Big Beat Steve

Not nearly as crazy as when you put Jo Stafford with Red Ingle! 😁

Regardless of how US-centric this author may be and what meaning he put into this personal "Ken Colyer" category, any classification of the styles of the entire field of traditional jazz needs to include the European scene too - at least as ONE of the substyles. The European traditional/classic jazz revival scene not only of the post-war years but even way later up to more recent decades played a significant role in "carrying on the flame" (and no, they weren't all copycats). It just was/is so that a lot happened outside the USA and the Traditional jazz revival definitely has not been a US-only affair anymore for quite some time. And not least of all the revivalist traditional jazz scene in Europe provided sympathetic backing (and livelihoods) to many U.S. expats (Albert Nicholas, to name just one, for example, or - right up to his death in 1998 - Benny Waters). (And I'm saying this despite the fact that European revival jazz is nowhere near my top listening priorities) As for naming Ken Colyer first and maybe as the only one in what appears to be a "British" category, this may be due either to the almost legendary role of Ken Colyer as the "purist" among early Brit Trad Jazz exponents, including because of his visits to the US where he absorbed every note, sneeze and cough of his idols in almost folkoristic proportions (which may have endeared him to certain American jazz historians and scribes in hindsight). Or it may really be a case of unawareness of others (Chris Barber? Humphrey Lyttelton? Just two who no doubt had a larger impact in the long run). Awareness of them might have led Wyndham to reassess this category. In general, and (sorry for this, Rabshakeh!) as an OT side note (at the risk of alienating some here ), I often am underwhelmed by US music scribes who are called upon to cover in any depth a "revival" subculture flourishing to a large extent outside the USA. Often their blind spots as to what was going on in these "far away" countries are such that you wonder where in fact they are NOT "sightless". Case in point: The Rockabilly subculture that has been going on all over Europe since the 70s/80s and has evolved in many directions and new facets. FWIW it also provided a new lease of stage life and belated musical apprecation to many US artists who had recorded in the 50s/early 60s (but in their home country had been relegated to playing hick C&W gigs in the sticks by the 80s). There is a basically very nice book called "Rockabilly - The Twang Heard 'Round the World" with contributions by (a.o.) Greil Marcus, Peter Guralnick, Robert Gordon (all no slouches). As the book title implies it covers the European side to some extent - both "then" and "now" ("revival"). But as anyone familiar with this subculture will see from the artists chosen as a cross-section of the European scene, the authors' awareness of the facts - beyond some major acts presented nicely - was cloudy, to say the least. The "then" French acts they chose give a slanted picture and mysteriously include a minor also-ran but bypass bigger artists who did make a splash. And their look at what they term the "Worldwide Revival" by post-1980s bands (shown through a cross-section of album covers) are arbitrary and random and do look like some record shop owner threw a stack of record covers their way when they asked him "Hey, what European bands ARE there, after all?" Amusing for European readers in the know but confusing for those discovering this aspect for the first time. In short, this Ken Colyer thing does not come as that huge a surprise to me. Still I find it odd that he should be singled out as someone who inspired the playing/emulating habits of US bands enough to warrant a separate stylistic category. I think you will agree that this blows up his importance - even in the European Traditional Jazz revival - in a skewed way. Finally, as for the "Kustbandet" ("The Coast Band"), I have listened to quite a bit of their music online but can't point you to any specific album. They recorded a lot from the mid-60s onwards. I suggest you check out their discography here (page 20 onwards in this file) ... http://old.visarkiv.se/jazzdiskografi/jazzdiskografi_K.pdf ... and see what combinations of tunes appeal to you most. However - their records may be hard to come by outside Scandinavia (or in fact Sweden) so you would have to rely on Discogs sellers. Which may make things uneconomical "just for the fun of it".

