Big Beat Steve

Chris, with all due respect: I not only have all the Sonny Burgess recordings listed in that discography (yes I admit I am one of those who is not above listening some good straightforward 50s R'n'r from time to time - "Ain't Got A Thing" is spinning on the turntable as I write this) but even more of his music, and if you must know there are more incongruous entries like this. And no, I did not note them down when I came across them so I cannot pinpoint them right now but one that is just as out of place is that (through solitary) entry by traditional country singer Carl Story. The musical area where jazz and country music get close does exist but none of the artists that might be presented as such borderline cases (starting with Bob Wills and Milton Brown) got an entry in Jepsen's, and by musical comparison Sonny Burgess (fine though he is in HIS genre) is rather far removed from that borderline (OK, "Thunderbird" has a blues flavor but oh my what else you would have had to include if you go by that yardstick). So it all is a question of methodology and crosschecking of entry suggestions/source material. Incorporating label listings wholesale does not help if nobody is there to provide guidance on the musical contents. Just imagine incorporating an extensive listing of Jerry Murad's Harmonicats in a blues/R&B discography just because they happened to record on the R&B-oriented Vitacoustic label too. And though I do think such reasoning was not beyond discographers' standards in the 60s (or why else would they have made a fuss about whether to include or exclude Jimmy Dorsey who certainly had more jazz to him than others mentioned here ) this is NOT to denigrate the pioneering work of your fellow countryman Jörgen Grunnet Jepsen one bit! I value his discography and yet I took the liberty of poionting out a few oddities earlier, more as a side note in this discussion on matters discographical (not imagining it'd turn into such a debate ). Jag ber om ursäkta (nej, jeg taler ikke dansk)

Paul, I should have thought when he wrote this he was rather thinking of artists like Frank Sinatra etc. (possibly included not least of all due to the presence of jazz sidemen), and as for blues artists, isn´t it often rather hard to draw a firm line between jazz and blues, one of THE key ingredients of jazz? Where would you place Jimmy Rushing, for instance? Or Helen Humes? So there would be many who fit both bills as for their inclusion in discographies. It´s been a learning process even for discographers anyway - remember how Mike Leadbitter steadfastly excluded R&B artists in the original edition of his opus (a wrong thankfully righted in later editions )? So "blues or not" certainly is not the question in jazz discographies - but rockabilly? (not that I would want to dwell on this point forever, but this obviously was a lapse of judgment - understandable in a way, and amusing today, but it was there).

At first sight yes ... and I can understand things like this to happen in the case of certain black R&B vocalists of the 50s but what baffles me is that when this info must have been entered in the mid-60s Sonny Burgess had been on the scene (though quite non-jazz) for quite a few years, had been a fairly well-known figure (at least in the South) on the R'n'R scene in the latter part of the 50s (though by the mid-60s was past his R'n'R prime and had gone into country music). Surely there must have been SOMEBODY among his U.S. contributors who might have been able to tell him that Sonny Burgess a) was white (and therefore rather one of the "Elvis Presley fraternity") b) was a R'n'R/rockabilly artist after all and that c) by the time he recorded for SUN this label had largely given up its blues roots/connections (i.e. the mere name of the label did not provide a safe indication of the material recorded there anymore). In short, there was NO jazz connection here, no matter how you look at it, and certainly SOME U.S. contact of his must have been aware of all this and more. I realize I am speaking with the HUGE benefit of hindsight but it boils down to a matter of cross-checking of possibly doubtful facts (as there were other entries like this). It's a minor point that does not detract from the overall quality of the discography at all but considering how Rock'n'roll was lambasted by the jazz world at that time it's amusing to see that entries like this (of all musical styles) crept into that reference work by the back door ...

