Big Beat Steve

Don't know what pressing/issue/reissue you have, but on my Jasmine (facsimile) LP reissue of the ABC Paramount release (ABC-111) the spelling is Tricrotism, and this seems to be a straight reproduction of the original back cover typeface and layout complete with liner notes by Burt Korall. So it might well be that some reissuers did not get this right.

I have a "Tricrotism" somewhere in my collection (can't recall the artist right now) but remember quite distinctly that it DOES have that second "R" (because in fact if you just glance over the word you tend to "drop" that second "R" but then you note it IS there). Are you sure your source isn't just misspelled?

What do you expect? Press releases (even if on virtual media) are not supposed to be argued with or discussed. They are supposed to be swallowed as is.

It's a good set. But I had to make a compilation out of it that omits all the "singing bass" solos. Major Holley, if I recall correctly. I could never get with those bowed/sung things. My loss, I suppose Very much your loss if you otherwise like that mid-40s small-band swing. You really have to allow that humming-singing-bass soloing to grow on you. I remember an extended weekend in my very young collecting days (age 15 or so) when I was more or less locked in a weekend cabin due to heavy rain during a family excursion so just to pass the time I got busy with that handful of records and turntable there. Among a couple of jazz and pop oldies LPs there was that "Bowing Singing Slam" album on Savoy. Much as I liked swing music even at this early age this one really sounded odd to me and made my head just dizzy so I had to take it off. Many, many years later (long after having been exposed to Slam quite a bit more, not least of all thanks to the 1945 Don Byas recordings), I picked up a secondhand copy of that "Bowing Singing Slam" album myself. And indeed by then it had become perfectly standard swing combo fare to my ears - very enjoyable and certainly nothing to make you feel dizzy.

Can't say I am an expert on original covers but from all I have seen (either in my own collection or elsewhere) I'd say that 50s U.S. covers with a "white" base color rarely really were THAT bright sparkling white (e.g. if the degree of "whiteness" noticeable on those unworn edges of the front paper folded around the seams and glued over by the back cover paper - which may have come unglued at the edges, revealing the edges of the front paper - is anything to go by, for example). Any shade of "off-white" seems to fit it far better. I'd alsssay it sometimes depends on the pressing run. One pressing of the 50s may have been whiter than another only marginally older or more recent. At least I remember having seen records in comparable condition that did differ noticeably in that respect although the country of issue was the same and they really were of virtually the same age as far as anybody could tell. Interesting project, BTW, neveronfriday. Trying to go Gokudo one better?

I used to enjoy Mr A on British TV years ago, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration MG Indeed. Svend Asmussen was quite a figure in European small-band swing of that period and of course has a long career second to very few but naming him alongside Pops, Duke and Monk really is a bit over the top. As for that new compilation CD on Storyville, given that these seem to be non-commercial recordings made for radio I assume, then, that this CD does not overlap with the earlier Asmussen CD series on Phontastic and on Swan Music (the latter one a whopping 18-CD series AFAIK) that covered at least a good part of that era too. Honestly, though I'd love to hear those mid-50s German radio recordings made by Bengt Hallberg and the Almstedt-Lind Quartet again, for example, I am a bit wary of what German radio would have recorded in those days. Usually the swing content was watered down noticeably in favor of the appeal to the "general public".

Just what I figured as one of the uses/target groups for these compilations. Agreed that it's better than a lot of other kinds of "dinner music" but still ...

LOL again, Aggie! That's what everyone said four years ago. Yet I noticed this afternoon that it had 1,170 views when I resurrected it. Maybe that's because so many would be interested to see why anybody would drool about (obviously) rehashed things like this ... Anyway, that's what I figured this was all about before I viewed this thread for the first time today (and lo and behold, I wasn't far off ). Mind you, I am not really familiar with THIS series but this "lover/smooching/fireside" jazz compilation CD thing has been besieging the less well-stocked racks of shops on on a variety of labels for quite a few years. Though the artists are alright and their tracks would make sense in some other (i.e. their original album) context they just become a major drag when forced into packages like this. Evidently you can water down things in a lot of ways ...

