Big Beat Steve

My judgement with regard to the quality of Waller's sidemen was primarily focused on Herman Autrey and Gene Sedric. I think nobody would deny that these two were not on par with the top soloists of the time on their respective instruments; think of Bill Coleman (who actually recorded with Fats), Henry 'Red' Allen, Rex Stewart, Jonah Jones, Roy Eldridge, Cootie Williams or Chu Berry, Ben Webster, Coleman Hawkins. Insofar Autrey and Sedric were IMHO not first rate. What I did concede is, that they served their purpose very well. I also totally agree with you on your opinion about Al Casey; he was indeed an outstanding guitarist (if you read my first post carefully you see that I did not call him second rate). "Second rate" on that level is already a pretty high level by 30s/early 40s swing standards. I really wouldn't rate Gene Sedric that low anyway. Even if he wasn't "first rate" in the sense of the TOPMOST jazzmen on their instrument (andit might be argued anyway if Jonah Jones and Bill Coleman really were consistently on a level with the other top trumpeters you mentioned ), "second rate" is really too derogatory a term. If your criteria were applied uniformly to musicians of that time the small-band swing output by musicians such as Pete Brown, Skeets Tolbert or the Savoy Sultans et al. (not to mention Boots & His Buddies) would not have had any right to exist. As has been pointed out by others - and this cannot be stressed too highly - it is really the group as an entity that is the key to the quality of the music. The total equaled much more than the sum of the individuals. They did serve their purpose of providing unpretentious, immensely swinging, entertaining yet timeless jazz music. Maybe you ought to look at Fats Waller's Rhythm as a band that slightly predated bands like Louis Jordan's Tympany Five - a band that IMHO falls into the same category, and the parallels (including the sideman credentials) are obvious in many respects. Another point to consider: The music they recorded was supposed to be consumed two pieces at a time, i.e. both sides of a 78 rpm disc, and not in one go by listening to complete box sets of the entire recorded opus non-stop. When listened to more in a piecemeal fashion they might come across quite differently. Overexposure can blur the impact too, you know (unless you are a diehard fan). Guess it's time to pull out one of my RCA Memorial box sets tonight again ...

So I suppose you already included that Dec. 1954 session with Miles Davis where they had that legendary fallout, with Miles telling Monk to "lay it out" during Miles' solos?

Too bad R&B reissues like this almost always end up with a fair share of duplication. Will have to check out my Greer vinyl etc. to see what's actually going to be new.

JAZZ EN BARCELONA 1920-65 (Fresh Sound) Great listening each time, showing a largely unknown facet of the history of jazz. Will have to get the book by the same title one of these days ...

This whole thing about getting more kicks out of hunting and tracking down a rare or desirable object for your collection than of actually owning it, isn't this true for ANY sort of collection? I've had the same feelings described by all of you above quite often during my vinyl and CD buying too but I've also experienced them in exactly the same manner with my other collecting hobbies. And others told me the same thing about their hobbies. Of course it is frustrating if all your hunting comes to nothing even after years of searching but as long as you stand a fair chance of eventually finding what you are looking for, hunting and searching aare at least half of the fun (probably more), even if it only means checking out eBay ever so often nowadays.

I may still have the 1989 year of the German JAZZ PODIUM mag. These are stowed away in a box of fleamarket items but I will check things out tonight and see if I can find mention of his tour, including maybe his backing musicians.

Thanks for the info, but uh oh ... there we go again .... endless series of duplicates ... (I have ALL of Hamp's Deccas - there were two excellent LP series on both German and French MCA years ago, and I don't believe in changing music just for the format, especially if it would mean dumping my good old vinyl ). No separate V-Disc Hampton collections anywhere, I guess, then? Not even something that may be OOP but can still be traced somewhere somehow? Or would I have to look for a cheapo box set that has it all but would leave me far less broke than a Chronological Classic full-price series?

Sorry, somehow I had gotten the impression that this was a question of a definitive ranking - not specifically with you in the first place, though, but I have come across commentaries every now and then that sound like there ought to reman a strict dividing line between 40s/50s jazz and R&B. In this particular case, I agree that the 117th version of Hey Ba Ba Rebop or Hamp's Boogie Woogie etc. can get a bit tiresome but I feel both Hamp's RCA and Decca (and subsequent) recordings can be enjoyed alike on their very own terms, I think. BTW, for those in the know: What would be the most accessible comprehensive reissue of Hamp's 40s V-Discs?

