Big Beat Steve

"Callin' The Blues" is very nice but I am not familiar with all of Tiny Grimes' late 50s/early 60s "Mainstream" records so I cannot say how it rates compared to his other recordings from that period. Beyond that, it all depends how you like your small-group guitar swing. Tiny Grimes' career has several distinct periods. His 1944 small group sessions (often reissued due to the presence of Bird on some them) are definitely worth listening not only for Bird, and those who dismiss those tunes (including Tiny's singing) as "flash-in-the-pan" ditties (if it weren't for the presence of Bird) are rather high-brow snobs! And he did not do badly at all at those mid-40s Art Tatum Trio sessions either. And for those who like their small groups with a fair more bit of grits and steam, his recordings from 1947 for Atlantic, Gotham, etc. (fittingly often billed as "Tiny Grimes & His Rocking Highlanders") are all-plugs-pulled R&B with tight interplay between his well-amplified guitar and the tenor sax and pure energy that clearly show that rock'n'roll as "invented" by the Whites (???) in 1954 must have been old hat to the ears of quite a few. Even his slows have a very intense atmospheric after-hours quality. And those groups gave John Hardee, Red Prysock and Benny Golson some early exposure. And then there was his late 50s "Mainstream" period (see above), and all three have their merits in their own right IMHO.

And how often before? Seems like Prestige runs a very close second to BN in the number of times the same stuff has been rehashed in (allegedly) different packaging and mastering that might actually (lo and behold!) be FRACTIONALLY different ("better" or not seems to be a matter of taste and ears anyway ).

Thanks, but the part that I thought was racist was what he said about the background singers, not the concept of "race records." Even that part should not be considered too racist. Because if you use that yardstick there'd be nothing but discriminatory statements in the music biz whenever a new musical style or trend comes along. Take a look at how "rural" vocal styles were enforced for "rural" audiences and some singers were considered not "rural enough" or, in more recent times, take a guess at how punk rock singinig would sound to ears tuned to, say, the Carpenters, or other middle of the rod pop (or pap? ) This could go on and on, so take it as a historical statement (and fact), see it in the context of the times and leave it at that. No excuses needed IMHO.

Interesting story indeed, TTK. However, since all this is HISTORY, there is no ned to duck away and feel uneasy when certain terms come up. As others have pointed out, "Race Music" was "THE" standard term from the 20s to the late 40s for what became to be known as "black music" (i.e. originally "R&B"). "Race" definitely did not have the negative connotations that are attributed to that term to day, and it was not intended to be pejorative. Remember the general term "the race" was even used by African-Americans to denote THEIR "race" and their successes, as borne out by numerous press statemens in the BLACK (and probably black-owned) press of the day, e.g. in "black" music trade papers which here and there refer to this or that accomplishment by black artists as being "a tribute to the achievements of the race" (my italics but the way the term was rused obviously indicates they used this term not in a pejorative sense). About having "white singers in the group otherwise no one will understand what they're saying": A common statement at the time (apparently - at least to white ears - there can't have been enough Bon Bons around ); Bullet Records owner Jim Bulleit is reported as having been in utter amazement at the success of his singer Wynonie Harris because to him what Wynonie sang was totally uncomprehensible and "nothing but noise". Any why do you think Stan Freberg, in his early-50s spoof of "Sh-Boom", lets his protagnonist shout encouragements of "Mumble! Mumble!" to the studio singers because what they sing "gotta be unintellsheeble" (for the target audience anyway) :D Now for your questions: 1 - Can't have been Steve Sholes either. He was as white as they come too (and was he involved with the Bluebird branch?). But no doubt research (is there a written history of the RCA label) ought to bringt up the names of those major A&R men involved in reecord producing from the late 30s to the early 50s. I guess RCA will be among the better-documented labels. 2 and 3 - A label discography should help (RCA Bluebird MUST be documented in full), but from there it's anybody's guess. Session file sheets would be the next step to research. But given the wide scope of music recorded there, it might well be that some music that may have been fairly hot for a time back then but from today's collecting vantage point might not fit any categories (not jazzy enough, too pop-oriented for R&B or country music collectors, too black or too country-ish for pop collectors, etc.) and therefore might have been off the radar of reissuers. But a LOT has been reissued, though far from all, I guess. Anyway, the clues you have are very meagre, I am afraid, so I think researching the name(s) of African-American A&R men working for BB at that time would be the first step, and then the session files (they should list the A&R men names too) would be the next. Who knows, maybe you ARE lucky and the backing singers did NOT always go uncredited. Good luck!

Sounds like some scientific ivory tower inhabitants are concerned about their ivory tower being reduced to an easily accessible ivory condominium.