More power to people like him!

The only answer I have to that is that jazz is so fragmented today you cannot possibly take in all and everything without straining your own musical preferences waaaay beyond all limits. And even if today's artist XXX in all his artistic sincerity would be worthy of every bit of support he can muster and would be the only living exponent of what is considered jazz today but happens to follow a musical path that is nowhere near what I would ever prefer to listen to in jazz in all its varieties that suit my PERSONAL tastes, then - sorry, no go. It's for others closer to his music to provide that support, not me ... Worse yet - so very many fans of Michael "The Bubble Boy" Buble who have never even HEARD Bing Crosby. Nice example. But I was not only referring to those who listen to copies of the real thing instead of the original but rather to those who really are oblivious of what went on beyond before the times of their preferred artists. Can you really appreciate and understand Trane to the fullest if Bird is old hat to you, for example?

With jazz and its ongoing history and evolution, maybe, it is more of a prerequisite (more than in the case of all the facets of rock music, for exmaple) to appreciate the "old masters" at least to some degree in order to REALLY understand where your more recent or contemporary heroes came from. Or to put it another way, you can very well and comfortably occupy and move around in, say, the first 4 or 5 floors of a high-rise whereas, if you only move around on the top floor of a skyscaper you might lose touch with the ground and the air might become a bit thin in time ... Overall, as with ALL music you enjoy, I guess, it all depends on what music you like in the first place so there is no set rule. It would be futile to try to embrace some music "just because you need to understand it" if actually that particular style of music just goes against your grain. Especially if you prefer to enjoy your music in a more gutsy way instead of academically dissecting it every time a platter is given a spin on your turntable. In my case, getting into "older" jazz from your point of depart b) perhaps is also explained by the fact that from that early age I was very much into the 50s and everything in the entire realm of "popular culture" that went with it (hence my early interest in R'n'R and R&B too). This point of departure makes it much easier for you to look even further back beyond the 50s, including music-wise. Others may have been drooling about Elvis all day long but to me, for example, once I had gotten into bebop and beyond, the coolness of Shorty Rogers, Chet Baker or Bud Shank just as much exuded the atmosphere of those times to me as Elvis or Fats Domino would to others. Romantisicism? Maybe, but only at the very first moment. If the music doesn't click with you in the long run (and a LOT of 40s/50s/60s music does NOT click with me), it will go out the window. You have to appreciate it on its own merits if you are to really enjoy it in the long run. Another aspect of why I subconsciously never embraced then- (or now-) "contemporary" jazz artists to the same degree I appreciate "the old masters" is this: I remember for a time artists like Michel Petrucciani were fairly often on German TV and I did take them in with interest, yet most of them never struck a chord with me to the extent that I'd actively go out and search their records. Quite a bit later I accidentally discovered the likely reason ... One day I had finally got a copy of Harold Land-Red Mitchell's "Hear Ye" album, and somehow listening to the piano player (Frank Strazzeri) on that album reminded me of many of those "modern mainstream" (post-bop?) jazz broadcasts I had caught on TV. Ah, so those typical piano comping licks that then-current acts like Petrucciani and his ilk would turn out on TV in the 80s and 90s had already been done 30 years earlier by an "also-ran" (by "jazz giant" stature) in the history of jazz! And once I had listened closer to John Coltrane's "Blue Train" album, that also made me aware how often THAT particular sound and group interplay had been carbon-copied by all those "post-bop" (or however you bill it) pickup bands you would see on late-night jazz festival broadcasts. I realize that to those who dissect their jazz this is a very superficial comparison but the bottom line just is that to me there was not all that much really earth-shaking new and therefore essential in more recent developments of my preferred styles of jazz. (I am not counting the more radical jazz streams of more recent decades because they are not my cup of tea anyhow - see above, if it goes against your grain, why force it, etc. ... ) Now does this make me a latter-day "moldy fig"? Maybe, but who cares?

