Big Beat Steve

I have that photo in the Esquire book "Esquire's World of Jazz" published in 1963 but I do think I saw it reprinted in some other book before I got hold of this one about 15 years ago because I remember I had been aware of that photo. I cannot recall what other book that was, though. (It wasn't the K. Abé coffee table photo book which had been my first thought ...) Ordered the "Harlem 1958" book last night and will hope it will arrive in time for Christmas. My better half has been nagging me about what to get me for Christmas so this will certainly be something to look forward to ...

I once visited the "record room" attic of a VERY long-time jazz record collector (and part-time record trader) who must have had (at that time - c. 2002 or so) about every Mosaic box set ever released - all of them lined up in a rack covering part of the wall on that room. A DEPRESSING sight in its uniform blackness. Almost the same impression for the array of Mosaics that were lined up for "display" one next to another with the fronts of the boxes facing the room. Too much of an aesthetically minimalistic thing in one place ... Not my aesthetics either. So whatever limited number of Mosaic I ever bought, it most definitely was not for the visual appeal of the object. For some reason I would not even qualify their visual impact as "stark" - it's different again ...

Well, you're right and then you're not. I just checked about a dozen British jazz CDs as well as a good handful of non-jazz CD I have on Jasmine and they all look like regular CDs to me (with the JASCD or JASMCD no. etched on the back too) EXCEPT the most recent one I bought (the one mentioned above) which does look like a CD-R indeed according to "fine print" on the back of the CD. Strange ... (and hard to identify from the look of the label side of the CD etc.). It has a publication date of 2010 so I am inclined to think this is a repressing that they did on CD-R. Will have to look for another recently bought CD to compare, then ...

Those that I have don't look like that to me at all, neither more recent ones nor older ones. Which releases are YOU thinking of?

Now that you mention it, David ... I've had a similar feeling every now and then too, figuring they somehow seem to have gotten more flexible (which MIGHT mean "thinner"?) The other day I received a 2-CD set from Jasmine where I really had trouble removing the CDs from the jewel case hubs. They flexed so that I did not dare to go on as I was afraid they might break. Following your post I now compared the CDs from this set with the first really early CD I was able to pick quickly from my collection (Thelonious Monk Genius of Modern Music Vol. 1 - BN CDP 7815102 which is from 1989 according to the inlay). I didn't take out my vernier caliper (so I may be proven wrong) but the Monk CD DOES feel and look thicker than the Jasmine CD to me.

Nah, Tony Collins, the author of "Rock Mr. Blues - The Life and Music of Wynone Harris" says in the appended discography that his prime candidate is Matt Murphy.

36 years later? Anybody's day has only 24 hours and conflicts of dates (or other reasons of non-availability) aren't a rare occurrence in anybody's life.

Sh..t ... my oversight. I ought to have double-checked before posting. Particularly since Jimmie Crawford had already been named. Deepest apologies. It should not have happened. I was referring to "jack of all trades" because his name comes up in many, many lineups from the post-war years. So make that "jack of all trades bassist". As for the "drummer" bit, maybe I had the name of Jack SPERLING (who also did a fair bit of studio work) getting me onto a wrong track.

Hey, please don't slight (by not naming them) jack-of-all-trades drummer Jack Lesberg and Andy (Andrew) Ackers, pianist a.o. on Billy Bauer's "Plectrist" album on Verve.

Hadn't noticed this thread before (or canot recall it), but here's one for European forumusts (or those who have an awareness for this kind of acts). Perennial pop singer NANA MOUSKOURI did a jazz-flavored album produced by Quincy Jones in 1962 (when she had already made a name for herself in pop circles). I haven't heard it but have read appreciative things about it. Her treatment of these standards seems to have turned the "American Songbook" into a sort of "French Songbook". Lest the usual suspects throw in evermore Youtube clips, here is one right away: She did another album in a somewhat similar vein with an orchestra conducted by Bobby Scott in 1965.

Doesn't it all depend on the definition of "jazz" used in those particular cases? If Golson had more far-reaching ideas and ideals of how he wanted his jazz to be, he may well have felt playing in Bostic's band to be a "hack job". But does this mean Bostic's bands were NOT a part of ALL the facets of jazz that there were and that served different purposes? Doesn't it rather mean that Golson did not find much of what HIS idea of jazz was? Remember Dexter Gordon is on record as having said that the Louis Armstrong band of the mid-40s that he played in for a time before bebop burst out was "just blah". So ... does this invalidate Louis Armstrong's band?

A bit touchy today, maybe? Maybe time to moderate yourself? (You're on the verge of getting political.) So everybody can get back to counting band members (and/or assessing theire repertoire) to decide if they are rightfully "orchestra" members or not, etc ...

Like I said, "concept" would have done the trick. In a very straightforward manner. No linguistic meandering. That's all. And like I said too, points exchanged and taken, so on with the ACTUAL subject.

