Big Beat Steve

Case in point re- my earlier post ... I've got this one on the below Affinity reissue. Can't say it's bad but can't say either that the cover "artwork" is on a level with the original (and it definitely is one of the better Affinity jobs).

Why not? I am sure there are zillions who feel exactly that way about enjoyment when it comes to Blue Note (owning them included, of course). So your feelings counterbalance these a wee bit ... As for their design, yes they do have "house style" going for them - but the Affinity reissues from the 80s did NOT help any in that respect. Neither did those on other reissue labels fomr the 70s/80s. So given the leess than widespread availability of Bethlehems, you often had (and sometimes still have?) to settle for these reissues on an "it's only about the music" premise.

Which styles/categories of music, exactly? They are not all alike, don't cater to the same tastes, and tastes and preferences of musical styles do differ.

Hats off for making a LOT of otherwise overlooked "special-interest" music available again. HIs releases on Arhoolie, Folklyric and Old Timey did a lot to advance my awareness and knowledge of Western Swing, Cajun and Norteno music - in my early collecting days, in particular. Another era ended and another page turned ... RIP

@onxidlib: The cyrillic spellic you give DOES say "Dusko" and not "Dusan", however. As for omitting the accents, of course this is primarily a matter of writing convenience (be glad you don't have to write a throng of CZECH names or words ... THERE the accents are all over the place 😄). Omitting them could indeed change the proncunciation but I still think that omitting them in NAMES for convenience (for non-native speakers) is a small price to pay if otherwise the spelling were to remain unaltered in WRITING (i.e "Gojkovic" throughout for the man in question). But you never know where and how this kind of pronunciation problems might surface ... There is a moment on the "Boston 1950" CD feat. live recordings by Serge Chaloff where the club announcer points out the upcoming attractions at the Celebrity Club: "... and also Earl BOSTITCH!" (clearly audible murmur from another person in the background:) "BOSTICK!" (befuddled announcer emits lame excuse and corrects himself:) : "BOSTICK" Imagine this chap would have had to announce Earl Bostic one day and Dusko Gojkovic the next .... "Man, I'm lost! "

I didn't mean you, of course, but the Anglo (or Anglo-American) writers/journalists/population at large. Obviously this IS a problem and pronunciation of names in foreign languages does not come naturally to everyone all the time. But WRITING them is a different matter and should not be dictated by pronunciation as long as it is not a case of transliteration. BTW, Gojko Mitic is very well-known here too, due to exposure to East German Westerns.

You mean "pronouncable" or "writeable" (without causing major hiccups)? 😉 (Assuming, of course, that the accents are - understandably - omitted anyway for ease of typing ...)

Good and interesting point. And a recurrent "problem": The main point in Gojkovic's case was that Serbia also uses Kyrillic lettering whereas Croatia uses Roman letters throughout. So this already might give rise to a difference. Not to mention the fact that the "Serbocroatian" universal language of Yugoslavia is something that probably neither Serbs not Croats nor any of the other ethnic regions down there would want to be reminded of too much anymore today. AFAIK the universally used spelling in GERMAN was and is "Gojkovic". Which is very close to what the original spelling would be in Croatian (or Roman-letter Serbocroat - give or take a few accents ). But try to get English or French language- countries to adhere to something like that ... Which I guess is why Gojkovic changed or "anglicized" his "artist name" spelling somewhat (or let these changes pass ...) once he had gained an international standing. "Your" "Goicovici" spelling seems very "romanianized" which is a different case again (there is definitely no "i" at the end of Gojkovic's original name - and no need for any to be there - but the "i" makes it "very Romanian", right? ) Which OTOH might have a certain slant to it that might raise additional questions (remember the Romanian gymnastics athlete Nadia Comaneci whose ACTUAL name was/is Anna Kemenes as she belongs to the Hungarian minority of Romania ... ? ) So as you can see this kind of garbling up proper names in foreign languages is a true can of worms. In ANY direction. Even without the problem of transliterating (more or less phonetically) proper names from, say, Kyrillic into Roman spellings. Which can seem quite arbitrary or even funny. I have a Yugoslavian LP here with a selection of jazz groups from Belgrade that were recorded from 1955 to 1963. Guess how "jazz" is "alternately" spelled in the (Roman-letter) cover text and many of the "period" band names? "DZEZ"! Strictly phonetic, and apparently quite in earnest ... But they have a way with foreign names over there anyway - even when NO Kyrillic transliteration is involved ...

