Big Beat Steve

Talking about the evil character of Serge Chaloff mentioned above, have a look at this pic and wonder how innocent and charming an "evil" guy can look. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/I?gott...856sf=01211:@@@

I do. Always on the lookout for obscurities (outside the trodden big-name paths) of jazz of the 40s and 50s, I bought it a couple of years ago when "Savoy Jazz" Japanese CD reissues were available rather cheaply at Zweitausendeins. Stylewise, the "Brubeck connection" may be correct - for better or worse, meaning that some who are into a much more precussive approach to modern jazz piano of that era might blame him for sounding too cocktail-ish at times. Not really my point of view, but then again I've always had a soft spot for piano trios from that era, and this disc makes for nice after-hours piano jazz, much like the recordings by Paul Smith, Barbara Carroll, and others.

I first came across Lawrence Lucie's name in the late 70s when I noticed the ads for his guitar classes in DOWN BEAT (my favorite reading matter on longer train journeys so I occasionally bought a copy at the newsstands). At that time that name did not mean anything to me and it wasn't until quite some time later that I became aware of him in the line-up of many 30s black name bands. A full 100 years old ... amazing! Many happy returns (and he certainly did not look like 70 years old back then in those DB ads!).

The noticeable distortion in the recording quality (if I go by the Downbeat review it's aparently not a fault of my Fresh Sound reissue pressing) is annoying and I can understand the reviewers failing the record for this (maybe even to the point of rating it only 2 stars) but if you manage to "listen through" this (maybe I manage better than others as a LOT of my collection is made up of music from the 78 rpm era where fidelity varies widely) it's an O.K. enough blowing date IMHO.

Who cares what the record sounds like with that great cover art! It ain't THAT bad anyhow. Certianly not on the level of his Contemporary LP's but still listenable enough, no matter what Down Beat and Gioia said. Looking at the Down Beat review (2 stars) I've got a hunch that beyond recording quality issues they picked this record as one of those where they failed all the participants summarily for being "derivative" (one of their favorite derogatory terms of those years, it seems ), not creating something substantially new, etc. - i.e. their pet peeve they seem to have nourished at that time, proving you can downgrade anything if you feel like it. Just my 2c - and yes, at times I do take the liberty of disagreeing with certain review "authorities"

Actually the "Exploring the Future" album originally was a DOOTONE label release. Otherwise, thumbs up for Curtis Counce here too. I, too, got curious about exploring him further after reading Ted Gioia's book and haven't regretted it.

Good to see even "elder statesmen" of this forum settled on the Affinity reissue (like I had to) with its nondescript packaging with this one, and I envy those who were able to obtain/afford the exact replica reissue LP. I like this recording a lot too, though I would not really know if I were to rate it higher than his "Free Fro All" on Specialty.

Like I said, MG - tameness is relative. The very early Cliff Richard or Tommy Steele certainly is less tame than later Cliff. But hey, that happened Stateside, too. Just compare Johnny Burnette's Trio recordings on Coral with his later Liberty fare. Or how about decidely non-rocking acts such as those McGuire sisters trying to hop on the bandwagon by covering R&B/R'n'R music in a VERY watered-down way to make it "acceptable" to the elders of the teens? Remember Downbeat used the term "wholesome" to describe the McGuire Sisters which just about says it all - how can you be "wholesome" to the establishment and credibly doing a music that by necessity is raw and rough-edged? So while I agree with you, I would not say those earlier European (and British) R'n'R acts were all tame. Diluted or watered down is the word, I guess. Anyway, I also agree about Lord Rockinghams XI. A tight instrumental band despite the novelty aspect ("There Is A Loose Moose Aboot This Hoose" ) Also don't overlook the early 45s by SOUNDS INC. Or how about some of what the Basil Kirchin band recorded? As for Red Price, one single track of his has ("Theme Form Danger man") been reissued on "20 Classic Instrumental Rarities" on See For Miles LP SEE 37. And as an example of what could have happened if the A&R men had dared to release the records, listen to Jesse Hector's Rock'n'Roll Trio. His 1961 demos recorded for Pye remained unissued and were not released until the 90s (on NO HIT Records, a fitting name ) but are quite revealing of what could have been or of what probably happened in the clubs at the time (before Liverpool Beat or London R&B sprung up) but never was recorded for posterity.

