Big Beat Steve

@Drew Peacock: What you call "richer" would in many cases be "neither flesh nor fowl" to me. "Crossover" music styles are alright and I realize working all kinds of influences into one thing has been all the rage for quite a while in these circles but IMHO you can only go so far without sacrificing the soul and essence of the original style that you are trying to "advance". And I've often found all those jazz-cum-rock-cum-world music-cum-you name it just lack that vital ingredient - outright SWING. Guess I am just too "classicistic" in my listening habits. And therefore I even found SOME of those 90s neo-swing bands that mixed big band swing with Las Vegas lounge sounds and even outright PUNK ROCK more stimulating than some of that way-out "world music" and "experimental" mishmash - if taken in MODERATE doses. At least and for a time it opened up a new direction of "development" of swing-era jazz that had not been explored before. Maybe not so sophisticated and advanced as other crossovers (including 70s "jazz rock") but definitely more gutsy and with an immediate appeal with no fuss and no pretenses, just like in the old days when jazz was supposed to provide basic ENTERTAINMENT! And yet the old masters still reign supreme. BTW, I'm not one of those who are all set on hard bop (quite to the contrary, I pity those who cannot look further back back into jazz - either style-wise or historically - beyond Trane, Morgan, Mobley, Blakey, etc - there's much more to jazz than hard bop). And King Ubu isn't all wrong with those "post-Trane robots" - isn't this what a lot of "Post-Bop" is all about in essence?

Sad to say but what Big Al says rings true here too. I haven't bought all that much during the past 12 months or so either, and what I've bought sometimes still sits on the shelf waiting for a FIRST-TIME listen. The reasons? A combination of reasons, I guess: First of all, at 6,000 LPs and somewhere between 500 and 1,000 CDs you do have a LOT to choose from when you get into another intense listening mood again, and as time wears on you realize you never get around to listening to lots of discs (or styles of music) all that much anymore and they sit on the shelf untouched for years (and YET you could only bring yourself to disposing of maybe 20 or 30 items out of the LOT, as the rest is nice to have "just in case"... And as there are spells when undisturbed, peaceful listening occasions get rarer due to other commitments the music you have tends to "last" even longer. Secondly, thirdly, etc.: - Like GA Russell said, a LOT of that favorite period of collecting (30s to early 60s in my case) has already been reissued and is in the collection, and what isn't probably isn't that essential (and special sales from the used jazz vinyl bin yielded a LOT of non-essential items at givewaway prices anyway through the years). - Those overlaps with what you already have that you are BOUND to come across when you check out new reissues just wears you out and you just give up, wondering if buying discs if you already have half or two thirds of it is worth it anymore at full price. - Music by new or recent acts in your favorite genre(s) - yes, but in the total this doesn't account for much. In short, the urge to add to one's collection and fill gaps that used to beset me regularly really is largely gone. Although ... that recent early blues thread here as well as the possible change in European reissues (due to that copyright extension issue) has recently prompted me to stack up that Amazon shopping cart while the items still are around. :D It's just that the "Buy" button hasn't been hit yet ... Oh my ... enough of that world-weariness now ...

Like what, exactly? Haven't been to London for almost 9 years, yet I know London's never been like it used to be ever since Mole Jazz went belly up, but what's left of Ray's Jazz shop at Foyle's now, and what about the area arounds Camden Town and the upper end of Portobello Road (Honest Jon's)? Everything's gone, too?