But that's beside the point. The original question was if Miles Davis really was the "world's greatest jazz musician" in 1963 and could have been called that back then. At THAT time. In accordance with the broad appeal that any such "world's greatest jazz musician" could and would have had. Not from the (hindsight-ish) vantage point of today. And not from the point of view of the "cognoscenti" of jazz and inside the hardcore jazz audience (then or now). By that yardstick IMO it is reasonable to assume (as the thread starter stated) that Miles Davis only attained that position somewhat later on in the "Electric" period with his success in the jazz-rock field.

Well, if this is the way this is universally understood then the pendulum would swing even more in favor of Stan Getz for that period IMHO.

Going by the impression I've had of jazz from that period, I tend to agree with you. BUT ... "the world's biggest jazz musician" for whom? For the general jazz public (and even those on the fringes of the jazz audience) - yes, I'd think as well it was Stan Getz. But for the "cognoscenti", including the self-appointed "true bearers of the jazz flame" (who might be suspicious of too much outright pop success)?? Not quite so sure ...

Just did a check of my Amazon account which tells me I bought this book in March 2009! Wow ... THAT long ago?? Time sure flies ... This doesn't make me feel any younger now ... 😕😉

I don't know if this link has already been posted somehwere here, but anyway ... here it is for those iterested in this as a sort complementary bit of info to the "Saxophone Colossus" biography: https://lewisporter.substack.com/p/sonny-rollins-a-short-unknown-1958 (As per the author's wish, the link to his page is shared herewith )

He was/is known to those who are into exploring and collecting pre-war European jazz. He recorded extensively in Germany in 1927/28 and later had several sessions in France. A scant few of his German recordings have been reissued on various LP and CD compilations of early German "Hot dance bands". Arthur Briggs also is mentioned and shown several times in Frank Driggs' monumental "Black Beauty White Heat" photo book. And he is also present in the texts of dedicated jazz history books such as "Jazz in Deutschland" by Horst H. Lange, "Charles Delaunay et le jazz en France dans les années 30 et 40" by Anne Legrand, "La France du Jazz" by Denis-Constant Martin and Olivier Roueff as well as in "Making Jazz French" by Jeffrey H. Jackson (although relatively scantily in that latter book).

A question to those inclined to read music-tinged fiction works like "High Fidelity": I picked up a copy of "Telegraph Avenue" by Michael Chabon today at a "bring-and-take" book exchange place as it piqued my interest (I've read and rather enjoyed "High Fidelity"). Any of you familiar with this one? Any comments? Opinions? (Not that this would keep me from reading - I'm just curious ... ) Intriguing to see anyway that one of the main characters in that book goes under the name of "Nat Jaffe". I wonder how many ("casual" or "general") readers knew that there was indeed a jazz musician by that very name in the 40s?

One Unipak LP series that may have remained under the radar because it was a reissue series (and not original releases) was the EPIC "Encore Series" (released and pressed in the late 60s/early 70s, it seems): https://www.discogs.com/label/399356-Epic-Encore-Series They seem to have existed both with this "Unipak" layout and the conventional layout with the LP opening at the outside of the back cover, not towards the spine. My copy of the Gene Krupa LP (EE22027) has this conventional layout whereas my Earl Hines (EE22021) has the Unipak layout. These LPs look sturdy enough to me, including at the spine, probably because they are not those darn typical US cardboard covers where the front and rear cardboards making up the cover are taped together with just (paper-thin) paper along the edges (including the spine) all the more prone to seam splits. Yet this Unipak layout with the LP slot at the "reverse" end may have annoyed owners enough to take drastic measures. On my copy of the Artie Shaw LP (EE22023) - one of those fleamarket chance purchases - a previous owner had radically cut off and dumped the front flap so that only a "standard" LP remained where the LP can be extracted and put back the "usual" way without being "bothered" by that flap (and the track list now is on what has become the "front" of the cover). And through the years I've seen other secondhand items from that series subjected to the same treatment.