Yes, those were the days ... A very healthy attitude, and yet I wonder what EKE BBB, for example, would say about his Tete Montoliu discography he is working on if he finds Lord appropriates it lock stock and barrel and then claims copyright on it (the same is true for other forumists here and elsewhere too, of course, who publicly invite contributions to and - hence - use of their discopgraphies they painstakingly built up). As for Jepsen, while I still use it for basic information I've sometimes been wondering about his sources indeed. Beats me how rockabilly singer Sonny Burgess ever made it into this JAZZ discography (and he is no isolated case). Sometimes he cast his nets rather wide indeed. Compared to his diligence and attention to detail evident from the monthly columns in Orkester Journalen he did back then this is really odd - or was it the sheer volume of material and comparatively primitive processing facilities available back then?

Since you mention your country, Daniel A, actually Sweden is a case in point as to what could be done if discographies were shared via the web. That comprehensive Swedish jazz discography that's accessible via www.visarkiv.se certainly borrowed from Harry Nicolausson's groundbreaking discography but did Nicolausson's heirs ever sue the Visarkiv discographers/researches/compilers for infringement? Apparently not. And as for the set-up and layout of an original works being a criterion for it being copyrightable (is there such a word? ), isn't the layout of the discographical entries in this or other discographies (right up to Lord's, from what I have seen) pretty much standardized (basically right back to Jepsen's if not Delaunay's days) so what is there to copyright from the layout? And since a discography basically contains nothing but facts, is there anything that can be copyrighted by anybody but those who collated and published the respective information FIRST? Or can you copyright a discographical listing by any artist as your own brainchild as soon as you add, say, 2 or 3 or 4 additional reissues in the "record releases" column, though 98% of the overall contents remain unchanged? Hey, almost anybody can do that!

This mixup of different sessions that are not complete of course is not satisfactory for today's collectors (are there any out there who are NOT completists? ) but if the entire Prestige etc. label conglomerate and their OJC reissues were handled with more sense by Concord then this would not happen that easily. Seems like Concord is intent on quitting the field. No wonder others are jumping up to cash in even in this niche market. BTW - these tracks being PD now means these reissues are NOT bootlegs by European standards. So as long as they are marketed inside Europe everything is cool.

An amazing and insightful thread. The immense outlay for the Lord discographies (both when they were issued in book form and now in digitized form) made me immediately shy away, especially since the bulk of my own jazz & blues collection covers the era up to, say, the mid-60s. Apart from the original Jepsen discographies as well as Rust's for the up to 1942 period (which I still regularly refer to for basic information) I have an older CD version of the Bruyninckx discography (old enough not to have any search facilities) and use that not only get more up to date session details but above all to look up info on more recently released information on airshots, transcriptions, live recordings, alt. take collations etc. that are not covered by Rust at all and not to any great extent by Jepsen either (because not many airshots and live recordings of earlier jazz had been issued at that time yet). All in all these discographies usually cover the ground for me quite nicely (along with the Leadbitter/Pelletier as well as Goodrich/Dixon discographies for blues as well as a few specialist discogs such as the one on Swedish jazz available online FREE!). Now my question to the specialists is this: How up to date are more recent issues of BRUYNINCKX' discpgraphies with more search functions and does Lord offer ANY substantially new or enhanced info over Bruyninckx' if I were to search for, say, issues/reissues of airshots, transcriptions, outtakes etc mostly released for the general public on those countless small collector labels? (Which is what I might need more up to date discographies that go beyond listings of original 78rpm discographies such as the one by Rust)

That's exactly it! That other female "singing" you hear out there these days (be it "straight" singers or one of those who scat everything to death in a sort of free-style vocal chord exercise) can be painful too. As for M.P., I did like her Billie Holiday stylings on first listening but it's hard indeed going through a whole CD of hers in one go. If you take he in smaller doses she is okay IMO but that Billie Holiday gimmick just tends to get repetitive and sometimes it just sounds to me as if the B.H. voice she strives after just does not really match her range and she knows it yet does not want to acknowledge it.

