known among anybody with even a passing interest in European jazz of that period. And judging by their presence on recordings, many visiting US jazzmen who called upon their services must have appreciated them too. Stan Getz, for example, had recorded with Johanssson and Schiøpffe on several ocasions before that 1960 date. I have some of Getz' live and studio recordings from this European period of his. Fine indeed ...

I doubt that this scribe has grasped what it really is all about for many of those who tend to become nostalgic. IMO is is not about being "consumerist" but about comparing our EVERYDAY LIFE experiences the way they were back then and the way they are now. And shopping invariably is part of our everyday lives, particularly if we (correctly or incorrectly) feel that back then buying real items in real shops - either to cover one's everyday needs or (even more so) to treating us to special objects for our hobbies etc. - was a far more pleasing experience if you look at it beyond pure convenience aspects. Considering that in many cases the choice of products has narrowed down considerably, quality hasn't really improved as much as we are led to believe, staff service likely was better in the past, etc. etc., we tend to become nostalgic (who wouldn't like to go back and buy this or that item that they passed up back then because they didn't know any better?), even though this nostalgia is sometimes a rose-colored glasses affair (many items have only become accessible fairly easily in the internet era, and much of what was around then and what we would like to buy now with the benefit of hindsight actually was much more expensive back then than we'd care to imagine). So to me the bottom line is that there is little surprise about having fond memories, and this is not limited to the record buying public. (e.g. just look at the numerous comments on SHORPY whenever an antique photo of some main street or shop interior is shown)

I remember that one too. It was one of those shops I discovered by chance after a visit to Foyle's (in '75?) that we had been encouraged to visit by our English teachers and also one of those that I dimly remembered years after when I made it back to London in '92, only to find out it was gone (as so many others). Mole Jazz, James Asman's, Ray's Jazz Shop and quite a few in Soho and particularly in Camden Town made more than up for that but still it was a lot less than back in the 70s when you could count on initeresting selections in the "fifties", jazz and blues bins (at least to my tastes) wherever you dropped in.

Would love to see that exhibition and will definitely keep an eye open for the planed book on Dobell's. My visits to Dobell's during 14-day school trips to London in 1975, 76 and 77 when I was just a budding jazz fan and collector left a lasting mark (as well as the eternal regret of having been that short on funds ) on me. London had many, many interesting record shops for me at that time but Dobell's (along with probably the Bloomsbury Book Shop run by the wife of John Chilton) was a class by itself, even to me who at that time had not yet really an accurate idea of its standing among connoisseurs. The next time I made it to London (in 1992) Dobell's was gone and the entire street section had been redeveloped. At any rate, I am glad I grabbed that Cyril Davies LP freshly released by Doug Dobell during my 1976 visit there.

It wasn't. But the ususal list price for 4-tracks EPs at that time (ca. 1960) was 7.50 Marks. (And AFAIK list prices tended to be much closer to the actual shop prices and there were far fewer variations in price from one shop to another). So, relatively speaking, Jazztone was a bit more more affordable than the bulk of other items. (To put things into perspective, the hourly net wages of skilled workers were something like 2 Marks around 1960).

Just to round off things, this is the cover of the German pressing of J-703 (note that Herbie Nichols and the rhythm section rated billing only under "and others" on the cover):

So I figured ... I listened to those two Jazz Goes Baroque LPs for the first time in my very early record buying and collecting days in the 70s when I was about 16 or so and my mother more or less "made" me listen to it "now that you have become interested in jazz" because "this is what jazz is" (from her point of view, having come from classical music, of course, and never having truly been a jazz fan, but rather branching out into "third stream" to add some coloring to one's listening habits ... ). Needless to say I found it very odd ("wacky in your language? ) and un-jazzy, having at that time been all into swing, oldtime jazz and only just beginning to explore Bird and Diz. When I picked up those records a while back I gave them a casual listen (and pulled out the first one today again). For the reasons mentioned earlier it doesn't strike mas that odd anymore (though these discs will never be anywhere near my "desert island" jazz), and the overall sound, instrumentation, harmonies and interplay somehow makes for a very 60s-ish sound mix of chamber jazz, "advanced classics", movie score, and IMO somehow some of the tracks would not even have sounded all that out of place as a "progressive" lounge music background to a cocktail-sipping get-together in the 60s (at least the way we imagine this today).

