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

RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues

Expand Messages
  • ALAN BOND
    Hi Folks,                 That sounds like a reasonable theory to me and I don t think we are going to get any closer unless new information
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks,
                      That sounds like a reasonable theory to me and I don't think we are going to get any closer unless new information surfaces.
                      I am afraid I can't agree that Buster Bailey was a better jazz player in 1923 than he was in, say, 1940. His work with John Kirby alone is proof of that. It's very like saying that Ian Wheeler was a better player when he was with Ken Colyer than when he was with Chris Barber. Musicians develop their skills over time just like anyone else who takes an interest in their craft and they are also subject to other musical influences.

      TTFN - 007

      --- On Thu, 1/9/11, David Brown <johnhaleysims@...> wrotIe:

      From: David Brown <johnhaleysims@...>
      Subject: RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues
      To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 9:52

      Many thanks Nick for the definitive discographical overview and history.

      You put your finger right on the nub -- why -- what source was there for --
      the continual discographical amendments ?

      Perhaps somebody with Storyvilles -- and an index -- could check for this
      topic.

      What this proves is that the clarinet on the Columbias has always been
      contentious and it is not so easy to pick and open to alternative aural
      interpretation. I myself have heard it both -- if not all -- ways over the
      years.

      The 7 rejected takes might also suggest a problem with the musicians rather
      than the equipment. Certainly Noone on 'Chattanooga' sounds less than his
      fluent best and the playing on the other three sides is stronger. I can't
      think there was any temperamental or musical clash between Oliver and Noone
      and maybe the latter was 'under the weather' and, for reasons of safety, an
      alternative was found for the next day's session.

      As to Buster, he was a better jazz player earlier, when his models were New
      Orleanian, and before his studies with Schoepp which I  consider the reason
      for his drastic change is style. But I also note that Noone studied with
      Schoepp.

      The tenuous and circumstantial documentary evidence would seem to come down
      for the Columbias having both Noone and Buster.

      Aurally, you pays your money and takes your choice but I believe, without
      doubt, that Noone is on 'Chattanooga'.


      Dave





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Howard Rye
      This is a disagreement caused merely by failure to define terms. Bailey was unquestionably technically superior in 1940 but does this make him a better jazz
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        This is a disagreement caused merely by failure to define terms. Bailey was
        unquestionably technically superior in 1940 but does this make him a better
        jazz player? Many commentators, especially those oriented towards
        traditional jazz, have thought otherwise.

        John Chilton¹s ³Deficient in the emotional directness expected of the
        greatest jazz musicians¹ (Grove) is at least a sustainable comment, but not
        in respect of his earliest recordings. It¹s clear to me that he chose to
        play in a more detached style with Kirby and on other later associations.
        Some of his blues accompaniments show that it was a choice and that he could
        still achieve a different balance between emotion and technique when he
        wanted.


        on 01/09/2011 12:06, ALAN BOND at alan_bond@... wrote:

        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hi Folks,
        >                 That sounds like a reasonable theory to me and I don't think
        > we are going to get any closer unless new information surfaces.
        >                 I am afraid I can't agree that Buster Bailey was a better jazz
        > player in 1923 than he was in, say, 1940. His work with John Kirby alone is
        > proof of that. It's very like saying that Ian Wheeler was a better player when
        > he was with Ken Colyer than when he was with Chris Barber. Musicians develop
        > their skills over time just like anyone else who takes an interest in their
        > craft and they are also subject to other musical influences.
        >
        > TTFN - 007
        >
        > --- On Thu, 1/9/11, David Brown <johnhaleysims@...
        > <mailto:johnhaleysims%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrotIe:
        >
        > From: David Brown <johnhaleysims@...
        > <mailto:johnhaleysims%40yahoo.co.uk> >
        > Subject: RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues
        > To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com <mailto:RedHotJazz%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 9:52
        >
        > Many thanks Nick for the definitive discographical overview and history.
        >
        > You put your finger right on the nub -- why -- what source was there for --
        > the continual discographical amendments ?
        >
        > Perhaps somebody with Storyvilles -- and an index -- could check for this
        > topic.
        >
        > What this proves is that the clarinet on the Columbias has always been
        > contentious and it is not so easy to pick and open to alternative aural
        > interpretation. I myself have heard it both -- if not all -- ways over the
        > years.
        >
        > The 7 rejected takes might also suggest a problem with the musicians rather
        > than the equipment. Certainly Noone on 'Chattanooga' sounds less than his
        > fluent best and the playing on the other three sides is stronger. I can't
        > think there was any temperamental or musical clash between Oliver and Noone
        > and maybe the latter was 'under the weather' and, for reasons of safety, an
        > alternative was found for the next day's session.
        >
        > As to Buster, he was a better jazz player earlier, when his models were New
        > Orleanian, and before his studies with Schoepp which I  consider the reason
        > for his drastic change is style. But I also note that Noone studied with
        > Schoepp.
        >
        > The tenuous and circumstantial documentary evidence would seem to come down
        > for the Columbias having both Noone and Buster.
        >
        > Aurally, you pays your money and takes your choice but I believe, without
        > doubt, that Noone is on 'Chattanooga'.
        >
        > Dave
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
        howard@...
        Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • ALAN BOND
        Hi Folks,               Answer - YES TTFN - 007 ... From: Howard Rye Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Folks,
                        Answer - YES
          TTFN - 007

