Big Beat Steve

Also check out the recordings made for the MOLE JAZZ (yes, of the record shop fame) label. It also seems that some recordings released on Doug Dobell's "77 Records" label at least were made "in cooperation with Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club". No doubt an internet search will yield many trails. Good luck!

Just in case it is of further comfort to you ... earlier today I placed it on my Saved Items list through my national Amazon site. Though recordings from that period are a bit outside my key area of interest I got sort of curious ... All the fuss and a possibly overdone bass man notwithstanding ...

Sorry to disagree again, but that would be carying things far too far in my humble opinion. What's wrong with making like-minded music lovers and/or collectors aware of items that have been released/reissued? Especially in a minority niche market like this. All the readers and forumists are mature people (aren't they? ) to decide for themselves if they want to follow it up or check it out. And even if there was such a rule it would be oh so easy to bypass it by having such items mentioned by third party "straw people". I still feel the gist of this thread is that however noble the intentions were, the way it all hnas been handled (or rather the way it has evolved) it has been overdone and therefore took on an outward appearance where the risk that it looks somewhat dubious has risen disproportionately. Now what good would that do? But that's been said often enough so let's leave it at that ...

I for one did not use the term "unethical", I just find it unreasonable to handle this thing the way it has been handled and then enthuse about the outcome the way it has been done here through a LOT of earlier posts. Which is why I had my concerns about it all backfiring too. Like I said earlier, it would have been VERY wise to spread out the "remedying" reviews over a much longer time span - and cut out that "helpful" nonsense which in the way the ratings have been heaped up the way it happened makes it all look less than credible. Or can you show me any other reviews (of a real niche item) that are just one or 2 days old at best ANYWHERE on Amazon that have already amassed 10 or more "helpful" ratings within these 1 or 2 days? Amazon just don't work that way ... Sorry to be quite blunt but if there are those who claim that one is being "cheap" if one has reservations about this whole APPROACH then all one can say in return is that the way this review and rating affair has been handled COLLECTIVELY really is nothing but childish. Sorry for the well-intentioned individual contributions but the overall picture is just that IMHO ...

I guess nobody would have mentioned this "how come nobody wrote a review earlier" if it hadn't been for this reciprocal shoulder patting and "hey, we're going to rub this really in" attitude that had sprung up here in no time at all - THAT'S where the clucking started and that's what just MIGHT be considered just as cheap, you know. But again you missed the point IMHO: Nobody would have been required EVER to "hover" over that Amazon review section for years and years just to see if any sort of RE-action had been called for. NO - the point is: What was it that PREVENTED others (who bought that disc and were utterly pleased) from just writing a genuinely positive review at the time they bought it to let people know that this is something that they might want to give a try too? After all THIS is what the review section is for in its essence. Not for attempts at "making up". And such reviews would have helped the product during the entire time span, not only at this (late) date, especially since any poor review (such as the one that triggered this) would have had far less of an impact if it had been up against 4 or 5 glowing reviews right from the START. So much for what friends really can do to help a deserving cause ... Yet even these attempts at "making up" would have been understandable, but going overboard like it happened with everybody pushing and shoving at getting their say in there both in the reviews and this "helpful" nonsense really - now really ... is the risk of backfiring (again, that cumulation of identical review dates looks exceedingly strange) really worth THAT?

Didn't you get me or did you deliberately go out of your way to AVOID understanding me? Friends do not need to WAIT to have to band together. They will act on their very own in favor of somebody else because they feel the desire to do so no matter what everybody else does. They are just as likely to be there to show their support IN GOOD TIME and do not wait until after the (alleged) damage has been done. Now how's the score here? That clearer now?

Real friends don't need to band together but they show their support on their VERY own and through their own impetus as early as possible after having obtained the object that they feel could do with a helping (reviewer's, in this case) hand. Not exactly unethical either, you know ... (No, I am not going to name examples again but some day maybe the difference between banding together in a latter-day attempt on the one hand and acting on one's own as a person capable of such individual action on the other will become apparent ;) Like I said, that helping hand would and could have helped during the past few YEARS ... Opportunity missed? Maybe, but don't blame it on those who pointed it out ... )

Of course I respect your point of view too. After having had a much closer look at that review section I just felt that all parties concerned were walking a very thin line of overdoing things, right up to the point of the whole affair backfiring. Each review on its own may be genuine but the overall impressions when all the details (incuding posting dates etc.) are taken together just give a picture that might very well run contrary to the original intentions. And what good would that do?

