Big Beat Steve

Thanks, King Ubu, but of course I did see that description on the Hep website too. I was hoping somebody around here had taken the plunge and bought this one. I like the classics as jazzed up by John Kirby a lot and have also done my share of listening to Hazel Scott (and others) and did enjoy that too within reasonable limits, but here I am a bit doubtful. O.K., then - anybody out there who can provide his listening impressions? Thanx!

I have both (the early 60s German edition and the recent 3-language edition) and while I do find it a bit unwieldy too it is not THAT cumbersome. Remember 3 languages need to be accommodated, and I am glad to see not all the pics are the same as in the original edition from way back when, so both actually are complementary in a way. And some of the photographs actually do profit from being reproduced in that (enlarged) full size. And next to K. Abé's "Jazz Giants" and George T. Simon's "Simon Says" books (and Gene Deitch's "Cat on a Hot Tin Groove") these Taschen "coffee table" books don't look all that unwieldy anmore! And compared to books like that the Taschen books aren't all that expensive for what they offer. At least not by European standards. Anyway ... I agree about Baker's (hello Baker, BTW! ) coments about the collectibility of alex Steinweiss' albums cover art. Nothing agains the graphism and the "period flair" but honestly, a lot of these classical music and Broadway show potpourri 10-inchers should stilll be floating around in the second (third? fourth?) hand bins in somewhat tatty condition and I cannot see them becoming collectibles overnight just because they're Steinweiss covers. It's jsut that - as opposed to most David Stone Martin LPs - the music itself is not that collectible. (BTW, I am not sure I wold have wanted to invest in an entire David Stone Martin book either. The chapter in Manek Daver's other volume ("The rare and the beautiful) did for me for the time being.

Speaking of the Hep label, has anybody ever taken the plunge and bought the "New Friends Of Rhythm" CD (CD 1086)? That "swinging the classics" idea has its charm (and I've listend to a fair bit of that kind of tunes frm that period) but I am not so sure if this particular one really does swing in a really jazzy manner or if it is all just gimmickry. Somehow I am a bit wary when classical musicians all of a sudden discover their jazz inclinations.

That book gets writeups everywhere right now, it seems. But that much money on one single designer only - really a bit too much of the same style - and a huge, huge part of it outside even the outermost boundaries of my musical interests, oh well ... way too expensive (even at "only" 350 euros at Amazon). Now if it was Jim Flora ...

Yes, Graettinger really was a case apart. I remember when I first listened to the original 10" Capitol LP of "This Modern World" I found it surprisingly accessible and logical (certainly not as unorthodox as the liner notes made it out to be, but maybe in the 80s you took things for granted that were unheard of in the 50s?). It was only much later that I read more about how weird and "out of this world" Graettinger appeared to be (or was made to be??). Maybe it actually was better I did not read about him until later?

It's a month-by-month collection of the original wording of Billboard news features and articles, reviews, club overviews, etc. as well as LOTS of ad facsimile reprints of whatever Billboard wrote to cover the entire R&B field (also extending into some jazz here and there). The index shows you which artist, label etc. gets written up where and when in the book so coverage obviously depends on which (indie) label made the (U.S. national) headlines how often. Certainly not 100% comprehensive but a very, very good overview. These books have been around since the early 90s but unfortunately, it seems, have remained under the radar of many. The R&B/jump&jive/50s rock'n'roll fraternity have jumped on them but not the jazz people, it seems.

Agree with Chewy. I cannot find any male pianist that had a King Cole-type combo and had SEVERAL albums on Crown either. Jimmy Beasley comes to mind but isn't exactly one who emulated King Cole.

Google is your ever-helpful friend: Examples: http://www.bookfinder.com/author/galen-gart/ http://openlibrary.org/b/OL2433205M/First_pressings

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.