Big Beat Steve

Jim R, items like that are not supposed to be "unloaded", they are supposed to be treasured and enjoyed!

Yes, I see what you mean, but would the other cheapo box sets that ASNL77 mentions really duplicate even half or most of those year-by-year series of these "Tresors du Jazz"? I admit those Tresors series are almost too generalistic for me (as I invariably have a lot of the music on those year-by-year sets in other formats, mostly vinyl) but their contents still follow a special policy and I cannot think of any cheapo sets that go virtually the same route. And if they feel the competition by those "Best of Jazz" or "Best of Cool" (or whatever) box sets then it can only be among those customers who were not searching for the music on those Tresors series anyway? I mean, if you were in the market for a box set of the Keynote or the JATP recordings, would you settle for a "Best of the Swing Era" box set just because it costs only half or one third the price? Only if you you were the most casual listener with a VERY, VERY superficial interest in swing music (or a total newbie). So ... ? Nevertheless, all the best to this project. They deserve it. After all this problem of specialist box sets being ripped off is a common one. I've shelled out quite a bit for Fremeaux Associés sets, for example, through the years (they are relatively expensive for a 2-CD set, but their more specialist sets incude material really very rarely found anywhere else, so it must be bitter for them to see a good deal of the contents of some of their sets being ripped off by other European - not Andorran - box set labels even promoted relatively frequently here on this very site. )

Johnny Devlin? (Nah, just kidding, he'd figure for N.Z. in a country-b-ycountry breakdown of the non-jazz section of MY collection, but I would't really expect to find him in anybody else's country by country listing )

No Excel cataloging here so I just made a rough calculation of the percentages by adding up the running shelf meters taken up by the collection (based on some 4,000 to 4,500 discs of the jazz section): In fact, just like Bev, I found my vinyl collection leaning more towards the US than I had figured: USA close to 85% Europe a bit more than 15% of which the European ranking is (in order of most-represented country among the vinyl): Germany Sweden France U.K. Denmark and then all others OTOH, of all my jazz CDs (which are mostly purchased to fill gaps in what has not been previously been released/reissued on vinyl and are therefore still outnumbered by vinyl about 10:1), more than 50% are European jazz - in order of frequency: France Sweden Germany U.K. Italy all others Which seems to show where the most glaring omissions in reissue programming have been in the past, at least for my tastes ...

NM (Not Much ) ... or else Mosaic would be selling like hotcakes to the general jazz public at large (i.e. MUCH farther beyond hardcore collectors and those to whom having a huge run of Mosaics seems to be some sort of status symbol ). Please do not underestimate the fact that complilations like this invariably put off more advanced collectors who tend to have a lot of the music on other releases (often the entire respective albums). If you have to live with a good deal of duplicates you will only go for it anyway if the price is a steal, making it worthwhile to buy the music for the "remainder". But anyway ... maybe somebody can set me wise: Is there actually a ripoff set out there that undercuts the price of those Tresors series (39 euros or so for TEN CDs isnt' bad in anybody's money and certainly good value for money) significantly and AT THE SAME TIME duplicates even their layout, including the VERY SAME box set "cover" artwork? I remember perusing a few of those sets while at the FNAC in Paris and regretting the huge, huge amount of duplicates with what I already have in my own collection, but the concept really is worthwhile for those who are content with getting a fair sampling and do not want to go for the full albums of all too many of the artists featured. And now, reading all this, I wonder whether I was looking at the real thing or not.

What do you mean by "recordings"? Really individual recordings or actually albums/CDs?

In case you're referring to my hint(s), I have no doubt at all that he acts and has been acting in good faith throughout and that this may not always be the case with certain others who've amassed a huge amount of objects pertaining to the history of jazz as well. I just find it irritating that this point of what others may have done is brought up again and again. What good does it do if this point is stressed again and again and again? From a certain point I just wonder what this picture of "everybody else out there is shortchanging everybody" is intended to prove or show in the long run. And yet ... this constant generosity (which I really did admire in the way it was shown in those "I came across..." threads here) was marred when those threads vanished into thin air for reasons that, whatever they may have been, were grossly unfair to the vast majority of the forumists here.

OK, so let's talk about the blog. I am one of those who bookmarked it too after having found the link here, and I find it very interesting reading and I'll be looking forward to further articles that might appear there. However, there are other aspects that make this reading a bit uneasy and also unsettling for me. I really appreciated Chris A's contributions here on this board and at AAJ (despite some incidents there that were uncalled for) and did regret his departure from Organissimo (and I really haven't figured out completely what the REAL reason and sequence of events was that led to his departure - one says so, the other says the opposite, oh my ...). But what I did not appreciate ONE BIT is the way he not only left the forum but also took his own writings with him (cf. in the "I Came Across ..." threads that really were impressive glimpses at jazz history that for the history-minded reader ideally filled in gaps to complete what could be found elsewhere). Now if you do not wish to visit the park anymore, fine ... But if you insist on not only leaving the park but destroying a good deal of the trees that others strolling through the park would still have liked to look at (and that at one time were dear enough for you to have planted them)? Punish everybody for your disagreement with a scant handful? Making sure nobody else can get anything out of it if you cannot have it all your own way? Is this really all mature? I'll leave that up to else individual to judge. And this is why, no matter how hard I try, some uneasy feeling did creep up when reading writings from the very same person who saw fit to act in such a manner on this forum. Who is the person behind those writings and what are his motivations in such public statements? Maybe it all is because in this internet world I've discovered (and learned to appreciate) forums a long time before that blog thing. Forums can benefit immensely from dialogs and mutual interaction and exchange of ideas, whereas blogs tend to become more of a "one man's showcase". (I've seen it on other blogs where bloggers have started drooling about their own greatness and I have therefore become a little bit wary) I distinctly try to suppress and rule out those feelings but honestly, it sometimes isn't easy, especially in the case of topics that revolve around the apparently ongoing concern of "who is fit to act as a keeper of the keys to the shrine of jazz history memorabilia" (cf. that Billie Holiday thing on the blog, and it also was a subject on this forum here). I'll freely admit that this issue is a touchy one and I do understand some may feel bitter about such objects disappearing in collections not accessible to the interested public (or only against horrendous fees) but if this issue is such a hot one and one where one finds that things are at fault then why does one have to withdraw what's been made publicly accessible on this forum and thereby act in exactly the same manner? This just doesn't add up.

