Big Beat Steve

I dont think anybody would need one. Give or take one song, so what?

What for? I am no matrix number fetichist. I'll leave that to the Blue Note geeks around here. But in fact I do seem to remember a CD on the Ace label that had the same song on it twice by mistake and Ace (e.g. through a note in the Blues & Rhythm mag) went out of its way to launch a recall. :D So ...? (But I take it that you have double-checked Vols. 2 to 4 of that package to make sure this doubling up was a sole and single occurrence? )

DON'T!!!!!

Certainly NOT Lionel Hampton. It was only mediocre the other way round ....

Please don't get worked up, Allen, I am NOT AT ALL debating the selection of the music as such and I do realize that eventually it all boils down to a matter of personal priorities. And of course it's "only" the track and artist listings we are talking about, and actually my comments on that aspect are more an expression of regret than of criticism. Those who want more info will have options to look elsewhere and of course will HAVE to look elsewhere. Yet providing that info in a manner that avoids inconsistencies and the spelling issues IMHO would not really entail much extra work and effort and at the same time would raise the buyers' impression of the dedication that went into this project even further. Just MY stance on reality ... This from somebody who - in another field of collecting/hobbyism - has invested countless hours of researching, checking, double checking and cross checking information himself for a final result that was to be as close as possible to a definitive reference work ("definitive" obviously being a goal virtually impossible to achieve), and all this with zero monetary compensation (being "only" the proofreader, and the author certainly did not get rich either) and no outside support except one's own archives and research knowledge. So yes - I have been through unpaid research and compilating efforts myself. But again, it's obviously a matter of one's personal priorities that determine the general approach so we'll leave it at that, at least as far as I am concerned. Again, good luck for the further volumes.

My point is just this: I do see that in most cases a leader's name (under whose name the recordings were first issued and are comonly listed) is indicated and a few soloist's names are thrown in the ring afterwards. So you at least can GUESS where to look up the music for further info. But wouldn't it be easier for the listener who wants to investigate the music further (e.g. the rest of the respective sessions) if this were handled that way throughout? Sometimes rattling off a few names really can get even those fans of the music hung up who have access to the usual discographies (at least in the case of the hardcopy versions or those with no elaborate search function or index). E.g. who or what is Johnson/Nelson/Porkchop? That way of writing leaves it open to guess if this is just a rundown of names of a recording originally credited otherwise (see the "Teschmacher (sic)/Spanier/Sullivan/Krupa" item discussed above) or if they actually appeared like that on the 78s label. The comments on the tracks by these leave you none the wiser as to their actual identities, and the release number in the "discography" is a total mystery as no label is given at all. Why does the interested listener have to go here to AT LEAST get a clue as to the identities of the artists as a BASIC starting point for further research? http://www.answers.com/topic/nelson-rhinoceros After all Lonnie Johnson isnt' just anybody. Again, I really don't mean to slight the overall scope and achievement of the opus at all, just wondering about this aspect that at least in my opinion unnnecessarily confuses things for those interested in further exploring the music. And that's not silly at all.

Of course, the selection of the music is excellent and should offer new insights in the music. But as far as I can see the artist references are not really related to that. Like I said, with a project like this I guess everybody will make concessions in cases where the information isn't easy to come by, but sometimes it is just confusing if only a couple of names are rattled off instead of the name of the actual band "featuring XXX, YYY". BTW, don't know if you picked up this: All the sources I am aware of list country artist "Doc" Boggs as DOCK Boggs. Not to be confused with stages names such as "Doc Watson".

Make no mistake about it, Rostasi ... They do mean quite a lot, at least to me, for example. E.g. if that Rosie Mae Moore tune originally was actually released under (leader?) Charlie McCoy's name then it most definitely should be indicated and referenced e.g. as Charlie McCoy feat. Rosie Mae Moore. Actually the same problem had been discussed here quite extensively in the case the Devilin Tunes boxes where the same thing occurred with quite a few tracks. I find this quite irritating (and unnecessary) as it can be misleading. Now in the case of OTHER (more commercial) producers' boxes I'd be really sore. Take that Guitar jazz box released by Proper. It includes "Floyd's Guitar Blues" credited just to "Floyd Smith" on the box track listing (and website IIRC). Of course it's the recording by the Andy Kirk band. But you would have to look inside the booklet (inaccessible inside the sealed box before purchase) to find out. Now how plain silly is that??? Because as it happens Floyd Smith DID (re-)record that tune with his own combo for an indie label right after WWII. So how is a really interested fan of the music supposed to know what he's getting?? If you e faced with multiple cases like that it can reqally drive you up the wall. So this may explain why correct and unequivocal artist credits are vital IMHO. P.S: Rostasi, can you provide a link to where your corrections are accessible so they can be filed with the info on the "booklet CD"?

