Big Beat Steve

As for the search function, these books do have an index that looks fairly comprehensive (at least the Savoy, Chess and Verve books that I am familiar with do) and should allow everyone to locate the artists fairly easily throughout the book.

I think our local city library may have one too. I borrowed the Savoy and Chess discographies by Ruppli in the late 80s/early 90s (and they had others from that series, though I cannot recal which ones) and photocopied everything that was of interest (e.g. Savoy everything except the gospel section, for example) but I have not set foot in this library for close to 20 years. So I do not even know to what extent the whole book searching/borrowing system has been reorganized since and if anything at all in their setup remains the way it was then (or if maybe - horror - any scaling down of what they have in their archives has occurred as part of the library has moved to another building in another part downtown about 10 years ago).

Gumpert, maybe?

"Weehawken Mad Pad"??

Don't know? Not explored big bands in greater depth to reach out to these first-and-a-half tier black bands (no,though he has often been overlooked I wouldn't consider him outright "second tier")? A blind spot, maybe? (Like others have it in other places) That particular compilation of tracks actually has been all over the place in multiple guises in the "H" section of big band jazz racks for about 40 years, first in the record shops, then in secondhand bins, and must have been the easiest available Claude Hopkins material for a very long time prior to the Hep and Classics CDs. It'd be impossible for me to count how often I've had the (French) Musidisc (30JA5156) equivalent of that (Alamac) set in my hands ever since the late 70s but did not grab it (and in retrospect I don't even know why I didn't). I finally took the plunge in the mid-90s and bought it secondhand on Swing Classics ET2. It was also out on Jazz Panorama LP13. FWIW, some secondhand bins seem to yield similar items worldwide these days. Not all that long ago I bought the George Lewis "Dr.Jazz" and the Davison/Condon "Live Miami Beach 1955" LPs for next to nothing from the secondhand special offer bins too. Wouldn't mind getting hold of a few more Condon concert releases from that period on those 70s collector labels at the same price.

Somehow Sonny Clark looks like Prince's dad there (or Esquerita's somewhat more subdued cousin )

I really wouldn't say so. I don't have the set but I do have about 80 to 90% of what's on it on vinyl (mostly those Savoy twofers from the late 70s and 80s). I may be biased as I am quite a bit into bebop but I really do enjoy a huge lot of it for what it is - on a par with what was out on Dial, some early BN and other 40s labels. Bird definitely was in a league of his own and often is beyond comparison but the "rest" was much, much more than just also-rans IMHO. And that's not only Fats Navarro or Dexter Gordon ... By YOUR yardstick you might as well claim that once you go beyond 2, 3 or 4 "key" hard bop acts the rest was just an "academic bore" too. "Just blowing sessions rambling on and on and not much more ..." (In more ways than one, in fact I do find a lot of the 40s bebop recordings more rewarding than not all that few hard bop sessions. The 3-minute limitations of the bebop 78 rpm era turned many of these into condensed, extremely intense musical "miniatures" whereas I find quite a few hard bop sessions did not just "stretch out" but really overstretched things. Anyway ... "to each his own ..." and "one man's meat ...")

Déjà vu ...

The reason I was mentioning this was SPAIN - boy, was I baffled when I saw the tons of his reissue LPs flooding the racks in the record shops when I visited Spain (not Argentina, mind you ...) in 1980 and 1983, by which time he had been gone for close to 50 years. No doubt you will remember this too ...

If this is so, shouldn't you use a different common denominator than "rock" in the title in the first place? Non-jazz, non-classical leaves a LOT of musical styles that are not "rock" even by the most liberal definition of "rock". (Or get people to stick to "rock"..) (or delete "rock" from the title altogehter?) P.S. @soulpope: Basically I understand and agree with your feelings but check that book of your younger music listening days "Rock Lexikon" by Schmidt-Joos and Graves (published by rororo) that you no doubt perused back then too. Otis Redding not only has an entry there but also has an LP in this book's list of some 50 "essential Rock LPs"). It's a wide field if you take in the side branches of the tree of "rock".

So your LP looks like it has no dead wax to speak of? As for my "suggestion", getting beyond the initial hurdles of how to obtain information can make it much easier to lead targeted discussions afterwards (there will be plenty left ... )

This LP is on the "Complete" Charlie Parker Records budget box set release a couple of years ago (and creating a degree of controversy here). I'll have to listen to it again when time permits to see what's up with the track you mention. The CD sleeve and booklet erroneously list only the Duke Jordan session details for this LP (and mix up the date, indicating the Sadik Hakim date for the Jordan session) but according to Bruyninckx the entire LP was recorded specifically for CP Records, the Sadik Hakim session on 13 Feb. 1962 and the Jordan session on 22 Feb. 1962. So it's no compilation. TTK, you really need a decent discography by now ...

