Big Beat Steve

Though I consider myself a fan of West Coast jazz, I've never really cared much about strings (and woodwinds, for that matter) in WCJ. I've therefore contented myself with the first three "Volumes" of the Lennie Niehaus albums on Contemporary. I may be wrong, though, in this case. The Down Beat reviewer in 1956 called Vol. 4 "easily the best yet" by Niehaus and gave it 4 stars. Not that this would be definite proof but it should give a rough idea. As for the tracks with strings, he says Niehaus' "sound blends well with the strings ... although the violas and cello still do not provide the free-flowing grace one would like to hear form strings in jazz". Ted Gioia and Robert Gordon - in their books on West Coast jazz - deal with Lennie Niehaus only in passing, and Alain Tercinet in HIS book on WCJ, considers Vol. 5 ("The Sextet" ) to be the top achievement among his records of that period, BTW.

I agree - to the point that at the time when reissues of his early to mid-50s MGM material proved largely elusive I even jumped at the occasion of buying several 78s of his MGM's while rummaging through the special offer bins at Mole Jazz. Savoy (reissue label), incidentally, also means Discovery in this case. And for what they are, his very early British recordings are enjoyable too. I've heard a few bits among his Capitol etc. material that I like but most of that Capitol stuff is just too slick, glib shlock for my taste.

´ Honestly, with the reissues of those Sun recordings in various guises through the years IMHO they' ve really overdone the "different takes" bit, especially since a lot of alternate takes had already been recirculated several times thorough various reissue series ever since the late 70s when they first started. Really new (apparently formerly unissued) SONGS are fine, of course (even if not always essential), but that outtake stuff really is something for the 200% completists only.

Actually that sounds about right to me. Not so sure about that date .... April, 1953 issues of DOWN BEAT included a separate „High Fidelity“ section, a „Hi-Fi Flashes“ column, and the term must have been in widespread enough use to make it into headline quips such as "Here‘s’ Hi-Filutin Ride on Rail Gone Train“ (about an LP series titled „Sounds of Our Times“ that promised to „tickle the ear of a hi-fi man“). Around the same time Capitol ads promised that with their "full dynamic sound" "you get HI-FI and then some" ... No immediately discernible use of Hi-Fi, etc. in late 1952 issues of Down Beat, however. So it looks as if the term came into widespread use in early 1953.

And sometimes Hi-Fi sales pitches were taken to extremes, e.g. in the case of early LPs from the Norman Granz stable that touted the advantages of "MUENSTER-DUMMEL HI FI RECORDINGS". I've heard that this HiFi sales blurb actually was coined after one sound engineer named Dummel whose favorite snack was "Muenster cheese". Don't know if this is the true story but at any rate it's a nice one! :D

The LP box set on the CHARLY label (dark blue box)? I won't sell mine but can have a look at one or two sources. Those sets do come up every now and then but tend to be pricey.

Of course, but what you say holds true for most of those "Public Domain reissuers", and if those Andorran (and other Continental) labels get all that bashing (justified or not) then this one deserves its share of bashing too. I realize many who have blanks in their collections go for those boxes, and they ARE tempting adn good value for what they are supposed to be, and strictly speaking there is nothing illegal about reissuing those P.D. recordings. But IMHO there most certainly is something immoral about following and duplicating other reissues by other labels that have done all the painstaking work to come up with those reissues in the first place (to remain within the U.K., the ACE label is another one that DOES pay its dues and does not deserve to have its sales being pulled from under its feet). As for the liner notes and artist credits on those Proper boxes, some of them really are screwed up good. Take a SEALED copy of the jazz guitar box "Hittin' on All six" and see if you can identify what all of those recordings actually are just by looking at the artist credits on the BOX (and on the website too, BTW) and not in the booklet. This is extremely misleading to many potential buyers! At any rate, with those "grey area" labels my appreciation goes to those labels (no need to mention names) that resurrect recordings that NOBODY (least of all the - actual or reputed - rights holders) has EVER bothered to reissue before.

Depressing. Soon nobody from the golden era will be left anymore. Time to play his "Little By Little" or others of his Savoys once more. R.I.P. Nappy Brown. You made some fine R&B - deedle you did!

