Big Beat Steve

Actually the question and answer isn't that silly IMHO. Provided that there is a rack labeled "Jump Blues" in the shop (and provided you are not referring to or mixing him up with the pianist Joe Turner ). At any rate, I'd expect to find his records in the "Blues" section of any record shop and would him consider somewhat out of place in the jazz section if his entire opus had been filed there, or else I'd venture a guess the shop owner is a very old-hat type fella to whom blues is nothing but down-home-down-in-the-gutter-roots country blues (there still might be such persons, actually). And if I'd find one of his records in the Jazz section and it was one I'd been looking for I'd be overjoyed his platter had been filed incorrectly in a place where most ofther Joe Turner fans would not look first (I know more than one R'n'R and R&B fan who enjoys Joe Turner's Atlantic recordings a LOT but would not touch "anything jazz" with a ten-foot pickup arm). See how you can make a case for any kind of fling (or shoehorning, if you want)?

Reminds me of the roadhouse scene in "Blues Brothers": "Oh, we have both - Country AND Western!" More seriously ... everyone knows what Duke Ellington meant ... but that's way too broad for archiving and retrieval purposes. And besides - regardless of what the Duke said - above a certain level good and bad in these fields STILL is subjective and a matter of taste ...

I do suppose that others might use/add other categries, depending on what they hve in their collections. As - stylistically speaking - the most "modern" (or "advanced") jazz record I own is Ornette Coleman's "Change Of The Century" I am happy filing this one among my Modern Jazz records (no use starting a separate category for a scant handful of "Free" records ).

The examples of "genre" categorizations above (particularly Wikipedia) IMO are dictated by a lot of criteria which have little to do with the basic categories of jazz that have come into common and universally understood use but often are just as much a reflection of what is considered "correct" or "desirable" to be given a term of its own in order to underline its importance. In much the same manner the Mosaic categories are rather marketing categories than anything else. And Schuller's are no categories at all but rather reflect the subjects of the chapters of his book. Both unsuitable for any general and "universal" use outside their specific uses (unless you are dead set on thinking along those lines of thought). I have catalogued my own collection along the following criteria (based on those commonly read about in reference works and found to be suitable for my own uses) US jazz: - Classic, Traditional, Oldtime, Early Jazz or whatever term you want ot use to refer to pre-Swing era jazz -- subdivided into a) early jazz recorded before c. 1934-35 or later on by exponents of that early jazz (e.g. SIdney Bechet), and b) revival, trad etc. jazz - Swing (including both Swing era and later "Mainstream" or "middle jazz" recordings made after the swing era ended but stylistically belonging to the Swing-style jazz) Further subdivisions used (loosely!) only in the "Various Artists" sections (big bands, small groups, regional jazz, jam sessions, JATP, label series, etc.) - Modern Jazz (Bebop, Cool, West Coast, Progressive, Hard Bop all lumped in - there are too many overlaps to subdivide this in a clear-cut manner that is meaningful throughout, otherwise I would have to split my Miles Davis records three ways, for example). Further subdivisions again used (loosely, because impossible to apply stringently) in the V.A. section: Bebop, West Coast, Cool, Hard Bop, a.o.) - Blues and R&B (again subdivided further only in the V.A. section - but "White Blues" is in a totally different part of the shelves) As for other criteria used in the thread starter's post, big bands and small groups are not subdivided any further. Would it make sense to put the opus of Benny Goodman, Lionel Hampton or other name acts into different categories? Not to mention the fact that big bands basically cover anything from pre-Swing era Fletcher Henderson up to Progressive Jazz or beyond. So this conflicts with the style categories I have adopted. Anyone who has to spend more time trying to figure out where he has pigeonholed a particular record in his umpteen categories instead of having enough memory and overview to find the records within these BROADER categories will soon get lost. And I for one usually have no trouble trouble rapidly finding suitable items for listening in the Swing or Modern Jazz sections when I am in the mood for "Piano jazz" and do not need those records in a cateogry of their own (particularly since this again would bust all MAIN stylistic categories - which - again - are more important to me). European/Non-US jazz: - Catalogued along the above criteria too but for ease of reference subdivided by country of origin. So, to get back to the Wiki "Gypsy jazz" criterion, Django Reinhardt and Sarane Ferret are filed among French Swing-era jazz whereas Schnuckenack Reinhardt, Häns'sche Weiss and Bireli Lagrene are filed in a section among German post-war jazz. P.S. Referring to Hopkins' latest post: Though I do think of Western Swing most often as a Territory jazz style I for one still file all my Western Swing records among my Country records (though pre-war Western Swing has a separate niche there, except Bob Wills for convenience's sake).