Clem, as for "tame": Of course you need to take the conditions into account that these singers/bands operated within. You need to consider the predominating trends in pop music in the respective countries at that time to see what listeners, producers, radio programmers etc. considered "the music people wanted", Europe (incuding the UK) didn't exactly embrace true (early, pre-Teen Idol), undiluted r'n'r or even R&B, and exposure (that may have served as inspiration to the musicians) through discs and (AFN) radio was spotty, i.e. there was quite a bit of U.S. music these bands could not have been aware of that we take for granted today with all the comprehensive reissues we have been enjoying during the past 30 years or so. A bit like the situation of jazz music outside the U.S. in early post-war Europe. That said, quite a bit of early r'n'r (r'n'r being defined by European, i.e. TRUE standards and therefore spanning the 1954 to 1963 era and nothing beyond, so "early" r'n'r means r'n'r recorded in the 50s up to 1957-58) that was made in Europe was not all that tame, certainly not compared to the overall European pop music market and not as tame as a lot of early attempts recorded by U.S. pop market powers in order to catch the tail end of the teen market either (if you are so aware of the Bear Family program, check out their "Rockin' Is Not Our Business" compilations and you know what I mean). Not to mention how a lot of U.S. mainstream country singers really fumbled at trying to get a r'n'r/rockabilly beat going. Evidently they just not dared to really "cut loose". Contrived, lame and tame by r'n'r standards. So for those who want to look for early British r'n'r before it got tamed, check the suggestions mentioned above and compare for yourself. But when listening to it, do consider the musical environments these were recorded into. A lot of uptempo European r'n'r (even if it was actually only moderately uptempo) sounded like all hell broke loose compared to more conventional pop music. Not unlike Bebop music sounded to those raised on Glenn Miller. BTW, Lonnie Donegan and all those skiffle bands are a category of their own. 'Nuff sed on this now.

Reading the very interesting and entertaining (though non-jazz ) thread, I am beginning to realize the extent to which one's own perception of the music is skewed both by the much more easily accessible reissues of the past 30 years AND by national specificities. I am far too young to have consciously experienced British beat music when it was big but listening to the music (as an extension to r'n'r and R&B) you will find a lot of "missing links" between 50s r'n'r of the pre-Teen Idol era and the typical "Beatles" sound (after they had honed some of their rough edges). Yet it is true that a lot of these missing links that may have been evident to British and Continental listeners at the time (because the singles WERE issued and bought) may have escaped the Americans (who did not become aware of the early development of British beat) so the bands sounded much more different than they did to European ears. MG, you are correct about the clubs in Hamburg being an overseas starting place for many British groups (preferably from 'oop narf' , only to a somewhat lesser extent from London) in the early 60s. In fact the working schedule there was fairly tough and they essentially played to an audience that wanted r'n'r (even beyond the point when the Beatles made it big). Stage photos bear witnees to this; even the early Beatles' usual stage outfit was leather jackets, leather pants and boots, and they certainly would not have looked out of style playing to an audience at the Ace Cafe. The Beatles appeared there numerous times, including at the legendary Star Club, but their last appearance there was in late 1962 (just after "Love Me Do" started to make it big). But numerous other bands took up where they left off (to go on to bigger things), and this went on throughout the club's existence up to 1970. In fact no big distinction was made between genuine "Liverpool beat" bands and r'n'r acts for as long as "beat" music" lasted. Both earlier British acts such as Screaming Lord Sutch and Wee Willie Harris AND U.S. r'n'r and R&B acts such as Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent played the Star Club up to the mid-60s in addition to all the British bands as well. Style-wise the transition from r'n'r to Liverpool beat was a seamless evolution and not a radical break - Beatlemania or not. As for what's been written about Hamburg as a milestone in the evolution of British group development, no doubt I am only aware of a small part of the books that have been published but there were/are a LOT, including the fantastic "Star Club" picture opus published in the 80s (but it's in German, of course). In fact I guess every aspect of the early career of the Beatles and Liverpool beat music must have been printed in book form somewhere. Last summer I picked up an interesting (almost) coffee-table book entitled "Silver Beatles" that dwells exclusively on the band's early history up to mid-1963, with a HUGE part devoted to the Hamburg years. It was written by Marco Crescenzi and first published in Italy but to the best of my knowledge so far has only made it into a French version (which is the one I have). So obviously exposure to the historic facts also varies with your non-English language reading abilities.

