Big Beat Steve

Even if it was so ... any label that reissues items less than 50 years old (i.e. not covered by the current EU public domain cutoff date) will be at risk, no matter what the name of the label is. If any authority would really want to investigate they should be able to overcome this hurdle of different label names just as well, and AFAIK it would not be exactly without risk either if somebody were just to distribute these labels here (if there was a royalty no-payment problem). So what would they really gain if they held a catalog of nominally different labels for distribution? Which is exactly the same with those US reissuers who have their material produced and pressed in Europe in order to take advantage of a 50-year (vs. 70-year) limit. No, look at it any way you want, the core of the problem remains the downright rotten, lousy, couldn't-care-less, spiteful attitude of the U.S (or wherever they may currently be) "owners" of the rights who evidently prefer to let everything remain OOP forever.

Many FS LPs of that period came with 4-page inlays with lists of their then "current" catalog and back catalog. Should include the bulk of it. You never seen any of these?

Would have liked to have been at that garage sale where this feller probably grabbed this seam-split, party-worn VG- graded platter at something like ... 99c or so?? :D

Quite likely, especially in the Orkester Journalen mags from the years when he was in his prime (record reviews, maybe a feature article or "News from the USA" coverage etc.). But obviously these mags are in Swedish.

It's a totally original album (Epic LN 3278), and it's really great indeed.

What's wrong with or derogatory about referring to your "special-interest" leisure activites as a "hobby"?? Actually that's the term I'd more or less automatically connect with what we are talking about here, i.e. (in our case) an area of leisure activity, exploring or collecting that far exceeds any casual level of interest and that you engage in on a regular/permanent basis over a long period of time (maybe all your life) outside your day-to-day job. The French call it "passion" but that word's connotations would be a bit different in English, I guess. I find that Bev's earlier remark that those who never got into any subject of personal interest that really kept them busy, interested and concentrated would invariably wither away once they had reached retirement really is spot on. While I find those oft-heard remarks that "no I am in retirement I need to get a hobby" to be highly superficial (if you really are interested you don't just "get" a hobby like you don a cap or a jacket but rather it has got to be something that strikes that special chord (or your interests) with you) it really is so IMHO that everybody ought to have a "hobby" of their own to keep them INTERESTED (i.e. prepared to actively and individually - on your OWN terms - pursue an activity that goes well beyond simple consumption of what you are exposed to through the mass media day in, day out). I am not so sure it is a class thing either. I know a lot of people of (more or less) working class background who have "hobbies" that they really live for to a quite extreme degree (though admittedly jazz record collecting isn't usually among them ). And they, too (like the middle class that I would consider myself part of), definitely do define their lives through those "hobbies". A job is a job and you got to do it well (ya gotta eat ) but it is those "hobbies" where you really come into your own. And I'd know more than one (me included) who build a huge part of their private lives around their "hobbies" (e.g. in the sense that your private agenda is built around them - haven't we all scheduled a trip to a far away town in accordance with, maybe, a particular concert we'd like to attend there or a record fair we just NEED to check out in that town? ).

Up! (To edit the initial listing of mags) All the French mags are gone, some of the Swedish and German ones are also about to go, but ther still are plenty available.

Ehhh .... Rudy Ray Moore's recording career started waaay back deep in the 50s. See here ... http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1072107/a/Hully+Gully+Fever.htm

Now if the Byrds or Flying Burrito Brothers already inspire a new batch of bands resurrecting their musical styles (in the same manner it has been done with country string bands, western swing or rockabilly, for example) then I KNOW I must be getting old! :D That said, this statement of yours, Revisionist? Deviastionist? Conservative? ... No idea, But it sounds great and doesn't stop me listening to any of the sources sums up the enjoyment of these "roots" bands rather nicely as far as I am concerned.

:D

Well, I am not talking about "nostalgia" or "oldies night" events either. (The "Glenn Miller" revival Orchestra concerts would be another of that type of events) Believe me - most of the audience of the "roots" acts I am talking about would be just as bored by these "nostalgia" events. These really are two distinctly different pairs of shoes.

Which is why I (just like Bev if I got him right) earlier mentioned that "new twist" added to the music the basic style of which may be familiar from 60 or 70 years old records. This is what the "create" part would be all about. What extent of "difference" you'd accept as sufficient "creativity", then, is a matter of taste, of course. Anyway, I'm definitely not talking about "soundalike" copycats, nor about caricaturesque and watered-down imitations.

