Big Beat Steve

Like I said, MG - tameness is relative. The very early Cliff Richard or Tommy Steele certainly is less tame than later Cliff. But hey, that happened Stateside, too. Just compare Johnny Burnette's Trio recordings on Coral with his later Liberty fare. Or how about decidely non-rocking acts such as those McGuire sisters trying to hop on the bandwagon by covering R&B/R'n'R music in a VERY watered-down way to make it "acceptable" to the elders of the teens? Remember Downbeat used the term "wholesome" to describe the McGuire Sisters which just about says it all - how can you be "wholesome" to the establishment and credibly doing a music that by necessity is raw and rough-edged? So while I agree with you, I would not say those earlier European (and British) R'n'R acts were all tame. Diluted or watered down is the word, I guess. Anyway, I also agree about Lord Rockinghams XI. A tight instrumental band despite the novelty aspect ("There Is A Loose Moose Aboot This Hoose" ) Also don't overlook the early 45s by SOUNDS INC. Or how about some of what the Basil Kirchin band recorded? As for Red Price, one single track of his has ("Theme Form Danger man") been reissued on "20 Classic Instrumental Rarities" on See For Miles LP SEE 37. And as an example of what could have happened if the A&R men had dared to release the records, listen to Jesse Hector's Rock'n'Roll Trio. His 1961 demos recorded for Pye remained unissued and were not released until the 90s (on NO HIT Records, a fitting name ) but are quite revealing of what could have been or of what probably happened in the clubs at the time (before Liverpool Beat or London R&B sprung up) but never was recorded for posterity.

Clem, as for "tame": Of course you need to take the conditions into account that these singers/bands operated within. You need to consider the predominating trends in pop music in the respective countries at that time to see what listeners, producers, radio programmers etc. considered "the music people wanted", Europe (incuding the UK) didn't exactly embrace true (early, pre-Teen Idol), undiluted r'n'r or even R&B, and exposure (that may have served as inspiration to the musicians) through discs and (AFN) radio was spotty, i.e. there was quite a bit of U.S. music these bands could not have been aware of that we take for granted today with all the comprehensive reissues we have been enjoying during the past 30 years or so. A bit like the situation of jazz music outside the U.S. in early post-war Europe. That said, quite a bit of early r'n'r (r'n'r being defined by European, i.e. TRUE standards and therefore spanning the 1954 to 1963 era and nothing beyond, so "early" r'n'r means r'n'r recorded in the 50s up to 1957-58) that was made in Europe was not all that tame, certainly not compared to the overall European pop music market and not as tame as a lot of early attempts recorded by U.S. pop market powers in order to catch the tail end of the teen market either (if you are so aware of the Bear Family program, check out their "Rockin' Is Not Our Business" compilations and you know what I mean). Not to mention how a lot of U.S. mainstream country singers really fumbled at trying to get a r'n'r/rockabilly beat going. Evidently they just not dared to really "cut loose". Contrived, lame and tame by r'n'r standards. So for those who want to look for early British r'n'r before it got tamed, check the suggestions mentioned above and compare for yourself. But when listening to it, do consider the musical environments these were recorded into. A lot of uptempo European r'n'r (even if it was actually only moderately uptempo) sounded like all hell broke loose compared to more conventional pop music. Not unlike Bebop music sounded to those raised on Glenn Miller. BTW, Lonnie Donegan and all those skiffle bands are a category of their own. 'Nuff sed on this now.