Nice vinyl geek rant anyway, TTK! I had to look up the Unipak definition linked by JSngry to see what exactly you are referring to. Now I understand what you mean but I can assure you that Unipak definition misses the point at least as far the time frame is concerned. I don't know for sure about the USA but here in Europe LP covers with this layout weren't all that uncommon from back in the (more or less) early 50s. To the point that I did not even pay attention to this peculiarity up to now but took them for "granted" as a period design detail, particularly on 10" records. The European covers had thinner covers than in the US (similar to the typically thin covers of UK pressings, which made them much less prone to ring wear and split seams than the US cardboard covers but much more prone to fraying round the edges). The inner sleeves of these "Insert on the inside" gatefolds usually were clear plastic sleeves that were glued or stuck inside the cover. At least one such item must have been all over the place in the US from back in the 50s as well, however, i.e. the JAZZTONE "Jazz Sampler" J-SPEC100 (the introductory item for prospects interested in joining the Jazztone mail order service). I have US, German, French and Swiss pressings and releases of this particular sampler and they all have the gatefold cover with extended liner notes not only on the back cover but on the inside too (US pressing below). OTOH, strangely enough this sleeve design often did not even make use of the space on the inside of the gatefold covers for added liner notes or photographs but just had blank surfaces there (or at most a generic list of other relases on that label, e.g. on Telefunken semi-generic covers of the early 50s). Without even searching hard I pulled out half a dozen such items (with "inside blanks") from the 10" jazz corner of my collection (both traditional and modern jazz). So this kind of sleeve design must have been fairly common. IMO its relatively widespread use was pioneered by releases of classical music where extensive liner notes (that needed more space than would fit the back cover) were frequent. So it seems to have been retained even on releases where the inside space wasnt even needed. Maybe some producers figured this offered better protection to keep the LP from sliding out of the cover? Sometimes they did make full use of the inside space, though, as on this French LP by Les Chaussettes Noires from the "Ye-Ye" R'n'R era of the early 60s, showing how to do the Twist: 😉 And here's a variation on that theme: "How to get a maximum of printed matter inside the gatefold sleeve", with the record on the left and a booklet stapled inside" on the right (a French "Jazz pour tous" compilation 10" LP - Philips D 99 556R). This type of sleeve must eventually have disappeared during the 12" era but seems to have been around for a while. Two such items that I quickly located in my collection are: - Lionel Hampton "The Mess Is Here" (rec. 1958) on Bertelsmann 61017 (which existed both as a gatefold and a non-gatefold pressing. Which both look to be of roughly the same vintage to me. Catalog no. and label are identical). - the German pressing of the "Introduction to Jazz" LP curated by the Rev. A.L. Kershaw (Brunswick 87003 LPBM) which even has a double-foldout gatefold sleeve: This "newbie introduction to traditional jazz" LP must have remained in print for quite some time. I have two pressings: One with a printing date of 11/59 on the back cover (printing dates were customary on German Brunswicks and Corals of that period), and another one with no printing/pressing date at all but otherwise same artwork. Which must date this to post-1965 or thereabouts (the most recent such Brunswicks with printing dates I have seen are from 1965). The UK pressing of this same LP (Brunswick LAT 8124) was able to make do with a standard cover and a double-sided cardboard insert inside the sleeve because it did not have to include the German and French versions of the comments on each track.

Which I guess also applies to Mosaic's (probable?) judgment about whether to do a "female instrumentalist" leader dates box set or not. Judgment with regard to sales potential. Probably (on their part) a case of "give us a client base more widely inclined to covering their blind spots and seeking out the overlooked instead of seeing their LONG-TERM favorites elevated to nobility by being given the Mosaic treatment and we might do such a set".

