Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Charlie Spand Back To The Woods guitarist

Expand Messages
  • tommersl
    I used to think it s Lonnie Johnson, but know after listening to Eddie Lang on Louis Armstrong s Knockin A Jug, his licks seems to be also in that style.
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I used to think it's Lonnie Johnson, but know after listening to Eddie
      Lang on Louis Armstrong's Knockin' A Jug, his licks seems to be also
      in that style. First, since Lang was at the time influenced By Lonnie
      Johnson it is not a surprise that he is in that direction. However he
      seems a bit too slow and less intensive, although he has that same
      tone. Any ideas?
      tommersl
    • heckman_michael
      ... what makes you say Lang was influenced by Johnson? They played together often but each seemed to go his own way.
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "tommersl" <tommersl@...> wrote:
        >
        > I used to think it's Lonnie Johnson, but know after listening to Eddie
        > Lang on Louis Armstrong's Knockin' A Jug, his licks seems to be also
        > in that style. First, since Lang was at the time influenced By Lonnie
        > Johnson it is not a surprise that he is in that direction. However he
        > seems a bit too slow and less intensive, although he has that same
        > tone. Any ideas?
        > tommersl
        >

        what makes you say Lang was influenced by Johnson? They played together
        often but each seemed to go his own way.
      • tommersl
        ... Listen to Lang with Bessie Smith or on Knocking a Jug (especially about 55 secs - 1:20 you can hear him him doing Lonnie Johnson style) and actually I
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
          <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "tommersl" <tommersl@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I used to think it's Lonnie Johnson, but know after listening to Eddie
          > > Lang on Louis Armstrong's Knockin' A Jug, his licks seems to be also
          > > in that style. First, since Lang was at the time influenced By Lonnie
          > > Johnson it is not a surprise that he is in that direction. However he
          > > seems a bit too slow and less intensive, although he has that same
          > > tone. Any ideas?
          > > tommersl
          > >
          >
          > what makes you say Lang was influenced by Johnson? They played together
          > often but each seemed to go his own way.
          >

          Listen to Lang with Bessie Smith or on Knocking a Jug (especially
          about 55 secs - 1:20 you can hear him him doing Lonnie Johnson style)
          and actually I think it was good for him to release his fingers from
          the limitations of the chord changes and start dealing with melodies
          and improvisations. There was mutual influence I believe which was
          very healthy for Lang. listen to his early recordings and see the
          direction he took. He had his own style but he shaped it with ideas
          that Johnson was spreading.
          tommersl
        • heckman_michael
          ... together ... style) ... With all respect for your opinion, I have a different one: Lang was a musical chameleon. He played in the style the gig called for.
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 15, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > > >
            > >
            > > what makes you say Lang was influenced by Johnson? They played
            together
            > > often but each seemed to go his own way.
            > >
            >
            > Listen to Lang with Bessie Smith or on Knocking a Jug (especially
            > about 55 secs - 1:20 you can hear him him doing Lonnie Johnson
            style)
            > and actually I think it was good for him to release his fingers from
            > the limitations of the chord changes and start dealing with melodies
            > and improvisations. There was mutual influence I believe which was
            > very healthy for Lang. listen to his early recordings and see the
            > direction he took. He had his own style but he shaped it with ideas
            > that Johnson was spreading.
            > tommersl


            With all respect for your opinion, I have a different one: Lang was a
            musical chameleon. He played in the style the gig called for. That's
            what a professional musician does. The first time I heard him playing
            In the Bottle Blues, My reaction was that he was purposely toning
            down his technique to sound like a "primitive" blues player, possibly
            one named Blind Willie Dunn. He does not sound at all like Blind
            Willie when accompanying Ruth Etting, Smith Bellew or Bing Crosby. If
            anything, he sounded like Blind Willie on Wringin' an' Twistin'
            recorded a year before his first records with Lonnie.
          • tommersl
            ... He doesn t sound to me primitive ever, if he tried so he quite failed, Lang was still thinking chords. I think Lang was actaully a guy who liked black
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 16, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
              >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > > what makes you say Lang was influenced by Johnson? They played
              > together
              > > > often but each seemed to go his own way.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Listen to Lang with Bessie Smith or on Knocking a Jug (especially
              > > about 55 secs - 1:20 you can hear him him doing Lonnie Johnson
              > style)
              > > and actually I think it was good for him to release his fingers from
              > > the limitations of the chord changes and start dealing with melodies
              > > and improvisations. There was mutual influence I believe which was
              > > very healthy for Lang. listen to his early recordings and see the
              > > direction he took. He had his own style but he shaped it with ideas
              > > that Johnson was spreading.
              > > tommersl
              >
              >
              > With all respect for your opinion, I have a different one: Lang was a
              > musical chameleon. He played in the style the gig called for. That's
              > what a professional musician does. The first time I heard him playing
              > In the Bottle Blues, My reaction was that he was purposely toning
              > down his technique to sound like a "primitive" blues player, possibly
              > one named Blind Willie Dunn. He does not sound at all like Blind
              > Willie when accompanying Ruth Etting, Smith Bellew or Bing Crosby. If
              > anything, he sounded like Blind Willie on Wringin' an' Twistin'
              > recorded a year before his first records with Lonnie.
              >