Reading the very interesting and entertaining (though non-jazz ) thread, I am beginning to realize the extent to which one's own perception of the music is skewed both by the much more easily accessible reissues of the past 30 years AND by national specificities. I am far too young to have consciously experienced British beat music when it was big but listening to the music (as an extension to r'n'r and R&B) you will find a lot of "missing links" between 50s r'n'r of the pre-Teen Idol era and the typical "Beatles" sound (after they had honed some of their rough edges). Yet it is true that a lot of these missing links that may have been evident to British and Continental listeners at the time (because the singles WERE issued and bought) may have escaped the Americans (who did not become aware of the early development of British beat) so the bands sounded much more different than they did to European ears. MG, you are correct about the clubs in Hamburg being an overseas starting place for many British groups (preferably from 'oop narf' , only to a somewhat lesser extent from London) in the early 60s. In fact the working schedule there was fairly tough and they essentially played to an audience that wanted r'n'r (even beyond the point when the Beatles made it big). Stage photos bear witnees to this; even the early Beatles' usual stage outfit was leather jackets, leather pants and boots, and they certainly would not have looked out of style playing to an audience at the Ace Cafe. The Beatles appeared there numerous times, including at the legendary Star Club, but their last appearance there was in late 1962 (just after "Love Me Do" started to make it big). But numerous other bands took up where they left off (to go on to bigger things), and this went on throughout the club's existence up to 1970. In fact no big distinction was made between genuine "Liverpool beat" bands and r'n'r acts for as long as "beat" music" lasted. Both earlier British acts such as Screaming Lord Sutch and Wee Willie Harris AND U.S. r'n'r and R&B acts such as Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent played the Star Club up to the mid-60s in addition to all the British bands as well. Style-wise the transition from r'n'r to Liverpool beat was a seamless evolution and not a radical break - Beatlemania or not. As for what's been written about Hamburg as a milestone in the evolution of British group development, no doubt I am only aware of a small part of the books that have been published but there were/are a LOT, including the fantastic "Star Club" picture opus published in the 80s (but it's in German, of course). In fact I guess every aspect of the early career of the Beatles and Liverpool beat music must have been printed in book form somewhere. Last summer I picked up an interesting (almost) coffee-table book entitled "Silver Beatles" that dwells exclusively on the band's early history up to mid-1963, with a HUGE part devoted to the Hamburg years. It was written by Marco Crescenzi and first published in Italy but to the best of my knowledge so far has only made it into a French version (which is the one I have). So obviously exposure to the historic facts also varies with your non-English language reading abilities.

@Adam: Re- early British r'n'r acts (before they got tamed): A few nice vinyl reissues with early Brit r'n'r by Tommy Steele, Don Lang and Tony Crombie were out in the 80s/90s on the SEE FOR MILES label and might still be around as secondhand items. Billy Fury's arguably best early album "The Sound of Fury" on Decca has been reissued several times over as a facsimile of the original 10in release. Also check the ROLLER COASTER label (website should be traceable via Google) for reissues of early British R'n'R.

