Big Beat Steve

Take it easy, Bluemonk. There is no big deal about statements to the effect that this or that musician "sucks" in what he does. No need to go overboard with PC here. It IS just a statement of opinion that everybody ought to be entitled as long as there still is the liberty of voicing one's opinion. After all, nobody is forced to agree with statements of opinion like that. IMHO it all boils down to this: Artists like Benson at one point in their career have decided to leave jazz (was Benson EVER "hardcore" jazz, BTW? The "core" of jazz - yes, but "hardcore"? ) for greener pastures of pop or easy listening music (some may call it R&B but wouldn't this be stretching things a bit?). All very well and all quite acceptable but pretend it is something it isn't? Not Benson's fault, but in the end it amounts to the same. Consider him a pop or easy listening (or "soft R&B") artist but it just ain't jazz anymore from a certain point. If for some reason his pop albums were to be forced on jazz audiences (via radio or otherwise) then I'd understand those who came to listen to jazz just say he "sucks" jazzwise. (Note: JAZZWISE, NOT pop-wise ) Like I said earlier in this thread, I've never been touched by Benson's "contemporary" music blaring from jazz radio shows back in the 80s, evidently made after after he had made the transition. It might be described as "lush" (but not in the better sense of the word) - and, yes, it DID keep me from exploring his jazz works (there being so much other jazz music to explore where you could not possibly go wrong, the risks of ending up with a pop-slanted bummer in those pre-internet, pre-forum days just were waaaaay too big for me. And I guess I wasn't the only one ...) Ornette paid his dues in rock and roll and "walked the bar" for the people. I think he believes that his music is not so erudite as to be appreciable by a vast number of people. So did others (e.g. Trane with Earl Bostic and Johnny Hodges, not to mentin Sun Ra or Clifford Brown), yet that's a far, far cry from what came afterwards in their musical careers and is not necessarily linked. What I find strange in all this is that with more recent jazz artists it all of a sudden it is considered quite quite legitimate even by JAZZ criteria to go into pop (even if it was only for the money - let's nt make any false pretenses) whereas TO THIS VERY DAY jazz artists from earlier days see part of their output denigrated for being "R&B" although at that time (40s/50s, etc.) R&B certainly was far closer to the mainstream of jazz than black pop (so-called R&B) was/is in much more recent decades. Pretty strange, ain't it?

Suck or not suck, but is this what it's all about? Have any of those who complan about this "George Benson sucks" opinion (lilke Bluemonk said, it's nothing but an opinion, however clear-cut or radical it may be) ever complained just as loudly about all those who generically state "JAZZ SUCKS"?? C'mon gents, it IS just an opinion, like it or not. For every "George Benson (or any other controversial musician) sucks" statement there is another statement that says this or that "(place name of any pop or easy listening artist here) is the greatest jazzman ever". So what? No big deal. @Jim Alfredson: Respecting your audience is all very well (though the way you put it this does read a bit like "keep the cash register ringing" to me) but doesn't it mean that if an artist or a band is playing to a pop or easy listening audience and "respects" it by adapting to this audience's tastes they are actually making pop or easy listening and NOT jazz music? (As opposed to playing THEIR brand of music without any major concessions and winning them over anyway) Nothing wrong with that per se, but why not call a spade a spade? Artists like this just have made the decision to leave one style (jazz in this case) behind and move into another style of popular music. It all falls into those categories that later on show up in discographies where an artist's recorded opus is included only to a certain extent within any given genre and (like Brian Rust used to do in his discogs) it then says "Other recordings by this artist are of no jazz interest" (and there were and ARE such artists). I suppose if the money is right the artists concerned can live pretty well with this but jazzwise they then "suck" to some. That will have to be accepted too. Or else Kenny G and others like him would have to be right up there in the pantheon of the greatest jazzers ever because any stylistic identity that defines any type of musical style (and therefore obviously has to include some and EXCLUDE others) would be negated right from the start. And to carry your argument one step further, would you say all that to Ornette Coleman too? Are artists like him just disrespectful, inconsiderate, arrogant snobs who kick their audience in the you know where with their music because they do THEIR thing and do not oblige to the public's whims?

MG; in the era ot Top 40 soundalikes I think it cannot hurt if at least a certain (minor, anyway) share of the programs retains a clear-cut musical profile aimed at a particular audience. After all, to this day this still is no problem with strictly CLASSICAL-MUSIC programs (at least in Germany and elsewhere on the continent) so why should everything else be lumped together all the time? OK, I'd better bow out now before it gets too off-topic ...

