Big Beat Steve

Suggested reading: http://www.amazon.com/How-Britain-Got-Blues-Transmission/dp/0754655806/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267298780&sr=8-2 (Search me why its price has become so inflated. My copy bought last fall wasn't cheap but certainly nothing like THIS ... Still it's an interesting book)

Personal preferences aside, they DID inject some new life into the blues (and their older exponents) and created some new awareness in those days - more so than in the States, and those who did it in the States had to come in from the heart of Europe to show how it's done. :D

Same feelings here. Make the contributions your own, LP, say what you yourself have to say and dont recycle other people's (sometimes flawed) statements and you will generate a lot more positive feedback. So, Moose, just on a side note, how about tackling things from a slightly different perspective to see what Mooses have to contribute to jazz (or to the evolution it takes): Bullmoose Jackson Moose John Walker Moose The Mooche etc. :D A bit off the trodden path of the big names but of merit and interest nonetheless. ;)

Yes, I doubt squatting works for OOP sets (hence my qualification), but it *might* work for in print used Selects if one were looking to just a few dollars and indifferent about new vs. used. Just thought I'd put it out there in case people are bidding on common items when they're finished setting up their Mosaic snipes.

Jepsen sez: Sweetenings: Two thirds YES (the rest was Kenny Drew) Patented by: NO (it was Tommy Flanagan) Good company ...

Just to round out the picture (literally), some images can be found here and elseqwhere on the same site: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?gottlieb:5:./temp/~ammem_LdrK::displayType=1:m856sd=gottlieb:m856sf=04671:@@@

In a way you are right - actually I might as well have called them a "DEUTSCHROCK" band (which is the label used domestically), but who knows what non-German-speaking forumists might have made of THAT? ("So this is the DEUTSHE ROCK?? Do you SPREKEN SIE DEUTSH?") :crazy: Anyway .... a label is a label, and be that Krautrock or Deutschrock, both terms as used over here (the first one tongue-in-cheek, because WE were well aware of its implied connotations, the second one more straightforward) refer to that brand of genuinely German post-Beat rock bands form the late 60s to the mid-70s or so. And both labels as understood here do not only include hard rock-like bands but also pretty far-out stuff such as AMON DÜÜL or TANGERINE DREAM. Ha, this is strange ... though I never dug the music of those bands, it does bring back memories from my teen days when they are evoked now. Though it seems you cannot bring back those times anyway; Kin Ping Meh (to get back to the topic) had a reunion tour 2 or 3 years ago but according to internet forum comments it was a major disappointment all the way. A bit like when they tried to bring each and every arthritic, long-inactive, rusted up 20s blues singer back on stage in the 60s. Some just couldn't cut it anymore.

Early 70s German KRAUTROCK the hottest thing in 2010 Florida?? Wow! Never went for that kind of "home-grown" psychedelic rock but of course remember them from the time my interest in music really started in 1975 as quite a few of my age peers were heavily into all those long-haired fuzz-guitar Krautrock bands. Wonder what kind of money their original albums fetch these days? (And I understand there is a 4-CD box out too)

I have the following European jazz mags for sale: ORKESTER JOURNALEN (Sweden) - 3 euros apiece: 1946 - Jan, Feb 1948 - Dec 1949 - Sep 1951 - Oct 1955 - Jun, Jul, Oct, Nov, Dec 1957 - Oct 1958 - Jan, Mar, Apr,. May , Jun-Jul, Sep, Oct, Dec 1959 - Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul-Aug 1960 - Full year 1961 - Jan, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec ESTRAD (Sweden) - 3 euros apiece: 1949 - Feb 1952 - Oct 1953 - Jan, Mar, Apr 1954 - Apr, Oct 1955 - Jan, Mar, Sep 1956 - Feb, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Nov 1957 - Feb, Jun, Sep 1958 - Feb, Nov 1959 - Feb, Nov 1963 - Jan JAZZ PODIUM (Germany) - 1 euro apiece: Most issues available from the following years: 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990 Plus issue 12/1956: 4 euros Shipping is extra but rates for parcels up to 2 kg are fairly affordable within Europe. Contact me by PM if interested and we can work out a deal.

