Big Beat Steve

It's not MY musicologist, it's "wallacebass"'s musicologist (see link in my post above). I just quoted a few statements from the sites I linked. IMHO there is a point to what he says against the term and about its etymology. But then, whatever I feel and (sometimes) write about my favorite music(s) certainly does not have any scholarly or academic aspirations. Besides, in my everyday work with what others saw fit to put to paper I've seen enough pretentiousness, hollowness, show-offiness and "just blah" (to adopt Dexter Gordon's comments about one band's music as a description of the substance of certain writings) to be unimpressed by unnecessarily high-brow terms such as these. Does jazz really need this level of academic dress-up a to have its creative processes described and put into words? (You can be precise, in-depth, "scholarly" in a positive sense of doing well-researched work and still be down to earth) Sorry, "emperor's clothes" to me ...

So ... scholarly linguists to the fore and explain the etymological relationship (or not?) between "contrafact" and "counterfeit" (a pair that immediately comes to mind). (BTW, the first link given below DOES have some etymology, including some relationship of the ABOVE pair. ) Anyway ... that term sounds rather inflated and pompous to me - one of those dressed-up terms that I'd bet one or the other self-professed "scholar" may well find impossible to NOT use once it gets repeated often enough (after all they've got a reputation to live up to among their fraternity ), rendering their blurb even more high-browishly stuffy to read. (FWIW I think I have done a fair bit of reading of jazz literature during the past decades - out of deeper interest in the subject matter, including suffering through some overly academic rambling here and there, but I cannot recall having read this term before seeing this topic, so apparently it has not made me cringe often enough to consciously remember it - so all hope is not lost ... ... and I do trust this is one term that GOOD writers projecting the feel and core of the music can do without ... ) Further random Googling indicates there are some out there who take offense at the use of the term in this context: "Suffice it to say that to me, it has a whiff of the ivory tower about it and is yet another $300 word, which jazz has enough of already, thanks." "While I approve of the idea behind contrafacts, I deplore the term, it’s egg-headed, dreary and cumbersome, utterly lacking the earthiness and humour of jazz." https://wallacebass.com/contra-contrafact/ After doing a bit of research and discussion with a very eminent musicologist, my initial thoughts are correct. A contrafact is not a tune written to the chord sequence of another tune, it is as I thought, different words to a tune. The Wikipedia entry is bogus. No surprises there as any old Tom, Dick and Harry can write stuff there and people take it as some kind of authority. -- So what would you call a tune written over the same changes? I'd call it a tune written over the same changes as another tune. Otherwise I'd have to say that every 12 bar blues (except the very first one) is a contrafact. This is an example of extreme jazz musicologist ponciness IMO. Did Bird say, "Hey Diz, let's write a contrafact of Indiana/I Got Rhythm/etc." https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?310850-Contrafacts-Database

Same to you, and thanks for some interesting and enjoyable listening through the year. An interesting list you compiled there ...

Was finally able to open my copy at Christmas Eve too, and it made for some lengthy and very interesting browsing. Very glad I got this one. However, without wanting to nitpick, I have a few regrets, maybe due to somewhat false hopes after having read the background story linked in the opening thread and seen the documentary. 1) A bit more background info and memories/anecdotes about how the shooting went along would have been welcome. 2) Captions would not have hurt either in many cases (would have helped to avoid some of the leafing to the ID page and back ) 3) I realize the "Closer Look" section does not include all the "Frame by Frame" contact prints but I have my doubts about the selection of some of the full-size views. One or two fluffed exposures where some car drives through the scenery in mid-shoot or someone sees fit to step directly in front of the lens, blocking most of the view, may be nice to show the "in-process" stages of the photo shoot, but they could have limited these a bit. Instead I'd rather have seen a full-size view of the close-up of Pee Wee Russell, for example, and of what looks like an "alternate take" of the final and published group picture. This one can be seen on the extreme right of the cover (differences being that Mary Lou Williams and Roy Eldridge look towards the camera, whereas Prez and Dizzy look sideways). This would have been a nice one for comparison (and maybe discussions about which one would have been the bestest in the end after all ). The overall idea and concept of this book remind me of the "Charlie Parker" book by Esther Bubley (the title being not quite correct, except as a selling argument, as the other musicians of that July, 1952 Norman Granz session are also featured extensively): Contact prints first, full size next. But the Bubley book has a lot more backgrund info about the shooting and the context. BTW, anybody checked the biographies closer yet? One goof that struck me was that Rex Stewart did not die in 1972 (as stated there) but in 1967