To me the problem seems to be that too much of that pop stuff was played and featured as "jazz" everywhere. I remember back in the 80s over here he was all too present in specialist jazz radio shows here but the stuff of his that noodled and doodled over the airwaves might have fitted in very well with easy listening pop stations (where it probably belongs) but not with jazz, not even in jazz programs that leaned more towards more "classic" jazz material (and not avantgarde). THAT's the point ... The music may have been fine for what it was meant to be, but could it be that even in the 80s by typical pop standards he just did not have a youthful and/or energetic enough image to fit in with pop/rock music that was supposed to appeal to the young'us?? :D Which would only have left easy listening programs, but he ended up on jazz programs again instead, and diehard jazzers over here probably resented this as much as they resent(ed) it in the States. It may have been wrong resenting the music for that because it probably never was meant to be jazz anymore, but then it ought not to have been aired on jazz programs in the first place.

Reading a good deal of this thred made me ask myself this question: How would a similar discussion of WES MONTGOMERY have evolved if he had lived a lot longer? (And this was before I came up to today's post from Jazzshrink that mentions Wes )

Well, I remember quite clearly my first two BN's (bought almost simultaneously) were Jutta Hipp's Hickory House LP's (Vols. 1 + 2). And the reissue of George Wallington's 10in LP from the 5000 series came not long after. Guess I'm the "odd man out" when it comes to "typical" BN fare and what you tend to fall for in the first place when BN is mentioned. :D

Will check my copies of German, Swedish and French jazz mags from those years but from what I remember having read there about touring international acts sitting in with locals this name does not ring a bell AT ALL. Could be that except for Comblain la Tour (where he MUST have made headlines) he might have been somewhat under the radar of the jazz press. But possibly I've overlooked something. And just for the record, the correct spellings of those Swedish jazzmen (so they can be researched elsewhere) are SEYMOUR ÖSTERWALL and LARS FÄRNLÖF That Turkish trumpeter he mentions must be MAFFY FALAY (born Muvaffal Falay) who started out in the late 50s/early 60s and in the years after became quite a household name on the Swedish jazz scene. BTW, that info on the "Jazz Greats in Europe I and II" CDs (which do sound tempting) on the site you link to is a bit skimpy. Any track list or other recording info available on what's on those CDs exactly? And correcting the spelling of the local musicians involved couldn't hurt either ...

this is dead on. not sure if you mean it the same way that I do, but the current jazz era of regurgitation and recapitulation goes against everything jazz originally stood for: delving into new territory, exploding through what were thought to be barriers, finding your own voice and expressing yourself to the best of your abilities. jazz is such an innately constrained area that this has been impossible to do for decades, and is why jazz has been a stagnant (at best) art form for a long time now (I'd say since Miles left in 1975). but the spirit of jazz is alive and well in other areas of music, it's a crucial underpinning for plenty of the most exciting music happening today, just not jazz itself. Quite true - both JSangry's statement above and your comment. But if this is so, and if it is being realized by jazz fans, then I wonder why everybody in the "established" jazz world sneered at that entire RETRO-SWING or NEO-SWING movement throughout the 90s. Agreed, some bands were just musically oversimplistic or downright mediocre, others were more clownery than substance, but there were enough musically interesting bands that have added a new twist to the entire swing/jump blues genre by fusing swing with rockabilly/ska/punk influences AND managing to spark new and ongoing interest in the old masters among a younger generation of listeners and (above all) DANCERS. Here in Europe at any rate, this subculture definitely still exists, though the Neo-swing wave has ebbed off quite a bit since the late 90s here too. Or is it that exploring new territory in jazz is only OK to the keepers of the jazz flame if you use hard bop/post-bop/post-electric-Miles as your STARTING point and anything that uses older forms of jazz for reference is automatically labeled "old hat" or "reactionary" or whatever?? If so, then the stagnation that jazz seems to find itself in serves jazz right. Remember there was a time when jazz was quite legitimately considered a musical form designed primarily for dancing and having fun in an extrovert way instead of a musical background for musing over the relative merits of an augmented 137th vs a doubly flatted 93rd into one's long, grey but oh so sophisticated beard. :D

"Third Stream" was an even deader end IMHO. As for "vocalese" being such a dead end, I don't think it would be fair to overlook the work of Manhattan Transfer completely. Their output may be slighted by some as being too straightforward (probably by those who at other occasions would complain relentlessly about the public at large failing to grasp jazz at all) but there is no denying they generated new interest in the "originals" they took their inspiration from.

