Big Beat Steve

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.

I was just kidding somewhat. I know overseas takes longer and I am quite prepared to accept this (and can live with the inevitable inconsistencies in transit time over which you have no control).

I am sure my copy will take a "wee" bit longer but I am not complaining. Though I hope this "1st class" doesn't apply to overseas shipments or else it might end up in some sack in the belly of some coal steamer somewhere on the seas.

The website of a German weekly has a talk between a prominent German rock musician and Bear Family founder Richard Weize on exactly this topic of online availability of "all" music at your fingertips today. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall so for now I cannot comment further but the title of it all sums it up IMO: "Spotify has no soul".

This seems to be a further evolution of that imprint I have not seen on any of mine (which range up to a (P) and (C) date of 2011). The reason I was asking was that I am trying to find out how to possibly tell them apart from the outside. The one I have doubts about has a Rickmansworth, Herts. address on the inlay. All those that are real CDs have a different address (PO Box 611, Pinner, no county given) . BUT - one other CD with the Rickmansworth address that I have has an O.K. real CD too. So the Rickmannsworth address is not a sure indicator of a CD-R either. Strangely those other Acrobats I own and that have their back inlay shown on Amazon too ALSO have the Rickmansworth address there whereas my copies have the Pinner address. So there seem to be several (re-)pressings floating around. Which makes me believe that one and the same CD release from them may exist in both forms. Not easy to settle ...

Sh.t .. you're right .. and serves me right for having fluffed that one by not looking closer. Credit to whom credit is due. I bow my head in shame ... People being what they are, I'd guess that as soon as there is a discernible trend that might render "current electricity unusable" there will be enterprising individuals or businesses out there to occupy that niche market of coming up with "adaptations" that make all this work again. I like the idea of preserving physical copies of the music not so much as owners but as "guardians" in the long run. No doubt many diehard collectors (even in many other fields of collecting) see themselves in that role. Besides, if you look closer (at whatever is collectible), a lot is passed on from one collector/guardian generation to the next. Not everything gets thrown out by the heirs, and not all of those collectors sit on what they got just like setting hens.

Not all of those in the R&B field and related reissues, at least not since the original releases on 78. (And no, some reissue on some long-deleted P-Vine vinyl from the 70s/80s - or similar labels - that was exceedingly hard to get in almost all parts of the globe doesn't count and attitudes to the tune of "ha, your fault if you weren't around when they were current in places were they COULD be bought or if you aren't willing to shell out top ripoff money from secondhand sellers today" are just laughable). Again, I'd I not condone sellng CD-Rs underhandedly at all but I cannot see any fault with those Acrobats I've bought even among fairly recent reissues (2010/2011 dates in the fine print), except one single one - the Macy's label compilation. And even there I canot find anything wrong with the booklet (which isn't copious anyway), and I wonder if maybe the problem with the CD-Rs is that these are REPRESSINGS (the booklet to the Macy's has a 2003 date whereas it is 2011 on the back insert. OTOH the similarly designed Atlas label compilation also has a booklet date of 2003 and a 2010 date on the back insert in the jewel case but this one definitely is not a CD-R but the real thing (as are the others I have from that label). Not that nice for sure that they resort to CD-Rs but hasn't this been a problem even with major label reisues such as OJCs? At any rate, as for the Macy's, I know I'd pick up a Vol. 2 (if they ever did one) focusing on Macy's country output and filling gaps in reissues available elsewhere without flinching - CD-R or not. To the best of my knowledge BACM (another CD-R reissuer but they admit it and they are a special case anyway) have not done a Macy's compilation so far. Unimportant reissues to others wondering about this label? Maybe - but then it's - AGAIN - just a matter of different strokes and tastes. So what, then? BTW, @all: What's the label address in the fine print at the bottom of the back inlay of your CD-Rs?

That's the point.

Common business sense having gone out the window? I fully understand your feelings.