Big Beat Steve

In short, those packagings are a big scam. BTW, I do assume "copy write" in the opening post is supposed to mean "copyright" (unless it's a clever play on homophony ). Since liner notes are probably inexistent with downloads there is not likely to be much "copy write/writing" there.

I must admit that when i wrote my post above I had not thought of his later Pablo recordings. I do not have many of these, but what I have picked up along the way is rather amazing. Will have to look into more of this, I guess. Agreed about the man of many parts and "The Legend" - and "Kansas City Suite" too. This sort of combination of Carter and Basie is something special.

If you look beyond the Norman Granz Jam Sessions that Benny Carter participated in, IMO his Verve years, while certainly fine, tend to be rather middle-of-the-roadish, i.e. mainstreamish on safe ground, and probably not all that distinctive above and beyond what else there was in major-label mainstream recordings of the 50s. And quite a few noteworthy recordings that he put his special touches to were under the leadership of others. Personally I find his early 30s and late 30s and 40s big band recordings as well as his European recordings from the "in-between" 30s period more stimulating to explore as a whole. But of course YMMV.

Sounds like you've given up on the subject.

Of course it is. Rock'n'Roll may have been a name initially coined to describe R&B marketed to white audiences or R&B(-influenced music) played by white artists. But during the heyday of actual R'n'R (not just - later - "Rock") during, say, 1954 to 1959, there were both white and Black R'n'R artists, bands and sounds that all added to this mix. And of course Black music did continue to evolve outside of the R'n'R spectrum. During the R'n'R era some Black artists didn't change their style much and yet were part of the core of R'n'R - e.g. Fats Domino. And the Treniers from that video always remained themselves both in pre-R'n'R years and in their R'n'R movie appearances, etc. And yes, the Treniers would have deserved a place in the "Which Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record?" book too. Whereas the Atlantic recordings of Big Joe Turner fitted seamlessly into R'n'R, but of course he would not have had anything even remotely resembling teen appeal. So it all depends on which criteria you highlight to what extent. Like GA Russell said: It's the music on the one hand and the perception on the other. As for the presence of the tenor sax as a solo instrument as a key criterion of what constitutes R'n'R (as Dan Gould said) - I'm not convinced. The sax was very present on many BLACK R'n'R recordings but I'd see this largely as a holdover from the evolution of R&B since 1945. It was much less dominant on white R'n'R records (with the possible exception of the featured sax in certain backing bands). In general, one major facet of SELF-MADE (self-played) white R'n'R (which of course includes rockabilly as one subgenre) was the preponderance of the guitar as a solo instrument that set the general sound patterns. To an extent hitherto unheard. Not that surprising as most of the white artists came from the Country side of the two main ingredients that combined to form R'n'R. But again, I think the common consensus in all these debates of where and how R'n'R started and what makes up R'n'R has always been and still is that to qualify, no recordings will have to meet ALL criteria of music (style) and perception (image). One that did not clock up much mileage beyond the singer's or listener's bedside.

See? The Stones as a whole are definitely OUT by the usual European definition within the R'n'R subculture (even if certain tracks - as with the Beatles' oeuvre - would fit into R'n'R, stylistically speaking). Haley, Lewis and Berry are IN. But they cover only SOME aspects of the ENTIRE spectrum of R'n'R. To varying degrees. And that "driving around getting teenage kicks" that you mentioned about the "Rocket 88" lyrics is ONE aspect that would rate this recording as "early" R'n'R. Whereas the recordings by Wynonie Harris (that often rock even harder) might not qualify that easily because THEIR lyrics - about boozing and the pimp making love to the preacher's wife in the kitchen - address a rather different audience. His "adult R'n'R" or "adult R&B" recordings therefore lack the "teenage/youth audience" angle that sets R'n'R apart as the first specific style of music geared specifically to the YOUNG'UNS. Not to what the elders would condescendingly allow their kids to listen to in the pre-1954 days. (Not that WHITE parents in 50s US of A - or parents in the UK or Germany, for that matter - would have been enthusiastic about their kids listening to Wynonie Harris, but I think you get what I mean. ) OTOH others (like me, incidentally ) may find the strictly adult lyrics no hindrance to R'n'R status if the music has the right vibe. So it all depends on what importance you place onto what aspect of the individual recordings. Not a question that can or will ever be settled.

