Big Beat Steve

Yes indeed! I forgot about these (especially the two Jam Session versions). And the Jay McShann All Stars version of 1972 (feat. Buddy Tate and Julian Dash) isn't bad either.

Yes, I think I see what you mean and coming to think of it, some articles in "Jazz Monthly" of those years (late 50s) that I've read might be interpreted that way. But of course the "other side" sometimes made it VERY easy for them too to adopt that attitude. All this babble about the "angry young men" of jazz that occurred at the same time etc. ... Which reminds me of a rather caustic article on those allegedly oh so angry young men that appeared in "Orkester Journalen" and stressed the fact that Sonny Rollins, then touted as one of THE angry young jazzers was actually a soft-spoken, thoughtful and introspective (but certainly not angry) person once you made an effort to talk to him (backstage or otherwise). Anyway ... "middle jazz" really seems to describe that music better, and isn't it so that the musician who sailed under that "Mainstream" tag in the 2nd half of the 50s and thereafter were not really crusaders for a return to any "golden age of jazz" and did not seriously wage any war against hard bop etc. either and that any confrontation was more of a writers' stunt? I mean, we are not talking about the 40s situation here. So far, so good ... must acquaint myself more with Scott Hamilton now to follow the rest of your debate better ...

Sorry for chiming in kind of late in this debate, but aren't you putting a bit too much emphasis on (actual or imaginary) artistic jugdments about a superiority that allegedly "mainstream" jazz set out to establish? If you reread period articles about what became to be known as "mainstream" jazz you will very often find the term "middle jazz". This term may have fallen into disuse since but isnt' this what "mainstream" (or "middle jazz", for that matter) is all about? A stream of jazz that is somewhere in the middle between 50s/early 60s modern jazz and Dixielandish revivalist jazz (THIS is where true revivalism was and is)? I.e. nothing more than updated swing music. It is true that the British jazz publicists who coined the term felt that many Swing-era masters were unfairly overlooked by the mid-50s (small wonder ...) but yours is just about the first major statement that I see where the protagonists of "mainstream" are accused of denigrating Modern Jazz (and its outgrowths) as being a "wrong path". So is or was there ever really this confrontation in mainstream jazz that actually existed in the "Moldy figs" debate of a decade before? After all, there have always been "mainstream" artists who have been more on the "Modern Jazz" end of "mainstream" and those who have been on the "swing" end of "mainstream.

It may be frowned upon by some, but in this case you will have to give a listen to the "Lorrain Geller Memorial" CD on Fresh Sound which fills a few gaps very nicely, and the booklet also sums up her life, career and tragic death.

That must have been Andy Kirk's 12 Clouds of Joy. "Moten Swing" is one of those tunes that are "catchy" with me too. So I can second not only the votes for the original version but also for Bob Brookmeyer's K.C. Revisited version. And there are many more interesting ones ...

Tal is as good as ever so this would be reason enough for jazz guitar fanatics to get the record, but personally I find the accompaniment a bit too busy; on some tracks the piano and bass player seem to be saying "Hey, we're here too" too much. But that's just my personal impression.

But maybe beyond the financial means of some, and beyond the limit of those who are not completists.

You didn't ask me but anyway ... if you enjoyed that Blue Note 5042 then check out all of his 50s Verve albums. You can't go wrong with any of them; I have most of them (except 1 or 2); "The Swinging Guitar of Tal Farlow" and "Tal" are maybe my favorites but I really cannot see any major quality differences between them. So it all depends on availability, and basically any of them would be a good starter into his Verve period. His "Fuerst Set" and "Second Set" albums issued on Xanadu (private jam session recordings from late 1956 where he really stretches out) are particularly good, too.