True - there have been quite a few musical styles where more than one (musician - or listener) has said "Everything that could possibly be said in that idiom has already been said". If musicians and their audience tire of it, new musical styles will (ideally) evolve all by themselves and (again ideally) will find receptive ears (less ideally these styles will be hyped up and foisted on the public as the "latest" marketing plot). But I'd be very, very wary if it is critics or scribes who proclaim that this or that is tired and outworn. Because if critics and scribes get into that act this will lead us back to those Down Beat record reviews where the reviewers threw their stereotyped reproach of being "derivative" at every other artist they did not happen to have extreme adulation for. (As if playing in ANY musical idiom could exist without "deriving" a good deal of your musical means, craft and esxpression directly from what has been played before. This is what the common denominator of any (by necessity "common") core of any style is all about). And this would only be the beginning of their criticism of what they want to perceive to be "worn out". But even if, say, in jazz the only musical expression left unplayed would consist in burping into an empty watering can, would this make it a great "new thing" to be hailed as jazz just because it IS "new"? Effects for effects' (and newness') sake? (And would it be new at all? Check the instrumental means of expression used by Mauricio Kagel, for example ... ) OTOH, as for certain musical styles (including what you sum up under "old time" tag) as being "worn out"? What makes you think they are worn out if an audience is there? (And there most definitely is one. Only on a subculture level but anyway ...) And I'd venture a guess that many among that audience are VERY much aware of the "old masters" and "forefathers" of that particular "roots music" style in question and appreciate them too (maybe even more). But to them both aspects (historical and contemporary) are complementary, not opposed. If those musical styles really were worn out and stylistically exhausted, the audience would drift off by themselves and the "scene" would dry out. But quite a lot of it has been around on that subculture circuit for far roo long for it to be just a fas (a passing fad doesn't last for 15 or 20 years AFAIK). So isn't it rather a matter of "to each his own" and "one man's meat is another man's poison"? Nobody is FORCED to appreciate any particular style of music.

Maybe so, but anybody who considers - or champions - one at the expense of the other is, dare I say it...wrong. Both are quite real enough on their own terms, and their intersection and divegence along the way is ultimately much more "true" than looking at them as either/or entitites. Having just started reading "In Search Of The Blues" by Marybeth Hamilton, I'll be interested to find out, eventually, what larger-than-life-character myths will have been dispelled (or not) by the time I reach the end of the book. And, Bev, is your above book title 'The socio-economic factors that led to the development of the Blues in 20thC America' really purely imaginary or could it, in all its "scholarshipness", maybe have been inspired by this one? http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Britain-Got-Blues-Transmission/dp/0754655806 Interesting reading, BTW, not least of all for taking a closer look at the doings of those early UK blues "purists" (cf. your Muddy Waters European tour anecdote mentioned earlier in this thread ).

Like I said ... as long as those who might want to play (commerically-minded) tricks with my musical tastes are FAR, FAR removed from anything even remotely resembling Top Forty Hit Parade fare my fears that somebody might try to shove phony commercialism down my throat really are quite limited. I mean, why would those out to only make a fast buck with their music (instead of caring about the music) go the subculture route and relegate themselves to some musical style that would be preceived by the VAST majority of ANY music listeners (or should I say "consumers"?) as nothing but ODDBALL fare? No really big bucks to be gained there ... takes some special dedication to exert that much restraint if musical effects for effects sake were all these acts were after.

Ah, but....there are always going to be those who know where that perfect place is and do it non-beneovelently..."civilians" might not want to consider this (which is why they're al;ways the targets!), but...not all "beauty" is beautiful...cynicism is ugly but necessary lest one get all flipper-headed...but too much cynicism is just as bad as not enough....always a balancing act, and some days are better than others... Put another way - a lot of musicians (hell, people in general, but for the sake of this discussion...) are pimps at heart, with audiences being eyed as new talent to turn out and new johns to do tricks on. Disbelieve that at your peril, for real. So you are sure you always can tell the pimps from the 'onest 'uns? Please allow me to agree to disagree. And it is beside the point, anyway. As long as I personally feel those shivers by something that is off the radar of the major mainstream (either now or then) I feel pretty sure I cannot have fallen prey in a MAJOR way to one of those pimps you see out there. And if you take this cynical stance to its utter extreme, who is guaranteeing you that neither "A Love Supreme" nor "Kind of Blue" have been pimped up either in a way that may escape the "typical" listening target of that style of music? Big, decade-long incessant write-ups (did I hear somebody say "hype" there? might be cause for wariness in some circles, you know ...

