Big Beat Steve

Did you calculate the overseas shipping costs yourself or was this an automatic process by eBay? You know ... stating U.S. shipping wil be 4.00 but "overseas will be more", and then the Shipping Calculator indicates a whopping $34.25 for ONE sole 45rpm set for shipping to Europe ... wow! That sure IS "more". And that's sure to frighten overseas buyers away. I realize USPS shipping rates have gone up but but THIS...? From previous experience (though admittedly not very recently) this cannot possibly be correct.

:rofl: :tup Gotta remember that one!

Ah, him again ... How about this ... get the publishers of those "Studies In Jazz" books to slash their prices in half and no doubt you will also find a handle on how to reduce the price of those lavishly self-published books that you seem to complain about here again. Because ... like it or not, there is a full-fledged publisher behind those "Studies In Jazz" books (Scarecrow Press) and some shrewd recalculation could no doubt offset reduced prices of that series (many of them ARE expensive after all) by other lines from that publisher if they really WANTED to. Do I hear you (or anybody else for that matter) say "Niche market ..."? "Special interest"? "Scholarly"? "No mainstream"? Right! And offhand I'd agree that for these reasons the prices of that series of books are just what they are. BUT - the same applies to the two books we are talking about here. Even more so, Because ANY SELF-PUBLISHED job as well done as these here deserves the highest respect and support imaginable. Self publishing is not the easiest way to go for sure and demands a lot. Whereas ... if you were to look closer elsewhere in the pricing policies of some ... ho hum ... Anyway ... I have no doubt the calculation behind this book will never allow the authors-publishers to get rich.

I have twenty times as many discs with Louis Jordan leader dates than I have John Coltrane leader dates. So what? One man's meat is another man's poison. Did Brubeck cover that? (Seems like we cannot get away from "meat" right now anyway. )

Uh oh ... that brings to mind another thread on a backstage encounter involving Diz, Valerie Wilmer and T-Bone Walker. Might be interesting to see if ANY of those who witnessed that back then ever dropped in here and told how THEY experienced that ...

Sonic aspects aside, what exactly is there on that set that's new, really new, and never before released that has not been on that fantabulous Bluebird 2-LP set from the 70s ("The Father Jumps") covering the 1939-45 period nor on the TWO 2-LPs sets (Jazz Tribune series, Vols. 5 + 19 on French RCA) from the 80s? The latter ones expand upon the Bluebird set but include little of really great substance (most of the added tracks are relatively forgettable vocal features that hold interest mostly for completists). New, hard-swinging Fatha stuff from that period would be the clincher for me (depending on how much there actually is).

In the same vein, one news item that made the headlines in early 1959 was that Dave Brubeck deliberately passed up a one-week gig that would have netted him $17,000 (not a negligible figure even for a top earner at that time, I'd daresay) in that he steadfastly refused to make a trip to Johannesburg in South Africa that would have required him to dispense with the services of his (African-American) bassist Gene Wright. At the same time, he confirmed rumors that he definitely would cancel an appearance at the University of Georgia as he refused to appear there with an "all-white" quartet. The newspaper item in question quoted him as saying "Even if they had offered me a million dollars I would not have gotten rid of Gene Wright. You cannot buy self-respect". Needless to hint at the fact other stellar jazz names during that period caved in in a fairly dismal way in this respect on certain occasions ...

For along time I dug mostly his early pre-Desmond quartet music (Octet and Tjader/Crotty trio) and came to appreciate his more "classic" stuff (that's all over the place and tends to be taken for granted) piecemeal later on. At any rate, some really interesting music there. RIP and Thanks! You outlasted most of your detractors!

See here:

Ah, so I guessed right when starting to read your above exchange (I haven't followed that other thread) - you're talking about Tommy "Deanie Boy" Dean. FWIW, the liner notes (by renowned Dave Penny) to the Official 6038 LP "Deanie Boy Plays Hot Rhythm & Blues" (released in 1989 - 23 years ago!) state: "In October 1956 and May 1958, Tommy Dean was lured back to the recording studios on behalf of Vee Jay Records to record nine tracks of promising-looking instrumentals with guitarists Grant Green and Lefty Bates, respectively, but both sessions remain entirely unissued." So the word about a connection that's there has been out for a while.

