Big Beat Steve

It's not just that. Many weren't very articulate when it came to TALKING either. They've jot got other fortes. that's the way things sometimes are - not just with artists. @shrdlu: 1755 was a wee bit BEFORE Eric Dolphy's prime, though. (And continuing a bit OT re-your example:) BTW, the "feruant" "f" being a "curly s" is just that - an s, not an f at all in the first place. Changes of typical handwriting styles over time. The same exists in German handwriting of days gone by too, BTW, even in printing as used up to 1942. And often exceedingly misunderstood by graphical arts dabblers (posing as professionals) who try to imitate (for effect) these antique typefaces today yet totally mix up the two types of "s" (because the two types of "s" are supposed to be used in specifc places in a word ONLY and are not nearly always interchangeable). See the "type face samples" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurrent At any rate, the Shakespeare example you give seems to come from the same background and that "F" in your "feruants" never was an "f" in the first place. Anyway ... the point is that ONE trait of not being very good at (and used to) handwriting oneself is that - without being dyslexic at all - you still cannot make the connection between what you SEE in writing (which you are bound to have seen often before) and what you memorize enough to be able to WRITE it correctly. Names are a particularly visible case. (The way he fumbled Stitt's name together into "Sitts" is a classic example.) Not to mention the fluency of your handwriting (which is another indicator).

Amazing that he got 3 of the 4 US musicians' names wrong ...

It may not be a matter of a low level of literacy but the WAY he wrote this IMHO shows someone who does NOT appear to have the habit of writing a lot at all. No fluency in handwriting, just a visible effort at hanging letters together to make them form words. No doubt in this situation all sorts of mistakes can happen.

He worked there, yes, but i was referring to Höllerhagen as one who was born there.

Wuppertal, home of notable 40s/50s swing clarinetist Ernst Höllerhagen: https://www.amazon.de/Sounds-like-Whoopataal-Neuauflage-2008/dp/3898614662 But what's made the Schwebeahn a "cult" institution of the town was this event (souvenir shop items linked to this event are marketed there to this day): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuffi

I knew you wouldn't be disappointed.

Julius Watkins. Photo below (with photographer Susanne Schapowalow - from the book re-discussed right now in the Jazz in Print section) taken at a 1960 European tour with the Quincy Jones band. Schapowalow remembers in teh book that Watkins was a very good chess player and kept the set in place overnight in his hotel room to be able to continue playing against himself the next day.

Just checked 2 of them this morning but they, for example, are not in the big book on special sale now.

As so often, the internet (and Discogs, in particular) is your friend: https://www.discogs.com/Miles-Davis-Classics-In-Jazz-/release/4895661 And here is a period ad (late 1954) for an EP coupling from that very LP (part of the very, very widespread Classics in Jazz series): The Goldmine book is very useful as complementary reference to discographies but sometimes it does tell nonsense.

I have that one too. The kind of book you pick up when you come across it cheaply (as I did). Far from essential (even among the books of that time) but worth it for the "period" perspective of presenting the subject any time. This one incidentally has 5 photos by Susanne Schapowalow. That 70s "modern" perspective you describe obviously was a widespread fundamental blunder at the time. A pardonable error from your then beginner's perspective, but in the 70s jazz rock and fusion-dominated era many casual listeners (who thought themselves "experts" anyhow) had HUGE blind spots and a totally skewed perception of what "jazz" (in its whole sense) was all about. Happens even today. Yet "Modern Jazz" even by today's definition DID start in 1945. In short, that book (and others like it) does cover MODERN jazz (the way it is understood even today) from its actual beginings and up to the time the book was written (obviuosly ...).

Not a book I am familiar with, then. Your description matches none of the (not too numerous) German jazz books from the 60s that I own.

Sounds like Jazz Optisch by. J.E. Berendt (yellow spine and cover lettering, published in the mid-50s, though). Pity to throw a book like that away - originals of the book tend to be pricy by now. (Edit: The photo credits do not list her among the photographers, though) Photos by her were also used in "Jazz - Gesicht einer Musik" by Siegfried Schmidt-Joos (1960).

IIRC her photographs weren't featured in JP at that time anymore. She was a regular in JP in the 50s, though, and her photographs also were featured here and there in German jazz books into the 60s. An unsung hero of jazz photography IMO.

Now available at the Zweitausendeins online shop at a greatly reduced price of 19.95 EUR. https://www.zweitausendeins.de/susanne-schapowalow-sophotocated-lady-jazzphotographien-1948-1965.html And at amazon.de at 22.95 EUR: https://www.amazon.de/Sophotocated-Lady-Susanne-Schapowalow/dp/3981388291/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=Sophotocated+lady&qid=1559659977&s=gateway&sr=8-1 A steal!

