Big Beat Steve

40 bucks for that reissue CD?? Holy s..... ! Seems like my Savoy/Denon CDs from that series I bought in 2001 or so in our local "Zweitausendeins" shop at something like 10 Deutschmarks apiece were a pretty good investment!

Ouch ... that's real sad. Another giant of the golden era of jazz gone. R.I.P. Time to pull out one of his records again as a final tribute.

Can't give any concrete advice as to actual takers as I am on the other side of the world (and things might work differently here; record stores DO pay for collections they get in, though only a very small fraction of their actual value) but what has been said here really must be true everywhere: This is exactly what happened to my dad when he wanted to dispose of his fairly huge working library of architecture books before moving to a senior citizens' residence some 10 years ago. His first choice would have to offer it free to a university library. And this despite the fact that he had the ground covered real well so it would have been fairly sure he'd have been able to fill quite a few gaps in any professional library! He would have had to catalog EVERYTHING in extremely great detail. No way he'd do that! So he ended up giving away quite a lot of more recent/common books to former students of his (and younger students who'd belonged to those circles), throwing others away, and I kept about 2 banana crates full of the older/more more desirable architecture books from the 20s to 50s. By now I have shifted about two thirds of these after setting up stall at about a dozen local fleamarkets/book fairs over 6 to 7 years, and I can tell you I did make good money on the more desirable items! It was fun (and satisfying money-wise) but it DID take some time (and I ain't finished yet). So I'd suggest you proceed along similar lines as suggested above: 1) Consider setting up a stall at a local record fair, price your records decently and see what happens 2) Try listing some more collectible ones (that you are DEAD SURE you are willing to let go) on eBay and see what happens there This might have an interesting side effect: If you let those who buy from you know that this is only the tip of the iceberg you might be able to do quick follow-up direct deals, especially if the buyer is within driving distance from you for a personal inspection of what you have for sale. I bought a 700-item 78rpm collection that way three years ago. 3) Make up assorted job lots (related style-wise etc.) at decent prices and offer them in For Sale sections on sites such as here The problem, of course, will be that a LOT of potential buyers would already have a good deal of whatever you offer in the way of assorted lots of records (by featured artist/style, etc.) so you'd be more likely to find buyers for isolated items. Any way you look at it - if you want to make halfway sure somebody gets any kind of enjoyment out of your records after you're gone WITHOUT being ripped off (which is dead sure to happen both to you and to future "end users" if your records pass through too many dealers' hands) there will be work involved in disposing of your records. Too bad I am not in your neck of the woods at all. Previous generations' sources such as yours usually yield a lot ... But these days postage and customs fees kill any such major deals. Good luck!

What? No "butcher cover"??? Pah!!! :D

Seek professional help ... Uh oh ... you're about to make me feel real bad next time I pull out some of those editor-bound volumes ... But on the other hand, browsing through those copies in my lounge chair is waaay more comfortable than having to stick glued in front of a computer screen.

Disagree, Hot Ptah. Agreed that I still need to get rid of most of the c.1974 to 1996 copies of the German jazz mag JAZZ PODIUM too (which I bought as part of a deal that netted me a virtually complete collection from 1953 to 1996, of which I kept only the issues up to 1966) myself so I know how you feel but on the other hand my bookshelf has received a lot more occupants in the last 4 or 5 years when I accumulated several decades' worth of copies of Swedish, French and British jazz mags from the 30s to the early 60s (and some assorted mid-50s Down Beats too). But there definitely is nothing that beats the appeal of the actual paper copies of those mags. CDs will never, never, never provide the same appeal for that!

That would be tough for me (and I guess I am not the only one). There would be times when I'd listen mostly to 50s cool jazz and mainstream swing, and then again there are "swing or bop small-group" periods that blend smoothly into R&B, and then again "Western Swing and hot string band" periods that border on early rockabilly, etc. etc. How many "favorite cases" can you handle (especially if you consider some other not-so-essential discs might become very essential in a given listening context)? So it would almost be back to Stage One (= keep everything) So again, the key question is: Do you want to keep all those items "just in case" so you would BE ABLE to listen to them at any moment? If you can make a clear cut and say you'd never ever regret removing this or that item (or an entire musical genre) from your collection, then fine. Somehow I coudn't.