Oh my ... All this babble about bootleg releases and ripping off artists in soooo many cases is just a cartload of nonsense - and phony it is too, especially in the case of those collectors who clamor out loud for oh so high standards of legitimacy of those record relases. Tell me quite honestly, you who uphold such high standards, did you ever buy ANY reissues of the 30s Decca recordings of the Basie band? (Remember the 70-year cutoff date by U.S. copyright standards for that music did not expire that long ago) Do I need to remind you about how the Count was screwed in a BIG way by the Decca execs (shame on them forevermore and beyond their graves!) in a manner that even John Hammond could better only marginally. Did later owners of the Decca catalog ever make good and come up with the royalties that would have been the Count's due? Did the Count ever benefit in a CORRECT manner from the reissues that have been released through the decades? His autobiography does not sound (read) like it ... Or did you ever give a consideration to the RCA material recorded by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup and how he was cheated out of the royalties even at a time when Elvis tried to get him his due but RCA backed off at the very last minute and said No at a time when Crudup already was an old and ill man who could have used every penny (and it would have ben PEANUTS to the RCA bosses). Or did Big John Dolphin die because that recording artist was oh so grateful for the down-to-earth honest way he handled his artist royalties? And who knows how many MODERN JAZZ sessions were done for a measly one-time lump sum recording fee but no roaylties ever? Even with collector labels? Do you all know if ALL those cheapskate dealings done way back then were ALWAYS corrected later on into a correct royalty settlement? Now please, don't give me that babble if al the above justifies ripping off artists elsewhere too (in the case of those "grey" reissue labels) - it does NOT - but if all of you who whine so loud all the time about artists being ripped off were really SERIOUS about your attitude and standards then you would have to steer clear of a LOT of other nominally "legit" releases too! BTW, no, IMHO it is not nice to keep the money from the artists (as in the case of those grey labels) but it is even MUCH WORSE keeping that money from the artists and at the same time stuffing it into the wallets of those ripoff major biggie music industry execs. Keeping the money from those execs too is FAR BETTER IMHO ;) And in many cases those grey area labels at least have made music available that the majors would't even have given a rat's ass about (therefore not yielding any royalties to the artists either)! Hats off therefore to (nominally) bootleg labels like that ROUTE 66 label conglomerate from the 80s whose owner up front paid royalties of a 2000-LP pressing run to the artists (even before the LPs were sold) but definitely steered very clear of shelling out to the labels. Many of the artists graced with reissues on those ROUTE 66 etc. labels had been ripped off by the reecording labels way back when and were VERY pleased to get at least some belated financial recognition from that collector source. An attitude that puts to shame quite a few of the Majors! (Oh, I forgot - that's "only R&B" and just cannot concern you hard bop etc. fans to whom jazz and collecting only begin with Bird and post-Bird music ;) - but still it is just like this: If you are serious about that artist royalty thing then you'd better check and double check what ripoffs there are at work in "legit" labels. And finally, that thing that music ought to be (re)issued only if the artist wants to see it released is just utter nonsense too. If you went down that lane would there be any Prestige releases by Jackie McLean anymore, for example? He has disowned his work for that label in no uncertain terms on several occasions. So .... ? Where would you end up? Or is your conscience just fine and dandy knowing that conscience and standards can be a highly selective thing? Nuff of this rant for now ...

The way the graphics are done does not remind you of a certain brand of a jazz label ? Pretty lame to invoke BN whenever an album cover reminds you of "something" you've seen before. A case could be made for a LOT of other early 60s labels that used EXACTLY the same basic layout, typography, split between text and image section, etc. I could think of several right now that I have in my collection, including WB (Warner Brothers) IIRC, and I would NOT say they all let themselves be inspired by BN. It's more the era, not the label. That Joe Jackson copycat thing is a totally different (and obvious) case, of course, but that singer's cover artwork in the opening topic just has a certain "RETRO" feel about it but that's really all there's to it IMHO. And RETRO artwork really isn't bad as long as you steer clear of bringing back those ghastly, shoddy, garish, pseudo-psychedelic 70s covers!