"Rocket 88" may be considered the direct precursor of the more outgoing, rougher small-group (usually Black) R'n'R recordings with a driving, rocking, no-frills rhythm. Of course the stylistic boundaries did overlap, so "Rocket 88" is just as much straight-ahead R&B as it may be labeled very early (i.e. pre-)R'n'R. But at any rate Rock'n'Roll is a many-faceted genre. (I.e. REAL R'n'R of the pre-Beatles and preferably pre-assembly line Teen Idol era à la Avalon, Vee, Rydell etc. - and specifically NOT the blurred U.S. "definition" of R'n'R that would even label almost anything among later Rock as "Rock'n'Roll", from Psychedelic via Hard Rock and Alice Cooper et al. to Heavy Metal) So it depends on what elements you hear in what tune from the pre-R'n'R era that might inspire you to see it as the first blossoming of musica traits that were omnipresent in c.1954-63 R'n'R. Perennial food for thought and discussions of this will be found in "What Was The First Rock'n'Roll Record?" by Jim Dawson and Steve Propes. This book discusses 50 recordings that might qualify (depending on what aspect of R'n'R it is all about) - ranging (chronologically speaking) from "Blues Pt. 2" by that JATP crew of 1944 (for Illinois Jacquet's tenor sax solo as the father of all rockin' saxes) to Elvis' "Heartbreak Hotel" of 1956 (which would conform to rather a narrow, mainstreamish definition of the genre), and lots of in-betweens that all deserve some reflection. One overriding criterion of what would qualify as the "first" R'n'R record certainly is if these early recordings would alienate the typical crowds of the 50s-style R'n'R subculture when they are worked into the flow of tunes at record hops of if they would fit seamlessly in. From my own observations at such events I can tell you they would NOT be out of place there. (O.K., maybe some narrow-minded purists might object to a number of them, but they would quibble about certain authentic R'n'R tracks too) And then there are some that aren't even listed. E.g. "Diggin' My Potatoes" by Washboard Sam that for its rhythm alone may rightfully be considered the ancestor of most rockabilly tunes.

Maybe because it's not a "group" in the stricter sense of the word but the jazz unit of the WDR (WestDeutscher Rundfunk) radio station based in Cologne/Germany. So by its nature it's a fluent project that above all has provided the jazz big band backing for many different featured artists, something that probably would be hard to work into the framework of a "box set". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDR_Big_Band

At least ONE purpose is: Money-making bait for starters or casual listeners that they want to lure into buying more later on.

O.K., so we largely agree there.

Agreed that the borderline areas of what is or isn't jazz, such as the genres you mention, ought to be included at least in passing in any open-minded discussion or historical overview of jazz. As to the depth of coverage, YMMV. However, among the genres you mention, it would be useful to define "R&B" a bit more exactly. I have a hunch what you mean is not what I understand to be R&B in the first place (stylistically speaking, without any real limitations to its timeframe): post-Swing era, mostly pre-Rock'n'Roll and clearly pre-Soul Black Music of the danceable, popular variety and as a subcategory of Blues. I.e. broadly in the way that Tad Richards argues for its recognition as part of jazz in his "Jazz With a Beat" book. I realize R&B is used in different, more recent meanings too so it would be useful to clarifly which is which in any given context. As for how and when the appreciation of certain styles of jazz or artists may change over time, a word on this statement of yours: You may be surprised to learn that Hugues Panassié clearly and outspokenly praised the recordings of Jimmy Smith in his publications of the 50s and early 60s! Yes, him, the eternal "moldy fig" and bebop hater! So would this "seal of approval" have devalued, in turn, Jimmy Smith in the opinions of all-out modernists, I wonder?

