Big Beat Steve

While doing an online search for a particular late 40s recording that I had only been aware of an a long-OOP late 70s reissue LP (that, to make matters worse, I had failed to buy at the time), I stumbled across a CD I had never heard of before last night and immediately found an affordable copy on Amazon so placed an order, especially since - in addition to the recording I had been looking for - about 80% of the other tracks on that CD were new to me and my reissue awareness too. And while at it, I did a bit more browsing on internet sales lists and came up with 5 or 6 more CDs, most of which held an amazing ratio of stuff I knew existed but had not come across on reissues before. Am now eagerly awaiting my Amazon shipments. So more than ever now I am inclined to agree with what Paul Secor said above: There's so much music readily available - good, bad, and in between - that I can't be bothered worrying about something that I've never heard. Plus, I've been around long enough to have found that, in the end, just about everything gets reissued in some form or other.

Keep cool Chewy, keep cool ... You and I, we are not going to rewrite history. I found this pic in that Swedish jazz mag because I have an almost full run (still missing 7 issues) of that mag from its start in January, 1939 to its demise in December, 1963. No doubt they published that pic after it had been run in U.S. newspapers/tabloids or wherever. Though this jazz mag was a bit more tabloid-like" (with a layout not unlike that of contemporary Down Beat) than the other Swedish mag, Orkester Journalen, no way they had a "scoop" or a first there. As for the caption, it says just what I quoted (I do read and understand Swedish well enough to cope with the contents of these mags).

Uh oh ... Sounds like straight from the horse's mouth indeed. And rather amazing that they should go so far as to run candid pics like this in the press of the day (assuming the pic actually comes from this incident): This appeared in the July, 1955 issue of the Swedish jazz mag "Estrad". The header should be self-explaining, and the caption says a.o. "The police suspected murder but it was found he fell out of bed after a narcotics orgy and broke his neck and was then dumped out there."

Does the symbol on the LHS mean that this LP is a dog? It's an EP, not an LP, so at worst I'd say it's a puppy, not a dog. My main reason for buying that record was - believe it or not - that at the time I owned a car like this (Panhard Dyna Z). The music is obviously a matter of taste but rockabilly fans who've already been around in the 80s will find it quite amusing. Anyway, here's another one in the style shown quite often above: And talking about "lost her shirt", here's another one (almost ...):

Check out the very first reply in this thread. You will see that that I May Be Wrong is identified incorrectly and is actually "Lullaby In Rhythm". BTW, the 4th track on that LP comes from a 1952 gig date (I was about to ask about that but then saw the solution in the very first reply above).

The OD story has been refuted by others because according to various accounts and confirmations Wardell Gray was one of the few of his calibre and in this environment who was NOT a junkie. Maybe he caught the habit very late in his life but still there are those who doubt it.

There's one big difference between Shearing on one and Bud and Dodo on the other side: the latter were able to see the keyboard. Being blind limits the intervals you can finger - for wider leaps between bars you have to see the keys. That's why there are no blind vibes players. As a blind player you always have to stay down on the keys and feel them and move in close steps. That necessitates a different meldodic style. Consider the tunes he chose etc. Just for the record, Mike: That MOST DEFINTELY wasn't me who said the above. Please don't put words like that into my mouth as long as others even drool about the erratic, aimless keyboard fumbling of people who had massive mental problems and yet unfortunately were recorded in their baddest moments. @Jeffcrom: Referring to your recent purchases, do you really doubt I would have doubted your open-mindedness? Our disagreements about the relative merits of early Shearing were more a case of different tastes, weren't they?

This one?? As it happens I have those 8 tracks from that 10in LP on this one (12in) too: This one is on the (U.S.) Hollywood label (LPH 30), only that the tracks now are "credited" to Connie Bennet, Bill Smyth and the Harlem-Aires, whereas the "credits" on the Solitaire LP go to the "Manhattan Rhythm Boys". Both labels are part of those plentiful budget pressings of the 50s, of course, with rehashes of previous releases, sometimes with rather fanciful artist "credits" and arbitrary changes of the song titles (to make them look like new(er) releases). Part of a competition of "out-crowning the Crown label" on its own turf. The music ain't bad at all on these records but so far I haven't bothered trying to find out who's really hiding behind those artist "credits". Anybody else has??