Actually this categorization is interesting, give or take the blurring of the "boudaries" between each style (as you mention ...). At any rate, a case can be made for this kind of subdivision, at least "for convenience's sake". I feel somewhat uneasy about some of the definitions, however: i) "Hot dance" orchestras as one style of classic jazz is very apt, but I wonder about labeling these bands "non-jazz or partly-jazz". Granted that there always have been fans and/or discographers who drooled about almost any (mostly white) non-jazz and not even partly-jazz 1920s dance band documented on records that in their opinion qualified as "jazz" just because of the presence of 8 or 16 bars of a "hot solo" (preferably by a name soloist). Which of course is seriously skewed because the same yardstick would never have been granted to comparable "dance" big bands from the Swing era. There were many that were sweet, corny or mickey mouse-ish most of the time but did have capable hot soloists too and did occasionally cut loose and swing with the best on some of their flagwavers. Yet they would never have rated even a "selective" entry in jazz discographies (contrary to 20s dance bands that overall did not muster a higher jazz content either). Was this shift of criteria due only to the scarcity of real JAZZ dance bands (with a mostly hot repertoire preserved on records) in the 20s? Somehow I doubt it. OTOH at least among Black dance bands or orchestras of the pre-Swing era there were quite a few that were much more than "partly jazz" only but would not fit the "downtown N.O." category either. So that "Hot dance" criterion would have to be extended IMO to cover anything from "non-jazz with occasional hot solos to fully-fledged jazz bands". ii) Among the Revivalist styles, I take it that "British trad" is a category that popped up there because of the (U.S.) author's unawareness of most of what happened across the Pond. In all truthfulness this should read "European and Australian trad jazz". There WERE discernible stylistic differences and subcategories, after all, that sometimes could even be categorized by country. I realize subcategorizing this one any further would lead way too far, so at least this "main" category should extend beyond Britain. Not to mention that some acts would not easily fit that overall category anyway, such as the Kustbandet from Sweden.

I was referring to the Coral period of Pete Fountain. Never been too keen on Al Hirt, OTOH. But I am not so sure I would WANT to hear the (Coral) album of Pete Fountain album being backed by Lawrence Welk. (Just listened in on that album on YT and my misgivings have been confirmed in full. )

Some may find him way too commercial? From this corner of the (better-known) revival artists (who had mainstream appeal back then) I for one would rather opt for PETE FOUNTAIN. And along the "one album one artist" lines I'd pick and suggest "Pete Fountain Day" on Coral.

Wilbur de Paris! This is one artist who came to mind when I read the opening post. I am having a hard time deciding one "one album per artist" so will suggest the two I lean towards: - His NEW New Orleans Jazz - Atlantic 1219 - Marchin' and Swingin' - Atlantic 1233 One missing from your list of latter-day recordings by classic/traditional jazz pianists: PECK KELLEY! No use limiting oneself to "one album" here because his recorded legacy is slim anyway. So here goes: - Peck Kelley Jam (Comodore XF2 17917) - Peck Kelley and Lynn "Son" Harrell - Arcadia 2018D Though these records may show Peck Kelley past his (totally unrecorded) prime they are ear openers in more ways than one IMHO.

Interesting project and question. But I dont' think I'm playing. I know I'll be having trouble identifying many of the older African Americans offhand but beyond that ... I bought the book (Art Kane Harlem 1958) when it came out a couple of years ago and have looked at this photo so often in the intervening years that I would probably recognize several that normally would be off the radar. Definitely including the odd men out ... : https://jazzbuffalo.org/2020/07/22/bill-crump-a-great-day-in-harlems-mystery-man/ https://harlem.org/people/scovillebrown.html (Oh yes, and among the older ones I would have recognized The Lion, but unfortunately he sneaked out of the picture ... )

I guess this problem of "reliabilty" exists with any such discussion platforms. When I read the Mercury discussion I was under the impression everything they stated boiled down to "educated guesses". But like I said, I know too little about this specific series to judge it at all. At any rate and on a more general level, my impression is that whatever the Japanese released and reissued beyond their own country certainly was aimed at the USA in the very first place. And all other target coutnries were afterthoughts. At least from the Japanese point of view. So, looking at them from over here, I've understood Japanese pressings always as being typical "imports" (that found their way here more or less haphazardly and strictly on the initiative of individual importers). But I'd bet ther always are exceptions to any rule anyone comes up with about pressings, releases, exports/imports, etc., so in the end it all remains "educated guesses". I am not worried too much about ths kind of "fuzziness" in these discussions anymore. I've come across the same kind of discussions on other forums in different hobby areas where you get involved once you have gathered substantial knowledge on the subject matter. But it almost always turns out that the more you learn the more you realize that there are things you don't know 100% for sure. So in most cases I'm past working myself into a temper ... 😁 At any rate, I think, beyond my use of Discogs for checks on specific releases I think I might check the discussion sites a bit more often too. Might be fun ... Although (judging by these Mercury discussions) I guess they remain more civilized than on the Hoffman forum ... 😁