I tend to agree with John L on the Holly/Crickets debate. The "Crickets" records were tougher than the "Holly" records but this also was - as John says - a chronological thing, and no doubt Buddy Holly would have gotten more and more into producing and arranging if he had lived. Maybe Phil Spector wouldn't have been but a footnote if Buddy holly had evolved into a major producer/arranger of music for the youth (which would not have been totally unlikely). As for aiming at the black market, I cannot imagine the Crickets were aimed specifically there. They may have looked more into that direction than the more arranged Holly "solo" productions but specifically? I dunno .. Maybe just a case of trying to be present in both places. And yet I think the white pop market became much more open for black artists than vice versa. BTW, anybody checked the country charts just to see how the Holly/Crickets fared there? Just to see if the door swung every way ... As for the "British invasion" of the states, MG's statement sums it up, I think: /Quote: I don't think there was a British missing link between Holly/Berry etc and the Beatles in the sense I think you mean it. Though I wasn't in Liverpool then, I was in London. In London, there was a bunch of pub bands who got better and got more into Blues, R&B & Soul in the period 1960-1962. I have the impression that the Beatles went more or less straight from American R&R to their thing, while London bands like the Stones, Manfred Mann, Yardbirds etc hung around doing better and better imitations of US black music of different types and THEN developed their styles. I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but I think the Beatles wouldn't have been so original had they had the same sort of development as the London bands. (I'm not saying the Beatles weren't aware of or indeed affected a bit by early sixties American black music. They were, but it just doesn't seem to have been central to their ideas in the way it was to the Stones, say. I get a strong feeling that it was just another element that went towards the ultimate creation.)/unquote Still beats me how the Americans could have perceived the Beatles as if they just dropped from the Moon... Actually the Beatles and the other Merseybeat groups initially just carried on playing the U.S. music that had been around before the "Teen Idol" era the way THEY perceived it (hence the "Merseybeat" touch). But basically it was just rock'n'roll. Comparatively unadulterated and undiluted compared to what had been happening in U.S. pop music since 1959. Maybe a bit like those more unrestrained U.S. rockabilly acts of 1955-56-57 (hence the cult status of Gene Vincent in Britain) with a Brit touch added. So if the Beatles and other bands from Liverpool were perceived as something that unheard of in the U.S., this only goes to show the extent to which the U.S. pop music listening masses had forgotten their own musical heritage of only a few years back. AND most of the U.S. pop music buyers apparently weren't listening to their own incipient "Garage Punk" bands that sprung up in 1963/64 too, either, or else they wouldn't have been that surprised by handmade guitar-led combo music. (Not tame enough for the masses, of course...) BTW, it was not only the London bands that looked towards R&B - even Merseybeat bands took up part of their inspiration there. Just remember the number of "Walking The Dog" covers done by Merseybeat acts, for instance. And early (pre-Brian Epstein) Beatles demos and recordings have a higher share of R&B tunes too, e.g. their Decca demos where they featured Arthur Alexander covers etc. But of course the London bands looked more heavily beyond current R&B hits and towards the "older" downhome blues artists in R&B (godfather Alexis Korner still peeking over the shoulder of young Mick Jagger to provide guidance, so to speak ... ).

MG, the one who posted this info said he did contact Mosaic by e-mail and was hoping for a replacement CD.

Maybe so, but I just read on another forum a buyer's complaint that the Mosaic people managed to mess up the "Fiddle Dee Dee" track from 1940 on disc VII in that the tune they included there actually was "Fiddle Diddle" from 1938 which already is on Disc II. In short, one track twice and another one not at all. OK, the titles are similar but this really should not happen with a top-flight outfit that selles products at top-notch prices. Makes you wonder what people not versed with (or not caring about) the discography of the music they are working on are let loose on compiling jobs. Clearly Michael Cuscuna (in his role as supervisor) and/or his underlings dropped the ball on this one.

That reminds me of one or two Excello twofers I bought new in the late 70s. They had a funny and intense smell unlike any European records that would have made them immediately recognizable if I had been doing a blindfold test. I did notice a similarly intense smell with other U.S. pressings with cardboard covers (though far from all, and the smell of that Excello was unlike that of the others). I don't know if it is the typical U.S. cardboard covers of the 70s with their lousy printing inks that develop ring wear faster than you can pull the record out of your rack but it does seem like the smell of some U.S. printing ink did move on into the interior of the sleeves and maybe settled in the vinyl. Or was it the label glue?

What's so bad about this hipster thing? Isn't it just as legit as doing the umpteenth incarnation of pretending you are THE singing ALL-AMERICAN BOY that the mom next door would love to take on as your son in law (as epitomized by all those big band crooners and schmaltz youngsters that preceded the vocal stylings of Mel Torme et al?). And even if this hipsterism was a bit mannered, isn't it maybe even less phony than all this A&R-invented "Guy next door" attitude of all those singing band boys of those days? Or is it that you have to be a limited singer/croaker in the style of Babs Gonzales or a weirdie like Harry Gibson but certainly not a GREAT singer (by the usual yardstick) in order to have your hipsterism taken more seriously? :D

