Big Beat Steve

Yes - those Musidisc LPs were a good source to get some interesting stuff at a decent price back in the 70s and were a great way to familiarize yourself at a budget price with artists that are "new!" to you (IMO they sometimes are even worth a look in the secondhand bins today for vinylites). And it wasn't just bop, they also had a huge range of swing and classic jazz recordings. Sometimes thier presentation is galling - like you say, the lineups and recordings dates sometimes are way off - for no apaprent reason at all because the stuff had been released elsewhere with correct credits. I wonder how and by what criteria they souced their material anyway - quite a few of the live recordings had been reissued on Alamac and on Jazz Archives in the USA (and on other small collector's labels) but others seem to have come straight from studio recordings, particularly from the Savoy label IIRC (e.g. the John Coltrane/Wilbur Harden dates).

"Jo host aaa scho dä Fiees of Kiliman-dscha-roh ghööärt?" (or something like this ) No, what I alluded to was that two of the seminal Beatles albums released by EMI in the 70s were the "Red Album" and the "Blue Album" (both twofers) that chronicled as a sort of in-depth "Best-Of " the earlier and later periods of the Beatles. Basically they were compilations or "samplers" but in fact their status elevated them more to full-blown, almost "cult" Beatles releases among teenage fans. Known anywhere, by anybody, even beyond hardcore Beatles fandom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962%E2%80%931966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967%E2%80%931970 (Incidentally, EMI cashed in on that "red" and "blue" album idea for other reissues in that period too)

Even when listening to nothing but jazz, you all were obviously influenced heavily by the typical Beatles record "lingo" of the day. (Those were the - 70s - days ...)

Thanks, you're comforting me. The other day I had briefly put the Jo Jones bio in my Amazon cart bnefore putting it on hold again as I found it less essential compared to other items I was about to order. Agreed about the Dicky Wells and Terry Gibbs autobiogaphies. Very good reads (each in its own way). Another one I have always been intrigued about is the "Harlem Jazz Anecdotes" book by Timme Rosenkrantz but during the past several years I have never come across a decently priced and affordable copy. Even by Scarecrow yardsticks this goes for insane prices, even secondhand. Came across excerpts from the book accessible online on google.books. Fascinating insights into the swing era. Those who like the Dicky Wells book should appreciate that one too.

I've read the article and watched the clip but I've got to say that to me the build of that fellow does not really look like someone who'd evolve into what young Pops would look like a scant few years later. Not to mention that this one looks taller. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on here.

I think the legendary Manolete wasn't a long way away from that if contemporary reports are to be believed.

Gored? Wouldn't "impaled" be more like it (and more descriptive)?

You must be feeling REALLY comfortable in your rut.

I'd say that compared to my Miles/Watson examples these changes of the older jazzmen that you mention as examples were just "nuances" and not nearly as drastic (though maybe I am biased because I am into bop just as much as I am into swing - but I certainly don't get much out of jazz rock, for example, particularly whenever jazz rock is touted as "this is what jazz really is" ). As for Johnny Guitar Watson, Clarence Gatemouth Brown would be more comparable than B.B. King IMO.

I will explain to you, Gheorghe: I mentioned that name PURELY as an example of ANOTHER artist who had changed his style enough to become more or less a totally different act, Just like Miles Davis did when you compare his 50s quintet with his "Electric Miles" and jazz rock-era recordings. If you are, say, into bebop or hard bop and stylistically related jazz recordnigs there is neither reason nor "objective" obligation (and certainly not much incentive) to get all excited about some totally different style of jazz if you do not happen to like that "other" style. Except as a dose of curiosity (that usually is quickly satisfied when you find it's not your cuppa). So if that "other" style of jazz doesn't move you you are likely to be turned off (or at least remain unimpressed) even if it is the same musician whose much earlier and much different recordings you like. Same for those who are into nothing but jazz rock or Electric Miles. They may be unmoved by the Classic 50s Quintet. The name doesn't mean much, then. The same applies to Watson and his 50s/very early 60s R&B recordings on the one hand and his 70s funk. I for one do like his R&B recordings but would have been disappointed if I had grabbed one of his funk LPs (there were plenty), thinking I'd get something like his early stuff. (It occasionally happened to me in my early collecting days when, unaware of intervening changes of the musical styles of artists in question, I picked up recordings from differnt periods, e.g. 70s Bo Diddley). At any rate, it is TOTALLY beside the point if those "other" recordings are fine or even first-class within THEIR genre - if that genre doesn't do much for you at the time you come across these records then why should you have much desire to DEEPLY explore that genre? They may be fine in their genre but that genre is just not for you. REGARDLESS of the name involved. And no doubt most listeners/collectors feel the same way when it comes to musical genres they do not like all that much. Some may think there is an OBLIGATION to listen anyway to these latter-day efforts (claiming this is "essential" listening, maybe) but this is B.S. IMHO because "evolution" does not necessarily mean "artistic superiority" (but just "artistic difference" in the sense of branching out in a different direction - sideways, not necessarily upwards at all, really). So arguments about "how can you not be moved by" (this or that artist) are nonsense again when the recording in question is outside the spectrum. No matter how eclectic or wide-ranging one's listening tastes are - there is a limit to everything, even with those who advance this "how can you not be moved by..." pseudo argument. Because they in turn have their own areas of lesser (or no) interest too. It's the most natural thing in the world and there is nothing wrong with it - in whatever direction.

