Benny Goodman Columbia/OKeh Mosaic available for pre-order

[jazzbo]

I've got it.

Fantastic sound.

You're not wrong about the alternate takes.

I'm really enjoying it.

[Ron S]

I might take your advice and do the small groups Victor set... (even though that also has a lot of alt takes - just not 66!)

thanks

There is a release from our Andorran friends that includes only the master takes from these sessions, and it received a rave review on AMG, for what it's worth.

But you didn't hear about it from me.

I actually have both the official and the "unofficial" releases of these sessions, and this is a case where I do enjoy having the alternate takes.

[AllenLowe]

as far as I'm concerned Benny did his best playing prior to 1932 -

-the Jazz Curmudgeon

[SwingItTrev]

This seems like a LOT even by Mosaic standards...

As I'm one who doesn't like a lot of alt takes... :beee: :beee: I think I might be passing on this one...

The % of alternates and the currently poor exchange rates are making me hesitate over what should have been an automatic purchase.

[JSngry]

as far as I'm concerned Benny did his best playing prior to 1932 -

-the Jazz Curmudgeon

Certainly his playing changed, especially after studying with Reginald Kell (waaay after 1932, to be sure), but did not the shifts in his approach signal a new personal esthetic, and should not what is "best" about these later works (all of them) be judged by those criteria as well as the older ones? Or is this a case of You Did It One Way Then You Changed And Everything Since Then Sucks, Or Is Just Not As Good?

I've often heard it said that death is the ultimate career move, and I believe it. Dead men can't change!

[JSngry]

Or maybe you meant "my favorite" & said "best" instead.

In which case, never mind.

[carnivore]

While Goodman's playing on these recordings is a long way removed from the hot Teschmacher-influenced lad of the late 20s and early 30s (my favorite period for his solo work) the main reason to buy the set is surely the Eddie Sauter and Mel Powell arrangements, plus the impeccable playing of a lot of superb sidemen. In spite of the excitement created by Harry James and Ziggy Elman on the mid thirties band the material played often had a rather mechanical feel to it. In the period on the Mosaic set Sauter and Mel Powell created much more interesting and challenging vehicles for the band and soloists. I've ordered it.

[papsrus]

as far as I'm concerned Benny did his best playing prior to 1932 -

-the Jazz Curmudgeon

Any idea what this might be?

Available for pre-order ... 1930 - 1933.

[jazzbo]

This has been available via Worlds Records for about a month. A typically fine Jazz Oracle release. Details here:

http://www.jazzoracle.com/catalogue/BDW_8059.asp

I must say I think the Timeless two cd set is more exciting, as far as material and performances go.

[AllenLowe]

I just find later Benny - post 1935 - as cold and uninteresting, though I have tried to like it because I figure I should - it's neither fish nor fowl to me - Artie Shaw is more "modern" and interesting, Albert Nicholas/Rod Cless/Danny Polo/BUSTER SMITH and more are much more compelling as swing style - you are right, the early Benny is much more under the Tesch influence, and this plus his natural virtuosity makes for some amazing records, on the Earl Baker cylinders (which are REALLY early) or the things he did in 1930-31 (or close to these dates.) His sound later on is too sweet, his tone neither firm enough nor pliant enough - his technique, in my opinion, has overcome his feeling.

Edited December 2, 2008 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

I just find later Benny - post 1935 - as cold and uninteresting, though I have tried to like it because I figure I should - it's neither fish nor fowl to me - Artie Shaw is more "modern" and interesting, Albert Nicholas/Rod Cless/Danny Polo/BUSTER SMITH and more are much more compelling as swing style - you are right, the early Benny is much more under the Tesch influence, and this plus his natural virtuosity makes for some amazing records, on the Earl Baker cylinders (which are REALLY early) or the things he did in 1930-31 (or close to these dates.) His sound later on is too sweet, his tone neither firm enough nor pliant enough - his technique, in my opinion, has overcome his feeling.

Hey, fair enough. I'm just saying that when you say "best", that's a real value judgment cloaked as objectivity, which is "ok", sure, but not "right".

I mean, Benny obviously changed as a person, evolved culturally as well as musically, and if his playing during the Sauter/Powell era (which I really dig, in context, much like I do Wayne Shorter's best work with Weather Report, in context) is different than it was earlier, well, that's as it should be, isn't it? Different "person", different values, different music, right? To not change would be wrong, no?

Now, for some, the "values" (musical, sociological, both/whatever/etc) of the Sauter/Powell era Goodman are more personally relevant, and far be it from me to tell them that they are wrong (which I know nobody has done, but you know how these things get going once "class" aspirations - which was no doubt a big part of BG's evolution from the git-go - come into play) in thinking that that is BGs "best" playing. Like I said, wholly on it's own terms, in it's own context, I myself really, really dig it, probably as much as I dig any Goodman (and he's a B-list palyer for me as far as what floats my personal boat). It's a form of fully-realized Benny Goodman-ness that I think he probably worked really hard and with no small personal integrity (or ego, depending on how you wnat to frame it...) to get to, and that's a notion - defining yourself on your own terms (yeah, plenty of assistance along the way, but in the end...it's Benny Goodman, if you know what I mean) - that is so fundamental a human thing that "musical" issues ultimately take a back seat, at least for me.