Ok, Allen, then let me put it another way. I definitely did not mean to be aggressive. What I did mean, though, was to point out that I really cannot quite see what purpose this list would serve ON ITS OWN and in its present form. As far as I can see and like I said, the information might have been included just as well at the end of each "header" line (giving the title of the tune and the artist credits as well as the recording date) in the file that includes your individual comments on each track (which - let me repeat that - I do find VERY useful!). This would have kept all the info in one place and the info would have been where it belonged, i.e. with the respective title. Actually, don't you feel that doing things that way would have made things EASIER for you because you would not have had to compile that file all by itself? Especially so since those who consult that file would probably be doing so because they want to know about the original release of a particular tune. Now if they had been given that info right after the artist credits and recording date in the listing that includes your comments it would all have been there (because this would be where they would have STARTED their search anyway if they were interested in that info on any particular tune). No need to look up another file, no need to go down an alphabetical list (a longish one as it covers 36 CDs), no to and fro, no nothing. Now about inconsistency: The two examples I mentioned are just two examples that I happened to notice when taking a VERY superficial glance at that list. I take it, then, that you took that Pete Lewis track from a Gusto LP and that Boots & The Buddies track from that reissue on the Tax label. Nothing wrong with that; who would be able to take such a huge amount and wide variety of music from original first pressings throughout? However, I did understand the meaning of this "discography" (your statement on what would suffice as constituting a discography in the stricter sense of the word is noted ) to provide information on the ORIGNAL release of the tracks (just like it is done with MANY other reissues as some collectors might find it useful to know which label a given recording originally appeared on, e.g. because some labels may evoke certain artistic or stylistic connotations). If this is so then I find this sort of inconsistencies a bit confusing. However, if that list actually is meant to indicate only where you took the individual tracks from for your particular project then I stand "corrected" and will take note of this. As for "wrongly-named tunes", well, referring to that Boots & His Buddies track again: To me at least, the misspelling - Wamp vs Vamp - looks fairly obvious as the title sequence for the session that this tune came from is exactly the same both on the Tax LP and in Rust's discography. So the spelling error on the Tax LP looks fairly obvious to me, especially since Rust's spelling (Vamp) is also found in other sources (but NO, I do not have a label scan of the original Bluebird on hand ). That's all I meant to say regarding the release info. And like I hinted at, of course personnel details (where known) would have been nice (sort of extra icing on the cake) but indeed I can live perfectly well without that on a reissue of this calibre. BTW, why should I doubt the artistic merits of the tracks included in any way? Who am I to judge that across the entire field covered here? I'd be the first to encourage anybody to look beyond predefined stylistic "boundaries" and explore cross-influences and will be eager to do so myself. Which is why I will be looking forward to the upcoming volumes, the above (minor) criticisms (which I prefer to see as suggestions for further improvement) notwithstanding. Good luck with your further work