PM sent on some other option on how to go about this.

Funny how this thread has evolved. I wouldn't be quite as harsh as seeline and neveronfriday but essentially I tend to be in their camp too. So maybe those who NOW (of all moments) wrote such glowing reviews in one single, straight row would like to comment on THIS point raised by neveronfriday (and rightly so) - and by others (including me) before? How about it, gents, how come you hadn't thought of giving that release and its producer a push in good time? Might have helped sales ever since the first review appeared several years ago on Amazon (maybe more so than it does now when most of the fans have been served). Lots of time to act ... You know what? If you want to help an endeavour that you consider deserving of every plug it can get, then do like it has been done here: I would not want to make my own post a role model for cases like this but the urge to give this a push literally the minute I got my copy was there. Quite honestly ... Doing that several years later would be a bit ...what? ... yeah, half-lame ... BTW, that book above being self-published and therefore NOT being on Amazon does us tell what? That there may be cutthroat resellers discounts at work for those items to be sold directly by Amazon? Makes it all the more deserving of a plug ... (Which reminds me of another post I gotta make on a related topic ) P.S: @ Mr Nessa, lots of luck with selling as many of your productions as you can. No doubt they will be able to stand on their own merits to those who are into that music and do not really need something like "swarm ratings".

This "axe to grind" thing had me wondering in the opening post, and now again. What do you mean by that exactly? Do you really infer that there are that many people out there who have an "axe to grind" (or a bone to pick or whatever) with a specific label, producer, artist or whoever? What for? On that Amazon platform of all places? And totally unrelated to something that really bugs them about a published work by their OWN (SUBJECTIVE) standards? I hardly ever bother to even think about writing an Amazon review (though that automatic mail comes in every time I buy a book or disc there), and yet ... I remember once I wrote one (relating to one of those "record guides") where I specifically faulted the author for getting himself far, far out on a limb by making assumptions about the non-availability of the recorded works of certain artists, and all this only because this (U.S.) author evidently was glaringly unaware of the existence of widely and internationally distributed reissues on (non-U.S.) collector labels. Something that can mar the overall trustworthiness of the recommendations in such a book. Did I grind an axe there because I stressed the weaknesses? I don't think so. Or how about that case when I complained about the abysmally poor photo printing quality in a music book (that did rely on these photos for its overall message) and left a lukewarm review and relatively low rating? And this for a book for a niche target audience on a niche subject by a niche publisher? Did this mean I had an axe to grind because I would rather have been obliged to leave a glowing review in view of the fact that it was such a niche item? I don't think so either. So ... ???

(Referring to the bold print in your statement:) Indeed, though not new. The after-sales service bulletin stationery of my favorite classic car marque, for example, way back in the 50s read: "A satisfied customer brings 4 more. A dissatisfied customer takes away 10 more." Or like a proverb over here says: "Positive things require proof. Negative things are believed sight unseen." Human nature, I guess too. Which would seem to underline all the more the necessity to counterbalance this by truly felt positive reviews. Agreed 100% - but for the sake of those affected and to avoid it backfiring, PLEASE do it in a SENSIBLE manner. Going overboard in a rush all on the same day, artificially exploding "helpful" markings in a - to outsiders looking on - most unlikely way, etc., is NOT sensible in my book. BTW, and FWIW, where have those honestly felt "full-mark" reviews been all those years BEFORE that dissatisfied review came up? They could have helped all along after all. BTW, if I read those amazon reviews at all, I tend to read those 1 and 2-star reviews atentively too. Mostly to get another impression of the wide variety of human nature, and so far these reviews have hardly ever prevented me from buying any item I had REALLY set my sights on. After all one man's meat is another man's poison.

You do realize that this sort of commentary discredits the entire - basically laudable - efforts of pushing up the review rating? Calling somebody nuts just because you disagree? You do realize a lot of these listening impressions are a matter of PERSONAL TASTE (which is why "ill-informed" misses the point just as much) and don't deserve to be seen as ANYTHING but that? Even by those who read the reviews? And why would anybody go to the pains of posting a review on Amazon for something he didn't even buy there?

