Big Beat Steve

Strange ... I cannot recall having ever seen those XYZ-reissued OJC digipacks over here. And even though I did not browse the CD racks THAT attentively during the past 15 or so years anymore they would have been candidates for the jazz bins in the Zweitausendeins shops, for example. And these I DID check out regularly (while our local shop lasted).

Donna Lee is on both LPs and the Bruyninckx discography says Fine and Dandy (Keen and Peachy) is on both too but for the life of it I cannot find this tune on my copy of Xanadu 146 (which has 7 tracks, not 8 as indicated by Bruyninckx).

Agreed. And it goes (must go, actually) well with the performances on "Jam Session Record No. 101" (or SAJ 1003) recorded the same day at the same venue.

That woman with her phone sure had some nerve ... Amazing that nobody else in the audience (particularly those others up front) callesd her to order in no uncertain terms at once when she started trying to argue with Mutter. Or did she surround herself with like minds in neighboring seats to shroud her off? As an audience member anywhere near her I'd certainly have frowned on this kind of behavior in a concert of CLASSICAL music and in THAT setting. I'd certainly would have liked to see what would have happened if someone in a neighboring seat would have casually waved his hand on front of the camera eye of her phone - and more than once. That motion could have been done as quite a natural sign of appreciation towards the stage - "what, there's a camera on? Did I know? Do I care? What's the idea of a camera there anyway?"

Le Quattro Stagioni rather reminds me of a pizzeria menu. And as for whether one is more famliar with Le Sacré du Printemps or with The Rites of Spring, I'd call it a draw. Of course I agree with you that it is a matter of taste and also of what is "habitually" done (I'd wager to say that in most cases it's because the target market is exceedingly unable to handle a foreign language). So to cut a long story (and discussion) short and repeat what my (linguistic) point was, IMHO the information on the Berlioz/Debussy cover that started this discussion isn't nearly as inept as Chuck Nessa made it out to be.

Isn't that one atypical because it is a straight reissue of an actual LP (JARO 5004) (as is the Kenny Dorham Memorial LP, for example), as opposed to many of the other reissues featuring compilationns of individual 4-tune sessions or releases of previously unreleased live recordings? That Warne Marsh Live in Hollywood LP must be uncommon. I canntor ecal having ever seen it aynwhere (I would ahve picked it up ...9. BTW, a question to the real experts: Is there a fundamental, overriding difference in the reissue programming between the gold Xanadu and silver Onyx LP series? The fields they cover do seem to overlap quite a bit, even if Onyx leans more towards the Swing era.

Isn't that exactly what it says on the cover too? Translations of such titles (particularly if the original and genuine title is a non-English one) are common, aren't they? Of course it might have been more appropriate to put the French one first and more prominenty and the English one in brackets and in fine print. But what would the marketing execs have said if it was an English-speaking target market this was all about? Look at how many recordings and record covers there are of the Franz Schubert "Trout Quintet" (to name just ONE example I as someone not overly concerned with classical music am familiar with). Including one on RCA too, BTW. More appropriate than the bilingual cover above? I doubt it.

Would you have an alternative that improves significantly on the Berlioz title? P.S. Looking at the RCA label, if you remember how often they included SPANISH translations in brackets on the their track listings back in the 50s (apparently not only on records PRESSED in Hispanic countries) you will be aware that silly or at least rather awkward translations were no isolated case. And Capitol wasn't any better overall. FWIW, the English title of the Debussy item IS a fairly apt rendering of the title of that works for the English-speaking world and actually was based on a poem of the same (English) title by Rossetti (an Englishman, not Italian - sez WIkipedia ). So in turn the French translation seems quite appropriate to me ("elu" meaning "chosen" conveyed by the term "blessed" here - not all that linguistically unreasonable, given the era).