Received my box set through Amazon yesterday and am looking forward to giving it a listen (though for the time being my find at yesterday's local record clearout sale - some 60 platters - will be given priority ). Had a look at the CD "liner notes" booklet too. Nice booklet, an introductory chapter that looks very interesting and useful comments on the individual tunes. I guess I will print that one out before giving the CDs a closer listen as I hate having to scramble from my music room to where the PC is each time I want to read up on the individual tracks. I cannot qute fathom, however, what the "Four-volume discography" is supposed to be. It sho' ain't no discography. Looks more like a release number listing to me, and one of inconsequent methodology: Some codes - such as GD - seem to be missing in the abbreviation list, and other releases seem to be incorrect if the listing is supposed to give the ORIGINAL release: e.g. was "The Wamp" really unreleased at the time or was it rather "The Vamp" on Bluebird, as borne out by Rust's discography where the track sequences of that session is the same as on the Tax LP quoted. BTW, that "GD" code is a case similar to that "Tax" example as it refers to a much later reissue of a track originally on Federal 12066, according to Leadbitter/Slaven. And the listing by track name isn't really very convenient to this user either. A listing in the order of the CD track sequence would have been much logical IMO if such a listing were to be established at all. Anyway, if no discography in the proper sense of the word (i.e. session details) is to be included, then so be it (it's understandable all in all), but wouldn't it have been much more convenient to just give the original release number right behind each title and artist credits in the list of comments on the individual tracks? That would have kept all the relevant info in one place. But no, overall this is no big deal, really, just a bit irritating.

You know one man's meat is another man's poison anyway and no doubt others were happy to snap up a lot of that easy listening/MOR stuff (I saw some drooling about those 60s easy listening orchestras, in fact). And I did pick up a few non-jazz "oddball" pop items too (like I said, how can you go wrong at that price? The 2-hour dig was well worth it. No time, though, to go back tomorrow for another round. But not doubt if they sold off a "collection" at you Music Exchange that must have been even more of a treasure chest.

Went to a local record store today (one of the few real brick and mortar shops left in town) for a huuuge secondhand clearance sale. Everything went at 1 euro apiece - LPs, CDs, 10-inchers, EPs, singles. Had to sift through an awful lot of pop/disco/MOR/easy listening/light classics/kids records dross (hit rate less than 1 per 100, I guess) but it was well worth it. These are just the period/early originals (not counting the 70s/80s reissues): The usual cover wear on many of then but how can you go wrong at 1 euro apiece? At that kind of money you can take chances and buy items even for their covers only. Of course I already had some of the music but if you can replace a nondescript later reissue with a nicer early pressing then this is the time. Vinyl mostly looks like they came from careful collectors' homes but some look like they've seen a fair bit of party use (including the Lil Abner, of all platters! ) Wish that days like that came along a bit more often ...

@J.A.W.: Amazon.de. 62.99 euros. A bit more than the $66 charged by Allen (+ very likely 19% VAT charged by customs as it is above the duty-free limit of $50) but not THAT much more, really.

Of course I cannot vouch for anybody among those, but somehow I feel that at least in SOME cases (don't ask me about percentages ) that "gangsta" attitude is just an attempt at "posing". A rather nasty one but still one more out to gain attention among their group peers. Times do change, but just try to picture somebody with the "track record" of Leadbelly in today's rap scene and try to imagine Leadbelly's musical career in today's rap terms. The weay the media would wriote it up, it would make a real nasty character, wouldn't it, and where would he rate in public esteem if (as has been the case with Leadbelly IIRC) he'd landed back in the can AFTER having "sung" his way out of jail a first time? Don't get me wrong, I certainly would not want to belittle the potential criminal energy of SOME of those rappers (and I do feel uneasy about some aspects of it all too, at least the way it's being shown in the media) and to a certain degree you cannot avoid comparing apples with oranges because times do change indeed. Yet I fail to see where the difference is between smacking a woman around (to stay with your eaxmple) in 1949 and in 2010. And don't tell me it never occurred in real life then (and was sung about). But I'll leave the analyses of the autobiographic content of blues and rap lyrics to others.

Indeed, but that was not my motivation this time. I just did not fancy having to do a one-hour round trip to the customs office (and the risk is real that customs would step in, making me pay another 19% VAT on the purchase price plus shipping).

