Big Beat Steve

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.

Honestly, MG; I don't quite get your initial post. What is that "on the other hand" list supposed to mean? Are there reservations about these artists compared to the first (longer) list? And what's that about not Verve taking chances or giving (relatively) unknowns a try? What about BERT DAHLANDER's "SKAL" LP (Nils-Bertil Dahlander, in fact, or "Bert Dale" for the linguistically lesser talented Yanks - BTW, anybody know of any reissue sources for this?), or what about that TONI HARPER LP (been a long time since she'd been a child singing star) or how about that obscurity by REX MIDDLETON'S Hi-Fi's (nice LP, BTW)? (And there were many more jazz-tinged vocal albums on Verve who did not make it to everlasting fame - probably about as many as on Bethlehem) Or how about LYLE RITZ on ukulele? And you even got SPIKE JONES on Verve. And who TF was that ERNIE HECKSCHER orchestra? So much for Verve not strainyg beyond the names of the "greats". Surely many of those recordings reflected those times but I doubt all of them were safe bets on becoming huge sellers (even by jazz/"jazzy" standards). In fact, overall I find Verve had a fairly homogeneous body of work. If Verve was a stronghold of jazzmen from the "Mainstream" field that gave them exposure then this is no mean achievement and not bad as a counterweight to all those up and coming all-out modernistic labels. But the first Verve artist that comes to MY mind when I pull out a Verve record remains TAL FARLOW.

MG, I do think the main reason for many poor-sounding new 78s from the 40s was the use of recycled shellac. And I don't think this recycling was limited to characters like the Rene brothers; it seems to have been a very widespread practice in WWII USA. There are quite a few stories from collectors who'd been around in those days - stories that make you moan today, just imagining what rare prewar 78s were molten down that way in those wartime shellac scrap drives. BTW, this practice also was commonplace elsewhere. In war-time Germany you had to turn in two old records just to be able to BUY one new one.

A couple of years ago I bought a collection of some 700 78s of jazz, R&B and U.S. pop (mostly 40s, many small indie labels). A lot of the records are NM and when I played them on my relatively recent Dual turntable (which plays 78s with a special stylus but is certainly no high-end item) I was surprised to hear how full, warm and clear many of those records sound. Certainly not lo-fi or crackling or murky at all, and I really cannot see why any serious collector would automatically shy away from the music of that era on the grounds that they "all sound so hissy". Of course I've heard a lot noisier CD reissues of music from the 78 rpm era (including lots that claimed to have been "remastered"), and in all fairness it also has to be said that it also not only depends on the condition of the 78 the reissuers have access to but also on the pressing quality. There were lots of labels from the WWII and post-WWII era that sounded poor and produced a constant hiss even when brand new. But this need not be always so. You CAN get excellent fidelity from 78s. I'd agree that modern digital wizardry can work wonders with recordings from the 20s (especially from the "acoustic" era) but to what extent this faithfully reproduces the music and really makes formerly inaudible parts audible without actually ALTERING the music is for others to judge. Sometimes (even with later, i.e. 40s/50s 78s) I have a feeling many remastered 78s sound just too "clean" and "stripped" on CD. Somehow the "warmth" is missing.

It all depends, Niko. What do you consider "growing up with"? I can't tell you how hard it was to AVOID that music back then. (You know you can't (and shouldn't, really) run away from your classmates and buddies and dig a foxhole to crawl into. ) The exposure to the music definitely was there. First it was Slade, Gary Glitter, T. Rex etc. all over the place, soon to be followed by TYA, Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Genesis, Deep Purple, those Southern Rock bands, all that "Deutschrock" stuff, etc. etc. AND YET I didn't dig it at all, except for some bluesy TYA stuff (see above). But formative it was in more ways than one. If only to show me clearly how those "far-out" changes and endless solos then all the rage in the rock music of the day had been around in jazz a good 20 years earlier (I remember one occasion, in particular, when I went on a record buying spree with a buddy, he bought his hard rock, I bought an early Sonny Rollins LP and when we played the records to each other afterwards he had to admit those cats had something going back in those 50s that many rockers were only just exploring in the 70s. ;. Musicologically an invalid comparison for sure, but formative it was!)

If this really was so then I ought to have dug (and still dig) hard rock and/or disco of the 70s (the pop music of my muscially formative years that you just could NOT avoid) in a BIG way. Actually I never did - reminiscences of the days of youth that are sentimentalized by 70s hard rock bands still are very few and far between, and my attitude towards this music has only softened and become more receptive in VERY isolated cases, and I still HATE the disco and funk of those times. Instead, it had always been 50s rock'n'roll/rockabilly, jazz (swing and modern), blues and R&B for me from Day One, but I've since broadened quite a bit from THOSE starting points (which weren't the musical mainstream then either and still aren't now). But the then-current 70s rock/pop music that actually was around me all the time back then (and of which I remember quite a bit though I virtually never bought any of those records) still isn't something I'd prefer listening to (and I certainly wouldn't want to go out and buy those records now just to recapture my youth). In fact I found some of the more recent Brit-Pop bands (that style-wise reach back to 60s British bands) more enjoyable on an occasional (!) listening basis than the 70s rock bands I was supposed to grow up with. Now where did I faill?? :D More and more music is shoved down the throats of (actual and would-be) musical consumers each and every day - through the multiplication of media exposure but also through more and more business-minded characters trying to grab a share of the market and turn a buck QUICK, with more and more of them steering the same, predictable formulaic route that promises a hit (which makes it harder for individualism to GROW naturally and to make itself heard).

'50's rock/Rockabilly...yet another generational divide. 7/4, would it comfort you if I told you I wasn't even born in the 50s yet? :D (But in a way you are right about the "generational divide")

Please stop with the Clapton. Please. Clapton ain't bad. BUT - The "Rock" stopped rolling in 1960 or so (after Eddie Cochran's death and after the first bunch of artificially fabricated "beach party teen idols" drowned out the ROCKERS and before the British BEAT came along. :D What you Americans (and everybody else) have had ever since is just plan ROCK but NOT rock'n'ROLL (with the exception of the neo-rock'n'roll/rockabilly subculture(s) within rock that came along every now and then and will continue to flourish).