Wild Bill Davison was Introduction
- Bill toured UK continually in the 60s/70s/80s. I heard him many, many times.
He never gave less than 110% however mundane the context. I sat in front of
his cornet and the sound was loud but warm and never harsh. Like me, he
always turned up way early for gigs to allow for long and assiduous warm up.
When I first met him thus he enquired "You the piano player?"
Embarrassingly, even to this day, I seriously denied this, not realising it
was his standard pre-gig address to anybody.
Yes, critically short shrifted, even 'Lost Chords' mentions him only in
passing although Sudhalter made some amends in his notes to the 1997
'His physico-musical style -- growls, rips, flares, long tones brusquely cut
with a peremptory shake, all giving way to heart on sleeve Irish
sentimentality on ballads -- Davison's style is a brilliant alternative to
Armstrong -- a perfect self-sufficient entity.' Digby Fairweather 'Jazz The
Essential Companion' 1987
Unlike Digby, I find the Commodores rather forced, pushy and unrelaxed and
his -- and nobody's -- best work is to be found on the Condon treadmill. His
true stature only became apparent on his escape from that milieu.
The Benny Meroff side 'Smiling Skies' 9 Dec 1928 -- available on Youtube
and Internet Archive -- shows Bill, at age 22, already displaying his own
personal licks and his 'flamethrower' tone although still deeply indebted
to Bix. I disagree with the criticism that he was solely Louis derived and a
plagiarist. That is, to use the technical musicological terminology, earless
bollocks. I hear his mature style as a synthesis of Louis and Bix in a ratio
of respectively two thirds and one third. To this he brought true and
Yes, he had a limited repertoire and a set of stock phrases he recycled but
always aptly and always swinging. I also reject the word 'sentimentality'.
Bill's ballads were never sentimental, always pithy and often ironical.
[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)