Well, since we all seem to be talking about various reissues, maybe THIS might settle the case: I dug through my "Down Beat Record Reviews" reference books, and Vol. I has a review of ABC-Paramount 111 (rating is 4 1/2 stars, by the way ), and in the track listing it says "Tricrotism" too.

Don't know what pressing/issue/reissue you have, but on my Jasmine (facsimile) LP reissue of the ABC Paramount release (ABC-111) the spelling is Tricrotism, and this seems to be a straight reproduction of the original back cover typeface and layout complete with liner notes by Burt Korall. So it might well be that some reissuers did not get this right.

I have a "Tricrotism" somewhere in my collection (can't recall the artist right now) but remember quite distinctly that it DOES have that second "R" (because in fact if you just glance over the word you tend to "drop" that second "R" but then you note it IS there). Are you sure your source isn't just misspelled?

What do you expect? Press releases (even if on virtual media) are not supposed to be argued with or discussed. They are supposed to be swallowed as is.

It's a good set. But I had to make a compilation out of it that omits all the "singing bass" solos. Major Holley, if I recall correctly. I could never get with those bowed/sung things. My loss, I suppose Very much your loss if you otherwise like that mid-40s small-band swing. You really have to allow that humming-singing-bass soloing to grow on you. I remember an extended weekend in my very young collecting days (age 15 or so) when I was more or less locked in a weekend cabin due to heavy rain during a family excursion so just to pass the time I got busy with that handful of records and turntable there. Among a couple of jazz and pop oldies LPs there was that "Bowing Singing Slam" album on Savoy. Much as I liked swing music even at this early age this one really sounded odd to me and made my head just dizzy so I had to take it off. Many, many years later (long after having been exposed to Slam quite a bit more, not least of all thanks to the 1945 Don Byas recordings), I picked up a secondhand copy of that "Bowing Singing Slam" album myself. And indeed by then it had become perfectly standard swing combo fare to my ears - very enjoyable and certainly nothing to make you feel dizzy.

Can't say I am an expert on original covers but from all I have seen (either in my own collection or elsewhere) I'd say that 50s U.S. covers with a "white" base color rarely really were THAT bright sparkling white (e.g. if the degree of "whiteness" noticeable on those unworn edges of the front paper folded around the seams and glued over by the back cover paper - which may have come unglued at the edges, revealing the edges of the front paper - is anything to go by, for example). Any shade of "off-white" seems to fit it far better. I'd alsssay it sometimes depends on the pressing run. One pressing of the 50s may have been whiter than another only marginally older or more recent. At least I remember having seen records in comparable condition that did differ noticeably in that respect although the country of issue was the same and they really were of virtually the same age as far as anybody could tell. Interesting project, BTW, neveronfriday. Trying to go Gokudo one better?

I used to enjoy Mr A on British TV years ago, but I think that's a bit of an exaggeration MG Indeed. Svend Asmussen was quite a figure in European small-band swing of that period and of course has a long career second to very few but naming him alongside Pops, Duke and Monk really is a bit over the top. As for that new compilation CD on Storyville, given that these seem to be non-commercial recordings made for radio I assume, then, that this CD does not overlap with the earlier Asmussen CD series on Phontastic and on Swan Music (the latter one a whopping 18-CD series AFAIK) that covered at least a good part of that era too. Honestly, though I'd love to hear those mid-50s German radio recordings made by Bengt Hallberg and the Almstedt-Lind Quartet again, for example, I am a bit wary of what German radio would have recorded in those days. Usually the swing content was watered down noticeably in favor of the appeal to the "general public".