That's something I was wondering about too when I saw that pic; This will answer it: http://www.freshsoundrecords.com/record.php?record_id=4853 Evidently a collation of the Swingin' and Plays The Duke albums - so the Mercury cover shot of the Swingin album resembles (but is not identical to) the earlier Mercury B/W album cover.

Right on, Niko! At any rate, "Jutta" is NOT to be pronounced the way it unfortunately has been preserved for posterity in the grooves of the "Hickory House" LP on BN when Leonard Feather introduced her by mumbling something like "Choodah".

Like you can read above - forget them. They were released way after the vinyl twofers and really are a letdown because of their incompleteness, though you might be lured into thinking you get the real thing because they reproduce the LP cover artwork. Actually some of those 2-LP sets are among the VERY FEW LPs that I ever got myself a second (NM) copy of (when the occasion arose DIRT CHEAP in a secondhand record shop) because the original ones had been played so often that (though there still are no audible concerns) the scuffs get a bit more visible and the surface less glossy).

Having had a look at various IKEA shelving (I need to set up a new CD rack as THAT one is overflowing here but the ones IKEA used to handle have been discontinued) I'd go with the BILLY instead of the Expedit too. Those BILLY things commonly are the laughingstock of designer furniture-minded people but they are VERY sturdy and really look sort of timeless once they're full. I have several of them in use (not for LPs - these are on an even sturdier modular shelf system that unfortunately has VERY few distributors here), and most of them are loaded to the max with car mags, parts catalogs and workshop manuals so there's some weight there too - no flexing, no sweat, no worry. In fact, as my music room had reached the point of overflowing some time ago too I even had to fill an 80 cm wide shelf in one of those BILLY bookcases next door with 78rpms (!) - it's more or less crammed full now - and I don't feel uneasy about this either.

Ok, now I see clearer. In fact I DID take note of a news item that said recently that the last British WWI veteran had died at 111 (I think). But would I remember the name(s) after ahving read the news item? But to get back to your original post which might (for good reason) be looked at from a different angle: Run the gamut of the MUSICIAN obits on this forum and you will see that views and replies often quite clearly reflect the interests of the forum members, and some of them who've left the building get short shrift (underservedly) just because their main period of activity falls outside the era of jazz the majority around here seems to be able to relate to. Now what does THAT say about celebs and who in the jazz or pop/rock world would be seen as a celeb so everybody jumps at his obit thread? It would have been very interesting, for example, to see if the number of views and REPLIES, in particular, would have changed significantly if that recent obit thread here on one "Gordon Waller" (who, I hear some say??) would have included a statement to the effect of "one half of Peter & Gordon" in the title. :D Most music fans beyond 40 (or 50?) would probably remember Peter & Gordon but their REAL and full names? Until I viewed that thread I had not made that connection either.

Hope you got the 2-LP set. Savoy released a CD version of this in the early 90s (same cover artwork'n all), and its contents were truncated compared to the original LP with a couple of tracks missing.

Please set me wise, Bev (I did not look up that latter topic right now so I am really starting from "scratch"): Those latter two names do NOT ring a bell with me at all. Imagine me as being somebody very interested not only in U.S. but also European jazz but (as far as collecting in strictly "collector" sense of the word goes) with a major emphasis on the jazz styles, periods and musicians of the early 30s to the early 60s. What would I have missed under these aspects and what glaring non-knowledge would I have to admit to within my key period of historical interest if I did not know these names? I'll be glad to learn and add to my knowledge but could it be that those just were bound to be off my radar, given my key areas of interest? OTOH, whoever (even if not pop-minded at all) could have AVOIDED having heard about Michael Jackson on NUMEROUS occasions throughout the past 30+ years? So this explains that ...

As with all those radio big bands this demands qualification: Those bands (including the WDR one) CAN be great jazz-wise but they also get to play (and perfom in public) a lot of rather run-of-the-mill mass-appeal MOR "popular" stuff (except that non-jazz big band music today invariably isn't even "popular", except with a certain older and very sedate set, but rather a sort of slightly sophisticated elevator music :D). So don't go by the band name (that can be VERY misleading) but by the program they will actually perform.