In the 90s there seems to have been a straight CD reissue of the King LP "Big J in 3-D" that includes 12 of these Federal tracks (according to the Big Jay bio by Jim Dawson). If the Classics CD has them all that would be the preferred one, then.

A really amazing life. There really cannot be many jazzmen around anymore whose career stretched THAT far back. I remember when I first came across his name in an ad for his guitar teaching classes in some Down Beat mag bought at the newsstand in c. 1978. IIRC the ad mentioned his "name band" stints but (apart from the fact that at that time I had not heard his name before) his picture in the ad did not look ANYWHERE near as old as he must have been at that time, given his career mentioned in the ad. (Or did they a use a significantly older publicity pic? ) Whenever I came across his name in the decades since, that made me think of that "youngish" ad. And apparently he kept his youngish spirits almost up to the end. RIP

There are some of whom I'll probably never have enough, such as Count Basie. Here I've passed the 50-LP threshold a long time ago, and this essentially only covers the period up to the early to mid-60s. Others, such as Bird, are essentials so you automatically end up with a lot by them. And though I am not a completist, I'll certainly add more by some whose discography is a bit more manageable but who are of particular appeal to me - though I already have quite a lot of their recordings, such as Tal Farlow, Louis Jordan, Red Norvo, Clifford Brown, Wardell Gray, Dexter Gordon, or EARLY Miles Davis (i.e. up to the early 60s). But I'll freely admit I have only a limited number of Coltranes, Mobleys, Morgans. And they will do for me for the time being. On the other hand, there also are some whose recorded and released works are so prolific that you just end up with a lot of their discs if you regularly make the rounds at the usual secondhand outlets, such as Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman and Stan Kenton. I wouldn't have bought each and every one of their recordings I now own if I had had to pay full price but at clearout sales prices, how can you go wrong? Any all in all I haven't been disappointed.

RIP indeed. And yes, like Bill Barton said, there was more to this man than this solid body guitar thing and multitrack wizardry (with or without May Ford) for 50s MOR EP record buyers. Hope his jazz credentials will also be given their proper dues (provided the scribes manage to look far enough beyond his 50s Capitol stuff in either direction). Guess I'll spin that Les Paul Trio (1944-45 transcriptions) LP on Circle CLP-67 tonight.

how is it? while i have huge respect for isoardi's work and am really thankful that he does what he does i found myself enjoying the oral histories on the web much more than the two books i've read (the buddy collette and the dark tree), don't know, somehow those books were rather dry, had a tendency to repeat themselves and i was also missing some hard information added to the information from the oral histories (like yesterday when i tried to find out how long tommy trujillo was with tapscott, all the book says he moved in when he was 18 but not when he was born or which year that was or how long he stayed, where he went from there...)... could have said this better, i guess - simply, while i find the subjects real interesting, the books bored me quite a bit (though at least i could finish them...) Actually I am progressing quite fast, Niko, and find it very interesting. I see your point about the shortcomings of presenting history through ORAL history that focuses on telling an individuals' entire life, though, and honestly, I was a bit wary and disappointed when I found out that this entire subject was presented through a string of individual recollections by a selected and limited number of people. I've read "The World of Swing" by Stanley Dance before (which does more or less the same thing, i.e. highlight the Swing era through oral autobiographical recollections by of a limited number of swing-era musicians) and indeed this book presents this subject of black jazz in L.A. up to the 50s in more or less the same way. Actually I would have preferred finding a book that covers the entire topic much more evenly and thoroughly and from a documentary approach. In particular because such specialized (local) histories fill gaps that really are hardly ever covered thoroughly in other jazz history books. If it was to be in the form of ORAL history at all, then I'd have preferred the way that Ira Gitler's "Swing To Bop" has been written, i.e. with the structure being provided by the authour and the way HE presents the evolution of history, and the oral testimonials are interwoven to vividly illustrate the aspect of history that is being covered at that particular point of the book. IMHO "Swing To Bop" is unsurpassed in the way oral recollections are put to work to make musical history come alive to the reader. That said, I'd still rate it a good and recommended book, but as it is (and as you say too), if you want to have a history of Central Avenue itself (separated from an individual's life, i.e. history) you really have to go to and fro in the book and piece a lot of information on Central Avenue as such together from what the individual persons have to say and remember. And it is to be feared that a lot of undoubtedly important and interesting aspects of the OVERALL picture (but that none of the interviewees happened to remember in detail or that were of little importance to their own lives) probably are not covered adequately. To get an idea of a different approach to the subject (history of a LOCAL or regional aspect of jazz), check out the books on Kansas City Jazz or, as an even more extreme approach, "BEFORE MOTOWN" by Bjorn & Gallert (history of pre-1960 jazz in Detroit). EXTREMELY scholarly (you can easily get lost in the countless footnotes) but extremely thorough and highly interesting for those who want to have a reference work on that aspect of jazz. And this one IMHO REALLY does manage to document and preserve almost everything that might ever be said on that subject for posterity

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