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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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
          LaurieĀ¹s 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 4 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.