Mileages on all this obviously vary, to be sure, but..."best" only has meaning relevant to "objective", and that is surely in the eye of the do-er at least as much as in that of the evaluator. Probably more. What "they're" trying to do and what "I'm" looking for are two different things, and when they sync up, beautiful. But when not, it's nobody's "fault", and no "blame" need be attached. They just went one place, and I just don't like it there. Fair for everybody.

Just my opinion.

[carnivore]

Another point about the Sauter/Powell period - Benny's arrangers at that time pushed him about as far as he was prepared to go and could handle - viz the unlamented 'bop' of 'Undercurrent Blues' etc in the mid 40s - and I think. got some very fine and inspired playing out of him. It was also, I believe his last creative period. The rest of his life and performance seemed to be a sterile look back to the mid-thirties band and his greatest triumphs.

[JSngry]

The rest of his life and performance seemed to be a sterile look back to the mid-thirties band and his greatest triumphs.

Playing-wise, I'd have to pretty much agree, but have you heard the band and the book that he took to Russia? Some real freshness there, relatively speaking.

[carnivore]

Yes - those kinds of bands were fascinating because you had the likes of Zoot, Phil Woods etc contrastedwith Benny who at times seemed almost an unwilling participant. The nadir in terms of things I've heard must be an album he made for Century with Jack Sheldon, Wayne Andre and Buddy Tate. The boredom reaches out through the speakers and grabs you by the throat.

[AllenLowe]

I love the Sauter arrangements - also the Capitols/Mary Lou Williams charts - and anything with Stan Hasselgarde -

[carnivore]

Is the Earl Baker stuff available? Lord lists Jazz Archives 43.

[JSngry]

Yeah, Sauter was a freak!

But that raises the question - could the pre-1935 Goodman play those charts the way they needed (ok, "needed") to be played? Not technically, but "esthetically"?

Or maybe even this - could those charts, that band, even have existed if Benny hadn't changed the way he did? If Sauter's main client had been Red Norvo/Mildred Bailey, what would that have gotten to? I'm thinking that Goodman might have provided a bit more "spike" to that punch, just by nature of hime "being" Goodman...

That's all so much masturbatory speculation, sure, but that's why I've tried to wean myself away from the "best" notion and more into some kind of faux-pseudo-"objectivity" about artists' evolutions. Because all the speculation in the world doesn't alter that they did what they did for whatever reason that they did it, and that means that if Goodman gradually but inevitably lost his jollies after 1935, he also got us all those hipass Eddie Sauter charts, so, hey... if I had to choose, I honestly don't know which I'd take. Probably the Sauter shit, just cause the world has been full of cats who had their jollies, but not nearly as many who could write like Eddie Sauter.

But that's just me.

[carnivore]

look at it another way - virtually every jazz soloist who left something of real worth and excellence did it before he or she was 35ish. (Hawk and Body & Soul one of the few exceptions, Duke in 1940 another, albeith revived by Strayhorn.) After their 'best' work there were gradual or sometimes catastrophically fast fallings-off. I think Artie Shaw sensed this and stopped forthwith. Benny kept the balls in the air for a long time, rewarming old coals and playing 'Airmail Special' right up to the end..

[AllenLowe]

re- the Eddie Baker cylinders, I have them on an LP -

[papsrus]

Weighing this one. There are some rather critical reviews at Mosaic from completest buyers. (Some one and two stars!) Perhaps the alternate takes could have been cut back to make room for more material? Regardless, it looks terrific.

[jazzbo]

I'm with Dr. Jerant. I only have the much-maligned Columbia release, and I'm fine with it.

[BruceH]

I like both the early, pre-1935 jumpin' Goodman, and the later, Sauter/Powell-arranged Goodman roughly equally but in completely different ways. Different colors of the rainbow, and all that.

In fact, I like all Goodman, except for what I would call the "autopilot" period, which I put at roughly 1945 until his death.

[Guest Bixieland]

So, what's verdict on this set? I'd be interested in everyone's opinion. It seems too historic to pass up! And, I don't have much Goodman (just the Carnegie Hall gig, the Capitol Trios, and the Charlie Christian box.) Is this essential?

Also...which would you pick-up first; the Chu Berry set or the Goodman set? I can't decide!

Edited December 29, 2008 by Bixieland

[jazzbo]

This has been discussed. . . . Look at the last few pages of this thread:

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=47887

I would say you could go with either set. . . time on both sets. The Berry may be "better" musically depending on your tastes and your tolerance of alternates.

[carnivore]

I'm just working my way through the set - basically listening to the master takes then going back and listening to all takes of each number - this aspect probably of most interest to someone like myself who has played in the saxophone section of big bands....or those who have played in other sections for that matter.

Apart from the obvious - the brilliant writing of Eddie Sauter and Mel Powell and the sterling work by Fletcher Henderson and Jimmy Mundy - the main impression so far, given the opportunity to listen to the band's entire non-vocal output is a new-found astonishment at the incredible level of excellence the sidemen had achieved by this time. One had always known Benny's band at this period was good - but I'd forgotten how good. In particular Toots Mondello's lead, and many solos from him too. And Cootie was by no means wasted either. The other thing that comes to light as the recordings progress from 1939 to 1942 is the fantastic strides the Columbia engineers made in capturing the sound of the band. The early recordings are quite opaque, but there is extraordinary space and clarity by 1941. There's also a fascinating dynamic at play with Sauter writing almost Kentonian arrangements as in 'Moonlight on the Ganges' and Benny still playing it safe by having Henderson arrange 'Somebody Stole My Gal' and cover 'Frenesi'

A great set.