I cannot find any particularly and typically French drawbacks and snags of average websites from France. And I've seen and bookmarked many, following my interests and my contacts there. If you refer to the linguistic aspect of it - I think the reason is a different one. On average, they tend to take French (and knowledge of same ) as much for granted as US Americans and British tend to take universal knowledge of English for granted everywhere else around the globe. And they are not ashamed of being able to speak only their very own mother language and no other one (like - again - many, many U.S. and British people). And this is reflected in many ways and walks of everyday life. So just put it down to an ongoing "battle" between the English (only) and French (only) speaking worlds as to which is (and is supposed to be) the real lingua franca.

FWIW, Down Beat (through reviewer Ralph J. Gleason) was less than flattering in the 2 1/2 star review of the Amram-Barrow group LP on Decca (Jazz Studio No. 6 - The Eastern Scene) in 1957, making fun of the odd instrumentation (including the "tuben" here, a sort of downsized tuba with an unswinging, "mournful" tone) and wondering what would come next - the "serpent", "bombardo" and bagpipe (this was before Rufus Harley )? R.J.G. found the music on that LP "contrived to a point of painfulness" and "being more trick than treat". I don't know how that LP fits into the overall works of Dave Amram (except tha it seems to have been his only jazz leader date of the 50s and 60s) but maybe impressions like this echoed elsewhere too? I have the reissue of that LP so will give it a spin again soon. From what I remember I found it interesting and somewhat amusing but considering how fast other forumists here have resorted to accusations of gimmickry, "cuteness" etc. in the case of other recordings I wonder what credentials (that place him on a pedestal) an artist would have to accumulate elsewhere to AVOID this kind of putting down in cases like this.

I do own his autobiography ("Jazz Roads") and just checked: He dwells on that race massacre for not much more than 1 page and is not very specific. So I don't think you missed much. And yes, I was surprised too to learn he still is around - more so because friends from France who knew him well and had sort of befriended him in the 80s were under the impression he had died in the meantime when his name came up 2-3 years ago. Best of health to him in these times.

That's what I remember from one local (long-established) record store for a while from 1975 (when I started buying and collecting records) onwards. I used it occasionally when in real doubt (and usually did buy afterwards) but it clearly was a dying feature. The other local record shops had no such facilities anymore. And booths had been long (very long) gone by then. When I look at photographs of record listening booths in product folders from local radio/record shops dating back to the 50s and early 60s this was a totally different world and though I visited those shops from the start of my record buying the whole setting was impossible to recognize. They must have changed their entire shop furniture several times over in the meantime.

Anybody seriously interested in the "Swing to Bop" transitional years (including the seminal live recordings caught on wire by Jerry Newman and essential in this context) will at least have heard of Allen "Pee Wee" Tinney. Pee Wee actually was his brother but that's how Allen appeared on some lineups. At any rate, Allen Tinney does have a Wikipedia entry, and his presence in the Jive Bombers vocal group of the 50s did bring him into the studios with Kenny Burrell and Leonard Gaskin. And those who happened to see the Cry Baby movie feat. Johnny Depp will have heard Allen Tinney supplyng backing vocals and playing piano in the Jive Bombers' hit "Bad Boy".

Moms MObley. Some difference ...

Well, I wasn't aware things went THAT far. I just was somewhat taken aback that someone woull describe that reecord as "wholesome" - because, like I said, this seems to have quite different connotations in the context of vocalists on the 50s music scene. I only have the stereo rerecording of Something Cool but now need to give it a play again. (I remember I spun the record not without pleasure after buying it but was a bit disgusted when I later read about the stereo rerecording of the original mono tracks because I've always found this artifical rehashing of recordings in the name of "that new stereo fad" rather pointless)

Please refresh my memory. But having heard about Art Pepper's consumption habits and all things being relative ...