FWIW, and while I do not agree with Hans in essence, I'd like to remind all of you (who chimned in to "push up things") about this for comparison: What does a NON-100% positive rating of eBay sellers say? Negative feedback where a reason for the poor rating is given will always stand out like a sore thumb and will attract more attention than SEVERAL positive reviews. Especially since many positive feedback replies are really run of the mill stuff where people enthusiastically drool about the fact that they got their item at all. No doubt I am not the only one who pays particular attention to whatever negative has been said in places like that. And the same IMHO essentially holds true for ratings on sites such as Amazon (if one looks there AT ALL, that is...). So I can only hope that what ALL of those said who chimed in on the very same day today (what coincidence...) will come across as a really detailed and argumentatively sound evaluation to everybody else out there. This IMHO would be the ONLY way of passably offsetting that negative review. But after having had an even more detailed look at this review section I must say that if I were one of those keenly interested in buying the record but intent on reading those reviews I'd find it EXCEEDINGLY hard NOT to notice the coincidence both of the dates immediately following the 2-star review and of the high "helpful" ratings of all those "subsequent" ratings. Not something THAT common in these Amazon reviews overall, especially since the SOLE previous review is about 5 or 6 years old ... You all would have been really, REALLY well advised to spread out your positive reviews over 1 to 2 weeks as the very minimum! So I have to agree with David Ayers in that this MIGHT backfire if somebody feels it reeks of a concerted action. Otherwise, I'm all with King Ubu. Many, many platter reviews on Amazon are strictly for the birds anyway. What good would it do to me to read (as it happened the other day) a glowing review about a 4-CD box set compilation that has clearly been written by a total beginner who enthuses about the most elementary stuff that is there but fails to note the finer points of why that compilation would be of interest even to seasoned collectors? And the same goes for negative reviews by those who feel that certain tracks are inappropriate on that set - but only so because they have no idea of what that segment of music actually encompasses. Best left to the "Skip" button, most of that ...

May I throw a comment into the ring from another angle? I haven't heard the record so can't and won't comment on whether there is anything to that 2-star "rating" in its entirety - BUT: What struck me in that criticism is how the reviewer complained about the bass being too prominent. Sorry to state this but I have had similar feelings about several "latter-day" (i.e. 70s) recordings by 50s jazz greats that I have purchased through the years, e.g. Tal Farlow, Al Haig, some Basie Pablo session. In each and every case the very prominently featured, oddly resonating amplified "plunkety-plunk, thumpety-thump" lines of the droning, throbbing, plunking bass (electric or overly amplified doghouse?) really marred the otherwise fine recordings for me. Just overdone and too much up front in the mix. Sign of the times, question of what was en vogue ...? Couldn't it JUST be that "too much presence of the bass" was at the core of the gripe of the reviewer here from HIS (subjective) point of view too? A highly subjective matter of taste for sure but maybe something that just MIGHT warrant mentioning? (Though I agree this would not warrant downgrading to 2-point) So do I like Ray Brown's unobtrusive yet felt bass presence? Yes. So do I understand Jimmy Giuffre even better when he - in response to a question of the "Where is the beat/rhythm?" sort - replied "It is understood"? Definitely yes! Just my 2c

Sadly, it seems like we are a bit late with all this: After having signed teh petition and mailed ti out via the site, I received the following mail from one of the German MP's of the EP: However, I cannot support your request. The issue currently discussed in the European Parliament, notably in the legal affairs committee, does not touch upon the copyright extension from 50 to 70 years but is rather a necessary technical adaptation. The European Parliament adopted its position on the term of protection of copyright and related rights already on 23 April 2009 by a large majority of MEPs being in favour of the extension. In view of the transition to the 7th legislative term, the plenary agreed in September 2009 to resume the work on the text adopted in first reading by the Parliament and is still awaiting a Common Position in the Council. Therefore, from a legal point of view it will not be possible to re-open the discussion on a file already reaffirmed by the Parliament after the elections. The request Mr Engström is not supported by the FDP in the European Parliament. I therefore trust your understanding that I will not sign this request. Looks like the "powers" in the Council are the ones to turn to at this point.