Just what I figured as one of the uses/target groups for these compilations. Agreed that it's better than a lot of other kinds of "dinner music" but still ...

LOL again, Aggie! That's what everyone said four years ago. Yet I noticed this afternoon that it had 1,170 views when I resurrected it. Maybe that's because so many would be interested to see why anybody would drool about (obviously) rehashed things like this ... Anyway, that's what I figured this was all about before I viewed this thread for the first time today (and lo and behold, I wasn't far off ). Mind you, I am not really familiar with THIS series but this "lover/smooching/fireside" jazz compilation CD thing has been besieging the less well-stocked racks of shops on on a variety of labels for quite a few years. Though the artists are alright and their tracks would make sense in some other (i.e. their original album) context they just become a major drag when forced into packages like this. Evidently you can water down things in a lot of ways ...

More power to people like him!

The only answer I have to that is that jazz is so fragmented today you cannot possibly take in all and everything without straining your own musical preferences waaaay beyond all limits. And even if today's artist XXX in all his artistic sincerity would be worthy of every bit of support he can muster and would be the only living exponent of what is considered jazz today but happens to follow a musical path that is nowhere near what I would ever prefer to listen to in jazz in all its varieties that suit my PERSONAL tastes, then - sorry, no go. It's for others closer to his music to provide that support, not me ... Worse yet - so very many fans of Michael "The Bubble Boy" Buble who have never even HEARD Bing Crosby. Nice example. But I was not only referring to those who listen to copies of the real thing instead of the original but rather to those who really are oblivious of what went on beyond before the times of their preferred artists. Can you really appreciate and understand Trane to the fullest if Bird is old hat to you, for example?

With jazz and its ongoing history and evolution, maybe, it is more of a prerequisite (more than in the case of all the facets of rock music, for exmaple) to appreciate the "old masters" at least to some degree in order to REALLY understand where your more recent or contemporary heroes came from. Or to put it another way, you can very well and comfortably occupy and move around in, say, the first 4 or 5 floors of a high-rise whereas, if you only move around on the top floor of a skyscaper you might lose touch with the ground and the air might become a bit thin in time ... Overall, as with ALL music you enjoy, I guess, it all depends on what music you like in the first place so there is no set rule. It would be futile to try to embrace some music "just because you need to understand it" if actually that particular style of music just goes against your grain. Especially if you prefer to enjoy your music in a more gutsy way instead of academically dissecting it every time a platter is given a spin on your turntable. In my case, getting into "older" jazz from your point of depart b) perhaps is also explained by the fact that from that early age I was very much into the 50s and everything in the entire realm of "popular culture" that went with it (hence my early interest in R'n'R and R&B too). This point of departure makes it much easier for you to look even further back beyond the 50s, including music-wise. Others may have been drooling about Elvis all day long but to me, for example, once I had gotten into bebop and beyond, the coolness of Shorty Rogers, Chet Baker or Bud Shank just as much exuded the atmosphere of those times to me as Elvis or Fats Domino would to others. Romantisicism? Maybe, but only at the very first moment. If the music doesn't click with you in the long run (and a LOT of 40s/50s/60s music does NOT click with me), it will go out the window. You have to appreciate it on its own merits if you are to really enjoy it in the long run. Another aspect of why I subconsciously never embraced then- (or now-) "contemporary" jazz artists to the same degree I appreciate "the old masters" is this: I remember for a time artists like Michel Petrucciani were fairly often on German TV and I did take them in with interest, yet most of them never struck a chord with me to the extent that I'd actively go out and search their records. Quite a bit later I accidentally discovered the likely reason ... One day I had finally got a copy of Harold Land-Red Mitchell's "Hear Ye" album, and somehow listening to the piano player (Frank Strazzeri) on that album reminded me of many of those "modern mainstream" (post-bop?) jazz broadcasts I had caught on TV. Ah, so those typical piano comping licks that then-current acts like Petrucciani and his ilk would turn out on TV in the 80s and 90s had already been done 30 years earlier by an "also-ran" (by "jazz giant" stature) in the history of jazz! And once I had listened closer to John Coltrane's "Blue Train" album, that also made me aware how often THAT particular sound and group interplay had been carbon-copied by all those "post-bop" (or however you bill it) pickup bands you would see on late-night jazz festival broadcasts. I realize that to those who dissect their jazz this is a very superficial comparison but the bottom line just is that to me there was not all that much really earth-shaking new and therefore essential in more recent developments of my preferred styles of jazz. (I am not counting the more radical jazz streams of more recent decades because they are not my cup of tea anyhow - see above, if it goes against your grain, why force it, etc. ... ) Now does this make me a latter-day "moldy fig"? Maybe, but who cares?