Yeah, I had the same reaction with my 'Bitches Brew' (Ray Conniff, Mirielle Mathieau etc.) Ha, same reaction here too ... Must have bought quite a few CBS and Epic LPs in my early collecting days of the mid-70s, and I distinctly remember how it struck me as EXTREMELY odd how they mixed all sorts of music into one mishmash of sales blurb on those inner sleeves. Prog rock stuff - O.K, not my cup of tea in those early rockabilly, Merseybeat, swing and blues collecting days of mine, but I had seen and heard a handful of these at my friends' homes, but then you'd see Johnny Winter or those Bessie Smith reissue twofers (so far, so well) being promoted next to, say, Andy Williams (see above) or horrible pseudo Russian folk warbler Ivan Rebroff or German pop chirps Katja Ebstein or Mary Roos! Aw my gawd - pure shlock all the way and something you as a rock-minded teen wouldn not have touched with a HUNDRED-foot pole ever! To add insult to injury, imagine that kind of crap promo on an inner sleeve of a Link Wray album on Epic in the hands of a 16-year old with a somewhat eccentric (by mid-70s teen standards ) music taste ! :D Totally out of tune and out of style! What crap, I thought - if they can promote EVERYTHING as being the ULTIMATE then what is there that's actually worth listening? I've come across a few more of those sleeves in CBS jazz reissue albums bought secondhand in later years, and each time those mixed reactions from the 70s came floating back. Somehow those 50s and early 60s Capitol inner sleeves with album cover thumbnails from their catalog left a slightly more favorable impression ....

This source says "Honky Tonikin' Rhythm" was recorded for Mar-Vel at Universal Studios in Chocago and Bill MCall was involved in the production too. http://www.rockabilly.nl/references/messages/bobby_sisco.htm So maybe that steel man was a session player either from Harry Glenn's Mar-Vel roster or from Universal Studios? Don't know if this would narrow down or in fact widen the search but it might be a lead. Maybe info about the Mar-Vel label itself would yield something? The "Mar-Vel Masters" LP series released in the late 70s on the Cowboy Carl label has pretty extensive liner notes (unfortunately I only have Vol. 2 but not Vol. 3 which has this Bobby Sisco track - I have "Honky Tonkin' Rhythm" on 2 other compilations - but judging by the liner notes on Vol. 2 they cover the ground pretty well). Haven't found anything online yet but there must be some rockabilly/hillbilly collecting nut out there (on or off the web) who has this info at his fingertips so it might be worth a search ...

I have this track by Bobby Sisco on one or two rockabilly compilation LPs. Will check the liner notes ASAP to see if they indicate the name of the steel player.

Was gonna look but this comment made me understand I've had enough of these folks. These "hillbilly" folks swing WAAAAAAAYYY more than many of those so-called "free" or "third stream" or "ethnic" (or whatever) pseudo post-modern freak show inhabitants too often touted as jazz in recent decades. :D So no need to be snide about them. Like JSangrey said: It's like Barney Kessel had neve left Oklahoma. High time to readjust one's coordinates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_etiquette That's the point ... As long as "western classical concert etiquette" is expected at "jazz performances in an indoor concert setting" I find many of those jazz "concerts" extremely stifling. At least in those cases where the music isn't inviting such "western concert etiquette" at all. I can understand it in MJQ concerts, for example (and I am not going to refer to Keith Jarrett here ), but if an oldtime jazz band or an out-and-out swing band performs there - hey ... this music is MEANT for the audience to cut loose - at least for those in the audience who feel inclined to do so. And if this jazz concert were staged in a (concert or not) setting that really befits the music then exuberance and out and out enjoyment (going beyond tapping your feet into STOMPING your feet) would be encouraged (after all you DON'T have to tear up the floor and throw the seats out the window to show your appreciation, you know ... this is no 1956 Lionel Hampton tour ... and yet ...) and sitting still and applauding politely at the obvious points would only be "tolerated". Maybe over here in Europe (or is this a German phenomenon??) "classical music etiquette" really has such a firm stranglehold on expected audience behavior, but is this something that just GOT to be so?

You know what? Over here in the old world, there have been (not all that rare) occasions when even in jazz concerts you were SURE to be frowned upon when you visibly moved in your seat, tapped your feet and otherwise "got in the groove" to the music (though remaining seated - or sort of ...). It sure is TOUGH to attend jazz "concerts" of this type where the vast majority of the audience is evidently made up not only of squares but of CUBES (because they visibly aren't even cool enough to show that particular, extreme, unmoved coolness). :D Sit still and applaud obligingly after the end of EACH solo for a predetermined span of time, and that's that ... And it even happened in clubs with a predominantly seated audience. Actually only a step (literally) away from being forcibly called top order if a couple dared to cut loose and do a dance to a particularly danceable tune between the groups of seats or in the aisles (happened to friends of mine more than once). 1938 revisited ... And as for vacating the stage, again - maybe the concept of some small group's music demands reassessment if every solo is strictly a matter of forcing the non-rhythm section men to sit it out all the time. No doubt that can be done sometimes but how about getting some interaction going between the front-line soloist and the other (background) horn(s) in other cases?