I got the LP of the first one last year ... and just last week got the CD twofer with them: whacky stuff! I have first (German) pressings of the two LPs shown above (took them over from my mother who was into that classical-music-cum-jazz "third stream" stuff in the 60s - MJQ, Loussier et al. if you know what I mean ...). Will have to give them a closer listen again to see what it actually is all about. What I remember from listening to the first one of the two is that it isn't all that "wacky" if your ears are somewhat tuned to the very early Horst Jankowski piano/harpsichord-cum-woodwinds recordings (done LONG before that Black Forest nonsense), for example. As for the overall feel, it's not all that difficult to see what TTK finds in them ...

Not really. On the contrary, I try to see and judge such statements in the context of their time. Which is what prompted me to react to a TODAY's comment on a liner note statement by Whitney Balliett dating back to 1957 in the first place (in fact I am not unduly shocked by this statement, and seen in the context of its time, it isn't even hard to see how such statements came about IMO. It is rather when the impression sneaks up that such period-colored statements are still being upheld today despite everything we ought to have come to get to know better in the meantime that I feel there is a time to argue) . 20 years later those buffoons in the tee shirts were telling their kids that were really "hep" in back in the day, but they never smoked dope. Their kids were thinking "Maybe you should have". Why buffoons? Does it take dope to be really hep (provided all of these kids actualy were clean)? Why so condescending? Why not take them for what they probably just were? Just kids having a good time at a musical event that transcended the usual musical and above all social straitjacket that stiff, stilted, WASP America still was tied up in almost everywhere in 1951 (when that concert took place) in the way the US music market catered to the teenagers wanting to have a music of their OWN? Do you actually think that having one's own teenage music was a privilege of the oh so progressive 60s youth pop music market or, at best, the post-1955 rock'n'roll scene? The writing had been on the wall well before that time. Those who you call "buffoons" were anything but that. They were trailblazers in that they dared to go attend events (a lot of which were integrated at a time this was far from societally acceptable to white USA) that set the pace for things to come at a time when by far the hugest part of the teenage music listeners feared to tread there even at a mile's distance and preferrred to remain stuck in their "Tennessee Waltz" and "Blue Tango" schmaltz shoved down their throats by an ADULT music industry. (Yes this is one of the very, very few cases where I wish I'd been around back then) Buffoons are those who jump on a rolling bandwagon when there is nothing special anymore about jumping on such a bandwagon and who THEN claim how hip(pie?)-ish they were. Sorry but unless you did an exceedingly good job at hiding your tongue-in-cheek attitude (that may therefore have escaped me) you really missed the mark on that one.

O.K., referring to your post of 05:11, maybe I used somewhat inappropriate terms and maybe this is just a case of using one word instead of another to describe very much the same thing. The bottom line to me is that when I wrote "higher" I basically meant exactly what I understood Larry Kart to mean when he wrote "Rollins was aiming and succeeding at doing something that was both different (allowing for some overlap) and (dare I say?) more", and I'd understand your statement "let's not pretend that there are no empirical differences either. Sonny Rollins not played a helluva lot more notes (and spaces, and tones) than Jay McNeely, he considered and allowed more possibilities in his music as well". If you still object against the word "higher" because this would introduce an inappropriate hierarchy of "better" or "worse", then .. fine. I for one won't insist on that term. Of course this is not a case of modern jazz being automatically "art", though isn't it so that there were jazz scribes in the 50s who'd consider modern jazz being very much up there in the olymp of the performing arts, whereas R&B ... well ... And weren't there jazz musicians who very much preferred to be seen as "artists" as opposed to "entertainers"? To me those terms aren't mutually exclusive but others drew a line somewhere in there, it seems ... As for the Sonny Rollins/Rusty Bryant comparison, I'd agree with you too that one is as much an artist as the other in their own right (though I am not sure if you were primarily thinking of THIS particular LP. Because this would lead us straight back to the honkers and bar walkers corner and whatever they allowed or didn't allow in their music, etc. )

