Big Beat Steve

So "Birks Works" actually means "Birks at work" - right?

Actually I did not know for sure. Public Domain labels often have quite generic names that don't say much, and in most (though not all) cases the actual label name figures exactly there on the Amazon site.. So I'l admit whatever is written there is not totally reliable but your guess is as good as mine. Discogs did not yield anything (though if that record actually dates from 2004 - as the Amazon description says - it ought to have shown up in secondhand circles by now). But again - whatever it is - I'd not assume it is anything but a Public Domain reissue.

If you check the item description further down on that Amazon page you see the label name GENERAL IMPORT. Never heard of ...

Never heard of THAT reissue label, though ...

There is a THIRD one IMO. Stupid selection of the photographs on the cover or back cover that are totally out of sync with the musical contents, and even more so, are horrendous to watch - such as a LOT of garish 70s garb. I can understand that the Route 66 label may have been at a loss of finding decent, usable early 50s photographs of their featured artists when they did their early post-war R&B reissues (witness the awful Billy Wright or Goree Carter LP fort covers) but other such as the above Harptones LP were just the slapdash thrown-together "work" of couldn't-care-less cover "artwork" people. In cases like this it's not just that you wonder if the music played by people willingly dressing in such sartorial horrors can be any good but you have to look and search hard to find out if the music matches the suits(both of which you'd abhor) or if it really is just a mismatch. So dissuasive covers like this in fact do the sales of the record a disservice. As for not giving a damn about how one looks, no doubt these were signs of the times too, but I find this less intruding than the above mismatch. And, for example, I have yet to see any Big Town Playboys record from the 90s where the guitarist is shown wearing only socks (to his already sloppy outfit) and no shoes as he had a habit of doing at gigs. @MG: If you want music from that period and in that musical style - fine. Looking at musicians dressing in the more cliché-laden way of what may have been considered hip at THAT time is part of the mix. But like I said, if the cover leads THAT far away from the contents of the record then you get to wondering ....

For how long did Tony Scott live in Japan?

Honestly, I think mike-ing and recording of the bass part is only part of the problem. My main quibble is that the bass players of those times too often tried to play the busybodies trying impose themselves into the overall mix way too much instead of just keeping the pulse of the rhythm going and flowing (outside their solo space). In short, it is the STYLE of bass playing of that period that very, very often bugs me. The leaders of the dates apparently felt differently and this opinion of mine may make me a "moldy fig" but anyway ....

Maybe because a) IMHO the bass ought to provide some sort of pulse or "body" and these bass men don't. Intruding and overamplified (or ineptly amplified - probably, but that doesn't help matters), and to my ears they just get in the way, trying to show they can "do their solo thing too" at a moment when their place isn't among the soloists. (But that's just my personal impression, and maybe I am expecting things incorrectly, given what the times - and their musical trends - were like, but then I'll just side - again - with those over in the Shirley Scott thread who feel they won't like to touch many jazzmen's output from decades that have that different stylistic connotations) b) I did not pay that much attention to the cymbals, maybe not expecting much in the first place (or being glad there were any at all), seeing what drummers' work in 70s/80s music - outside jazz - often was like (making you wonder what the drummers had cymbals for anyway) In short, apparently some can handle the bass better, some can handle the cymbals better. Different strokes ...

Are you thanking yourself?

Indeed. Lousy and typical. Droning, resonating, interfering. It most often was the bass part that has marred several interesting LPs I bought from that recording era (trying to give the recordings a chance but a bit disappointed because of this afterwards). Don't know what the bassists thought they were doing? Ray Brown must have felt a very, very lonely (and old-fashioned) man during that period,

Simple. Because tastes differ. Luckily. Which should not prevent anyone from exploring what he may have heard on others' turntables or playlists but makes this kind of LISTS just irrelevant. They are not nearly as "greatest" in a universally applicable way as anyone would think.

I suppose you all are talking about SINGLE-CD longboxes? Cannot consciously remember having seen them often in the early days of the CD - maybe because the music of interest to me always came in jewel cases. I often saw (and bought some) CD sets in longboxes of the half-LP size and still find them quite practical. Contrary to many of the smaller box sets current now that are just fatter versions of the single-CD packages they at least allow the pictures in the liner notes to be reproduced decently.