Seems like we are more or less in agreement here. I admit I have a couple of Proper sets too (and there seem to be reissue projets where more effort and research of their own are invested so I gues nt all of their reissues fall into this category), but there are cases that make me shudder and which more or less echo the feelings stated above about current JSP practices. Is it really coincidence that there is a "Complete" Milton Brown box set released AFTER such a box set was issued in the USA (forgot the label but it was a real collector's label), or how about that "Accordeon Jazz" box set that had an OUTRAGEOUS number of duplications and overlaps with a set issued by Fremeaux Associés a good many years ago (but still in catalog)? Is that really a coincidence (with there being SO MANY other accordeon jazz recordings worthy of being reissued) or is it just a case of somebody going the easy reissue route by taking advantage of previous reissues? To me this duplicating policy looks very much like what happend with the Bird & Diz "1945 Town Hall Concert" release on the Uptown label, with 3 or 4 identical releases on other labels all of a sudden competing with the "original" on Uptown.

I'm going to think about what I buy, how it stacks up against copyright laws in its locale, the the locale where it's licensed... Of course, I'm going to be buying the clearly legit issue, when I can, and will pass on anything that offends my sensibilities. Does PROPER offend your sensibilities too, BeBop, or do the rock-bottom prices of their CD compilations make any guilty consciences go away at once? It may of course be debatable if complying with the European 50-year Public Domain rule (as it still stands now) is reason enough to okay ALL those reissue labels, but it keeps baffling me on THIS forum how many labels from Continental Europe are being bashed here every now and then yet everybody (especially from the US of A) seems to drool about Proper. Are they really THAT more legitimate than those others? Anybody ever notice how they re-reissue previous reissue packagings with duplications with (slightly) previous reissue projects that are bound to drive you up the wall?? And I have yet to see any conclusive proof that their staying just beyond the 50-year cutoff date in their reissues is just coincidence and proof of obtaining all authorizations, etc. and NOT the same policy that other reissue labels also follow, i.e. take advantage of those recordings falling into the public domain after 50 years.

So it seems like we DO agree after all. I'd never doubt that those studio musicians welcomed the opportunities of cutting loose at jazz sessions. So I guess we can agree on using the term "hack" in the sense of them doing their "hack" jobs in the studios and adding "art" sessions after finishing those day jobs.

Uh oh ... seems like I did not nearly put enough smilies in that sentence ... It WAS meant tongue-in-cheek. So NO, I am not denigrating anybody. Even as a simple onlooker on that part of music history, I do know that securing a steady studio job did mean much more regular and predictable working hours AND better pay than with many touring bands, even "name" bands. All quite understandable and all very well. It just is a pity that a lot of those men were lost to the creative aspects of jazz that way. But now that the subject has come up, let me mention one thing anyhow: Backing genuine touring acts in the studio such as e.g. in New Orleans R&B (with its supply of studio musicians - such as Earl Palmer - for many chart and touring acts) was one thing as those musicians were part of a living and vibrant musical style and therefore close to the pulse of the music being made by regular touring bands (so Earl Palmer, Lee Allen, etc. certainly aren't what I would have referred to as being "buried in the studios"), but how does this compare to musical jacks of all trades (read: musicians turning out literally any style at the push of a button) in Hollywood or other major studios quite a bit further removed from what you might call the center of R'n'R/R&B recording action of those times? There may have been a lot of relatively renowned studio musicians, maybe with former jazz credentials, who'd do e.g. orchestra arrangements churned out by the majors to cash in on covers of the originals done maybe on some indie label. Sure, no doubt those studio musicians were technically perfect in their craft, but really, did they at all times and in all settings have the immediacy, spontaneity and urgency that would have made them play their hearts out in the same credible manner as the creators of the originals (or those really deeply rooted in that particular musical style) did? To put it bluntly, that studio orchestra backing up e.g. the McGuire Sisters doing a whitewashed cover of some R&B original for mass pop consumption may have been technically perfect but was it THE REAL THING? Not in a zillion years - it was what even in English has become known as "ersatz" (a substitute of the real thing) and, hence, a hack job. And believe me - I AM familiar with quite a bit of that part of music history because - if only for historical curiosity's sake and on the lookout for collector's obscurities - I've listened to a lot of those borderline acts hovering on the edges of 50s R&B and R'n'R and usually backed up by studio orchestras no doubt often staffed with former jazzmen who had opted for the security of the studios. (Understandably do, but as far as their output in those "cover record" styles was concerned, it was just an imitation compared to those really ROOTED in the style of the originals - technical proficiency notwithstanding). Do you really think it is a coincidence that a tongue-in-cheek compilation of that kind of 50s R'n'R/R&B imitation music reissued some years ago was called "Rockin' is NOT our Business" ? It's a bit like some Hollywood studio orchestra normally associated with backing pop crooners all of a sudden recreating "The Greatest Hits of Duke Ellington". How would this stand up with jazz collectors, I ask you? If you'd really care to see music history from THAT side of the fence (obviously the opposite of those involved in the production of such music), may I suggest you check out "The Restless Generation" by Pete Frame for your reading - a highly interesting book on how rock music "changed the face of 1950s Britian" - and he DOES dwell on the problem of many a rock act's performance being literally ruined by studio musicians who played technically competent enough but often simply without the proper feel for the idiom, which in turn resulted in a lot of those 45s being just pale imitations of their "live" sound - but it was that "stage sound" that the teenage audience expected finding on the records of their pop heroes. And going by all aural evidence I have little reason to believe the situation was all different in the USA e.g. when it came to pop covers of R&B songs. BTW, most of the guys on that list AREN'T obscure to ME, but not because they may have been with Frank DeVol, Gordon Jenkins or any other 50s studio orchestra but because of their presence in those orchestras that actually made it into jazz discographies and jazz record collections. Just my 2c (on the other side of the coin), and with all due respect ...