Please define "wholesome" in this particular (singing) context. The only (period) context where I can recall "wholesome" being used was when reference was made to 50s singing groups such as the McGuire Sisters and others of that kind (particular white cover girls/girl groups who specialized in whitening up black originals for the WASP consumer market) who (including in Down Beat) were referred to as "wholesome" in their singing and stage (and public?) behavior and image as those who were "suitable for the entire family", clean(ed up), never ever offending anyone through their performances, the perfect "next door daughter-in-law(s)" for conservative mainstreamish middle class suburbians in the 50s US unsettled by lewd R&B and uncouth R'n'R on the airwaves and elsewhere in the media. But June Christy? Not that she was an Anita O'Day who "hung out, drank and swore with the boys" but how would "hip" (which no doubt she was) and any definition even remotely connected to the above use of "wholesome" go together?

Indeed. France! And as for being much more hygienic, since they were in use until not long ago at all (maybe still are) in toilet facilities on many, many "Route Nationale" highway pull-ins ("rest area" would be too kind a word for places with THIS ...) you can imagine that they were NOT that hygienic to use - not to mention the contortions needed to avoid slipping. (Yeah, disgusting description, but that's what these places were too).

Yes, what Medjuck said sounds like endnotes at the very end of the book (not at the end of each chapter). Quickly checking my music books, I have seen such endnote chapters with references at the top of the pages to indicate the pages in the main chapters that the endnotes refer to in "Lost Chords" by Richard M. Sudhalter, "Record Makers and Breakers" by John Broven and "The Jazz of the Southwest" by Jean A. Boyd. OTOH, "After Django" by Tom Perchard and "Jazz Diasporas" by Rashida K. Braggs", for instance, do not have these top-of-the-page references in their endnote chapters, which makes them annoying to use as when you want to read the notes of the main chapter you have to flip and search much more through the endnote pages to locate the section you need (and bookmarks tend to slip out at the worst moment ).

Most of that is in effect at the office where my wife works too. To the best of my knowledge, minus the "wait-in-car" thing (although it is a small office they have installed a procedure where patients do not usually cross paths with each other when arriving and leaving and time remains for disinfection in between) and the thermometer (they handle the problem of potential risk patients differently through some up-front checkbacks but I don't have the details).

The article mentions a lot of important aspects. My better half works as an assitant/dental hygienist (including prophylaxis as a main field of specialization) in a dentist's office so has been through all this since Day One of the Corona epidemy. Importance of sterilization, disinfection, autoclave etc. (daily routine in every decent dental office), personal protective equipment used by the practitioner and his/her staff anyway (long before the Corona virus became a topic), yet practitoners and staff usually being exposed to more of a risk than the patients, particularly through aerosols (dear patients, what you you think: Are these aerosols during treatment propelled out of YOUR mouth towards the doctor or vice versa?), enhanced protective measures, etc. And just think again, dear patients: Can you imagine the kind of risk caused in these close-up work situations where invariably parts of your dental structure and gum are touched that may release blood and other matter, regardless of how careful the treatment and surgery is, even before Corona came up? (AIDS, hepatitis, whatnot ... ) Wouldn't you think that it therefore is in the very own personal interest of any dentist and the staff to use a maximum of safety and precautionary measures and equipment? And yet - the very nature of a dentist's job dictates that "safety" distances such as the 1.5 or 2 meters imposed elsewhere just CANNOT be maintained (when did you last see a doctor or an assistant with arms that measure 2 meters in length and eyes that pop out of the doctor's head across any distance just to be able to see what's going on in the patient's mouth?). Still it sometimes (actually not just sometimes) is mindboggling what kind of patients you get anyway. It happened more than once that my better half had to explain at extreme lengths to patients (even some who had already appeared in the office and sat down on the chair, and including some who had been patients of the doctor for a long time and ought know everything about the care exercised there day in day out in every respect), how certain safety measures (that they had read about - but apparently without understanding the nature of dental work) were implemented, how this and that was put into practice, how this or that situation was handled, etc. etc., and either this all was standard everyday practice then office anyway or just was a matter of either giving in to that "safety" distances not being maintained at ALL moments or not receiving treatment. Eventually the doctor was called in and she had to explain everything AGAIN. Be through this a couple of times and you'd like to quit your job for good. And then, another recent occurence involved a patient who ACTUALLy came in, sat down on the chair, face mask still on, and when asked to remove it, flat out refused! (I kid you not!!) Asked again, still refused, quibbling about this or that matter of principle concerning face masks, OK, so be on your merrry way, dear patient and go see another doctor who manages to treat you with your face mask still on! WTF??? The world seems to go beserk. From what she tells me, I think every now and then the highest compliment paid to her (and her work) under the current circumstances was patients saying how glad they were they were able to come to that place where things were handled in a responsible yet down-to-earth, reasonable and rational manner without going hysterically overboard. So please, to anyone out there still feeling uneasy about going to see a dentist in these times: Use some goddamn common sense out there, will ya? Or bear the pain.