I know it's a US/European divide in the ACTUAL rock'n'roll subculture (wrongly called "rockabilly" by some or sometimes even many but there's more to it). But it IS there. Tell any actual European rock'n'roller who embraces the key 1954-63-style rock music as his definite musical prefernces that there are longhaired overamplified fuzzguitar players out there (heavy metal or whatever) who claim something like "it's only rock'n'roll but I like it" about that music and they will invariably state "no it's not". Of course people ARE aware of this schism of stylistic denominations and don't take it THAT deadly seriously (me included, in case didn't notice ) but there IS a grain of truth and I can assure you that most European fans, collectors and followers of actual rock'n'roll will cringe, for example, at the scope of coverage of the Ohio "R'n'R" Hall of Fame museum and will only be able to stomach it once they tell themselves "Ah those Yanks they just don't know when R'n'R stopped - musically-stylistically speaking - and just became plain "rock"". I know, for example, back in the day when a lavish coffee table book of that Ohio R'n'R Hall of Fame hit the bookstore racks I was attracted by the "Rock'n'Roll" in the title but put it back in the rack in utter disappointment when I saw there was hardly any significant coverage of real R'n'R there - "psychedelics are anathema to greasers" (and picked up Michael Ochs' "Rock Archives" photo book instead at around the same times ). (Yes I'd probably pick up the Hall of Fame book today for general visual reference but while insistently telling myself I am NOT buying a R'n'R book there ) Of course there ARE notable exceptions where the boundaries are more vague and later groups did catch the r'n'r feel - a good many early British invasion recordings (Merseybeat or British Beat in European lingo) did carry on r'n'r (Chuck Berry anyone?), as did many 60s garage r'n'r/garage punk groups, some Ramones et al. recordings might qualify too, and "I'm Going Home" by TYA is a killer anytime, and so on, but in general and as a "one term encompasses all styles" denominator? Nah, not anymore. At least not within the subculture of real r'n'r. (But again - in the end this IS a case of poking fun against what is seen by many as usurpation of a term, above all, and not many would expect US "rock" fans to go along with it ... )

I know (and in the end it's probably a moot point). It's just that this generalistic U.S. way of using the term "rock'n'roll" makes the hair stand on end for most any diehard EUROPEAN R'n'R fan. To them (us) it's a grave disfiguration and abomination to extend the use of that stylistic descriptor in that manner (never mind latter-day attempts at appropriating the term by johnny-come-lately acts). R'n'R had died (or rather, had abated - some say it died in 1960 when Eddie Cochran had that fatal accident) by the time the British invasion started hitting the USA. Exception granted for some mid-60s garage r'n'r (garage punk) where the attitude remained there but what came afterwards was just "rock" (hard rock, psychedelic rock, folk rock, krautrock, art rock, even punk rock, whatever ... )

Rock. No roll. That (i.e. R'n'R) was dead by then.

No match for Dexter.

Looks like it ... Hardcore Shorpyites would be able to pinpoint the exact week this photo was taken by scrutinizing every single magazine displayed on the newsstand there - and identifiying each one of them even if only a snippet of the cover was visible (Amazing, such tenacity ...)

Says who? This is rather a hindsight-ish approach IMO for those for whom jazz started with hard bop. In terms of widespread appeal (or "in-crowd" impact just as much) you might just as well be able to justify naming this or that year where Armstrong, Goodman or Diz and Bird (to name just a few) made a major impact on how jazz evolved from THERE. All subjective, as was to be expected. At any rate, picking 1971 as towering that sky-high above other years in the evolution of rock is nonsense IMHO.

Ha, and on reading the title and your post I figured it was Mobley who did his OWN vocaleseing there ...

Rest assured, Böhm will be understood here too.

i do think I know what you are alluding to (Allen Lowe mentioned it more than once here) but was under the impression this happened quite a bit later than during the late 50s/early 60s.

Crow Jim? Personally, I do like his "Al Haig Today" LP of 1964 on the Mint label. Even though his 50s records have more "bite", so to speak.

Al Haig is the one exactly in the middle, obviously (see the "Al Haig Meets the Master Saxes" LP series on Spotlite for easy comparison, the one on the right, then, is Jimmy Rowles, the only other white pianist on the set). There was MUCH more on Spotlite than just Bird (whose LPs were even a bit earlier than the others, so you seem to have passed over a lot of their releases). To me Spotlite LPs were a safe bet most of the times so I picked up a lot (whenever I was able to find them at all). This "I Remember Bebop" LP has me intrigued now. I saw it in the record store racks I don't even begin to know how often "at the time" (and afterwards) but never picked it up because ACTUAL bebop-era recordings had priority with me and funds weren't endless. (I might give it a try now if a cheap 2nd hand copy comes along now, though.) For this and other reasons I have never been attracted a lot by those latter-day recordings by the old bebop masters (my loss maybe, I know ...), including those by Al Haig (of whom I think I have all his 50s and 60s leader dates). The only later one by him I own is "Strings Attached" co-featuring Jimmy Raney which is nice enough but again there are moments there where the droning, resonating bass with his "hey let me in too" mannerisms ruins the overall sound pattens for me. "It just dont fit" to my ears. But given Hutch's endorsement I mght try his Spotlite LPs eventually.