I've read his "Jazz: Its Evolution and Essence" quite a long time ago and while I find it quite interesting his approach, like you say, just appears very stiff and "stern". Like in some of his recording projects from that period, his classical background becomes overbearing at times - at least to me (maybe because I am not a musician?). The translation of my copy is by one David Noakes (I've no idea if it was re-translated for other printings - I doubt it). I have yet to see and read the French original "Hommes et problèmes du jazz" (isn't there a hint at his approach in the title - "problems" of jazz???) but I've read quite a few of his contemporary features in Jazz Hot from the 50s and early 60s - and yes, they often are very, very dry and academic.

From what I've read of him and about him elsewhere Hodeir had a tendency of being overly, really overly "scholarly", stifling the music (yes, and its "essence" - pun intended ) in the process. So this one sounds like he loosened up a little at last. Might indeed be interesting.

Any comments, opinions? What are your impressions of the book? The subject is an interesting and rewarding one, though it's been covered before and from many angles (paging Allen Lowe ... , not to mention the writings by Nick Tosches, Jim Dawson & Steve Propes, Ed Ward a.o.). So i wonder if this one offers something SUBSTANTIALLY new or an original approach to the subject matter compared to other publications. The info on Amazon (including the reviews) unfortunately is mostly sales blurb and reads as if those commenters who are awestruck by the contents are part of those who are totally clueless about the subject.

Agreed with Brad, and I have the same reservations about how certain artists evolved that Joshuakennedy has Many of the 50s artists DID evolve towards funked-up or fusion styles that just don't do it for me either. I won't blame it on them - some just naturally evolved, others swam with the tides, but often it's just not my cuppa. My own experience: Once bitten, twice shy. And with the possibilities you have today, like Brad said, you would be well advised to check out first - on Youtube or similar. I am following this thread a bit closer right now as I have lately been on some kind of late 50s/early 60s organ jazz trip . So in all fairness, talking about straight-ahead organ jazz, there is an exception that I think deserves mentioning - the Rhoda Scott CD in the Jazz in Paris series (No. 34). Duos with Kenny Clarke (dr) recorded in Paris in May, 1977. Fine straight-ahead organ jazz apparently untouched by modernization trends. It could just as well have ben done in the early 60s, and I don't think she ever tried to consciously do a "nostalgia" album. She just did her thing, untouched by fads. I bought this during a stay in Paris in 2006 along with others from that series. I had been wary of this when I saw the recording date but the recommendation by Brownie was spot-on. No fusioned-up stylistic mishmash there but all-straightforward, no-frills stuff. So this is getting a few more spins again here these days.

+1 This was my summer holiday lecture a couple of years ago. Excellent! ("El foggo" - heehee! )

You're approaching one certain (non-attire) Herbie Mann album cover FAST.

Exactly. Except that in my case it is the very early to mid-70s, mostly in the case of blues and R&B men who'd had their heyday in the early 50s or thereabouts. These cats looked really sharp in their prime in the early post-war years but the 70s funk back alley garb in garish colors hung on ageing elderly gentlemen? Ouch ... Some of them may still have been going strong musically by the 70s but others tried to update their image and music in a contrived way that was just painful to watch (in the case of their outfits) and hear (in the case of their funked-up music). Johnny Otis tried to serve a noble cause with his Blues Spectrum records but not all of them IMHO were successes - and they were the better ones. Then there were other recordings that did not do the aritsts a real service. Though I understand that they tried to grab another bit of the action and "stay with it" later on. As for their "fashion sense", no problem with Johnny Guitar Watson loking sharp in the 50s AND in the 70s in the styles of the times - but Charles Brown and others? There WERE others who managed to look much more dignified in their later years (e.g Buck Clayton). But probably the early to mid-70s were a bad time to look decent for almost anybody. And yes - the hideous "art"work of many LP covers of the 70s did not help matters. The one below was particularly awkward. Photo totally out of tune with the contents, and if it had not been for the fact that I was aware of this group at the time (1976/77 or so) and knew some of their 50s tunes and for some brief hints in the liner notes that these were the original recordings from the 50s I would have given it a pass (I had been licked before with records that turned out not to be reissues but re-recordings). Reissues of those doo-wop groups were very thin on the ground over here at the time but even so I literally had to force myself to look beyond the cover to shell out for it. Like with many reissues from that era. As for Al Hirt - incidentally, I was aware of his music from a very early phase of my collector's life but never was overly interested. His clothing would not have put me off, though ... (Gheorghe might understand the following) he actually just looked like an older brother or uncle of our Bill Ramsey (a G.I. who stayed here after his service from the mid-50s, made his mark as a pop singer on the German scene and more of less was the first to do out-and-out novelty songs of a livelier sort but also was a fairly good jazz and blues singer who a.o. appeared at the 1957 Jazz Festival in Sopot (Poland) which was released on a Muza 10" LP. He made his presence felt on the German jazz scene later on) and other acts in that vein. And for US jazz fans - considering the times, where's the fundamental difference betwen Al Hirt and the loud plaid outfits worn at times by the Les Brown band in the 50s? And Hirt certainly looked less silly than Acker Bilk (which may not be saying much, admittedly ). In short, wearing such garb as a gimmick is one thing (that you may like or not) but wearing garish stuff in all seriousnes (like in the case of many 50s R&B singers turned old yet trying desperately to stay "in tune" is something quite different again ...)