          --- On Thu, 1/9/11, Howard Rye <howard@...> wrote:

          From: Howard Rye <howard@...>
          Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues
          To: "red hot jazz" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 12:19

          This is a disagreement caused merely by failure to define terms. Bailey was
          unquestionably technically superior in 1940 but does this make him a better
          jazz player? Many commentators, especially those oriented towards
          traditional jazz, have thought otherwise.

          John Chilton¹s ³Deficient in the emotional directness expected of the
          greatest jazz musicians¹ (Grove) is at least a sustainable comment, but not
          in respect of his earliest recordings. It¹s clear to me that he chose to
          play in a more detached style with Kirby and on other later associations.
          Some of his blues accompaniments show that it was a choice and that he could
          still achieve a different balance between emotion and technique when he
          wanted.


          on 01/09/2011 12:06, ALAN BOND at alan_bond@... wrote:




          >   
          >
          > Hi Folks,
          >                 That sounds like a reasonable theory to me and I don't think
          > we are going to get any closer unless new information surfaces.
          >                 I am afraid I can't agree that Buster Bailey was a better jazz
          > player in 1923 than he was in, say, 1940. His work with John Kirby alone is
          > proof of that. It's very like saying that Ian Wheeler was a better player when
          > he was with Ken Colyer than when he was with Chris Barber. Musicians develop
          > their skills over time just like anyone else who takes an interest in their
          > craft and they are also subject to other musical influences.
          >
          > TTFN - 007
          >
          > --- On Thu, 1/9/11, David Brown <johnhaleysims@...
          > <mailto:johnhaleysims%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrotIe:
          >
          > From: David Brown <johnhaleysims@...
          > <mailto:johnhaleysims%40yahoo.co.uk> >
          > Subject: RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues
          > To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com <mailto:RedHotJazz%40yahoogroups.com>
          > Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 9:52
          >
          > Many thanks Nick for the definitive discographical overview and history.
          >
          > You put your finger right on the nub -- why -- what source was there for --
          > the continual discographical amendments ?
          >
          > Perhaps somebody with Storyvilles -- and an index -- could check for this
          > topic.
          >
          > What this proves is that the clarinet on the Columbias has always been
          > contentious and it is not so easy to pick and open to alternative aural
          > interpretation. I myself have heard it both -- if not all -- ways over the
          > years.
          >
          > The 7 rejected takes might also suggest a problem with the musicians rather
          > than the equipment. Certainly Noone on 'Chattanooga' sounds less than his
          > fluent best and the playing on the other three sides is stronger. I can't
          > think there was any temperamental or musical clash between Oliver and Noone
          > and maybe the latter was 'under the weather' and, for reasons of safety, an
          > alternative was found for the next day's session.
          >
          > As to Buster, he was a better jazz player earlier, when his models were New
          > Orleanian, and before his studies with Schoepp which I  consider the reason
          > for his drastic change is style. But I also note that Noone studied with
          > Schoepp.
          >
          > The tenuous and circumstantial documentary evidence would seem to come down
          > for the Columbias having both Noone and Buster.
          >
          > Aurally, you pays your money and takes your choice but I believe, without
          > doubt, that Noone is on 'Chattanooga'.
          >
          > Dave
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

          >   
          >
          >

             
          Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
          howard@...
          Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Brown
          Right Howard There are indeed a few late examples of Buster playing a good blues but his normal blues mode was rather too glib. However, this style totally
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Right Howard

            There are indeed a few late examples of Buster playing a good blues but his
            normal blues mode was rather too glib. However, this style totally suited
            the 'tight arsed' Kirby band of which he was the best part.