On the R&B side, if anyone is interested in Louis Jordan, Bear Family did a fine job of reissuing all of his Decca recordings. If you mention Louis Jordan in connection with R&B, this is just the uppermost tip of the iceberg. Just check out the reissues on the Blue Moon and Classics Blues & Rhythm CD series and you'll be FLOORED with what's available (and there's a lot more beyond that). BTW, re- Hampton and R&B, what's wrong with linking Hamp with R&B? 40s and early to mid-50s black jazz and R&B go VERY well together anyhow, no need to sneer at R&B at all. There even was lots of crossover between Bebop and R&B (cf. Leo Parker to name just one single name). And Hamp had no match in bringing musicianship AND showmanship AND sheer excitement together into an explosive mixture. I think the times when his 50s European tours were lambasted by jazz purists as being too "rock'n'roll" (Ooooooh! What feeelth! ) are over once and for all. However, to get the whole picture you'd not only need his Decca sides of that period but also certain airshots, transcriptions and V-Discs (e.g. Screamin' Boogie).

If you like it as pop without any jazz pretenses that's fine (after all there even are jazz fans who like what is termed "exotica" in certain musical subcultures ) but AFAIC as there have been so many great post-1945 jazz big bands out there those pop orchestras just don't do it for me and are a letdown and/or an outright drag each time, especially if string sections are involved. Anyway, no two tastes are alike ...

Too bad, then, these were buried in that orchestrated Paul Weston et al. crap. Sorry, and I realize might get stoned for saying this on big band forums but it still baffles me how diehard jazz fans (that I assume to be around here) can get so excited about this dreary, unswinging pop orchestra fare. Having listened to quite a few of those Mercer 78s in recent times (as mentioned elsewhere, they were included in a batch bought from an estate), I find that even by the standards of the somewhat more commercial SWING (as opposed to sweet) big bands this music is just nowhere swing and jazz-wise. You really have to make a LOT of concessions style-wise to file them under "jazzy" or "jazzed-up" music. Hey, there even are Jan Garber records out there that can outswing this Mercer/Weston stuff!

Jazz Kat, may I respectfully suggest this thread for further reading? http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=22983

Sounds promising indeed. Ordered my copy today and will keep my Dream Band records handy when the mailman delivers the goods!

Indeed! I like both Hampton periods - the Victor sessions for their all-star virtuosity, and the Decca recordings for sheer exuberance, vitality and powerhouse energy. Though admittedly they touch different parts of your musical innards , to me both swing to the very same extent, both in their very own way. BTW - J.A.W., check out the jazz photo book by Ed van der Elsken published by Nieswand a couple of years ago (I think the original this book is based on is rare as hens' teeth). It has lots of pictures from Hamp's mid-50s tour in the Netherlands. Hamp's powerhouse music literally jumps out of the pictures!

Yeah, I'm so old I bought it new. Liners by Stanley Dance. I wonder if he held the record for the most liner notes written by one critic? They're good liners, but I'd bet the Mosaic will be at least as good, possibly better. It would be cool to reprint them, but that's not Mosaic's style. Oops ... am I THAT old too? Bought my two 3-LP sets on French RCA new too, and still like them immensely. Agree about everything else said about this set here and cannot see why this set should NOT be snapped up REAL FAST if it became available at the giveaway price like Clem's copy. Where's all you discerning collectors? Given up collecting vinyl for good?

J.A.W., strictly speaking you are right, though these periods were consecutive rather than different, but I take it from tranemonk's question that some associate even older Lionel Hampton recordings with his big band (hence, his Decca band). So a glance at the original label (as stated in some reissue listing, for example) might help for quick reference. But that's a minor point anyway ...

Are you sure there isn't some ethnic minority out there who'd resent being referred to as "goyim"?

To take things yet one step further re- Hamp's output during that period: Just refer to the original release label: Victor = small-group recordings (mostly studio pickup groups) Decca = working big band (mostly; a few were combo recordings)

Indeed one more reason to add a sentence or two in the liner notes to provide some background info on this but certainly no reason to blacklist it forever.

Could anybody please check and clarify once and for all if Clarence Williams actually wrote the ENTIRE lyrics (as shown above) or only part of it and some of it was a later add-on by another (white?) author? BTW. re- Ghost of Miles et al: Taking Charlie Chan movies off the screens for the reasons indicated above is one of those things where you wonder where this is ever going to end. What's the next step going ot be, then? The 70s (80s?) Charlie Chan remake feat. Peter Ustinov being considered off-limits too for the very same reasons? Not that I would insist on seeing them that often (I remember seeing the late 30s Charlie Chan movies a couple of years ago and found the first ones mildly amusing and innocent fare of the day but the sequels were sort of cheap cash-ins on the same basic formula) but you can really carry things too far. So what's gonna happen next? Take the "Thin Man" movies off the screen too because the only black actor(s) are found in servants' roles? Or is "Hellzapoppin" about to be blacklisted too because that FANTASTIC scene showing Slim & Slam, Zutty Singleton, Rex Steward (I think), etc. plus the entire Whitey's Lindy Hoppers troupe doing their sensational dance act are shown in servants' dresses and therefore highly stereotyped in a subservient role?? Sorry, but I find this kind of p.c. really silly and hope to God this never spreads to Europe to THAT extent. Real equality is obtained elsewhere but not through such symbolic acts dictated by overzealous p.c. This is not to condone anything that went wrong in the past at all but how can you learn the lessons of the past if you refuse to be confronted with it and if you refuse to see things within the context of their times?