"Have" is a word that you like to avoid like the plague, innit??

I agree, Brad, and I usnderstand your motivations. And I for one did not feel offended, i just wanted to add a bit to the overall picture in order make it less one-sided. It IS complex. But .... .. sorry to disagree, Mike, but that's a cheap way of chickening out in one crucial aspect if he tried to limit it to this so-called "traditions" and "courtesy". Old-time courtesy is all very well within one's own four walls but we do live in today's world and a person of such prominence ought to be aware of the implications, particularly if such a meeting is obviously being instrumentalized for political ambitions like it was here. And this means that he was going well beyond the common ground of passably democratic and decent behavior that a role model is called upon to live up to in a situation like this. No sensible reason to accept double standards. After all, there are enough migrants (including many of Turkish origin) who do not agree with what he did and how he tried to wriggle out of it by trying to "explain" it either. BECAUSE they are aware of the situation of migrants and even more so of what goes on down in their country of origin. You can't have it both ways - enjoy the benefits of a democratic society on the one hand and then, on the other, pretend you have to retreat into so-called traditionalism-minded "courtesy" whenever it suits you and your interests best and hope to get away with it because allegedly your "roots" "dictate" you such behavior. You (meaning people like Özil) certainly cannot separate the office (president) from the person. Least of all in these circumstances and at such a moment. Unless - of course - you are fine with what the person in that office does. But then stand for it and live with the reactions. Sharply criticizing the footballer for such action is not racism per se. From a certain point you (i.e. anybody in such a situation of reconciling conflicting aspects of two cultures) just have to make up your mind and decide where you actually want to be and what kind of society you want to embrace. Particularly if you are considered a role model. That may be a downside of being that prominent and taking in everything that comes with it but that's the way it is. Virtually everywhere.

