Big Beat Steve

Centigrades or Fahrenheit?

I do not have a high-end audio setup but I am pleasantly surprised. Last Sunday I spun my original stereo copy of the "Inside Sauter-Finegan Revisited" LP which reissues part of the first S-F 10" LP and did not find the sound bad at all to start with (the stereo doesn't detract) and then, last night, listened to the same tracks (from that first 10") on the CD and found the sound nicely full and bright. They claim on the CD the tracks have been remastered and give a name (not one I am familiar with and I am not at home but in the office right now so cannot check) so my impression is they clearly did some work on these tracks. (Disclaimer : This is just some subjective impression - this is the first Avid CD I ever bought, I am no extreme sound frequency analytics geek and do not spend hours and hours comparing this or that reissue, repressing or remastering of one and the same track for some finicky details but rely on my general listening impressions for what I personally want to get out of the music overall )

Received my copy of the AVID CD containing the Sons, Adventure in Time, Goodman/Miller (and their first 10") albums last night. The Adventure in Time album is heavy stuff (for my listening habits), though, that I need to take (and take in) piecemeal. So please bear with me and be patient ... It's all about percussion, reminding me of the Persuasive Percussion and Provicative Percussion albums in places, but more ambitious still ... As for the Sons of S-F, a first listening-in confirms what Larry Kart said above, though I don't find it quite that "marginally S-F" only. It all depends which part of the recorded spectrum of S-F charts you approach this from.

Just getting into the details of this one now ... This actually is a reissue of their first 10" album of 1953 (RCA LPM-3115) and also has a few tracks from "The Sound of Sauter-Finegan". The only new track seems to be "Exactly Like You", a "leftover" from one of the sessions that yielded the "Concert Jazz" album. Some of the contents of this will crop up again on "Inside Sauter-Finegan Revisited" (RCA LPM/LSP 2473). I am still trying to figure out your angle as I do not seem to be able to grasp it all yet. But that moment will come ... One remark anyway about your review of "Stop! Sit Down! Relax! Think!" My reaction to listening to this one right now (for the very first time for ages) was totally different. It certainly is no Glenn Miller novelty (unless you lump in any danceable white big band swing under "Glenn Miller"). Miller may have been there if he had been around after 1944 and active in the 50s, but do we know? And vocal novelties IMO start a bit farther down the line. To me it is a surprisingly nice example of danceable swing of some more "progressive" (and actually fairly space-agey IMO) 50s style. I'd love to see a few couples of swing-loving dancers do a relaxed, easy going jive or lindy hop to this one but am afraid not many would be hip enough, at least in those circles I am familiar with. Just like "The Honey Jump" (from the "Sound of S-F" album that you unloaded) is an entertaining and danceable period piece even to those who are familiar with other versions of that time (and don't take their music not all that stylistically seriously), starting with Oscar McLollie's original for Modern or the cover version (by one totally unknown called Jody Webb & His Round Up Boys) for the hillbilly market on the Modern subsidiary Flair. I'd rate it as a sort of sauterfineganish equivalent of the Shorty Rogers gang (under the Boots Brown moniker) or the Lighthouse men (on "Big Boy" etc.) having a not quite that serious go at R&B. Both something for hip enough space-agey bachelors to dig if they for once want to get out of their lounge chair and out on the dance floor to move a leg to something more sophisticated and less raucous than real R&B or the burgeoning rock'n'roll sounds of the day. As you can see there is more than one way to approach some of this music even from the points of reference of the times.

Didn't Jack McVea have a VERY long "residency" there? From 1966 into the 90s

I've watched that movie several times (for other period-related aspects than the music score, admittedly) but never noticed that statement. Will have to pull out my video copy again ...