Rather an animated discussion in such a brief span of time, so you touched on a subject that either is a bone of contention to many or a log-felt oversight to others. Personally I'd side with the basic statements made by Dan Gould, Niko and Kevin Bresnahan further up in this thread about how things ought to be weighted when the WIDE field of jazz is discussed. But OTOH I have to admit that while I'd never add anything typically "smooth jazz" to my collection there are such recordings out here that when listening to them accidentally you sort of get at least a "jazzish" vibe that is not off-putting. And besides, aren't the limits of this "smooth" genre rather fluid? I'd wager a bet that some of the MUCH more commercial efforts from the output of Wes Montgomery or George Benson, to name just two, would not be a million miles away from what is commonly labeled "smooth jazz" elsewhere. As can be seen from the track listings on many compilation "smooth" or "lounge" or "for lovers", etc. jazz CDs that have been thrown on the market since the 90s. An inevitable trend, of course, in all this is that once such a genre on the outskirts of straight-ahead jazz is admitted into "jazz" then there will be many who claim this now is what jazz is all about and what all jazz fans will have to embrace in order to be with it and this is where all the marketing clout goes under the flag of "jazz". Happened with jazz rock and then fusion in the 70s, etc. And of course this does not sit well with many. Rightly so. Not to mention that there has been quite a lot of music during recent decades that tried to sail under the banner of "jazz" because "jazz" always had a "hip" enough marketable image to it but all that seemed to have been "jazz" about that music was that it audibly was neither rock nor pop nor Black Music nor folk/ethno. So what remains as a tag to paste on? Jazz. For what good? To ACTUAL jazz and to jazz listeners, in particular? So IMO in the end it all depends on how you emphasize a "borderline" subcategory such as "smooth jazz" vs outright "straight-ahead" jazz in the overall presentation. And this is where I think many jazz listeners, fans and collectors willl sternly disagree in accordance with their personal preferences and preconceptions of what is jazz and what isn't. It seems to depend on what kind and degree of "crossover" (which means "dilution" of jazz to hardcore jazz followers anyway) you are prepared to accept. I remember the outcries or horror by many purists when Neo-Swing was all the rage througout the 90s (before abating to a trickle that goes on to this day but is under the radar of most). Visibly this kind of "crossover" cross-pollination of swing-era jazz, R&B and lounge pop with various styles of rock (from rockabilly to punk) did not sit well with many. Though Neo-Swing never claimed to be what "jazz is all about now" (contrary to jazz rock and fusion way back then ...). I always found and still find quite a bit of it enjoyable and entertaining WITHIN my jazz listening (when the time is right ...), contrary to all that fusion stuff, for example. In short, different strokes . .. and a debate that probably can never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Nothing really to add to what has already been said. Like others I have a countless number of his LP productions on Prestige, Onyx and Xanadu. Thanks for all these productions , cover art and all the other contributions. A life well lived. RIP.

This looks like another re-re-rerecyled reissue for incurable upgraders. I'm extremely selective about what Sinatra records I feel I need in my record collection anyway, so I for one will stick with my reissue by Dutch Capitol (Vol. 4 in the "The Frank Sinatra Story" LP series).