As always ... listen for yourselves and then draw your own conclusions as to whether the music meets your tastes or not. In the case of Pell's 50s recordings, IMO some of it is OK and enjoyable, some isn't (see above). Gioia's and Gordon's books are fine and while I generally find it interesting what they included, the exclusion is only of limited concern to me (incidentally, Gordon's quote of the "seemingly endless series of albums" rather seems to refer to Pell's 60s albums which are not what we are talking about here). Besides, if history books of that music are what counts to you, those interested in the subject might also read up on Pell in Alain Tercinet's WEST COAST JAZZ book (Editions Parentheses, 1986) (where Pell is given a bit more coverage), but of course you would have to be able to read French. At any rate, the fact that the book is not accessible to English-only readers does not make it any less relevant per se. Generally, I do not necessarily take all the judgments that scribes (especially period scribes) make on controversial topics and musicians (e.g. West Coast Jazz, as is was a favorite pastime of quite a few writers to blast WCJ indiscriminately) at face value but use them more as a rough guide. In this particular case, for example, the abovementioned Lennie Niehaus and John Graas (the latter, in particular) often fare rather badly in period comments on WCJ, too. Graas, in particular, is also often accused of pretentiousness, affectation, gimmickery, etc. Clearly a case of scribes coming from a different direction of jazz (or already being all-out hard-blowing East Coast jazz partisans?) and unable or unwilling to digest the music on its own terms. So where would you be if you had read those comments on Graas before listening to the music? In short, if you still feel like it, try his "Pell Of A Time" and "Irving Berlin" albums if you can grab them at a price that suits you and you'll have a sampling that should fit in well in any WCJ collection. As for his later works, his "Prez Conference" band from the late 70s is fairly listenable too. Sort of alternate Supersax ...

Well, I for one do like West Coast Jazz a lot so obviously I have my share of Dave Pell discs (thanks, Fresh Sound et al.!). However, though basically West Coast artists get a sort of advance credit with me I find Dave Pell a mixed bag, of sorts ... And though I am NOT impressed by usual period scribes who felt like they needed to put down WCJ at all times, occasionally I have to agree with their reservations when it comes to Dave Pell. My personal favorites are his "songbook" albums on the Kapp label (the "Burke & Van Heusen" and "Irving Berlin" albums; there also is a "Rodgers & Hrt" album which I do not have, though). Cool, breezy, relaxed, easily swinging arrangements that at their best portray the freshness and "summer" atmosphere of WCJ very nicely. The Dave Pell Octet's "A Pell Of A Time" on RCA is also worth exploring if you are after that certain "West Coast Jazz feel". I am less impressed by his "Campus Hop/Jazz Goes Dancing" on RCA which, as the title suggests, really is too commercial for my taste. A dance band affair à la the less adventurious Ray Anthony items of that time ... And most of the "Love Story" album on Atlantic is just not my cup of tea. One or two tracks are intriguing but as for the rest, it's one of those albums where I can see why period jazz writers complained that WCJ just was too gutless, to nice, too bland.

Including that 50s Brother Matthew thing on ABC Paramount? The Down Beat Review of it was .... eh .... candid.

Let's say Hamp's vocals on the Victor sessions were some kind of gimmick, not more. Don't take them too seriously. And there aren't all that many of them on those sessions. Vocals on novelties like "Ring Dem Bells" are quite amusing, and even when he appears a bit more serious about them (e.g. on "Sweethearts on Parade"), I find them rather unobtrusive. MUCH more unobtrusive and more swinging than the vocal dross that populated so many big band recordings of the same period.

Sidewinder, if you feel you cannot resist the urge to get the box set and want to part with your Barclay 2LP set I'd be glad to take this off your hands. I am sure I'lll be content with the material on that vinyl (you can't be a completist all the time), and as mentioned on another thread, back then I bought those sessions on some kind of a bizarre issue - Vol. 2 and 3 as INDIVIDUAL LP's on Blue Star/Barclay (Spanish pressing). It wasn't until much later I discovered the French pressing had Vol. 1 and 2 on a 2LP set, but as the Spanish pressing (same jackets, just liner notes in Spanish) will probably be inexistent anywhere outside Spain (I bought mine while on holiday there) I'll likely have to settle for the 2 LP set in order to get my hands on Vol. 1.