In fact the point I tried to make is just the opposite: Of course Trane would have not been one to "walk the bar", nor Rollins (etc.), and it would have been foolish to expect them to. But I don't think anybody loooking at (and understanding) modern jazz in the 50s would have seen them in such a role ever. On the other hand, judging by what has been written about all those "honkers and bar walkers" (as descendants of Illinois Jacquet or Flip Phillips who had often been accused of vulgarity, ugly tone, etc. in their JATP days too), it was them who were faulted for being primarily entertainers (and wanting to be entertainers, evidently) and not living up to the esthetics of those lovers of jazz as fine art of the 50s. So it was them who were denigrated for not living up to a role model they never set out to aim for in the first place IMO. A skewed perception on the part of the critics, scribes, etc. IMO. And it happened with many jazz writers. I agree modern jazz sax men of the 50s achieved higher levels in jazz as an art form (there is your "more" ) than those R&B sax men did. But for all the technical competence on their instrument the aims and the target crowds of the R&B sax men were quite different, their music served different purposes (within one larger overall framework IMHO) and to anybody broad-minded enough and not focusing very narrowly on one's very own yardsticks there ought to have been room for both after all? Beyond that point, personal taste does come in IMO, but that would be another discussion altogether. (As for that "universal" tag for jazz as dancing and partying music in earlier times - point taken. Make it "generally", O.K.? (With "partying" also including certain brands of jazz jazz being played to a seated audience that was non-dancing but very much drinking-glass clinking, O.K.?) JR Monterose also duly noted )

I think I understood quite well what you meant in your first post referring to the above liner note excerpt. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of gentlemanly bonvivant connoisseur speaking out against whatever would unsettle him in his comfortable personal jazz connoisseurdom. And I certainly would not have thought Whitney Balliett adopted the stance of the "art-conscious intellectual" who sneered at those "lowly, exhibitionistic" sax honkers. But such criticism has been voiced fairly often and typically in jazz circles about these musicians, first about Illinois Jacquet (who chronologically came first) and then about the others. Both in the 50s and later on. And by all accounts there was very much an aura of self-perceived intellectualism about many of those who voiced such criticisms. Now what strikes me as rather funny is that on the one hand there is the bourgeois gentleman speaking out against the alleged "ugliness" and "bad tone" of Sonny Rollins et al,, and then there are the "jazz-as-art-music-only" intellectuals (who'd certainly value Sonny Rollins or Mobley or J.R.Monterose very highly in their shrines of jazz art) using exactly the same invectives to speak out against other saxophonists who in their own playing catered to those who continued to see jazz (and R&B as a subgenre of jazz of the 50s) as a primary vehicle to cater to the dancing and partying audience (just like jazz had universally done in earlier decades). Now if this isn't amusing ... And this exactly is what I meant to hint at when I spoke of personal tastes and terms of reference that color our judgment. Of course those who'd be inclined to take sides in these debates would insist that there are musicians who are above all criticism and there are others who have forfeited any right to indulgence because they have not lived up to the art standards set up by those very critics, scribes (whoever ...). (Guess who'd be in which camp among the musicians named above?) Which is an attitude I for one would find just as objectionable. Project something into a piece of music that this was never intended to be in the first place and wilfully disregard what this very piece of music actually was intended to be (because these intentions evidently do not fit into your own self-perceived framework of what you, the jazz intellectual (no, not YOU in person of course ), would find comforting in jazz) and you are bound to have things all skewed up, particularly since this spells out clearly that those "jazz intellectuals" (for want of a better word) are just as easily unsettled in what they don't feel comfortable with in jazz as those "jazz bourgeois" à la Whitney Balliett are. And they resort to exactly the same clichés of criticism. To bring things full circle, such judgments ARE colored by personal tastes either way, and I'd be VERY wary of anybody claiming any sort of universal truth (and, hence, immunity from criticism) or superiority in their criteria of judgment, particularly since IMO the judgments quoted and evoked here need to be seen primarily in the context of their times..

Yet I wonder ... When exactly the same accusations are raised against Joe Houston, Big Jay McNeely, Chuck Higgins, Hal Singer, the early Willis Jackson, the latter-day Joe Thomas (who actually graced us with a tune called "Tearing Hair" )) and of course Illinois Jacquet or Leo Parker, the voice of what exactly is speaking there? Apart from, possibly, the voice of the oh so sophisticated "jazz-art-for-art's-sake" proponents who sneer at the lowly "exhibitionism" that only goes after the lower instincts of the masses (blissfully neglecting any of the original purpose of jazz music played to a live audience)... See? Look at it any way you want, it all boils down to one's personal terms of reference that determine the angle we use to approach a given subject and to pass judgment.