Maybe a bit what the Martians were to Shorty Rogers at about the same time? Not yet - but hopefully soon. (I confess I took the plunge and just ordered a copy of the "Four Classic Albums" CD on Avid the existence of which I discovered this morning when, following your plug of the "Adventure in Time" LP, I did an online search for sources of that album and was pleased to see this CD fills my primary gaps among the S-F albums (Sons, Goodman/Miller) just spot-on. (Yes, I bow my head (somewhat) in shame and promise that when I find affordable vinyl copies of these the CD will go into the car player ... )

TTK, are you referring to Legrand Jazz or to the Demoiselles? I guess it's the Demoiselles and maybe the strictly instrumental version IS way more bearable - but to me much of the singing just came across as rather contrived and unconvincing, maybe because it is evident the actors - and actresses, in particular - just were no singers, including Deneuve and her much too early departed sister (I see only Danielle Darrieux did her own singing). To me somehow their "moves" just didn't match the (overdubbed) singing (not even by the yardsticks of typical musicals, which admittedly I am no huge fan of either) - maybe - again - because this film must have been a one-off excursion into musical territory for most of the actors/actresses.

Watched this film a couple of weeks ago when it came up on TV and found it unbearable and impossible to watch to the end - though I love the period flair/aesthetic of many French movies from the 50s/60s. Michel Piccoli lipsyncing and pretending to be singing - holeee sheeettt! And this was just the tip of the iceberg (but maybe what pushed the movie over the edge for me). It wasn't the fault of Michel Legrand's basic score, though ... BTW, how come nobody has mentioned this one yet? (a 5-ar DB item, IIRC) https://www.discogs.com/de/Michel-Legrand-Legrand-Jazz/release/783641 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legrand_Jazz

Sounds a bit like what might have been said about Raymond Scott in some circles quite a few years earlier.

Thanks TTK. I am not an extreme S-F fan either but appreciate them and like listening to them every now and then (as to other "progressive" (there's that word again! ) 50s orchestras, and as one part of the overall "50s jazz sound legacy" (if you know what I mean). It seems I approach these reordings not the way you do and am not too familiar with Esquivel anyway but I can see where you come from. And from MY point of view I agree with most of your assessments (though your comments read like I am more forgiving with what you call "corny" whereas on the other hand I was slightly underwhelmed by the fairly straight vocal tunes). As for this RCA series, I do not know how LJM and LPM (that was often used for their jazz LPs in the 50s) related but they must have coexisted for a while. I also have LJM 1018 (Shorty Rogers/Andre Previn - Collaboration - Jim Flora cover too) and LJM 1023 (Barbara Carroll - Lullabies In Rhythm - cover by Oppenheim, not Flora) but this latter one has a black label with colored nipper. I have seen the silver label with the dark reddish lettering on other RCAs but the only one I was able to locate quickly in my collection is LPT 1003 (Bunny Berigan) - i.e. no LJM. So maybe this was just a specific pressing run? According to Bruyninckx, this LP was recorded on Feb. 24-26, 1954, so it is not a collection of previously issued singles and EPs.

I'll be looking forward to it. I wonder what exactly you file under "corny". Maybe some of the (comparatively straightforward) vocals ...? I know some ofthem don't do much for me in this context but I'd consider them a concession to some common denominators among the general public's taste.

I doubt this was typical for "our" generation. It all depends on what style of jazz struck you initially (e.g. through radio) and what you preferred to stay with thereafter. I knew I had no big problems stacking up on the pre-50s styles of jazz (funds permitting), but then the choice was easy in those mid-70s, with jazz rock/fusion on the one hand and avantgarde/free on the other being touted all over the place as what "jazz" (per se) was (supposed to be) all about (and "dixieland" thrown in for the easier listening habits within jazz) you just HAD to go exploring and searching extensively for what immediately appealed to you MORE, i.e. swing in my case (and bop very soon after). And once you started digging you did find stuff. 30s Fletcher Henderson was indeed a bit difficult to get hold of at that time, though. 20s Henderson was easier.