Bev, perhaps you will understand better if you look at it like this: a) Jazz (or what is commonly lumped in under jazz today) is so fragmented and covers such a wide stylistic spectrum today that you can hardly expect all that many to embrace it all. Just like it is not very likely that, say, a rock listener who is into Wave and Goth music will also go for rap, although both are filed under "pop" today. Or to narrow it down further into "rock", not all that many Goth or Heavy Metal fans will realy be diehard Southern country rock fans too. A far cry from jazz listening habits? I don't know .... If you listen to your music really in-depth, there is only so much diversity you will want to take in really deeply. So what may be jazz to one may be totally undiscutable to another. b) Unless you have a really blooming and accessible club, concert and festival secne in the jazz field in your own area you are not likely to be able to become acquainted with all that many younger (!!) "contemporary" jazz artists through live gigs. And even then, stylistic preferences will play a major role too. If you have to rely on "canned" music only you might as well rely on "historical" music if that is what meets your tastes best. c) As for "historical" jazz, the musicians may be gone but as long as their music is still around it will continue to live. Just like in your very fitting example of classical music. And after all - there is no obligation at all to base your musical tastes on the "living or dead/active or retired" criteria, or else all that hullaballoo about those Beatles box reissues that has been going on even on THIS (jazz!) forum (to an extent that really had me baffled) would have been totally off the mark and inappropriate too. d) What many may call "historical" jazz is far from all dead. There are enough today's "mainstream" jazz (or jazz-related) artists around who keep the flame alive. Some may sneer at them as being copycats or "recreators" but IMHO very often there is a lot more to it. Nothing wrong with playing in a chosen "historically inspired" idiom if you manage to add a new twist to it. If, historically speaking, I am into Django Reinhardt, for example, I can just as well appreciate a recent CD by the Hot Club of Cowtown or by the Sweet Hollywaiians (so incessantly plugged by our friend Durium here ) and find something quite new there that suits my tastes. I do not have to go into some (to my tastes) atonally free noise or some world-music-cum-you-name-it mishmash in order to prove I am into "contemporary" jazz artists (this last sentence may sound derogatory; it is not meant that way, it just is intended to reflect ANY listener's reaction to what may be totally off-base to his personal musical tastes).

Unpleasant for sure, but as far as I can tell from that description still quite a bit away from that book that the daughter of actress Joan Crawford wrote about their love-hate relationship and her mother's ongoing cruelty etc., for example. Not nice at all but unfortunately I guess that doesn't spare the celebrities. What I still feel hard to grasp is how somebody who suffered this actually thinks she can work this out and get it over with by draging every bit of it out in PUBLIC on purpose HERSELF after all this time. Is the public limelight the best place to apply a therapy to yourself if what you are after is NOT trying to get even with somebody? What I'd regret so see, at any rate, is if all these incidents were lumped in with whatever self-proclaimed jazz arbitrators still have to say about the controversial aspects of the MUSICAL life and achievements of Stan Kenton. I seem to recall there have been many instances of noted jazzmen whose rather seedy/shady/shabby offstage doings and behavior had come out into the public light being defended by each and everyone on account of their artistic achievements. Quite understandable. It would be regrettable, however, if a different yardstick were applied vs. Stan Kenton by the very same ones if they happen to be among those who disliked his music in the first place.

Most definitely b) here. No inspiration from my parents (except for a few 45s - Benny Goodman, Papa Bue, Pete Kelly's jazz and the like - that my mother had bought for occasional use as party records in the 50s there was no interest in jazz there, only classical music). Contemporary music then on the radio when I really got into music at around 14 in the mid-70s never struck a nerve with me, neither disco nor the heavily amplified hard rock nor fusion or jazz rock. I instinctively leaned both to 50s rock'n'roll and older blues and to comparatively early jazz (pre-1945, style-wise) and really soaked up all the radio shows I could catch. My record buying from the age of 15 started in that era (swing and a good dose of oldtime jazz) too, but Joachim E. Berendt's "Jazz Book" made me aware of what else there was at an early stage. I distinctively recall my uneasiness about what I'd be confronting myself with when I bought my first "modern jazz" record not long afterwards - as it happens, the chronologically first modern jazz recordings: that Prestige twofer of Dizzy Gillespie's 1945-46 Guild/Musicraft recordings, including the original Diz-Bird quintet. Yet upon first listening this immediately all sounded all natural and a totally logical evolution of what I had previously been listening to in swing so I went from there and (though not neglecting swing one bit) soon sought up all the 40s bebop reissues I could grab as well, and if I remember rightly within a year or two I had embraced Sonny Rollins' "Saxophone Colossus" and Clifford Brown's 1953 Paris recordings etc too. It took me a while to appreciate the MJQ recordings that my parents had (MJQ being about as far as the elders leaning towards classical music would venture into jazz) but that came to pass evnetually too. But I can still live pretty well without the more radical forms of free jazz or jazz rock or fusion.