              He doesn't sound to me primitive ever, if he tried so he quite failed,
              Lang was still thinking chords. I think Lang was actaully a guy who
              liked black music and musicians and hence he was influenced by the
              collective black art form of Jazz guitar that is represented in the
              recordings of guys like Bobby Leecan, Lonnie Johnson, Blind Lemon
              Jefferson and others. He wasn't considered a professional musician,
              that was preserved only to Classical musicians playing in community
              ensembles Classics music. Lang rather than pro musician was like any
              one of the white musician, for them Jazz was a "power to the people"
              thing.
              tommersl
            • heckman_michael
              ... I am not sure I altogether understand your last post. To my mind, a professional musician is a person who makes his living playing music; the opposite is
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 17, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > He doesn't sound to me primitive ever, if he tried so he quite failed,
                > Lang was still thinking chords. I think Lang was actaully a guy who
                > liked black music and musicians and hence he was influenced by the
                > collective black art form of Jazz guitar that is represented in the
                > recordings of guys like Bobby Leecan, Lonnie Johnson, Blind Lemon
                > Jefferson and others. He wasn't considered a professional musician,
                > that was preserved only to Classical musicians playing in community
                > ensembles Classics music. Lang rather than pro musician was like any
                > one of the white musician, for them Jazz was a "power to the people"
                > thing.
                > tommersl


                I am not sure I altogether understand your last post. To my mind, a
                professional musician is a person who makes his living playing music;
                the opposite is an amateur musician. Lang made his living playing
                music, and a very good living at that. He was supposedly making
                $1,000.00 per week for his theater appearances with Crosby, this at a
                time when a workingman lucky enough to have a job made $25.00 per week.
                I don't know how to respond to your statement that for white musicians
                Jazz was a power to the people thing. I've never heard it said before.
                My instincts tell me it was more likely a "show me the money" thing,
                which, of course, is not restricted to white musicians.
              • David W. Littlefield
                ... I find it helpful to distinguish between professional and Pro, Pro implying high quality in playing skills, and basic attitude/deportment. --Sheik
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 17, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:47 PM 07/17/07, you wrote:
                  >I am not sure I altogether understand your last post. To my mind, a
                  >professional musician is a person who makes his living playing music;
                  >the opposite is an amateur musician. Lang made his living playing
                  >music, and a very good living at that. He was supposedly making
                  >$1,000.00 per week for his theater appearances with Crosby, this at a
                  >time when a workingman lucky enough to have a job made $25.00 per week.

                  I find it helpful to distinguish between professional and Pro, "Pro"
                  implying high quality in playing skills, and basic attitude/deportment.

                  --Sheik
                • heckman_michael
                  ... week. ... attitude/deportment. ... Lang had it covered both ways. I am curious to learn who the people were who did not consider him Professional-pro.
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 17, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Littlefield" <dwlit@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > At 01:47 PM 07/17/07, you wrote:
                    > >I am not sure I altogether understand your last post. To my mind, a
                    > >professional musician is a person who makes his living playing music;
                    > >the opposite is an amateur musician. Lang made his living playing
                    > >music, and a very good living at that. He was supposedly making
                    > >$1,000.00 per week for his theater appearances with Crosby, this at a
                    > >time when a workingman lucky enough to have a job made $25.00 per
                    week.
                    >
                    > I find it helpful to distinguish between professional and Pro, "Pro"
                    > implying high quality in playing skills, and basic
                    attitude/deportment.
                    >
                    > --Sheik

                    Lang had it covered both ways. I am curious to learn who the people
                    were who did not consider him Professional-pro.
                    >
                  • tommersl
                    ... Jazz wasn t considered as a serious profession musically as Classical music. Read the Consider the Critic article by Roger Pryor Dodge, he lists and
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 17, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                      <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Littlefield" <dwlit@>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > At 01:47 PM 07/17/07, you wrote:
                      > > >I am not sure I altogether understand your last post. To my mind, a
                      > > >professional musician is a person who makes his living playing music;
                      > > >the opposite is an amateur musician. Lang made his living playing
                      > > >music, and a very good living at that. He was supposedly making
                      > > >$1,000.00 per week for his theater appearances with Crosby, this at a
                      > > >time when a workingman lucky enough to have a job made $25.00 per
                      > week.
                      > >
                      > > I find it helpful to distinguish between professional and Pro, "Pro"
                      > > implying high quality in playing skills, and basic
                      > attitude/deportment.
                      > >
                      > > --Sheik
                      >
                      > Lang had it covered both ways. I am curious to learn who the people
                      > were who did not consider him Professional-pro.
                      > >
                      >

                      Jazz wasn't considered as a serious profession musically as Classical
                      music. Read the "Consider the Critic" article by Roger Pryor Dodge, he
                      lists and quotes several quotes from articles and books of the time
                      many of those didn't consider Jazz very much as something you go pro,
                      or music at all.