Well, just do a little calculating. Regardless of whether you own 5000 LP's or 5000 CD's and even assuming you have a fixed time per day available for listening (really LISTENING, not just doodling in the background), how often is it humanly possible at all just to listen to EACH of these records in turn just ONE single time? Obviously a LOT of them just sit there and gather dust between the times you pull them out, especially if you are not one of those bookkeeping souls (who keep logs of when they listen to which records) but pull out whatever and whenever you feel like it (which means some get a spin far more frequently than others that in turn sit there even longer until - literally - their turn comes again). It just is a natural law that once any collection reaches a certain size you just CANNOT listen to each and every record very often anymore. So the key question to ask would rather be: Do you want to have the records around just to BE ABLE to listen to them if and when you should feel like it or don'tcha? I agree that stacking away thousands of records in boxes in inaccessible places (such as even some of the forum heavyweights around here seem to do) is not the most sensible thing to do (mine all sit on shelves neatly arranged by style and alphabetic order where they belong) but on the other hand I can understand it to a point myself as I've got quite a huge load of books and mags on assorted topics stowed away in crates that I just cannot bring myself to dump nor even to sell off at garage sales or fleamarkets - yet. Maybe it just is in the nature of those afflicted by an advanced case of collectionitis.

Wow ... what happened ....? So his "Children of the World" album didn't do it for you? :D (Neither for me, but for other reasons)

Agree with these, in particular the Shrine, West Coast Jazz and (for a nice contrast) the Hamp and Getz. Another personal favorite are his 1950/51 "At Storyville" live recordings. As for the Swedish recordings, don't just concentrate on the 1958 releases reissued by Dragon but have a listen to his 1951 recordings from Sweden that yielded his rendition of "Ack Värmeland du sköna" (with Swedish reviewers still laughing their butts off every time they comment on the nonsensical U.S. retitling of this song as "Dear Old Stockholm"). Re- the "Interpretations" albums, the 1953-54 Getz-Brookmeyer group recordings of that period have been reissued chronologically by Fresh Sound on a Cd set credited to Bob Brookmeyer.

Ha, a real funny thread again. Vinyl seems to have a stronger hold over here, though, it seems. Whenever a local record store holds a special sale here even the young'uns snap up stacks of vinyl as fast as they can and the place is CROWDED! Same at local fleamarkets. Vinyl record stalls do attract the browsers and buyers. Still a niche market overall but a fairly active one, it seems. But this thread and the woes that seem to befall even you longtime hip forum members make me realize what a nerd I must be. Am I nuts in clinging on to a collection of some 6,000 LPs (plus 45s that approach the 1,000 mark too, I think) whereas my CD total still is only some 600 to 700 (though increasing steadily)? And I keep buying vinyl and am only slowed down by the fact that I am running out of vinyl shelf space. And though a good quarter of that vinyl falls into the Rock category (mostly 50s R'n'R/Rockabilly and related styles, including more recent bands of this genre, and assorted 60s stuff) which I don't even listen to that much anymore I STILL could think of only a couple dozen that I'd easily let go (too few to bother sorting them out anyway). So am I just an incurable vinyl nut or what is the diagnosis of the enlightened CD/mp3 doctors? :D

According to Leadbitter's blues records discography (which only lists Price up to 1959 - later records probably were considered too pop-whitewashed), John Patton was on several sessions, including the 19 April 1956 session that yielded "Country Boy Rock", "I'm Going Home" and "Heavy Dreams", on the 1958 session that produced "Stagger Lee" etc. (that had Ted Curson on tp, BTW) as well as (probably) on Lloyd Price's 1959 sessions.

