Big Beat Steve

Please set me wise, Bev (I did not look up that latter topic right now so I am really starting from "scratch"): Those latter two names do NOT ring a bell with me at all. Imagine me as being somebody very interested not only in U.S. but also European jazz but (as far as collecting in strictly "collector" sense of the word goes) with a major emphasis on the jazz styles, periods and musicians of the early 30s to the early 60s. What would I have missed under these aspects and what glaring non-knowledge would I have to admit to within my key period of historical interest if I did not know these names? I'll be glad to learn and add to my knowledge but could it be that those just were bound to be off my radar, given my key areas of interest? OTOH, whoever (even if not pop-minded at all) could have AVOIDED having heard about Michael Jackson on NUMEROUS occasions throughout the past 30+ years? So this explains that ...

As with all those radio big bands this demands qualification: Those bands (including the WDR one) CAN be great jazz-wise but they also get to play (and perfom in public) a lot of rather run-of-the-mill mass-appeal MOR "popular" stuff (except that non-jazz big band music today invariably isn't even "popular", except with a certain older and very sedate set, but rather a sort of slightly sophisticated elevator music :D). So don't go by the band name (that can be VERY misleading) but by the program they will actually perform.

Yeah, I had the same reaction with my 'Bitches Brew' (Ray Conniff, Mirielle Mathieau etc.) Ha, same reaction here too ... Must have bought quite a few CBS and Epic LPs in my early collecting days of the mid-70s, and I distinctly remember how it struck me as EXTREMELY odd how they mixed all sorts of music into one mishmash of sales blurb on those inner sleeves. Prog rock stuff - O.K, not my cup of tea in those early rockabilly, Merseybeat, swing and blues collecting days of mine, but I had seen and heard a handful of these at my friends' homes, but then you'd see Johnny Winter or those Bessie Smith reissue twofers (so far, so well) being promoted next to, say, Andy Williams (see above) or horrible pseudo Russian folk warbler Ivan Rebroff or German pop chirps Katja Ebstein or Mary Roos! Aw my gawd - pure shlock all the way and something you as a rock-minded teen wouldn not have touched with a HUNDRED-foot pole ever! To add insult to injury, imagine that kind of crap promo on an inner sleeve of a Link Wray album on Epic in the hands of a 16-year old with a somewhat eccentric (by mid-70s teen standards ) music taste ! :D Totally out of tune and out of style! What crap, I thought - if they can promote EVERYTHING as being the ULTIMATE then what is there that's actually worth listening? I've come across a few more of those sleeves in CBS jazz reissue albums bought secondhand in later years, and each time those mixed reactions from the 70s came floating back. Somehow those 50s and early 60s Capitol inner sleeves with album cover thumbnails from their catalog left a slightly more favorable impression ....

This source says "Honky Tonikin' Rhythm" was recorded for Mar-Vel at Universal Studios in Chocago and Bill MCall was involved in the production too. http://www.rockabilly.nl/references/messages/bobby_sisco.htm So maybe that steel man was a session player either from Harry Glenn's Mar-Vel roster or from Universal Studios? Don't know if this would narrow down or in fact widen the search but it might be a lead. Maybe info about the Mar-Vel label itself would yield something? The "Mar-Vel Masters" LP series released in the late 70s on the Cowboy Carl label has pretty extensive liner notes (unfortunately I only have Vol. 2 but not Vol. 3 which has this Bobby Sisco track - I have "Honky Tonkin' Rhythm" on 2 other compilations - but judging by the liner notes on Vol. 2 they cover the ground pretty well). Haven't found anything online yet but there must be some rockabilly/hillbilly collecting nut out there (on or off the web) who has this info at his fingertips so it might be worth a search ...

I have this track by Bobby Sisco on one or two rockabilly compilation LPs. Will check the liner notes ASAP to see if they indicate the name of the steel player.