                      Sample quotes : "American music is not Jazz. Jazz is not music" / Paul
                      Rosenfeld, 1929.

                      "Jazz is not a musical form; it is a method of treatment. It is
                      possible to take any conventional piece of music, and "jazz it". The
                      actual process is one of distorting, of rebellion against normalcy."
                      Sigmund Spaeth, 1928.

                      I believe Dodge was concerned that people didn't rank Jazz as a
                      respectable and professional musical form with significance even at
                      the time he wrote it (1939), at least the quotes he brought shows
                      disrespect of most writers to Jazz or belittling and misunderstanding
                      it by most writers.
                      tommersl
                    • spacelights
                      Lang s a fascinating artist, and his versatility in many group settings does show a high level of professionalism. I feel that influence , though often
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 18, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Lang's a fascinating artist, and his versatility in many group
                        settings does show a high level of professionalism. I feel that
                        "influence", though often invoked, is something quite subtle and
                        complex... Eddie's early solo sides tend to be rhythmically a bit
                        stiff; this changes decidedly in his duos with Johnson, but not on
                        sides with Frank Signorelli or others (Lang's works with Venuti are
                        somewhat unique).

                        I'm intrigued by Eddie's work with Clarence Williams and King Oliver,
                        backing Eva Taylor on "I'm Busy And You Can't Come In" and the bizarre
                        "Jeannine I Dream Of Lilac Time", and Williams' Novelty Four session
                        ("What You Want Me To Do?" finds him in a beautiful jazz/Italian
                        ballad mode).

                        I think Johnson's importance as an early jazz guitarist tends to be
                        overshadowed by his massive blues output; his sides with Armstrong in
                        1927, and then Ellington and the Chocolate Dandies (both in 1928) seem
                        exemplary.
                      • heckman_michael
                        ... Spaeth, for one, changed his mind. Somewhere around here I have a 1935 book of his in which he regards jazz, by then known as swing, more favorably. In
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jul 18, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          > "Jazz is not a musical form; it is a method of treatment. It is
                          > possible to take any conventional piece of music, and "jazz it". The
                          > actual process is one of distorting, of rebellion against normalcy."
                          > Sigmund Spaeth, 1928.
                          >
                          Spaeth, for one, changed his mind. Somewhere around here I have a 1935
                          book of his in which he regards jazz, by then known as swing, more
                          favorably. In particular, he cites Bix as having been "most musical".

                          As to Spaeth's original quote above, Bix toward the end of his life
                          said pretty much the same thing.
                        • David Brown
                          Spaeth s seminal History Of Popular Music In America 1948 contains a whole chapter Ragtime To Jazz but only 8 pages -- in a book of 600 -- actually
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jul 18, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Spaeth's seminal 'History Of Popular Music In America' 1948 contains a
                            whole chapter 'Ragtime To Jazz' but only 8 pages -- in a book of 600 --
                            actually discuss jazz form, history, influence and musicians. But he's not
                            bad.

                            'Jazz aficionados -- try desperately to invest jazz with a cosmic
                            significance and to credit its best interpreters with a divine status'.

                            He lists Bix, Muggsy and the Austin Highs by name.

                            'It is hardly necessary to concentrate on any individual ( jazz) composers
                            with perhaps one exception the negro genius Ferdinand 'Jelly Roll' Morton.'

                            He then lists Bolden, Bunk, Oliver and Louis finding fairly that the latter

                            'inherited the qualities of his predecessors and colleagues and surpassed
                            them all in reputation. Even his gradual commercialisation could not destroy
                            his individual gifts.'

                            A further list of clarinettists includes Big Eye Louis Nelson, George Lewis,
                            Noone, Tio, Duhé, Picou and Bechet but asserts that 'Johnny Dodds must be
                            given precedence'.

                            Trombonists listed are Ory, Dutrey and, admirably, Jim Robinson and the
                            good Doctor also manages to recognise and name the 3 greatest classic blues
                            singers Ma Rainey, Bessie and Chippie Hill. He also singles out N.O.R.K.
                            for praise.

                            That is a pretty good batting average -- cricket rather than the other --
                            and charitably one assumes that Spaeth had actually listened and was not --
                            as may be suspected -- cribbing received knowledgeable opinion. His lack of
                            racial bias is also admirable and suggests an independence from most
                            'informed' criticism of early jazz in 1948.