Did Cecil Taylor play sax too? BTW, West Coast jazz ain't no rut, it's a matter of conviction for a discerning few! :D If any jazz style finds people being stuck in a rut, it's much more likely to be Hard Bop! :D (Or is there any other style that is the beginning and end to an equally large number of today's jazz collectors? ) Anyway, it's true that many of those sax men aren't THAT obscure, at least not if you are aware of the bands they played in BEFORE they opted for being buried in the studios as session hacks.

BTW, I have a hunch "Carles Falkes" might be CHARLIE FOWLKES (long-time Basie sideman).

Ha, clearly it is so that to many of you folks jazz apparently did not really start before the 50s , or else you would have been aware of a great many more. This list includes quite a few sidemen from the Big Band era of 1935-45 such as Babe Russin (not Bake!), Heinie Beau, Don Ladice, Chuck Gentry, Skeets Herfurt, Freddie Stulce (and these are NOT pseudonyms!), etc.. Floyd Turnham and Bumps Myers ought to ring a bell to anybody interested in 1945-60 R&B.

I agree, of course, and all I wanted to point at is that in a pinch it is better to have some needle-drop reissues that make this music accessible at all than to this music being totally inaccessible. And I still wonder if that media giant could have been bothered reissuing vintage material directly from the masters on a really comprehensive scale at all. I understand a box of early Armstrong recordings with astounding fidelity was reissued some time ago, but beyond that - what would they have done with other artists who'd appeal to an "in-crowd" of a scant few collectors only? Hence my regrets about all those unissued recordings too.

Great compilations (as are the others you list). The strange thing about those Blues Boxes issued in the 70s (bought them from my student's budget back and was glad I did) is that Robert Hertwig, the one who compiled those boxes back then and who now runs a small collector label and mail order service of his own (Bob's Music) has re-reissued a good sampling of that music on CD not too long ago. I wonder if he was just taking advantage of P.D. laws or if transfers of first-generation masters for this music exist elsewhere too. Otherwise, I fully agree that if all those Deccas and Brunswicks, etc. really went up in smoke it would be a huge, tragic loss. I'd rather not think about what actually was destroyed. Though I tend to be even more worried about post-1945 recordings than about pre-war recordings. Hasn't the pre-war blues reissue field been been covered pretty well by Document, RST and others, so at least there is SOME reissue available (even if the sound isn't always top notch), but a quick glance at post-1945 R&B discographies, for example, shows quite a lot of unissued and never-reissued material. So that's now possibly lost forever. OTOH, would we EVER have seen this unissued material? Would Universal have cared about comprehensive releases of unissued 30s/40s/50s minority interest material (that no P.D. label would have had access to) at all?

Yeah, but given the fact that re-re-reissue repackagings of P.D. material on obscure CD labels are a well-known occurence today, wouldn't it be a bit silly to assume that the target group of this "new marketing twist" is collectively plagued by Alzheimer's disease and unable to remember at least most of the titles of the tunes? Especially today when this kind of CD is not usually found in brick and mortar stores (where you are less likely to have access to your collection to check) but via the internet where you have all the time in the world to compare track listings, etc. with the records you already own? Or to put it quite simply: Do those scammers really think anybody hip enough to buy Frankie Newton recordings is THAT gullible?

Sounds treacherously like this is the material that's on that EMPEROR JONES LP issued on the Jazz Archives label in the 70s/80s. Some of it is lo-fi even for 30s studio recordings but it's great stuff anyway, BTW.

