Big Beat Steve

Comedy albums subsidising jazz albums ... Makes you wonder to what extent Moms Mabley and Pigmeat Markham subsidised the jazz/blues output of the Chess label in the 60s?

Being German, and certainly NOT anti-semitic in any way, I agree. Even for us non-Jewish "onlookers", Salcia Landmann's collections of Yiddish jokes made BY the jews about themselves are instructive lecture beyond the purely humoristic aspect and help to provide better understanding. Up to a point, I can understand those who feel offended by this release but am intrigued enough from a historical point to maybe try to get it trough Amazon too - might make a nice complement to the "Good For What Ails You" minstrelsy compilation that should be arriving here shortly. At any rate, music such as this (from the 10s and 20s) must be seen in the context of the times and judged accordingly. Just cutting out and "deleting" any past history that will not suit the currently dominating tastes und trends at any point in time amounts to falsifying history as a whole, making it impossible to learn from history (wherever needed). Where would you start? Where would you end?

The albums that sparked this thread, 'Soul Call' and 'The Tender Gender' were recorded in '64 and '66 respectively, and have a different feel to them than his 50's work. That's what caught me by surprise when I heard them. I find Burrell's 50's and ealry 60's work to be solid and dependable (many of the sessions were very "by the book", though admittedly it's a great book), but not overly exciting. I find much of his work since the late 70's to be pretty boring, though some of it holds up very well. But for me, he hit a peak in the mid 60's and produced his most rewarding sessions as a leader, both conceptually and playing-wise. Much of it stretched into areas his earlier and later playing never dared to (at least to my ears). This thread has become highly inspiring (in a number of ways ... ) by now. I can only go by what I have of KB's leader albums but this thread made me pull them out again last evening. So, Felser, both "Kenny Burrell No. 2" on Blue Note and "Kenny Burrell" on Prestige are different from what he did in the 60s? Anyway ... I find them are enjoyable enough, including KB's input; but now I realize why I never had much urge to pull them out when I was in a "jazz guitarist groove". Somehow good ol' KB gets drowned out by the horn men even on his leader dates (mentioned before here; has he always had a habit of pulling back that far? I mean, he is no Freddie Green ). And I do feel quite a few of his licks sound as if I heard them elsewhere before (is this what somebody else here referred to as "not the most imaginative", I wonder?), and his solo feature on the BN album somehow struck me as a Johnny Smith soundalike on first listening. Anyway, solid, enjoyable albums but the guitar sparks do not fly like they do on other guitar men albums. But maybe they weren't meant to in the first place and I just haven't adjusted to that yet? (Listening to Farlow, Kessel, Raney et al. tunes your ears differently) However, Columbia could have done a LOT worse than release the 1961/62 stuff back in the 60s that was shelved until it came out on the "Bluesin Around" album much later. Though quite a few of the licks sound "standard fare" again, I find this one yet more enjoyable, even in the way KB interacts with the other featured players there. Signs of times to come??

Just great!!

Ha, I've got a Dual 1210 that is my spare turntable (mainly for the presence of 78 speed). I think (without being sure) that the stylus system (the one that flips over for either 78 rpm or microgroove and therefore has a needle on both sides) is not very different from the 1215 (but you would have to ask 70s HiFi buffs to make sure). Anyway, the spare needle I bought for this some time ago had the following ref. No.: SS 253 (to fit Dual 52 STM/M). Manufacturer TONACORD (Germany) Maybe this helps.

Weren't they on their own (?) label BIZARRE that was distributed through Verve?

See, that's what differences in taste are all about. I consider myself a bit of a jazz guitar nut, but talking about 50s/60s jazz guitarists, I never felt much urge to revisit the (pre-60s) Kenny Burrell leader LP's that I have. I can't really put my finger on it but reading what Chauncey had to say here somehow struck me just a wee bit as if the gist of what (s)he said might be the reason why his records somehow (literally) did not strike a chord with me anywhere near the way Tal Farlow (THE MAN!!), Barney Kessel, Jimmy Raney, Billy Bauer, early Wes Montgomery (and even Hank Garland, Jimmy Wyble, Joe Puma and obscurity Dempsey Wright - thank you, Fresh Sound) do. And Chuck Wayne too! So this thread has made me curious enough to pull out KB's records again and of course I will listen to them under the impact of this debate. But is that a bad thing? I reserve the right of having an opinion of my own anyway - one way or another!

I suppose you are talking about Laura NYRO, right? Those Neroes who were around at roughly that time (Peter etc.) were somebody else...

It may come as a surprise to you but in ultimately relatively non-essential areas of life such as jazz recordings, there is no such thing as "accepted wisdom". In the end it all boils down to a matter of personal taste and to one's personal points of reference in approaching the subject (i.e. artist and his work) so any difference in taste (the foundation of anybody's listening experience) will automatically result in dissent in the appraisal of ANY music. Wherever taste comes in (and it does here), there is no objective, unalterable, eternal truth. Majority and minority opinions - yes, but beyond that? I doubt it. BTW, no - I do NOT have an opinion on KB's 60s recordings.