Yes no doubt he was relevant and he was an original. I remember catching him at a live gig in a local club a shade over 20 years ago. Went to see him on the strength of his rcordings he had done back in the day ("Bacon Fat") etc. It was an impressive gig by someone who in other settings would have been considered a sort of "elder statesman of R&B" and play it safe but he certainly put everything into his show. He sure was "nuts" (not in a negative but rather in an energetic sense). I have a hunch at least one local club gig promoter (who is heavily into booking subculture acts in the 60s style garage rock vein) will mourn him even more than most everybody else "just" remembering him from attending his gigs. He again booked Andre Williams on several occasions in the years since but somehow I never made it to any of the later gigs. RIP.

Do we know for sure? Are there many documented questions and answers on this aspect from that pre-1840s period?

Differences of "retro" perception again, I guess. I can very well imagine seeing or remembering Europe of that time in all B&W, but OTOH I think most of those who picture themselves in 50s or early 60s USA today picture it all in glorious full color ("Colors by Deluxe", as it said in one musical "cult" movie back then). All B&W would be more fitting for 40s USA ("film noir" again, and everything that goes with it, style-wise). OK, will spin the Double Six meet Quincy Jones LP later today after the chores outside have been taken care of (I have it on French Columbia - the cover with the group members looking down at themselves, not up, as on US pressings ) Though, in THAT vein, the "Blue Stars of France" (EmArcy 1954) somehow sound more like a jazzy background soundtrack of the era to me. (Clichés, i know, but anyway ... )

The French inventing jazz? Or in which respect are you being tongue-in-cheek? Creoles in "French" New Orleans? That aside, I guess everybody who is deeply fascinated by a past period with a specific image (whethere historically totally correct or not) has an idealizeed (or stereotyped) way of looking at this past period in a setting that one personally would like to relive (or beam back into). Just like we'd probably imagine bebop being played in some "typical" 40s "film noir (US variety) setting ... (The WIlliam Gottlieb photo archives help in that respect, BTW ) STILL - you'd probably be shocked if you'd care to (or be able to?) read a lot of what was written in period (i.e. 50s and even early 60s) German (JAZZ PODIUM) and also French (JAZZ HOT) jazz monthlies about jazz and its "art" connotations and aspirations. You'd probably not find a lot about those high-brow attempts at liaising (by ALL means) jazz with classical (or "serious") music to make it really "respectable" in a Europan "art" sense that really fits your imagination, and in the long run you'd find a lot of THAT rather dry, dour, academic and stiff. André Hodeir was no coincidence either. And THAT type of jazz certainly was a million miles away from any "typical" St. German des Prés cellar club jazz concert setting - either actual (as witnessed by US tourists at the time) or imagined (in latter-day idealizations).

Too bad shipping costs are rather prohibitive if you'd actually want any. I'd probably be able to find very cheap copies of most of the original 4 LPs from the 60s in about 4 weeks' time.

Exactly. My mother was one of them (though, judging by what she had bought, the Swingle Singers and George Gruntz ranked ahead of Loussier, it seems). Like many in Europe at the time: Third stream! Jazz needs to mate up with classics to become respectable! And please no "Jazzing up the classics"! Playing classical music very moderate jazz overtones is what it is to be instead.! I never fully got into Loussier (though - for completeness sake - in more recent times I bought the other Play Bachs that my ma did not own - the Play Bachs still are very, very common in record clearout sale bins here) but he certainly did make a huge splash.

OK, I made my point above (not authoritarian nor judging but inquiring - please note the difference). Also - as you will have seen from the replies to your very first thread here, I certainly am not adverse to replying to such inquiries. I did reply (in fact, as the first one), trying to come up with an honest reply as well as I could, checking the info I had available here. It may not have been what you were hoping for (but as somewhat confirmed by the replies thereafter it may be the only possible answer), yet confirming that the somewhat blurry dates are the only ones in existence should at least clear up the picture somewhat. What next? Two more questions/threads of the same kind referring to the same artist and existing releases. Which puts the listing of your very first thread somewhat into perspective. And should probably leave more than one person puzzled as you did not state your intentions clearly. After all - when the third similar question came up - Bear Family boxes do come with books with lots of info. Is it, then, that you are cataloging music that you don't have? How come, if you are all into Nat King Cole, as the total of your previous posts seems to indicate? (I should have thought these reissues were the definite and final word on covering this music - as is the case with most BF boxes) Do you have the entire contents of these boxes on previous releases/reissues? Or is it that you have these reissues but NOT in their original form? (Which is just a question, not an accusation, because I am indeed puzzled about the similarity of the questions). Now, besides - may I indeed remind you too that you are on an internet forum? Please remember there were several people who replied both to your first question and to this one, yet what remained missing was ANY sort of acknowledgment on your part of these attempts at providing you with info. Don't you think it would have been a sign of elementary "netiquette" to reply in some way and maybe explain and elaborate on what you actually are after, if only to show you are interested in engaging in some sort of constructive discussion? Just so you don't get people to thinking you just take the replies for granted. So .... I do take your point but you will have to take my point too, the gist of which is that I do not have an "agenda" at all but I do tend to speak my mind every now and then.