Bev, perhaps you will understand better if you look at it like this: a) Jazz (or what is commonly lumped in under jazz today) is so fragmented and covers such a wide stylistic spectrum today that you can hardly expect all that many to embrace it all. Just like it is not very likely that, say, a rock listener who is into Wave and Goth music will also go for rap, although both are filed under "pop" today. Or to narrow it down further into "rock", not all that many Goth or Heavy Metal fans will realy be diehard Southern country rock fans too. A far cry from jazz listening habits? I don't know .... If you listen to your music really in-depth, there is only so much diversity you will want to take in really deeply. So what may be jazz to one may be totally undiscutable to another. b) Unless you have a really blooming and accessible club, concert and festival secne in the jazz field in your own area you are not likely to be able to become acquainted with all that many younger (!!) "contemporary" jazz artists through live gigs. And even then, stylistic preferences will play a major role too. If you have to rely on "canned" music only you might as well rely on "historical" music if that is what meets your tastes best. c) As for "historical" jazz, the musicians may be gone but as long as their music is still around it will continue to live. Just like in your very fitting example of classical music. And after all - there is no obligation at all to base your musical tastes on the "living or dead/active or retired" criteria, or else all that hullaballoo about those Beatles box reissues that has been going on even on THIS (jazz!) forum (to an extent that really had me baffled) would have been totally off the mark and inappropriate too. d) What many may call "historical" jazz is far from all dead. There are enough today's "mainstream" jazz (or jazz-related) artists around who keep the flame alive. Some may sneer at them as being copycats or "recreators" but IMHO very often there is a lot more to it. Nothing wrong with playing in a chosen "historically inspired" idiom if you manage to add a new twist to it. If, historically speaking, I am into Django Reinhardt, for example, I can just as well appreciate a recent CD by the Hot Club of Cowtown or by the Sweet Hollywaiians (so incessantly plugged by our friend Durium here ) and find something quite new there that suits my tastes. I do not have to go into some (to my tastes) atonally free noise or some world-music-cum-you-name-it mishmash in order to prove I am into "contemporary" jazz artists (this last sentence may sound derogatory; it is not meant that way, it just is intended to reflect ANY listener's reaction to what may be totally off-base to his personal musical tastes).

Unpleasant for sure, but as far as I can tell from that description still quite a bit away from that book that the daughter of actress Joan Crawford wrote about their love-hate relationship and her mother's ongoing cruelty etc., for example. Not nice at all but unfortunately I guess that doesn't spare the celebrities. What I still feel hard to grasp is how somebody who suffered this actually thinks she can work this out and get it over with by draging every bit of it out in PUBLIC on purpose HERSELF after all this time. Is the public limelight the best place to apply a therapy to yourself if what you are after is NOT trying to get even with somebody? What I'd regret so see, at any rate, is if all these incidents were lumped in with whatever self-proclaimed jazz arbitrators still have to say about the controversial aspects of the MUSICAL life and achievements of Stan Kenton. I seem to recall there have been many instances of noted jazzmen whose rather seedy/shady/shabby offstage doings and behavior had come out into the public light being defended by each and everyone on account of their artistic achievements. Quite understandable. It would be regrettable, however, if a different yardstick were applied vs. Stan Kenton by the very same ones if they happen to be among those who disliked his music in the first place.