To round off the picture, I just found a review of the first concert of Quincy's summer Sweden tour (that followed the Swiss gig and lasted all through July 1960) in ORKESTER JOURNALEN. It says at this opening concert in Gävle on July 2, 1960 they still were looking for a replacement for Budd Johnson; no mention of Harold McNair's presence, and they said offers had been made to Lucky Thompson and Zoot Simes (both in Europe at that time) to step in. Also, Ake Persson had to stay behind in Stockholm for private reasons; his place was taken by Gordon Olsson (who had already been in Harry Arnold's 1958 band playing Quincy's arrangements). Re- Quincy backing Nat King Cole in April/May: The May 1960 issue of Orkester Journalen carried a review of the Quincy Jones/Nat Cole concert on 26 April in Stockholm. From the solists named, the line-up reads like the one in the first post but the review says when Nat King Cole came on (after Quincy's band had played a set of their own) some reshuffling took place among the musicians: Lead trumpet was played by Irving Busch and the rhythm section now included John Collins (g), Charles Harris (b), and Lee Young (dr). Nat Cole played some piano himself. Also, a five-piece string section consisting of French musicians was brought on. Don't know if those changes of personnel happened during the entire tour, though.

If you think it would help I can check my 1960 issues of JAZZ HOT (France) and ESTRAD and ORKESTER JOURNALEN (Sweden) for any info they may have on the European tour of this band and the lineup.

King Ubu, what is your experience with Amazon marketplace seller MARCHE_24? They are based in Switzerland so I figure you might have tried them. I tried them once on a book listed a being widely available but their service was abysmal. First they said the item had been shipped then they said it might perhaps been overlooked and not been shipped after all or a mistake due to non-availability might have happened. During the numerous e-mails I had to exchange with them until I finally (quite a bit later) got my money back each time sobody else replied and always started from scratch in their statements as if they had not been aware of my previous mails. It all sounded like another case of Caimanitis to me...

Cicala was an Italian semi-cheapo label found widely in jazz bins in record stores here in the 80s and early 90s ("semi" because back then even reputable lables often had cheap-looking covers and artwork). From the other Cicala LP's I've seen (and sometimes bought), some of the live recordings they (re)issued duplicated material also released on the U.S. ALAMAC label. Maybe this gives a clue as to the sources.

If you'd seen any sizeable number of pics of the French early to mid-60s youth (e.g. the then-current French rock'n'roll/beat bands and their fans) you wouldn't say that ... Anyway, the cover pics of the JiP series are fantastic throughout and in many cases capture the atmosphere of the times (and the music) perfectly well, though sometimes they ought to have used pictures taken more at the time the music was recorded and not that long before or after. And I'd sure like to have that cinema wall publicity seen on Jazz and Cinema Vol. 5!! :D That would be something ...

Somehow Ia gree with Claude. The master takes would be sufficient for me. This leads me to this question: In the early 80s these Chet In Paris sessions were reissued on 3 LP's on the BLue Star label. Due to certain circumstances at that time I snapped up Vol. 2 and 3 as SPANISH pressings of the Blue Star LPs but I never was able to get hold of Vol. 1. Late on I found out the French Blue Star reissues included a DOUBLE LP of Vol. 1 and 2 and Vol. 3 as a single LP (no wonder I never saw a single LP of Vol. 1 again). The only time I ever saw a copy of that double LP somehow I failed to grab that too. Is there any reissue of the material from Vol. 1 (apart from that new box set) available - short of getting a copy of that Spanish pressing the Vol. 1 Blue Star LP?

mmilovan, you are confusing things. I have no grudge against Paul Weston per se, though I probably would never think "Hey, that's bound to be GRREEAT Swing music if he (of all bandleaders) provides the backing" if I came upon his name as providing the backing on some 78rpm by some unknown artist. He may have done nice, swinging arrangements for Nat King Cole and others. But his combination wth Johnny Mercer just doesn't cut it for me - at least not JAZZ-wise (which is what it's all about here in THIS forum). I can see people liking it as POP music of the day. That's perfectly fine. I happen not to like most of what I've heard of this combination, that's all - even if I regard them as pop music of those times. It's all a matter of taste anyway.

