Big Beat Steve

Sidewinder, if you feel you cannot resist the urge to get the box set and want to part with your Barclay 2LP set I'd be glad to take this off your hands. I am sure I'lll be content with the material on that vinyl (you can't be a completist all the time), and as mentioned on another thread, back then I bought those sessions on some kind of a bizarre issue - Vol. 2 and 3 as INDIVIDUAL LP's on Blue Star/Barclay (Spanish pressing). It wasn't until much later I discovered the French pressing had Vol. 1 and 2 on a 2LP set, but as the Spanish pressing (same jackets, just liner notes in Spanish) will probably be inexistent anywhere outside Spain (I bought mine while on holiday there) I'll likely have to settle for the 2 LP set in order to get my hands on Vol. 1.

Uh oh ... all this DOES sound dramatic, at least to the unsuspecting collector who just appreciates some good music in his vinyl grooves. (and yes, I admit quite a few JA LP's are among my personal favorites of reissues from that era).

I have no idea about that, but as I have mentioned owning this session as part of the Christian Sony 4CD box (maybe I wasn't clear enough, the genius one with all the official material), I assume that part of your post wasn't directed at me, really... No, it wasn't directed at you, rather at some of those forumists who may already have been involved in reissue production at a time when you or me just got started in record collecting. Maybe somebody has some insight in this bit of trivia ... (and after all this time it can be told, right? )

Not that I would with disagree with you at all - all I wanted to hint at is that Schuller's mentioning of Western Swing bands in his book is one of the very few (all too few) occasions where the more swinging ones of those bands were given any sort of credit as being part of the Southern/Southwestern "territory band" scene in jazz at all. As you certainly know even better than me all too many music historians draw an all too strict line between 30s/40s swing being Jazz and 30s/40s Western Swing (or "hot string bands") being all Hillbilly (and no crossover EVER!). So Schuller was ahead of the crowd. All in all, like Bill Barton and Chuck Nessa said, I agree it's still essential reading - warts'n all. So, Allen, when do we get YOUR comprehensive history of Western Swing as part of swing/jazz of those times? (with the possible cooperation of Messrs. Kienzle et al.) I'd queue up for a book like that.

Just a somewhat belated hint and/or suggestion: Any chance that in a radio program like this we'd get to hear any recordings by Dardanelle (Breckenridge) and her 40s trio? Though her 40s discography isn't immense, she's one of those chicks who seems to get overlooked constantly though she must have been a constant fixture in 40s jazz clubs as a pianist, vibraphonist, singer AND arranger.

Don't think so.... See this, for example: http://www.snappermusic.com/Labels/Charly You'll even find a catalog there.

Aw well, letting off steam once in a while can be real good for one's blood pressure too, you know ... BTW, it is not only in the US that all that is not classical basically tends to get filed under "pop". So if you want to have a subdivision for that smoothie stuff use "Easy Listening" (maybe "Contemporary Easy listening" to avoid confusion with 60s middle of the road elevator pap) or "Smooth pop" or whatever ... but heck, it just AIN'T jazz, even if no one sings. 'Nuff steam let off again ... Bye for now

@Seeline: Dan Gould has got this spot on. Of course there are all sorts of popular music (as opposed to long-hair classical music), and I have my favorites in non-jazz popular music too. Nothing wrong with that. But in the case of this smoothie thing (and I am going to repeat myself) it's just this: LET'S CALL A SPADE A SPADE and don't try to sneak under the umbrella of the oh so hip and sophisticated "jazz" label. Or for what reason do YOU think they used the "jazz" tag after "smooth"? If it was only a matter of another type of popular music they might have been free to use ANY number of attributes to go with "smooth". But no, it had to be jazz. I can think of a lot of recordings firmly in the JAZZ idiom that are "non-edgy", slow, soft, balladesque - and YET they have TONS more swing and jazz feel than that pop-laden smooth elevator music sailing under a usurpated jazz flag that I've heard (the smoothies that get exposure and airplay over here may not be 100% the same that you associate with this in the US but basically I figure it is the same thing).