It may sound overly dramatic but this forum just won't be the same without Brownie. I can see your point of spending too much time just reading and posting on forums (it can get to be a haibt) - time that might be needed for other, more pressing things, but anyway: Please reconsider, if you will ...

on my way home from work i was just thinking "well if we're moving on i will just go where brownie [father figure of yurpean board members] is going..." come on, losing this board is more than enough for poor souls like me, stay around for another board! I for one agree with every word Niko wrote. Having just discovered this topic of O closing down right now (and still trying to recover) and hoping the latest posts really do mean the forum will carry on, at any rate I'll join Niko in asking you to stay around, Brownie in case the worst come to the worst. But let's hope a new start is now in the works.

Yeah but that would relieve you only to some (small) extent of the research work. There are quite a few tunes out there that have widely differing composer credits depending on the labels, reissues, pressings, etc. that you happen to look at - although it really is the same tune in every case. Sometimes each artist who recorded a sort of "hit" version of a tune way back claimed he wrote it. Especially common in the pre-LP days. So sometimes listing composer credits might actually do more harm than good.

Since composer credits seem to be such a crucial item to many here, that leads me to a question on how those of you who insist on composer credits to be included in discographies are handling this in detail: As we all know there have been numerous instances where record company execs or other "external" persons just added their own names as a matter of course to the actual composer's name in order to grab a share of the royalties. Numerous such cases care known and documented and at any rate are open secrets, e.g. the "Josea", "Taub", "Ling" names routinely added to composer credits of tunes recorded for the Modern/RPM label conglomerate (these names being nothing but pseudonyms for the Bihari brothers who owned the labels). Based on up to date knowledge, how are you going about entries like this? Include such names and add insult to injury for the actual composers or exclude them and maybe face complaints elsewhere?

Though I've never been into jazz (or jazzy) vocals that much I admit I was knocked out by the Mel-Tones 40s recordings that I got hold of the other day on a 80s Musicraft reissue LP. So I'll second the recommendation of starting with the beginning - the 40s Mel-Tones recordings. And though I've passed it up repeatedly in the past, I'll probably grab those reecordings with Marty Paich's Dek-Tette on Bethlehem one of these days as well (as soon as a nicely priced Affinity reissue comes my way). As for that affected hipness that JSangry spoke off, I can see your point, yet I think you have to keep in mind where featured white male vocalists in jazz came from in the 40s. If you look at those typical big band vocalists of the pre-1942/43 recording ban big bands that very often sounded oh so square jazz-wise (and badly dated today), isn't it so that the white vocalists didn't really see the light until the hip 40s era rolled along? Cf. Buddy Stewart, Dave Lambert, the Pastels, David Allyn and lots of others. I admit I never really went for the sound of the crooners but for my money I somehow like Mel's chops better than those of Frankieboy.

I fully agree with the recommendation of Bill Perkins' "On Stage" as a prime example of "typical" West Coast jazz. What I find a bit strange, though, is the inclusion of the Shank/Cooper "Blowing Country" disc in such a reissue program that probably purports to make OUTSTANDING examples of the genre available again. For once I have to agree with the period reviews of this release: It is pleasantly sounding jazz-tinged background music but one of the better examples of WCJ? I dunno ... Rather, it's fairly light fare. Sure there must be more substantial WCJ music in the PJ catalog. Besides, the original release already was an unnecessary oddity: Tracks previously issued on three different PJ/WP LP's rehashed into a new cash-in product, i.e. a "compilation", not an original release.

I've had the Xanadu reissue since 1984 (must have been fairly newly released though it was found in a student campus fleamarket bin) and strangely enough never came across the Fresh Sound vinyl reissue though I've bought and actively looked for PLENTY of these facsimile reissues.

