Big Beat Steve

You've never ever had a look at Galen Gart's "FIRST PRESSINGS" book series before, have you?

What you been smokin', man? Would you please hip me to what's so great about that MOR pop pap listing on Crown? Surely a lot less memorable than their R&B/jazz stuff. Guess just to keep up I'd have to start drooling now about that Crown LP of Maxwell Davis's tribute to Stan Kenton recording (see "Bright Orange" label thread somewhere else here) that I found last Saturday ... So don'tcha think it's about time to climb down from that limb again?

True as well. It may not have been quite as evident in the US but there was a time over here in Europe (in my country, in particular) when this Third Stream "fusion" was touted as "the living end" of what jazz is (supposed to be) all about. Blown out of all proportion. As if jazz could come into its own only through the "marriage" with classical music. It's this skewed perception that still can get on one's nerve (because this misconception of wanting to strive for "respectability" by all means did not do jazz and its place in the world of music over here all that much good in the long run).

True, TTK. Maybe because the film and TV composers were not as high-brow-minded as quite a few of those 3rd stream people who sought respectability from exactly those high-brow "serious music" classical music exponents. AND maybe because those movie and TV composers did not intend to turn the result of their combinations into a "new form of jazz" in the first place. Still beats me to this day why anybody would have wanted to see the vitality and spontaneity of jazz being strangled and choked by "serious concert music". Classical music on the one hand and jazz on the other are fine by themselves and on their own terms but if fused together IMHO the core of classical music is anathema to the core and soul of jazz.

Of course that's the main problem with many of those "Third Stream" activities frequently championed by John Lewis when he was let loose on "orchestral" works over here in Germany in the late 50s/early 60s when this contrived mating of jazz and classical/baroque music was all the rage in a (futile IMHO) attempt to gain "respectability" (TONS of it, in fact ) for jazz.

Seems like a search for this series in the sales and clearout bins still is worth the effort everywhere. Went to a massive vinyl clearout in a local secondhand record shop today; little jazz there among the thousands of LPs disposed of but among what I found (plenty enough) I dug out very clean copies of the Bright Orange (716) pressing of the LIONEL HAMPTON LP as well as the CROWN pressing of the STAN KENTON release (CLP 5093, grey deep groove label, record in NM condition), each of them at 2.50 euros. Not bad ... Am looking forward to digging the Maxwell Davis treatment of the Stan and Hamp originals ... (Larry Bunker doing The Hamp's part sure is something else ...)

One man's meat really is another man's poison, it seems ... :D

OK, getting back to my earlier post, here's what I have among my 78s: REX 26027: Hunter's Dream (subtitled "Dedicated to Hunter Hancock's HArlem Holiday Show") / Eastside Bop by the Johnny Barbera Quintette. Obscure enough? Quite nice bebop combo sounds.

Nah, not as raucous as Wynonie - he's a bit mellower than that. Chewy, one for your clearout sales bin hunts: Try to grab Savoy SJL 1181 "Laughin' At The blues", an LP where Redd Foxx gets co-billing with Dusty Fletcher.

I've got a pretty nice 78rpm jazz combo on that label at home. Artist name and tracks escape me right now (obscure stuff, will check out tonight, and am not sure if it says REX or REM on the label but the label design looks just like the one under that link). As for Teddy Edwards, weren't the Roy Porter Big Band tunes (feat. Teddy Edwards) also released on that label? BTW, if you come across other REX releases, make sure you know which is which. There were "REX" and "REX of Hollywood" and they are NOT the same.

I think his JAZZ WAVE LP (Jubilee, 1956) was discussed here before, and it's worth a revisit anytime.

Which is why I said "after well-founded consideration". Of course I expect a good critic to be careful when it comes to a matter of personal preferences instead of shortcomings that remain shortcomings even after close scrutiny that is as objective as it could possibly be. You don't have to be "savage" to be outspoken, but that definitely is a very, very far cry from "mild" criticism. If a critic tells me in terms and by criteria that I can relate to why a recording (or a book) would not be what I'd expect it to be and why I better steer clear of it then I am just as grateful to this critic for helping me save my bucks from a wasted purchase as I am to one who alerts me of a great, essential buy. And again, in today's world of rampaging P.C. everywhere a good, liberal dose of outspokenness and "calling a spade a spade" can never do any harm provided that the critic really can back up his (negative) opinion with substantive evidence.

The wisest thing I ever heard from a critic was in a radio broadcast about the words critics used to write a damning review. A couple enjoyed themselves picking their favourite assassin words. Then historian Lisa Jardine was asked what words she favoured for bad reviews. She replied, ' I don't write bad reviews, I send the book back.' Wise - maybe, but a disservice to the readers/listeners. If the reader/listener is left deliberately clueless when trying to decide whether a book, recording etc. not being reviewed really is poor/worthless or just happens to be off the radar of the reviewers (you just CANNOT review everything that is out there) then this is not what I would call a good service to the public. And a reviewer who does not dare to publicly blast something that after well-founded consideration by his/her standards deserves a bad review is just lacking in guts IMHO. (I know that from a "Don't bite the hand that feeds ya" stance that's easier said than done - especially in today's ad-driven world - but that's no excuse at all if the rights of the public are to be upheld - and they need to be upheld. Flattering pseudo reviews abound but what good do they really do?)