Inspiration for Monty Python's Lumberjack sketch? Gents, if you find this cover strange or unclassifiable you ain't seen many 50s/60s COUNTRY album covers. Covers portraying country-styled singers in the (perceived/imaginary) setting of the topics of their songs were a dime a dozen for some time back then. And this one below ain't that strange either. It DOES relate directly to the music contained in the grooves, after all. What I do find strange are those Music for Dreaming and Music for Gracouos Living covers above. That entire fad of those "Music to .... by" of the 50s would warrant a thread of its own. Wonder what a MUSIC TO LISTEN TO MUSIC BY cover would have looked like? Or how about "Music to mow your lawn by"??

There is some early Eraldo Volontè stuff on the JAZZ IN ITALY IN THE 40s CD issued by the Riviera Jazz label. http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=415 I doubt that style-wise this is what you are looking for but it is an interesting CD that - given the early post-war limitations in Italy - shows they were capable of astonishing and original things there.

I like that recognition that something that 'doesn't work' might just not work because we're not used to hearing it. Again, relevant to the criticism of fusion musics in many forms. Yes and no. Sometimes it IS a matter of "not being used to it", sometimes it is a simple matter of taste, but sometimes it also appears to be a case of a musical dead end. Taking the example of woodwinds used in jazz, by coincidence the other day I listened to a few Chick Webb recordings featuring Wayman Carver on flute. By the sheer "oddity" aspect this must have been even stranger than woodwind recordings in 50s jazz but to my ears it makes perfect sense and fits in perfectly well even in that idiom. Same with 50s jazz: I am really not a jazz flute or woodwind fan but even on first listening I immediately took a liking to the early Herbie Mann recordings on Savoy whereas I never really got into all that flute'n'oboe etc. stuff by West Coast jazzmen such as Giuffre, Shank and Cooper, especially Bud Shank whose woodwind noodling and doodling I often find rather bloodless. And this despite the fact that I consider myself a HUGE West Coast jazz fan. How come, I wonder? Normally the more laid-back, cooler WCJ style ought to lend itself particularly well to woodwinds (at least more so than "bebop on flute") and yet ... somehow it just doesn't "fuse" with the idiom IMHO. Maybe the detractors of WCJ were right in that those woodwinds tended to accentuate the drawbacks of WCJ?? (I.e. a certain "laid-backness" just for the sake of being laid back - which I've never felt to exist to the extent the detractors of WCJ used to claim back then, but there just might be a grain of truth in it if woodwinds come too much to the fore?)

Too bad the Hawk and Red Allen never crossed paths in the studio (AFAIK) in the early to mid-40s when the Hawk was immensely productive in various small group settings and the Allen-Higginbotham group was hot too. No doubt they met at after-hours jam sessions. Being able to hear THOSE jams today would be a major GAS!

As long as there were quite a few male teens who had a crush on somebody as homely and unhip as the McGuire Sisters (and there MUST have been) there's nothing to be ashamed of. :D BTW, Dorothy Collins' vocal attempts at coming to grips with rock'n'roll are fun indeed (e.g. "My Boy Flat Top"). (Don't know if they were recorded with Raymond Scott's orchestra providing the backing, though)

I don't quite know where Kenton fits into the "Crossover" or "Third Stream" bag (except that there might be parallels between the "pompousness" of some classical and some of Kenton's music) but the key fault IMHO with people in dissing Kenton's output (whether they were "brainwashed" into this attitude or not ) is that they lump all of Kenton's music even of that era into one bag. Some of it WAS pompous, and sometimes the usual clichés are even increased by Kenton's own marketing. The other day I picked up the "Kenton Era" 4-LP set of 1956 (that was widely marketed and acclaimed at the time) to add to the not too few Kenton LP's I already have, and listening to those discs, the rhythm section work on a fair number of those tracks makes it quite clear why Shelly Manne "felt like chopping wood" when working with the Kenton band. But as the Kenton orchestra went through a lot of different "phases" from the 40s to the early 60s alone there was quite a bit of variety that ought to have "something for (almost) everybody" if you take the time to listen closer. That aside, I for one am glad that the attempted marriage of classical music and jazz into what was tagged the "Third Stream" did not evolve any further than it did. IMHO it would have taken too much of the lifeblood out of jazz, and the attempts at using "Third Stream" to "elevate" jazz to "respectability" (over here, anyway) were both ill-fated and totally off the mark if you really cared about jazz. Because this approach to using "Third Stream" could only have come from somebody who did just not do what Gioia did: appreciate jazz on its OWN terms.