I can assure you that as a fan of 40s and 50s swing, bop, cool and "mainstream" jazz I'd sternly take offense if anybody associated me as a jazz fan with the pap churned out at the same time by Kostelanetz, Mantovani, Mitch Miller, etc. :D As much as a post-bop fan takes offense with being associated with Kenny G. It took much more to play jazz back then than front a big band lineup. And the fact that the occasional dimwits list Kostelanetz, Mitch Miller or Mantovani 10in records (that they found in their parents' attic) in the JAZZ vinyl section on eBay does not make those disc sany more jazz than an awful lot of those more recent smoothie smoochie offerings.

I assume you are talking about the 28 Oct., 1940 session issued earlier on Jazz Archives JA-6 and JA-42? I understand JA-6 had to be withdrawn at one point so the material was later re-reissued on JA-42. What's the story behind this? Anybody knows?

Interesting ... However - isn't it so that a book like "The Swing Era", despite its generalistic title, is one that no beginner in this musical matter would pick up, and that seasoned readers of this book (like probably all of those from this forum who have read this book) automatically make allowances for anybody's personal preferences as well as for "ex cathedra" tones and take all this with the required grain of salt, being able to use books like this as SOURCE material to make their own judgments but not as a BIBLE? As for Joe Mooney, your point is interesting. I will have to reread this passage but I remember my general impression when he dwelt on figures like this (usually overlooked by most others) was that finally here was one who "gave credit where credit is due" - not in the sense that the length of any entry on any musician or orchestra was necessarily always correct and appropriate, but in the sense that he dug deeper than most others who covered the musical history of those years ever did. Speaking of the "totality of all that needs to be dealt with in that era", IMHO this is one example of where he did go beyond the usual coverage of the usual names, inciting the reader to explore names not usually found in the catalogs of major reissue companies (at least not when he wrote the book). Of course the question of what "needs" to be covered is subjective again but to me at least limiting this coverage of all the major well-known names only would again give a skewed picture of the diversity and richness of the era. Similar examples are found elsewhere in the book, e.g. in his refreshingly open-minded remarks on borderline acts such as Western swing bands, and even if his comments on recordings sometimes are clearly dictated by the limitations of what was available to him (I can literally see how he wrote his Jan Savitt entry on listening to one particular Decca reissue LP ) this is at least a step in the right direction, one that has not been made in many more books on the subject except some of those by Albert McCarthy. Not perfect but overall not a bad thing IMHO if you are able to make your own judgments and if you want the picture to be as complete as it could possibly be (100% completeness unfortunately is unachievable).

Well, what do you expect from somebody with such an immense classical background? Small wonder he does not always give the entertainment side of jazz enough credit. But considering what other musically knowledgeable but entirely classically trained writers have uttered about jazz he towers sky-high above them all. I haven't yet read Early Jazz but have digested the entire Swing Era book (to the extent that I can reasonably manage as a non-musician with very limited transcription reading abilities ). But that was some 17 years ago though I have referred to it fairly regularly since then on specific topics/artists, and while he may not be perfect in his assessments (as much of it is a question of taste I don't expect anybody to be) I do find his analyses very much to the point and they give me a good impression of what to expect from any given recording that I am not yet familiar with. At any rate, he does give credit where credit's due (more than many fellow writers). No undue "Crow Jim" in my opinion and no excessive focus on the same handful of "big names" that seem to make up the entire era in the opinions of others. What a pity we won't see a sequel to The Swing Era covering the post-1945 era! P.S. - Re- your last post: The same impression over here (Europe). Too many reviewers (including outside jazz) seem to operate on the basis of "If I like it I review it, if I don't like it I won't review it". Ad department interests at work? :D Whereas, in fact, even a negative but well-founded review could be an immense service to the readers.