Yes Pt 1 and 2 of Big Boy took up the 78 singles issues (this is why it occupied a whole 10in LP side). A lot of those Tampa LPs have been reissued as repro 12in LPs by VSOP in the 80s/90s but I've never seen LP-12 by the Lighthouse All Stars. If it was reissued I want it too! (It has a nice cover drawing by Maurice Childs too) BTW, a follow-up to Big Boy ("Big Girl") is on the Lighthouse All Stars Vol. 3 LP on Contemporary.

Interesting item ... I missed this LP two or three times on eBay a couple of years ago. It was first released as a 10in LP on the Skylark label ("Jam Session Vol. 2" and includes four tracks. "Big Boy" (or "M.B.B." (aka "More Big Boy") as it was billed on the LP issues) takes up all of side 1, and side 2 has 3 tracks: "Whispering" "You Know I'm In Love With You" (vocals by Vivian Garry) and "I Get A Kick Out Of You". "Big Boy" also was on the "Jazz Americana" sampler (Tampa TP-11).

Well, Milovan finds that a bit disrespectful (see above). ;)

That would be sensible (and therefore unlikely to happen ). But I agree with you in that many companies might not consider it worthwhile to take action in the case of recordings far older than 50 years and of artists most company exec most likely never were aware of, especially if they did not duplicate any of their current reissue releases.

Mike is right. This thread ought to be moved in to a more visible place - FAST!! BTW, it would indeed be interesting to see if laws such as this can be fully retroactive. I.e. will that music that has already fallen into the P.D. be made copyrighted again or not or will this take effect only on whatever has not yet gone P.D. As hinted at in the BBC article, this may actually be a huge coverup for a few biggies who can't get enough (such as assorted British "Sirs") because many others (minor ones) have signed away their rights long before. and I doubt anybody is going to revoke THOSE contracts to the detriment of the record companies. As for the record companies, I have a hunch the Andorrans will not really be affected (geographically speaking ), and would the copyright fees actually make that much of a difference price-wise? It all depends on the question of somebody WANTING to reissue the stuff in the first place. Maybe the logicla way out to satisfy the interests of EVERYBODY would be to achieve a rule that makes it legal for ANYBODY to release material after 50 years BUT requires royalty payments to the artists concerned to continue. Though I cannot really see that happening. It would be too easy. Anyway, I cannot see specialist reissue labels such as Ace (for R&B etc. - seeing that they BOUGHT the huge Modern/RPM catalog as well as the John Dolphin labels and the RIGHTS that go with them) in the U.K. or DRAGON in Sweden (for Scandinavian jazz) will be affected at all. And it is not the "Andorran thieves" who might suffer too much either but certain "U.K." reissue plagiarists that strangely do not usually come into the line of fire here. Many seem to sneer at Lonehill etc., but the same people drool e.g. about the Proper boxes. Anybody ever asked yourselves questions where the Proper material comes from? Have you had a look at some of their "instrument" compilations, for example, e.g. the Accordion jazz CD box? Ever noted that more than 20 of the tracks on that one are identical to those released on an Accordion Jazz 2-CD set released by Fremeaux Associés about 10 years ago? Coincidence? Aw, c'mon! There would have been LOTS of other accordeon jazz tracks to reissue if somebody had wanted to do the collectors a REAL favor instead of just capitalizing on what had already been made EASILY accessible. And all the Mat Mathews tracks on the same box set being drawn from one single Dawn LP (reissued by Fresh Sound before)? Coincidence again? Now really! No doubt it is all legal by the still-current 50-year P.D. rule but it sounds very much like an easy way to make a fast buck with a minimum of effort to me - a case of P.D.-ists ripping off the P.D.-ists, maybe? (Or "Bootleggers bootlegging the bootleggers", according to the attitudes of many U.S. forumists who've always defended the 70-year rule around here ) Makes you wonder, really ...