Here it's not so much that there are many CDs that I really cannot locate anymore or definitely have misplaced, but it's more a case of not immediately knowing where to look for them at any given moment without searching in several places ... I ran out of my well-arranged CD storage space (holding 600 CDs in a wall-mounted IKEA rack) quite a few years ago, then moved all my R&B/Blues, Rockabilly/Roots R'n'R and Country/Western Swing CDs into separate racks and boxes (different versions, from IKEA too, unfortunately discontinued years ago) sorted within these styles and periods. So the remaining main problem now (a "luxury problem", I know) is how to maintain some systematic order among my jazz CDs. With a fairly large number ariving over the past 3 years, up to now these have been in several different places dictated by when I bought and shelved them (those shelved more than, say, 4-5 years ago take up more than all the initial space available in that wall-mounted 600-CD rack). To re-sort them in a way where everything is better locatable, I recently ordered (at Amazon) stackable boxes with lids that hold 100 CDs each (something like these in the link below). The first four have been allocated as follows (more will be ordered to expand these or for other styles): - Swing + Chronological Classics CDs (most of my CCs are Swing anyway) - Cool & West Coast Jazz - Bebop, Hard Bop & other Modern Jazz - European jazz https://www.amazon.com/BCW-Storage-Box-Lid-Compartments/dp/B0FJMB9W4S/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2DY5ELNGHVCI8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.jqNPgE4P-SICP3pgKKLF51o1noljJSSdtsBTcy_v1J9PKE6jRDsdWQJwGQOPhQei_BAsPG-s-wGgA8XfjTTs7mjNDzsR6ch0s9oRUeu2k3Z9U1s83oTrdKPIMVfEuMQuaqqqW7x9_NwuQwh0wI6BXimqxJvBvf566Xm7Rwqz2XGJ2D8YzeZ7R-jpvJQI1JqTmxp4ap4n0Z92ZKEIXZTnCo-_6gb9ydQkH63uDaXUkXp8aE6MX4BkpWHPWAtprYr_-7sZHxE2SBU-bz7CLDHXHrP0XlCOMK2hUU6HHCKKSLA.YscaQC8trYqtxt0c5xNrQHmG_RvSHiBAm29c7ZjZsyI&dib_tag=se&keywords=Protected+cardboard+CD+box&qid=1771429532&sprefix=protected+cardboard+cd+box%2Caps%2C177&sr=8-1 Eventually I'm afraid there will be no option but to rearrange all the CDs so that those that I tend to spin most often will go into the 600-CD wall rack and the others (except most box sets - whether CD or LP-sized - which are separate again) will go into the 100-CD boxes. No more to-and-fro searching, then, I hope. And I'm still battling with myself over whether to reallocate space freed on shelves in the adjacent room specifically for my "vinyl overflow" to accommodate at least certain CDs after all.

Thanks very much for your help, John! Your scans arrived and have been printed and copied on suitable off-white paper to match the tint of the book's pages to make them almost undistinguishable.

Very nice! Too bad this apparently has not been pressed on one of those "live Basie" vinyls (or CDs??). No trace in the Basie discographies of any "Shake Rattle & Roll" with Leon Thomas following the "I needs to be bee'd with" that Basie announces at the begining of this clip. Tunes like "Shake Rattle and Roll" must have been the repertoire played by Basie while he provided the backing for the Alan Freed R'n'R tours and concerts for some time in 1956/57.

It's also collector-friendly that that Discogs entry lists the "orginal" (re)issues of the recordings included in that box. So everyone who has at least a certain number of "live Bird" can check for overlaps and won't feel as bad when he can't or won't afford the Discogs prices.

This is one music book that marked my early collecting days in the 70s and taught me a lot about the Blues. (Yes, I realize this book is outdated in some way now, but I find it still is fine.) Later (in the 90s) I bought a secondhand copy at Mole Jazz in London (1969 edition by Barrie & Rockcliff, London - 1978 printing) . However, as discovered later, my copy has two pages missing (p. 107-108). Not that much reason to worry, I figured, because back in 1979 I had bought a German translation of that book (a paperback publication that alas includes only a small part of the photos of the original publication, but at least the missing text segment was there to refer to). But flipping through the book again now, it's high time at last to try to complete that book. So my question is: Is there a forumist who owns this book (preferably a late 60s/early 70s edition) and would be kind enough to mail me scans of the missing pages 107-108? If so, please send me a PM. From what I have seen elsewhere and remember from the book I perused in the 70s, the pagination and layout remained the same through all or most of these early (US or UK) editions and printings from the late 60s and early 70s, and the total number of pages is 176. Just for orientation and in case there are doubts about the layout: Page 109 has one photo of Kokomo Arnold and two of Memphis Minnie, and the main text starts with "Perhaps it was there that he developed his use of the falsetto ..." Thank you very much in advance!