Done, Marcel. Thanks for making us aware of this intiative. I will forward this "call for action" to my collecting friends (most of them in the rockabilly, R&B and country music field where there are LOTS of "abandoned" or "orphan" recordings that would definitely NOT benefit from any such extended copyright "protection" initiated by the bigwigs). Hope they will all act really fast too.

I agree with the gist of what RDK says. Because if reasonable efforts are made I'd guess that a settlement with whatever heirs there may be could likely be reached. After all this set of recordings ought to have "some" sales potential among collectors. @Paul Secor: We may have missed each other's points so I will try to clarify: 1) There ARE settlements and rules that would ensure that royalties are paid for a reasonable amount of time after the recordings have been made and after that the items go into public domain. I don't think the 50-year rule (as it still stands for the time being in Europe) nor the 70-year rule as it was (is?) customary in the U.S. would be all that abusive. And both would make the Savory recordings available. 2) I admit I really do not understand what this 95-year (and whatever other cutoff date after whichever key year used as a calculating basis in the past) rule mentioned in the link above is all about in all details insofar as music recordings are concerned. But if it is so that these have superseded the 70-year U.S. cutoff date then this did not come like a bolt from the blue nor because some philanthropic institution all of a sudden decided "we need to do something about those poor, penniless, overlooked artists who'd otherwise starve to death if no royalties went their way" but it is about BIG money on the part of those (Disney or whoever?) who dread that some "evergreen" that's still good for sales amd money might fall into the public domain and who therefore use the leverage they have to overturn a law (that had been considered acceptable for decades) now that the cutoff date threatens to hit THEIR stuff. Just like in the case of Cliff Richard or the Beatles and their efforts to overturn the European 50-year rule that now appropaches THEIR recordings. But is this about protecting overlooked, shortchanged, poor artists in need? Nonsense - it's about big (corporate) money. And they would not care about those artists really in need either. E.g. I have yet to hear positive proof about BMG, Sony or whoever holds the rights to the Savoy catalog now having worked out comprehensive royalty settlements with all the heirs of all those artists screwed out of their royalties by Herman Lubinsky way back ... At any rate, reshuffling and rewriting laws RETROACTIVLEY (as in this case here) at one's personal whims just because "the powers that be" unite to accomplish this (or would this retroactive extension of copyright protection terms have been accomplished if, say, only the descendants of Charley Patton had demanded this?) is something that AT LEAST is debatable. 3) The Count Basie case: Just an example of why I feel that it really is a case of double standards if those who complain about "shady" or bootleg labels that "rip off" the artists on the other hand have no qualms about buying Count Basie Decca reissues that only grease the palms of the corporate owners of the Decca catalog but do not really give the ARTIST his due. If you are against ripping off the artists, be against it the whole way. 4) The Route 66 labels: Just an example of how even those who are not THAT "shady" are falsely accused in such debates. In short, in this particular case I'd openly advocate trying to have these Savory recordings released by a European company, taking advantage of the 50-year cutoff date while that still lasts. Of course under the premise that a reasonable fund to compensate the artists ought to be set aside from the sales of the releases. That would only be fair ... But I can't see why the big corporations (radio in this case, maybe) ought have any leverage in witholding relase of this material on the grounds of protecting the artists ...I doubt it is the artists they'd be concerned about.

"Screwed over", of course, being a relative term. After all, at best, we're talking about grand children or great grandchildren. How screwable these folks are is worth questioning and worth discussing. True, it's highly relative. And it can be debated what link there is between the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those who CREATED the works of art that would merit royalties after all those decades. What have those great-grandchildren contributed to that act of artistic creativity of 70 or more years ago? Besides, this entire "screwed" argument is rather silly if you look at where the real "screwing" occurred. A case in point (my favorite one): The way Count Basie was screwed out of a LOT of royalties by Dave Kapp for his DECCA recordings (his first major recording contract). To the best of my knowledge except for some moderate amount of compensation negotiated additionally by John Hammond after he became aware of how gullible, unwary Count Basie had been lured into an extremely unfavorable recording contract, no real royalties on an ongoing basis had ever been paid to him since. And how often have these studio recordings (which were and are a cornerstone of his discography and artistic accomplishments) been reissued and recycled? But have ANY of those who bemoan the fate of those who were scrwewed then and allegedly continue to be screwed today REFRAINED from buying these Count Basie recordings? OTOH there still are those who have fancy ideas about what constitutes a "shady" reissue, e.g. in the case of those late 70s and 80s ROUTE 66 etc. labels run by Swedish Jonas Bernholm for the reissue of 40s/50s R&B. He took great pains in locating the original artists or their direct relatives and PREPAID ARTIST royalties for an album run of 1,000 to them even before those were sold. Though he explicitly (and for good reason) bypassed the label owners. To many of those R&B artists the payments made by Route 66 were the first decent royalties they had ever seen for their works from that period. And still there are those who consider his labels a "shady" or "grey" or even "bootleg" affair. In short, sorry to say - Paul Secor's "argument" just doesn't hold water.