On another side note, didn't anybody get some sort of "déjà vu" feeling when listening to track #2 - "I Ain't Got Nothing To Lose"? I did - and the melody of that refrain kept whizzing in my head, and then things fell into place: Listen to "A Man Could Be A Wonderful Thing" by the Buddy Rich Orchestra (rec. for MGM in 1947, cf. reissue on Hep CD 12) and compare the refrain melodies ... That Sy Oliver sure was a sly fellow when it came to reworking a catchy melody ... (I'd say lawsuits for copyright infringements have been brought about for lesser resemblances in the more recent history of pop music )

Got the Greer CD that's discussed here a couple of weeks ago too (as the earlier debate in this thread had spurreed me into ordering it via AMazon too when a few others Must-Haves had accumulated). Indeed a nice selection with a far better share of uptempo material than the Official LP I mentioned earlier, and some very catchy instrumentals that are sure to set your feet tapping - BUT: If you've listened to a huge bit of sax-led late 40s/early 50s R&B, Big John Greer's RCA/Groove material just comes across as somewhat polished, slick and all too perfectly produced (a bit like some of the Al Sears stuff done for RCA and Sam The Man Taylor's for Mercury) - as opposed to the raw, gutsy, untameed energy of what the Indie labels did at about the same time. MG is talking about better recording quality - true, admittedly, but that cannot be the only difference that makes the RCA stuff come across as somewhat calculated. At times almost a bit like some R&B for listeners who were content remaining on the outside of those greeeezy jook joints looking in instead of getting right into the action themselves ... But admittedly this is nitpicking too. The music on its own terms is fine, warts'n missing rough edges 'n all

Thanks, Ghost, for showing the original cover of the Amram-Barrow LP. I've had this LP for a LONG time as a 70s reissue on German MCA (but with a pretty dull "generic" cover of that reissue series) and had never seen a decent pic of the original cover before. Will give the disc a spin now....

Hey, Clem, dont' overlook Chet's playing on the "Jazz From The Hills" (Country All Stars) and "After The Riot At Newport" (Nashville All Stars) albums. It ain't THAT bad and certainly no dog shit ...

I agree with Brownie. You goofed in a big way! Both of these twofers are exellent thanks to all the participants involved. (And the liner notes describing e.g. Brew Moore's trip way out West in the company of Woody Guthrie are very ... er... enlightening, too. )

Don't tell me this name (typically Belgian, BTW) is more complicated than the average Welsh town name?? :D Anyway, it's good to see this discpography is being revised. Seems like it is far more accessbile (fiancially speaking) than Lord's.

As a seller, I used to leave feedback as soon as I had received payment. After a few times when customers busted my balls unreasonably after I had exercised my feedback option, I decided that no feedback should be left until both parties are satisfied. The seller is satisfied when the payment arrives on time, and the buyer is satisfied when the item arrives and is acceptable. I watch my feedback regularly, and when I receive feedback, I know that the customer is satisfied, and so I respond. In the occasional instances when the customer has a problem with the item, I try to resolve the situation without hostility, and I have even received positive feedback from people who requested a refund. If there were no sellers who are apt to make use of retaliatory negative feedback (though the buyer has done everything to satisfy by paying lightning fast and making every humanly possible attempt at providing ALL the information as fast as possible) your attitude would be perfectly acceptable. But as it is (sellers using feedback as a weapon against buyers who dare to complain) this attitude is manoeuvering both parties into a dead end. Sad to say this but that's how it is (luckily I've only had to witness this with friends who've been the targets of such action as buyers but that was sad enough). Remember it is not all that rare for buyers to pay up promptly but then wait endlessly for the goods. No shipping notice from the seller (probably considered unnecessary on the grounds forwarded by jazzhound) and not even any replies to e-mail inquiries about the whereabouts of the goods, and this situation drags on for weeks. Now what are bidders supposed to do under these circumstances? It is not only bidders that may turn out to be deadbeat, it is sellers too! The buyer's only weapon under these circumstances is to leave appropriate feedback. Guess what this kind of seller is bound to do, then, though? At any rate, it is abusive to claim it is part of the buyer's DUTIES to leave feedback BEFORE the seller leaves feedback. Just my 2c

