Big Beat Steve

This thread has prompted me to pull out the one below for listening (a reissue of his 1960 Jaro LP) which was the first KD LP I ever bought (back in the early 80s - not that I have a really huge part of his leader dates anyway). A very enjoyable session, brings back memories of past listening sessions (and the excellent liner notes by Mark Gardner sum up the gist of what the Austin Chronicle bio linked above says) .

Have you tried Amazon? It's on several of their European sites, including co.uk.

Surprise ... the mailman delivered the parcel with the book on my doorstep today. Ordered on Saturday night from the publisher in Italy via Amazon and here it is today. This sure was FAST ... Whew ... as it is a holidays present this is going to be TOUGH wait until Christmas Eve ...

If the booklet is as good as that of most of the other releases it should be an asset. (I found the one of the Illinois Jacquet/Leo Parker "Toronto 1947" release a bit of a letdown as the text offered relatively little that was new at all but those of the other Uptowns I have bought over time are real gems IMO, including the one of the 1958 Dodo Marmarosa CD, of course)

Wishful thinking hoping for ALL-new discoveries. Same here (before I found out about the duplications at home), but I'l be looking forward to the Uptown anyway (received my order confirmation a couple of minutes ago).

Now at home and checking through my LPs. On looking closer, no. 21 to 26 on disc 1 and no. 3 to 13 on disc 2 look like they correspond to the "Piano Man" LP on Phoenix Jazz LP20 released in 1978 (the tracks on disc 2 also are on Raretone 5020). All from MacGregor transciptions (late 1946) according ot the liner notes of the Phoenix Jazz LP. Tracks 19 and 20 on CD 1 are also on Raretone 5020 (Experiment in Bop). According to these 2 LPs the lineup looks like Dodo (p), Barney Kessel (g), Gene Englund (b) for #19-20 on CD1 and #3-13 on CD 2. #21-26 on CD 1 have Lucky Thompson (ts), Dodo (p), Red Callender (b), Jackie Mills (dr). I for one remain interested in the rest anyway which look new to me. And the above may have been improved sonically too - who knows?

The tracklist is in the opening post. Sounds intriguing ...

Sent him a mail 2 hours ago to say I'd like to buy a copy and am hoping for confirmation on this now too.

Watched it yesterday (for the first time). Fascinating but mindboggling that all the interviewees except Sonny Rollins and Benny Golson are dead now. Time flies ... But my, did I have trouble understanding Art Blakey and (often) Dizzy Gillespie ...No comparison with Johnny Griffin or Hank Jones or a couple of others ... Seeing how many of the musicians (and helpers) involved also seemed to have taken snapshots there should be material out there for ANOTHER volume of "behind the scenes" shots (if they can ever be located). Starting with the pics taken by Milt Hinton's wife.

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.