Big Beat Steve

The kind of semi-derelict buildings that photographers immortalized some 80 years ago and that you now see on SHORPY to everybody's amazement. ... History does repeat itself (Not only in your neck of the woods ...).

Thanks for that feedback on DG, everyone. Which I can confirm. Received order AND shipping confirmation within less than 24 hours, and the item arrived safely after 10 days (normal ..). BTW, I don't know if any of you ordered Jazzhus items lately, but currently DG seem to include a freebie 12-track "Jazzhus sampler" (nice gesture) with every order from the Jazzhus catalog. That freebie features mostly UK and German artists - nothing wrong with that at all, though I for one would not have minded getting a listening sample of one or two of the Danish acts such as Bjarne Rostvold ...

Nat King Cole career revisited? (minus the make-up part, probably )

I take it, then, that you would consider Diana Krall a far better instrumentalist on her instrument than, for example, Candy Dulfer on hers (whom I've also seen posing in a "sort of" sexual/sensual attitude for P.R./marketing purposes)? (No, I am not asking this because I'd disagree - I am just wondering as I have not heard enough of both of them to really have a well-founded opinion, though what I have heard of Candy Dulfer's tootling has left me sort of cold ).

I hate to say it, but When? The Hit Parades of the Swing Era, the best-selling record lists of the 30s and 40s seem to argue otherwise (I've seen old Billboards and such). Who, outside of black communities, knew of Armstrong, Morton, Bessie Smith during the Jazz Age? Crow Jim? Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, the Dorseys, etc., were part of the jazz world too. And hit parades weren't the only criterion. Wasn't it so that public turnout to live appearances went a "bit" beyond that of a niche product too?

Again, IMO it all depends. I wouldn't claim it is the only route but I think it is one that does work. I remember the case of a fellow collector who had been (and still is) very much on 50s rockabilly plus black rock'n'roll, including early post-war R&B, and his interest in those R&B combos had led him to explore post-1945 bebop to some extent (Gene Ammons, for example, is one who'd easily straddle the fence). Though it's never become his favorite musical forte ever since those R&B combos were a sort of stepping stone towards bebop. Another friend who's pretty knowledgeable about swing as well as R&B and jump blues the other day asked me about recommendations for 40s bebop too because his curiosity had been aroused. And this one does a lot of DJing himself and has often confirmed that whenever he does a soul/black music (60s/early 70s) night, a certain dose of gutsy 60s Soul Jazz goes over with no problem at all even with those among the public/dancers who otherwise had not progressed far beyond Motown. So there ARE ways to get people interested .... May be harder with those listeners who are into totally different music but punk music lovers have been known to embrace the more punk-influences 90s Neo-swing bands, for example ... No guarantee they'd ever get straight into Ayler/Coltrane, etc., but who knows ... Of course others may advance in that direction from their rock preferences via jazz rock, etc. When exploring new musical styles (and this is particularly true for jazz) IMO it does help in most cases if you find something there that you immediately can relate to from your previous listening habits (instead of being dumped in totally unfamiliar territory).

Opinions and tastes do differ after all, so no problem. Maybe to clarify things, it would be wise to define which styles of jazz we are actually talking about throughout. I still feel there is enough jazz that is fairly simple to grasp (and NOT simple in the sense of the Brötzmann quote posted above!) and accessible to everyone and will immediately make you want to tap your feet to. As far as THESE styles of jazz are concerned, the effort required is not any bigger than the effort required with the varioous styles of rock and popular music where the casual listener who is not a fig fan of any particular style yet would have to make just as big an effort to tune in to, say, house or techno or rap if all he so far has actively enjoyed is "classic rock" or Brit pop or grunge or whatever (and vice versa). OTOH there ARE styles of jazz that can only sound weird and unhinged and dissonant and do not immediately make sense to the uninitiated. But why start with the most inaccessible areas of jazz if you want to want to get others started on jazz? Why not open up ways of easing them in in a gradual way into an EVOLUTION of jazz? Maybe because to a certain species of jazz fans those jazz styles that are far simpler and more immediately enjoyable in a "party" sense of experience are far too lowbrow (or should I say "lowly"?) to them as they are all cerebral in their jazz thinking? Just wondering .... That post sounds like it would have been interesting food for discussion, though.

Seems like not everybody's definition of simplicity is the same, least of all in jazz.

Wrong on several accounts - sorry. What you say might be true (and probably is) for all those who are only prepared to consider it jazz if it was produced (stylistically speaking) post-Electric Miles or maybe post-Miles Davis Quintet or (at the very, very widest) post-Bird. SWING is quite accessible and a lot (waaaay past Glenn Miller) is comparatively "simple", danceable and just plain fun (or would you deny that Swing is jazz?). Not to mention "classic jazz" (popularly summarized as "Dixieland"). And Swing therefore can serve as an entrance door to subsequent styles of jazz as it allows people to find their way GRADUALLY in those areas of jazz as and when they are prepared to listen and explore that music by way of musical CONTINUTY (which does exist). I've witnessed several cases myself where this has worked. This still concerns only a minority but MANY more than the current audience of what many (self-proclaimed) "progressive" fans of jazz consider outright jazz. Apart from music of the swing era or current bands playing in that idiom ("recreations" or not), many of the less punk-ish "Neo-Swing" bands of the 90s onwards would have served that bill of being an introductory card to jazz very well and yet most "progressive" jazz fans saw fit to diss those bands as unfit for any consideration because in their exes they were not even remotely linked to jazz. Probably because to those "progressive" jazz fans anything from the swing era (stylistically speaking) is just old hat and not "jazz" enough. Your loss, this snobbish attitude ... So if attitudes like this mean that jazz (as understood by those who consider themselves "real" jazz fans) remains limited to far-out, weird, screwy "noise" (which is how many non-jazz listeners would perceive those styles of jazz at their first enounter) then you are slamming the door in the face of those who'd be willing to try and increase the jazz audience. Your loss again ...