Yes, "consumer laziness" is the word. "Out of print - oh my goodnes, it's gone forever and vanished off the face of this earth!!" Strange, I can't remember any single period during all my collector's life where I did NOT have to search around for a whole lot of REISSUES (not originals) that per se always had a relatively brief (store) shelf life, only to see other reissues being constantly available in 2 or 3 guises at the same time. Reissues appearing and disappearing really fast has always been part of the game as you cannot keep track of (and buy) everything of interest that crops up somewhere all over the planet (least of all Japan which often really has been out of reach in every respect). But even with formally OOP stuff matters are much easier in today's WWW shopping world if you are prepared to search and pay the shipping cost. But yet, if it should really be so that all too many collectors really are that lazy and ill-advised and if "OOP" frightens them that much to their bones today then I can almost understand that reissue labels recycle their catalogs in ever shorter intervals if they have to assume so many of those "collectors" out there are totally unaware of what HAS BEEN available before and unwilling to SEARCH for what MIGHT still be available if they'd really look. And of course it is an easy way out for the companies to just recycle their product. It is up to the collectors to vote by just not buying what would leave them with that many duplicates. But then I guess there just aren't enough of "us" (who already have the stuff) to make ourselves heard (and the "others" who do NOT YET have all that are happy to be served this time around), so ...? That said - yes, I still do wish Fresh Sound and the other labels with similar policies (connected to FS or not) would make different choices in the pairing of their "2 LPs on one CD" packages. I remember when I definitely wanted that "House of Blue Lights" LP by Eddie Costa I eventually had to settle for a reissue on Lonehill or Definitive (can't recall) which came as a package of a "complete Trio" reissue or so, and - you guessed it - they packaged with the Costa-Burke Trio on Jubilee (I think) which I already had on Fresh Sound (of course ...). Their "complete" packaging makes sense if they go by specific lineups so are they to blame? I'd have loved an original or a facsimile reissue but the first is out of range and the second seems to have cropped up on a Japan reissue somewhere but at inflationary rates, so .... A vicious cycle, I guess ...

That last point bugs me too because I am in the same situation. I have a LOT of Fresh Sound vinyl as well as music from that era released or reissued elsewhere but FAR, FAR, FAR from a comprehensive collection. I often find Fresh Sound has interesting twofer CDs but upon closer inspection I find that I already have one of the 2 LPS they combine into one reissue. This has often prevented me from taking the pluge too. HOWEVER - I would not necessarily blame this on Fresh Sound. IMHO it is not a matter if such exceedingly rare stuff being combined with common stuff. I cannot see the one I have necessarily really is that common per se. It rather is a case of previous reissues always reissuing the same material whereas other material constantly gets overlooked. Can't blame the (independent) reissuers for that. Not always, anyway ... It is for the same reason that I have refrained from buying a LOT of those "Classics" series CDs. Anybody with a fairly decent collection of that music is BOUIND to have about half or two thirds of whatever is found on ANY (well, almost any) CD from that series in their collection in some other form. What we are witnessing here IMO is the same situation that was common back when CDs came on. Collectors were supposed to dump their entire previous collections and start from scratch or else they'd have to live with TONS of overlaps and duplicates in their collections. This problem is definitely not specific to Fresh Sound, it is a common one in jazz reissues. Because unfortunately the situation is quite unlike the situation that often existed in the blues field, for example, where there have been many labels that have consciously strived to be complementary to each other, e.g. what was on Document was not taken up again on Wolf or Old Tramp or elsewhere (and vice versa) but they were collector-friendly enough to avoid re-re-reissuing stuff and to SPECIFICALLY fill the gaps left by other reissue labels and state this on the covers, up to the point of recommending COMPLEMENTARY further listening in their liner notes. But who knows ... maybe it also is the fault of the attitude of the buyer public, in a way ..? Too many people maybe clamoring that stuff that went OOP is inaccessible to them (as if what's OOP doesn't exist anymore at all) instead of making an effort to search and track it down? An attitude of wanting to be served off the shelf? Reissue labels working the Public Domain years feeling (maybe on account of the feedback they get) that if they don't reissue the "obvious" stuff (obvious being what everybody seems to be aware of and what therefore seems to be considered "essential") their reissues will reek of being leftovers and breadcrumbs and a case of "scraping the barrel"?