What dude are you talking to, dude? Anyway, I have an original REX 78rpm by the Johnny Barbera Quintette (26027) that clearly says "Licensed for radio broadcast" too so that Teddy Edwards record does not seem to be an isolated affair on that label. I remember having seen this (uncommon) AFFIRMATIVE text elsewhere too but for the life of it cannot recall the label or record.

qcolinmce: You mean what I make of all those never-reissued and never-to-be-reissued 78s that jeffcrom quotes in his posts in the "What 78rpm are you just playing?" topic? Can be sort of frustrating, being confronted with all that rare stuff. Same feeling while browsing through those "First Pressings" books by Galen Gart or discography entries everywhere. OTOH, coping with the problem you mention (which has kept me worried at times too) is made a LOT easier by 1) realizing that what you have in your collection is more than you will be able to really absorb in the rest of your lifetime anyway, 2) remembering that in the CD age reissues still seem to abound and you just have to look hard enough to find more never-before-reissued items almost every day, 3) realizing that the more you learn about the history of your favorite music, the more music you discover that will probably never become available to you (apart from rare originals) so if you really want to remain interested in the music and be ready to discover more (and you need to learn more to be able to make discoveries) you'd better overcome this feeling of never being able to get ALL you want really fast! That said, and getting back to what you said in your post, do I have to assume that the fact that I recently ordered THIS http://www.amazon.com/Discography-Western-String-1928-1942-Discographies/dp/0313311161/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295252790&sr=8-1 through Amazon can only be described as an act of masochism, then? :lol:

Found this at a local fleamarket yesterday for only 6 euros (DUX label, 1965 recordings; not sure if it is an original pressing but at any rate it looks like a very early pressing). RECOMMENDED for all those who are fascinated by that combination of jazz and traditional folklore. The lyrics as sung by traditional folk singers take some getting used to but the combination with the "jazzed-up" versions by the participants is really intriguing. And the arrangements by Jan Johansson are particularly appealing IMO.

I think there is a huuuuuge mixup there: Check out the relevant entry in the Leadbitter/Slaven BLUES discography and you will see that there is a sort of MAIN header in BOLD prior to the session PRECEDING the one we are talking about (i.e. the one held on 11 Oct. 57). This generic "main" header reads: with LLOYD LAMBERT & HIS ORCHESTRA (4088/90) or with JOE MORRIS BAND (4109712) and then details of BOTH sessions follow after this "main" header as a sort of "sub-entries". Now if whoever compiled the entry as given in the starting post failed to read up to the end of the BOLDFACE line it may have been relatively easy to combine Lloyd Lambert as the nominal leader with Joe Morris and the others. Still it is puzzling to see all those jazz bigwigs get together again for a Joe morris band reunion for that Guitar Slim session. Pete Lowry's explanation as told to Paul Secor makes sense to me but still ... I figure that given the ups and downs of his career, Elmo Hope may have been ready to grab any session man gig he could make (assuming he'd been East at that time anyway) but would Percy Heath or PJJ have been that keen on this type of "reunion" to go to any lengths about it? Yet it's a charming idea and another indication that jazz and R&B weren't THAT far apart in the minds of the musicians after all. Now of course if Ken Vail, for example, did another of his "Jazz Diaries" on the Modern Jazz Quartet and proved conclusively that the MJQ happened to play a concert tour at the other end of the world while that Guitar Slim session was taking place then the plausibility of the presence of Percy Heath (and maybe others) would definitely be shattered.

Thanks for that follow-up info. It helps to complete the overall picture.

Ohmygawd ... How many entries do you want (or can digest or follow up ), starting with all the tracks he did with the Gunnar Johnson group (which weren't his earliest anyway), for example? If you really want to go the whole hog, I suggest you check out all the A to Z pdf files of the "Svensk Jazzdiskografi" found here: http://www.visarkiv.se/jazzdisk_se.htm (an enlarged version of Harry Nicolausson's groundbreaking work) and do a usual search of these pdf files for any entries by Jan Johansson (can be done online via your browser but you can even download it all). The returns promise to be copious ... (out of curiosity I just did a search of the letter "A" and within this single letter already got 8 hits for Jan J. in the session lineups).