@Mark Stryker: A detail question out of sheer curiosity: Did you "tap"' the archives of the late Dan Pliskow for your book too? Related to the discussion of obscure early post-war big bands here, I was reminded of an online photo album on Detroit jazz from 1947 onwards I had come across several years ago on a site called Webshots-American Greetings. I had downloaded a couple of pictures but by the time I got around to revisiting the site it had gone offline, complete with all albums. From a screenshot I had saved I see this album had been put online by Dan Pliskow who according to an online research was a bassist and quite a figure on the Detroit scene. As a self-professed "archivist" he accumulated a huuuge number of photographs on several decades of Detroit jazz that after his death in 2015 were passed on to some local instutiion. No doubt a fine source of information (and what a pity this album is no longer accessible online .. it completed and expanded on the "Before Motown" book too ... and I was a bit surprised he did not figure among the credits and acknowledgments of "Before Motown") Looking forward to receiving my amazon order in due course now ...

Check the symbols (for company and lens model logos as well as ADD) and find out for yourself, e.g. with help provided here (p. 23-25 for Varilux): https://www.sheridanoptical.com/Images/2015-ProgressiveIdentifier.pdf (Yes these ID symbols on the lenses CAN be seen with the naked eye when holding the glasses against a bright light source)

I am not talking about shop-bought frames being adjusted or otherwise brought back into shape either by the optician I bought them from or by some other optician. But if it was some other optician shop (not the one I bought them from) I'd fully expect being charged a fee (even if a nominal one only) and would feel uneasy if they did not. I even felt uneasy about certain free services "my" shop had performed on my glasses quite a while after I had bought the glasses there. And like i said, I'd not do this if it was about frames/glasses I had bought online. I'd feel this was unfair to the shop (or else I'd insist on paying an adequate fee - luckily so far I have not needed their services, but I do take care of my frames and lenses - or try as best as I can).

I'd never take glasses bought online to an optician to have them "looked over". I wouldn't find that correct - i.e. buying online but taking advantage of services in actual shops (if at all, I'd be all prepared to pay an approriate fee). So this is where buying online is a case of "trust" and "caveat emptor" and being prepared to return them if you are dissatisfied or feel unfomfortable (don't take ANY chances in that latter case because this indicates something is amiss and won't do you or your eyes much good in the long run).

Well, I still feel this thread has something to do with the dwindling number of amazon reseller copies available and that some forumists who did not speak up in this thread took note anyway and were curious enough to grab a copy. Or why else would the supplies be depleted all of a sudden within a few days just NOW? FWIW, George T. Simon briefly mentions the bop activities of the band in his "The Big Bands": As for the deficiencies of "jazz history", I agree with you all the way. It may be due to to a focus on "names that provide a hook for selling" instead of going really deeply into "who else there was" and who has not been coverd before (as this increases the required research exponentially) or maybe due to an approach that prefers to stay on the safe ground of known narratives (of the major names) that are either added to or refuted in order to leave a mark as a writer who "breaks new ground"? I dont know either, but maybe the writers active around here might like to chime in to explain how THEY see the field of their fraternity. I think with enough determination it CAN be done, though. I remember reading about a book focusing specifically on very early (10s/20s) New Orleans jazz orchestras (not combos but full "big bands"). Some 100 of these large orchestras active in and around N.O. were covered, and though NO recordings exist for ANY of them the author managed to fill an entire book with profound contents, as the review I read somewhere confirmed. Anyway ... covering uncharted territory and filling out the blanks left by others may be one reason why I really appreciated the "Before Motown" book. And even THAT one did not capture all the names. There used to be an online photo album of mostly private photos of late 40s/early 50s jazz (or jazz-ish) artists from Detroit, several of whom (mostly white ones) were not mentoned in "Before Motown" at all, including another undocumented big band led by one Elmer (?) Savegan. I downloaded a couple of photographs from that album in 2012 but then ... poof .. all of a sudden the entire website of albums (good-times.webshots.com), including this one, had gone down and all the albums disappeared. According to my notes of the caption of the picture of the Savegan band I downloaded at the time (below) the musicians were identified as follows: Godrons, Elmer (?) Savegan, Pete Richards, Freddie Boldt. ("Who??" But this shows there remains a lot to be explored and told). Looks like this band did their own version of the Four Brothers.