            I can't remember source but Buster was extremely jealous of Goodman,
            considering himself the better player and this was the reason for the rather
            dreadful 'Man With A Horn Goes Berserk' in which he displays his speed at
            the sacrifice of music and any semblance of jazz tone or even decent
            classical tone.

            Goodman reported playing duets with Buster for Schoepp but I doubt if
            either, or Noone, had their jazz playing enhanced. Noone also became rather
            glib although even late could play a sublime blues.

            Goodman's jazz was even more damaged by his studies with Kell and I posit
            that 'proper' classical technique is really inimical to jazz and certainly
            jazz tone, whatever that is.

            I also conjecture that the riches that we have within our 'red hot' period
            are due, in no small part, to the fact that the musicians were self, or
            badly, taught and often had 'faulty' technique.


            Dave


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ALAN BOND
            Hi Folks,               If you want blues feeling from a clarinet player look no further than Russell Procope or Barney Bigard. The former is on
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Folks,
                            If you want blues feeling from a clarinet player look no further than Russell Procope or Barney Bigard. The former is on Jelly Roll Morton's 'Deep Creek' and his short clarinet passage there has more blues feeling than I would have credited to any man. Bigard, of course, spent all those years with Duke Ellington and his chair was latterly taken by Russell Procope who added another value to the rich tapestry of the Ellington band. Neither of them were 'flashy' technical players either and both paid homage to Buster Bailey at one time or another.
              TTFN - 007

              --- On Thu, 1/9/11, David Brown <johnhaleysims@...> wrote:

              From: David Brown <johnhaleysims@...>
              Subject: RE: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues
              To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, 1 September, 2011, 15:46

              Right Howard

              There are indeed a few late examples of Buster playing a good blues but his
              normal blues mode was rather too glib. However, this style totally suited
              the 'tight arsed' Kirby band of which he was the best part.

              I can't remember source but Buster was extremely jealous of Goodman,
              considering himself the better player and this was the reason for the rather
              dreadful 'Man With A Horn Goes Berserk' in which he displays his speed at
              the sacrifice of music and any semblance of jazz tone or even decent
              classical tone.

              Goodman reported playing duets with Buster for Schoepp but I doubt if
              either, or Noone, had their jazz playing enhanced. Noone also became rather
              glib although even late could play a sublime blues.

              Goodman's jazz was even more damaged by his studies with Kell and I posit
              that 'proper' classical technique is really inimical to jazz and certainly
              jazz tone, whatever that is.

              I also conjecture that the riches that we have within our 'red hot' period
              are due, in no small part, to the fact that the musicians were self, or
              badly, taught and often had 'faulty' technique.


              Dave


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Brown
              Alan If it is Procope on Deep Creek I think the clarinet solo was written out by Morton because it is far more convincing blues than anything else he ever
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Alan

                If it is Procope on 'Deep Creek' I think the clarinet solo was written out
                by Morton because it is far more convincing blues than anything else he ever
                played. I feel that with Ellington he offered pastiche of N.O. clarinet.


                Dave


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Brown
                An essay by Richard Rains on this subject appears in the latest VJM magazine. Mr Rains comes down for Noone throughout although fails to offer any new
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 29, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  An essay by Richard Rains on this subject appears in the latest VJM
                  magazine.

                  Mr Rains comes down for Noone throughout although fails to offer any new
                  evidence.

                  On the contrary, he specifies the claim by Buster to Arnold Klein that he
                  played on one Columbia date and, at one time, had test pressings.

                  For us to discount this, as does Mr Rains, we must believe that either Klein
                  or Buster were lying -- elaborately.