Was gonna look but this comment made me understand I've had enough of these folks. These "hillbilly" folks swing WAAAAAAAYYY more than many of those so-called "free" or "third stream" or "ethnic" (or whatever) pseudo post-modern freak show inhabitants too often touted as jazz in recent decades. :D So no need to be snide about them. Like JSangrey said: It's like Barney Kessel had neve left Oklahoma. High time to readjust one's coordinates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_etiquette That's the point ... As long as "western classical concert etiquette" is expected at "jazz performances in an indoor concert setting" I find many of those jazz "concerts" extremely stifling. At least in those cases where the music isn't inviting such "western concert etiquette" at all. I can understand it in MJQ concerts, for example (and I am not going to refer to Keith Jarrett here ), but if an oldtime jazz band or an out-and-out swing band performs there - hey ... this music is MEANT for the audience to cut loose - at least for those in the audience who feel inclined to do so. And if this jazz concert were staged in a (concert or not) setting that really befits the music then exuberance and out and out enjoyment (going beyond tapping your feet into STOMPING your feet) would be encouraged (after all you DON'T have to tear up the floor and throw the seats out the window to show your appreciation, you know ... this is no 1956 Lionel Hampton tour ... and yet ...) and sitting still and applauding politely at the obvious points would only be "tolerated". Maybe over here in Europe (or is this a German phenomenon??) "classical music etiquette" really has such a firm stranglehold on expected audience behavior, but is this something that just GOT to be so?

You know what? Over here in the old world, there have been (not all that rare) occasions when even in jazz concerts you were SURE to be frowned upon when you visibly moved in your seat, tapped your feet and otherwise "got in the groove" to the music (though remaining seated - or sort of ...). It sure is TOUGH to attend jazz "concerts" of this type where the vast majority of the audience is evidently made up not only of squares but of CUBES (because they visibly aren't even cool enough to show that particular, extreme, unmoved coolness). :D Sit still and applaud obligingly after the end of EACH solo for a predetermined span of time, and that's that ... And it even happened in clubs with a predominantly seated audience. Actually only a step (literally) away from being forcibly called top order if a couple dared to cut loose and do a dance to a particularly danceable tune between the groups of seats or in the aisles (happened to friends of mine more than once). 1938 revisited ... And as for vacating the stage, again - maybe the concept of some small group's music demands reassessment if every solo is strictly a matter of forcing the non-rhythm section men to sit it out all the time. No doubt that can be done sometimes but how about getting some interaction going between the front-line soloist and the other (background) horn(s) in other cases?

No problem with non-players stepping off to the EDGE of the stage to watch and apreciate those in full action - BUT: Is it really THAT common in today's jazz combo's club gigs to play tunes in an "every man for himself" string of solo manner, and is it THAT rare for those bands to arrange their music in such a manner that those among the horn men who do NOT solo will still be involved by providing a background of fill-ins, riffs and what not? In short, anything to make sure that you do get more than just a string of one horn man's solo backed by the rhythm section and everybody else sitting it out except for brief ensemble passages and THEIR solos. I must have been attending the wrong club gigs of late ... but then many of them were in a real R&B bag, i.e. the forefathers of rock where this sort of constant backing by the FULL band is more common, it seems.

Good to see this topic being dug up, if only for the OT cover art aspect. At any rate, I FULLY agree with what BruceH, Riverrat and Bev Stapleton had to say about the importance of the (original) cover artwork. I came up during the LP era too and still am a HUGE vinyl nut, and to me it's not so much a question of strict authenticity (after all you can have several "correct" period artworks for any LP, cf. the Brit Esquire and French Vogue etc. covers that may differ totally from U.S. Prestige, Atlantic, etc. releases) but more so a matter of "period-CORRECT" artwork of an LP. The visual appearance DOES reflect the music to some extent, at least in the case of the more thoughtfully produced albums. To those who cannot see the importance of the album cover artwork that goes with the LP itself, just remember all those 70s/80s reissues of 50s music that were thrown onto the marked with totally incongruous, sometimes nondescript, sometimes forcibly "updated"/modernized artwork that really ruined the experience of obtaining a FIRST impression of the music via the visual experience of looking at the cover before putting the platter onto the turntable. I cannot even remember how often I HAD to go along with those shoddy cover jobs in the 70s/early 80s just beause I wanted the music and there were no other reissues available (not to mention originals) and yet the covers often really made me cringe and sometimes I really had to FORCE myself to buying the records anyway. And yes, in cases where originals or facsimile reissues were out of reach I've been known to getting color photocopies of the original artwork made (whenever I could borrow an original cover) and pasting them over the "modernized" reissue covers of my 70s/early 80s reissues - just to grasp a maximum of the original visual experience. :D