                            Dave




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • tommersl
                            ... Why do you think he changed his mind? tommersl
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jul 18, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              > > "Jazz is not a musical form; it is a method of treatment. It is
                              > > possible to take any conventional piece of music, and "jazz it". The
                              > > actual process is one of distorting, of rebellion against normalcy."
                              > > Sigmund Spaeth, 1928.
                              > >
                              > Spaeth, for one, changed his mind. Somewhere around here I have a 1935
                              > book of his in which he regards jazz, by then known as swing, more
                              > favorably. In particular, he cites Bix as having been "most musical".
                              >
                              > As to Spaeth's original quote above, Bix toward the end of his life
                              > said pretty much the same thing.
                              >

                              Why do you think he changed his mind?
                              tommersl
                            • heckman_michael
                              ... 1935 ... more ... musical . ... life ... There is a very old song entitled Don t Bite the Hand That s Feeding You . Spaeth became a popular radio
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jul 19, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > > >
                                > > Spaeth, for one, changed his mind. Somewhere around here I have a
                                1935
                                > > book of his in which he regards jazz, by then known as swing,
                                more
                                > > favorably. In particular, he cites Bix as having been "most
                                musical".
                                > >
                                > > As to Spaeth's original quote above, Bix toward the end of his
                                life
                                > > said pretty much the same thing.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Why do you think he changed his mind?
                                > tommersl
                                >

                                There is a very old song entitled "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding
                                You". Spaeth became a popular radio entertainer in the 1930s. He was
                                the "Tune Detective" and demonstrated relationships between classical
                                melodies and popular knock offs. He testified in court as an expert
                                in cases alleging musical plagiarism, most notably in the suit
                                involving Rum and Coca Cola.

                                All of which brings me back to Eddie Lang, the professional musician.
                                You said "they" didn't consider him a "professional". I think you
                                were really saying the snobs didn't consider him a musician. Either
                                way, it misses my point which was that, in order to make a living, he
                                could play blues for Bessie Smith, ricky tick for Paul Small and
                                schmaltz for Bing, and make it all sound good. Therefore, the effect
                                of Lonnie Johnson, if any, on his playing would have been limited to
                                the occasions calling for a bluesy technique.
                              • tommersl
                                ... That s an open door, Charlie Spand s Back to the Woods, it must be regarded as a Blues contact, unless it isn t what you call occasion calling for a
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jul 19, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                  <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > Spaeth, for one, changed his mind. Somewhere around here I have a
                                  > 1935
                                  > > > book of his in which he regards jazz, by then known as swing,
                                  > more
                                  > > > favorably. In particular, he cites Bix as having been "most
                                  > musical".
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As to Spaeth's original quote above, Bix toward the end of his
                                  > life
                                  > > > said pretty much the same thing.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Why do you think he changed his mind?
                                  > > tommersl
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > There is a very old song entitled "Don't Bite the Hand That's Feeding
                                  > You". Spaeth became a popular radio entertainer in the 1930s. He was
                                  > the "Tune Detective" and demonstrated relationships between classical
                                  > melodies and popular knock offs. He testified in court as an expert
                                  > in cases alleging musical plagiarism, most notably in the suit
                                  > involving Rum and Coca Cola.
                                  >
                                  > All of which brings me back to Eddie Lang, the professional musician.
                                  > You said "they" didn't consider him a "professional". I think you
                                  > were really saying the snobs didn't consider him a musician. Either
                                  > way, it misses my point which was that, in order to make a living, he
                                  > could play blues for Bessie Smith, ricky tick for Paul Small and
                                  > schmaltz for Bing, and make it all sound good. Therefore, the effect
                                  > of Lonnie Johnson, if any, on his playing would have been limited to
                                  > the occasions calling for a bluesy technique.
                                  >


                                  That's an open door, Charlie Spand's Back to the Woods, it must be
                                  regarded as a Blues contact, unless it isn't what you call "occasion
                                  calling for a bluesy technique", in that case I would like to hear the
                                  difference between the guitar player's technique on that session and
                                  occasion calling for Blues technique.

                                  As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                  it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                  were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                  pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                  considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                  critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                  those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                  serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                  challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                  serious and pro music. Spaeth actually is a classic example : someone
                                  who belittled Jazz and would not hire Jazz musicians (would he use the
                                  word musicians for something he doesn't think is straight music?) for
                                  a pro and serious musical campaign. Today we know the importance of
                                  Jazz music but Lang lived at a different time, and he wasn't living
                                  the life of a pro musician, at least the society wasn't thinking he
                                  is, and it was voiced by major critics like Spaeth.

                                  tommersl
                                • spacelights
                                  Hi tommersl: I think you may be confusing professional with legitimate (or what was called legitimate at the time, namely classical music). Also
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jul 19, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi tommersl:

                                    I think you may be confusing "professional" with "legitimate" (or what
                                    was called legitimate at the time, namely classical music). Also
                                    generalizations like "the people" and "society" may obscure your
                                    argument somewhat...?