I figured it was something like this in the case of your expert topic of Cal Tjader but I really would not expect or count on budget labels like this to go into any sort of discographical research and reprogramming (though personally I often prefer chronological reissues too). And generally speaking (as my remark was intended) I do understand the approach of those who prefer to listen to albums the way they were originally released (including those here on the forum who have stated they burn their own CD-Rs in album release order from chronological box sets). It does make sense to ALSO experience the music the way it was originally released and try to recapture the impression those original releases made. It is not the only possible approach, of course, but it is a valid one IMO.

No idea about these but I have several of their 4-CD box sets covering specific areas of early post-war R&B (Shouters, Nasty, Boogie Woogie Goodies, Fine Brown Sugar) as well as Western Swing/Honky Tonk (Swingbillies) and then their pre-1945 German dancebands sets (that you might classify as jazz, semi-jazz and not even quite semi-jazz) that were very good for what they were. I.e. if you were able to pick them up at the prices they sold at Zweitausendeins for, for example, they were fine (I even tend to like the Charlie Parker "No Noise" set as car CD player fodder). Decent fidelity, quite well compiled. The sets mentioned above of course duplicate other reissues but have some occasional rarer stuff thrown in that wasn't that easy to buy elsewhere off the shelf at that time. I've found them handy when DJ-ing occasionally as they help you avoid having to carry around an even larger number of LPs or CDs (than you bring along anyway) that you'd spin for only one or two tracks that happen to be on these compilations too. And the German pre-war dance band sets even had a rather huge share of really obscure stuff by orchestras undocumented elswehere (not even in Horst H. Lange's discography) and to the best of my knowledge had not even been reissued by Robert Hertwig on Bob's Music. Whoever compiled those German sets went to great lengths to proceed off the beaten tracks of the usual suspects.

Maybe so, but as for these "original releases", were they the FIRST-TIME releases of the tracks or were they (early) reissues of material released before (not counting the transitions from 10" to 12", of course)? It was not rare for record labels to compile an LP from different sessions (that weren't necessarily ALL complete) for their first-time release - even in the 50s. See Pacific Jazz LPs, for example. So if the policy of this reissuer is to pack COMPLETE LPs in their original release format onto the reissue wihtout any further discographical fine-tuning (not surprising, considering this is a budget label) then this looks quite logical to me. Except that maybe some might prefer other LPs if you do not reissue them ALL in one package. So I cannot see anything odd about this, not least of all because (as we all know) other reissuers get by with reissuing just the measly contents of one single LP on one CD - and nothing else to fill out (even halfway) the remaining playing time. I think us reissue listeners/collectors ought to get away from the notion that reissues NEED to be strictly chronological all the time. There are many approches to programming a platter and each one has its benefits and drawbacks.

This Atlas label compilation on the (recently) much-maligned Acrobat reissue label has two tracks featuring Frankie Laine with The Three Blazers: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Boogieology-Atlas-Records-Various-Artists/dp/B00009YX7W/ref=tmm_acd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1545560388&sr=8-1 I was never much of a fan of Frankie Laine (though I somehow like his album with Buck Clayton) but I remember reading Arnold Shaw's "The Rockin' Fifties" a looong time ago and in the chapter on white pre-rock'n'roll artists he devotes quite a bit of space to Frankie Laine as the prime exponent of the vocalists labeled "belters" (which makes him sound much, much more energetic and rockin' than I had ever perceived him).