@Adam: Re- early British r'n'r acts (before they got tamed): A few nice vinyl reissues with early Brit r'n'r by Tommy Steele, Don Lang and Tony Crombie were out in the 80s/90s on the SEE FOR MILES label and might still be around as secondhand items. Billy Fury's arguably best early album "The Sound of Fury" on Decca has been reissued several times over as a facsimile of the original 10in release. Also check the ROLLER COASTER label (website should be traceable via Google) for reissues of early British R'n'R.

I tend to agree with John L on the Holly/Crickets debate. The "Crickets" records were tougher than the "Holly" records but this also was - as John says - a chronological thing, and no doubt Buddy Holly would have gotten more and more into producing and arranging if he had lived. Maybe Phil Spector wouldn't have been but a footnote if Buddy holly had evolved into a major producer/arranger of music for the youth (which would not have been totally unlikely). As for aiming at the black market, I cannot imagine the Crickets were aimed specifically there. They may have looked more into that direction than the more arranged Holly "solo" productions but specifically? I dunno .. Maybe just a case of trying to be present in both places. And yet I think the white pop market became much more open for black artists than vice versa. BTW, anybody checked the country charts just to see how the Holly/Crickets fared there? Just to see if the door swung every way ... As for the "British invasion" of the states, MG's statement sums it up, I think: /Quote: I don't think there was a British missing link between Holly/Berry etc and the Beatles in the sense I think you mean it. Though I wasn't in Liverpool then, I was in London. In London, there was a bunch of pub bands who got better and got more into Blues, R&B & Soul in the period 1960-1962. I have the impression that the Beatles went more or less straight from American R&R to their thing, while London bands like the Stones, Manfred Mann, Yardbirds etc hung around doing better and better imitations of US black music of different types and THEN developed their styles. I wasn't there, so I can't be sure, but I think the Beatles wouldn't have been so original had they had the same sort of development as the London bands. (I'm not saying the Beatles weren't aware of or indeed affected a bit by early sixties American black music. They were, but it just doesn't seem to have been central to their ideas in the way it was to the Stones, say. I get a strong feeling that it was just another element that went towards the ultimate creation.)/unquote Still beats me how the Americans could have perceived the Beatles as if they just dropped from the Moon... Actually the Beatles and the other Merseybeat groups initially just carried on playing the U.S. music that had been around before the "Teen Idol" era the way THEY perceived it (hence the "Merseybeat" touch). But basically it was just rock'n'roll. Comparatively unadulterated and undiluted compared to what had been happening in U.S. pop music since 1959. Maybe a bit like those more unrestrained U.S. rockabilly acts of 1955-56-57 (hence the cult status of Gene Vincent in Britain) with a Brit touch added. So if the Beatles and other bands from Liverpool were perceived as something that unheard of in the U.S., this only goes to show the extent to which the U.S. pop music listening masses had forgotten their own musical heritage of only a few years back. AND most of the U.S. pop music buyers apparently weren't listening to their own incipient "Garage Punk" bands that sprung up in 1963/64 too, either, or else they wouldn't have been that surprised by handmade guitar-led combo music. (Not tame enough for the masses, of course...) BTW, it was not only the London bands that looked towards R&B - even Merseybeat bands took up part of their inspiration there. Just remember the number of "Walking The Dog" covers done by Merseybeat acts, for instance. And early (pre-Brian Epstein) Beatles demos and recordings have a higher share of R&B tunes too, e.g. their Decca demos where they featured Arthur Alexander covers etc. But of course the London bands looked more heavily beyond current R&B hits and towards the "older" downhome blues artists in R&B (godfather Alexis Korner still peeking over the shoulder of young Mick Jagger to provide guidance, so to speak ... ).