I for one have no reason at all to doubt the sincerity of the people that Brownie sees fit to deal with either. Although I realize that - like somebody else said earlier in this thread - this is not really supposed to be another "nobody-makes-any-moneys-as-long-as-the-Spanish-reissue-this-stuff" thread , let me just summarize this: 1) For the time being and as it is now, the European Public Domain cutoff date is 50 years, and this means we are in early 1960 now, up to which date all complaints are rather pointless now, like it or not. This 50-year limit may change, but it has not yet. And that's that. And that applies to Lonehill and their cohorts too. (Copying of previous/recent reissues that did all the producing/mastering are a different story but that's another issue and the Spanish/Andorrans DEFINITELY are not the only culprits there) 2) Ever since their vinyl reissue days (when most of those recordings still were a long way from the 50-year P.D. cutoff limit) Fresh Sound have reissued material that explicitly bears the mention "released by agreement with ...", notably RCA and WEA material, for example. And I do think they'd really get themselves into VERY hot water if they put THOSE statements on blatant bootleg reissues. Not with those biggies. Nobody would likely give a friggin' d... about the Stepheny indie label , but THEM BIGGIES ... ? 3) I find Fresh Sound's policy of filling niches that nobody else seems to care for reissue-wise highly commendable. Who needs the umpteenth regurgitation of those BN RVG's for (at best) fractional sound improvement (or a remastering sweepstakes among those who consider themselves bigwigs in that field) if there's so much worthwhile music waiting to be made available again for the very first time? 4) As I've mentioned before , as long as so many others (who complain about those Spanish reissue labels, above all Fresh Sound) have no qualms about loudly advocating certain budget box sets from other European countries (and I am not talking about JSP) I cannot take their complaints all that seriously. But getting back to the topic on hand, Fresh Sound DO run the BLUE MOON blues reissue label too. Any ill feelings out there for recommendations of these too? :blush2: I cannot see any substantial production difference between them and the "Classics" label, especially the "Classic Blues & Rhythm" series. Except that for my money Blue Moon has an edge for their liner notes. OK, I cannot light a candle for Jordi Pujol (like Brownie would do) but I guess this is a good moment to dust off my Spanish vocabulary again and get seriously started on his monumental 550-page opus "Jazz en Barcelona 1929-1965" while the matching CD box set will provide the background to it (Brownie, thanks again for being my guide to the Gibert emporium where I was able to pick up those CD way back ...! ). P.S. BTW, is it 100% guaranteed that all the Japanese facsimile reissuers always paid their licensing fees through the decades?

Probably not their choice. Jordi Pujol is the Spanish Godfather! Bought a batch from Fresh Sound/Blue Moon not long ago. Shipping rates from Spain aren't too attractive if you buy only a few but if you take 9 or 10 (or more) in one go it becomes quite affordable (working out at about 2 euros apiece within the EU (although, with you being in Switzerland, it's going to be some 2.50 EUR apiece, unfortunately). And their service is really fast. My order was shipped within 24 hours and arrived here about 2 days later. That said, Jordi Pujol has done a lot for the collecting fraternity throughout Europe (far more than those multinational music conglomerate bigwigs who sit on their stuff and refuse to release it in a decent manner themselves, not to mention the way OJC is being run into the ground by Concord etc. etc.).