A plug for this one:

Yes, they're the ones, and some come in rather distinguished, uppity packagings (hence my thoughts when seeing that "In Paris" box).

Holy Mackerel! At first sight, though, that Mozart package looks rather like a family box of "Mozartkugeln" to me, if you know what I mean, King Ubu ... Funny, this statement: "For many genuine audiophiles, however – especially those devoted to the classical canon as reproduced on the music connoisseur's enduring format of choice, vinyl – its is the perfect marriage of timeless, tour de force studio performance and premium analogue recording and mastering processes which will forever define phonographic allure..." Wasn't it the CLASSICAL music listeners' fraternity, in particular, who went totally haywire about CDs in the early years of CD marketing and dumped their vinyl collections head over heels, thus accelerating the rapid shrinkage of the vinyl market? At least over here this pont has been made by sellers fairly often when the "nobody buys vinyl anymore anyway" story came up.

In my case it would be a bit more than 20 missing tracks. Now do I NEED them? BTW, did anybody find that set on the JSP WEBSITE?

Much too nightclubbish (call it "sophisticated" if you want) to be "vulgar" . In fact, those who really like that early pre-Atlantic Ray Charles stuff (and who therefore are bound to like Charles Brown and his ilk too) are likely to appreciate Bill Samuels too (because his style falls into the same bracket). Considering that other (comprehensive) Samuels reissue is OOP now but has been available for a long time, I'd wager a guess that those who WANT Samuels have already been served. So - yes, that combination stinks a little. HOWEVER, the reissuers of that Ray Charles package are not the only guilty ones. Remember how Document used to proceed often (and still does)? And Blue Moon too (but ... stop ... that's Andorran! Evil! Evil! So no surprise ... ) No, seriously, this practice is annoying (given the relatively recent availability of the Samuels CD) but I think in almost all instances it is a case of the discography of the artist in question being too slim to make up a full CD (and without the Samuels stuff the playing time on that TWO-CD set would have been laughable, right? ) so the compilers throw in a few bonuses that might appeal to the target buyer group. While the stylistic lineage is not to be denied here, it would have made more sense to me to fill up the CD with a couple of very early other R&B tracks where Ray Charles was the session pianist. (But ... hold it ... that would have meant research and possibly remastering! ) (Yet I consider getting that set to finally replace my old "20 Golden Pieces" series LP of Ray Charles Swingtime tracks.) BTW, as for MG's comment about those Miami sides being included at the end of the Ray Charles tracklist, while I do not have my Leadbitter/Slaven discography on hand, I seem to recall they listed one or two tracks more than those in that set. So ...? (They might be retitled alternate takes, though)I

Another case of "had no idea he was still around". RIP and thanks for the music!

All the Bill Samuels items were reissued on CD 5112 in the CLASSICS BLUES & RHYTHM SERIES before. The Penguin Guide to Blues Recordings sez thus: "A crooner with the exageratedly precise diction of Al Hibbler,. Samuels applied his velvet-fog voice to standards like Ghost of a Chance ... occasionally diversifying into Louis jordan jive numbers ... and an infrequent blues" and goes on to describe the contents of this CD as "svelte lounge music." It ain't THAT mediocre, though, that CD. Cannot see that Ray Charles played piano on these sessions so are these really just fillers?

According to Bruyninckx, this doesn't look like there is any connection with Savoy: Sonny Stitt (as, ts), Richie Cole (ts), John Handy (ts, as), Bobby Hutcherson (vib), Cedar Walton (p), Herbie Lewis (b), Billy Higgins (d) Recorded live at Keystone Corner, San Francisco, ca. September 1981, released earlier on the 32 Jazz label.

Thanks for the reminder of that one, Mike! A pretty unlikely place for CT to appear in movie centered on a "Teenage music vs Tin Pan Alley moldy figs" plot. Have it among my 50s rock'n'roll movies on VHS. Time to dig it out again ... (No, I did NOT choose my forum nick after that one )

Looks like the 4 tracks featuring Maggie and Brew are the ones that also are on the "Afro-Cubop'" Spotlite LP (dates match for 3 of the 4 tracks and who knows if the 4th one was 100% correct on the Spotlite LP). As for there being another McGhee date with the same title, a 2-part studio version of Cubop City with McGhee backed by the Machito band was recorded in November 1948 and released on Roost 502. I agree with you, Mike, about the misconceptions many Europeans (and "US-Europeans") have about Afro-Cuban rhythms. A question of initial listening impressions ... Maybe that "vulgar" word should just have been put in quotation marks in the first place? At least thats how I understood it.

