Big Beat Steve

Why figure that? There's a lot more to read about than just music. Because we are on a MUSIC forum here. And I doubt that many out there would be interested in reading about my reads in that other main hobby of mine - collectible cars. Of course I agree there is more to read than "just" music books. But not everything needs to be laid out in public everywhere (though I have no problem with people using this thread to write about the fiction etc. they are currently reading. It just is that I for myself find this beside the point)

(Figuring that this thread is intended to be primarily about music books ...) Currently reading: Central Avenue Sounds - Jazz in Los Angeles Next up (ordered and due to arrive any day now): Louisiana Hayride Years - Making Muscial History in Country's Golden Age (by H. Logan)

Depends on whether those contemporary artists are doing a thing that will allow even relatively open-minded listeners recognize (without straining their ears beyond all extremes) that there IS a CLEAR continuity with what the essence of jazz has been for decades. I guess your statement is an indicator that today's artists are payinig the price for the fact that for several decades (ever since the early 70s, I'd say) there have been SOOO many artists and stylistic currents that would not have fit any other category of "non-classical" music have been lumped into jazz even though their connections with jazz were extremely limited (if existing at all). "If it can't be marketed as anything else, market it as jazz!" All this electronic and "world music" and "ethno" and "extreme avantgarde" and whatnot - and then on the other hand and at the other extreme "smooth jazz" pushing in as well ... And then jazz writers and publicists stating openly that "swing" is no longer an essential ingredient in jazz, that jazz does not have to swing in order to be jazz - etc. etc. Can you blame it on jazz listeners that they'd like their jazz to remain passably true to the actual form of jazz, even if you take this form of jazz to span the entire stylistic boundaries of oldtime jazz to hard bop (and possibly beyond, including offshoots and further developments such as post-bop etc.)? At least there's some continuity and recognizable common ground there ... After all even the more circumspect "free" jazz exponents realized a long time ago that SOME kind of "form" is still needed even if the music is considered "free".

That's only part of the story. I wouldn't know about run of the mill Joe Ordinaries who otherwise would only listen to hit parade fare and who'd catch those bands on one of their club nights but I can tell you one thing - both from what I've witnessed here and from what those in the same subculture over in the States have witnessed and reported there: Those bands did manage to hip quite a few from the rockabilly/50s r'n'r/garage rock/punk rock scene to give a second listen not only to the Brian Setzer Orchestra (that might have rung a bell with them from the Stray Cats days) but also to the more swinging and musically more developed bands such as the Bill Elliott Orchestra, Royal Crown Revue and a host of others - which eventually led them to discover the originals (not only Cab Calloway and Louis Jordan or lounge acts but also the Duke, the Count, etc. etc.) and thus to widen their musical horizons in a durable manner. Not a mean feat IMO in the atomized and fragmented "popular" (non-classical) music scene of today ... ... that is - not a mean feat unless you insist on acknowledging something new in jazz only if it is more complex, more involved and otherwise much more "elaborate" than what came along before it and if is taken in only in the most aloof and "brainy" manner possible. But isn't this bound to get you either far out on a limb that will eventually snap or in some dead end where the listeners just don't care to follow? As for "artistic" saving (a related aspect), I wouldn't go so far as to claim that but please tell me - what is wrong with accomplishing the goals of providing swinging and improvised music that goes straight to the GUTS of the audience even if the musical means employed to this end are a bit simpler (without DILUTING the essence) than they technically could be? This used to be a valid goal of jazz but seemingly it continues to be frowned upon in some circles to this day. Again - I won't claim that this offshoot of swing is the ultimate among any possible evolutionary routes of jazz. It is just ONE of many possible routes (note that IMHO "smooth jazz" isn't one but that's another story ) but one that is not to be condemned outright - not least of all because IMO those neo-swing bands who managed to turn their listeners on to Calloway, Jordan, the Count, the Duke and others did MUCH more to publicise the ESSENCE of jazz than those crossover or jazz-rock acts of the McLaughlin etc. era of the 70s who brought along a host of so-called jazz listeners who'd only ever accept jazz-rock as any form of jazz at all and who'd never ever look beyond Electric Miles jazzwise and in general only to jazz rock acts that were more rock than jazz. Those jazz-rock fans got just a wee little glimpse of jazz and certainly not of the essence of jazz (having come of jazz listening and collecting age in those 70s I can tell you I encountered a LOT of those dudes! ). And I still wonder if this jazz-rock meltdown that's been going on for close to 40 years isn't one of the reasons why contemporary jazz (over here, anyway) really is losing its stylistic focus. In the States you may still be in for real treats when jazz festivals roll along but the number of all-out rock and pop singers that are called in to perform at JAZZ festivals (billled as such) over HERE can only make you wince. ANY of those better neo-swing bands on the bill of such a festival would be FAR closer to the CORE of jazz than any of those rock and pop singers - and IMO they would thus be better suited to bridging the gap towards jazz (that is, if your ears are open to jazz that clearly PREDATES the stylistic ELECTRIC MILES era).