+1

There comes a point in any discussion when it just becomes meaningless fighting the same fights over and over again. Maybe that's what Mike meant. Some reach ths point earlier, some later (much later). What I don't get, however, is why everybody is so exceedingly touchy about this particular topic. Is this a US thing? Discussions where there are so many (imaginary) stumbling stones that everyone needs to go out of his way to avoid, lest he be blamed for being non.P.C. and then exposed to some sort of cultural witch hunt for having the "wrong" opinion? I'd venture a guess everyone around here pays the creators in music their dues in every imaginable way and won't need to concern themselves with accusations of "cultural appropriation" in any Jim Crow (or racist or other) manner (to sum up things in a simplified way). So why does anyone around here feel they need to let the blame be put on them? BTW, as you will have seen from our previous exchanges I understand you are sick and tired of this generalizing "cultural appropriation" one-accusation-fits-all swipe. But in fact, like JSngry pointed out correctly, the irony in how Allen Lowe approaches the subject should be obvious enough. Allen's hint at "appropriating culture" and its ironical implications in the way this is opposed to "cultural appropriation" ought to have been rather obvious. I did sense it but when he pointed out that turn of words it became ever so obvious. "See how the artists appropriated each other's culture across racial and stylistic boundaries." A "leitmotiv" in those of his writings I for one am familiar with. And correctly so IMO. Nuff said now for an explanation why I for one would not want to fuss about that title of his collection? (Allen, please keep it!!) Looking closer at it, this would be a door that swings both ways anyway. You named Ray Charles's excursion into country music. Cultural appropriation? If not, why not? Certainly not from a oppressor-oppressed angle (the oppressed being entitled to appropriate the oppressor's muisc? Country music? With roots to the proverbial poor white rural hicks in the sticks as the oppressor?? And chart topper Ray Charles as the oppressed one? B.S.!).I'd even go a huge step further: If this "cultural approriation" pseudo argument is taken seriously, what business did John Lewis and the MJQ have appropriating Bach and European classical music anyway?? Not their "natural" playing ground (like whites accused of "cultural approriation" allegedly have no business taking from and engaging with black music - according to the zealot proponents of the "cultural appropriation" thing). And the MJQ sure made huge money from their appropriation. Which leads us to the money angle. No doubt JSngry is right there. And IMO he nailed it in how he got Allen's intentions about the title right and I have no problem siding with him there - regardless of whether he likes it or not , because - as any of those of you who follow this forum relatively closely will have noticed - I do speak my mind too and have been at odds with JSngry more often than I'd care to remember. But for all the verbal flak I certainly won't feel there is any reason why I should take that "Sangrey-only worldview" (to quote Ted O'Reilly) as anything like the final word. Ever. Whatever he says is one single man's opinion and not more. Never. He is entitled to his as I am entitled to mine. We can go on discussing opinions from there but I won't be frightened away. To paraphrase a saying we have around here, "To accomplish that, it'd take a gardener, not a seedling." I usually take in stride whatever comes my way in discussions like this. In a way it's part of the game once discussions reach a certain intensity. Because, after all, all these exchanges, no matter how "aggressive" they sometimes get (I'd call them "outspoken" but apparently that is a no-no attitude today in many circles too these days), this is how forums work. And no doubt this is nothing compared to feuds on other forums. So I really wonder why people are so touchy? Just like Allen Lowe ought to be known for what he stands for, Jim Sangrey ought to be known well enough too. And I really wonder what anybody would gain from ducking this kind of controversy by shifting to the Hoffman forum where - by all accounts - you can get expelled on one man's whim??

Good points, Hot Ptah. VERY good points. Will NOT listen to Luther Allison's "LIfe Is A BItch" now.

Well said. Do the writings (and, in fact, mindset) of Allen Lowe really need an introduction to long(ish)-time forumists here, of all places? It's not that everyone will agree with all of his opinions and evaluations of the histoiry of this music or put the emphasis where he does, but what he has to say (from all I have read) brings in fresh air in a field that is often bogged down IMO by too much "accepted wisdom" that does not question or challenge but confirm and comfort in a way that makes academic writings often appear like a self-centered echo chamber.

I think this all speaks VERY much for you.

Do they still use THAT bashful term TODAY to avoid turning red in the face by stating outright what it is? Vulgar? Obscene (maybe)? Back to the puritan Eisenhower era? Seriously?? As if the word "explicit" did not have enough other widespread and perfectly appropriate meanings in the English language ... My, my ...