Most definitely b) here. No inspiration from my parents (except for a few 45s - Benny Goodman, Papa Bue, Pete Kelly's jazz and the like - that my mother had bought for occasional use as party records in the 50s there was no interest in jazz there, only classical music). Contemporary music then on the radio when I really got into music at around 14 in the mid-70s never struck a nerve with me, neither disco nor the heavily amplified hard rock nor fusion or jazz rock. I instinctively leaned both to 50s rock'n'roll and older blues and to comparatively early jazz (pre-1945, style-wise) and really soaked up all the radio shows I could catch. My record buying from the age of 15 started in that era (swing and a good dose of oldtime jazz) too, but Joachim E. Berendt's "Jazz Book" made me aware of what else there was at an early stage. I distinctively recall my uneasiness about what I'd be confronting myself with when I bought my first "modern jazz" record not long afterwards - as it happens, the chronologically first modern jazz recordings: that Prestige twofer of Dizzy Gillespie's 1945-46 Guild/Musicraft recordings, including the original Diz-Bird quintet. Yet upon first listening this immediately all sounded all natural and a totally logical evolution of what I had previously been listening to in swing so I went from there and (though not neglecting swing one bit) soon sought up all the 40s bebop reissues I could grab as well, and if I remember rightly within a year or two I had embraced Sonny Rollins' "Saxophone Colossus" and Clifford Brown's 1953 Paris recordings etc too. It took me a while to appreciate the MJQ recordings that my parents had (MJQ being about as far as the elders leaning towards classical music would venture into jazz) but that came to pass evnetually too. But I can still live pretty well without the more radical forms of free jazz or jazz rock or fusion.

Yes, "consumer laziness" is the word. "Out of print - oh my goodnes, it's gone forever and vanished off the face of this earth!!" Strange, I can't remember any single period during all my collector's life where I did NOT have to search around for a whole lot of REISSUES (not originals) that per se always had a relatively brief (store) shelf life, only to see other reissues being constantly available in 2 or 3 guises at the same time. Reissues appearing and disappearing really fast has always been part of the game as you cannot keep track of (and buy) everything of interest that crops up somewhere all over the planet (least of all Japan which often really has been out of reach in every respect). But even with formally OOP stuff matters are much easier in today's WWW shopping world if you are prepared to search and pay the shipping cost. But yet, if it should really be so that all too many collectors really are that lazy and ill-advised and if "OOP" frightens them that much to their bones today then I can almost understand that reissue labels recycle their catalogs in ever shorter intervals if they have to assume so many of those "collectors" out there are totally unaware of what HAS BEEN available before and unwilling to SEARCH for what MIGHT still be available if they'd really look. And of course it is an easy way out for the companies to just recycle their product. It is up to the collectors to vote by just not buying what would leave them with that many duplicates. But then I guess there just aren't enough of "us" (who already have the stuff) to make ourselves heard (and the "others" who do NOT YET have all that are happy to be served this time around), so ...? That said - yes, I still do wish Fresh Sound and the other labels with similar policies (connected to FS or not) would make different choices in the pairing of their "2 LPs on one CD" packages. I remember when I definitely wanted that "House of Blue Lights" LP by Eddie Costa I eventually had to settle for a reissue on Lonehill or Definitive (can't recall) which came as a package of a "complete Trio" reissue or so, and - you guessed it - they packaged with the Costa-Burke Trio on Jubilee (I think) which I already had on Fresh Sound (of course ...). Their "complete" packaging makes sense if they go by specific lineups so are they to blame? I'd have loved an original or a facsimile reissue but the first is out of range and the second seems to have cropped up on a Japan reissue somewhere but at inflationary rates, so .... A vicious cycle, I guess ...