ReveNANT!

Same opinion here for his 50s LPs on Nocturne, Tampa LP-11 and Bethlehem BCP 1025. No trailblazer (there'd not be nearly enough trails if everybody went out on a totally new one :D) but very swinging, verys enjoyable 50s straightforward modern jazz with good blowing.

I'll take your word for it - you certainly are more familiar with this than I am. Actually the "Paramount Masters" box arrived here today, and first listening indicates fairly good fidelity for such old masters IMO, on average quite more listenable than some other reissues (e.g. those in the Austrian "Document" completist series). Nothing earth-shattering about the general presentation - the box does betray its "budget" character. OTOH, and digressing slightly beyond the time frame of the blues of THIS tread, JSP seems to be a very mixed bag these days. Last year I bought the "Jook Joint Blues - Good time Rhythm & Blues 1943-1956" 4-CD box set (JSP 7796). Same general presentation as the Paramount box, but those track infos!! Tracks listed on the back of each individual CD alright, but the session details inside??? Not arranged by the contents of each CD but by session, and in no recognizable relationship with the contents of the CD the inserts are filed with and not in alphabetical order (by leader's name) either! So 3 or 4 tracks from one session may be spread over 3 or 4 CDs but the session is listed only once on one of the 4 CDs and it is anybody's guess on which one. So if you want to have the session details for the track you are listening to you will have to check the ENTIRE listings (remember, no alphabetical order) on up to all FOUR discs, hoping to find the info sooner rather than later browsing through the entire listings! E.g. the session details for track B-25 (one track from that session only) are not found on CD B, but on CD C! Whoever compiled those session details must have been high on canned heat, hadacol or whatever else and totally out of his mind! WTF have the producers of this set been thinking (provided they have been thinking anything at all) in cobbling up such a mess??? As if to confuse the discographically inclined listener on purpose! Why did they deviate from the CD-wise listing (as on the Paramount box) at all? I bought that (sealed) box set on the strength on the JSP reputation from LP days but clearly something has gone amiss since, and helter-skelter jobs like this really detract from the value of the music.

My impression too. Generally I am all for studying jazz history not only from today's point of view but from contemporary sources, and even historical sources relating to "past" events at a time when that "past" was still far closer in time can be very informative. But you HAVE to take them with a grain of salt. And I feel this is the case in this "black" aspect here too. If you read JAZZ PODIUM mag issues from the 50s and 60s, for example, you will notice that despite their sincerely good intentions, most German jazz scribes of the time had an EXTREMELY hard time in NOT judging jazz by the "Western"/European standards of "classical" music and whatever "respectability" went with that. And of course this would also be reflected in the discussion of black swing bands as invariably the two extremes of black vitality and black superiority in creating that "swing" on the one hand and any assumed "lack" of precision in the "execution" of the music on the other would enter the picture in the debate.

