Big Beat Steve

I understand what you are saying, but - at least in the case of Gene Ammons - you may have walked on the "wrong" pathways. It is hard for me to recap where Gene Ammons figured (or not) in generally accessible pre-internet jazz source material but to the best of my recollection he DID figure enough to be taken note of. Admittedly among those names that you ahd to dig a bit deeper for. My introduction to Gene Ammons, for example, came through his links to some of the more R&B-ish 50s jazzmen (documented on EmArcy, Chess and the early Ammons-Stitt team on Prestige). And in the end his "typical" Soul Jazz albums on Prestige were a natural extension and continuity of all this. In a way he is one of the "classic" cases to prove those wrong who indulged into too much (written and printed) pigeonholing. In short, stop bothering with "critical acclaim" as a criterion of what would be "worthy" for YOU as soon as you have even the FAINTEST notion that a given artist would fit your tastes and stylistic interests or preferences. Just go out on your own. It is unlikely that you would round up that many duds in your music purchases that way. 😄

Yes, this is an important aspect. And this is why the recent books that focus on this aspect are important. Because they make the case that there is no overruling, everlasting single way of deciding (or should I say "decreeing"?) "what is important and what has currency". And part of understanding this is to try to find out why those value assessments came into being in the first place. But isn't it so that in the end the value assessments and the decisions of what constitutes the "canon" are made on a fairly PERSONAL level by everyone of "us" (on this forum) or in general among jazz (or blues or rock, etc.) fans? Even within the realm of what undisputedly is part of "acknowledged" Modern Jazz I could rattle off a dozen leader names of whom I have more (sometimes many more) records on my shelves than by John Coltrane or Charles Mingus. (And no doubt many of these would be considered "lesser" artists by some or even many.) And this was only partially dictated by the undisputable fact that - if I decided to dig much deeper into Coltrane or Mingus, for example - the records would be accessible out there in SOME packaging at any time. Would I need to defend these choices? (Would anyone make excuses for his individual choices and preferences?) Of course not. This does not keep me from acknowledging the objective greatness of Coltrane or Mingus but in the end it is above all a matter of personal tastes and preferences. Like with everyone else.

I fully agree with you (and Rabshakeh's impressions), yet it keeps baffling me that so many seem to feel that it is sooo difficult to explore (and, often, appreciate - yes, DIG) artists from past decades of jazz who are not among the oft-repeated big names ("usual suspects") who were granted the eternal headlines in jazz history. Admittedly I feel better qualified to speak for the Jump Blues era of jazz (1945-55) and not (yet) so much for e.g. the Soul Jazz (et al.) period, but the basic problem of artists being denigrated and put down by those who wrote (or should I say "recycled"? 😄 ) jazz history is largely the same. I wasn't there either when the music was current (far from it, and on top of it I was and am removed geographically too) but I really cannot see that it was insurmountable to get into these artists who were bypassed or given short shrift by the jazz scribes. And I sincerely don't believe my own approach (call it "curiosity", if you want to) was such a "one-of-a-kind" experience. And with the info available TODAY all these explorations of the "great unknowns" are made even easier. Re-Ahmad Jamal, my first exposure to him on radio over here (in the second half of the 70s) was on AFN FM radio where (for hours and hours each day) they at the time played music that you might kindly describe as "retro MOR" background oldies (which was what must have made me curious enough to listen in) but which actually was more a case of "sophisticated elevator sounds". Now if you are served Ahmad Jamal in a program that places him in the middle of a string of tracks by the likes of Mantovani, Hugo Winterhalter, Percy Faith, etc., (believe me, I am NOT kidding!!) then this does not exactly make his jazz credentials skyrocket. Though in the midst of all these 50s/60s style retro sounds Jamal was among the more palatable offerings to my ears. And yet ...