Honestly, MG; I don't quite get your initial post. What is that "on the other hand" list supposed to mean? Are there reservations about these artists compared to the first (longer) list? And what's that about not Verve taking chances or giving (relatively) unknowns a try? What about BERT DAHLANDER's "SKAL" LP (Nils-Bertil Dahlander, in fact, or "Bert Dale" for the linguistically lesser talented Yanks - BTW, anybody know of any reissue sources for this?), or what about that TONI HARPER LP (been a long time since she'd been a child singing star) or how about that obscurity by REX MIDDLETON'S Hi-Fi's (nice LP, BTW)? (And there were many more jazz-tinged vocal albums on Verve who did not make it to everlasting fame - probably about as many as on Bethlehem) Or how about LYLE RITZ on ukulele? And you even got SPIKE JONES on Verve. And who TF was that ERNIE HECKSCHER orchestra? So much for Verve not strainyg beyond the names of the "greats". Surely many of those recordings reflected those times but I doubt all of them were safe bets on becoming huge sellers (even by jazz/"jazzy" standards). In fact, overall I find Verve had a fairly homogeneous body of work. If Verve was a stronghold of jazzmen from the "Mainstream" field that gave them exposure then this is no mean achievement and not bad as a counterweight to all those up and coming all-out modernistic labels. But the first Verve artist that comes to MY mind when I pull out a Verve record remains TAL FARLOW.

MG, I do think the main reason for many poor-sounding new 78s from the 40s was the use of recycled shellac. And I don't think this recycling was limited to characters like the Rene brothers; it seems to have been a very widespread practice in WWII USA. There are quite a few stories from collectors who'd been around in those days - stories that make you moan today, just imagining what rare prewar 78s were molten down that way in those wartime shellac scrap drives. BTW, this practice also was commonplace elsewhere. In war-time Germany you had to turn in two old records just to be able to BUY one new one.

A couple of years ago I bought a collection of some 700 78s of jazz, R&B and U.S. pop (mostly 40s, many small indie labels). A lot of the records are NM and when I played them on my relatively recent Dual turntable (which plays 78s with a special stylus but is certainly no high-end item) I was surprised to hear how full, warm and clear many of those records sound. Certainly not lo-fi or crackling or murky at all, and I really cannot see why any serious collector would automatically shy away from the music of that era on the grounds that they "all sound so hissy". Of course I've heard a lot noisier CD reissues of music from the 78 rpm era (including lots that claimed to have been "remastered"), and in all fairness it also has to be said that it also not only depends on the condition of the 78 the reissuers have access to but also on the pressing quality. There were lots of labels from the WWII and post-WWII era that sounded poor and produced a constant hiss even when brand new. But this need not be always so. You CAN get excellent fidelity from 78s. I'd agree that modern digital wizardry can work wonders with recordings from the 20s (especially from the "acoustic" era) but to what extent this faithfully reproduces the music and really makes formerly inaudible parts audible without actually ALTERING the music is for others to judge. Sometimes (even with later, i.e. 40s/50s 78s) I have a feeling many remastered 78s sound just too "clean" and "stripped" on CD. Somehow the "warmth" is missing.

It all depends, Niko. What do you consider "growing up with"? I can't tell you how hard it was to AVOID that music back then. (You know you can't (and shouldn't, really) run away from your classmates and buddies and dig a foxhole to crawl into. ) The exposure to the music definitely was there. First it was Slade, Gary Glitter, T. Rex etc. all over the place, soon to be followed by TYA, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Deep Purple, those Southern Rock bands, all that "Deutschrock" stuff, etc. etc. AND YET I didn't dig it at all, except for some bluesy TYA stuff (see above). But formative it was in more ways than one. If only to show me clearly how those "far-out" changes and endless solos then all the rage in the rock music of the day had been around in jazz a good 20 years earlier (I remember one occasion, in particular, when I went on a record buying spree with a buddy, he bought his hard rock, I bought an early Sonny Rollins LP and when we played the records to each other afterwards he had to admit those cats had something going back in those 50s that many rockers were only just exploring in the 70s. ;. Musicologically an invalid comparison for sure, but formative it was!)

If this really was so then I ought to have dug (and still dig) hard rock and/or disco of the 70s (the pop music of my muscially formative years that you just could NOT avoid) in a BIG way. Actually I never did - reminiscences of the days of youth that are sentimentalized by 70s hard rock bands still are very few and far between, and my attitude towards this music has only softened and become more receptive in VERY isolated cases, and I still HATE the disco and funk of those times. Instead, it had always been 50s rock'n'roll/rockabilly, jazz (swing and modern), blues and R&B for me from Day One, but I've since broadened quite a bit from THOSE starting points (which weren't the musical mainstream then either and still aren't now). But the then-current 70s rock/pop music that actually was around me all the time back then (and of which I remember quite a bit though I virtually never bought any of those records) still isn't something I'd prefer listening to (and I certainly wouldn't want to go out and buy those records now just to recapture my youth). In fact I found some of the more recent Brit-Pop bands (that style-wise reach back to 60s British bands) more enjoyable on an occasional (!) listening basis than the 70s rock bands I was supposed to grow up with. Now where did I faill?? :D More and more music is shoved down the throats of (actual and would-be) musical consumers each and every day - through the multiplication of media exposure but also through more and more business-minded characters trying to grab a share of the market and turn a buck QUICK, with more and more of them steering the same, predictable formulaic route that promises a hit (which makes it harder for individualism to GROW naturally and to make itself heard).