Well, the (French) PRESIDENT label would be one, I think ... (if you are willing to count that in )

Just found this full-page feature on Björn Netz in the September, 1961 issue of the long-defunct Swedish jazz mag ESTRAD (a copy I recently was able to add to my collection): The caption reads: Björn Netz is one of the most promising forces in young Swedish jazz and has even won international acclaim. Sorry, translating the entire article would really be a bit too much (and the finer points of it would probably strain the limits of my knowledge of that language) but interestingly the title of the article is: PSYCHOLOGIST ON TENOR Signs of things to come, I wonder?

Agreed 100%, Kenny, though I guess I'll never understand how somebody can let go of something he really likes just because it is on good ol' vinyl and not on thoe little silver platters. I for one do keep and cherish my Bob Newman LP on Bear Family I bought way back when. (But then again I am a vinyl nut anyway ) "Country shouter" really is the word! The "Hound" label was fairly common for quite a while through the 90s at the usual suspects' (sellers) record stalls present at the corresponding "subculture" (e.g. rockabilly) concerts. I do guess it is of European origin (Dutch, in fact); was unaware of this Bob Newman compilation but I have the Wade Ray and Billy Jack Wills compilations from that label. If you look closer on that CD you will find a record number code headed off by "TRG". And in more recent times a "TRG" label (certainly of the same origin) has been resurrecting similar pre-rockabilly hillbilly/"Western Bop" stuff too. Even U.S. sellers (through one well-known auction site, for instance) handle it.

Hee hee ... BIG grin here ... :D Yes I know what you are talking about. I have the Bear Family Pee Wee King LP too but in fact I like the "Ballroom King" LP (on the U.K. Detour label) even better. And then I have two or three more LPs (released in the late 80s) programmed along the same lines and that just about does it for me as far as Pee Wee is concerned. Have checked a couple of other more recent releases but found that the most fascinating sounding titles were already there. So no need to go any further into the non-essentials. That is - there may of course be a hidden trove of uninhibited, all-out transcriptions by them (much like Bob Wills' Tiffany Transcruiptions, who knows?) but it would only be labels such as Krazy Kat that I would trust to bring them to us in a well-presented manner. As for the "sameness" of early jazz Mosaic boxes, I guess others would be more qualified to judge that so you will have to ask the question elsewhere. At any rate, I do agree with those who claim that a lot of pre-war blues should really be consumed in small doses (just like they were consumed back then on 78s) because otherwise the feeling of sameness would prevail before long. If you can stand more then this is a matter of personal preference (I can stand more late 40s/early 50s Honkin' Sax R&B than many others, but I'd agree they normally ought to be taken in smaller doses too). However, I do feel there is a fundamental difference between having box sets of, say, 20s or 30s jazz bands on the one hand and late 40s and 50s country artists on the other. In many cases those country songs were all vocals with relatively sparse instrumental backing (a FAR, FAR cry from those early post-war Western Swing bands that blasted away full steam, even at moderate tempos). 20s jazz OTOH was largely instrumental with a really full instrumental sound (despite all fidelity shortcomings) and not only solos but also lots of interplay of the instruments that will give you some meat to cut your teeth into. Much less so with the nasal country vocal twang with (relatively) subdued backing where the instruments were just that - BACKING - well in the BACKground of the vocalist. Limited instrumental means that reach the end of any possible diversity earlier than in the case of full bands that thrive on instrumental action. A bit like in the case of 20s/30s blues with maybe one guitar or one piano for the entire backing. Fascinating vocals, for sure, but 30 of them in a row? So if you want to compare the non-essential character of those 50s country completist boxes with earlier music (and looking beyond early country blues), then - YES, I would not need a 4 or 6 or 8-CD set with the "complete works" of any of those 20s or early 30s crooners with semi-jazz or dance band backing either.

