Big Beat Steve

Frances Wayne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Wayne

How big was Spike Jones popularity-wise in 1948? And wasn't Red Ingle's spoof of "Nature Boy" a hit the same year? An attempt at jumping on the bandwagon, maybe?

Yes you've go a point there. (Though I am a bit surprised at the number of cover-up meanings that seem to be coaxed out of the word "junk" ) But regardless of what the actual ly intended connotions were, what WERE they thinking, then? This cover did not happen THAT long ago. Certainly not in the laissez-faire late 60s/early 70s.

No wow. Just telling it like it happened. Like I said, different experiences, different reactions, different associations, and like I also said several times over before, the garb and the placing of the names had and has different connotations for me, though - like I also said - I do understand your reaction based on your past experiences. As for "objectivity", do some googling for tastelessest LP covers ever from the past X decades and I do think you are bound to come up with worse examples than this (which - AGAIN - I DO find utterly silly).

Quote: Well, the title of the record is SUPRISE! x2. Never known an illicit watch-vendor to use that word when hawking their wares. Flashers, otoh, that's more than a cliché. This may all be hypothetical to you, but I had a good friend who as it turned out was a flasher, got convicted, did 90 days in jail might well still be on probation for all I know. He's not a friend anymore because although he owned up to it to explain why he was going to be unavailable for a while, he never really admitted that he had a problem past getting "overheated from time to time". I had a teenage daughter at the time, and the first thing I did was to let her know was that this guy was like this, and then ask her had ever ever even hinted at anything with her. She said she hadn't, but then she told me about guys her own age who were up to shit like that, just pulling out their junk and looking for a reaction. So yeah, the whole "flasher as joke" thing is not funny to me. And if the album title had been, Hey, Wanna Buy A Band? or something like that, your logic would make sense to me. But it's not, and it doesn't. No, flashers as a joke aren't funny but "surprise" or not, my first reaction to this cover definitely was a case of "hey, wanna have a look-a at da guys I gotta in-a my band-a?" just like those "special deals" displayed for purchase in the same manner, given the placing of the names and given the outfit - which is NOT typical for flashers, isnt it? Whereas it certainly is typical for a certain type of these peddlers. Can happen even over here and even in recent times, unbelievable though this may be - I remember an instance some 10 years ago when I was just chatting innocently with a friend in the passageway leading to his garage's backyard in some really deserted industrial estate when some pseudo-upscale-looking sedan pulled in and some Southern-looking feller (yes, I am not sorry to state he clearly was of gypsy background, stereotypes or not - it was unmistakable and that area does have a sizable - and all in all perfectly straightforward and honest - population of that background) jumped out, dressed in some awfully styled pinstriped double-breasted suit, watch chain and all, showing off a load of watches he had for sale at an oh so special price as "leftovers from trade fair stall displays". Sounds incredible? Well, though afterwards we laughted, figuring this could only have happened in old B-movies, we DID feel bugged and annoyed at the time and told him in no uncertain terms we were NOT takers. So you will have to take my word for this to be true just as much as I have to take your word for your story to be true. In a situation like yours I'd probably have reacted like you but basically it's still is different strokes and I don't see much reason to go about to see where there is sex out there in public that one can elect to feel offended about. In short, silly cover of doubtful taste that I for one would not find a selling point at all but not that big a deal to work yourself up about if you look at it objectively..

Who says it was ever meant to insinuate something about a sex offender and make fun of it? Look at the words of the band members written inside his coat. Ain't you never seen caricatures of those greasy small-time would-be mafiosi giving unwary passers-by a glance at their ware of doubtful origin (such as watches of all sorts) hung in the same places inside their coats in an attempt to peddle their stuff? The garb matches too, in a cliché-like manner ... Silly? Yes. Off-putting? Yes, for its silliness - to me as a record buyer, for example (but that's only me). Maybe not flattering either but it must have been intentional so who are we to judge from today's vantage point? There have been FAR more shocking record covers across the board through the decades. Anyway ...AFAICS certainly no reason to obsessively project "sex" into this as a reason for offendedness. It ain't necessarily all about sex out there ...

Regardless of how one feels about every detail of the recordings, you must admit that the lineup is quite something ... And actually the "Dr Kildare" track is just one of many different TV features ...

Does that matter for the CURRENT state of the debate (which may well have flared up - as you no doubt ar eaware - once certain posts have been deleted very recently for the very same conflict with existing rules)?

So if you deleted this or that political post in this thread during recent days as it seems, what's keeping YOU from deleting JSangrey's Time cover post (which - like that of many others - I find EXCEEDINGLY political too)? After all its been brought to your attention by now. (Is there really any question or doubt about photos carrying and being able to carry an immensely political message?) Or is one mod deleting another mod's post out of the question? FWIW (and even if it only adds another repetitive layer to the debate), needless to say that on grounds of fairness I agree with what Brad and Paul Secor said here recently about one rule for everybody. Once you start enforcing rules, enforce ONE set of rules vs EVERYbody. Wouldn't that be just a matter of fair and square fairness all around?

In addition to the Aaron Bell LPs of 77 Sunset Strip and Victory At Sea already mentioned above, here are some LPs I picked up through the years (for the fun of it - as "period" jazzy lounge oddities): https://www.discogs.com/de/Video-All-Stars-TV-Jazz-Themes/release/2342371 https://www.discogs.com/de/Harry-Betts-His-Orchestra-The-Jazz-Soul-Of-Doctor-Kildare/release/6464553 https://www.discogs.com/de/Metropolitan-Jazz-Quartet-Plays-The-Great-Themes-From-TV-Shows/release/5511023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang You might perhaps want to borrow a different word from a foreign language to describe your (political) turmoil(s). Remember it is various styles of jazz in particular (that are being discussed here on not so frequent occasions) that THRIVE on these intentional extremes of emotion. No safe heaven in the true, artistic sense of the term, then ...