Indeed. Happens every now and then, and often in places and with tunes where you'd not really expect it. And since even in music, "one man's meat is another man's poison", ALL shivers are indeed equal - as long as we remember that not everybody is supposed or can be expected to experience the same shivers to the same tunes. And even historical significance does not weigh in all that heavily there. Like Bev said, if historical significance gets too much in the way of musical enjoyment, the mujsical experience tends to become artificial. Am I really supposed to enjoy something because it is "significant"? So just to add a side note to Bev's latest post (in fact IMHO he has pretty much nailed it there - again), agreed that John Lee Hooker was a very important figure in the blues. But how do you measure "significance"? Care to read up on contemporary testimonials where you will find that for a suprisingly long time he just was the laughingstock of his Detroit blues and R&B musician peers (in fact, superiors - at least craftwise) because to their ears he just "couldn't play shit" and "not hold a tune"? Not to detract from his stature bestowed by posterity in any way but is there any reason for superhuman idolatry, then? All in the name of numb fumbling as a sign of utter authenticity? So, to remain with this example, what would be wrong, then, with enjoying one of today's one or two-man "roots" blues acts who musically are FAR superior that John Lee & his ilk and yet are nowhere near anything that might be called "slick" and their love and feel for the music does sound real and profound? (That is, unless we want to enter that endless debate again of who is "entitled" to play the blues at all) Just for the sake of enjoyment of that particular music and without any other pretenses that go any further? For all the awareness of the historical background of the music (and I have no reason to doubt this awareness largley is there both with the musicians and their core target audience), it isn't at each and every moment that a theoretical dissection of the music is called for. I'd even doubt all of the music that is all too often coldly analyzeed when listened to these days was originally intended to be dissected that way.

So from your point of view (which I do understand and share to an extent) I guess the same applies to this AUSSIE band too? http://www.goofinrecords.com/shop/index.php?topic=46&offset=300&tuote_ID=13973 Though in the end I always get back to the "sources" I really enjoy a lot of that music - just "for goood times' sake". Their version of "Jumpin' At The Woodside" is an example of what I mentioned above about "adding a new twist" to the music from way back .. (though I admit I am a bit biased in this case because "Woodside" is one of my all-time favorite tunes anyway). As for Commander Cody (and Asleep At The Wheel too); I understand how you got into them and why you appreciated them, though - over here at least - I did manage to get hold of a lot of the "sources" (thanks, Arhoolie/Old Timey!) before I got into Commander Cody. I've always listened to them as an example of what the music would likely sound like if I wanted to listen to LIVE Western Swing at that time (late 70s and 80s). A lot of their "modernization" I like, other ingedients (especially on their later discs) I find a bit ... well ... out of place and out of style. But then again you have since got lots of "contemporary" bands in that vein that dug far deeper into the source material and added some variety that went in a different, "older"-sounding direction. And that shifts all your points of reference. The Dancehall Racketeers mentioned above would be one of those latter bands.

So what?

I haven't read every word of the last two pages of this to-and-fro debate but from the gist of it the way I understood it I find it a real pity Bev's idea of naming a few "suggested listening" ideas of this kind of "rootsy" music has degenerated into such a debate of whether this is any legitimate form of music anyway, whether it is OK to openly refer to stylistic inspirations of an era far in the past or whether this is just "reenactment" or whatever ... IMHO this really misses the point. Look at it this way for a moment, if you care to: Evidently there are not only collectors with tastes firmly rooted in, say, the 20s, 30, 40s and/or 50s (I am one of them too, I guess) but there are also musicians who take their main inspiration from the music of that era and do not feel any need to refer to more recent musical sources. Quite a healthy attitude IMO, because what's the point of feeling obliged to prove that you've listened to your Eric Clapton or Rory Gallagher (in the name of "musical progress" or "progressivity") when in fact your most "recent" guitar hero would be, say, James Burton or Chet Atkins? Who says stylistic "evolution" in music has to proceed in a straight line only? What about exploring byways, sideways, tangential evolutions or even branching off in a direction that staylistically (by common "rock" yardsticks) would lead backwards but in fact just explores areas that had hardly been touched in the past? So what's wrong with musicians asking musical questions of "What would have been if ...?" What would have been if black and white musical genres of those times had been combined to a greater extent than has been preserved on record? What if Django Reinhardt would have been a country hick in the sticks (and would NOT have ended up playing Western Swing in the stricter sense of the word)? What if bluegrass had adopted jazzier overtones? What if hit tunes of today had actually been recorded 50 or 60 years ago? What if down-home blues would still be played actively TODAY? How far would today's influences have touched down-home blues at all? Etc. etc. And - ABOVE ALL - what is wrong with fans of the music of the 20s to the 50s appreciating being able to listen to LIVE music that evokes that era yet is NOT a carbon copy (i.e. not one of those party "cover bands") but presents music firmly rooted in, say, the 30, 40s or 50s yet adds a decidedly different and new twist to it? A new twist that fits in with the music of those times? And all this just in the name of musical enjoyment and without any obligation to resorting to a scientific dissection of the musical ingredients? Is it that hard to imagine that the musicians who play this kind of music do so because they are aware of a HUGE amount of the music of the past but are also aware of the extent to which a LOT of the music recorded back then just never went "all out" in all that cross-fertilization that COULD have happend but did not so the music remained in separate stylistic ruts? Maybe so because the recorded music of those times was dictated too heavily by commercially-minded A&R men or just by the (less adventurous) "majority middle-of-the-road tastes of the times"? No doubt Allen Lowe could rattle off an arm's length of musical examples of such cross-fertilization across stylistic boundaries normally perceived to be rather rigid that occurred even many decades ago. Yet these often were only isolated cases and only hinted at what "could have been". Now the musicians who today play this music that clearly refers back to eras long gone by are no longer bound by these boundaries and A&R considerations so often they come up with new combinations and crossbreeding which really presents the music with a new twist. In short, they "do now" what "could have been done" then but in most cases wasn't. Listening to bands of this sort and being aware of the "originals" of way back I every now and then find myself wondering "If only they had recorded that tune THAT way back then instead of stopping halfway as if impeded by some fear they might alienate their middle-of-the-road public"... Sure this is not the ultimate in breaking new musical grounds (but which music REALLY is?) but I really cannot see why this has to be put down as "reenactment" or "copycat"-ism. "Musical" music (i.e. I am not talking about radical "free" noises) usually DOES refer to previous styles, and if you cannot accept those references being made you'd probably have to throw most "post-bop" out the window too because its links to "hard bop" of 50s years ago often are pretty obvious. So while I cannot comment on those Carolina Chocolate Drops (they do sound interesting, though), I'll throw another name into the ring: HOT CLUB OF COWTOWN And I will have to explore more of the SWEET HOLLYWAIIANS recommended by Durium here some time ago. Just my 2c