True, and it only shows how pop singing in today's world has deteriorated. Listening to that gasping and huffing and puffing in between lines and syllables with today's female pop "giants" is just painful. But would it disrespectful if "Tim-Tay-Shun" by Red Ingle & His Natural Seven was played in memory of Jo Stafford? (She sounds like she enjoyed herself immensely on that ditty).

Thanks for posting this writeup, Valerie. R.I.P. Gerry Wiggins. Not ong ago I bought his CD in the Classics series - time to listen to this again, and will pull out his Wiggin Out LP on HiFiJazz later today too.

Sorry but IMHO that Soul Junction Esquire cover is way better than the Prestige one (and actually could have appeared on Prestige too with its play on words). Nothing against how Red Garland looked at that time, but snapping persons in street clothing posing somewhere in a park is pretty nondescript too and does NOT relate to the title of the album in any way (not that the image necessarily would have to relate to the album title but generic covers like this were a dime a dozen at that time - or would you want to file this in the "Fashion" section of album cover art books like "Jazzical Moods" too?). As for the other ones, it all is a matter of taste but they do have their charm, and the DSM-inspired drawings aren't that bad either. DSM had no monopoly on this, and if you thought he had then you would have to discard a lot of other artwork on record sleeves and jazz mags right away. As always, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

IMO the inclusion of "non-original" issues is no concern really as long as the artwork merits inclusion. If the only difference of concurrent non-US releases is the label tag, then .... well ... And some European (or other) parallel or second releases would warrant inclusion, e.g. the totally different (but nonetheless intriguing) U.K. Esquire covers of LP's originally released on U.S. Prestige. As for duplications, I do have the same concerns, but what do you expect? BLUE NOTE and IMPULSE et al. spell $ALE$ $ALE$ $ALE$ in these circles as not everybody of those who stumble on this book now has those other books your are referring to and besides, who among the "impulse buyers" of lifestyle Taschen books could be bothered to investigate what a Mode or Dig or (whatever other somewhat minor label) cover is? No spontaneous association with the label there. A 10in or EP cover book would be a nice idea indeed but I don't seem much chances for 10in cover art books (beyond what has already been done) because with 10in LP's you are limiting yourself to a rather narrow time frame in the production of LP covers and therefore also to a somewhat narrow stylistic frame of whatever was usually done in that part of the 50s. And the way today's world and its trends function, you CANNOT do such a book without including a sizable portion of 60s (i.e. non-10in era) covers, possibly even 70s covers. It's all about market (and marketing) forces at work. Unfortunately ... So let's hope the price makes it worthwhile anyway.

Getting away for a moment from the endless George Benson thread about the relative merits of fairly overproduced easy listening pop :D, I'd like to second the recommendation of this set. This IS fun and highly entertaining and instructive, if only as a document of a musical tradition now extinct. Lovers of blues, early jazz and oldtime country music will find a lot here. And for additional listening, the FOLKS, HE SURE DO PULL SOME BOW compilation from the same stable (Old Hat CD-103) is recommended too. (Check out the link to the Old Hat website above)

