Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Introduction
- I love Dave¹s ³the dangers of pontificating on music, the vocabulary of
which one does not
understand,² which goes to the heart of the matter.
It is not true that I have nothing better to do, but I decided to have a
look at some other earlier criticisms of Wild Bill Davison.
³He still played unpolluted imitation 1928 Armstrong, a style which by 1942
had become a commodity in greater demand than supply. His playing was
closest in manner to Muggsy Spanier... but his tone was inclined to be
wavering and he lacked Spanier¹s forcefulness.²
(Charles Wilford In Jazz Era, The Forties, 1961)
³Enjoys an unmerited reputation. He is the prototype of the noisy and vulgar
dixieland trumpeter who spoils the performances in which he takes part.²
(Hugues Panassié, Dictionnaire du Jazz, 1987 ed. but probably unrevised from
To my surprise, that¹s all I can find. He is mentioned in Blesh¹s Shining
Trumpets only in passing to approve his opinions about the cool school. He
has no entry in the later expanded Jazz On Record. There are no doubt a
dozen places I haven¹t thought to look.
Panassié of course was judging him exclusively by his work with This Is Jazz
and Bechet and frankly he is a fish out of water on these sides. ³Unpolluted
imitation 1928 Armstrong² it may have been but with an inspirational and
rhythmic gulf wider than the Atlantic and made to seem wider by the playing
of the other musicians. (Wilford does not cite any of the Bechet sides.). An
interesting contrast with Bechet¹s work with Mezzrow, clearly a lesser
musician than Davison, but much less disruptive of the inspirational flow of
his colleagues. As much could be said of many of the French revivalists with
whom Bechet worked.
This train of thought has taken me further than I intended.
>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)