Fair enough. So let's see if the thread starter will elaborate some more on this.

I agree, it just is so that the term in question appeared fairly understandable to me (even more so after what Danasgoodstuff wrote earlier). So let's just hope the thread starter has not been frightened away by the nitpicking that occurred in the meantime.

No wanting to reproach anything specifically to you, King Ubu , but I really don't see what's so damn difficult to understand about that "vulgar" term in the first place unless those who refuse to understand really, REALLY are dead set on sticking to the very strictest sense of the word and refuse to grasp what can be implied by the term. In the end it's a matter of "if you can't feel it you can't understand it" but IMHO Danasgoodstuff wasn't far off the mark when he used the term "crude" instead. Without wanting to speak for the thread opener, to me the yardstick here seems to be the typical JAZZ rhythm sections of the day. And compared to those the mambo rhythms and rhythm sections might indeed appear "vulgar" in their all-out approach. Call it crude (NOT in the sense of John Lee Hooker's idiosyncratic non-meter rhythms of course), call it exuberant, call it exhibitionistic, call it "no holds barred", yes, even call it vulgar ... whatever ... the gist of the idea is always there IMHO. For example, I clearly remember my first listening impressions after having bought that reissue of Machito's late 40s/early 50s recordings on that Pablo twofer ("Mucho Macho Machito"). Great music but you felt thoroughly exhausted after listening to it in one go (even more so than even after a spell of listening to intense 40s bebop or all-out honkin' sax R&B, the latter of which cannot exactly be called sophisticated BTW and has indeed been called vulgar by some ... ). And listening to Maggie's "Cubop City" from the Afro-Cubop Spotlite album again, the difference is evident because for all its latin flair the rhythm section there clearly plays a subordinate role (not unlike some Dizzy's big band recordings of that era), as opposed to the entire rhythm section all falling over each other all the time in indeed quite a lot of mambo recordings of that era. Deliberately exaggerated? Yes ... And don't get me wrong, I like mambo, and I wouldn't have used the term "vulgar" myself in comparing those rhythms. But I understand the idea ... and there is nothing inherently wrong IMO with an occasional dose of well-placed "vulgarity" even in music anyway (unless you want your music all subdued and insipid all the time). But if those who still frown upon the use of the term "vulgar" cannot see the above (or insist on sticking to a verbatim understanding of certain key words) then such discussions are pointless. In the end it all boils down to personal tastes anyway, and nobody but REALLY nobody has a monopole on deciding what is appropriate there. There IS no absolute truth there. One man's tastelessness is another one's "meaty" taste, and one man's tastefulness is another one's insipidity. Nuff said ...

So I stand corrected. The recording dates and credits like "Terry Gibbs Quartet with Pete Jolly" or "Terry Gibbs Quartet with Steve Allen" apparently were enough initial info for me to pull the trigger (and seeimngly fooled me into remembering there were more details to it). BTW, looking at the credits on my cover here and those shown above, one detqil that makes me snicker now is "Production and COordination: JIM PEWTER". He of the countless nostalgia pop/r'n'r oldies shows ... Nothing against that, not at all (he sure knew his stuff around 50s rock'n'roll etc.) but here he must have taken the sophisticated road to "Coolsville" for a change ...

As for the lineup - yes, it was listed on the back, along with recording dates (not always correct as we now know). But you indeed had to overcome your initial hesitations about the run-of-the-mill looks of the covers. In my case the combination of Terry Gibbs, Pete Jolly and Red Norvo meant three reasons to look closer (and the low price at that clearout sale didn't detract either ), so ... bingo for the first one ever bought from that series. Haven't been able to buy many more from that series ever since, but the mental note to look closer whenever another one comes my way definitely is there. So ... a big Thank You to James Harrod from me too.