Strange, though ... ... throughout the 90s (and apparently still today in certain places) that Neo-Swing movement (call it a fad if you want, I wouldn't mind...) was on the verge of (and often succeeded in) turning back the clock to presenting an updated form of a thoroughly danceable style of jazz that actually had the people dancing again in comparatively huge numbers. And what happened? Stabs in the back administered by those who felt themselves to be the true and only "keepers of the flame" of jazz. OK, so some of those bands sailing under the "Neo-swing" flag were extremely mediocre and their jazz/swing/improvisational credentials slim, but others were/are quite accomplished and actually swing like mad and IMHO manage to push the stylistic boundaries of swing into a new direction by incorporating other influences and adding a new twist to the music yet still remaining true to the core of that style of jazz. And lest anybody accuses them of being just copycats: Are you THAT sure that all those "post-bop" artists (a style commonly considered "true" jazz by ANY standard) are that much beyond copycat status when compared closely to their "hard bop" sources? Maybe those who bemoan the death of jazz ought to consider for a minute why any "acceptable" evolution of jazz has to proceed in a linear fashion only - towards new and newer things that ultimately become so "far out" that you just HAVE to lose most of your audience. Couldn't it be that some evolution might also occur SIDEWAYS (as in the case of neo-swing as a sideways offshoot of big band swing/jump blues etc.)? N.B. - Not that I would want to tout those "Neo-Swing" bands as THE saviors of jazz but some of those bands WOULD have offered a way of getting new listeners immediately very close to jazz again. But then again at times some jazz fans seem to be their own worst enemies when it comes to furthering their OWN causes ...

The only bad thing about his contribution is that it does NOT appear alongside that incriminated statement currently going strong in that column dated Aug. 3.

I thought THAT had been settled many posts ago ... And he HAS offered his apologies since, no?

Would you mind elaborating what you're hinting at? FWIW, my personal stance on this: 1) No need for any excuse by TJC3. Columnists do come in for criticism, and TJC ought to (and no doubt will) be able to handle that. 2) That quote that JSngry reacted so vehemently against (and - again - rightly so IMHO) and that apparently has appeared quite recently - Aug. 3 - in the media and is therefore a current topic right now has been explained by JSngry AT LENGTH to be utter nonsense. I really cannot see ANYTHING offending nor any bullying there. He has reasoned perfectly well (and well-founded). If you put something in writing that you declare to be a fact even though it clearly and obviously is incorrect then this literally calls for objection. That's part of the professional risk of any journalist - everywhere. And it is NOT offending or offensive if criticism backed up as thoroughly as JSngry did here is clearly voiced as such. Nuff sed ... food for thought ...

This discussion seems to be moving ahead on TWO lanes now, it seems ... http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...amp;qpid=941316

No, Niko. The thread starter said this particular statement (that JSngry had called B.S. - rightly so - and proved wrong so eloquently above) was the essence of what so and so many interviewees had told her. But do we know what EXACTLY (verbatim) those interviewees had told her and/or if what they said was badly biased (for whatever personal reasons?) to start with or if maybe it was a case of gross midunderstanding on the part of the columnist? This is what I meant. I don't know if this is so but can it be ruled out? And does it matter? Would this be an excuse for putting something into print that is so blatantly incorrect, especially if you make it appear as a statement of fact? You know, the longer I think about this thread (of which I had not become aware of until today) the more I feel there is more to this than Dan Gould's admittedly way over-the-top reaction. To me it's a case of basic journalistic diligence (that IMHO applies to columnists too, unless you enjoy being in the line of fire every time ).