These clips underline the point I tried to make in my reply to Rabshakeh. Lynn Hope was graced with two reissue LPs in the mid-80s (Saxophonograph BP-508 and Aladdin/Pathé-Marconi 1546661), and I bought them not long after they had hit the record stalls. Not familiar with the name at all but knowing more or less what to expect (somewhere between Earl Bostic, Maxwell Davis and more energetic sax men). So I figured they'd fit well in among what I already had in that "category". No desert island discs but worth having, and being able to make a "discovery" was enough incentive. So Lynn Hope became a household name for me some 35+ years ago. As the annual "First Pressings" volumes revealed, he figured regularly in Billboard from 1951 to 1954 (less frequently in 1955 to 1958) so he clearly had some status on the scene for a while even after his 1950 hit with "Tenderly". Getting back to the time frame of the "In With The in Crowd" book, I'd bet discoveries such as this wouild work just as well for anyone wanting to explore 60s jazz (soul, sax-and-organ or whatever). It just takes some willingness to dig deeper and look beyond the big names of the "usual suspects" too. Which after all is made easier today by the chanels that make the music available for rediscovery.

FWIW, as for two books with a similar approach about rebalancing the narrative of jazz history but (also) covering an earlier period, Louis Jordan is discussed in detail both in "Soul Jazz" by Bob Porter and "Jazz With a Beat" by Tad Richards. But Pete Brown is only briefly mentioned in passing in "Soul Jazz" and not at all in "Jazz With a Beat". And Floyd Horsecollar Williams (almost predictably?) is not mentioned in either of the two. So the problem may be a more wide-ranging one.

You are right with the aspects that you highlight ... And yet ... ... I understand what you are saying but at the same time I am puzzled. Is it really THAT difficult to think BEYOND the "accepted wisdom" (i.e. the usual categories) of the canon of the (canonized) scribes on jazz? Your post has made me wonder about how I found out about all this. Soul Jazz (and similar 60s jazz) came fairly late for me and still is not my #1 style of jazz that makes me most easily take chances when buying records. But I have come to like it a lot, and after all this problem of what was (and is) considered worthy of "unconditional" JAZZ status did exist earlier too, i.e. with post-1945 (or post-Petrillo ban) horn-led "race music", Rhythm & Blues, Jump Blues (whatever ...). As highlighted in the "Soul Jazz" book by Bob Porter (which gives fairly broad coverage to 1945-55 R&B - as a path leading up to Soul Jazz - as well) and more recently in "Jazz With A Beat" by Tad Richards. Trying to think of how I explored that music way back, it may have helped that in addition to Swing and Bebop I had always been just as much interested in (real) Rock'n'Roll (not the way this is being defined in the U.S., mind you 😄) as well as the meatier styles of Blues (which invariably leads you towards R&B and Jump Blues). So anything that struck a chord (style-wise) in more than one way - as a sort of "cross-over" - caught my fancy. And almost from Day One I was curious enough to search out almost anything in that vein that I was able to get my hands on (and afford finance-wise ) in those late 70s, figuring there must be "more discoveries" out there. I remember that in the beginning I was a bit uneasy about where to file the very first records I bought by Louis Jordan - his Mercury stuff - and Buddy Johnson (I think I still was in high school then), but this was soon overcome and I gradually worked my way further in. What did I use for guidance or source material? Honestly, I don't remember ... A couple of books by Arnold Shaw helped. And I also remember I always tried to find PERIOD printed matter (books/mags) that talked about the music at the time it was current and did not want to rely exclusively on sources that were published much later (and were of course colored by whatever narrative hads come to dictate the way the story of jazz was "supposed" to be seen then). But access to such primary source material for reference was TOUGH in those pre-internet days. In many cases I did not manage to catch up until much later. I cannot even tell you what triggered me not to take the usual documentary sources as the "gospel" of what to appreciate as a "true" jazz fan. But I remember i always felt the urge to discover more in order to "flesh out" the bare-bones skeleton of the BIG names in jazz of any period and styles and look BEYOND that towards those who (at least to my tastes) were much more than "also-rans". Which, for example, is why I much prefer the "Jazz Masters of the 40s" book by Ira Gitler (who looks beyond the biggest names of the "usual suspects" and mentions tons of others for any given instrument), as opposed to the "Jazz Masters of the 50s" book that tries to cover 50s jazz by focusing on only a dozen (or so) of real big names but stops (and fails) there. In short, this exploratory route happened with me for jazz of the 1940-45 to 1955 period much in the same way it can happen with others for the late 50s to late 60s period covered by the book discussed here. At any rate, the music IS out there, and no doubt it today is much, much easier to access than it was back in the 70s or early 80s. It just takes a good dose of curiosity and an attitude of taking the long-established narratives with a grain of salt, particularly if they reek of trying over and over again to "make a lady out of jazz" (even decades after Paul Whiteman) because they stuff jazz into a strict "art music" or "the classical music of the USA" corner. And ABOVE ALL not to forget that one purpose of jazz at ALL times was to entertain (including as a music for dancing).

So true ... Just as in the case of that "other" book mentioned earlier ...

O.K., then ... "Stand by (and watch this space) for further announcements"! (I am not even one third through the book ... but considering it has barely 140 pages it won't be exceedingly long ...)

I am about to spring for "In with the In Crowd" and have it presented to me for Christmas by my better half. 😄 In the meantime, I did pull the trigger on "Jazz With A Beat" and received it today. Worth closer reading and examination as the author does seem to cover this from an angle that had all too often been dismissed or ignored (and does not look like it duplicates that of "Honkers and Shouters" by Arnold Shaw but might complement it well). But ... under the "get your facts right and REALLY do your research homework" angle it looks like a mixed bag to me (at very first sight, admittedly). Any interest here in starting a separate thread on THAT book?

Hoping for you this will be a good investment over time. Because the price difference compared to the "standard" edition is sorta "steep" IMO.

Regardless of what you stood corrected for , you raised some valid (IMHO) points. I know I am nitpicking quite a bit here, but even after having checked the track list AND the list of artists/bands they deliberately omitted, I still felt puzzled a bit. Some of those acts on the list of excluded (our should I say discarded?) artists that they may have felt to be of "slight" or limited jazz content IMO can (almost) only be judged that way (to the extent that I have heard these acts on other records) by the fact that the compilers' idea of "jazz content" is a fairly conservative one. And this seems to favor traditional jazz and hesitates much more often about what was popular on the "swing" (or swing-infused) end of jazzish popular music in the 40s. That end of the spectrum in fact included quite a few artists that had a solid following in their day but fell by the wayside of the historians' way of writing about jazz of that era in later decades. And therefore passed into oblivion with the "general" jazz public. (And I am not even thinking of Louis Jordan there ... whose omission I personally can live with because his V-Discs have been around in easily accessible form on the reissue market before.) Adding this to the fact that building such a box set to a greater extent on such relative obscurities instead of mostly firm "name" favorites (of whom there remain many in the field of traditional jazz) might have hampered sales potential, you just end up with the artist selections they preferred. Understandable yet a pity in some cases.

Yes - really great. I made it a Christmas gift to myself when it came out. Recommended!

I.e. the one with the 500,000 guitars??

Good to know. 😄 But at least the reader seems to be getting his money's worth per page. Contrary to the typeface used in certain other books.

Thanks for linking this interesting review. This does give a better idea of what the book is all about. As for the following statement ... " ... the kind of jazz that was commercially viable in the black community in the 1960s has been overlooked in jazz history writing. Author Mike Smith says that the attention that might have been given to popular performers like singer Nancy Wilson, pianists Ramsey Lewis and others has instead been focused on the avant-garde, aka “The New Thing,” as personified by Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Albert Ayler and a few others. ... Smith’s thesis is that the need to “elevate” jazz from a popular musical form to one “equal” to European and other Western forms of music is the key factor. Early attacks on jazz he says, “led to a defensiveness and a need to seek legitimacy that continued into the 21st century.” This idea goes back to the 1920s, Paul Whiteman’s efforts to “make a lady out of jazz” perhaps being the most well-known. Smith believes this comes largely from the white community although historically, critiques of jazz have come from both races. Smith says that since media loves conflict, jazz writers’ attention has been more likely to be drawn to the drama surrounding people like Billie Holiday and Nina Simone. He writes that this music reflects a more non-conflictual perspective on black life; people just wanting to enjoy themselves, in communities that were more than just “ghettoes”; that there was not just struggle and trauma in people’s lives, but beauty as well. " ... I for one feel that the importance of this and the need to rebalance the scales accordingly in the way the history and evolution of jazz are presented and appreciated cannot be stressed enough. Trying to force jazz (in the larger sense) into a "classical music of the USA" pigeonhole (and limiting oneself to perceiving the music in this classically-trained "art music" sense) does not do the music justice at all. Just my 2c ...

A side note: Thanks for mentioning that "Jazz With A Beat" book! I had been totally unaware of this. (Cannot recall its release has been discussed here - or did I miss something?) Ordered it at once as it is right up my alley. Glad to see (according to the sales blurb on Amazon) that the author acknolwedges the small-group R&B/Jump Blues acts as part of how Swing evolved after 1945. Good to see the days seem to be over at last when the entire R&B field was dismissed as being unworthy of serious consideration as "jazz" (of the post-WWII variety). The "In With The In Crowd" book looks interesting too (like you said - as a follow-up to the "Soul Jazz" book, maybe ...). But for now I'll sit and wait to hear from others who have read it - just to get a few more impressions. BTW, one aspect I wonder whether it will be covered in the "In Crowd" book (or in "Jazz With a Beat"?) are those "Mainstream" jazzmen who did retain a following well into the 60s at least on a local/regional level, such as Buddy Tate and his Celebrity Club orchestra who according to various period sources had a long-running club residency. Style-wise (considering the usual stylistic categories that jazz scribes tended to think in) I'd guess he fell into the "No man's land of jazz" between R&B and Soul Jazz.

Yes - this is how this session looks in the "Bird Lore" discography: And this is what the booklet of the "Unheard Bird" 2-CD set says about that session. (I had totally forgotten I own this set. I really ought to have checked there first )

Just a wild shot ...: According to various discgraphies and liner notes the tunes were listed as - Segment - Diverse (Segment) According to these as well as the "Bird Lore" discography by Piet Koster, the matrix numbers are 294-3 for "Segment" and 296-3 for "Diverse (Segment)" This looks to me like "Segment" was recorded first and "Diverse aka Segment" later. So "Segment" is likely to have been the original title. As to who renamed "Diverse" - no idea, sorry ... But ... According to the "BIrd Lore" discography, only one of the two tracks called "Passport" from that session was originally released on 78 and on a 10" LP predating the 12" LPs. But both "Segment" and "Diverse (Segment)" were first released on a Verve 12" LP (MGV 8009). Wouldn't this indicate that whoever named these tunes, it very likely wasn't Bird?

In the CD reissue field, in all objectivity I'd have to rate some of the reissue packagings of Fresh sound and certain related labels in this category: For a while they had a habit of compiling, say, "the Complete Quartet (or Quintet or Sextet or Trio or Small Group) recordings" of this or that artist, which then resulted in half or two thirds of two or three original LPs that were combined into one single CD. Because the original LPs (sometimes even sessions) were not made up of one strict group lineup throughout but for some tracks added (or subtracted) one or two other musicians. So ... neither flesh nor fowl if you are trying to round up the discography of an artist whose original LPs either are out of your price range or are unavailable in other reissue formats. (Not that overall I'm unduly worried about this compilation quirk ... in recent years I've scored several of these "complete small-group sizte" thingies at the princely sum of 1 EUR each secondhand, and at that price I can live with those completist shortcomings. And yet it's a disservice to "serious" collectors.) I realize this outright statement opens the door wide for anti-P.D. label polemics by "some usual suspects of this place" 😄, but it just had to be said ... Next ... As for "reducing the risk for one not selling", as you correctly say, there is a similar annoying Fresh Sound CD packaging habit: Very often their "2 LPs on one CD" reissues (basically a sound idea) of relatively rare and obscure acts (that really take determination to be sought out by most jazz listeners who are in the market for reissues of 50s/60s LPs) combine one LP that had had already been out on vinyl by Fresh Sound, and then another one that is all new on the reissue market (because many of these artists and LPs are among those that no other reissue label anywhere else would ever bother with). So those who had already been in the market for these reissues in the vinyl days (as you guessed I'm one of them) often would be getting far less for their money if they wanted the "other" of the two LPs on each CD as well. I've not very often been tempted to pick up the CD anyway at the "New" price but this packaging policy of "nudging the customer into rebuying" is a bit of a drag anyway.