                  However, we are left with the lack of documentary evidence for the Columbias
                  being split over two consecutive days although Rust claimed this was from
                  Columbia files. Do we also believe he was lying ?

                  This issue must finally be decided aurally and that is subjective. There is
                  near contemporary aural evidence of Buster which shows playing consistent in
                  style with, and certainly not anomalous to, the last three Columbias. There
                  is also aural evidence that the acoustic and balance of the last three sides
                  is different from 'Chattanooga'. It is possible, as Mr Rains, to construct a
                  scenario wherein the balance was altered during a single session but that
                  the latter three sides were made at a later session is more probable because
                  there were, after all, no playback possibilities in acoustic days.

                  Also difficult to ignore Noone's own confirmation and denial of his presence
                  when played these sides.


                  Dave








                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Howard Rye
                  ... I have also seen these file cards and Brian is certainly not lying, but there is room for alternative interpretations. What follows only summarizes the
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 30, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    on 29/09/2011 14:32, David Brown at johnhaleysims@... wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > However, we are left with the lack of documentary evidence for the Columbias
                    > being split over two consecutive days although Rust claimed this was from
                    > Columbia files. Do we also believe he was lying ?
                    >
                    >
                    I have also seen these file cards and Brian is certainly not lying, but
                    there is room for alternative interpretations.

                    What follows only summarizes the conclusions set out by Laurie Wright in
                    King Joe Oliver (pages 31-2), but the surviving filing from this era does
                    not show recording dates. The source of the recording dates shown by earlier
                    writers including the original Allen/Rust book is simply no longer known.
                    However, this was published before Rust had had access to the files. Thew
                    dates are claimed to be from the Columbia files and appear already in
                    Delaunay, but were not known to Index to Jazz.

                    All that can be said is that they can no longer be verified.

                    The surviving file cards show only shipping dates. This date is 20 October
                    1923 for 81300, 81301 (unissued) and 81302 takes-1-2-3 (unissued). For 81302
                    takes 4-5, 81303, and 81304 the shipping date is 23 October 1923. There can
                    be no doubt that, as Laurie Wright reports, the file card for 81302 has been
                    reinserted in the typewriter to add the two additional takes, so this is not
                    merely a techinical matter.

                    Laurie of course believed that two clarinettists were involved and that one
                    of them is heard only on 81300. It will be evident that anyone who wants to
                    say this is a circular argument cannot be disproved with the data now
                    available.

                    I have not bothered to intervene before because clearly those who wish to
                    discuss this have already rejected the conclusions in King Joe Oliver on the
                    basis of rejecting the interpretation of the facts there given. They have no
                    new facts to offer. Richard Rains hears what he wants to hear and is
                    perfectly entitled to do so. He is perfectly entitled also to argue that
                    Laurie Wright was doing the same. For my part I shall continue to regard
                    Laurie¹s interpretation as definitive in the absence of any new evidence. I
                    also, if I am honest, regard this continual speculative reworking of
                    familiar ground as a waste of time when there is so much real research which
                    could be being done.

                    But to get back to the point. No Brian was not lying. I also guess Charles
                    Delaunay had seen filing at Columbia that no longer existed by the 1970s.

                    Incidentally in 1961 Columbia still had masters of at least one take of
                    81300/03/04, not that it does us any good, and that was fifty years worth of
                    new brooms ago at that.
                    >


                    Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
                    howard@...
                    Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David Brown
                    Many thanks to Howard for the totally authoritative discographical overview. My question as to whether Rust was lying was rhetorical and I hope I implied that
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 4, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Many thanks to Howard for the totally authoritative discographical overview.

                      My question as to whether Rust was lying was rhetorical and I hope I implied
                      that I did not believe the conspiracy theory involving Rust, Buster and/or
                      Klein and did not reject Laurie's opinion and research, which documentary
                      evidence from files and Buster, and even Noone, supports.

                      Although new documentary evidence is unlikely to appear, I do think such
                      chestnuts can usefully be revisited in the light of new technology. The
                      latest transcriptions offer detail that could never have been imagined in
                      the days of the discographical pioneers. It is possible now to slow and
                      speed and superimpose and compare extracts and even sound waves.

                      But, in end, even aural evidence of this refined definition is subjective.

                      Dave


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.