                                    --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "tommersl" <tommersl@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > That's an open door, Charlie Spand's Back to the Woods, it must be
                                    > regarded as a Blues contact, unless it isn't what you call "occasion
                                    > calling for a bluesy technique", in that case I would like to hear the
                                    > difference between the guitar player's technique on that session and
                                    > occasion calling for Blues technique.
                                    >
                                    > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                    > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                    > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                    > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                    > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                    > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                    > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                    > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                    > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                    > serious and pro music. Spaeth actually is a classic example : someone
                                    > who belittled Jazz and would not hire Jazz musicians (would he use the
                                    > word musicians for something he doesn't think is straight music?) for
                                    > a pro and serious musical campaign. Today we know the importance of
                                    > Jazz music but Lang lived at a different time, and he wasn't living
                                    > the life of a pro musician, at least the society wasn't thinking he
                                    > is, and it was voiced by major critics like Spaeth.
                                    >
                                    > tommersl
                                    >
                                  • tommersl
                                    ... In order to avoid obscure arguments, I suggested reading Consider the Critic article by Roger Pryor Dodge. After reading it, I believe a clear picture of
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jul 19, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "spacelights" <spacelights@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Hi tommersl:
                                      >
                                      > I think you may be confusing "professional" with "legitimate" (or what
                                      > was called legitimate at the time, namely classical music). Also
                                      > generalizations like "the people" and "society" may obscure your
                                      > argument somewhat...?
                                      >
                                      > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "tommersl" <tommersl@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > That's an open door, Charlie Spand's Back to the Woods, it must be
                                      > > regarded as a Blues contact, unless it isn't what you call "occasion
                                      > > calling for a bluesy technique", in that case I would like to hear the
                                      > > difference between the guitar player's technique on that session and
                                      > > occasion calling for Blues technique.
                                      > >
                                      > > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                      > > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                      > > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                      > > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                      > > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                      > > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                      > > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                      > > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                      > > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                      > > serious and pro music. Spaeth actually is a classic example : someone
                                      > > who belittled Jazz and would not hire Jazz musicians (would he use the
                                      > > word musicians for something he doesn't think is straight music?) for
                                      > > a pro and serious musical campaign. Today we know the importance of
                                      > > Jazz music but Lang lived at a different time, and he wasn't living
                                      > > the life of a pro musician, at least the society wasn't thinking he
                                      > > is, and it was voiced by major critics like Spaeth.
                                      > >
                                      > > tommersl
                                      > >
                                      >

                                      In order to avoid obscure arguments, I suggested reading "Consider the
                                      Critic" article by Roger Pryor Dodge. After reading it, I believe a
                                      clear picture of what was Jazz considered to be at different times. It
                                      is a classic article IMO no less than "negro jazz" and "harpsichords"
                                      two other classic and essential articles. It seems that the argue of
                                      the time was "is jazz a music?" and those that accepted Jazz as
                                      legitimate were mostly keeping their enthusiasm after Stravinsky,
                                      Gershwin, Whiteman and the likes. Only few were talking about real
                                      Jazz musicians like Oliver,Morton, Armstrong, Dodds, Bix and Eddie
                                      Lang too name a few. I recommend avoiding obscurity by reading the
                                      article.
                                      tommersl
                                    • heckman_michael
                                      ... Michael Jackson! Madonna! Even in the conservatories there is a distinction made between singers and musicians. Lang et al played jazz because they
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jul 20, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                        > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                        > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                        > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                        > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                        > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                        > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                        > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                        > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                        > serious and pro music.

                                        Michael Jackson! Madonna! Even in the conservatories there is a
                                        distinction made between singers and musicians.

                                        Lang et al played jazz because they couldn't get jobs playing classical
                                        music? Well, yes and no. Venuti was supposedly offered a chair in the
                                        Detroit Symphony, but he was a violinist. Adrian Rollini was giving
                                        classical piano recitals at the age of 12. Musicians choosing to play
                                        trumpets, trombones and saxophones do so realizing that symphony calls
                                        for those instruments are relatively few, and the parts for those
                                        instruments very limited as to scope. They picked those instruments
                                        with playing in a dance band in mind. Why? Maybe they liked the music
                                        better. Maybe because playing in a dance band does not require years of
                                        study and discipline in order to be a moderate success. Maybe because
                                        there is the possibility of making more money and meeting more girls
                                        than the orchestra musicians. Heifetz and Horowitz made a lot of money
                                        but a Whiteman musician probably made more money than the second
                                        violins playing behind those stars.

                                        You say jazz wasn't highly regarded by critics and academics. True, but
                                        Stravinsky, Milhaud and Ravel liked it. Critics get paid to criticize
                                        and show off how smart they are. Thus, we read that Brahms was
                                        lugubrious; Wagner was unlistenable; Stravinsky was a fraud. To the
                                        critic's mind, he is more important than the mere musicians he writes
                                        about. Jazz, with its low class origins, was an easy target to sneer at
                                        without having to go to the trouble of trying to analyze it and
                                        understand it. As to academics: I recall reading about more than one
                                        eminent composer who, as a student had his work dismissed by the grand
                                        poohbah who complained that the student's work did not follow rules a,
                                        b, c2 and 3, f and h. Something new = something bad.

                                        In the end, who cares? The music will live on or fade away without
                                        regard to what anybody says. And we certainly have wandered from your
                                        statement that Lang was influenced by Lonnie Johnson.
                                      • Joel Fritz
                                        A lot of the Creole players from New Orleans had classical training. Lil Armstrong s original ambition was to become a classical pianist. Jelly Roll Morton
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jul 20, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          A lot of the Creole players from New Orleans had classical training.
                                          Lil Armstrong's original ambition was to become a classical pianist.
                                          Jelly Roll Morton wanted only musicians who could read well.