Sure, I perfectly understand too. But that largely artificial dividing line between "pure" jazz and R&B of that period (which no doubt did NOT exist with a lot of the clientele - at least most of the BLACK clients - of B&W at the time) is unfortunate and a step back into a pigeonholing era that one might have thought of being overcome by now ... And considering the typical Mosaic clientele, the same "where do you stop" line might have been drawn with regard to Dixielandish-style jazz, isn't it? At any rate, that made that box set not quite that essential to me. On looking closer I found I have almost too much of the B&Ws by those artists that at first sight are of prime interest to me to warrant shelling out for the huge set. Whereas the uncharted corners of the B&W releases aren't there (and I am not thinking of T-Bone Walker, of course, of whom I already have all of his B&W items too). Preferences just differ, and no, you cannot please everyone all the time ... And I might reconsider after all ... OT finished now ...

Like Romualdo said ... Jutta Hipp has been taken care of in the DEFINITE way that in many details outdid what Mosaic would ever want to do (on account of their "house style"). And it WAS a labor of love. Note that on a personal level I DON'T like the guy who runs that label but I am familiar with his labor-of-love-approach to box sets like this that go where no others will tread - cf. his MOD Records box set too. ("MOD who??" - see, that's my point! ) Personally, I'd certainly buy a female instrumentalist box set that meets my tastes and fills a niche in my collection (not so sure about Shirley Scott anymore for that latter reason, then ...). Mary Lou Williams would also be a nice idea ... Or Barbara Carroll (but what would their customer base weaned on HARD bop and nothing else say ) ... or indeed Marian McPartland ... As for Mosaic being sexist ... nonsense ... They cannot go where the leader-date music (unfortunately) just isn't there. It's not their fault that (for example) the International Sweethearts of Rhythm's discography is slim. Or that of Mary Osborne ... or Dardanelle ... or Margie Hyams ... (naming just artists from uncharted territories of MY particular periods of interest ... there are others, of course, but in the case of Vivian Garry, for example, there would be the problem of immediate overlaps with another well-done reissue, i.e. Arv Garrison on Uptown, which would reduce sales prospects even among those out to go off the beaten tracks of the ususal suspects ...) And it's a pity but an understandable fact of commercial viability that even if there was enough material for a multi-CD box set of all-girl bands (which I wouldn't consider gimmicky but a valiant attempt at getting their music heard - again) they would consider their sales prospects much too unsure. And any wokeness demands on their reissue policy would certainly run them out of any activity for good ... BTW, I am among those too who consider the Savory box set an important one. And I am sorry to hear that my hunch of Mosaic being "selective" in their B&W box set (which so far I have not yet picked up after having compared what I already have and what I truly need of what is in there) seems to be true. On checking their track listing I DID have a distinct impression that they curbed lots of tracks that leaned towards R&B. And I am not even familiar with the ENTIRE discography of the label ...

At the recent clearout sale at a local secondhand record shop (each item 1 EUR), the below Mole Jazz release was among the CDs I picked up that day:

Agreed. JSP box sets on specific styles of collectible music (particularly in the field of "black music") make for very nice introductory packages. Here's another recommendation - a somewhat "esoteric" vinyl (it's one of those subculture reissues from and for the "Rockin' Scene", and it's listed with other online sellers too): https://www.stagoleeshop.com/La-Noire---8211--Vol--4-Glory-Is-Coming--914.html?language=en

To get started with a punch, see whatever records there are that fit the "Sacred Steel" category (not, not the Metal band ). There are quite a few Youtube videos that show what I am referring to. E.g. Campbell Brothers and Aubrey Ghent.

But I suppose you are you are not really referring to the actual Signature label of the 40s but to a later Bob Thiele production venture? Did you do an aural check (which should tell the difference betwen 70s Earl Hines and a 40s recording)? As far as the sound samples can give a clue, the vocals, for one thing (and the general fidelity), don't sound 40s-ish to me.

Three.