Since you linked to the "Science Fiction" 45 on YT you must have come across the comment posted there: I'm glad Bill Finegan had a chance to write for himself.While with Miller,he was intimidated by Miller over his charts.Miller would run one down and say "Bring it down to OUR level!" Billy May,who was arranging and playing trumpet for Miller then,once said that his heart bled for Finegan because of Miller's constant fiddling with his charts.Miller was considered to be more of an "idea man". Do we know if what S-F did with their reworkings of the Miller tunes, for example, maybe went into the direction of what Finegan had originally been required to cut out? Reason enough, maybe, to do it at all ... At any rate, I don't feel what they did was "regressive". Not even with the Miller/Goodman reworkings (at least those I have heard on YT now). They "progressed" from the original charts and as I said earlier, they could have been more "adventurous" for my taste - meaning more "modern" or daring, in the sense of what typical "progressive" jazz big bands of that time stood for, hence the term applied to them. But they chose just to embellish their original charts here and there and make them sound a little "edgier" (for want of a better term, this from just a listener, not a musician). So what? That's their choice and isn't it ONE legitimate way of doing things? Copying the original charts just to redo them in "Hi Fi" was a different matter in those days. (Van Alexander or George Williams (et al.), anyone? ) As for the original charts, they stand on their own and are what they are but being the living end of progressiveness or adventurousness 15 years after the fact? Come on ... They WERE "progressive" in their time but hardly 15 years later. And though they remain timeless within the context of swing-era jazz, is this a reason to make them taboo for later reworkings - by the original creators, of all persons? It's not even a question of "improving" on them but just of treating them in a (somewhat) different way. For the listener (me, for example, anyway) they brought out some features of the originals in a different and differently accentuated way. Why not? One may like their treatment or not but - again: So what if these 50s reworkings can be enjoyed for what they are? Regardless of whether you manage to listen to them with the same "reference points" as someone in the 50s would have. At any rate, if one manages to capture those period reference points then it is the reference points of the genuinely interested and reasonably aware (and not just "consuming") listener that matters, not that of whatever musician (or musicologist). The approach is different yet the musician's angle is largely irrelevant to the main listening and record buying audience. The musician angle is an add-on and may give additional interesting insights to the interested listener but it is not the main (and even less, the only) angle. Musicians who listen with nothing but musicians' ears, dissecting everything into tiniest shreds, are another example of what is commonly labeled "professional deformation" and risk losing the overall picture.

I don't feel they were misleading. To me they read like they're quite in tune with how to see the S-F orchestra and place that record within the S-F opus of that period. As for those Youtube clips, I for one do not feel they are novelty-ish. The originals are the originals and these are these. They could indeed have been more adventurous and by S-F standards they ARE relatively restrained and conventional IMO. But "clever"? Nah. Just a bit edgier. But what's that "cover" that Youtube character put up there? Why would anyone want to dig out a Jim Flora cover of "Bix and Tram" on Columbia when there are so many great (and REAL) Jim Flora S-F covers around? Silly ... and pointless ... Anyway ... this thread prompted me to spin "Inside Sauter-Finegan" again last night. Quite a bit of variety, some more straightforward, some more adventurous ...

Who or what's a "typical S-F fan"? I don't consider myself one but I do have a soft spot for those 50s (and 40s, as it may be) "progressive" big bands too. And I confess I also have a soft spot for what Eddie Sauter did here in Germany, e.g. with the Südwestfunk radio big band. And this IS a "jazz point of view". As for "clever" (a rather abused term in this kind of debate IMHO), I take this to mean "overly calculated for effect" here. In some instances I cannot disagree but where would anyone draw the line ("one man's meat ...") about who'd fall into that category, particulary since I have also seen it used as the sort of musical antipode to "blowing sessions throughout".

This can be a WIDE field. The reason I was asking: I recently bought two (cheaply priced) period copies (one for a collector friend) of Crown CST 332 released in c.1963 (Whitey Pullen, here doing mostly country songs, but a "cult" figure among rockabilly collectors) from the special offer Country bin in a local secondhand record store. Both vinyls look fairly shiny and OK and do not show much visual signs of wear and use, yet the sound - of which we did not expect any miracles - - is rather muffled and low, maybe even more than what I'd expect from a Crown. Figuring this may also have been a case of dirt I cleaned them with alcohol and test-played them at once. Surprisingly the sound of BOTH brightened up distinctly while the surface was still wet but got dull and muffled again when the alcohol had flashed off. As a long-time collector, have you ever noticed anything like this on a Crown? I have come to expect all sorts of things from Crown vinyls such as bubbling spots in the surface and inclusions of foreign matter but have not experienced such a difference of wet/dry fidelity before.