MG, the one who posted this info said he did contact Mosaic by e-mail and was hoping for a replacement CD.

Maybe so, but I just read on another forum a buyer's complaint that the Mosaic people managed to mess up the "Fiddle Dee Dee" track from 1940 on disc VII in that the tune they included there actually was "Fiddle Diddle" from 1938 which already is on Disc II. In short, one track twice and another one not at all. OK, the titles are similar but this really should not happen with a top-flight outfit that selles products at top-notch prices. Makes you wonder what people not versed with (or not caring about) the discography of the music they are working on are let loose on compiling jobs. Clearly Michael Cuscuna (in his role as supervisor) and/or his underlings dropped the ball on this one.

That reminds me of one or two Excello twofers I bought new in the late 70s. They had a funny and intense smell unlike any European records that would have made them immediately recognizable if I had been doing a blindfold test. I did notice a similarly intense smell with other U.S. pressings with cardboard covers (though far from all, and the smell of that Excello was unlike that of the others). I don't know if it is the typical U.S. cardboard covers of the 70s with their lousy printing inks that develop ring wear faster than you can pull the record out of your rack but it does seem like the smell of some U.S. printing ink did move on into the interior of the sleeves and maybe settled in the vinyl. Or was it the label glue?

What's so bad about this hipster thing? Isn't it just as legit as doing the umpteenth incarnation of pretending you are THE singing ALL-AMERICAN BOY that the mom next door would love to take on as your son in law (as epitomized by all those big band crooners and schmaltz youngsters that preceded the vocal stylings of Mel Torme et al?). And even if this hipsterism was a bit mannered, isn't it maybe even less phony than all this A&R-invented "Guy next door" attitude of all those singing band boys of those days? Or is it that you have to be a limited singer/croaker in the style of Babs Gonzales or a weirdie like Harry Gibson but certainly not a GREAT singer (by the usual yardstick) in order to have your hipsterism taken more seriously? :D

It may sound overly dramatic but this forum just won't be the same without Brownie. I can see your point of spending too much time just reading and posting on forums (it can get to be a haibt) - time that might be needed for other, more pressing things, but anyway: Please reconsider, if you will ...

on my way home from work i was just thinking "well if we're moving on i will just go where brownie [father figure of yurpean board members] is going..." come on, losing this board is more than enough for poor souls like me, stay around for another board! I for one agree with every word Niko wrote. Having just discovered this topic of O closing down right now (and still trying to recover) and hoping the latest posts really do mean the forum will carry on, at any rate I'll join Niko in asking you to stay around, Brownie in case the worst come to the worst. But let's hope a new start is now in the works.

Yeah but that would relieve you only to some (small) extent of the research work. There are quite a few tunes out there that have widely differing composer credits depending on the labels, reissues, pressings, etc. that you happen to look at - although it really is the same tune in every case. Sometimes each artist who recorded a sort of "hit" version of a tune way back claimed he wrote it. Especially common in the pre-LP days. So sometimes listing composer credits might actually do more harm than good.

Since composer credits seem to be such a crucial item to many here, that leads me to a question on how those of you who insist on composer credits to be included in discographies are handling this in detail: As we all know there have been numerous instances where record company execs or other "external" persons just added their own names as a matter of course to the actual composer's name in order to grab a share of the royalties. Numerous such cases care known and documented and at any rate are open secrets, e.g. the "Josea", "Taub", "Ling" names routinely added to composer credits of tunes recorded for the Modern/RPM label conglomerate (these names being nothing but pseudonyms for the Bihari brothers who owned the labels). Based on up to date knowledge, how are you going about entries like this? Include such names and add insult to injury for the actual composers or exclude them and maybe face complaints elsewhere?