IMHO the entire debate of why the thread starter was given such a rude treatment boils down to what JSngry so eloquently summarized below (kudos to you!!). Quite appropriate IMO to dig that summary up once more for reference - if only to get the message truly home. My impression of this entire exchange of statements (that seems to have been running in circles for some time now) is this: That statement that JSngry quoteed is indeed so totally absurd that it almost defies polite commenting. If you write about a specific topic you are supposed to do this from a WELL-informed starting point, providing sound information for your readers. Throwing together statements that were either wrong (or biased) to start with or may even have been misunderstood by the writer (do we know the full and exact original quotes?) does not help matters one bit. You don't do your learning AFTER you put something in print but BEFORE all this. Otherwise (and especially so) you are calling for trouble if you are intent on foisting this mishmash onto a forum where those who've been into this (and to whom this has been their lifeblood for a long time) are actively present and involved. Getting one's facts (and the assessments that come from it) straight ought to be the least thing one could expect of a newspaper writer/columnist. A case of journalistic standards. And this has got NOTHING to do with gender. Males would not have fared any better - maybe worse ... Yeah, I haven't read this thread, so I don't know whose quote that is, but it is so terrbily wrong in so many ways that I hope if it's somebody here in this thread that they don't take it personal when I say that infact it's pretty much bullshit. I'll gladly and freindly go into detail later today when I'm not at work, but it's nothing personal to call bullshit where it exists, and that quote right there is bullshit. For one thing, "electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax" is a big "WTF are you talking about?" point... but htere are others. Not taken personally...just a composite of what a number of people I have been interviewing have said. But, that's why I reached out on the board....to get a broader perspective and not the myopic view...bullshit, perhaps....but that's what the discussion is about. That's really WTF I am trying to open up. Please go into detail later. I would love it! Ok, I'm home, here's the deal, phrase by phrase. Keep in mind that this is just a reaction to those two sentences, not anything else you've written here or there (which I've yet to read). Ok... Many in the jazz community have a visceral dislike for “smooth jazz.” Yeah, pretty much true. Perhaps even understated. They believe that the early 1970’s mixing of the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax led to the watering down of “real” jazz. Here's where it goes off track. First of all, who are "they" - the jazz community or those who have a visceral dislike for "smooth jazz"? It doesn't matter, really because it's just not a true, valid connection. Plenty, plenty of people who had no real problems with early "fusion" or the soul-jazz of the late 60s/early 70s can't stomach smooth jazz. Second of all, the implication is that "smooth jazz" is an outgrowth of fusion or jazz-rock or whatever you want to call it - and it's not. Smooth jazz's immediate predecessor was the "quiet storm" music of the late-70s. It was "jazzy", but in no way was it jazz, nor did it claim to be until some radio executives figured out that an instrumental pop version of a, say, Anita Baker tune might sell so many copies marketed as pop, but 10x # of copies if you called it "smooth jazz", something that set it apart from regular instrumental pop/R&B/Quiet Storm, etc. The history of the coinage of the "smooth jazz" term is fairly well documented if you care to look for it. Third, as one of the many people I know who dug both early "fusion" or the soul-jazz of the late 60s/early 70s, as well as a great deal of "Quiet Storm" music and who can't stomach the vast majority of smooth jazz, I can tell you that my revulsion towards the latter is entirely a matter of the spirit & the execution of the music, nothing more. As a musician who's been around the industry a little bit, I know that the whole smooth market has unwritten rules about tempo, grooves, harmony, instrumentation, stage presence, everything, and these rules are every bit as narrow as are those for commercial C&W, which is to say that if any content at all seeps out from the product (and occasionally it does), it's an act of subversion in the face of the marketplace! So you see, talking about "the early 1970’s mixing of the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds..." as if that is where smpooth jazz comes from is not grounded in any reality whatsoever. Now, if you talk to some really old or some really young ideologues who think that Jazz is The Pure Voice Of The One True God or some such, then yeah, there ain't no room for even the slightest deviation. But those people are just as blind to historical reality as