I can only speak for myself but I find it impressive.

Ha, thanks for the reminder! I'ved owned this "Anonymous Mr. Gillespie" sit in my record shelves for close to 30 years, ever since I bought it new in the shop back then. But I did not fully realize that it includes those rare tracks withdrawn following the objections of the Kern estate. (Amazing considering that All The Things You Are had been given the works by Diz and Bird the year before - any MANY other modern jazz artists recorded it too, so they would have had a handful to do if they had gone on to sue all these ... tin-eared as they were ...).But itÄs nice to see what the package of the original issue looks like. Time to spin the reissue again ...

Here too. "Esprit de corps" is what it is called. Except that it is a pretty rotten "spirit". OTOH over here some political decisions from "interested circles" at power all too easily tend to reverse the accusations and make the police appear guilty until proven innocent (in whatever confrontation, even with what are just criminals) will fuel this esprit de corps of the police. A lose-lose situation for everyone else. I am afraid this is how such things work at all in the first place. Everybody (many of whom ought to know better) ducking away behind the "just obeying orders" one-excuse-fits-all approach. Been seen before. Up to and including in circumstances that I sincerely hope the US will never reach.

I was definitely not referring to the Corona virus threads (the subject of which is far from minor to all of us and important enough for sure and I would have prefered the threads to continue with more leeway but that's only me) but to much, MUCH older political discussions about what local/regional politicker did what (or not) on what fiscal or credit matter or whatever from some reach of every day life and how forumists got all excited about what could not be because it should not be because it came from the wrong political camp. Where positions seemed to be carved into stone for ideological reasons beyond belief. Much more agitated than anything discussed here and rather baffling (and unnecessary) to non-US onlookers.

Maybe it is an indicator that this matter is REALLY serious and worries a lot of US forumists deeply? Contrary to this or that political discussion in the past about some (objectively speaking) minor domestic matter of not that great consequences overasll that some hick in the stick politician wanted to enact (or prevent) and that gave rise to flame wars here anyway because hotly partisan Reps and Dems went at each other's throats as a matter of principle? This here seems to be different. Different enough not to turn a blind eye on it. And as an outside observer I do understand their concerns. Clifford Thornton's analogy of silence = complicity is comprehensible. After all you can ride a principle (such as this "no politics") to death and find yourself in some cloudcuckooland that all of a sudden isn't that cosy anymore either because the world out there IS still there and most of what happens there (and affects everybody'y lives) IS political.

Which would be all the more of a shame, then, that, of all armies, the Red Army in Moscow of 1991 (yes, dem Commies!) did NOT obey orders when a group of Army leaders tried to overthrow Gorbachev and turn back Perestroika.

Daniels has said (and nailed) it all. The live recordings issued'/reissued by Dragon have been licensed from Swedish Radio, and considering the stature and responsiblity of this public (!) radio corporation I'd be very surprised if the radio people did not have the paperwork to prove they are entitled to make (or grant) use of the recordings made for THEM according to however THEY see fit. Not any different from what the (Swiss) Montreux Jazz label or the (German) JazzHaus/SWR Music label does. And what Jim Sangrey said about the performers signing contracts with the radio stations to enable the radio station to make use of the recordings has indeed been mentioned in various sources related to this sort of releases. Anyway ... it remains funny how many on the US side keep nagging about what can rightfully be issued and reissued elsewhere off the US shores - strange that no complaints are made against Japanese reissues (oh so dear to the hearts of so many US collectors, regardless of the fine print - see above ...)

I guess that at least there were (maybe still are) some musicians who were/are just too much "out of it" to be reasonable drivers at all. Not necessarily because of drugs or other substances/liquids but because they were/are so much immersed in their "art" or "creative" or whatever thing removed from mundane everday life that they would have been fairly unable to function well in normal duties and tasks of everyday life - such as driving, in fact.