So how do all of you tell the REALLY honest sections from the (personally imagined to be) honest (but in fact overly embellished/exaggeratged) sections that demand a grain of salt? Because if you are able to tell ALL of them apart then the book won't tell you anything new since you know all the historical background and detail by heart. Likely ... ?

Yes, some really intriguing reissues of Eurojazz rarities. I've googled a bit and found a couple of sites that carry some of these releases, e.g. here: http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/home/search/-/label/Jazzhus However, they don't list those I am most interested so I feel like pulling the trigger on one or two at Dusty Groove. Anybody have any experience on how fast/reliable DG is with processing European orders?

Yes - very interesting. Thank you!!

Agreed, though when I first saw that movie (in my early 20s) what struck me most about Chuck Berry's appearance was how this seemed to prove there wasn't such an unsurmountable gap between jazz and r'n'r at that time, seing how the audience just had a big time. OTOH I remember most period writeups of Bert Stern's film that I've since come across in old jazz mags made a point of disparaging Chuck Berry's appearance in that film, mentioning it as an all-time low in taste, etc. etc. Not to be taken seriously with the benefit of hindsight, and clearly the audience was ahead of the scribes, but signs of the times anyway.

Is this book from the "Studies In Jazz" series? They usually are just as expensive or even more so (but usually worth it).

Actually by sheer conicidence the other day I caught a radio feature (on a station I don't normally tune in to) on Anita O'day's career, and when Jazz On a Summer's Day came up the speaker mentioned how much Anita, dressed in her ultra-cool style (that we all are familiar with since watching that movie) stepped up for that afternoon show and soon had the relatively lazy and subdued public yelling and clapping for more ... And then her renditions of "Sweet Georgia Brown" and "Tea for Two" from that concert were aired.

Not accessible to German users (copyright ...) but never mind ... I treasure my VHS copy.

@Mark Stryker: Have you found that Mingus letter re- Thad Jones or are you still on the lookout? Just recently I have been able to buy a collection of about 45 Metronome magazines (not cheap but cheaper than what they always seem to go for on eBay) covering the mid-1952 to mid-1960 period, including 10 of the 12 1954 issues. The mags arrived today so I checked. Unfortunately none of the readers letters in the 1954 issues I now have contain any letter by Charles Mingus, let along one praising Thad Jones. So if that letter actually was published in 1954 it must be in the November or December issue of 1954 (which I don't have). Sorry I have not been able to help. I will keep an eye out for anything like that when I start "devouring" the contents and will report here but as it now stands it was a close miss.

I was wondering about that too. According tot AMG he was indeed born in 1937 (= 75), but wikipedia says that the year was 1930 (= 82). 1930 would have made him uncommonly old for a newbie pop singer of the LATE 50s. Besides, a British rock'n'roll encyclopedia from the mid-70s that I have here gives his 1937 birthday date too (as does the obit linked above, incidentally). BTW, seeing the thread title (and being unaware of that other's death date)I was wondering about any confusion with Jimmy Jones the pianist too.

How can somebody born in 1937 be 82 now?

Hee hee, seems like Prestige at one point really tried their best to outcrown the Crown label! :crazy:

Bought the CD reissues (Blue Moon) of his "Basically Bagley" and "Jazz On The Rocks" LPs from the 50s some time ago and like them a lot. RIP.

I don't download, but I do want to hear samples (at least of really unfamiliar stuff), including samples of things not available other than on CD. So this is a bummer for me. Same here. I haven't checked out these sound samples very often but just recently it has saved me from an unwise purchase (no big deal, just something that while not bad was something I could and will do without). So I'd regret seeing those samples go (because some minor labels indeed don't do MP3 - and I would not expect them to).

Agreed with MG. Your perspective, TTK, is a very interesting one that really nails it. Bossa Nova as played by non-Brazilians in those 60s has become a genre all of its own that conveys mooods and images that are different from those conveyed by the true Brazilian (folk) artists. Folk purists may call them "watered down" but IMO they do manage to stand on their own. I wouldn't dare to compare or rate both of them but IMHO there is a place even for that "air of young jet-setting international decadence" (60s Latin lounge music, to put it more bluntly ).

I have this LP on a 60s U.K. vinyl pressing (reissue or maybe actually first UK issue?) on the EMI Stateside label (Stateside being one of EMI's (semi-)budget labels AFAIK). Sounds O.K. enough to my ears, quite clear and crisp and certainly not muffled. But of course I have nothing to compare it with. Now if others say the original Jubilee LP sounded crappy too (was it the fidelity of the session that was crappy or just the pressing quality of the Jubilee vinyl?) I wonder where this EMI Stateside pressing stands. Any impressions by any long-time (U.K.?) collectors?

+1 :tup