The BLOOMSBURY BOOK SHOP! Discovered it during my school class visits there in 1976/77, went there several times during my brief stays in London in those years, bought a load - for my student's purse anyway - of music books (including "Catalyst", the first SUN label bio by Escott/Hawkins - yes, they DID carry that sort of stuff too!) there and had nice talks with that friendly shop keeper (who later turned out to be Theresa Chilton indeed) who seemed to be pleased to give advice to this (relative) newbie. Later on I bought the Leadbitter/Slaven blues discog from her via mail order and remember I also iniqured about that huge "To Bird With Love" book (where else to shop for such specialist items in Europe in those pre-internet days). I still have The Bloomsbury Book Shop's book sale list (that they circulated regularly) with Theresa Chilton's answer to my query about that Bird book scribbled on the front page: "We can obtain "To Bird with Love". Price £56 - UGH!!!" :D (Remember this was in U.K. currency of 1980 or so!) And nearby the Bloomsbury Book Shop there was a nice secondhand record store where I remember I bought the Vogue 3-LP set with the Clifford Brown Paris sessions. Still a cherished and often-listened to item in my racks. When I got back to London the next time in 1992 I was sorry to see that book shop had long gone but was pleased to discover the Compendium Book Shop in Camden Town (now also long gone) that seemed to have continued where the Bloomsbury Book Shop had left off.

So how did they ever manage to legally release/reissue ANY other broadcast recordings from the 30s or 40s elsewhere? And there were/are PLENTY of these around. Entire labels were set up to release such decades-old live recordings. All shady? I doubt it. That said, I never really understood the hullaballoo about those allegedly "unreleased" live recordings by Benny Goodmann that triggered this whole Savory thing in the first place. After all live recordings, airshot dubs etc. by the B.G. orchestra aren't really thin on the vinyl/CD ground and have not been for more than 30 years. What's the special deal about YET ANOTHER big band set list from some location date or one nighter broadcast here or there and dubbed by Mr Savory? What makes those who went after the Savory files so sure that exactly the Savory recordings are some sort of white elephant or missing link, unheard versions, radically differrently arranged or never commercially recorded tunes, undocumented line-ups etc. whereas all the other live/airshot recordings often tend to be (minor) "variations on a theme"? I can very well understand the excitement about those newly discoverd live recordings by other bands/featured artists who have not too much of a preserved legacy of live/airshot/after hours recordings - but B.G.? Naw ..... Or is it sheeer idolatry of the kind that would welcome even the proverbial 10-CD set of "B.G. brushing his teeth"??

THANK YOU SINCERELY, Medjuck, for getting A MODICUM of reason into this unnerving copyrights debate about (allegedly) shady labels who actually make OOP material AVAILABLE that otherwise would fare even worse than being "orphaned".

Maybe Lord was misled (misguided!?) by the fact that the back cover of early pressings (such as the first/very early German pressing I have) has a facsimile reprint of the Downbeat review where Shearing (stressing his regrets about the sudden death of Isreal Crosby) is quoted a saying "Fortunately we made this trio album at Basin Street East." (Though his subsequent statements do not sound like it was all about a live recording at all) The liner notes next to the track listing only give NYC, June 20 and 21, 1962, as the recording site and date, though. And so does the listing in Jepsen's discography.

I haven't heard this album (yet!), but Lord says 'Live "Basin Street East"'. Was it recorded after the audience had left then (it happened)? Perhaps the tape ran also at the actual gig and the tracks are from that. Just speculations, but I now know what release to look for. I am just giving this record (vinyl, first (German) pressing) a spin. It certainly does not sound like a LIVE club recording to me at all.

Uh oh ... Chewy won't like that ...