I am more and more puzzled by the sameness of questions in this succession of posts, that's all. And I am ASKING. Definitely not stating. Not least of all because I was thinking of several discussions here re- the nature of 'CD-R-ing legit releases. But by ALL means, please DO feel free to delete my post if you feel this is contrary to what is OK to be written here. I am certainly comfortable with that and did not intend to be at odds with rules in this respect.

I am beginning to feel a bit puzzled about the common denominator of the posts by Mr Mills jr. Nat Cole and questions about session details or EXISTING releases galore. If I got the gist of the replies to these posts right, there ARE good and comprehensive Nat King Cole discographies out there. And quality reissues such as Bear Family usually come with very good booklets (real books in this case, actually). What's up, Mr Mills? You sitting in front of a stack of home-burnt CD-Rs where you now are trying to fill out the bones of the CD-Rs with the flesh of the liner notes of booklets you don't have because you don't have the genuine items?

True, the musicians were the creators. But among the scribes and historians who documented and presented post-1945 jazz he was second to none IMHO in spreading background knowledge of the music to fans and serious listeners who came after him and he certainly was above a fair number of "analyzers" who probably considered themselves far more enlightened and "deep". I know there are quite a few who figure on the spines of books in my music library where I'd rather choose Ira Gitler if I had to.

I took note of his non-jazz activites only in passing. My first exposure to him came via his mid-40s recordings for Eddie Laguna's Sunset label reissued on Black Lion in the 70s and I was suitably impressed after having bought this LP new at the time. My Fair Lady came quite a bit later (sometime after after the Jim Flora-illustrated Rogers-Previn Collaboration on RCA and Previn/Freeman's Double Play on Contemporary). I know some will shrug many of these recordings off as too much technique (and not enough heartfelt "keyboard fumbling" or so ... ) but anyway ... IMO he had chops. And looking at the jazz corner of his Discogs entries now I realize there are a couple more I'll have to check out when the occasion presents itself.

True ... but haven't these diatribes been written in EVERY direction? Starting with a somewhat overzealous self-elevation and assertion that everything that came before what was considered "new" at a given moment was more or less relegated to the scrap heap of musical "has beens" (or to "nostalgia" at best) by many (scribes) who wanted to be and remain "with it"? It still seems to me that a tendency through several decades has been to cut a lot more slack in one direction than in the other. BTW, when is an outspoken position just that just that - and when does it become a diatribe? A wide linguistic field ... BTW, I certainly am not one of the "de mortuis nil nisi bene" faction but like Brad said - things do seem like they are getting a little out of hand (and out of proportion) here, as if someone(s) now pulled out their axes they had been waiting to grind ...

So who WAS the "no show"? Isn't that fairly obvious.? One reason apparently was that Ira GItler had the monstrosity of not openly and immediately embracing the "new thing". This automatically got him into hot water with anybody who held these on a pedestal and considered them sacrosanct and did not find any other niche of where to cut his objective achievements "down to size". (What for, I wonder, there WAS quite a bit of "emperor's clothes" out there, e.g. when it came to REAL musical and instrumental "chops" - but that's another debate that's often been led to no avail because everybody remains stuck in their trenches even these days anyway). For some reason it still seems way more "appropriate" in these circles to blast partisans of the "earlier"/older styles of jazz but to take offsense at the reverse. Yet the notion that the development reached a "higher" level throughout when jazz went "free" remains highly doubtful IMHO; the development branched out sideways onto other, different paths that on their own terms might well warrant exploration. But artistically "higher" ? Nope. Last night I checked the link to that "overrated/underrated" page of 22 years ago and must say there still is a lot of food for thought there (both ways) with various scribes, regardless of whether some consider it heresy.