Thanks for the review. I also have several S-F LPs here (including the "Directions in Music" LP so will listen in on the sample track you mention) and am still looking for "Sons of S-F" (admittedly for the Jim Flora cover too ). Generally I like their charts but may well have passed up the "Memories of Goodman and Miller" LP when I saw one as I did not feel like needing another Goodman/Miller rehash (they were not the only ones in this field at the time). But your review definitely prompts me to make a note to check closer next time.

How's the pressing of this one?

Thanks! Some interesting reading and useful information there ...

Not so very long ago I bought a very early deep groove pressing of Cannonball Adderley's "Somethin' Else" for the huge investment of 1 EUR from a used record dealer - probably because the party (and maybe frisbee?) past of the vinyl was evident, including something that looks like candle wax and won't shift - though the vinyl does play through and surface noise isn't even overwhelming. And apart from one smudged area even the cover is fairly acceptable. But imagining what the vinyl must have gone through made me cringe inside too.

Pulled out this one again and am reading it piecemeal once more. Some of it is rather dated (even by nostalgia standards), some (a lot in fact) is a priceless image of that era. BTW, @jazztrain: Thanks for bringing up that Bluegrass book. That looks rather interesting for a friend of mine (a keen old-style country music collector and musician).

I know I'd pick up ANY such press kits for LPs (that as such are of interest to me) from the 50s without flinching. The sales blurb can be very, very entertaining. And from what I used to see on eBay they ARE collectable. I don't know about Marsalis but generally I'd say that with all things paper the longer they are preserved the more they will "appreciate". I remember I obtained two sets of the Pablo press kit for the '77 Montreux festival releases at a local record shop way back when the LPs hit the shops (they had a stack just set up free for customers to take away). A folder with a huge poster (styled similarly to the typical covers from that LP series, nothing that appealing but anayway ...), a set of some 6 or 8 or 10 pages of typed promo blurb and about six glossy prints of the featured artists (Eldridge, Gillespie, Peterson etc.). I hung the photos from one set on the wall in my student room for a time, then both got filed away and eventually ended up in the "music items" box of my fleamarket stuff as they really were too "recent" to keep by all means. One (the better-preserved one of the two) found a new home rather fast at an OK price, the other I dont remember, in fact it MAY still be in the box.

Good points, but the Discogs listing of the "Historical" series is a HUGE mess. They haphazardly mix the US Prestige and German Bellaphon releases (and other pressings of the same LP) instead of listing them as different pressings of one and the same release/reissue, as they (correctly) do with other LPs. .This would have given a much better overview as each release would have appeared only once in the listing linked above. BTW, the listing is still incomplete. "Trumpet Jive" feat. Rex Stewart and Wingy Manone (PR7812/BJS40159) is missing, for example. I remember this series well and bought many of them in the shops in my early collecting days (they remained in print for a long time as you may remember). A lot of these reissues were my introduction to the artists (e.g. "Mating Call"), though quite a bit of the material was also reissued elsewhere (e.g. on the Prestige/Milestone twofer series) in more compehensive form soon after, so if i had the choice I went for the twofers. The "older music" recorded for "other labels" is quite an odd mix IMO. The "Trumpet Jive" LP mentioned above features 4 Rex Stewart tracks done for (UK) Parlophone and 8 WIngy Manone tracks done for the Joe Davis indie. Where's the link there? It still is FINE music and was an ear opener at its time. E.g. the Walter Foots Thomas LP (that also had material from the Joe Davis label) and includes what still are some of my favorite late swing era small band sessions. Of course the Joe Davis reissues have long since been superseded by the LP reissues on Krazy Kat. I never quite figured out how the French Vogue releases ended up on Prestige either. This created more discographical messes. I remember I more than once pulled the Clifford Brown LPs from the bins, hoping for new material, only to find all this had also been reissued comprehensively on a UK Vogue 3-LP set that I had bought years before and Prestige added nothing new. Reissue redundancy wherever you looked ... and so much more unreissued at that time ... (e.g. the material that Prestige leased from Metronome in their early days).

You're talking about Prestige 7650 that you showed the above cover? I would have thought this reissue happend before OJC ... I bought this LONG beore there were any OJC's (at least in OUR record shops). It's the German license pressing (exactly same cover, Bellaphon label, i.e. probably pressed in the 70s) and I think I bought this in 1985 or so along with one or two other Miles Davis "classic quintet" reissues on Bellaphon.