Though I've never been into jazz (or jazzy) vocals that much I admit I was knocked out by the Mel-Tones 40s recordings that I got hold of the other day on a 80s Musicraft reissue LP. So I'll second the recommendation of starting with the beginning - the 40s Mel-Tones recordings. And though I've passed it up repeatedly in the past, I'll probably grab those reecordings with Marty Paich's Dek-Tette on Bethlehem one of these days as well (as soon as a nicely priced Affinity reissue comes my way). As for that affected hipness that JSangry spoke off, I can see your point, yet I think you have to keep in mind where featured white male vocalists in jazz came from in the 40s. If you look at those typical big band vocalists of the pre-1942/43 recording ban big bands that very often sounded oh so square jazz-wise (and badly dated today), isn't it so that the white vocalists didn't really see the light until the hip 40s era rolled along? Cf. Buddy Stewart, Dave Lambert, the Pastels, David Allyn and lots of others. I admit I never really went for the sound of the crooners but for my money I somehow like Mel's chops better than those of Frankieboy.

I fully agree with the recommendation of Bill Perkins' "On Stage" as a prime example of "typical" West Coast jazz. What I find a bit strange, though, is the inclusion of the Shank/Cooper "Blowing Country" disc in such a reissue program that probably purports to make OUTSTANDING examples of the genre available again. For once I have to agree with the period reviews of this release: It is pleasantly sounding jazz-tinged background music but one of the better examples of WCJ? I dunno ... Rather, it's fairly light fare. Sure there must be more substantial WCJ music in the PJ catalog. Besides, the original release already was an unnecessary oddity: Tracks previously issued on three different PJ/WP LP's rehashed into a new cash-in product, i.e. a "compilation", not an original release.

I've had the Xanadu reissue since 1984 (must have been fairly newly released though it was found in a student campus fleamarket bin) and strangely enough never came across the Fresh Sound vinyl reissue though I've bought and actively looked for PLENTY of these facsimile reissues.

One of those big-money (though non-Blue Note items on eBay, that original JARO issue. Weird record titles, BTW. Jaro issued it as the "arrival" (though, as far as leader dates were concerned, KD had arrived before that date) and Xanadu issued the same music to commemorate the "departure". Beats me how AMG could claim it is a "compilation". The usual discographies have the right answers. As for that "Memorial" tag on Xanadu, that's not something to go by at all. AFAIR the "Sonny Clark Memorial Album" on Xanadu did include previously unreleased club recordings from Sweden indeed sow as something new for the occasion but on the other hand the "Bill Harris Memorial Album" on Xanadu in fact is a reissue of a date originally done for MODE in 1957.

Brownie, the pleasure was all mine (and I hope we can repat this in due course). As for how much more agreeable this forum was a couple of years ago, I don't know of course (as I dicovered this place not that long ago). But comparing it to other internet places, it does not fare that badly IMHO. Like I said, maybe I haven't read the threads in question (I don't nearly follow all of them around here) but still ... All in all I find Jim Alfredson's stance on this matter quite a healthy one. When things get extremely unpleasant the moderator has to intervene but it IS a thin line between enforcing mutual respect and stifling controversial debates to the point of making it all a bloodless bla-bla affair. And like Jim said, welcome to the world of the internet as far as saying things here you would not say to your "opponent" face to face. However, in this basic debate, please consider this: Have a look around at daily life as it is today: Isn't it a common enough experience to come across people that are ready and willing to screw you in a big way and get out the knife to stab in your back at any moment yet outwardly they are nothing but smiles and politeness - but oh my, behind that phony facade? I realize internet exchanges may be prone to insulting because you are not immediately taken to task but isn't it sometimes better under these circumstances to let off steam and NOT count your words (if only to make it clear to the other one he will NOT get away with his own attitude). Pretending everything is fine and then pulling strings behind the other's back to do him in good (it's all happened and can even happen via the internet) is far, far worse than the occasional direct, confrontational rudeness in the name of clarity. That said .. PEACE for now and why not back to the actual topic for those who still want to elaborate on it...