No problem with non-players stepping off to the EDGE of the stage to watch and apreciate those in full action - BUT: Is it really THAT common in today's jazz combo's club gigs to play tunes in an "every man for himself" string of solo manner, and is it THAT rare for those bands to arrange their music in such a manner that those among the horn men who do NOT solo will still be involved by providing a background of fill-ins, riffs and what not? In short, anything to make sure that you do get more than just a string of one horn man's solo backed by the rhythm section and everybody else sitting it out except for brief ensemble passages and THEIR solos. I must have been attending the wrong club gigs of late ... but then many of them were in a real R&B bag, i.e. the forefathers of rock where this sort of constant backing by the FULL band is more common, it seems.

Good to see this topic being dug up, if only for the OT cover art aspect. At any rate, I FULLY agree with what BruceH, Riverrat and Bev Stapleton had to say about the importance of the (original) cover artwork. I came up during the LP era too and still am a HUGE vinyl nut, and to me it's not so much a question of strict authenticity (after all you can have several "correct" period artworks for any LP, cf. the Brit Esquire and French Vogue etc. covers that may differ totally from U.S. Prestige, Atlantic, etc. releases) but more so a matter of "period-CORRECT" artwork of an LP. The visual appearance DOES reflect the music to some extent, at least in the case of the more thoughtfully produced albums. To those who cannot see the importance of the album cover artwork that goes with the LP itself, just remember all those 70s/80s reissues of 50s music that were thrown onto the marked with totally incongruous, sometimes nondescript, sometimes forcibly "updated"/modernized artwork that really ruined the experience of obtaining a FIRST impression of the music via the visual experience of looking at the cover before putting the platter onto the turntable. I cannot even remember how often I HAD to go along with those shoddy cover jobs in the 70s/early 80s just beause I wanted the music and there were no other reissues available (not to mention originals) and yet the covers often really made me cringe and sometimes I really had to FORCE myself to buying the records anyway. And yes, in cases where originals or facsimile reissues were out of reach I've been known to getting color photocopies of the original artwork made (whenever I could borrow an original cover) and pasting them over the "modernized" reissue covers of my 70s/early 80s reissues - just to grasp a maximum of the original visual experience. :D

ReveNANT!

Same opinion here for his 50s LPs on Nocturne, Tampa LP-11 and Bethlehem BCP 1025. No trailblazer (there'd not be nearly enough trails if everybody went out on a totally new one :D) but very swinging, verys enjoyable 50s straightforward modern jazz with good blowing.

I'll take your word for it - you certainly are more familiar with this than I am. Actually the "Paramount Masters" box arrived here today, and first listening indicates fairly good fidelity for such old masters IMO, on average quite more listenable than some other reissues (e.g. those in the Austrian "Document" completist series). Nothing earth-shattering about the general presentation - the box does betray its "budget" character. OTOH, and digressing slightly beyond the time frame of the blues of THIS tread, JSP seems to be a very mixed bag these days. Last year I bought the "Jook Joint Blues - Good time Rhythm & Blues 1943-1956" 4-CD box set (JSP 7796). Same general presentation as the Paramount box, but those track infos!! Tracks listed on the back of each individual CD alright, but the session details inside??? Not arranged by the contents of each CD but by session, and in no recognizable relationship with the contents of the CD the inserts are filed with and not in alphabetical order (by leader's name) either! So 3 or 4 tracks from one session may be spread over 3 or 4 CDs but the session is listed only once on one of the 4 CDs and it is anybody's guess on which one. So if you want to have the session details for the track you are listening to you will have to check the ENTIRE listings (remember, no alphabetical order) on up to all FOUR discs, hoping to find the info sooner rather than later browsing through the entire listings! E.g. the session details for track B-25 (one track from that session only) are not found on CD B, but on CD C! Whoever compiled those session details must have been high on canned heat, hadacol or whatever else and totally out of his mind! WTF have the producers of this set been thinking (provided they have been thinking anything at all) in cobbling up such a mess??? As if to confuse the discographically inclined listener on purpose! Why did they deviate from the CD-wise listing (as on the Paramount box) at all? I bought that (sealed) box set on the strength on the JSP reputation from LP days but clearly something has gone amiss since, and helter-skelter jobs like this really detract from the value of the music.

My impression too. Generally I am all for studying jazz history not only from today's point of view but from contemporary sources, and even historical sources relating to "past" events at a time when that "past" was still far closer in time can be very informative. But you HAVE to take them with a grain of salt. And I feel this is the case in this "black" aspect here too. If you read JAZZ PODIUM mag issues from the 50s and 60s, for example, you will notice that despite their sincerely good intentions, most German jazz scribes of the time had an EXTREMELY hard time in NOT judging jazz by the "Western"/European standards of "classical" music and whatever "respectability" went with that. And of course this would also be reflected in the discussion of black swing bands as invariably the two extremes of black vitality and black superiority in creating that "swing" on the one hand and any assumed "lack" of precision in the "execution" of the music on the other would enter the picture in the debate.