I do think Allen Lowe is one who is historically aware of all the stylistic cross-pollination that went on from the beginning of recorded music and has valid things to say about all the infuences that went BOTH ways without romanticizing things. And personally I don't think he will accuse anybody of anything from the "cultural appopriation" angle so much in vogue these days in certain quarters. So I dont' really know what you are getting at. Don't you realize that in your ranting you don't even see who your (purported) opponent is and who is not? I agree with your statement above and this is one reason why I find exploring all this history of cross-pollination (some might say "crossover" before there was the term) highly fascinating. And this is part of the muiscal history that is TOTALLY different from all the "cover version" and bowdlerized white POP versions too. But again - influences e.g. between black and white "niche" music (i.e NON-pop) pre-war and early post-war went BOTH ways in many, many directions. I have no idea what your exact musical tastes are but just as one little example, let's assume you are familiar with Wynonie Harris' hits "Bloodshot Eyes" and "Good Morning Judge". Would you know offhand too that NEITHER of the two was a Harris original (or one written specifically for him) but in fact Harris COVERS of COUNTRY songs recorded before? "Cultural appropriation"? Ha! I short, calm down and let the "cultural appropriation" agitators agitate as much as they like. After all, what was the saying about the caravan moving on again? What does it matter to those of us who are aware of BOTH sides of the (musical) coin and give credit where credit is due to the ORIGINATORS (which admittedly is something the covers churned out by Pat Boone and his ilk did not - but who wants Pat Boone anyway?). Did you check the track listings close enough, I wonder? THere are PLENTY of tunes by WHITE artists there, and as far as I can tell with my spotty knowledge of 20s music both black and white, I'd say this just shows EXACTLY this cross-pollination that went on even way back then.

Was Prestige really that dependent on Miles Davis? Would they have gone under if they had not had Miles? Or isn't this just wishful thinking, given their overall catalog (many of their other acts were no slouches either, after all)? But what about James Brown and the KING label in the 60s??

While I have no idea about ths one yet I know you'll be missing out on plenty of interesting insights. i found the booklets to "That Devilin' Tune" very intersting, and "God Didn't Like It" too. A rather different and certainly personal but definitely fascinating perspective on the subject. It cannot hurt or read about this kind of musical history from an angle that is off the beaten tracks of the usual writings. As for the title, I am not sure what the bone of contention is with many around here - but maybe that is because I am not from the US. I take it as a play on words (of sorts) but I am sure Allen is not one of those newbie P.C.-ish writers who find "cultural appropriation" the latest "in thing" in writing about music to blast any WHITE listener for how he DARE to deeply and genuinely embrace that music ("black" music, for example) and most everything that goes with it. If you want to avoid preconceived SJW agendas in writing about music from decades past (note that I am using SJW with a strictly neutral connotation here), steer clear of "Swing Shift" by Sheree Tucker and "Come In and Hear The Truth" by Patrick Burke, for example. (And these are just examples ... oh, and come to think of it, for all its interesting subject matter, Rashida K. Braggs' dissertation-turned-unrevised-book "Jazz Diasporas" can get grating at times too, at least the two thirds I have so far read).

Say ... considering the flow of this discussion, do any of you Americans drive any GEN-YEW-INE U.S. cars anymore? Quite true. You can spend hours and hours experimenting not jsut with selecting the tracks in the first place but above all with the sequence of tracks, trying to find the optimum way of seguing one after another to keep up the flow and momentum of the music and its energy that gets to you without things getting monotonous and repetitive but rather taking you effortlessly along on your playlist.

I've made countless mix tapes for my classic cars (of 1958 to 60 vintage) and for my previous hack vehicles and I still use some of them in the cassette players still fitted to these classics. But for a long time I did not do mix CD-Rs (there were more than enough CDs to be turned 1:1 into CD-Rs) but in recent years I have made quite a few for use for DJing (I don't DJ often but use both vinyl and CDs - and NO, sitting in front of a laptop and pretending to be a DJ spinning the platters just IS NOT IT!! NEVER! ) to save on having to carry dozens of CDs of which you'd spin only one or two tunes during the evening. These self-mixed CDs also come in handy if you have a tried-and-trusted sequence of 3 or 4 "dancefloor filler" tracks at your fingertips to give you a moment of relief during the evening. (With the inevitable result that I had to copy one or two of the mix CD-Rs for very good friends.) I know many DJs in our circles who spin CDs carry a stack of self-compiled mix CDs to their events - probably for the same reasons (though I know some of them privaely do use streaming services). And when a collector friend who is VERY much into hillbilly, western swing and related older country music I've compiled CD-Rs (at his request) of 30s to 50s Western Swing polkas for his "Western"-style birthday party. So there are situations when your own "V.A." discs come in handy.