Very good point (and a point much too seldom made). That said, except for a few minutes' worth of novelty value each time I've never really liked any of that rap that I've heard in likely and unlikely places, and I cannot see it as any form of real jazz either, but as a grassroots music movement reflecting its times, social conditions and background I am quite willing to say it very likely is today's R&B. And quite legitimately so. If you look closely (leaving the actual musical "craft" and styles aside but they are a matter of taste anyway), there are parallels indeed. And as for that violence, misoginy (and what not) accusations, come on ... don't you remember all your blues lyrics of waaaay back? How many blues songs have there been with the line of "I'm gonna kill that woman" (and didn't they sound pretty serious?), how often have vulgarity, booze, drugs and adultery been featured VERY prominently in these lyrics? What would have been the percentage of vocal R&B of the 40s and early 50s that would be blacklisted as being "unsuitable for airplay" in today's cleaned-up, whitewashed, sterilized-to-death, oh so politically correct media world? So please don't confuse the artificial outrage dictated by the overly sanitized "do's and don'ts" of a (re-)puritan(ized) society with any alleged "lewdness" that would make those lyrics that much worse than what has been around before. IMHO these gangsta lyrics often are just an immature put-on by kids mentally stuck halfway in childhood (a bit different to someone in his late 30s singing about doing his woman in ).

So this means I did well in ordering my copy of this 9-CD set through amazon. :D Saved you a lot of trouble, and anyway ... if I figure in the 19% VAT customs duty I would have been likely to pay on the price when collecting that shipment coming from the US (not even mentioning the time and fuel spent to got to the customs office), then the amazon rate is only marginally higher.

Nice story! But one must be really dedicated to appreciate (or even cherish) the consequences.

I have full runs (minus 1 or 2 issues, maybe) of the German mag JAZZ PODIUM up to and including 1966 as well as the Swedish mags ORKESTER JOURNALEN and ESTRAD up to late 1963. If you think this would help, I can check them for references to Don Cherry and forward photocopies.

I have the Columbia "The Beginning and the End" LP listed above, and the liner notes by Dan Morgenstern describe this date as the "last" known recordings. However, at one point a couple of years ago I crossed out that date on the cover and wrote "31 May 1955" there so apparently I must have read somewhere (can't recall where) that this information on the LP clearly is incorrect. Small wonder ... nobody is perfect, the reissue dates from 1973 and more recent research may have unearthed that May date as being the correct one.

Ah, OK then! Although ... one never knows, do one??

Has it?? My understanding (and recollection) is that there have been several threads on this board since 2006 or so that have dwelt on this subject quite extensively. But if you would like to extend the scope of this thread to the doings of a couple of reissue labels from other (non-Iberian) countries to discuss the fact if it is just coincidence or a clever, cost-cutting strategy (with all that's involved in this cost cutting ) that by sheer coincidence their "artist" or "theme" releases or boxes coincide with other (previous) reissues and (in the case of the artists) cover virtually the same material all over again or (in the case of V.A. "theme" compilations) duplicate two thirds or three quarters of other V.A. boxes on the same theme (all within the Public domain period, of course) then that might make for a mighty interesting thread. :D It is a wide field you know ... @Fer Urbina: I plead guilty to confusing that Eddie Costa Lonehill reissue with Fresh Sound. However, that annoying Fresh Sound policy of combining two LPs (of which at least one had previously been reissued by F.S. themselves on LP) on on single CD can be found elsehere too. And it makes any attempts of LP AND CD buyers to extend their Fresh Sound LP reissue coverage into CDs rather a frustrating undertaking.

About the influences on Gryce as mentioned in these liner notes: "Four in particular come to Gryce's mind, and he feels that mention should be made of them somewhere so that others may know. ... Then there is Goon Gardner of the Earl Hines band, and Gigi gives some idea of his prowess by saying that because he had the alto chair with Hines, Parker, when he joined the band, was asked to play tenor."

Wasn't he in the unrecorded Earl Hines band of 1942-43? So was he possibly one of the "unruly early boppers" there or a straight swing man? What do the documents on that band say?

I agree with you there - when I wrote my above statement I was immediately thinking of Uptown as a "different" matter, and I find those plagiate duplicates of Uptown reissues highly unethical too. Yet, as often mentioned before, there are other cases (outside the Spanish/Andorran fraternity) that look comparable to me, except that these are not as widely criticized HERE because the music it is all about does not fall within the core realm of bop/hard bop dear to the hearts of oh so many here (in short, other potentially "seamy" labels might deserve threads like this too). BUT - what I meant to stress are Fresh Sound (and similar labels') reissues of music that really, really nowhere else (least of all in the US of A) get any attention reissue-wise and that those who just MIGHT still have the rights just don't give a hoot about.