Uh oh ... all this DOES sound dramatic, at least to the unsuspecting collector who just appreciates some good music in his vinyl grooves. (and yes, I admit quite a few JA LP's are among my personal favorites of reissues from that era).

I have no idea about that, but as I have mentioned owning this session as part of the Christian Sony 4CD box (maybe I wasn't clear enough, the genius one with all the official material), I assume that part of your post wasn't directed at me, really... No, it wasn't directed at you, rather at some of those forumists who may already have been involved in reissue production at a time when you or me just got started in record collecting. Maybe somebody has some insight in this bit of trivia ... (and after all this time it can be told, right? )

Not that I would with disagree with you at all - all I wanted to hint at is that Schuller's mentioning of Western Swing bands in his book is one of the very few (all too few) occasions where the more swinging ones of those bands were given any sort of credit as being part of the Southern/Southwestern "territory band" scene in jazz at all. As you certainly know even better than me all too many music historians draw an all too strict line between 30s/40s swing being Jazz and 30s/40s Western Swing (or "hot string bands") being all Hillbilly (and no crossover EVER!). So Schuller was ahead of the crowd. All in all, like Bill Barton and Chuck Nessa said, I agree it's still essential reading - warts'n all. So, Allen, when do we get YOUR comprehensive history of Western Swing as part of swing/jazz of those times? (with the possible cooperation of Messrs. Kienzle et al.) I'd queue up for a book like that.

Just a somewhat belated hint and/or suggestion: Any chance that in a radio program like this we'd get to hear any recordings by Dardanelle (Breckenridge) and her 40s trio? Though her 40s discography isn't immense, she's one of those chicks who seems to get overlooked constantly though she must have been a constant fixture in 40s jazz clubs as a pianist, vibraphonist, singer AND arranger.

Don't think so.... See this, for example: http://www.snappermusic.com/Labels/Charly You'll even find a catalog there.

Aw well, letting off steam once in a while can be real good for one's blood pressure too, you know ... BTW, it is not only in the US that all that is not classical basically tends to get filed under "pop". So if you want to have a subdivision for that smoothie stuff use "Easy Listening" (maybe "Contemporary Easy listening" to avoid confusion with 60s middle of the road elevator pap) or "Smooth pop" or whatever ... but heck, it just AIN'T jazz, even if no one sings. 'Nuff steam let off again ... Bye for now

@Seeline: Dan Gould has got this spot on. Of course there are all sorts of popular music (as opposed to long-hair classical music), and I have my favorites in non-jazz popular music too. Nothing wrong with that. But in the case of this smoothie thing (and I am going to repeat myself) it's just this: LET'S CALL A SPADE A SPADE and don't try to sneak under the umbrella of the oh so hip and sophisticated "jazz" label. Or for what reason do YOU think they used the "jazz" tag after "smooth"? If it was only a matter of another type of popular music they might have been free to use ANY number of attributes to go with "smooth". But no, it had to be jazz. I can think of a lot of recordings firmly in the JAZZ idiom that are "non-edgy", slow, soft, balladesque - and YET they have TONS more swing and jazz feel than that pop-laden smooth elevator music sailing under a usurpated jazz flag that I've heard (the smoothies that get exposure and airplay over here may not be 100% the same that you associate with this in the US but basically I figure it is the same thing).

I can assure you that as a fan of 40s and 50s swing, bop, cool and "mainstream" jazz I'd sternly take offense if anybody associated me as a jazz fan with the pap churned out at the same time by Kostelanetz, Mantovani, Mitch Miller, etc. :D As much as a post-bop fan takes offense with being associated with Kenny G. It took much more to play jazz back then than front a big band lineup. And the fact that the occasional dimwits list Kostelanetz, Mitch Miller or Mantovani 10in records (that they found in their parents' attic) in the JAZZ vinyl section on eBay does not make those disc sany more jazz than an awful lot of those more recent smoothie smoochie offerings.

