Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Introduction
- Newcomers do need to be aware that the critical judgements in this 'Recorded
Jazz - A Critical Guide' by Rex Harris and Brian Rust, and its companion,
Jazz¹ by Rex Harris, also quite easy to obtain, are generally regarded as
Notably in their rejection of anything smacking remotely of swing¹: not
many people agree with their judgement (p.19) that Lil Hardin Armstrong is a
better pianist than Earl Hines (who does not rate an entry!), and in their
critiquing of European revivalist bands as though they were on a par with
the original creators. Offering encouragement to solid effort is one thing.
Leaving readers with the impression that Eric Silk¹s Southern Jazz Band
(picked at random and not merely because it was the local trad band in this
neighborhood) is equally important and worthwhile as Kid Ory¹s band is not
so much guidance as dogma. So approach with caution.
The relative judgements are surprisingly sound. Harris (to whom most of the
judgements are attributable) knew which trad bands mattered on their own
scale of values, but I still wouldn¹t recommend anyone to devote much time,
let alone money, to accumulating their records.
For those who can read French, Hugues Panassié¹s Discographie Critique des
Meilleurs Disques de Jazz (Robert Laffont, 1958), which is sadly not in
plentiful supply, remains a first-rate guide to non-bop (African-American)
jazz, but of course covers many later swing players (Nat Cole, Milt Buckner,
and Earl Bostic, for instance) who are well outside the scope of this group
and also devotes a lot of space to blues. (Panassié, unlike Harris, was not
actually a moldy fig¹!) And of course Panassié was not interested at all in
hot dance music.
Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I do not intend to send such messages once a year, but at this point I think
I need to remind new subscribers that this group is run according to the set
of information, recommendations, and rules which Michael Rader and myself
edited in 2004, available from the group's "files" section:
It needs revising, obviously, since today's Internet users are not the ones
who used to enjoy email communication in eGroups' time (and this may also
mean that our groups are obsolete... however, I think they maintain a degree
of courtesy and privacy which can hardly be found anywhere else).
Among other things, it should be recalled that Yahoo groups are basically
mailing-lists (even if some prefer reading on the Web), and that all members
are supposed to provide valid email addresses.
In that regard, and considering the first spam message which briefly
appeared on the board this week (and, fortunately, no-one seems to have
received), I am not sure I will be able to accept more subscribers with
disposable yahoo.com or hotmail.com addresses in the next future, unless I
can individually check their purpose.
For two reasons:
- the potential danger of such easily hackable accounts (please note that,
even with private mail, the apparent sender is seldom the actual "spammer");
- the increasing number of people who bypass Yahoo's rules by providing
secondary addresses they *never* check.
The document I am inviting all "Web only" subscribers to read and understand
also failed to state the obvious, which is that Yahoo groups are run by
private individuals, not by employees or slaves anyone is allowed to
command, or publicly blame.
We have been able to maintain total freedom of speech as far as the group's
topic is concerned, but whatever regards management is supposed to be
addressed to me, not to the 850+ people who just cannot do a thing about it
(and those who helped me build this group from the start know that anyone
claiming he cannot get in touch with me is a liar).
I have always spent as much time as necessary whenever someone asked for
help, requested information, or reported an incident, I am open to all
suggestions, I would not even mind giving ownership by now to anyone likely
to run this list better than I do, BUT I have no time to waste with
trouble-makers who ignore my private requests, and repeatedly attempt to
flood everyone with their ins(is)tant demands (fancy we also have a right to
sleep at night). Such rants will never reach your mailboxes, and this is
what moderation is for.
Thanks to everyone's self-discipline, the total number of people I happened
to ban from this group in eight years' time only amounts to FIVE, plus a
couple of "silently removed" subscribers who did not even notice it - all of
them because they thought the cleverest thing to do was to "piss me off" (I
think Alan Balfour taught me this phrase) and claim they had a right to do
Might "work" with... somebody else, not me.
Early Winter greetings,
Patrice - email@example.com (and it works)