One of those big-money (though non-Blue Note items on eBay, that original JARO issue. Weird record titles, BTW. Jaro issued it as the "arrival" (though, as far as leader dates were concerned, KD had arrived before that date) and Xanadu issued the same music to commemorate the "departure". Beats me how AMG could claim it is a "compilation". The usual discographies have the right answers. As for that "Memorial" tag on Xanadu, that's not something to go by at all. AFAIR the "Sonny Clark Memorial Album" on Xanadu did include previously unreleased club recordings from Sweden indeed sow as something new for the occasion but on the other hand the "Bill Harris Memorial Album" on Xanadu in fact is a reissue of a date originally done for MODE in 1957.

Brownie, the pleasure was all mine (and I hope we can repat this in due course). As for how much more agreeable this forum was a couple of years ago, I don't know of course (as I dicovered this place not that long ago). But comparing it to other internet places, it does not fare that badly IMHO. Like I said, maybe I haven't read the threads in question (I don't nearly follow all of them around here) but still ... All in all I find Jim Alfredson's stance on this matter quite a healthy one. When things get extremely unpleasant the moderator has to intervene but it IS a thin line between enforcing mutual respect and stifling controversial debates to the point of making it all a bloodless bla-bla affair. And like Jim said, welcome to the world of the internet as far as saying things here you would not say to your "opponent" face to face. However, in this basic debate, please consider this: Have a look around at daily life as it is today: Isn't it a common enough experience to come across people that are ready and willing to screw you in a big way and get out the knife to stab in your back at any moment yet outwardly they are nothing but smiles and politeness - but oh my, behind that phony facade? I realize internet exchanges may be prone to insulting because you are not immediately taken to task but isn't it sometimes better under these circumstances to let off steam and NOT count your words (if only to make it clear to the other one he will NOT get away with his own attitude). Pretending everything is fine and then pulling strings behind the other's back to do him in good (it's all happened and can even happen via the internet) is far, far worse than the occasional direct, confrontational rudeness in the name of clarity. That said .. PEACE for now and why not back to the actual topic for those who still want to elaborate on it...

I must have been reading the wrong threads ... I did not notice much mud-slinging around here (thankfully). Some tongue-in-cheek teasing with certain people (whom I am not going to name ) is quite in order, I think. And I must say I for one do appreciate the outspokenness of people like Clem (though I sometimes find it hard to follow what he is saying ). But anyway ... to each his own. Nobody has to agree with everything everybody else says and sometimes personality clashes via the 'net unfortunately are unavoidable. Daniel A, compared to that other forum I've stopped posting in everything that may have gone on here is next to nothing ... really! But back to the topic now ...

So where's everybody crying out loud about bootlegging and ethics now? :D

Sorry if this alienates J.A.W. further but I find this behavior rather childish. I've quit other forums before too (upon severe disagreement with the way those forums have been run) but in cases like this especially after insults that may have been made have been apologized for? As far as I can see Porcy62 did apologize. What has he been out for? Rub it in good? Make his "opponent" fall on his knees and beg for forgiveness forevermore? Adult people ought to know better than making a scene after a disagreement with ONE single forum member, especially if they have proven their common sense through other posts here. Not that I would want to take any sides but the SH forum underlings must be more than satisfied in seeing how disputes over THAT forum OVER THERE lead to such controversies, feuds and waste of energy right here. This sure detracts from the original topic of this thread. So what was it all about again? Sloppy product quality or forum censorship? Or the consumer's right to speak out loud about sloppy product quality (or even only about product quality perceived as sloppy?)