I assume you are talking about the 28 Oct., 1940 session issued earlier on Jazz Archives JA-6 and JA-42? I understand JA-6 had to be withdrawn at one point so the material was later re-reissued on JA-42. What's the story behind this? Anybody knows?

Interesting ... However - isn't it so that a book like "The Swing Era", despite its generalistic title, is one that no beginner in this musical matter would pick up, and that seasoned readers of this book (like probably all of those from this forum who have read this book) automatically make allowances for anybody's personal preferences as well as for "ex cathedra" tones and take all this with the required grain of salt, being able to use books like this as SOURCE material to make their own judgments but not as a BIBLE? As for Joe Mooney, your point is interesting. I will have to reread this passage but I remember my general impression when he dwelt on figures like this (usually overlooked by most others) was that finally here was one who "gave credit where credit is due" - not in the sense that the length of any entry on any musician or orchestra was necessarily always correct and appropriate, but in the sense that he dug deeper than most others who covered the musical history of those years ever did. Speaking of the "totality of all that needs to be dealt with in that era", IMHO this is one example of where he did go beyond the usual coverage of the usual names, inciting the reader to explore names not usually found in the catalogs of major reissue companies (at least not when he wrote the book). Of course the question of what "needs" to be covered is subjective again but to me at least limiting this coverage of all the major well-known names only would again give a skewed picture of the diversity and richness of the era. Similar examples are found elsewhere in the book, e.g. in his refreshingly open-minded remarks on borderline acts such as Western swing bands, and even if his comments on recordings sometimes are clearly dictated by the limitations of what was available to him (I can literally see how he wrote his Jan Savitt entry on listening to one particular Decca reissue LP ) this is at least a step in the right direction, one that has not been made in many more books on the subject except some of those by Albert McCarthy. Not perfect but overall not a bad thing IMHO if you are able to make your own judgments and if you want the picture to be as complete as it could possibly be (100% completeness unfortunately is unachievable).

Well, what do you expect from somebody with such an immense classical background? Small wonder he does not always give the entertainment side of jazz enough credit. But considering what other musically knowledgeable but entirely classically trained writers have uttered about jazz he towers sky-high above them all. I haven't yet read Early Jazz but have digested the entire Swing Era book (to the extent that I can reasonably manage as a non-musician with very limited transcription reading abilities ). But that was some 17 years ago though I have referred to it fairly regularly since then on specific topics/artists, and while he may not be perfect in his assessments (as much of it is a question of taste I don't expect anybody to be) I do find his analyses very much to the point and they give me a good impression of what to expect from any given recording that I am not yet familiar with. At any rate, he does give credit where credit's due (more than many fellow writers). No undue "Crow Jim" in my opinion and no excessive focus on the same handful of "big names" that seem to make up the entire era in the opinions of others. What a pity we won't see a sequel to The Swing Era covering the post-1945 era! P.S. - Re- your last post: The same impression over here (Europe). Too many reviewers (including outside jazz) seem to operate on the basis of "If I like it I review it, if I don't like it I won't review it". Ad department interests at work? :D Whereas, in fact, even a negative but well-founded review could be an immense service to the readers.

Andy, do you actually think your Mom cares one bit about the fact that platter is on BN? So what's the point? Personally, I don't care too much about that either (BN ain't what it used to be back at Alfred Lion's times any more anyway - not by a long shot) but what I find odd is that some "suits" out there seem to be intent on marketing acts like Norah Jones as "jazz". THIS she ain't. Just pop, that's fine enough for what it is and there's nothing wrong with it if you go for that kind of music but in the same manner as with that "smooth jazz" debate going on elsewhere the real jazz fans (jazz being a wide enough field anyway, stylistically speaking) are perfectly entitled to objecting against this muddling of stylistic terms. Or to put it another way, is it any wonder that not everybody is all that happy about certain people calling virtually anything "jazz" just because some sales smarties figure this is a tag that equals more sales (not that it would attract more actual jazz fans but rather because lukewarm pseudo-sophisticated smoothies can bask in the sunlight of the oh so hip "jazz" status, claiming "Hey, I am a jazz listener too")?