Talking about "one" song that "ought" not to be played because some might feel "offended" won't change a thing about the underlying problem of people not being able to restrain themselves into decent behavior and is arbitrary for no good reason at all and wont accomplish anything except to serve as token action. If you want to purge song lyrics from "offensive" content re-relations betwen the sexes then go ahead and, to start with, purge ALL doubtful rap lyrics (note this is an example, no doubt there are other segments of music where textual atrocities lurk once you look closer). This is music of today made today by today's musicians in today's context and therefore is much more relevant to today's problems. A zillion miles away from what was made in, say, 1944 or whenever in the past and really ought to be seen in the context of those times, particularly since there ARE more ways than just one to interpret the lyrics' meaning. I short, anybody out there who feels offended about this song's lyrics ought to ask themselves why he/she does not feel offended in the same way about current/contemporary lyrics such as they do exist in rap and take action accordingly. If you want to wipe out the underlying problem (and I'd absolutely concede that there is a problem in some areas), go the WHOLE way and start at the HEART of the problem. Which is not in some 70+ years old ditty. . If it was about "offensive" lyrics then I cannot see at all why certain rap lyrics, for example, ought to get a free pass by THESE yardsticks and why any purge ought to focus on such examples that in the OVERALL picture are comparatively irrelevant, Unless, of course and for example, someone out there has a very special agenda that, for example (I wouldn't find it hard to imagine other agendas, BTW), goes along the lines of "hey we want to show everyone how aware and sensitive we are so we ban this song because it is a no no, but please understand, you all - but don't force us to admit it in public, please - that we cannot deal with mass-market music like rap in the same manner because this is where the money in the music industry is and we all need to make money, so please be content with our token action about all this ..." (note this is regardless of what music actually gets huge radio airplay, there are enough other outlets that might be targeted if anyone really wanted to clean this up ...) IMO, BTW, I cannot really see it as a sign of "growth" in society (to use a term used earlier in this debate) if this very same society STILL needs to take such selective token action because people just are not mature enough to act decently, correctly and with due restraint EVEN WHEN exposed to lyrics that just MIGHT be seen as condoning somewhat too insistent advances towards the opposite sex. Members of society who need to be protected from their own lust in that way certainly haven' "grown" and are not mature. I know I'd certainly not be spurred into action by listening to the lyrics of the featured song on (Chicago-based) COOL 101 , for example, so by comparison "It's Cold outside" would be even less of an issue. Whoever else thinks he would feel tempted needs to ask himself serious questions, not least of all because those who'd really cause problems will certainly not need such an old song heard occasionally to get them up and into "action". There would be more than enough other and more serious examples in music IMO that promote a role model we really ought to be able to do without (see above).

Not everyone - just some ...

Here it is. xls format. It seems your Excel is rather antique. xlsx files have been the common Excel standard (just like docx for WorD) for something like 10 years now, I guess. SONNY CLARK ON TIME ANALYSIS.xls

Not easy, particularly if you did not listen closely at the very start, but not impossible .... I'd sure like to hear this as a background soundtrack in a shop at this time of year ... They'd get more of MY money ...

My copy arrived today. Safely packaged (thanks!!), and the postal services did their job. Though i have almost all the Atomics and all the Downbeats it's still a welcome addition and I am looking forward to listening to it. So are the first 12 tracks on disc 1. This is new material as well, as far as I can see.

Ever since I heard the version recorded by T. Texas Tyler I am having a rough time deciding whether I'd rather spin Sister Rosetta Tharpe's recording with Lucky Millinder (or one of here re-recordings if need be) or the T. Texas one. And have decided I'll let the occasion decide and have found that both fit and fill a purpose.

Excellent points, Duane. Your view of this and comparable songs just nails it.

That's not the ones I was thinking of. I've never liked Dean Martin nor Michael Bublé, to name just two. And sorry to say, Louis Armstrong's version is funny but not something to put anyone in the "mood" .