You are right, Kenny, I ought to have referred to the Bear Family single CDs a bit more. But as I haven't had a chance to listen to several of those you mention I cannot really comment on them (yet). What I said about their box sets was just spurred by the fact that all in all it is many of these box sets that really put them on the map, reissue-wise. And their production, including their books, really is flawless. No doubt about it. Unfortunately, if you go the "completist" route you can overdo it with this kind of music. And I won't doubt that the Gonna Shake This Shack series deserves the plug you give it. BTW, referring to a non-Bear Family CD you mention, did you have a chance to compare the early Webb Pierce CD on Acrobat that you mention (a release that is totally unknown to me) with the one on Krazy Kat? http://www.interstate-music.co.uk/krazykat/kkcd16.htm Somehow I have a feeling there is bound to be a lot of duplication going on here (and I am pretty sure KK was there first, seeing that their LP version of that music has been out for almost 20 years now).

According to this description it seems to be doubtful he actually recorded with them at that time. http://www.venerablemusic.com/catalog/TitleDetails.asp?TitleID=10709

Oh yeah ... Bear Family ... Sure, their status is fully deserved, and yet ... I've bought a lot of their releases in their vinyl days, I just LOVE their "deutsches jazz festival 1954/55" box set and have also picked up quite a few of their single and double CD reissues on R&B artists in somewhat mroe recent years and in fact just recently shelled out for the Nashville R&B box set ("A Shot in The Dark") despite the fact that I have quite a bit of it on earlier Krazy Kat LPs .... and yet ... ... sorry to say this but in more ways than one they're a bit of a mixed bag too IMHO, PARTICULARLY in the Country field. KennyWeir, I agree that no doubt their box sets are just perfect for real diehards and completists, but beyond that target audience? Nothing wrong with those 50s/early 60s "name" country artists, by and large, but in such huge doses as on these box sets? IMO they just are overdoing it, even to those who are much more than casual listeners, and at THEIR price level that can get painful. Isn't it really so that all too often these country artists constantly coupled a more lively number with one of those terrible tear jerkers on the flip sides of their 78s (and then 45s)? (Gotta please them all, something for everybody, especially with that mum'n'dad'n'everybody smalltown USA country audience of yore, I guess ... ) Those country tear jerkers really haven't stood the test of time all that well, so who needs all that B-side dross (except completits, of course)? And once these artists hit (literally) on a hit formula their subsequent singles sometimes really acquired a bit of a sameness. Believe me, I do have a soft spot for early post-war (and even late pre-war) country music and have often been out searching for new discoveries (including on Bear Family as a friend of mine is heavily into this music and these B.F. releases so I've had a chance to check out quite a bit ) but these "complete works" often really are just too much. To me it becomes painfully evident that these 45s were supposed to be listened to ONE 45rpm at a time, not in huge 30-track CD strings of tunes in one go. A bit like what has been said about 20s and 30s blues 78s when reissued today, in fact. All in all, some slightly more selective programming often would have done the overall outcome a world of good as a lot of those B-side tear jerkers or otherwise repetitive ditties just are relatively forgettable today. Sometimes completism really gets in the way of appreciating the music IMHO. Actually the CLIFF BRUNER box that you mention is a case in point. Of course, being a Western Swing fan, I just had to have it when it came out, but just like you I find quite a bit of it is just ho-hum. But did you check out the liner notes closely? The author was pretty clesr about it - in those days the A&R men had too much of a say and Cliff Bruner's band was one of those that just were MADE to record pretty ordinary MOR stuff as the label owners wanted to milk a formula. A 2-CD (or POSSIBLY 3-CD) set would have made a KILLER compilation, but the rest? Not essential ... And here I am talking about one of my all-time favorite country subgenres so you can imagine I am even much less impressed about the complete works of those 50s Nashville mainstream bigwigs. So all in all it is labels such as KRAZY KAT and COUNTRY ROUTES that serve my tastes far better. (But thanks for the Texas Troubadours instrumentals and Leon McAuliffe CD plugs - I may just have unfairly overlooked these, judging by your description) And, Kenny, if you are into country music from that era in such a big way, let me get in a plug for this one too: http://bacm.users.btopenworld.com/cd-cat.html Not all of their programme is gold that glitters (except for diehards again) but there are enough gems there to warrant inspection.