I don't have very much from Roy Eldridge's Verve period but am listening to one of the 10in LPs released at the time (featuring Dale's Wail, Roy's Riff, Rocking Chair a.o.) after having come across this thread (which I had not seen earlier as this was long before I had discovered the forum). Am wondering what kind of obsolete tempo everybody is referring to. If it is that bouncy medium tempo as found on the above 10-incher too, then just for the record - this tempo is eminently popular with swing, jive and jitterbug dancers today (it a subculture for sure, but one that is quite alive), especially as a warm-up for faster tempos or for a somewhat more relaxed spell on the dancefloor (nobody, not even real swing dancing pros can dance to the flagwavers all the time). So rest assured that this tempo isn't that obsolete. It just is a matter of really having the feel for the music (which apparently the drummers mentioned above don't have).

I had a hunch it was like that, Stereojack, but never having seen that Dance Band discography myself I wonder to what extent he (by necessity) duplicates the contents of his jazz discography, e.g. in the case of the Dorseys etc. OTOH he omitted the Tony Pastor big band from his jazz discography although their jazz content probably was higher than that of other big bands listed. No big deal - Walter Bruyninckx fills gaps like this as far as I can see. But assuming one would go after that Dance Band discography to complete the info on other swinging big bands that may have been omitted elsewhere, does this mean one would have to thumb through pages and pages of saccharine listings by Sammy Kaye, Russ Morgan, Kay Kyser, Wayne King and all the rest as well?

This one might make Brownie smile (or maybe shudder?):

I keep his 4th Ed. 1897-1942 edition handy for reference too and use it fairly often. Thanks, Mr Rust, for seeing this through where lots of others (after Delaunay's initial work) have failed to complete the full A to Z run. One may disagree about Mr Rust's emphasis on the artists and bands he selected for inclusion, especially concerning his omission of certain swing-era bands. It is quite obvious he was very much a "20s jazz man" in that apparently any band that had so much as a snippet of "hot solos" on its records warranted inclusion whereas he was quite a bit more selective in his swing-era inclusions. But nobody's perfect, tastes differ and he DID pave the way for others to follow.

Not that it would have been a "nostalgia" label at all (more one relying on local talent), but Tampa seems to have had a habit of bringing other musicians to the fore who had been known in other contexts in earlier years. Anothe example are the LPs done by former Nat Cole trio guitarist Oscar Moore for the label.

Well, it wasn't THAT bad, really. I took it (and still do) as a sign of the times and trends and it made me realize that - at least over here - jazz wans't immune from fashionable trends and from what was perceived as the latest word (to the detriment of other streams of jazz). Maybe it was a reflection on what was happening in "major-league" jazz over here in the 70s and early 80s. If the major contributions to jazz you can actively make in this part of Europe are in the avantgarde and fusion fields and if you would have to IMPORT what might be called "mainstream" then what do you push everywhere and everytime, including the #1 jazz mag? (Except for reissue radio boadcasts and the reissue sections in the record stores) To give you an example about widely touted "home-grown" jazz talent: Compared to the styles of jazz commonly hailed in European jazz at the time Michel Petrucciani sounded extremely "conventional" to me (as to some extent I had become acquainted with late 50s U.S. hard bop and piano jazz by then) when I heard him live (TV jazz festival reports). Not disagreeably so but a bit of a welcome surprise amongst all those "avantgarde" weirdies or "jazz rock" mishmash acts. Just the opposite here. Partly for the reasons explained above, but it still surprises me to what extent the 50s quintet immediately clicked with me, though I'd say it is not "easy listening" background music either. But maybe it really makes a decisive difference if you get into jazz via contemporary rock and jazz rock or if you get into (post-1945) jazz through "jazzy jazz" (if you know what I mean) or through older styles of jazz.

Which probably comes from the fact that a lot of what is expressed in the name of "conventional wisdom" comes across (voluntarily or involuntarily) as "personal taste has to take a back step and is no longer justified as an overruling personal guideline for judgment where eternal musical truths and values - as perceived by us, the purveyors of conventional wisdom - come into play". But this really is a debate of who or which was there first - the hen or the egg - and we are beginning to turn in circles so we'd better let it remain at that. And of course I do agree with your statement that wherever it only is a matter of taste there is nothing to challenge.