Coming to think of it, this is a WEIRD topic. Agreed and understood that the releases on this label are no longer made on vinyl (I understand they once were) but only on CD. But if it really is so that the only reply to the initial inquiry of this potential customer was a curt "No" then it might certainly be argued that this curtness might appear just a wee bit RUDE as a reply to an inquiry that per se was not that harmful yet (though it may have been futile in the first place). So why be surprised that the inquirer's reply was just in the same single-word league? Could it be that THIS is part of the problem here too? Look at it this way just a second, dear forumists: If some seller had just replied "No" and nothing else (no explanation, no minimal additional wording to go with it) to YOUR inquiry then you as a customer wouldn't you have felt this seller just couldn't be bothered and you'd been a bit disgusted too? The door swings both ways, you know ... BTW, I still dont see where the "classiness" enters the picture here.

I've a hunch this auction (or rather its selling price) is a bogus auction. Look at how those two final bidderrs raised each other briefly in a flash and then left it at that. And one of them with just ONE single feedback. If a newbie comes in at an auction out of the blue and bids sky-high way before the end I smell a BIG FAT rat!!

Why this? Out of sheer curiosity and slightly off-topic: I've never been into free jazz at all so have never explored his records but judging from what one still sees in vinyl bins (secondhand record stores or record fairs) he seems to have been such a prolific recording person that his records tend to drown out a lot of other stuff that one hops to find in "Jazz" bins. So is there actually a consensus (or widespread opinion) that he should be ignored?

Yes, of course I see your point too and it is valid and not doubt you are right but the bottom line to me then is (CD fetishism and fractional sound improvements aside) that no real and overwhelming compilation progress has therefore been made ever since those CBS 2-LPs sets with the Brunswick/Columbia material and those LP (singles and box sets) series by French RCA were released. No wonder shady moonlighter labels jump on the bandwagon (apparently not in this case but elsewhere quite often) if the majors can't get their COORDINATED act together.

Seem like I can't get my point across... Of course most of the material has been available in several forms (and Brunswick/Columbia reissues aren't that rare either), but this would make completeness even more important. So to take just one example of one particular period: If I wanted to listen, say, to Ellington's recordings of, say, 1931 to 1935 (not THAT unimportant a period in the Duke's recordings, I think), then there simply will be quite a bit missing if the RCA recordings are not included in the CHRONOLOGICAL run. Or to put it even more bluntly, in the interest of the integrity of the recorded opus - if you can't include the RCA recordings in the run, why bother at all? Wouldn't this reduce the reissue project to a mere "Select"?

Just a minor question from a practical (and musical) point of view (though it will probablyx sound like blasphemy to some around here ): If this set reproduced the same well-known arbitrary cutoff dates (arbitrary from a musical ppoint of view) dictated only by label (and, hence, ownership) questions then isn't this a point where the comprehensive Mosaic concept (especially at THAT price) approaches its limits? I have most of the French RCA LPs from way back that jump from 1932 to thew 40s in the music they cover as well a many of the 70s CBS twofers that cover the Columbia years and a couple of early 30s LPs issued elsewhere (e.g.in Sweden) covering the Brunswick years. A bit inconvenient if you want to listen through somebody's works in a really chronological strech ACROSS label boundaries. After all the music does not change (or evolve differently) just because of a change of label (and if it does, it would be interesting hearing it directly track by track). Multi-disc reissue boxes such as this one would have been able to solve the problem but seem to be stumbling at exactly the same hurdles. So (possible sound issues aside) what is the REAL progress?

No, AFAIK Mr Frohne moved away from the black forest (actually the very outskirts of it) several years ago, and he gave up professional work as a dentist to concentrate on jazz research even before that. Am not really up to date on what happened (it's been at least 5 years since I lost contact with him) and what I do know is of no public interest.

I have a very wide range of musical genres AND a lot of Various Artist compilations. I sort by strict alpha by artist regardless of genre. I can't imagine sorting genres WITHING genres! My VA comps are shelved after the main body of the collection, and then alpha by title... I can see your point but but it's probably just a matter of what you really are used to in your everyday listening, collecting and filing . I know I'd never find a darn thing if I'd have to dig through Johnnie Ray (filed under pop) being filed right after Floyd Ray (Swing) and next to the Ray-O-Vacs (filed under blues/R&B). etc. whenever I just wanted to pull out a few stylistically related discs to spin (without planning everything in advance). And so on and so on ...