Thanks, this might be something. I am not a big Mercer fan but have some of his 78s (but not this one).

If the only possibility of interpreting the lyrics of this song WAS "date rape". Which IMHO it isn't. (For the record, I find the recordings of this song that I am aware of to be just boring).

Yeah, that's another one, you're right. Did the French metooer(ess)es jump on that one already, I wonder? You know this debate is gaining momentum in bizarre ways these days. DId you hear about the following? Coincidental with the "Baby it's cold outside" fuss (that DID make some headlines in music news here too), the other day I read a report how that German 90s girlie singer who recorded under the band name of Lucilectric now saw fit to distance herself from her hit of some 25 years ago "Weil ich ein Mädchen bin " (Because I am a girl) that she found to be sooo inapproriate today in the way it portrayed the role of women. Despite the fact that the lyrics culminate in something like '"No matter what the men do, I'll win in the end because I'm a girl" and despite the fact that the roles described there are still being adopted by many, many out there without being forced to do so. Bedsides, I doubt even at that time many listeners to THAT kind of song did NOT take it with grain of amused salt. Nothing but an attempt at making it into the headlines IMO by some one-hit wonder flash in the pan who has long since moved into other fields on the other side of the mike so ought to be above this. The only thing she ought to be ashamed of is the utter silliness of the entire song, arrangements and vocals as such. Regardless ... as for the starting point, this quote form the starting link nails it IMO. “Do we get to a point where human worth, warmth and romance are illegal?” the conservative commentator Tucker Carlson argued on Fox News. (never mind whether Fox or "conservative" might discredit the statement with some) A lot of this kind of songs is about romance and seduction and winning over (which can and does work both ways) without ever going into rape. How many, many such winning-over romance situations are there out there between the sexes for any single rape situation? What point throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because of some moral outrage that claims to be entitled to speak for EVERYBODY? I must admit, though, I was not aware this song, apart from its (likely) winter connotations, had become a typical Christmas song in some necks of the woods. Now if anybody wants to get all enraged at this time of year, let's just sit back and wait until someone out there insists on blacklisting Chris Rea's "Driving Home for Christmas" for deliberately advocating burning the dwindling resources of this planet through some long-distance driving around just like like that at THIS time of year?? Won't happen? Wait and see and mark my words until the pendulum swings THAT way ...

Of course, but you know how people jump(ed) on it. Generally speaking, though, I doubt this would be an excuse in EVERY case. Even if you aren't one of out-and-out moral zealots. The song was of doubtful content in a way at the time but sensible people just shrugged it off. But imagine the hell that would break loose if someone did a NEW song like this today. And strangely enough there are enough who see fit to play the morally outraged today. By comparison, lyrics-wise that 1944 ditty is just lame and harmless. BTW, Soulpope, remember the German-language cover versions of the song that abounded in 1949/50 saw re-recordings by other artists in 1965, 1973, 1978 and 1990?

Exactly. And off-target (because the context was all different). If anybody wants to debate on song lyrics that are doubtful in a context like this then the check this by Austrian singer Falco from the 80s (may draw a blank with US music listeners but launched a big debate on several occasions, and again in more recent times, vaguely linked to the metoo debate): This English-language description sums up the gist of the debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanny_(song) BTW, what's all the fuss about anyway? How many blues and country tunes are there out there that openly talk about just shooting one's woman? Or of other stuff you would not get away with in your lyrics on today's market? Off the radar of the morally zealous because those niche musics are off THEIR radar? Or should we indeed imagine that for once they realized those lyrics need to be seen in the context of their times? Or how abut screening rap lyrics for P.C.? Or do they get a free pass each time because it's rap? German-language forumists may remember the (quite understandable) outrage caused by the award-winning (!) lyrics of German-language rappers Kollegah & Farid Bang a couple of months ago. And this was TODAY!