What makes you think that? I thought that Yazoo was one of the labels that often invested in finding the best sounding 78s for their reissues. Unless I am VERY wrong, Allen is talking about JSP, not about Yazoo. And he is dead right there - both JSP and Proper have a very nasty habit of gathering material in their boxes that looks EXTREMELY familiar to those who've been into buying reissues from that particular era or style of music for some time (sometimes to the point of being able to guess prettty accurately from the combination or sequence of the tracks on V.A. boxes, for example, which 4 or 5 LPs of previous reissues DEFINITELY went into those boxes). Assuming that maybe 75% of some artist's or style's key releases from the 78 rpm era have been reissued in the past 10 or 15 years and you are DESPERATE to get your hands on the remaining 25% then you are HIGHLY unlikely to find them on any Proper or JSP boxes. In the vast majority of cases they rehash what has been reissued before elsewhere - nice for a starter or a general overview for non-completists (I admit I recently ordered the Paramount box too as most of it quite underrepresented in my collection) but nothing more.

Ain't that pretty obvious - especially to you as a German, Niko? Black bands had a "black sound", and their "black" style was (and with hardcore swing fans still is) associated with a specifically superior "black" quality of swinging jazz, i.e. playing jazz in the swing style, making the music swing in a "black" way (generally considered more intense, more vital, more colorful, in short, more swinging (in every respect) than their white counterparts which often were considered relatively pale copycats by comparison). Some of the better white bands of course tried to capture that specifically "black" sound of black bands, some of them (such as Goodman, thanks to Henderson's arrangements) got pretty close. AND they had the added bonus of often coming up with tighter, better organized ensemble sounds (many black bands, while being praised for their vitality and intense, unmatched swing, were blamed for sloppy ensemble work and lack of precision). Which is what that sentence seems to allude to, because Webb beat the white bands on BOTH terms (being a black band and therefore having a blacker, more swinging, jazzier sound, AND at the same time being extremely disciplined with very precise section work). Don't know where that scribble from Wikipedia was taken from (DON'T take whatever's written in Wikipedia as being the FINAL WORD on it - ever ... ) but this sentence does read like it was lifted off an older source. In jazz publications through the 30s to 50s/60s jazz writers often indulged in those specifically black-white comparisons that which praised black bands and musicians for their superior jazz musicianship and ability to swing, YET tended to measure black bands by "white" standards of desirable ensemble precision and TECHNICAL proficiency as manifested in that "precision" (unjustufiedly so IMHO). Just read the respective articles in jazz books and mags from that period and you will see.

Thanks for the update. I admit I did confuse the roles of RCA and Hill & Range but as for the sequel, apparently Arnold Shaw in his "Honkers & Shouters" published in 1978 (and others that essentially gave the same story) were not up to date in their info on the further settlement of the royalties.

This essentially sums up what I go through. Well, I DO have another (time and money-consuming) collecting hobby, and both (that one and my collection of records and assorted matters musical - books, mags, etc.) have been going on for 30+ years, and of course there have always been times when one hobby took a back step vs the other, but these phases have always alternated relatively regularly and none of the two interests have ever abated completely). And yet ... ... in the past it was unthinkable for me NOT to get home and put a record on the turntable as soon as I had some time to spend within listening distance of the speakers. Now it does happen (and not all that rarely) that at the end of an evening I wonder "hey, you haven't even listened to any music from your collection all day long", ... in the past I used to actively and constantly search out record stores for records of interest (even if no purchases were made, I just had to keep abreast of what potential items of interest there were), and now - though such browsing ought to be even easier in the WWW - I just do not feel that same urge anymore, at least not on any constant basis, ... despite the vast array of items theoretically available you get choosier and choosier, so the Wants lists do take longer to accumulate (if at all). etc. etc. Anyway, last night I finally sent off that Amazon order for some 10 more CDs (including two box sets, some of them on the strength of topics here), but did it take long to make up my mind about some of the items ... In short, my music collecting interest certainly isn't gone but somehow the ultimate collecting and completist urge has been absent for quite a while. And this despite the ever-increasing awareness of the flood of (re-)releases everywhere as well as of the music that exists/existed in your favorite areas. So am I one of those who really has reached the point of having "enough music" or what's up?? ;)

@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!!