Chris, with all due respect: I not only have all the Sonny Burgess recordings listed in that discography (yes I admit I am one of those who is not above listening some good straightforward 50s R'n'r from time to time - "Ain't Got A Thing" is spinning on the turntable as I write this) but even more of his music, and if you must know there are more incongruous entries like this. And no, I did not note them down when I came across them so I cannot pinpoint them right now but one that is just as out of place is that (through solitary) entry by traditional country singer Carl Story. The musical area where jazz and country music get close does exist but none of the artists that might be presented as such borderline cases (starting with Bob Wills and Milton Brown) got an entry in Jepsen's, and by musical comparison Sonny Burgess (fine though he is in HIS genre) is rather far removed from that borderline (OK, "Thunderbird" has a blues flavor but oh my what else you would have had to include if you go by that yardstick). So it all is a question of methodology and crosschecking of entry suggestions/source material. Incorporating label listings wholesale does not help if nobody is there to provide guidance on the musical contents. Just imagine incorporating an extensive listing of Jerry Murad's Harmonicats in a blues/R&B discography just because they happened to record on the R&B-oriented Vitacoustic label too. And though I do think such reasoning was not beyond discographers' standards in the 60s (or why else would they have made a fuss about whether to include or exclude Jimmy Dorsey who certainly had more jazz to him than others mentioned here ) this is NOT to denigrate the pioneering work of your fellow countryman Jörgen Grunnet Jepsen one bit! I value his discography and yet I took the liberty of poionting out a few oddities earlier, more as a side note in this discussion on matters discographical (not imagining it'd turn into such a debate ). Jag ber om ursäkta (nej, jeg taler ikke dansk)

Paul, I should have thought when he wrote this he was rather thinking of artists like Frank Sinatra etc. (possibly included not least of all due to the presence of jazz sidemen), and as for blues artists, isn´t it often rather hard to draw a firm line between jazz and blues, one of THE key ingredients of jazz? Where would you place Jimmy Rushing, for instance? Or Helen Humes? So there would be many who fit both bills as for their inclusion in discographies. It´s been a learning process even for discographers anyway - remember how Mike Leadbitter steadfastly excluded R&B artists in the original edition of his opus (a wrong thankfully righted in later editions )? So "blues or not" certainly is not the question in jazz discographies - but rockabilly? (not that I would want to dwell on this point forever, but this obviously was a lapse of judgment - understandable in a way, and amusing today, but it was there).

At first sight yes ... and I can understand things like this to happen in the case of certain black R&B vocalists of the 50s but what baffles me is that when this info must have been entered in the mid-60s Sonny Burgess had been on the scene (though quite non-jazz) for quite a few years, had been a fairly well-known figure (at least in the South) on the R'n'R scene in the latter part of the 50s (though by the mid-60s was past his R'n'R prime and had gone into country music). Surely there must have been SOMEBODY among his U.S. contributors who might have been able to tell him that Sonny Burgess a) was white (and therefore rather one of the "Elvis Presley fraternity") b) was a R'n'R/rockabilly artist after all and that c) by the time he recorded for SUN this label had largely given up its blues roots/connections (i.e. the mere name of the label did not provide a safe indication of the material recorded there anymore). In short, there was NO jazz connection here, no matter how you look at it, and certainly SOME U.S. contact of his must have been aware of all this and more. I realize I am speaking with the HUGE benefit of hindsight but it boils down to a matter of cross-checking of possibly doubtful facts (as there were other entries like this). It's a minor point that does not detract from the overall quality of the discography at all but considering how Rock'n'roll was lambasted by the jazz world at that time it's amusing to see that entries like this (of all musical styles) crept into that reference work by the back door ...

Yes, those were the days ... A very healthy attitude, and yet I wonder what EKE BBB, for example, would say about his Tete Montoliu discography he is working on if he finds Lord appropriates it lock stock and barrel and then claims copyright on it (the same is true for other forumists here and elsewhere too, of course, who publicly invite contributions to and - hence - use of their discopgraphies they painstakingly built up). As for Jepsen, while I still use it for basic information I've sometimes been wondering about his sources indeed. Beats me how rockabilly singer Sonny Burgess ever made it into this JAZZ discography (and he is no isolated case). Sometimes he cast his nets rather wide indeed. Compared to his diligence and attention to detail evident from the monthly columns in Orkester Journalen he did back then this is really odd - or was it the sheer volume of material and comparatively primitive processing facilities available back then?