@king ubu: I have the Savoy twofer LP (which I guess includes the same material) - early to mid-50s trio setting with Vinnie Burke on bass and (I think) Joe Morello on drums (will have to look it up tonight at home). As for recommending it, I bought most of my Savoy reissue double LP's when they came out or at Mole Jazz in London, i.e. at more or less standard prices, but never ever saw this one (or hardly any other reissues by Marian McPartland's early recordings) so I grabbed it when I saw it on the list from a shop in the States and never regretted the extra shipping expense. Swinging trio jazz that is always fascinating to listen to and very far from those cocktail piano trio recordings of that time that pretended to be jazz but were in fact easy listening. Lovers of Cecil Taylor piano jazz will find it fairly conventional but if you like Jutta Hipp's "At the Hickory House" LP's on Blue Note you will like this one too.

You are right that a 2-sentence explanation or commentary (note that I did not say "disclaimer") could not have done any harm, but the point about comparing Britney with Johnny Mercer is not about popularity but about the fact that what is in those lyrics unfortunately reflects/mirrors the state of play of those times. And if it actually was Clarence Williams wrote the lyrics in the first place, where's the problem? Would it be insulting only if a white vocalist sings these lyrics but would it be OK for a black recording artist to have sung them? Or would it be a strict No-No from today's point of view too because any black who would have sung that would be accused of minstrelsy, caricaturing members of his own race? If you were to whitewash this for reasons of P.C. in a context like this you'd get very close to censorship and brainwashing on a very large scale. Remember, there'd always be another step that you could take in order to take things yet further for the very same reasons. Have a look at the recorded R&B output concurrent with Johnny Mercer's recordings. What do you find there? A huge amount of lyrics that have been considered lewd, obscene, lascivous, obnoxious, filthy, derogatory, etc. by the white establishment of the time, not to mention texts that might well be considered discrimatory towards women, for example (see my example given above). Or how about that blues song line "I'm gonna kill that woman": Would that be considered an attempt at promoting violence? Where would this end? Would it stop at all? Wouldn't this amount to falsifying history on a large scale? Sorry for rambling on for so long, but all those song lyrics ought to be seen in the context of their times, and if this were done, that would settle the entire debate, I think.

Nothing (well, nothing that I really am familiar with) beats the BEAR FAMILY box sets. Can't find anything wrong with the packaging, and the liner note "booklets" that are more like an LP-sized coffee table book really are something else that sets them apart from the crowd.

May I throw in a word or two as a NON-American? I haven't heard that particular song but wonder if there are any references in the lyrics that make it 100% clear that the singer is referring to "colored" people (to remain in the language of the day) and not to ugly people at large? Even if Clarence Williams wrote the original (or was this really a turnaround by Brunis?) it might not be obvious, and white people have and had ugly women too, you know ... That said, tranemonk and everbody else who feels offended, would you advocate banning ANY vocal version of "Darktown Strutters' Ball" from any reissue program on the same grounds? (And there are others like it - what was the name of the song again that contained some reference to "Darkies" and was even recorded by Louis Armstrong?) Or to remain with the not so nice to look at women, what would be your feelings about that "Ugly Woman" recorded by the Ike Turner band (with Billy Emerson or Johnny O'Neal on vocals - haven't got the record right here now to check it out) for Sam Philips' Recording Service at the very beginning of what became Sun Records? The lyrics are VERY outspoken and not really flattering. And this is only one such song of times gone by. (Anybody feel offended by "Onion Breath Baby"?) Or how about "topical songs" that are clearly VERY dated? Would it be mandatory to ban that "We're gonna have to slap that dirty Jap" from any reissue of the collected works of Lucky Millinder? In short, times have changed, and music is a sign of its times too and has a right to be documented as such. Mature listeners should be able to place it in its context. That said, and like I said on that Mercer Mosaic thread (my comment was among those that disappeared when the forum went bust some time ago), I dont really see what Mosaic (a jazz reissue label AFAIK) would find in dedicating an entire reissue set to Johnny Mercer. 2 years ago I purchased a lot of 78s from an estate and it included some 2 dozen Johnny Mercer Capitols (some with and some without the Pied Pipers and most of them using Paul Weston as the backing band). Some of the songs may be fairly light-hearted and therefore more bearable than an lot of the crooning of the day but by jazz/swing standards they are just nowhere. In short, IMO there is more rewarding material out there that BEGS to be reissued for the FIRST time. Just my 2c

Seems like I did well to snap up those two original EmArcy Jazzpickers albums at quite a moderate price on eBay a couple of years ago. Listening to them from time to time (along with the third Harry Babasin album on Mode), I enjoy them very much each time. Good luck with your projects, and I'd love to see any unreleased material from the Nocturne vaults (beyond of what's on that Nocturne box set on Fresh Sounds) too.