Boy, do I feel like a fossil around here for clinging to all my vinyl with their (mostly) clearly readable spines! :D Anyway, the space-saving factor is tempting for CDs, but I'd definitely not go for plastic sleeves nor for slimline cases. Having to "guess" where a particular disc is in an alphabetical order is bad enough already for my 700+ 78s! And where would I put the booklets?

Well, it did happen to me a bit more often that I'd care for that I've bought albums only to find out later that I already had the music (in rare cases exactly the same album but mostly in cases where exactly the same music had been issued or reissued on various labels with totally different cover artwork). Usually happened to me when I was perusing the stock in a record shop in some place far away from home. As it usually concerned fairly affordable secondhand items in doubt I've come to take the plunge and grab it (because if you find out later you passed up an item of interest that you thought you had but later found out you did not have after all you'll be sorry forever ). Over the years I've been able to shift most of those doubles through the usual channels, though (and make good price-wise).

If you have a fairly wide range of musical genres to accommodate and if you own a sizable number of Various Artist compilations, the alphabetic method rapidly reaches its limits of total impracticality. I've therefore arranged my LP collection (which still is about 90% vinyl, rest CDs) by musical styles, even within jazz. I.e. inside the jazz segment (broadly two thirds of my collection), pre-swing "Oldtime" jazz, Swing and post-WWII Modern Jazz all have separate fields organized A to Z by the leader's name. V.A. albums are a bit more complicated and are arranged roughly by album feature (i.e. instruments or styles), big bands vs. small groups, particular reissue series, specific sub-areas (e.g. all Territory band albums are grouped together, all Westcoast Jazz albums too, etc.). European jazz has a shelf section of its own and is broken down by country and then again A to Z and then in an analog manner for the V.A. albums. Of course this produces overlaps and sometimes I do have to search a while for a particular V.A. album as it might fit in several categories. And sometimes it does occur that I just cannot immediately recall the name of a semi-obscure band leader the album of which Id like to give a spin. And occasionally a disc misplaced inside a jacket or jewel case does require some searching. But a total loss of a platter? Not so far, happily. So it seems like this comparatively detailed organization of my 6000+ discs (not counting 45s and 78s) does pay ...

Isn't that obvious, Ted? Being located at the source and able to amass huuuuge quantities of disks for (next to) nothing is one thing and is of course nice (and those who can do so are welcome to their collections, and I certainly would not want to slight their interest in the music), but building a collection by purchasing the items (new or secondhand, full price, collector's price or special offer/clearout bin) one by one is quite a different feat, and I think that's what Marcello was getting at.

Agreed. (No, I'm not one of them - still more than 50% to go to reach that figure )

How come it's taken so long for his BACK COUNTRY SUITE (and closely related Prestige material) to be mentioned? I remember how Mose Allison really struck me right between the ears with the very first recording of his I ever heard on radio in the mid- to late 70s ("Parchman Farm" - in jazz show, of course). This happened not long ago after I had got my hands on an LP by the Nashville Teens that included THEIR (60s Brit beat) version of "Parchman Farm" (and introduced me to that tune). Mose Allison's had a recognizable familiarity yet was strikingly different: WTF was this: Deep-down blues singing to a modern jazz piano combo backing?? That settled Mose Allison for me as somebody who defied usual stylistic boundaries. Haven't gone far his Prestige period but have enjoyed this immensely. He is one of those whose records I'd spin indiscriminately, regardless of whether I'm in a "modern jazz" or "blues/R&B" listening mood.

Really sad - I had hopes of catching him live once more when he'd play in the area. But now it's over. R.I.P.

