Big Beat Steve

Boone's Jumping Jacks made 4 tracks on that recording session, but according to Bruyninckx this was the only session they ever did. You can listen to all 4 of them on HEP CD 1066, "Sounds of Harlem Vol. 2". And it is indeed "our" Buster Smith (who came up with the original arrangement of One O'Clock Jump).

Could it really be that over here the press and newspeople are faster? We've had obits both online as well as in today's local daily newspaper (and IIRC even yesterday's special Sunday edition ran a brief obit). So ...??

His Arhoolie, Folklyric and Old Timey LPs (those comparatively few that I was able to aford at the time) helped enormously to expand my musical horizons and awareness of a lot of what was out there in Hillbilly, Western Swing, R&B, Cajun and Norteno music in my early collecting days in the late 70s. And browsing through the Arhoolie catalog always was a revelation (though in many cases it would be years before I'd get my hands on certain items).

Thanks for the info! Seems to be another piece of legislation that was really badly executed. The practice of tearing off front covers for those printed items returned as remainders was practiced here at the newsagents since the 60s when they returned unsold magazines (monthly, weekly etc.) after their "display until" date had passed but I think it is no longer done that way. Given the short "shelf display life" of books imposed by this taxation of inventories, it is amazing there still are so many niche books published (and selling, aparently) in the US anyway. Internet-based distribution and sales channels seem to be a good thing in this case after all ...

Yes, excellent site and information. Thanks!

Quite something else. 60s (and onwards) Chicano rock, to sum it up briefly. An odd mixture of styles IMO. Almost as odd as the band name. Would probably strike you, as someone from Britain as a bit odd too that such a group (in PROPER English) would call themselves "You Midniters", isn't it? BTW, Wikipedia says that this "Thee" was indeed intended to avoid confusion with the Ballard group. But all in all "Da Midniters" maybe might have been more like it.

Thanks for that link! That brings back memories even to me who only caught the later period (1992 to 2000) at Shaftesbury Avenue. Nice to be able to put names to faces of those whom I encountered regularly at the counter when making my purchases there. Apart from Ray (whom I did indeed picture to be the boss), I remember dealing with Glyn Callingham and Mike Doyle (who at one occasion went out of his way to give me the 10% discount on the purchases I had made, though I made my purchases in 2 instalments (visits) durnig the day) most often during my visits. If In had known I'd regularly bump into Glyn Callingham there I'd probably have brought my California Cool cover art book for him to sign. That stock of US 78rpm orignals on Savoy, Dee Gee etc. that according to that blog came from Chris Barber as early as 1974 must have lasted an awfully long time. I remember buying several mint Savoys, Dee Gees and Bops as late as 1998 or 1999 there in the basement Blues & Roots store where a separate "Special Offer" bin had set up for them. Wish I had picked more now, but i limited myself to those where I was quite sure they had not been reissued on thoese Savoy twofers. Don't remember seeing them there during my preceding visits though. The Blues and Roots section downstairs sometimes held rather odd items (judging by the standard so the jazz fraternity up there). In the late 90s I once did a London shopping spree with a girlfriend who of course was pressed into coming along when I checked out Ray's. There she picked an LP compilation of late 50s/early 60s black rock'n'roll (one of those outright bootleg LP series that in the 90s were regularly turned out by London DJs of the Rockin' scene and normally were sold only at record stalls during concerts, festivals etc.). Of course she wanted to get an overall impression of what this particular volume was about so asked to listen in. I think Ray and his staff lasted for about one half each of two songs before Ray pulled it off with disgusted looks on his face (but he did make a sale )...

Well, to give you an example, one 40s R&B artist who comes to mind is BILL JOHNSON (vocals/sax) who recorded a fair amount of tracks with his band (Bill Johnson & His Musical Notes) for RCA Victor in 1947 (plus a few for various indies before and after) - enough to fill one CD to the brim (and possibly more). It's a relatively nondescript artist name (that doesn't immediately remain etched in your memory) for sure, but I'd say he'd rank pretty well alongside Chris Powell, Bil Samuels, Felix Gross or Marvin Johnson etc. in the above mentioned "diehard collectors'" reissue series. And if he managed to wax 20 or more tracks for a major at that time he cannot have been a total flash in the pan. I've only come across the occasional track by him on R&B/Jump Blues compilations and liked them but am not aware of any comprehensive reissues of his recorded output (though I'll be glad to be proven wrong ).