Really? I've never met anyone who espouses this concept. Lucky you. Cultural divide again, maybe. Maybe you would see things differently if you had "come of age" in your jazz and rock interests at a time AND IN A PLACE when according to "popular wisdom" both "jazz rock" and "free jazz/avantgarde" encompassed EVERYTHING there EVER was and could be in "jazz" per se and where Hard Rock, Psychedelic Rock (the tail end of it) etc. encommpassed everything in rock, the usual 40-ton amp equipment-laden suspects represented everything in "blues" and where OTOH both "acoustic jazz" (still around, not only on reissues), hand-made blues (not even down-home blues, though) and straightforward rockabilly were more or less equalled with MOR pop that just could not hold your attention because it was too "simple". Blissfully unaware, these characters, for example, of the fact that Hendrix was not quite soooo sensational once you knew your T-Bone Walker and Johnny Guitar Watson, etc. etc. Widespread attitude everywhere, still held by many decades thereafter, especially when it comes to the oh so deep divide about the fundamental question about whether jazz is allowed to be "for dancing" at all or whether you must always (though just barely perceptibly) nod your head in deep, deep, silent appreciation of some way-out happenings on stage in order to allow jazz to be any sort of musical "art" at all. Etc. etc. See what I mean?

Agreed 100%. But again, as for looking in that room, I think in most cases those who just peered wouldn't say "there ain't nothing happening there". What they do say (justifiably so according to their OWN yardsticks) is that what's happening there looks either of no interest at all to them or even repels them. In short, it just is "not for them". Which tends to be misunderstood by ardent defenders of what is in there as meaning "ain't nothing happening". Because defending something that may repel others or leave them cold of course is something that requires you to be aloof enough to be able to handle it. Relativizing something that you put all your heart and soul into isn't always easy either ... Human nature, too...

Point taken. Yet dealing with persons on the one hand and just indulging in a leisure activity or hobby such as listening to music are two entirely different pairs of shoes. Even if your musical interest goes waaaay beyond simply absorbing current Top 40 fare (which I assume is the case with ANYBODY around here) there still is a difference - and at the same time a limit as you can only take in so much. I agree with you that BB is urgently recommended for those wanting to explore this part of late 60s/early 70s jazz-cum-rock etc. IN DEPTH but what I object to (for the reason that it has been claimed elsewhere all too often) is that it is "essential listening" for jazz AT LARGE. You may see this differently because you have approached this entire spectrum from a totally different angle but yet this is how it came about to all too many of those getting started in jazz over here. Cultural difference? Probably ... but to be reckoned with at least by those directly concerned. And yes, I've done my share of listening to jazz(-rock) from the BB era, by forced exposure then (which left me mildly bewilderend, then unnerved), and more consciously in more recent times (but the feeling still was that this was just "not for me"). BTW, getting back to your "people" example, of course I've come across people too who really rubbed me the wrong way at first and later on turned out not be so bad at all, but OTOH there also are those who never even got around to rubbing me any way at all (or me rubbing them, for that matter) and therefore remained totally off the radar forever. Does this mean you or I (or anybody else) have to make the deep personal acquaintance of anybody we happen to bump into anywhere? Happens all the time too. Life is a "hit and miss" game in more ways than one, I guess. But even if we clearly cannot cover the entire field we do gain a lot from those fields we ENJOY covering from the outset. So do we have to feeel guilty about metering our efforts in favor of those we feel MORE comfortable with? And as for peering into a room not long enough to grasp what's inside, sorry to disagree but if upon first sight it does not hold your attention enough to make you literally want to dig through the mess in that room then there is nothing wrong about that either as long as there are so many other rooms that you immediately find utterly fascinating and do not even tire of even after having turned everything inside out in those rooms (i.e. they are not only full of shallow superficial effects but of enough that satisfies your deeper interests on a lasting basis). Like I said, you can take in only so much ... You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out". Apart from the fact what's way out to some isn't way out at all to others, I just do feel this is a skewed concept. Music can be immensely accessible so you immediately feel you like (or dislike) it for very accessible reaons and yet be of quite a deep and lasting quality. And this seems to be a recurrent issue because one of the pervading sentiments in many posts here (including the thread starter's) and similar threads dealing with alleged "essentials" seems to be some feeling of "I don't like this masterpiece that much - what's wrong with me, do I have to make excuses for it?" Yet I still do not see any reason for any such excuses.

:lol: