Big Beat Steve

So how come, then, that it has been possible to release such an extreme, immense quantity of transcriptions from that period for the enjoyment of collectors in (more or less) recent decades? Just wondering ...

I did not say your post was an endorsement but I did feel any such repeated presentation of this pseudo "reasoning" to be ... well ... ambiguous. You know ... there might be those who, upon reading these statements BEFORE having seen the JAZZ series, might indeed be too much in awe of the oh so sublime motivations of K.B. after all.

@cih: With all due respect: It is pretty silly to pretend one can go about presenting HISTORY in a way that skews, distorts, misrepresents and falsifies this same history in the name of "spirituality" (or whatever). If K.B. had wanted to do a film about the (in HIS VERY OWN opinion) supernatural stature of Louis Armstrong in jazz then he would have been welcome to do his own portrait of Pops. But do it all while pretenting this is a history of "Jazz" at large? Nah! (And yet the somewhat excessive spotlight on Pops is nowhere near the most criticable detail about this series). I am not as overly bugged by all these misrepresentations in this series as some other around here seem to be as this problem of diluting and trivializing history prepared for showing it to the masses on that little screen is a recurrent one and I have long since come to take it more or less for granted that hardly anybody goes to the trouble of really presenting the facts in a historically balanced way anymore. A hefty grain of salt and and/or some "beforehand knowledge" of the subject is always called for. So series such as this just aren't to be taken at face value. Because EVERYBODY of those who do such productions (and who usually are not diehard lovers of the subject but rather are "in it for the story") has his OWN "agenda"! And that might be a VERY far cry from any historically adequate presentation of the FACTS. What makes it worse in this particulary case IMHO is just that blurb that you quoted. I for one won't buy into this one bit. To me the essence of what the skewwed narrative is all about is just one thing - effects for effects' sake. Reminds me a bit of that quip heard elsewhere: Expert spectator says to self-appointed historian: "That history did not happen the way you presented it!" Self-apppointed historian replies to expert spectator: "No, it didn't, but the story was too good to pass up!" Except that K.B. probably believes that what he screened was indeed the real thing. So increase the dose of that grain of salt, everybody!

Prez and Basie and no Decca involved? Would this give the entire picture, then? As for the rest, I am afraid I am quite happy with my run of six 2-LP CBS sets of the Columbia material.

Just to make sure and since the description on the mosaic website isn't quite clear to me, does this set contain ANY TOTALLY NEW TRACKS, i.e. not just alternates but tunes that have NOT been released anywhere before? Either from the Decca or the Columbia periods?

Honestly, I don't know. These tracks would have been ideal for a compilation in the Classics Blues & Rhythm series or on the Blue Moon label but if they haven't made it there then I don't know.

Actually that's not quite so, MG. Annisteen Allen (as she was mostly billed throughout the 1945-55 period) did record quite a bit for Capitol in 1954-55 (with backing probably by the Howard Biggs orchestra) after her tenure with Lucky Millinder had already ended. They have been reissued in the 80s on the "Fujiyama Mama" (eat your heart out, Wanda Jackson! ) LP on (French) Capitol/Pathe Marconi. According to the liner notes of this and another LP of her slightly earlier sides she also recorded for Decca in 1956-57 and for Todd and Warwick in 1959/60.

That's all quite possible. Some parliamentary initiatives have already been launched in that respect so something might well be cooking. But this door swings both ways: NOTHING except eternal buyers' greed and extreme laziness and unwillingnes on the part of the distributors of the "real thing" forces ANYBODY to pay ripoff releases that duplicate, triplicate well-known reissue stuff such as KOB and other big names. And besides, all those remastering geeks among those of you out there who keep drooling forever about the umpteenth re-re-re-reissue and re-re-re-remastering of this or that so and so much-bit engineering trickery of this or that reissued-to-death platter on this or that major predictably collectible label and cult engineer make it all so easy for those ripoff labels. Because ANYBODY who follows this kind of debate on forums such as this here and sees how easily all those remastering and bonus tracks geeks will gladly dump their previously bought CDs because "upgrading" is all the rage will easily see that there is a huuuuge bite of the cake for them because the more reissue variants there are, the more anybody except the very, very shrewdest buyer will be confused forever and fall for any "bonus" trap that there is, for example. S they knwo pretty well where to go to cash in. OTOH, where things will REALLY hurt (if the "Beatles-triggered" copyright extension comes through) is when all those countless reissues that thankfully were done (BIG THANK YOU to Fresh Sound!) because NONE of the bigger label conglomerates ever gave a rat's ass about those semi-obscure and never-reissued items by artists known mostly to very advanced collectors only - but valuable music cherished by those in the know it was anyway. Things like that are likely to dry up and only the big, big, big names will continue to be listed. Because those who officially hold the rights (if any) to the other, more specialist items will never bother to reissue any of that anyway because there just ain't enough bucks to be made. So those of you who complain oh so loudly about ALL aspects of those "Andorran" labels have been warned! (Oh, but I forgot - those specialist reissues of niche products don't feature Miles or Trane or Mingus et al. and they are not on BN or Impulse or the like - so why would many of those engaged in this kind of debate care anyway?) But oh yeah - if the "Beatles-triggered" copyright extension should come to pass, then say Goodbye to your cherished Proper boxes too! No more cheap way of filling in your stuff from the 78rpm era that many of those dudes whose core jazz interest begins with hard bop only favor when looking tentatively into earlier periods of jazz but could never be bothered to pay at full price (shady label practices notwithstanding). BTW, and finally - has anybody ever given some serious thought to how long this royalty stuff is supposed to go on anyway? I am all in favor of enforcing the 50-year rule and making sure artists get their money during that entire time frame but isn't that PLENTY, PLENTY, PLENTY time for those artists who at one time way back when (50 years was a long time ago after all) happened to perform something to make some more from what they did one day way back then? No real need to pamper subsequent generations just the same way IMHO. About time their kids and grand-kids etc. get busy earning some money of their own! Just like people in other professions are quite naturally required to do too.

Quite OK IIRC. Been a while since I spun it. In a pinch I could compare the fidelity as I also have part of this "Little Man" album on an original Capitol EP in very decent condition. Not familiar with these tunes but the combination of Bluebird and Joe Williams sounds very much like "Big Joe" Williams - THE one and only Joe Williams to hard core (traditional-style) blues fans, especially given his extremely long and fertile recording career.

Very interesting review. Thanks for the link! A bit acidic but much to the point, I'd say, to all those who really are into the music and not just casually interested in the subject. Will print it out and file it with my copy of the JAZZ book.

I'm just an "ordinary" jazz fan and collector (though of relatively long standing ) and far afield from the States so of course I DID take in the series from one end to another. As for its relative merits, I guess I am somewhere between the "naysayers" and the "aye-sayers" (though maybe just a WEE bit towards the "Nay" side ). Being sort of on the outside (of the producers/behind the scenes jazz in-crowd people), I'd summarize my impressions like this: - Narrative to be taken with a grain of salt - yes (but only to be expected when something like this is produced for general public media consumption- YES, CONSUMPTION! ). - Historical facts: A bit too much slanted towards Pops and Duke as the all-encompassing continuum. A few stereotypes - yes, but to those who are moderately knowledgeable the presentation of historical facts is fair enough to spur them into doing their OWN reading. Again, a grain of salt is in order. But would the newbies remember the oversimplified facts as such later on anyway? So the harm done isn't THAT immeasurable IMHO. - Interviewee bigwigs: Marsalis, Crouch and that other one (white, short-bearded assistant college fesser type - can't think of his name right now) often came across a bit as "I am so important that only I can give you the lowdown on this" to me, but a lot of their comments made me automatically think of "To whom are they again and again stating the obvious"? Which in turn calls for that grain of salt as oversimplification goes with mass audience target groups. Not perfect but all too normal and to be expected. BUT - the footage is priceless and deserves to be taken in again and again. And this footage alone is worth the price of admission (free in my case as I taped it straight off the TV set ) And the image sequences do conjure up a fitting atmosphere IMHO. Now as some feel the narrative is doing the subject a disservice and as the music does not very often come directly from the footage but is a (non-sync) overlay of studio music, the excellent footage might even work with different (but stylistically related) jazz sounds after all. In fact, these visual impressions that might even work with slightly different sounds remind me of a rock club I used to visit for live concerts quite often in the 90s. They had a habit of having MTV run continuously on their overhead TV sets all across the dancefloor - video clips of hit parade fare, Beavis and Butthead toon sequences in between, and it did make for some nice stimulation, even though the music spun by the DJs was quite different style-wise. So why not try this with the Ken Burns series for a change in the same manner? Just turn off the sound, let the film run and put on your favorite jazz from the respective era yourself? It's all there. Imspiring jazz stills and footage, sequences that do create an intense atmosphere at times, Beavis and Butthead in between , it's all there. So what more do you want?

Did I sound like I'd want to do THAT? Otherwise, I agree with your comments about the value of the material included on Hep reissues, for example, as a probably better starting point for somebody who'd start from scratch.

O.K., thanks for the confirmation. As I have not been able to find a track list during an initial search, I take it from what you say that the set has a fairly large share of later recordings?

Wilson was great in the 30's & 40's - got a little sleepy in later years. This set appears to be a mixed bag. One of his finest later performances was with the Benny Goodman quartet reunion, recorded for RCA in 1963. In which respect do you consider this to be a mixed bag? I guess a lot of his prime leader dates of the 30s/early 40s have been reissued a zillion times (e.g. his big band on Tax and elsewhere, his small grups on various CBS twofers) but what exactly is there on this set that would be exceedingly hard to come by elsewhere among his earlier work (even for those who've been collecting for quite some time)? Or is it just there are too many of his later dates that you find "sleepy"? (I see what you mean, though - beyond a certain dose polishedness, politeness and gentlemanliness can be a bit too soothing).

So would the lineup indicated on the back cover be correct for ANY of the tracks at all?

As it happens I have that one too (bought by an aunt of mine on location during a trip to the USA in 1974 that happened to include a visit to a club where Max played - and, though not a jazz fan, she thoughtfully had it autographed by Max Kaminsky and a few of his band members). Will give it a listen later to see what it's all about. Bruyninckx' discogaphy isn't of any help as he lists the mjusicians from the back cover as the line-up (and a rec. date of c.1955) for the entire LP. Would be a bit surpised if copycat Lord listed anything substantially different.

Jeez, what did you smoke, all of you?

Considering how much one has seen in jazz 78 rpm albums (containing anything from 2 to 5 78s) through the years without ever being able to afford them there must have been an AWFUL lot. Just have a look at that famous and often-reproduced photo of the storefronot of the Commodore Record Shop that was chock full with jazz (or jazz-ish) albums. And no doubt this was just a TINY fraction of what was available just at the time that pic was taken. And for a more recent glimpse at a little bit of what there was back then, have a look at this and DROOL! http://www.gokudo.co.jp/Record/SPRec/index.htm I am glad I've accumulated a handful 78 rpm albums in the course of the years (including items by the Lamplighter All Stars, Hazel Scott, Mildred Bailey, and a few more) but these are next to nothing compared to what there was. Many of them would be worth acquiring just for their cover artwork!

Dig this, above all, from the Newsweek interview. Very sensible points. Q: Do you agree that perhaps Congress should step in and somehow clear up the tangled web of copyright law as it pertains to something like the Savory collection? A: Well, yeah, yes I do, because—let’s put it this way: as things stand now, the odds are stacked against this material being widely accessible. And it’s my goal to share this. The last thing we want to do is make this music almost as inaccessible as when Savory had it to himself. Right now people have to physically come into the museum and listen to it. We’re talking with Mosaic records about how to possibly release it, but it’s complicated. And you know, I don’t think it’s fair for a great-grandchild of a sideman from one of these bands to hold up the whole thing, trying to get a little bit of money for something his great-grandfather did one night in ’37. But people also have to realize—I mean, on Facebook there’s been a healthy discussion that’s sort of morphed into the “corporate America vs. the poor jazz musician” thing. And that’s not the right way to look at it. No major corporation is interested in issuing this material. Mosaic has a full-time staff of three. The National Jazz Museum in Harlem also has a staff of three right now, though we may grow to a staff of seven or 10. There’s this perception that “oh, man, the artist is gonna get ripped off again,” but sales are in the low thousands for the currently issued stuff. I hope that there is a way to get around some of this. The John Kirby Sextet’s radio performances from 1940 aren’t on the same scale as Walt Disney’s copyright. And still, while I think this is the major musical archeological find of the last few decades, there’s a misunderstanding of the commercial potential. Even the main jazz artists don’t sell that well.

I wouldn't dispute what you say; which is why I referred to his "more 'jazz'-oriented works", nothing more. What I was actually trying to get at is that he DID do something that apparently was intended as a Latin offspin of Westcoast R&B at that time (as evidenced by the handful of tunes that was reissued on various R&B compilations). Which only goes to show he was TOUCHED by what happened in that field (touched, nothing more). And like I said, this name was thrown in the ring as a "starter", not more. I'd be very interested to see more tangible (and more predominantly Cuban) examples of "Latin jazz" on the West Coast myself. BTW, I am sure not all the East Coast Latin/Cuban (mambo) music had THAT much of a jazz tinge either. And if it should turn out to be so that out West the crossbreed of Latin and jazz music concerned more the crossbreeding of Mexian (and not Cuban/Puertorican) with (U.S.) jazz music and musicians (due to a lack of Cuban/Puertorican musicians out West) then that might be a finding to take into account as well. Cross-fertilization basically could occur in many forms.

A great book, that "Latin Jazz" by Raúl A. Fernandez. Thanks for the reminder to look at it closer again. As for TTK's question, try LALO GUERRERO for a starter. I know his more "jazz"-oriented works would be more like Latin R&B and a lot less like Latin bebop but anyway ... Anyway, I'd be interested in finding out more about any Central Avenue equivalents of the N.Y. bop-cum-mambo artists you named too.

Now look ... I don't know if you have done much BUYING on eBay (or on the web) but if you knew the kind of money that non-U.S. bidders/buyers have paid for items mailed from the U.S. then you'd know this just is a two-way street, that's all. If you want to get an item from across the pond, when it comes to shipping costs (assuming the shipping costs have been set fairly and squarely) then it is a matter of PAY UP OR SHUT UP for the buyers. It is as easy as that. No need to take a loss on shipping. State the kind of savings people can make on shipping by buying several items from you but that's that. Now of course if you are all intent and dead set on those U.S. or Far East bidders going crazy and outbidding themselves in a bidders' race until they drop nearly dead from exhaustion and if therefore you are hesitant that these shipping charges will make potential bidders shy away then I guess nobody can help. You can't have your cake and eat it, you know. Same for the question of starting bids. Though I don't like reserves I guess that's the way to go in your case. At any rate, if you really are that afraid that a potentially valuable record might actually sell for just the opening bid of 9.99 (making one very happy bidder in the process) then this is something you either just accept as part of the game or just set a high bid. But a reserve won't guarantee you better results as the item might just remain unsold for several listings just because the reserve is never reached. You know, sellers who start with low starting bids even on highly collectible items usually make out alright overall when considering all their auctions. Some you win (by getting more than anticipated) some you lose (by getting less). It's all part of the game (and of the FUN of this eBay thing - what fun is left on that platform anyway - and the fun of potentially getting something for really cheap might be an impulse for keen bidding too). I for one would never bid on any item with a starting bid that is high enough to indicate the seller wants nothing but the full collectors' worth (with little room for potential future appreciation for the buyer) and nothing less. I'd feel sort of ripped off because in these cases I might as well buy an item from a set sale list/site so why bother waiting for the end of the auction at all? And honestly, if I ever got wind of any seller (of items of interest to me) being worried as much about not getting the full value on each and every item as you profess here I'd steer VERY clear from those auctions. Please note the following is definitely not directed against you (I have no reason to doubt your good intentions) but on a more general level, while such an attitude is fully understandable, to me such an attitude would reek way too much of one of those cases where the bidders who secure a relatively valuable item at a low (or opening-bid) price would potentially incur a huge risk of getting a mail stating "sorry the item has been damaged or lost in the meantime and the auction therefore has to be cancelled". It's happened before, and not exactly rarely, and not surprisingly it has happened mostly in cases where the winning bid for an item was surprisingly low. You know, a couple of months ago I placed a bid on a job lot of NOS engine and other parts for a 50s classic car (value easily 300 or 400 euros if the parts had been bought individually at "O.K." but not excessive prices) and of course was exceedingly pleased when I got it all for the opening bid of ONE euro (!). But I did fear the worst about the outcome of the auction (especially since the seller was very uncommunicative apart from 1 or 2 automated mails) until the parcel actually showed up on my doorstep. Seasoned bidders will know what I mean ... So by all means do take ALL aspects of auctioning psychology into account but please don't look at things from your angle only and do realize that you can't have your cake and eat it in EVERY aspect of life. Good luck!

Now really ... what's making you think that most of those here who clamor for the issue of the "not so obvious" "name" choices among the recorded material on these discs have NOT listened closely enough to the existing recordings by Herschel Evans (or others of similar stature of whose recordings on these discs we aren't even aware of yet)?? Is there any well-founded knowledge for these insinuations? Do you really feel like those who'd dearly love to hear all that might be on these discs will have to earn their entry ticket to that musc first by proving (to you or to whomever?) that they have dissected enough of the existing music down to the last shred of notes? Sorry, I find this rather unjustified and unjust. You may not like what I'm saying here as (though I've been into jazz for well over 30 years and have probably listened closely to much more 30s and early 40s jazz than many of those around here to whom anything before Miles or Trane is just no man's land) I am just a plain and simple jazz lover and collector (and may indeed not have paid my record buying dues by buying enough RECENT releases - that that's my and only my business) and certainly am not one of those producers with tons of behind the scenes insight - BUT: If you feel like pecking at those who (in your opinion) drool too easily about any new snippets of dusty old recordings seeing the light, then why don't you go and peck at those who go haywire each time over the umpteenth reissue of this or that Miles or Trane stuff with MICROSCOPICAL sound improvement or about this or that snippet of not-yet-released tapes by Miles or Trane (or the like) that invariably will be hailed as a MAJOR discovery in jazz. As if Miles and Trane were the BEGINNING and END of all jazz ... Whereas these late 30s Savory recordings indeed look like they might fill gaps in what otherwise has gone unrecorded back then (as opposed to much more widespread on-location recording going on in the late 50s and 60s etc.). So with all due respect - please DO keep things in perspective!

Exactly my thoughts and wishes about any CD sets that might materialize from all this.

What?When?Where?How??? :excited: :excited: GottahaveitGottahaveitGottahaveit!!! (Calming down mode on: 15 CDs would cover only a tiny part of those discs, right? I can only hope they will not stick with the big, bigger, biggest names only. Nothing against Benny Goodman, for example, but he has been served real well with airshots anyway - but hearing Herschel Evans, Chu Berry or the like stretch out really well in informal settings, now THAT would be sumpin'!)