'50's rock/Rockabilly...yet another generational divide. 7/4, would it comfort you if I told you I wasn't even born in the 50s yet? :D (But in a way you are right about the "generational divide")

Please stop with the Clapton. Please. Clapton ain't bad. BUT - The "Rock" stopped rolling in 1960 or so (after Eddie Cochran's death and after the first bunch of artificially fabricated "beach party teen idols" drowned out the ROCKERS and before the British BEAT came along. :D What you Americans (and everybody else) have had ever since is just plan ROCK but NOT rock'n'ROLL (with the exception of the neo-rock'n'roll/rockabilly subculture(s) within rock that came along every now and then and will continue to flourish).

Thanks, Hans, honored to appear on your blog - on the one hand ... But on the other, I did not intend to diss the late Dieter Zimmerle in a big way outside this forum; sadly it remains that even the European jazz world of the 50s was stuck in a widespread incomprehension of almost any form of jazz that was presented in a truly extrovert manner to be enjoyed by the public in a very basic, outward, no-fuss way without any high-brow artistic pretenses. And this was particularly evident in Germany at that time. (Lack of real awareness of what had been happening during the Swing era - when most Germans were cut off from developments during the Nazi era - and where bands like Hampton's came from certainly played a role in this). But seeing how the Dutch press and the authorities reacted, we weren't the only country thus affected, it seems. The funny thing is that if you look at all this it actually is oddball characters of jazz journalism such as Hugues Panassié (whose view of the jazz world was VERY skewed in a lot of other ways) who grasped this elementary appeal of swing far better than many of his colleagues who in other respects had a much more balanced view of the development and variety of jazz.

Thanks for those details, I guess I'll give them a shot with my next round of online orders. They have very good prices on items from the Jazz Oracle label. With all items listed as being in print on the Jazz Oracle website itself, there should not be an "OOP problem".

Good to hear Caiman does try to honor its orders from Europe in a big way. My reason for asking was this: If (as it is) all too many seem to be complaining that Caiman will list items at an attractive giveaway price but will not go out of their way to actually sell them at that price if it means they have to track down an item that is not available literally everywhere, then could it be that they will also list lots of items but might not possibly make every effort to ship them overseas if the flat shipping rate as per Amazon rules might not cover shipping expenses fully? A bad rep goes a long way, you know ... And of course 3 euros will get you more dollars these days but still it isn't that much, and overseas USPS shipping rates have gone up considerably in recent months again so the exchange advantage is offset somewhat. However, if you are saying there is no need to worry about buying from Caiman overseas, then all the better ...

Thanks for your impressions. Hope this also applies to fairly obscure collector labels (where the CD is listed on that label's website). As for Amazon.de buyers outside Germany they might of course be better off with buying from their own Amazon branch (if one exists for their countries, e.g. Amazon.fr).

A question to European (especiall Continental European) forum members who use Caiman through Amazon: Amazon Seller rules say a fixed shipping charge of 3 euros is charged per each CD. Now this could not nearly cover shipping costs from the USA to Europe (even if you combine several CD's). How are your experiences with order fulfillment under these circumstances when you try to buy from U.S. Amazon sellers (Camian, Moviemars or whoever...)? Given the often fairly low prices of Caiman etc., how likely is it that they will actually fulfill the orders to Continental European customers anyway?

I'd venture a guess that some around here will suggest you might want to start a list of overlooked C&W artists (including the stylistic offshoots of country music;)) there if you go on with artists like this.

On the contrary, he is NOT overlooked, and therefore not here. OK, point taken - though apparently the question of "overlooked or not" really is a matter of debate (and of personal tastes). Paul's list is an interesting one but if I stick with your reasoning I'd say that GUITAR SLIM (including his Atlantic recordings), J.B. LENOIR's Parrot sessions (true classics!) and TARHEEL SLIM are not exactly overlooked either if you approach blues from the R&B end of the spectrum. Of course, if you are mainly into folk blues/field recordings or contemporary modern blues then it's a different matter altogether but there you are with personal tastes ... ;)

Same here. I have about 15 of them (though sometimes in different packaging, but essentially same contents), mostly the "earlier" recordings from your list, but as Tommy said - you could go on and on and always come with yet more items worth listening to according to YOUR tastes.

Nice list(s), but - WHAT? No mention of Hound Dog Taylor anywhere?? Is he THAT overlooked?