those who know absolutely nothing. Hell, we'd be on more solid ground talking about the separation of R&B and jazz than we would be the mixing of it, so firmly intertwined at the root have they been for so long, and not just because so many great R&B records were made/played by players with solid jazz backgrounds... And the whole "commercial" thing, geeezz, what a red herring that is...back in the day, Gene Ammons used to get dissed for being "commercial" or for being "too R&B" and he's far from the only one... there always been a portion of the jazz audience who wants their music to never really be shared outside of their own little special group of insiders...but that has nothing to do with smooth jazz unless you but he notion that smooth jazz is jazz, which it's not, not 99% of the time. It's instrumental pop. So for a jazz fan to bemoan the popularity of instrumental pop claiming to be jazz is like a meat lover bitching about veggie burgers being popular by them claiming to be burgers...there's a certain visceral satisfaction, but very little, uh, common sense. What is true is that there were two types of "fusion" in the 70s - one which brought more rock into the mix, and one which brought more R&B into the mix. Occasionally, as with Miles, you had music that did both (and then some), but Return To Forever & Grover Washington both can be said to have mixed "the genres of rhythm and blues and jazz with the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds" but those two musics are so fundamentally different in so many fundamental ways as to even imply that they can be lumped together is just not right. But - The R&B-influenced jazz came from the soul-jazz of just a few years before, and it definitely had an impact on the Quiet Storm music shortly after. But it did not become Smooth Jazz. If you're looking for one missing link, try George Howard (all but forgotten today?) who at the time sounded as "jazz-like" as Helen Reddy, but who today sounds like a veritable refuge from Mintons relative to most of the smooth pack. So, sorry, Soul Jazz to R&B Jazz to Quiet Storm to Smooth Jazz best summarizes the movement of the audience than it does the actual music. so as long as the discussion is about the music, and not the audience...check out Kenny G(orelick) with Jeff Lorber, and then listen to him once he went to smooth - there is a discernible decrease in "jazz influence" (such as it is), which, is, I think, exactly the point...Funny how Dave Sanborn (who really is a great player) kinda slipped off the smooth radar once all his imitators came along - doing a greatly simplified and codified imitation of a truly original voice with no small "jazz influence"). The less "jazz influence" the imitators showed, the higher the profile they got! Fourth, "the introduction of electronic and commercial sounds such as the electric guitar and the soprano sax led to the watering down of “real” jazz...please! Electric guitar, firmly entrenched in so called "pure jazz" for decades. Soprano sax, quite common in New Orleans music (see Sidney Bechet, a.o.), less so during Swing & Bebop (although see Johnny Hodges & Charlie Barnett), but Steve Lacy, John Coltrane, & Wayne Shorter brought it back big time in the 60s, and in nothing even remotely resembling a "commercial" style (although Trane's "My Favorite Things" was a true jazz hit, it is in no way even a preternatural predecessor to smooth jazz). So, the notion that "jazz fans" don't dig smooth jazz because it contains elements of R&B and instruments like electric guitar & soprano sax is just not...grounded in reality. Yes, you can find plenty of jazz that does contain elements of R&B and instruments like electric guitar & soprano sax that "jazz fans" do like - and that "jazz purists" will detest (as they will damn near anything that steps outside thier highly codified notions of what is and isn't "real" jazz). But that is an entirely different issue than why "smooth jazz" is so nearly-universally detested by "real jazz" fans. Now hell, maybe none of this matters. Maybe you're writing for an audience that doesn't know Hank Mobley from Hank Kimball. Maybe they's got their copies of The Ten Essential Jazz CDs Of All Time and that's it as far as their interest in the lineage and legacy of the music goes. Ok, fair enough. From what I've skimmed, your aim appears to be to get people interested in the now more than the then, and again, fair enough. But you can do that and still speak truths instead of half-formed generalizations that take one form Column A, one from Column B, mix in some water and BAM, out comes some Conventional Wisdom that is actually neither! Like I said, nothing personal, I sincerely wish you well, and welcome, and all that, for real (not feeling particularly warm and fuzzy right now, but honestly, I do mean that). But still - bullshit is bullshit, and I call it because I care enough about all of it (including somebody who certainly appears to be trying to do something good) to not just let it slide. There's enough of that as it is, no mas, por favor!