Andy, do you actually think your Mom cares one bit about the fact that platter is on BN? So what's the point? Personally, I don't care too much about that either (BN ain't what it used to be back at Alfred Lion's times any more anyway - not by a long shot) but what I find odd is that some "suits" out there seem to be intent on marketing acts like Norah Jones as "jazz". THIS she ain't. Just pop, that's fine enough for what it is and there's nothing wrong with it if you go for that kind of music but in the same manner as with that "smooth jazz" debate going on elsewhere the real jazz fans (jazz being a wide enough field anyway, stylistically speaking) are perfectly entitled to objecting against this muddling of stylistic terms. Or to put it another way, is it any wonder that not everybody is all that happy about certain people calling virtually anything "jazz" just because some sales smarties figure this is a tag that equals more sales (not that it would attract more actual jazz fans but rather because lukewarm pseudo-sophisticated smoothies can bask in the sunlight of the oh so hip "jazz" status, claiming "Hey, I am a jazz listener too")?

The Big John Greer CD has been discussed here before (using the Search function should find the thread). Actually I bought it on the strength of a recommendation from this forum myself. Am very pleased with it (but I am a honkin' sax jump'n'jive partisan anyhow) and thankfully this CD largely avoids the slower tracks he did for RCA and its subsidiaries (for a time RCA semed to want to mold him into another Ivory Joe Hunter). In the case of the Ike Turner CD you'd really have to check the track listing against a discography and other reissues. There is quite a lot from the Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm days that's been reissued on on various U.K. labels (including Ace) so if you decide you want to dig deeper you might end up with lots of duplicates or might want to got for the other labels right away. The Buddy Johnson CD looks like it is made up of his 50s Mercury recordings (judging from the cover artwork). Nice stuff (though I prefer his 40s big band) but some of it might come across as a bit too clean (these were recorded when R'n'R was about to break loose so everybody tried to cash in on it without offending the white buyers by sounding waaay too black). Sugar Chile Robinson: If piano boogies with a child singing voice are your cup of tea for an entire CD, go ahead. It's entertaining too but I'd recommend consuming it in moderate doses. Percy Mayfield: Another one that's bound to have been reissued on Ace too so compare the track listings to see which suits your tastes better (depends on how deep you want to dig into this field)

Yeah, that's the impression I sometimes get too. Maybe they'd have got the BIG canisters handy to really fuel the debate?

Not having been around at the times of the BNBB and not wanting to pass lightly over the feelings of diehard BNBB'ists but I do find this thread both instructive and entertaining (beyond the fact that Norah Jones just is NOT jazz . Now maybe somebody ought to place a link to this thread over on the AAJ forum and see what happens THEN? :D

How true!

Very good point. Norah Jones is pop. Not jazz. That's all. If the "powers that be" at BN feel they need to stick that "Jazz" tag on her because it's chic and elevates her "music" to a higher, more sophisticated level that sells better that way then we might well be in for another "smooth jazz" debate (except that this time it's not about instrumental music, obviously). This will be interesting to watch indeed...

Well, Richie Cole was born on 29 Feb. 1948. Would that offset it at least somewhat?

MG, the Sun R&B material has been reissued widely by Bear Family and Charly on vinyl, and I should think that they currently are available on CD too. It might pay looking through the Bear Family catalog. Check this, maybe it might lead to you what you are looking for: http://www.bear-family.de/tabel1/neuheit/serien/sun_e.htm

Well, MG, now it's my turn to tell YOU I don't quite get what you are out to say. Does "Smooth Jazz" BENEFIT the JAZZ community? Or does it benefit some soft instrumental pop pap "community" because in addition to providing the music it provides them with a hip, in-crowd moniker that they can cling to? "Even if I don't get the essence of actual jazz now I am a hip jazz fan too because I am into "smooth JAZZ" and this is soooo much cooler than having to be into "smooth adult entertainment background music". ??? :D In short, call a spade a spade and stop coming up with false pretenses, that's all the REAL jazz fans seem to be after(including in THIS thread).

I do assume this comment of yours is all tongue in cheek, right? I suppose you are fully aware of the major difference between a Tin Pan Alley standard done instrumentally by, say, Eddie Duchin or Joe Reichman on the one hand and Al Haig, Oscar Peterson or Art Tatum on the other? It's what you make of the source material, and this is what the difference between "instrumental pop" and "instrumental jazz" amounts to. An occassional obbligato does not yet make a truly jazzy solo and does not turn the music into jazz yet.