In the context of THIS debate, when I said "later" I meant "post-1950", i.e. the Fifties. Raeburn and Thornhill would fall into the 40s, of course. But then again I think you would then have to subdivide those post-WWII big bands again according to whether the "modernist" sounds of those bands lean more towards bebop or whether they might rather be considered part of the "progressive" school. Or to put it another way, if the starting point is Benny Goodman's boppish 1948-49 big band then Raeburn, Thornhill, etc. are a lot farther away from that kind of big band than, say, Artie Shaw's 1949 band or the "modernist" Buddy Rich or Gene Krupa bands (or even the early-post war bop bands of Billy Eckstine and Gerald Wilson).

If you want to have a real look at the transitional 40s era then I'd advise to steer waaaaay clear of those "recreations". Many are just marketing gags that owe their existence to the hi-fi obsession of the 50s. At any rate, reissues of Gene Krupa 40s big band studio and airshots do exist so there is little need to go for "ersatz". And, Niko, IMHO those Ralph Burns records are indeed a bit late and a different evolutionary step that is quite a bit removed from the BG/Shaw swing-cum-bop big band sounds of the 40s. Not that later "advanced" big bands would be without interest, but the interesting thing about those transitional years is listening to the music in its actual period context.

Agreed about Artie Shaw, and don't forget about the Charlie Barnet band either. In the case of Artie Shaw, the 1949 Thesaurus transcriptions are nice items a bit off the beaten track. The CD in the Amazon review seems to complement previously issued material although I have a doubt if those claims of "previously unreleased" can be totally true if A.S. recorded a total of 35 such transcriptions (as the review says) but those 1949 Thesaurus transcriptions have previously already been issued on THREE LPs on the Solid Sender label (and possibly elsewhere). For a time the post-war Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey big bands also made some nice "swing with bop ovetones" (with JD featuring young Maynard Ferguson, for example). Same for the late 40s big band of Buddy Rich. However, in order to recommend where to go next, where exactly is it that you want to go? Swing big bands really embracing the "new sounds" (in which case Woody Herman or unknowns such as the bands of Earle Spencer or Tom Talbert would be obvious choices) or big bands steering a middle course of "bopped-up swing arrangements" - or even small bands of the late 40s that are somewhere in between the clear-cut stylistic areas of swing, bebop, etc.?

Don't get stuck in the rut of studio recordings. That "Hucklebuck" thing is lame, for sure, but IMO that's not because of the swing vs bop controversy but clearly because here a long-established swing band leader had to get in on the act of covering a current hit (that he probably hated) popularized by up-and-coming R&B bands that blew those sedate big band sections off their stools. Paul Williams and Roy Milton, etc., had it going with that tune, Benny hadn't, and Wardell could not save things alone. Must have been a tough time for those big bandsmen having to play the game of those young turks not only of bebop but also of R&B ... But live recordings, airshots, etc. do seem to be quite a different matter. There seem to be quite a few of them out there, and do have their moments, lots of them. Those featuring Stan Hasselgard and Wardell Gray (issued on Hep and Dragon LPs and elsewhere since) with Benny's boppish band are gems, and there are others. By coincidence an LP titled "Benny in Hollywood Vol. 2" on the (shady?) Swing Treasury label got a spin on my turntable yesterday. Nice stuff from Benny's bop period (some boppish, some less so, but always entertaining, so I'd love to find Vol. 1 in one of those secondhand bins eventually). And there have been a couple more "collector's label" LPs with airshots from that period.

Sorry but that's going to be difficult at present. A good deal of in-depth articles on the subject that I have come across in recent times is in GERMAN-language music mags focusing on 50s R'n'R (the REAL R'n'R, not the latter-day "Rock" that no longer "rolled" ) and 40s/50s R&B. They drew from U.S./English-language sources and input, of course, but offhand I don't have any really in-depth online link. All I can say is that this field HAS been explored extensively and there ARE people out there who leave no stone unturned when it comes to the Crown conglomerate (at least as far as their musical preferences - i.e. R&B and C&W - is concerned).