Came to read this thread through that other "Apologies..." thread and most of what I'd have to say on this particular matter and column has been said, but when i read this then, welll - this MOST CERTAINLY made me snicker. Dan needing MANORS? Must have a HUUUUGE record collection and then he might actually need them. On a side note to TJC3: Please do make use of a dictionary and check what you actually meant to say. And to carry the point a LITTLE bit further, I do hope there is some thorough proofreading of what you get into print because you as part of the writing guild who set their words in print (and therefore, eventually, in stone for posterity) have an obligation to get things right - after all you serve as a model to those who read and who rely on the written word for education. There are enough semi-illiterates around anyhow (NO - I am NOT referring to you or any other writer but to those who READ - whatever little reading they do) and who'd go down the drain yet further if the number of printed mistakes is allowed to inflate yet further. No harm meant but being connected with the publishing field in my job myelf and seeing what catastrophic gobbledegook the media come up with each day this just HAD to be said. :D

I don't understand how that can be; have I been confused all these years in my belief that, all things being equal, the faster the better, like in tape? Or is it just a case of all things not being equal? I don't know; I just summarized what those who promoted that speed said in contemporary media. I have my doubts too.

Ray's Jazz Shop in London (which happened to have some in stock at the time I passed by there in the late 90s) described the items in this section of their record bins as "Rare As Rocking Horse Manure!"and the discs were priced accordingly. Snapped up one of them (the one feat. George Wallington) on eBay a couple of years ago at a decent price but otherwise those I've seen and watched there usually went for 100+ $. Too much for my wallet. Fidelity of those 16rpms was said to have been better than on the corresponding 33rpm LPs but I cannot really judge. Those of my record players that will still play 16 rpm aren't the highest of fi.

For jazz fans, apart from about 5 Prestige 16 rpms (each of them combining 2 LP's worth of material) in the late 50s there were two French Vogues with Sidney Bechet recordings at the same time but that was about it AFAIK. In addition to spoken word recordings (religious, etc.) at 16 rpm, there also seem to have been a good many kids' records at that speed (if internet auctions are anything to go by ).

Harold, please be more specific: What's the name of this album??? Thanks. Nice Work is the latest incarnation I'm aware of. As Chuck alluded to earlier - the Vanguard issues divide the sessions up in maddening ways, but in this case it has all the tracks by this band other than one - which appears on another reissue in this series - I believe a Ruby Braff. Amazing Vic Dickenson's Vanguards are given such endorsement all of a sudden (not that he wouldn't deserve it....). But if I think of how it took me YEARS and YEARS to at long last manage to sell my duplicate copy of that 70s Vanguard/Vogue (U.K.) 2-LP reissue of his 50s Vanguards 10in LPs (had inadvertently bought it twice - different pressings with different covers) then this makes me wonder ... Back to topic - I liked all I've heard of Ruby Braff too, but any comments on that late 50s Ruby Braff LP for EPIC with that funny B/W cover showing that Granny clapping enthusiastically to Ruby's horn blowing (forget the exact title - I think it's "BRAFF!" only anyway)?

Sure he's goin' strong. Saw him twice in the past 10-12 years over here in Germany and he was great each time! His records of the 90s/2000s (those I've heard anyway) sometimes are a bit funked up in the backing (signs of the times... those young dudes in the backup bands just dont know how to cut some greeezy down-to-earth R&B anymore ) but Big Jay hisse'f still cuts it every time. BIG JAY IS DA MAN! As for Big Jay at Birdland ... you got me doubtin' there. Will have to check his bio (Nervous Man Nervous) and the LP liner notes tonight ...

As this issue had been discussed in another thread I had made a mental note to get this one and last Saturday finally managed to get a copy at a major newsagent at our central station. Agree all the way with John L (though I've only worked my way to the middle of the Goodman article so far and have only had a brief glance at the rest so far). This issue will find a welcome niche next to the 20th and 38th DB Anniversary issues as well as the the early DB yearbooks on my bookshelf.