Exactly! This was THE CLASSIC type of Prestige reissue covers throughout the late 60s and all of the 70s. With these covers, you could tell Prestiges from very far afield (until the Onyx/Xanadu reissues came along that used the same basic layout, including for the liner notes ). I bought my copy of Mating Call with this cover in 1976 and (being only 16 at that time) distinctly remember how I was sort of uneasy about that "far venture" into (post-bebop era) modern jazz and about what to expect in terms of unapproachable "far out" Coltrane free jazz sounds from that record (having read about him in jazz books mainly in connection with his Free period, of course, and not really being full aware of his Miles quintet period yet). But Tadd Dameron's intriguing treatment of the tunes (he still ranks high on my jazz composer's and arranger's favorite list) really made this a fascinating and immediately acessible record that I still consider very worthwhile listening.

SEASICK STEVE! The man is ... well, elderly ... but the music is quite recent. Would that fit the bill? Really enjoyable, gritty down-home roots music to my ears.

I've never come across listings on eBay that looked as weird as those described by the thread starter but multiple listings of the same article by the same seller would not necessarily be a cause of concern to me, just a sign of annoyance. In fact in other areas I check more or less regularly (parts for collectible cars of specific marques) I often come across listings of NOS "wear and tear" parts (as usually sold by large wholesalers) for a collectible car where you will find identical listings of one and the same part for an older model placed there by the same seller. Beats me why they'd do that. If it is an auction item it is plain silly because who'd raise a bid if he knew another identical part may be just around the corner at the starting price? And even if it is offered at a Buy it Now price they might as well make a single listing that says "10 available" or "20 available" or whatever instead of 20 separate listings! Looks a bit like listing spam to me if I have to work my way through 3 or 4 pages cluttered with maybe only a handful of different articles, each of which is represented by 10 or 20 identical listings each. At any rate, that's another detail that really reduces eBay's attreactivity to me these days.

No, MG, I did not mean to denigrate the scope or coverage of your collection. Not by a long shot ... It's just that the examples that Stereojack named really "are around" and you are bound to stumble (literally) across them once you dig into 40s small band (and some big band) jazz.

Honestly, Stereojack, I sincerely hope that the majority of halfway ambitious and serious jazz collectors would NOT be narrow-minded enough to find the scope of jazz you describe too broad for their tastes (well, those geeks to whom hard bop is the beginning and possibly end of all valid jazz and who are largely ignorant of pre-Miles, pre-Trane jazz would be a different matter but I've never really grasped their stance on jazz anyway). As you said, some Signature tracks have been reissued so often they are really extremely difficult to avoid in any passably decent collection but a LOT of others have fallen unjustifiedly by the wayside and have hardly ever been resurrected. So maybe it's actually the umpteenth reissues of the "usual suspects" (Hawk/Pres, Heywood/Manne, Phillips etc.) that would prevent such a project because if you are highly likely to get a "I already have 50% of the contents of that box" from most potential purchcasers you are not likely to pursue the matter further. And doing an "uncollected" box gathering specifically the overlooked "collection gap fillers" would really demand too much of a keen collector's attitude to make it a viable route. Unfortunately ...