Watch out, Brad, if you bring up THIS topic - this might turn out highly political ... MODS alert ... You are quoting an article from an English source that gives a somewhat one-sided slant to this affair as they fell prey to Özil's statement being worded in English (strange for someone who wants to speak out to Germans, the German national team being above all a German affair - unless of course you consider this to be a thing that addresses his WORLDWIDE followers on the social media in the first place) What German football authorities said after the World Cup about Özils's failure ot live up to expectations was extremely silly and uncalled for. He most definitely was not the only one who messed things up and was not the only one to blame. Such a slant in what they said was bloody stupid. And the way the German football assocation had handled this affair before the WC (hoping it would abate by itself) was just as incompetent. They simply had no balls in all this. However, Özil and Gündogan did an utterly stupid thing in posing with Erdogan who, apart from the havoc he wreaks in Turkish society and democracy, had gone out of his way for months and months to insult Germany and Germans as Nazis (mainly because German politicians did not wish the Turkish election campaign to be conducted in Germany with public appearances by Turkish politicians here - like the Netherlands and Austria, for example, did not wish to be done too, if you remember), in openly calling on Turkish immigrants in Germany and other Western European countries to above all stay Turkish and certainly not meddle too deeply (or worse still, assimilate) in the country they live in, in insulting and threatening German politicians of Turkish descent who had openly criticised his anti-democratic and authoritarian actions, claiming they had "bad blood" and wanting their "blood" tested to see if they actually had any "Turkish blood" left in them, and so on and so on. Do you ACTUALLY think such figures endear themselves to the hearts of many here? Do you actually think those who apparently are not above posing with such a figure at a time when this Erdogan is in the middle of an ELECTION campaign will not be blamed for it - for good reasons? Would anybody be naive enough to believe for a second this was a strictly private meeting out of sheer politeness and not a highly political meeting where the photos taken and publicized were used to raise more support for Erdogan? Remember he had significantly higher votes for himself among the Turkish community in Germany than he had in Turkey itself. What would the public reaction have been in the UK if a UK footballer of renown had posed publicly with today's offsprings of Enoch Powell, for example? The very, very best you can say in their favor is that Özil and Gündogan were EXCEEDINGLY ill-advised by their advisers/agents (themselves of Turkish descent too, BTW) in posing for these photographs. This unnecessary action created a lot of unrest and uproar in the preparatory phase before the WC and certainly cannot have helped in the preparations. Gündogan at least saw fit to issue a statement soon afterwards that he definitely was proud to play in the German team, etc. etc. Özil remained mute throughout. And when he did say something in most recent times (before resigning) his key statement was that he would do it again anytime. Ain't that strange all in all? Besides, the invitation to meet up with Erdogan had been extended to another international Turkish-German player, Emre Can, who refused to participate, however. And he does not seem to have suffered from it. So there WOULD have been a way out if you have enough of an intellect to sense the implications of this situation. Sorry to say, but if you are enough of a celeb in a position like this then you are in the public eye and have a responsiblity to assume in your role. As to those who might now ask if a celeb is not entitled to his personal view - well, he is, but if his personal views take forms like this then he is bound to meet with stiff opposition from many sides. And mind you, beyond the usual irresponsible and incurable dimwits in social media who engage in racist commentaries (and who BTW exist in the same way the other way round when it comes to insults and serious threats by diehard nationalist Turks within the Turkish community in Western Europe and/or, more specifically, Germany against those Turks or Germans of Turkish descent who openly speak out against the political situation in Turkey and/or the behavior of those openly unwilling to integrate themselves in any way in their host societies and countries - being called a traitor is the mildest insult there) Özil was NOT put down as not being a German after all but rather was criticized for the political statement he made in this way and at this time. You cannot expect a German footballer of strictly German descent to meet with much sympathy if he openly sympathizes and poses for photographs with a right-wing extremist German politician at election time (and very rightly so!) so why should Özil be cut any slack in this way if he decides to make a statement like this? If for no other reason than as a German he ought to have felt just as insulted by the Nazi insults voiced by Erdogan - unless of course he said to himself "Hey I am of Turkish background so he can't mean me" which of course raises the inevitable question of to what extent you can have your cake and eat it. In short, Brad, let the affair rest where it is. There are many more layers and aspects to this than the Guardian managed (or saw fit) to grasp.

Not so sure. I've encountered quite a few (maybe) negative but definitely judgmental (and pigeonholing) rock and country fans too - yes, and blues too. There stills seems to be a core "purist" blues fraternity who will shudder at the thought of the evolution of blues as in R&B and whatever came afterwards. As for jazz fans, maybe their "judgmental" attitude to some extent comes from the fact that in the recent few decades there have been times when whatever would not fit any other musical category was lumped in with jazz, though those who lumped this music in apparently had no deeper interest in (actual) jazz (even in a wider stylistic sense) as such but just found the "jazz" marketing tag and its connotations of use to them.

Talking about cover pics and what the artist looks like, are they all actually real or have some been photoshopped in recent times, I wonder? If you look at contemporary photographs you will see that earlier ones show she had a discernible gap between her two front teeth (a detail that sometimes helps to date the photographs) - that no longer appeared in later photographs. Probably she had had dental surgery performed on her teeth at some time but other details of the pic on the 1944-1946 Classics CD, for example, do look like this one comes from the "gap" period. Strange ...

Wasn't Leggio more obscure, at least in the 50s/60s? Shouldn't Dick Hafer be a (fairly) household name from his presence in the 50s Woody Herman Herds? And then on "The Herdsmen Play Paris" (Fantasy) and with the Nat Pierce-Dick Collins Nonet (also on Fantasy).