Don't forget the session he did for Savoy.

Thanks for that comment. This one has been on my shopping list at Amazon for some time but for some reason (some mention somewhere on the web?) I had been a bit wary. I am not quite sure what kind of interpretation (or evaluation if that is what you mean) you'd want from a book like this but I do wonder if the info in the book is deep enough and goes far enough beyond other commonly accessible sources that "also" deal with King to warrant the purchase. For the time being and for the pictorial part of that subject I got myself "King Records of Cincinnati" by Randy McNutt in the "Images of America" book series and that one is nice for its rather affordable price.

Sorry but I beg to agree to disagree here. I'd rather arrive at my own conclusions and do not necessarily need a scholar to foist them unto me as the final truth. Particularly so since the way you compare lack of interpretation in a book with "straight" playing of sheet music makes you sound like it is perfectly OK to arrive at ANY kind of result of the interpretation of history, no matter how erroneous it is, because interpretation is an end in itself. After all books like the Ladnier one by necessity are first and above all presentations of history and a GOOD book on historical matters collates and exposes the facts into a coherent complete picture that still leaves room for the reader to do a fair bit of judgment on his own if he feels like it. And if books on historical matters succeed e.g. in highlighting the subject's position, role and importance in the context of his times then this is interpretation enough for me. (This is what I meant above by combining the facts and research results into a complete picture that is more than the sum of its individual components) Or, to name just one example, should I really take grossly skewed interpretational results like the role of Coleman Hawkins in the development of bebop blown all out of proportion in Scott DeVeaux' Birth of BeBop book at face value just because this is the valued interpretational part of the book? This is one case where interpretational zeal backfires in a BIG way. And STILL it its a fine and readable book for the HISTORICAL FACTS it portrays.

Possibly a valid point. Depends on one's personal angle. But if I want to read everything about the TIMES and LIFE of a musician then obviously I will be quite content with what you call a "source book", provided the narrative works everything into one all-encompassing story that comnbines individual facts and research results in one overall picture (making the overall total more than the sum of the individual elements). Am not quite sure where large-scale "interpretation" would come in (i.e. where it would HAVE TO come in in each case). BTW, if you are after interpretation of matters historical, why not go and get yourself a copy of "Come In And Hear The Truth - Jazz And Race On 52nd Street" by Patrick Bourke and choke on the word "race" being elaborated on in every other sentence. :D A HIGHLY interpretative opus, that's for sure! (and one that's HEAVY on footnotes) Not that I'd say this is a bad book (the subject is interesting) but I had to put it aside for the time being after having reached the beginning of Chapter 2 because it really is a chunk to digest. It's a very small line to losing the broader view because of all the interpretations going on.

I'll take YOUR word for it anytime. But did you really have to make it THAT hard for me to decide whether I can bring myself to having this put aside for Xmas?

Not that I am really surprised ... Having had somewhat so-so previous experience (see my comments on the Kenny Clarke bio translation above) I was VERY wary and really would not have wanted to touch that Impulse book at Zweitausendeins with a ten-foot pole - though it sat there for an uncommonly long time and at an attractive price (and probably still does, so it must be hard to shift, maybe because others fear the same annoying translation screwups).

Thanks for the info. So I guess I might find a mail notification to that effect in my inbox at home later today too. Well, now I'll have to make up my mind: Should I look forward to getting the book into my hands ASAP or should I tell my better half to grab it when the mailman knocks and stow it out of (my) sight and hold it as a Xmas present for me?? Definitely a worthy present but such a long wait?? :D

Couldn't possibly be so. The Fats Navarro bio is significantly lighter than the Bob inman Scwing Era Scrapbook but isn't THAT much cheaper. : Anyway, the sample pages from the Ladnier book linked above look promising so I am really looking forward to receiving my copy which hopefully should be on its way by now.

@RJ Spangler: Check this: http://www.scarecrowpress.com/Catalog/Mult...1&AllReqd=T As you can see they are masterminded by Institute ofr Jazz Studies at Rutgers Univ. so that spells quality. But they are not exactly cheap (which was the point made above). I have only a couple of the books published in that series (Terry Gibbs autobio., Bob inman's Swing Era Scrapbook, and the recently published and much-cited Fats Navarro bio. comes from that series too) so I cannot comment on the whole series. But if you check out the series of books they published (they are at No. 59 or so now) you will see it's a VERY eclectic series that is not afraid to go where hardly any historian/publisher dares to tread (ever expected to see a bio on 20s orchestra musician Sylvester Ahola?)

@Big Wheel: Isn't the irony rather in the fact that some seem to claim that the outfit doesn't matter yet sneer at those who really take care of their outfit? Note the fine difference: Tom S. was referring to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and NOT (necessarily) to those who sneered at musicians wearing suits and having not much to say. That's a HUGE difference. I'd venture a guess there are many who do take pride in appearing well-dressed yet have a LOT to say on their horns. So those who sneer at THAT would be well advised to rethink because if the outfit doesn't matter then a smart outfit per se doesn't matter either and there is nothing to sneer about. And it's not about being ironic yourself. The irony comes from what you do, regardless of whether you meant it to be ironic. Splitting hairs? I'd rather say it's a fine line that can make all the diffrence.

Thanks! Corrected it in my (as yet unread) copy.

Je rejoins les autres: Joyeux anniversaire! All the best and many happy returns