That's what I figured when I saw more details of the line-ups and of the Atomic session being mentioned (which I have on one of the vinyls mentioned earlier). I've never considered the FS or LHJ reissues because the duplications with the vinyl I have made these of not much interest. A bit like the Chubby Jackson Uptown CD which I so far (with regrets) have not picked up because duplications with existing releases ARE there, and those sellers I have found that were easily accessible from here were priced really way up ... But never mind - I took my chances wiht this one based on the initial track listing and previous all-new discoveries o´made avilable through Uptown, and some of it still looks like new to any release here and besides, it's for a good cause. So no regrets and looking forward ...

Besides, there are a lot of CD reissues out there that don't even reach 40 minutes. Just look at all those facsimile CD reissues of LPs (with no bonuses, or none to speak of).

According to what objective criteria across the entire range of music that is out there? One person's entertaining, unpretentious directness may be another person's crap (because not lofty enough). One man's enlightened, spiritual greatness may be another man's crap too (because just dissonant noise). One man's jazz may be another (techno? alt whatever?) man's crap (because sooooo old hat) And so on ... Anything can be called crap it is outside someone's musical tastes by a sufficiently wide margin. It's all subjective as a function of one's own taste. Somebody else out there will appreciate sincerely what you (or me or whoever) do not like at all. Fine, go ahead ... A huge lot of what doesn't meet our tastes is not really that "bad", just not top drawer and run of the mill stuff to US that WE can do without. And even if it is "bad", hey (to use one of your fave interjections ), even Hasil Adkins has his followers in HIS segment of music or for HIS purpose of making "music". So some may bemoan if his music disappeared from those online services but might not give a hoot about Brötzmann being available or not. So what? Nobody is expected to like someone else's preferences. Different strokes ... No FINAL judgment possible in any direction. Like it or not, it's all relative. And if somebody out there would like to preserve even this niche stuf then why not? As long as they don't force it indiscriminately on everybody else as "mandatory listening". And isn't this what a lot of this discussion is all about? A lot of niche music outside majority tastes at the risk of falling by the wayside in the download/streaming etc. world?

That may be YOUR stance but as you no doubt know tastes and preferences differ widely so others may think alike in fields of music that YOU may prefer or even cherish. And even if a certain tune is all bad (and in most cases it isn't really "bad") it may be so bad that it's really cool again (musical Ed Wood, etc.). Besides, there is enough out there that has been overlooked unfairly by reissuers so those blogs do and did serve a purpose (I know of one I regret has disappeared forever, though OTOH its downloads were seriously troublesome at times so I've steered clear of these, but the discographical info alone going into previously uncharted territory - we are not talking about jazz or bues - was great and gave you lead on who to check out elsewhere). So, as for "nothing to remember", it is in the ear of the behearer, and I'd really make a case for all those journeyman artists out there who managed to get their music on wax for osterity, and there ARE hidden gems out there and they all contribute to putting the flesh on the bones of history as written by the big names and to rounding out the picture of what happened (and still hapens) in music. A case of exploring one's preferred styles in search of new discoveries and therefore documenting and becoming a guardian of the FULL spectrum of music again. Besides, judging what is "great" according to what one is "supposed" to find great according to "common wisdom" and leave it at that is an increasingly doubtful approach IMO, and I'd even go out on a limb saying that I'd understand anybody who finds Ayler's or Brötzmann's "screeching" less memorable than, say, a contemporary minor soul act if he happened to be all into soul and may be inclined to discard THAT kind of "screeching" recordings - REGARDLESS of what the "experts" claim one is supposed to embrace in music from that period. Just like I know what kind of jump blues or bebop I'd prefer over other styles in the wider fields of jazz, for example (yes, including a lot of free jazz "but that's only me"), regardless - again - of what "common wisdom" may dictate. There is enough out there for everybody's tastes and this will allow everything to be enjoyed and preserved by somebody somewhere. If you go only for the obvious names the limited range of what would be preserved and enjoyed would make the musical world (i.e. world of jazz, in this case) a much, much poorer and more limited one.