I was wondering that myself, but some of their latter releases were pretty obscure. Maybe they've run out of good material? MG Good point. But if you combine their Blues & Rhythm series with the reissue series on BLUE MOON you've got pretty good coverage of those who aren't already covered by major R&B reissues/reissue labels elsewhere. Though I agree that some gaps seem to remain wherever you look and some artists (who probably weren't THAT obscure back then) seem to be passed by everywhere.

I assume you are talking about copyRIGHT, right? Or what would we be "writing copy" for otherwise?

Sure, Kamiblue, I see your point, and of course ome man's meat is another one's poison. It just is that I find it a pity certain images are all too omnipresent and have been used almost to death in innumerable superficial modifications. BTW, talking about 3-D, as I am almost sure you guessed I was not talking about creating a 3-D rendering per se but rather about being able to "imagine" 3-D views. Because if you draw or paint portraits and can combine different views of one and the same person and work them into a new image of that person from yet another angle YET manage to capture this person's features so everyone knows who this is supposed to show, then this requires the ability to IMAGINE objects in 3-D in order to transpose them into something new in 2-D images. No mean feat and something where artistry comes in, and THIS is something where "I doff my hat in sincere appreciation". Now, as for photographs seem a million times before in various modifications ... well, the novelty wears off there IMO and I for one am underwhelmed. But again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so to each his own ...

A (geographical) outsider's comment looking in: What's so great and even desirable about reaching one's self-imposed artistic ceilings only after becoming high (and then ending up being invariably strung out before the vicious cycle starts again)? Celebrating shooting dope as an achievement in reaching artistic heights? Hey, is this still the dope-worshipping late 60s/early 70s in music? (Yeah, I know, dope had been shot by other artists, including musicians, well before that time but was there ever an era when shooting dope and getting high was ever that close to being "respectable" and "the thing to do" well BEYOND musicians' circles?) But strictly personally speaking, what I find rather tiresome is that seemingly endless desire by whoever wants to put in an artistic touch to come up with drawing, painting, pastiching (whatever ...) the same faces, poses, postures of oh so well-known PICTURES over and over again. How often, how dreadfully often have we seen the pics (the REAL photographs) before that were at the heart of these three graphic reworkings? And how often are these graphically altered renditions of the actual photographs already being used in (relatively speaking) "pedestrian" advertising art (posters, record covers, etc.) without any pretenses of high art anyway? Isn't it so that in the end the musicians in question are recognized primarily because people recognize those VERY photographs and automatically associate the musicians shown there? Hey, instead of all this, how about selecting 5 o r6 or even 10 photographs of the musicans in question and then combining the faces, features, characteristic elements, expressions, typical body postures of those musicians into a NEW drawing, painting (whatever ...) of those VERY musicians from an angle or in a pose that has NEVER before been captured in a photograph yet shows the respective musicians in the same unmistakeable and immediately recognizable way ? IMO THIS will show the world that one can REALLY draw, paint, etc. Because it will demonstrate that the artist can extract the three-dimensional features of a face or body from two-dimensional source material and TRANSFER them into an accurate yet different two-dimensional image that is NOT based on a preexisting picture available for use as as a source for copying or painting over. Otherwise, beyond pure technicalities of how these prints are made, and given today's technical and software possibilities, IMHO this trend of rehashing of utterly well-known photographs will entail the risk of pushing such efforts (however noble they may have been at heart) into the nowhereland somewhere between "another Warhol imitation" and "clever Photoshop or other graphic software use" in the minds of very many who've seen exactly the same pics (either the original photographs or grahically altered renditions) a zillion times before. Sorry if this comes across as somewhat harsh, but again - how about creating something NEW instead of altering all too well-known source documents? (Give or take that monkey on Chet's back ...

That's what I imagined if the book focused on the recordings rather than on the (not totally inaccessible) record releases... JR Monterose on Jaro ... before the Xanadu reissue (wait ... was that Xanadu released before or after 75? ) or the facsimile reissue ... originals really must have been "rare as rocking horse manure" (a they said in the basement dept. at Ray's ) even in the 70s. So it seems that in a way, that book is almost more useful today with the wider availability of many reissues on CD.

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?