Up - after bit has been sold.

This is what i would do if I had to.

You all are giving me the creeps. CDs are dwindling in value here too - yes, but seeing what my son (19) still manages to get when he thins out his Heavy Metal CD collection leaves me with hopes. In fact he said he has sound files of those CDs that matter to him and has decided to keep only those CDs that are either unavailable online or by obscure bands, so for him it is vinyl and online but much, much less CDs from now on (signs of the times?). So niche musics that have a focused subculture still do sell as CDs, even secondhand as it seems. I wonder in what way things are that different with jazz CDs? As for books, ho hum .... Tomorrow I will be setting up a stall at a local book fleamarket (including not just books but any printed matter in fact, and now expressly including records too, BTW, so my crate of duplicate jazz vinyl goes there too). So I hope you ALL are at least partially wrong. I have had a stall there for about half of the the past 18 years, noticed brisk business during the first few years until things slowed down (when of course my first-time-ever-to fleamarket antique books and magazines had gone) and then paused for a few years, and in recent years have attended again and found business across the field to be relatively good again. A lot of books will go at "impulse buy" clearout prices (trying to make space before I donate to "bring and take away" book exchanges again) but I still feel that there is a market either for truly antique books on specialized subjects of historical or "collectible" (focused hobby) interest. As Rooster said, encyclopedias and "general purpose" books are dead (I cannot bring myself to dump the 1965 Encyclopedia Britannica I inherited a long time ago nor the 20-volume German encyclopedia of 1935 we dug out when my father in law moved to a senior citizens home last fall). And you cannot shift a book of 1920 or 1930 dealing with the history of your country or with "notable works of art" or other generalist "cultured citizens" topics but you CAN INDEED get money for a book of 1920 or 1930 about the then state of the art of architecture or antique automotive books or even antique cookbooks, for example! So keep your fingers crossed for me, pleeze!

Isn't the entire discussion about that "comeback" (if any) about sales of TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL music media? Isn't this where comparisons are to be made? Aren't downloads, streaming etc. a separate playing field altogether?

See, there's a like mind. You were attracted to 60s rock in the 80s and I was attracted to 50s and some early 60s rock (and 30s/40s country; blues and R&B from that period being filed under jazz for the purposes of this forum) in the 70s.

"MOST" - yes. I don't participate in this subforum much but there ARE others than the "mosts". I guess I am one. However, MY non-jazz listening (like my jazz listening incidentally) in most cases is definitely NOT related to my age either but rather to the styles of music I prefer, and these originally were recorded in the 1945-60 (or 65) period, and at 59 I certainly am not THAT old myself ... In fact except for a scant few exceptions I have never ever been moved by the "contemporary" rock music I was exposed to in the 70s. No regrets, regardless of whatever those who inevitabley will blurt out about "missed out" or whatever ... It just didn't do much for me (isolated exceptions - from all decades since - tending to confirm the rule) Actually rock from that period (50s plus a few years before and after) has always had its niche through the decades following the r'n'r era and there IS a subculture ("rockabilly" in the wider sense, though I have a hunch average US listeners not truly immersed in that subculture will interpet this not exactly the same way that "Yurpeens" will ) that does build on these styles and to this day adds new touches, variations and evolutions WITHIN the genre. There will inevitably be "prog" listeners out there to whom this is "old hat" or "rehashing" or whatever but who cares? It just is a matter of personal preferences. (And if you listen close enough, overall there is not more rehashing than in many other pop or rock fads that have come and gone since the 60s and up to now - didn't "Brit Pop" lean rather heavily on the sound patterns of certain species of late 60s pop, for example?). I wonder how many there are out there among the forumists who in their rock and pop listening have NOT been attracted from Day One by the current rock/pop of their formative youth years but by music from other periods which they have embraced with much more interest and pleasure than what was just "current" (regardless of whether it was chart fare or niche-y underground stuff)?