Thanks for the link. Haven't read (and absorbed) it all yet but this is a very fiddly subject, it seems. At any rate, there seem several contributors who are heavily into the details. But piecing all these snippets of info together is bound to be difficult and will lead to conflicting assessments of what the results are all about. I have nothing to contribute to this question but the follownig sentence "For Imports, the country they are imported from is the country of release" seems to be the decisive one IMHO. BTW, since Elektro Egger was mentioned several times (some of my older "Bielefelder Katalog" volumes were handed out by them), I am surprised that someone came up with the idea of contacting them about these reissues and their importing policies. As far as I know (and as was confirmed in the obit of Manfred Scheffner in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" online issue) the Elektro Egger shop is long gone. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/nachruf-der-jazz-verkaeufer-1.4595638

By aural evidence (of those last few YT snippets) - yes ... there is some blackness (or should one say, "non-clean-whiteness"? ) there that needs to be acknowledged. I did enjoy "Someday Sweetheart" (he would not have been totally out of place on jukeboxes alongside Nat Cole, Charles Brown and the like). But I am underwhelmed by his singing on that tune with the Four Lads. To my ears he is straining too much to make a "singing statement". I suppose this was post-"Mule Train", right? But that RCA LP cover of a "Rockin'"(???) Frankie Laine LP with Paul Weston (of all bandleaders) providing the "Rockin'" backing?? WTF?? Who were they trying to fool? Trying desperately to grab a piece of the R'n'R action and cashing in at its most blatant while it lasted? And I pity those teens who received platters like this from their uncles and aunts ("Look, I've got a "Rockin'" birthday present for you!") 😁 These records would have been OK as somewhat more lively adult pop with swing-tinged after-hours overtones if the A&R execs had remained reasonable in their marketing, but beyond that they'd fall straight into the bracket that reissuers such as Bear Family have compiled on CDs aptly titled "Rockin' is NOT Our Business". Platters like this can be fun in retrospect, of course. There were many "hopping on the R'n'R bandwagon" jobs like this and I've explored quite a few of them for the fun of it as they do fall into the fringes of my musical "Big Beat" interests. They usually range from the interesting (and sometimes surprisingly competent if you have open ears and are not given to pigeonholing) to the grotesque, bizarre and sometimes downright awkward. But teen credibility??

Good point about Kay Starr. As for Frankie Laine proving that not all post-Swing white pop was sugary and watered down - again, check out what Arnold Shaw wrote about Frankie Laine in his "The Rockin' 50s" book. He acknowledges his "belting" style as the opposite of "crooning" but after a quick glance through the book it seems he took him as the "exception proving the rule" in white pre-R'n'R pop ("Mule Train" 'n' all ...). (I cannot provide verbatim quotes because I have the German translation of this book) However, on a more general level, if one cnosiders that by the early 50s white teenagers on the WEST Coast,for example, were already flocking to Big Jay McNeely et al., then I guess the jury would still be out when deciding to what extent Frankie Laine was NOT geared to "adult" pop and therefore all that relevant to the burgeoning teenage music buying market.

This would have been my "general-purpose" recommendation upon reading the thread starter's particular questions too. Though I also found it generic (even in that semi-pre-internet era in the latter 90s when I bought it) and was a bit underwhelmed. But I guess my expectations had been set high by other books (that focus on individual jazz styles) that were more in-depth and detailed (such as the West Coast Jazz books by Ted Gioia and Robert Gordon). But I recently re-read Rosenthal's book and liked it better this time.

Thanks again - I've thought about restapling too but this would be far from inconspicuous too. And I guess this might reduce any further "resale value" (for my heirs ) with picky purists just as much as a neat bookbinder's tape strip. I have done these staple repairs numerous times with 50s magazines where either the staples had rusted and almost disintegrated or the paper had come loose (cover and/or center double page). In some cases I've restapled in different places along the spine (taking great care to actually staple exactly on the folding "peak" of the spine and pages). In others I've removed the staples and then strengthened the insides of the cover and the center double page around the stapling areas with a length of repair strip (so these strips are fairly inconspicuous once the mag is opened and leafed through) in order to stabilize the paper. And then I've restapled in the original positions. This does look neat and stapling through these reinforcing strips greatly reduces the risk of the paper coming loose again). But like I said, this was with magazines and booklets of a collector value well below that of this JWC folio. So I really am wary about having anything like this done with the JWC folio because, given the thickness, you would need rather hefty staples. And then there is the problem that additional strengthening of the spine would still be needed because it does have some rubbing wear (where the white "core" of the paper has come through). Oh well, time will tell ...