I'm not so sure about that. Isn't it a bit like MG said above: The frist step to tolerating and accepting the music (i.e. modern jazz - though to those outside the jazz world the notion of "modern" in connection with some 40 to 60 year old music must be abit odd) is NOT to run away or protest loud as soon as the first few bars are played across speakers. Of course some (probably the majority) will just take it in as a background tone pattern like they'd take in elevator muzak, but unless this jazz dispensed was just the more universally palatable Shearing and Brubeck fare (and apparently, from your description, it wasn't) then accepting this music even as background music over any lengthy period of time takes some serious adaptation and a degree of tolerance that still isn't found everywhere. And IMHO this IS the first step to getting into this music in some way. Kinda late, but better than running away screaming, isn't it? And who knows - maybe there are a few out there among this crowd who find it hip enough to take in their supper not to some sugary sounds of one zillion Mantovani or Faith strings but to some jazz blowing or tinkling? If only one or the other of those who might actually find this kind of musical background "kinda hip" will be intrigued enough to check out some jazz CD sampler or to even attend some jazz open air some time (if only out of sheer curiosity or because "it's the thing to do") then this isn't a bad thing either. Actually, I wish my better half wouldn't squirm the way she does when I play a certain kind of bop/cool in our music room at home. So are all those hotel guests hipper than my better half ? (I mean, they can't ALL the tone deaf! )

Any views, opinions, comments on the book shown above (see pic)? What aspects and what era does it concentrate mostly on? How is it written? Any other comments? Obviously Willis Conover does have much more of a name over here in Europe due to his radio presence (yes, and listening to his 1956 "WIllis Conover's House of Sounds" as a piece of the times can't hurt either). But in case of the book, it all depends how the author captured the particular aspects of W.C.'s career. Incidentally, the book got mentioned at some length on the website of a German news magazine (our national equivalent of "Newsweek") though it does not seem to be all that brand-new.

Not quite solo, but try "Percussion and Bass" recorded with Milt Hinton in 1960 for Everest.

On a side note: Ever since I saw this cover in a cover art book I've been asking myself this: This line - HIPSTERS FLIPSTERS FINGER POPPIN DADDIES - also is the album title of a 60s Brit R&B album by Geno Washington & The Ram Jam band (on Pye, IIRC). Hard to see a connection between Lord Buckley and 60s British R&B (except pure coincidence), but what are the real origins of this catchphrase? Anybody know?

Hey Gents, what makes you think Sandy Mosse did not record in Europe? Check your discographies under "RENAUD, Henri" and find he was on a session recorded in spring, 1951 and issued on several Saturne singles (probably exceedingly rare), then on the "New Sound at The Boeuf Sur le Toit" album on Blue Star recorded on 15 Febr., 1952 (and reissued by Fresh Sound - BTW), and then he participated in nother Henri Renaul All Stars session receorded on on 10 April, 1952 for Vogue (and also issued on Contemporary). But these were his formative years, of course.

Oh my ... there's so much ... One item that comes to mind is Shorty Rogers' 1956 "Clicking with Clax" session for Atlantic that wasn't released until much, much later.

MG, I wasn't joking, I was really just wondering ... (as I do not have any figures to back up my question). Because it DOES make you wonder if you look at the 60s CHESS LP release lists and for a time one out of three (or even two) LP's was one by those comedians. And their heavy presence on some Chess inner sleeves promoting other current releases also might be a pointer ...

Comedy albums subsidising jazz albums ... Makes you wonder to what extent Moms Mabley and Pigmeat Markham subsidised the jazz/blues output of the Chess label in the 60s?

Being German, and certainly NOT anti-semitic in any way, I agree. Even for us non-Jewish "onlookers", Salcia Landmann's collections of Yiddish jokes made BY the jews about themselves are instructive lecture beyond the purely humoristic aspect and help to provide better understanding. Up to a point, I can understand those who feel offended by this release but am intrigued enough from a historical point to maybe try to get it trough Amazon too - might make a nice complement to the "Good For What Ails You" minstrelsy compilation that should be arriving here shortly. At any rate, music such as this (from the 10s and 20s) must be seen in the context of the times and judged accordingly. Just cutting out and "deleting" any past history that will not suit the currently dominating tastes und trends at any point in time amounts to falsifying history as a whole, making it impossible to learn from history (wherever needed). Where would you start? Where would you end?

