Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Introduction
- As David says we have discussed Panassié before, but I would certainly not
agree that his critical judgements are mainly interesting for
historiographical reasons. It is simply necessary to remember that unless
you accept his theoretical framework he has nothing useful to say about
music that does not fall within it.
Personally I find him a good guide to what I am likely to rate and what I am
not likely to rate, but unlike him and some of his followers I don¹t regard
people who take a contrary view as wicked spoilers of the great cause. I
long ago worked out what his more inexplicable blind spots were (jug bands
and Billie Holiday, for example) and so will anyone else. There is no point
in expecting to agree with every one of anyone else¹s opinions.
Come to think of it, exactly as much and for precisely the same reasons can
be said about Richard Sudhalter. His judgement of Charlie Christian, and
his prejudiced and uncomprehending condemnation of post-war New Orleans jazz
(found ad nauseam in his Storyville reviews) are exactly as useful as
Panassié¹s judgements of Bix Beiderbecke and Red Nichols, and for pretty
much the same reasons. As a matter of fact, post-war New Orleans jazz was
one of Panassié¹s blind spots as well, which is curious. Even more curious
is that both writers rated the guitarist George Barnes highly, though for
different aspects of his work. All is paradox.
I am not sure that this does apply to Rex Harris, though it¹s a long time
since I read ³Jazz², and I certainly have no intention of reading it again.
Whereas Panassié and Sudhalter both have reasons for their frameworks that
can be rationally accepted or rejected, or anything in between, and I think
this applies to Blesh too, though I wouldn¹t want to defend this position,
Harris as far as I recall, and certainly Rust in My Kind of Jazz¹, merely
make assertions based on what they like or dislike modified by assorted
prejudices. I do not think this would be at all a fair assessment of either
Hugues Panassié or Richard Sudhalter, however much you may disgagree with
any of their conclusions, or even be suspicious of their motives.
Recorded Jazz, A Critical Guide¹ was actually the first book on jazz I ever
owned. The recommendations in Panassié¹s Dictionnaire du Jazz¹ (even in the
dreadful English edition) went a long way towards broadening my mind. But
the point of this personalia is to add the comment that Jazz On Record, A
Critical Guide¹ by Charles Fox, Peter Gammond, and Alan Morgan (London,
Hutchinson, 1960), which I shortly discovered, is still quite useful up to
that date, and manages a reasonably consistent and unprejudiced critical
perspective. Relating some of the entries to current availability might be
very hard of course, though less so than the Rust & Harris book.
on 27/02/2012 09:50, David Brown at johnhaleysims@... wrote:
>Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
> This thread is getting long and hard to follow but.
> Endorse fully Howard's caveat at Harris/Rust, a transatlantic extension of
> Blesh and possibly a cross channel extension of Panassié (?) Interesting,
> as also the latter, for mainly historiograhical reasons. Although we have
> been here before and well agreed Panassié's positive qualities.
> We did touch Parker back there, Phill, and I opined that artificial
> widening -- stereofying -- was an abomination and that Parker cherry picked
> and issued from very very good copies and good quality recordings.
> Alan, I'm still interested in the Colyer Club and who played and how long.
> Also the Marquee.
> JT is right. The music that emerged on record after the recording ban of
> 1942 is transmuted.
> Downloaded lossy files from poor transcriptions distort the music. Always go
> for quality CD issues.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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 - firstname.lastname@example.org (and it works)