Stonewall, that was not even THAT uncommon, at least not in Europe. Philips made a car turntable (45 rpm) called AUTO-MIGNON as a spinoff of their "MIGNON" 45rpm players (that were marketed as a battery-operated carry-along for beach parties etc.). In both cases you slid the record into a slot (much in the same way you do with cassettes/cartridges) and the record would play. This was widely available as an accessory for any marque of cars for quite a few years in teh 50s/early 60s. Nice gadget but HEAVY (literally) on groove wear of the records, probably even worse than jukeboxes. And yet these things have been fetching big money among car (and car audio) collectors.

One sales gimmick that does not seem to have been mentioned here yet and that I remember from the mid- to late70s when Quadrophony seemed to be all the rage was another highest-of-fi attribute (promoted at about the time Quadrophony was tha latest rage) called "Kunstkopf" (Dummy Head) here. From a recording angle it may have been viable but somehow those sales blurbs of this being the ULTIMATE in stereophony (making "ordinary" stereo records appear extremely old hat next to this "Dummy Head" thing and Quadropphony) appeared a bit strange to me, especially as the LPs that you could buy to take in this sound experience were VERY few. And who'd want to HAVE to listen to his music with HEADPHONES all the time anyway?

According to some sources it transpired later that it wasn't Dizzy after all who had thrown the spitball but rather JONAH JONES!

If you want an excellent introduction to West Coast jazz then I can recommend a couple of books that are well worth getting: Ted Gioia - West Coast Jazz, & Robert Gordon - Jazz West Coast (Catchy titles, eh!) They whetted my appetite, but a word of warning - following the album recommendations will seriously damage your finances Good suggestions (of course ...), and you're right about the hole in your pocketbook too... :D And for those who happen to understand French, the book "West Coast Jazz" by Alain Tercinet (Ed. Parentheses ,1988) is good'un with PLENTY of evaluations and recommendations too. A few recommendations that might otherwise tend to get overlooked too: Marty Paich on Mode, Bethlehem and Tampa Bob Gordon - Meet Mr Gordon Jack Sheldon's records on PJ V.A. "Modern Jazz Gallery" (Kapp) "The Complete Nocturne Recordings Vol. 1" box set (Fresh Sound - and NO grey, shady boot here! Fully endorsed and supported all the way by Harry Babasin himself!!) And have Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse All Stars been mentioned yet?

That's the date of the Dizzy band concert at Salle Pleyel in Paris. Issued on Vogue and on Swing and lots of (re-)issues - but Hank Mobley???? According to Walter Bruyninckx' discpgraphy, "Embraceable You" was (re-)issued on relatively few discs so is not included in all the reissues of that concert. But the saxophonist is listed as being Bill Graham each time.

"Callin' The Blues" is very nice but I am not familiar with all of Tiny Grimes' late 50s/early 60s "Mainstream" records so I cannot say how it rates compared to his other recordings from that period. Beyond that, it all depends how you like your small-group guitar swing. Tiny Grimes' career has several distinct periods. His 1944 small group sessions (often reissued due to the presence of Bird on some them) are definitely worth listening not only for Bird, and those who dismiss those tunes (including Tiny's singing) as "flash-in-the-pan" ditties (if it weren't for the presence of Bird) are rather high-brow snobs! And he did not do badly at all at those mid-40s Art Tatum Trio sessions either. And for those who like their small groups with a fair more bit of grits and steam, his recordings from 1947 for Atlantic, Gotham, etc. (fittingly often billed as "Tiny Grimes & His Rocking Highlanders") are all-plugs-pulled R&B with tight interplay between his well-amplified guitar and the tenor sax and pure energy that clearly show that rock'n'roll as "invented" by the Whites (???) in 1954 must have been old hat to the ears of quite a few. Even his slows have a very intense atmospheric after-hours quality. And those groups gave John Hardee, Red Prysock and Benny Golson some early exposure. And then there was his late 50s "Mainstream" period (see above), and all three have their merits in their own right IMHO.

And how often before? Seems like Prestige runs a very close second to BN in the number of times the same stuff has been rehashed in (allegedly) different packaging and mastering that might actually (lo and behold!) be FRACTIONALLY different ("better" or not seems to be a matter of taste and ears anyway ).