                                          The idea of the original jazz players being a bunch of noble savages is
                                          a myth. Some of them were ear players. It was very difficult for
                                          people who were to get a job in a dance band.

                                          Lonnie Johnson had wide musical experience. Before WWI he played in a
                                          family group in NO that played popular music for dancing. He'd been a
                                          musician for quite a while before he made his first blues record. He
                                          was a decent mandolin and violin player.

                                          Eddie Lang's knowledge of harmony shows that he either learned a large
                                          amount on his own or was a schooled musician.

                                          Your friend,
                                          Barrelhouse Solly I

                                          It's never too late to do something your parents didn't want you to do.
                                          When that time comes Barrelhouse Solly will be there for you. He cares.

                                          Music: http://www.myspace.com/barrelhousesolly
                                          Fractious Felines: http://ratemykitten.com/my/?gallery=willie_mctell


                                          heckman_michael wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                          > > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                          > > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                          > > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                          > > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                          > > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                          > > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                          > > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                          > > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                          > > serious and pro music.
                                          >
                                          > Michael Jackson! Madonna! Even in the conservatories there is a
                                          > distinction made between singers and musicians.
                                          >
                                          > Lang et al played jazz because they couldn't get jobs playing classical
                                          > music? Well, yes and no. Venuti was supposedly offered a chair in the
                                          > Detroit Symphony, but he was a violinist. Adrian Rollini was giving
                                          > classical piano recitals at the age of 12. Musicians choosing to play
                                          > trumpets, trombones and saxophones do so realizing that symphony calls
                                          > for those instruments are relatively few, and the parts for those
                                          > instruments very limited as to scope. They picked those instruments
                                          > with playing in a dance band in mind. Why? Maybe they liked the music
                                          > better. Maybe because playing in a dance band does not require years of
                                          > study and discipline in order to be a moderate success. Maybe because
                                          > there is the possibility of making more money and meeting more girls
                                          > than the orchestra musicians. Heifetz and Horowitz made a lot of money
                                          > but a Whiteman musician probably made more money than the second
                                          > violins playing behind those stars.
                                          >
                                          > You say jazz wasn't highly regarded by critics and academics. True, but
                                          > Stravinsky, Milhaud and Ravel liked it. Critics get paid to criticize
                                          > and show off how smart they are. Thus, we read that Brahms was
                                          > lugubrious; Wagner was unlistenable; Stravinsky was a fraud. To the
                                          > critic's mind, he is more important than the mere musicians he writes
                                          > about. Jazz, with its low class origins, was an easy target to sneer at
                                          > without having to go to the trouble of trying to analyze it and
                                          > understand it. As to academics: I recall reading about more than one
                                          > eminent composer who, as a student had his work dismissed by the grand
                                          > poohbah who complained that the student's work did not follow rules a,
                                          > b, c2 and 3, f and h. Something new = something bad.
                                          >
                                          > In the end, who cares? The music will live on or fade away without
                                          > regard to what anybody says. And we certainly have wandered from your
                                          > statement that Lang was influenced by Lonnie Johnson.
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • tommersl
                                          ... Just anyone holding an instrument and making money form it is a pro musician? If thats the definition, its the same like saying someone has a profession,
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jul 23, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                            <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                            > > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                            > > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                            > > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                            > > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                            > > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                            > > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                            > > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                            > > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                            > > serious and pro music.
                                            >
                                            > Michael Jackson! Madonna! Even in the conservatories there is a
                                            > distinction made between singers and musicians.
                                            >
                                            Just anyone holding an instrument and making money form it is a pro
                                            musician? If thats the definition, its the same like saying someone
                                            has a profession, without any quality, just someone dealing with
                                            something and making a living from it is a "pro".

                                            --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                            <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                            > Lang et al played jazz because they couldn't get jobs playing classical
                                            > music? Well, yes and no. Venuti was supposedly offered a chair in the
                                            > Detroit Symphony, but he was a violinist. Adrian Rollini was giving
                                            > classical piano recitals at the age of 12. Musicians choosing to play
                                            > trumpets, trombones and saxophones do so realizing that symphony calls
                                            > for those instruments are relatively few, and the parts for those
                                            > instruments very limited as to scope. They picked those instruments
                                            > with playing in a dance band in mind. Why? Maybe they liked the music
                                            > better. Maybe because playing in a dance band does not require years of
                                            > study and discipline in order to be a moderate success. Maybe because
                                            > there is the possibility of making more money and meeting more girls
                                            > than the orchestra musicians. Heifetz and Horowitz made a lot of money
                                            > but a Whiteman musician probably made more money than the second
                                            > violins playing behind those stars.
                                            >
                                            Maybe a few of the more sophisticated musicians that played popular
                                            instruments were offered some sort of a position at orchestras,
                                            generally how much of such an offer is serious for someone who is
                                            playing a music considered to be "distortion of strict music" at the
                                            time? Maybe a gimmick.