I did not spring for the V-Disc small group box because I already have many of the sessions by those artists that I find most interesting on this set, but looking at the track listing again now, the only conclusion I see is that Marc Myers must be one of those jazz purists who does not appreciate traditional or early revival jazz all that much. I am no completist for that 40s revivalist traditional jazz either (which contributed to making me pass), but calling these recordings "flat, uninteresting"?? But if I had to choose between the small group and the big band set, I'd take the small group set because with the big bands the "already there" rate is even significantly higher (though some intriguing items in between are tempting ...).

+1 !! I am aware of Phil Moore and have a few 78s by the Phil Moore Four (on Victor and Black & White) but was not really aware of the existence of these recordings (and their somewhat later reissue on Verve). By all accounts Phil Moore must have been a relatively big name throughout the 40s, but he is one of those who ended up being almost totally forgotten because he was ill-served by reissues in later years when that period became "collectable".

Well, how am I to know objectively? I realize my scoop made in early 2025 (see that other thread) can't be beat, but it shows anything can happen somewhere, sometime outside eBay and Discogs. (And the lowest selling price shown in the Discogs statistics was below $50 after all.) And while the lowest current Discogs price you indicate at least is less than the "price when new", it probably - as in the case of Mosaic sets - all depends on how urgently someone wants that item. And how he values that (excellently done) book. Because 135 EUR for 4 CDs "plus a book" as such still is quite steep indeed, of course.

Just for the record to those who might rush out to pick up this individual CD from that "Jazz Connoisseur" series: This very CD (i.e. its exact contents inside the same facsimile cover of Vogue LD 025) also is included in the "Jazz on Disques Vogue - The Perfect Collection" 20-CD box set. (For once Vogue really made good use of the space on this CD - there are several CDs by other artists in that set where playing time is a bit skimpy) These 3 LPs are a very good way to cover the basics of Bechet's French period. There is so much from that era out there (in so many different repackagings and combinations that invariably overlap) that I for one wouldn't want to attempt covering it all. Re-reading this thread (and the other you resurrected now ) I see I've got most of the Bechet bases covered, though I'm no Bechet completist. Those 25-some LPs on my shelves cover a wide spectrum: early Bechet, Victor/RCA, Panassié Sessions, New Orleans Feetwarmers, King Jazz with Mezzrow, Blue Note, and then France including the Salle Pleyel and Olympia concerts and Brussels 1958, etc. And last year I picked up the Riverside "In Memoriam" LP of 1960 that reissued all 8 tracks from the 1940 Bechet -Spanier Big Four session. This is another milestone in his discography (so far I somehow only had part of it on an EP). And yes, I still marvel at that "Sidney Bechet in Switzerland" 4-CD box and book I scored about one year ago. Anyone who finds this at a halfway affordable price can do no wrong in picking it up.

Re-my above post: Simce you are wondering about the transfers and just in case you would have asked: I listened to the first few tracks of my Coral LP. Though my copy is definitely not NM the sound is bright and clear and fine. At least to me, and on my non-high end equipment, and it does not sound "remastered to death" either. Just for comparison I played a few tracks from Vol. 2 (1928-30) of the CBS "Complete Duke Ellington" twofers. These tracks do have more background noise (varying between hiss and pops and crackles, apparently in accordance with the source material) and generally sound more "vintage" or "20s-ish" ("muffled" would be too harsh a word, though). Perfectly listenable but I wouldn't use the word "bright" there.