Well, I think you do understand after all, and I know too that it all amounts to one single letter, but aren't "conceit" and "being conceited" a bit too (linguistically) close for comfort here? ... hmmm ... "Concept" would have done the trick and served its purpose of getting the message across, unless it is a matter of showing off linguistically (in which case ... but oh well ... talk about coming full circle and so on ... ) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceited So back to the question on hand ...

Was the underlined word INTENTIONAL? Or just a Freudian lapse? As for semantics, I have always read and understood "orchestra" in a jazz context to be a synonym for a "big band" if used correctly. Your "today's" distinction between "big bands" leaning a bit more towards older styles and "orchestras" being anything else as well, including more experimental forms of jazz, makes sense. BUT - from the 20s classic jazz period up to R&B combos and elsewhere through the decades there have always been bands labeled as "orchestras" that were maybe a bit larger than the typical 4-5-6 piece combo ("small band") but certainly not big enough to be considered a REAL "big band" or "orchestra". Sometimes this actually sounded a bit pretentious. So once you are aware of this the terms become interchangeable and not quite that meaningful again and may just as well be just a marketing gimmick.

@MG: I cannot be sure about the origin of the photos but I do think these came from the US. Somehow the type of "bobbysoxers" does look familiar from other (US) photos from that period. Maybe a series of pics taken at an Elvis concert (hence the extreme emotion)? The French often had different covers for many of their domestically pressed, printed and released versions originating from the USA but the one you show must have been a relatively short-lived one. I have a relatively early French pressing of the Newport LP with the "other" (familiar) cover. And the Joe Turner "Rockin' The Blues" LP, for example, was first published in the US in 1958 and was also issued with that "crowd" cover in the UK on London.

I am aware of the second series (with the six smaller cover pics) which was re-used for facsimile reissues in the 80s but I cannot recall the other one with the screaming teens. Probably not used for reissues because by then it appeared too "dated" to the execs. This kind of cover photos showing teens in various poses of ecstasy and/or partying was used widely in the 50s, it seems, e.g. on various R&B/R'n'R compilations on Savoy, as well as a cash-in attempt elsewhere for quite unlikely acts.

An amazing "period" cover ... Another one of those covers where the record producers tried to cash in visually on the teen market. It might be interesting to try to find out at which concert featuring which "name" artist(s) this photo was actually taken.

Strangely, an ITALIAN (so it says) edition of a book under that title with the number of pages given in the excerpt you posted and a publication date of 2018 is listed on amazon.de.

"Technically" speaking, you no doubt are right. But they seemed to have had that IMMEDIACY that grabbed the kids who went out to buy their records (and that immediacy got lost - at least in the tastes of many rcord buyers - when technically overproficient studio musicians who "tightened up" other R'n'R records from that period got into the act and produced something that just fell by the wayside (by comparison) with the target audience. Besides, talking about "sloppy", I wonder what "objective" criteria (provided there were any) could actually have been applied to that music to do it justice - or to others? If it was just about being "sloppy" in how you play, how utterly sloppy would you have to consider John Lee Hooker (and quite a few others from that low-down "country" blues corner of the popular music scene) and his odd meters, missed beats, etc. that made him the laughingstock of many among the more accomplished Detroit R&B musicians who insisted "he couldn't play shit" (see "Before Motown"). Certainly it cannot have been be a matter of "the cruder you are, the more authentic you are, and the more authentic you are in a crude way the sloppier you are allowed to play" (though I have no doubt quite a few of the white folksy rediscovery/revival audience thought like that)? So there must have been other criteria at work (beyond pure romanticism by the white folk/academic audience belatedly discovering the old country blues "heroes" and sometimes even making umpteenth-rate guitar dabblers into a hero or making the rediscoverd acts of past times crudify their craft - cf. Big Bill Broonzy) . At any rate - as far as the audience was concerned, what worked for the older African-American blues men and their "rediscovery audience" worked for a good deal of the younger white Southern rock'n'rollers and rockabillies too for THEIR audience. So - again - technical professionalism cannot always have been THE #1 quality criterion. "Authenticity" and "immediacy" in their appeal, maybe?

So did Linda Ronstadt ...

Personally I doubt it, but I cannot be sure. Collectors of such equipment would be able to tell exactly but I don't think they are around here.

I don't know about this particular brand (fitted to Chryslers) but those I know of (e.g Philips AUTO-MIGNON) all played normal 45s. The pickup weight was enormous, though, to keep the record from skipping (i.e. skipping too obtrusively) with the car in motion. A common nickname here was "record planer". Talking about retro value, those Auto Mignons, if in good condition play relatively well and fetch insane prices among collectors. I was seriously contemplating buying one in 1983 or so to go with my 1957 car but with student funds being low this was out of reach. But the prices of that time would make it a steal today.

A bit of a tight squeeze for LP's, though.