Amazing how this goes on on and on on and on on and on (BTW; wasn't this the refrain of some 70s black city slicker dude pop song too? D: D:), but summing up the last dozen threads, including JSangry's interventions, all I can say (and I am a bit sorry about this) is that a) I strongly doubt there was such a thing as a quantum leap in musical prowess of the musicians and singers concerned (after all we are not talking lowdown-gutter country blues here, and there any such criteria would be futile as well), b) a technical quantum leap may have occurred, but SO WHAT - SO F****N WHAT if all this technical quantum leap can produce is insipid fodder like that song quoted several times here? SO MUCH effort invested and SO LITTLE achieved, and c) I therefore feel there is a bit of truth in Danasgoodstuff's assessment of any such statements indeed. And this has got NOTHING to do with being dissatisfied with anything in life - EXCEPT being fed up with people trying to shove down ever-increasing amounts of precalculated musical superficialities down one's throat and claiming this is "the real thing" at the same time. BTW @ MG: I certainly would not expect the black music makers to have remained in their ghettos (and really, not all of the 50s black music was a ghetto product) and I really try not to romanticise things about music form the past too much. But come on (and I know you know this too) - if smoooothie black music was needed to satisfy those who've "made it" and did not feel like being reminded of rougher music that reeked of harder times, then really, really - CHARLES BROWN achieved much more way back with (comparatively) much sparser at least just as effective musical means when compared to this "artificial "Turn Your Love Around" slickness and blandness. So where's the progress? Is plastering on layers of sugar coating and arranging gimmicks meant to be progress in musical competence? Accommodating changing styles- yes, but superiority? Nah! Again (and as the bottom line of all this), changing times demand changing music - OK, and if the music just serves its lowbrow aim of providing entertainment (and, above all, making the cash register of thosee purveyors of entertainment services ring :D), then that's fine too for what the music was meant to be only. BUT - claiming such insipid results of oh so intricate studio production wizardry is proof of musical SUPERIORITY is just ridiculous in the extreme. Finally, anybody care to comment on the entire hip hop-rap thing as a musical expression of what black society at large had achieved? Could it be that this funk slickness was just a put-on or cover-up or or did the pendulum of development of society actually swing back?

Ha, now that's funny ... Just been tinkering in my workshop for a while refurbishing some parts for my old cars with the radio playing in the background... And guess what just came on as a sort of commemoration of a tour George Benson seems to have done here some time ago (can't say I regret missing it)? "Turn Your Love Around"! Holy Mackeral! Sometimes it takes forced exposure like that to bring certain impressions back into mind. If this is all that's the result of those "developed skills" and "sophistication" of studio productions that occurred way after the 50s then "sophistication" in this musical genre just equals nothing but overproduction. Not much progress I can see there unless you want sophistication for sophistication's sake without any regard for honest, personal substance. Fine musical production values, that! Any 50s Johnny Ace or Jesse Belvin tune (both vocal and instrumental-wise) has more handmade, down-to-earth, straightforward musical qualitites than this interchangeable Commodores soundalike! But maybe turning out something with the more simplistic equipment of the 50s that despite these alleged limitations in musical craftsmanship has stood the test of time has become a lost art ever since production technicalities engineered by some whiz kids have won out in the studios??

MG, you're right - I did ask that question before (yesterday in reply to a post by Jim Alfredson, but I deleted my remark soon afterwards as I figured it was pointless at that point of the debate but now, and in view of recent posts that followed...). Some of those artists that come to my mind are Willis Jackson's EARLY recordings (as opposed to his later work), Louis Jordan's 50s recordings for Aladdin and Mercury or Cootie Williams' late 50s small band that he toured and recorded with. I admit I cannot really give the exact sources of recent statements from jazz circles that seem to put down the R&B output of jazzmen from that era but those statements did occur - very much to my surprise, as I figured the listeners' and critics' attitude from the 50s when such putdowns were even more frequent would definitely be a thing of the past. But there still seems to be an invisible barrier between 40s/50s jazz and 40s/50s R&B (or "black pop") in the minds of quite a few. And yet back then R&B and mainstream jazz and even bebop were not that far away from each other IMHO (as proven not only by the above but also artists by such as Gene Ammons and Leo Parker or Tom Archia) and "crossover" and cross-polliation were frequent. Again, nothing wrong with jazz artists going pop or easy listening at all if they find this is the road they want to follow but then their output not only ought to be judged by pop or easy listening standards but also ought to be categorized as such. Otherwise you'll have the next "Is smooth jazz actually jazz?" debate coming up and we'll be back to the beginning. BTW, I'm writing this as a local "jazz festival" is about to open here that openly includes pop acts in its festival roster (on what grounds, I wonder? It must be pretty hip to sail under the jazz flag even despite the fact that the commercial non-potential of jazz is relentlessly evoked everywhere )