Big Beat Steve

Not wanting to press you unduly, but could you check and give an idea to us overseas prospects what the editor would charge for shipping to Europe if an order is placed with them as per your proposal? As you know, the way USPS rates are organized is a bit of a jungle.

I did like it and find it interesting. I know there are some (known) usual suspects here who will give it a roundabout blast and tear it to (virtual) shreds because it is by Feather, but my stance is that ANY autobiography needs to be taken with a grain of salt and should be read as ADDITIONAL info in a wider context of OTHER source documents on the same subject matter and weighed accordingly. And whatever Mr Feather may have said or done during his "active" years that came across as too much of "blowing one's own horn" in hindsight (and no doubt there was plenty of this), it must be said too that he DOES acknowledge a number of errors or misjudgments he commited back in the day and seemed to have come to regret later on. Including in the context of the Esquire history and the 40s mold fig vs sour grapes feuds. One example is that Feather did acknowledge that in the venom spit both ways at that time, Hugues Panassié (of all jazz scribes and critics ...) was one from the opposing camp who did give him an even-handed and factual rebuttal and put him in his place in a way that Feather seemed to have taken seriously. And this despite the fact that Panassié did not really relent at later occasions in blasting Feather whenever he put anything in print that went against Panassié's grain (often connected to what Panassié saw as belittling or withholding the tribute due the elder African-American jazzmen). In short, Panassié's disdain of Feather may have been way deeper than what Feather realized (or cared to comment on). Of course, don't expect to find him confessing all his personal flaws and weaknesses there (I'd know offhand of at least two major and quite telling incidents that have been documented elsewhere but that would be off-topic) - but whose autobiography would include ALL of that anyway?

That's probably because the Coleman Hawkins recordings were done for Commodore. In that case Leonard Feather's "The Jazz Years" autobiography would also provide some backgrund information (p. 79 to 94), including a facsimile reprint of the entire letter that the Granz bio quotes from - and details of the recording sessions of the preceding years and their reception by the market, of course. BTW, in all fairness it needs to be said IMHO that while the 1947 book is extremely lopsided in its coverage and totally (and apparently intentionally) misses the point of what it is supposed to present, OTOH what IS in there (mostly a presentation of the state of the Condonite et al. segment of the jazz world as of late 1946) is quite good anyway and worth reading as historical first-hand documents of the times..

I bought mine (magazine versions) of the 1944 thru 1947 editions on eBay about +/-15-18 years ago whenever one came up at a very good price (relatively speaking). The Armed Services edition struck my fancy (for its convenient size and the historical context) but I found it was somewhat scarcer than the magazine or book editions (which vary in availability too). I checked eBay off and on again over time and found the usual price for the Armed Services edition to be $30 for copies in relatively good condition (including among the listings right now). A bit too much for me, given that I have the other two editions. They must sell eventually, though, as the ones listed don't remain up forever. Actually there is a clean one at $5 on auction right now on eBay that might tempt me a lot but $25 for overseas shipping is pure ripoff for such a tiny book. (P.S. re-my above post: Checking eBay I now see the 1946 yearbook also existed as a hardcover)

The very pocket size-ish Armed Services Edition. Copies of this are the priciest ones on the market these days, it seems, but the main 1944 editions were the two below: Magazine-size and hardcover. As far as I can see only about 14 of the 90 pages included reprints of earlier Esquire coverage of jazz, the rest appears to be new for that edition. The 1945 edition also came in magazine and hardcover versions but I am not sure that hardcover book versions existed of the 1946 and 1947 editions. BTW, a hint "for those who thus desire", a condensed edition with features from the 1944-45-46 editions was published in the UK in 1947: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Esquire-s-Jazz-Book-Peter-Davies-1st-1947-hardback-In-d-j/202426468683?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649.

That's my impression too. And when covering that period, don't forget to include a word on the Condonites/Ernie Anderson clique vs. modernists pollmembers confrontation surrounding the 1947 Yearbook too. Apprently quite a scandal then, but a mildly amusing variation on the moldy figs vs sour grapes quarrels today. Browsing through that issue now, i cannot really find a fitting tune to illustrate that this issue acknowledged that there WERE notable modern recordings then, after all. Except the ones marked below in the excerpt from their page covering "Esquire's 1946 Hot Discography": in that issue:

I think what Ghost is alluding to is the period from the Esquire polls of the 40s up to the final Yearbook of 1947 and possibly the renewed jazz involvement surrounding the "Esquire's World of Jazz" book from 1962. I wonder where the later "Esquire Jazz Collection" CDs would fit in there, except as a vehicle to market the name of the magazine. I cannot give any concrete leads to more Esquire-related recordings as I am not familar with the CDs in the opening post but as there is no label and release no. information to check online I can only guess what is on them. I probably have most of that on various LPs but have no idea what overlaps or omissions there may be on these various reissues. Anyway ... all the essentials of what the typical 40s candidates associated with the Esquire magazine recorded seem to be there in that list.

Hope the two photographs below answer your question.

From the "Before Motown" book, page 148.

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 ... )