But for a non-musician the sections that go BEYOND the biography and the purely disocogrpahical details are a TOUGH read.

Fascinating indeed and meriting a serious "tangible" release - but .... Lewis Porter (THE Lewis Porter who isn't just anybody in the field of jazz history) writing, in all earnest (talking about "Sleepy Time"): "The Rene brothers appear to have been musicians ..." "Appear"? Really? Can he be serious? What kind of blind spot is this? Leon Rene had a VERY long and many-faceted career in the music business. Is it that hard to put the bits together e.g. from Leon's pic (taken in his early days) with the Buddy Petit band in the "Pictorial History of Jazz" (first published when Leon Rene was still active) to the Excelsior and Exclusive labels that he and his brother Otis ran post-war (and these labels were not just "any" indie label either) and Class Records later on. Nitpicking? Maybe, and nobody knows everything, but still this sort of unevenness in historical awareness is rather amazing to come from a seasoned pro.

I am not so much actually referring to this forum but to advanced music listeners (who might well be termed collectors) in general - many of them in what is termed "rock" - who just do not seem to be too interested in READING up on their musical preferences in the sense that they (sort of) collect books or mags on their music too. An impression I have gotten in various discussions. So I am not that surprised (maybe less than JSngry) by Chewy's position. And yes - I am biased, considering myself a collector of printed matter on my preferred styles of music too.. Yes, both R&B and gospel. The foreword says "All known details on jazz, blues, rhythm and blues and gospel sessions are included ...". However, it also says (in the 1980 edition): "Savoy files ... are far from complete - this is especially true for early sessions and for 1966-75 sessions. Files covering this last period had yet been found, and listings for these years have been limited to jazz releases and index of gospel albums". Apart from their entries in the chronological session listings, the gospel series are scattered throughout the book in numerical order.

The "Al Haig meets ..." and "Nat Cole meets ..." volumes, in particular, were ear openers to some of the rarer sessions on Dial and elsewhere. And I think I relatively wore out my copy of the Dodo Marmarosa LP too (one of those cases where I ought to have picked up a cheap NM spare copy when the occasion presented itself).

Not a rare occurrence in the field of music collecting (not just jazz). Collecting music (in the sense of buying it more thoroughly than an average music consumer would do) - yes. But reading about it, either for discographical reference or background knowledge of the history of the artists etc.? No ... what for? "Reading? What's that? Too academical! Keeps me from LISTENING!" That's the impression I got in a number of cases, strangely enough.

Have a look at the orange-color panel the bandleader is displaying in the bottom center picture on the cover of John Mayall's "Crusade" album. He must have had SOME influence in the UK for sure.

Same here. The Spotlite series isn't bad at all, neither is the Storyville reissue of the Dexter Gordon Dials, etc. I know I am likely to it regret it for some of the alternates or the occasional session that fell through the gaps of other reissues but you can't have it al, unfortunately.

Ha, so the much-maligned neo-swing movement did do some good after all, as it shows now - 20 years after publication of this piece. Nice piece indeed, just a pity it gives such short shrift to his European activities and presence. Taking it on himself to make the trip that often up to (almost) his final days really showed his dedication ot the cause. He was held in awe in the lindy hop scene here by anbody who witnessed him or attended one of his classes and he became more than a legend in his lifetime.

Been listening in to some of them - and sorry, while her voice does have some appeal she would have deserved a different backing. Just IMHO admittedly, but these strings stil stifle the proceedings. Unswinging as they come. Yes I know a more big band-era like big band-ish orchestra backing probably would not have been the motto of the day in this early post-war period but I'll go on record as saying I for one DON'T like and don't dig this. Give me Mildred Bailey or Lee Wiley (to name just two white female singers) any time.

Indeed ... Another name associated with those (for once) not quite so fond memories when listening by accident and in bewilderment to the extremely MOR-housewife-background-muzak-programming on AFN FM in the mid-to late 70s. And leaving one wondering if this "Carmen" was indeed "man" or not actually "woman" (yes, admittedly I wasn't aware of Carmen Mastren yet, let alone Carmen Leggio, and the name of Carmine Appice known from different listening contexts was NOT the same name, so was no clue at that time ... ) But what would ACTUALLY make me run is the STRING orchestra. Not something I'd associate with the "swing" in "jazz" big bands. But if I ever come across this one at the equivalent of 27c I'll take your word for it that the strings aren't THAT intrusive ...

I have the '61 and '62 sets. Sidewinder's description sums up fittingly what they are all about. Personally I would have preferred full sets with British acts only (as many of these no doubt are much harder to find in other reissue forms than the US recordings would be) but the US compilations have enough material outside the "usual suspects" to make this interesting to explore too. And the 2-CD sets do create a nice atmosphere that makes it easy to imagine the club sounds for us "latter-borns" (pending objections from "those who were there" and who are still around that "it was not like that at all", of course ).

This session for the Duke label (not the one of Duke/Peacock fame, it seems) was his first leader date. It would take him another 11 years until he got his second one (for Bethlehem): You bump into him as a sideman on quite a lot of 40s/early 50s dates, though. Has the page below ever been mentioned in this context? http://www.jazzdocumentation.ch/mario/frwe.pdf

Thanks for the hint. In my quest for the obscurer obscurities from the 30s/40s/50s , I couldn't help ordering a copy of this CD online (seems to be uncommon - "never sold on Discogs" yet). Not expecting monumental wonders but looking forward to it.