Unusually, I'm not clear about what you're saying here, Steve. In particular, I don't know what you mean by "soft fusion" - I never listened to fusion anyway - could you give a couple of examples? All labels for genres of music are coined quite a long time after the music develops. Marketing men don't hang with musicians, do they? MG MG, I made up this "soft fusion" term myself just to hint at the blander and more commercial semi-jazz music played here and there (radio etc.) under the "fusion" tag. You know when I started getting seriously interested in and collecting jazz in my high school days in the 70s the music marketed under the "fusion" label really bugged me because everybody semingly "in the know" seemed to insist that THIS was what jazz all about and (worse still) was what jazz had been about forever. Of course I wouldn't say fusion per se is no valid style of jazz, but to make matters worse, among that "fusion" label there just was soooo much doodling and noodling that was just plain insipid pap (sort of slightly r&B-ed over elevator music), and I take it that the evolution of this end of fusion was what later was marketed as "smooth jazz". After the early 80s I did not really pay much attention to fusion anymore as it somehow ebbed off but when smooth "jazz" came along again from the late 90s it did get rather annoying. For the very reason evoked by others here: Those among the total newbies who might otherwise have gotten into some real jazz (though it might be a bit more demanding on one's listening) are led to believe "smooth jazz" actually is at the core of REAL jazz and is what jazz is all about (marketing forces at work, you know ...). Either they pass it off as elevator music and never care to explore actual jazz any further or they get stuck in the rut of this smooth, unoffensive lull of soft instrumental streams and get frightened away from any real jazz that has considerable more bite (regardless of the actual style of jazz). And you yourself as somebody who prefers quite a wide variety of real jazz it IS annoying being associated with that kind of pap and having to explain that there is a LOT more to jazz. It's a bit like this: Imagine you are a diehard classic jazz fan of the "acoustic" era (there are such characters). And then somebody comes along who drools about Mr Acker Bilk being THE EPITOME of "classic jazz". Just my 2c Steve

Nicely written summary of black music at the edges of jazz, MG, and though I am all in favor of certain forms of R&B being appreciated as valid forms of jazz (as you know) I don't see the link with the entire "smooth jazz" thing. Not all Afro-American music is or was jazz, especially not all post-1960 Afro-American popular music (cf. the entire "Disco" fad). And is "smooth jazz" only about black musicians? And as for the errors (or not) of the opening quote, it all depends on how you look at it. Of course the "Smooth jazz" tag had not been coined in the 70s yet (and the way I remember it a lot of that brand of music marketed under the "fusion" tag sounded like all those cats were trying to grab their share of up to date popular black music too - sort of sophisticated disco, if you want ... And I admit it did bug me the way even the most commercial stuff marketed under the "fusion" label was hailed as THE music that jazz in its totality was all about). So the "soft fusion" music was already there that later was being marketed under "smooth jazz" but does that mean this label (the way it had been coined by marketing people) was any less artificial and anything more than an attempt at cashing in on the "jazz" label because "jazz" was considered hip, sophisticated, cool or whatever ... As noted on other threads where this topic has been discussed, I feel it is this usurpation of an attribute that this music has virtually no rights to at all that jazz fans take offense with. If you "smooth" guys want to market your music, make sure you can stand on your own feet and do not have to rely on other tags.

MG, it's not a question of the degree of jazz content or of good or bad, etc., and not even a question of lineage. There may actually be some "legitimate" "smooth jazz" in the same way that some "nightclub jazz" was recorded in earlier decades too. Sofar, so good. Benson may be a case in point. The key problem, however, is what else there is out there trying to sail under "smooth jazz" flag and thus tarnishes everything else, including the name of jazz itself if the unwary public at large is being led to believe "this is jazz". Don't ask me for examples or names; I've heard quite a bit here and there that has been tagged as "smooth jazz being the latest thing in jazz" in the media, and found a lot of it bloody awful jazzwise. OK, more agreeable to listen to as a sort of "music to brush your teeth by" than, say, certain death metal or gangsta rap nerve-racking rhythms :D but swinging jazz in the commonly accepted (broad) sense of the word, even including the more subtle, subdued varieties? Nope, not in a zillion years! Just watered-down "adult pop" where maybe, just maybe the occasional jazz cliché is repeated here and there.