Maybe the keyword would be "unsung hero" (even if of the minor league variety)? A bit like the Tom Talbert orchestra (in a Stan Kenton vein) or the Earle Spencer band (that at least had been graced with thoughtful reissues) or the Gene Roland band? Like most others (I guess), I became aware of the relatively large space devoted to the Jerome band in the "Swing to Bop" book and took note because to me it is those "obscure" acts (obscure to us today, that is) who actually complete in the overall picture. Like I said in this thread before, the one LP by Henry Jerome I found close to 25 years ago was fairly disappointing jazz-wise but as I had not been aware of the band or their other (much later) doings this was probably my own fault, figuring that the early 50s band might have been like the mid-40s band. Apparently the story of THIS part of the band's career had not been documented elsewhere outside "Swing to Bop". Leo Walker's "Big Band Almanac" says this (below): Judging from the above, and as for the "narrative" by "serious jazz historians", maybe it will take someone to write a book or very lengthy essay on "the Sweet bands could also swing" to even up the score? (So, you historians, take note! ) As mentioned elsewhere, I ordered my copy this morning, it already is in the mail - more expensive than a single Mosaic CD as part of a set but to me this is one of those "jump on it when it is around or miss out and don't see it again for who knows how many years" cases - contrary to the usual suspects of the "name" acts the reissues of whom are all over the places all the time. So if in doubt, this is where the priorities lie (mine, anyway). BTW, did you work out a royalty deal with the Jerome family or estate yet? When I checked our amazon.de for this CD last week after you first mentioned it here there were several resellers starting from the 16 EUR price range (some European, some US, some probably listed on other amazon sites too), but when I rechecked earlier this week there were only two left (one of which I bought), and now there are NONE on amazon.de. So there must have been quite a handful who jumped on this item during the last few days. Spurred into action by this thread, I wonder?

You're most welcome to the world of your tastes and to stating them (just like I state mine when I feel like it). Because in the end whatever you consider good or bad reflects just your TASTES so is YOUR business but not an OBJECTIVE criterion to those millions or billions of dedicated music listeners out there. Just a subjective opinion of yours that others may take up or not (FWIW, I DID take up your impressions of the Henry Jerome CD - ordered this morning and looking forward to it - but don't expect me nor anyone to take your impression of that CD to be the FINAL word about its "good" or "bad" qualities ).

You're stuck in an endless loop. "Bad" is not the point. Period. Stylistic preferences are. Period.

It seems to be ... In recent times I've noticed (prescription) aviators (not sunglasses) on the (very) younger set in a couple of cases, even on females, in particular. As for the initial question, after longish searching and comparing (lots of online offers don't appear competent and/or accurate to me) and after having bought my first pairs of progressives at local opticians I ordered a set of progressives online 3-4 years ago and was very satisfied - and then another one last year. No complaints, including after comparisons with what local opticians supply you with. But you can NOT generalize and it is a matter of "trial and error" and you should not expect wonders. FWIW, my prescription for progressives isn't a very complicated one either.

In case you were referring to one of my posts - "style" was meant strictly in the sense of "style of music". Call it type of music, musical (sub-)genre, whatever ... You know what that means and what it implies, then, I guess .... And I'd wager a guess this is what is the decisive factor for most of us with specific musical tastes (no matter how wide-ranging or not) who do not just turn the radio on or click on a playlist for some (more or less) melodic background noise for distraction. So I still cannot see why these criteria should be a bone of contention for anyone at all. Some like music of the type (or style ) A and B much better than X, Y or Z. So this is what they go for. Differnt tastes, different strokes ... the most natural thing in the world. In ALL directions. And AGAIN - there is no '"objective" obligation to listen to styles (!) of music one does not enjoy. Except, of course, as an introductory sampling to see and decide if one likes a given type of music or not and maybe becomes curious enough to explore it further, or OTOH for an occasional (somewhat academic?) "excursion into history". In short, "to each his own ...."

"Bad" (in objective terms) or not is totally beside the point. 70s oomph-oomph Funk just does not. Do. Anything for me. Period. ... ... ROFL!

I wasn't exactly "flummoxed" by that review as my "stock" of OP records is rather spotty so I wouldn't be able to compare, really, but I found it rather unfair too. Ever since I bought it secondhand a few years ago this has been one of my favorite very late-night "jazz to relax to" LPs for quite some time.

But Gheorghe and Soulpope ... Surely the GERMAN Bellaphon license-pressed Prestige reissues must have been available in Austria too at that time. "Steamin'" was on Bellaphon BJS 4054 throughout the second half of the 70s. And during the same period "Cookin'" and "Relaxin'" were available on the Bellaphon BLST 6511 twofer (= Prestige 24001).

+1, FWIW

I won't be excluding it ... BUT ... there is SO MUCH out there that merits listening (to me and to MY PRIMARY and PRIORITIZED tastes and preferences) that I cannot even nearly hope to be able to listen to it all, let alone buy all that music ... In short, stuff like that late Miles is bound to be way down on the to-do-list. Not least of all, because "We Want Miles", that's that yellow album with the huuuuge letters on the cover, right? You don't even begin to know how often I have passed up that one in the record bins (the last time because I had rather been searching for about the only "key" Classic Quintet album I am still missing on my shelves). In short, just like KOB this looks like one of the items that's going to be all over the place at ANY time you see fit to spring for it (contrary to many, many other items by other artists that you either grab NOW or will never see them again - ever - at least not at an affordable price ...). Anyway .... we are getting off the topic of THIS thread ...