To a European interested in the history of popular music, this whole debate is pointless or, to put it another way, it 's a case of GROSS MISLABELING. ROCK'N'ROLL in the true sense of the word is ONLY the rock music made from approx. 1954 to 1963 (before the British Invasion gained full momentum), i.e. Rock'n'Roll used as a denominator for as the mainstream style within the genre, plus subgenres such as Rockabilly, the R'n'R end of R&B of that time, Doo-Wop, Instrumental R'n'R, Surf, etc., PLUS those musicians/bands/acts that played after the end of the R'n'R era and still play (or play again) in that idiom today (and the musical subculture of true R'n'R is still alive and kicking all around the world, cf. the numerous R'n'R/Rockabilly weekenders such as those in Las Vegas, etc.). Anything that came after the real R'n'R of '54 to '63 just ain't that - it may be Garage Punk, Psychedelic Rock, Folk Rock, Hard Rock, Indpeendent Rock, Heavy Metal, Punk Rock, and everything that came on afterwards but as long as it does not fall into the stylistic genres of real R'n'R as delimited above it's not that (and no R'n'R lover over here would classify it as R'n'R) but just plain ROCK. Nothing wrong with that, but let's call it by its proper name. :D (Yeah, I know, US pop listeners and the Powers-that-be ever in search of a marketing tag draw the line elsewhere, and yet ... ) This way of arguing just dilutes things endlessly if you throw everything into the same pot, and in the end the term R'n'R becomes totally meaningless. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Van Basten II's statement about Commercial Music Hall of Fame above. Most of those nominees (with the obvious exception of the Ventures) just ain't beeen part of the actual R'n'R movement, least of all stylistically.

Interesting debate, especially as you get to hear both sides (buyer and seller). As a non-U.S. buyer who buys from both US and domestic sources (though far less frequently than I used to), on the whole I find that U.S. sellers tend to be more polite than others (especially those that I figure are private sellers, whereas communication practices of a lot of those high-volume turnover professional "powersellers" leave a lot to be desired). As for timely payment and non-acknowledgment as well as nonexistent info on shipping having been made (important with overseas shipments), this is one thing that has often bugged me too. What annoys me in this context is those sellers in particular that insist on leaving feedback ONLY AFTER feedback having been left for them, often even claiming leaving feeback is part of the BUYERS's duties. Come on now! The buyer's duties are to communicate rapidly, provinding the info required to the seller rapidly and paying rapidly and that's that! The moment the buyer has paid up in a timely manner that's the end of his duties in the transaction - whereas the seller's duties obviously include packaging and shipping in a timely manner as well. So the buyer's duties end before (often WELL before) those of the seller, and sellers that have nothing to hide have no reason to refuse leaving feedback as soon as they have received payment (some actually do leave feedback this early) and before sending the goods. Everything else is an attempt at holding the buyer hostage throughout the entire transaction (so the seller can leave retaliatory negative feedback at his whim later on). I wonder what the stance of other forumists is on this? At any rate, I've long since given up leaving any feedback at all for any of those sellers who engage in the above practices (except if I am EXCEEDINGLY pleased with the transaction upon reception of the goods). But it seems like feedback is more important to U.S. sellers than to European sellers anyway.

Just to have a really informed opinion: Brownie, how would you rate the Chet Baker live album (Witch Doctor) with the LH All Stars in comparison?