+1 👍

Thanks Romualdo and Bakeostrin for your opinions and advice. I am still on the fence about how to proceed but see little alternatives to stabilizing the stapled sections (a few inches to and fro, or the entire length) of the spine on the front and back insides with repair strips - of the specific type and brand used by book restorers. These strips are fairly thin (but strong) and matt and do not yellow nor leave discolorations. They have been recomended to me by someone from the trade (not for this project but for earlier ones - remember these acid-laden "pulp paper" US paperbacks from the 40s and early 50s?). But alas it would be not quite inconspicuous at the front (with the inside of the front cover being black). The top staple is about 95% loose from the book/folio itself and the bottom one is not that far behind. So each time the book is handled (however carefully) the stapling of the softcover will get weaker and before long will separate completely. I am not sure how to glue this up inconspicuously (with whatever glue) but will inquire with pros from the trade. A clear mylar cover (jacket) to fit the book into is tempting for protection of the spine (already somewhat worn in my case but not disintegrating). But with the cover almost loose from the pages I cannot see how this would solve THIS problem of really keeping the cover and the iside pages (which are totally tight at the staples) together. Particularly since I imagine such an additional cover would increase the strain on the stapling on a SOFTcover (as in this case). Over time I've tidied up and "stabilized" a lot of old collectible magazines and books (from the 20s to early 60s) from my hobby areas, have tried various solutions with glue, restapling and/or clear tape of various types (depending on the kind of age wear) and have almost always found tidy solutions that look neat. But of course these never were in the price bracket of this Claxton JWC folio. A dilemma ...

Can you provide a direct link to the discussion going on at Discogs?

Interesting to read about these examples of mis-dating. There probably are countless errors like these (many probably perpetuated for decades) and correcting them (and making the corrections known - such as in the of subsequent reissues or re-reissues of the records in question) seem to be a permanent topic of discussion in some circles. At least that is the impression you get as an attentive liner notes and booklet reader. And in many cases the formerly published dates seem to be much farther off the "correct" mark than in the two cases you discuss. Thanks also for (re-)mentioning the discogrpahy history book by Epperson. I had heard about it some time ago and am now seriously considering taking the plunge. (At the risk of maybe not reading it in full more than once ...) It Is an interesting topic, and I wonder to what extent the author gives due credit to those who laid the groundwork (Delaunay, Panassié, McCarthy, Rust, Blackstone, Lange, Jepsen ... - all of them - except Blackstone - European, FWIW) and puts things into perspective when he deals with more recent publications.

Yes I do think that there are similarities in their "pianistic" chops and practices. I do not really have a horse in any race of what criticism (or should I say "reservations" or misgivings?) is objectively justified in either case. Being no pianist, I would not be able to judge such reservations to any deeper extent anyway. But even as an onlooker and "jazz listener" I cannot help feeling that - at the risk of speaking heretical words now 😁 - there are some jazz circles where the accepted present-day wisdom is "Thou shalt not criticize Tatum" but also "Thou shalt not like Peterson".

Similar estate finds might be made even over here. Though usually with much rather quantitites of each individual artist. BUT - no AHMAD JAMAL in a collection where the jazz section was this heavy on pianists?? Amazing ...

Funny that this thread comes up again. I got to thinking about this discussion the other day when I read my way through a stack of 50s jazz magazines (both US and european). One thing that reminded me of this discussion was that back then you every now and then were liable to find a deep analysis of why Art Tatum in the author's view was overrated jazzwise. In a nutshell, pianistics beyond reproach, but jazzwise all flash, fireworks, virtuosity to the detriment of the "real jazz depth" (I am paraphrasing very loosely). Seems like assessments like this were not that rare in his lifetime - though he seems to have been canonized forevermore once he had died. And lest anyone come up with a predictable reply to the tune of "those who said so didn't know shit then" - it just remains so that appreciation is in the ear of the behearer - and in everyone's approach to the subject matter. (And one man's meat, of course ...) And yes - I do enjoy my Art Tatum records immensely and pull them out more often than my (somewhat less numerous) OP records - of which also appreciate a certain number, e.g. those of his "Exclusively For My Friends" series for MPS that I own. Not to mention many of his rhythm section contributions in horn-led sessions. Yet I wonder if some of the jazz scribes active through the decades approached artists like these two from similar angles and found fault with certain aspects of their works for what to them seemed to be similair reasons.

Can't let Soulpope and Optatio do all the tough work, so ...

Online newspaper sites report that Swedish jazz basisst and composer Georg Riedel has died at the age of 90. RIP

Well, at least "mine" have seen some (street or juke joint dancefloor?) use! 😁

Two more ...

Ha, you beat me to it ... Was about to pull this one off my shelf. Just to show how the color of a cover can be pure coiuncidence (see my yesterday's post in the "Blue" covers thread ). Anyway ... elsewhere there seem to be some strange notions of "purple" colors in this thread ... Some look predominantly and decidedly more BLUE to me.