Understandable 😄 but there is a way out in case you do have space for more LP covers ... There is hardly any unused space left on the walls of my music room either, so I cannot really display any more (unless I start alternating), but it would be nice anyway ... Checking again these days I found I have accumulated a few original record covers through the years that are missing their LPs or EPs (or that - in one case - is a duplicate when I replaced a shot vinyl with a far better one). And I guess this happens with other collectors too. So what better use for those "orphaned" covers than to use them to decorate the wall as long as they are "in tune" with your record collection ?

But IMHO this is one reason why it cannot do any harm to any of those interested in the history of an art form (jazz in this case) to try to get access to CONTEMPORARY publications on the subject matter and read up on them and not rely too much (let alone only) on latter-day (re)interpretations by journalists (who often are no all-out historians in the first place) or authors. Some of these much more recent publications may offer historically important insights (if diligently researched and documented) but just as many may be grossly skewed by today's perspective and/or narrative.

I was a bit puzzled when in one of the very first paragraphs the author cited James Lincoln Collier's "The Making of Jazz" as a prime source for his statements. I had started reading it last spring but was somewhat put off by his sweeping generalizations that crop up time and again. So ... all to be taken with a huge grain of salt ... Though heroin addiction no doubt was widespread. As to which is cause, and which is effect ... that sounds like a different story ... OTOH, the following statement as such no doubt is true: "The 1950s were when jazz truly lost its black audience." But IMO this is due to mainly musical reasons in the first place. R&B, Jump Blues, City Blues (you name it ...) replaced jazz (i.e. Swing-style jazz) as the POPULAR music among the Black community and eventually evolved into Soul (with Soul Jazz being about the only style of jazz that was able to maintain a relatively firm footing in the Black community while that style lasted). Yet the days of jazz as a definite part of popular music were largely over soon after WWII. But where's the link of this loss of the Black audience and the widespread use of dope? I cannot quite see it in this article.

Checked the track listing more closely now ... From Disc VII onwards, above all, my curiosity (about new or off-the-radar discoveries) certainly is piqued ... Let's see what Jazz Messengers can come up with ...

Thanks Colin. I had not seen all this when I visited the website. Pity for the list of deliberate omissions. To me, some of the names sound intriguing or even tempting. From the point of view of making long-unavailable sides available, actually more so than (I have to use the term now 😄) some of the "usual 'name' suspects" who have been available in other packagings before. But as they say - one man's meat ... So - no Louis Jordan at all either? Not that this would worry me unduly (these performances HAVE been around as well), but did Mosaic actually find their jazz content to be insufficient too? To me, this somehow would sound like a somewhat narrowed-down definition of what they prefer to see in 40s jazz. Or is it a matter of them preferring to attract a maximum of buyers by rounding up a roster of as-big-as-possible names because rarities and obscurities are too much of a niche interest within what is already a niche market?

Just had a look at the Mosaic website and am wondering (and puzzled ...) as I did not see a complete artist and track listing so far: Certainly the list of artists is impressive so you cannot actually talk about "the usual suspects", but still I am wondering: There were many, many artists who were fairly well-known back then and part of the Swing scene of the 40s (and contributed to the V-Disc catalog) but fell by the wayside in the way jazz history of that period is covered by scribes (particularly by latter-day ones). So ... Will this set include a representative sampling of the offerings of small groups led by the likes of Loumell Morgan, Mary Greene, Page Cavanaugh, Vivian Garry, Les Paul etc.? That would contribute to filling long-glaring gaps in the history the Swing Era of those years. After all (and not least of all) some of the big "name" artists on V-Disc have already been round the block in various guises on the reissue market anyway. Not hedging my bets nor hoping for anything but I just felt this question deserved to be asked ...