                                            --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                            <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                            > You say jazz wasn't highly regarded by critics and academics. True, but
                                            > Stravinsky, Milhaud and Ravel liked it.

                                            Stravinsky had several troubles in his career. I think he was only
                                            later becoming a considered musician, at the time there were argues
                                            around his capabilities.

                                            --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                            <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                            > Critics get paid to criticize
                                            > and show off how smart they are. Thus, we read that Brahms was
                                            > lugubrious; Wagner was unlistenable; Stravinsky was a fraud. To the
                                            > critic's mind, he is more important than the mere musicians he writes
                                            > about. Jazz, with its low class origins, was an easy target to sneer at
                                            > without having to go to the trouble of trying to analyze it and
                                            > understand it. As to academics: I recall reading about more than one
                                            > eminent composer who, as a student had his work dismissed by the grand
                                            > poohbah who complained that the student's work did not follow rules a,
                                            > b, c2 and 3, f and h. Something new = something bad.

                                            There are opinions in art, and I think you are free to choose or share
                                            with opinions of certain critics, you can argue with academia
                                            professors that don't like something someone does, but in the bottom
                                            line, their influence on the way real pro music is accepted is
                                            enormous. Same for the media. And look how it is today "Anything that
                                            sounds new is good". Minimalism today is considered much better and
                                            advanced than someone who plays music with a detailed texture. The
                                            extremists are ruling and thats how modern Classical and Jazz Music
                                            looks like today. I think we should thank those who preached to play a
                                            continuum of a tradition and not a post-modernized music,in that they
                                            were slowing the down the hill route of Classical as well as Jazz music.
                                            tommersl
                                          • Dan Van Landingham
                                            You ve given me something to think about.Critics were individuals,in my opinion,a vindictive lot who sabotaged the careers of composers out of their own lack
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jul 23, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              You've given me something to think about.Critics were individuals,in my opinion,a vindictive lot who sabotaged the careers of composers out of their own lack of talent.Tschaikowsky bore the brunt on many harsh reviews of his works.I was a fan of his when I was younger,but after I heard more and more of his pieces regardless of style,I was unimpressed with him.The first taste I had of his work was an old circa 1938-41 Victor Red Seal 78 rpm set of his first piano concerto(Victor number DM-800).The original set is long since gone but I did find another set several months ago.The opening theme was beautiful but after the "Tonight We Love" theme,it was downhill all the way.I would just dub off the first half of the first movement and fade out the rest.I cared little for the remaining movements.Tschaikowsky,to me,was an easy man to knock,as we say here in America,and the more I listened to his other works,I became less and less impressed with the exceptions of excerpted pieces
                                              from "Swan Lake","Sleeping Beauty" and the "Nutcracker".In jazz I wasn't that much different:While I loved the OKeh recordings of Satchmo,I cared less about some of the big band things he did for RCA in 1932-33 and the Deccas he cut between 1935 and '45 and the RCAs Satchmo cut in 1946-47.The All Stars left me cold dispite the presence of Teagarden,Hackett,Bigard and those who came along later such as Billy Kyle,Trummy Young and drummers Sid Catlett and Danny Alvin.I once played some of their stuff for my late friend John Enders who was a a big fan of Bix's,Teagarden's and Satchmo's recordings from the '20s through the '40s.Satchmo's recording of "My Bucket's Got a Hole in It" and John found it silly as did I.I'll take the Hank Williams recording any day.I had another friend who worked with Henry Busse,Hampton,and several others.He was a classically trained trombonist but was a good saxist and trumpeter.I detected a bit of snobbery in him where classically trained musicians
                                              were concerned.What was implied was a sense of "gutlessness" the classical musicians had.I felt that way toward trumpeters after I heard Bunny Berigan,Satchmo and men like Ralph Marterie,Charlie Spivak,Ziggy Elman,Mannie Klein and Harry James.That's my viewpoint for what it's worth.

                                              tommersl <tommersl@...> wrote:
                                              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > As to the pro musician thing, I'm not sure what is your definition to
                                              > > it. Michael Jackson? Madona? I think Lang and other white Jazz players
                                              > > were playing Jazz also because they couldn't get themselves a job in a
                                              > > pro Classical orchestras. That's power to the people. Jazz wasn't
                                              > > considered by the highly considered music researchers, musicians and
                                              > > critics of the time, the academia and other major music institutions,
                                              > > those saw Jazz at the time Lang lived (pre 1933) as a music not
                                              > > serious, a trend, a dance craze, not really as a pro musical genre, I
                                              > > challenge anyone to bring quotes from that time stating that Jazz is a
                                              > > serious and pro music.
                                              >
                                              > Michael Jackson! Madonna! Even in the conservatories there is a
                                              > distinction made between singers and musicians.
                                              >
                                              Just anyone holding an instrument and making money form it is a pro
                                              musician? If thats the definition, its the same like saying someone
                                              has a profession, without any quality, just someone dealing with
                                              something and making a living from it is a "pro".