The albums that sparked this thread, 'Soul Call' and 'The Tender Gender' were recorded in '64 and '66 respectively, and have a different feel to them than his 50's work. That's what caught me by surprise when I heard them. I find Burrell's 50's and ealry 60's work to be solid and dependable (many of the sessions were very "by the book", though admittedly it's a great book), but not overly exciting. I find much of his work since the late 70's to be pretty boring, though some of it holds up very well. But for me, he hit a peak in the mid 60's and produced his most rewarding sessions as a leader, both conceptually and playing-wise. Much of it stretched into areas his earlier and later playing never dared to (at least to my ears). This thread has become highly inspiring (in a number of ways ... ) by now. I can only go by what I have of KB's leader albums but this thread made me pull them out again last evening. So, Felser, both "Kenny Burrell No. 2" on Blue Note and "Kenny Burrell" on Prestige are different from what he did in the 60s? Anyway ... I find them are enjoyable enough, including KB's input; but now I realize why I never had much urge to pull them out when I was in a "jazz guitarist groove". Somehow good ol' KB gets drowned out by the horn men even on his leader dates (mentioned before here; has he always had a habit of pulling back that far? I mean, he is no Freddie Green ). And I do feel quite a few of his licks sound as if I heard them elsewhere before (is this what somebody else here referred to as "not the most imaginative", I wonder?), and his solo feature on the BN album somehow struck me as a Johnny Smith soundalike on first listening. Anyway, solid, enjoyable albums but the guitar sparks do not fly like they do on other guitar men albums. But maybe they weren't meant to in the first place and I just haven't adjusted to that yet? (Listening to Farlow, Kessel, Raney et al. tunes your ears differently) However, Columbia could have done a LOT worse than release the 1961/62 stuff back in the 60s that was shelved until it came out on the "Bluesin Around" album much later. Though quite a few of the licks sound "standard fare" again, I find this one yet more enjoyable, even in the way KB interacts with the other featured players there. Signs of times to come??

Just great!!

Ha, I've got a Dual 1210 that is my spare turntable (mainly for the presence of 78 speed). I think (without being sure) that the stylus system (the one that flips over for either 78 rpm or microgroove and therefore has a needle on both sides) is not very different from the 1215 (but you would have to ask 70s HiFi buffs to make sure). Anyway, the spare needle I bought for this some time ago had the following ref. No.: SS 253 (to fit Dual 52 STM/M). Manufacturer TONACORD (Germany) Maybe this helps.

Weren't they on their own (?) label BIZARRE that was distributed through Verve?

See, that's what differences in taste are all about. I consider myself a bit of a jazz guitar nut, but talking about 50s/60s jazz guitarists, I never felt much urge to revisit the (pre-60s) Kenny Burrell leader LP's that I have. I can't really put my finger on it but reading what Chauncey had to say here somehow struck me just a wee bit as if the gist of what (s)he said might be the reason why his records somehow (literally) did not strike a chord with me anywhere near the way Tal Farlow (THE MAN!!), Barney Kessel, Jimmy Raney, Billy Bauer, early Wes Montgomery (and even Hank Garland, Jimmy Wyble, Joe Puma and obscurity Dempsey Wright - thank you, Fresh Sound) do. And Chuck Wayne too! So this thread has made me curious enough to pull out KB's records again and of course I will listen to them under the impact of this debate. But is that a bad thing? I reserve the right of having an opinion of my own anyway - one way or another!

I suppose you are talking about Laura NYRO, right? Those Neroes who were around at roughly that time (Peter etc.) were somebody else...

It may come as a surprise to you but in ultimately relatively non-essential areas of life such as jazz recordings, there is no such thing as "accepted wisdom". In the end it all boils down to a matter of personal taste and to one's personal points of reference in approaching the subject (i.e. artist and his work) so any difference in taste (the foundation of anybody's listening experience) will automatically result in dissent in the appraisal of ANY music. Wherever taste comes in (and it does here), there is no objective, unalterable, eternal truth. Majority and minority opinions - yes, but beyond that? I doubt it. BTW, no - I do NOT have an opinion on KB's 60s recordings.