                                              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                              > Lang et al played jazz because they couldn't get jobs playing classical
                                              > music? Well, yes and no. Venuti was supposedly offered a chair in the
                                              > Detroit Symphony, but he was a violinist. Adrian Rollini was giving
                                              > classical piano recitals at the age of 12. Musicians choosing to play
                                              > trumpets, trombones and saxophones do so realizing that symphony calls
                                              > for those instruments are relatively few, and the parts for those
                                              > instruments very limited as to scope. They picked those instruments
                                              > with playing in a dance band in mind. Why? Maybe they liked the music
                                              > better. Maybe because playing in a dance band does not require years of
                                              > study and discipline in order to be a moderate success. Maybe because
                                              > there is the possibility of making more money and meeting more girls
                                              > than the orchestra musicians. Heifetz and Horowitz made a lot of money
                                              > but a Whiteman musician probably made more money than the second
                                              > violins playing behind those stars.
                                              >
                                              Maybe a few of the more sophisticated musicians that played popular
                                              instruments were offered some sort of a position at orchestras,
                                              generally how much of such an offer is serious for someone who is
                                              playing a music considered to be "distortion of strict music" at the
                                              time? Maybe a gimmick.

                                              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                              > You say jazz wasn't highly regarded by critics and academics. True, but
                                              > Stravinsky, Milhaud and Ravel liked it.

                                              Stravinsky had several troubles in his career. I think he was only
                                              later becoming a considered musician, at the time there were argues
                                              around his capabilities.

                                              --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
                                              <heckman_michael@...> wrote:
                                              > Critics get paid to criticize
                                              > and show off how smart they are. Thus, we read that Brahms was
                                              > lugubrious; Wagner was unlistenable; Stravinsky was a fraud. To the
                                              > critic's mind, he is more important than the mere musicians he writes
                                              > about. Jazz, with its low class origins, was an easy target to sneer at
                                              > without having to go to the trouble of trying to analyze it and
                                              > understand it. As to academics: I recall reading about more than one
                                              > eminent composer who, as a student had his work dismissed by the grand
                                              > poohbah who complained that the student's work did not follow rules a,
                                              > b, c2 and 3, f and h. Something new = something bad.

                                              There are opinions in art, and I think you are free to choose or share
                                              with opinions of certain critics, you can argue with academia
                                              professors that don't like something someone does, but in the bottom
                                              line, their influence on the way real pro music is accepted is
                                              enormous. Same for the media. And look how it is today "Anything that
                                              sounds new is good". Minimalism today is considered much better and
                                              advanced than someone who plays music with a detailed texture. The
                                              extremists are ruling and thats how modern Classical and Jazz Music
                                              looks like today. I think we should thank those who preached to play a
                                              continuum of a tradition and not a post-modernized music,in that they
                                              were slowing the down the hill route of Classical as well as Jazz music.
                                              tommersl






                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • tommersl
                                              ... While I loved the OKeh recordings of Satchmo,I cared less about some of the big band things he did for RCA in 1932-33 and the Deccas he cut between 1935
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jul 24, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, Dan Van Landingham
                                                <danvanlandingham@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                While I loved the OKeh recordings of Satchmo,I cared less about some
                                                of the big band things he did for RCA in 1932-33 and the Deccas he cut
                                                between 1935 and '45 and the RCAs Satchmo cut in 1946-47.The All Stars
                                                left me cold dispite the presence of Teagarden,Hackett,Bigard and
                                                those who came along later such as Billy Kyle,Trummy Young and
                                                drummers Sid Catlett and Danny Alvin.I once played some of their stuff
                                                for my late friend John Enders who was a a big fan of
                                                Bix's,Teagarden's and Satchmo's recordings from the '20s through the
                                                '40s.Satchmo's recording of "My Bucket's Got a Hole in It" and John
                                                found it silly as did I.I'll take the Hank Williams recording any
                                                day.I had another friend who worked with Henry Busse,Hampton,and
                                                several others.He was a classically trained trombonist but was a good
                                                saxist and trumpeter.I detected a bit of snobbery in him where
                                                classically trained musicians
                                                > were concerned.What was implied was a sense of "gutlessness" the
                                                classical musicians had.I felt that way toward trumpeters after I
                                                heard Bunny Berigan,Satchmo and men like Ralph Marterie,Charlie
                                                Spivak,Ziggy Elman,Mannie Klein and Harry James.That's my viewpoint
                                                for what it's worth.
                                                >

                                                The date when the peak was behind and the downhill was on is
                                                interesting. I think Sachmo already realized that he need less
                                                swinging band and more room for solos including singing when he got
                                                rid of his hot demanding swinging band with Dodds and Ory in the late
                                                1920's. But at the time his music wasn't yet sweet, he had excellent
                                                musicians with him who could solo and swing with him even less
                                                intensively than before because the solos, but still music that is
                                                heading for qualities. It seems to me his Decca stuff was the turning
                                                point of huge decline because the orchestra was just a back up band
                                                from that time and on, that served only to give him surroundings. The
                                                later few recording like those with Bechet in 1940 I believe that he
                                                was aware of all of this and went for what the market asked for.
                                                tommersl
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.