Re: [RedHotJazz] Wild Bill Davison was Introduction
- In case there is any doubt on the point I am not agreeing with the criticism
that Davison ³was solely Louis derived and a
It isn¹t his fault that record producers of the 1940s cast him into the
³unpolluted imitation 1928 Armstrong² straitjacket. As a professional
musician trying to make a living he no doubt accepted the gigs he was
offered and tried conscientiously to play what he was being paid to play.
The only jazz musicians who ever had the luxury of doing anything else are
revivalist semi-pros. The result was that he came to spoil the records of
musicians who functioned in that vocabulary far better than he did and laid
himself open to the kind of comment quoted from the 1959 Jazz On Record¹.
It does seem to be the case that earlier critics that one would have
expected to have understood this preferred to ignore Davison altogether.
John Chilton¹s Grove entry very much redresses the balance and (rightly I
think) notes only Beiderbecke as a formative influence ³but he soon
developed a highly individual, robust style.² Chilton also notes his
ostracism from the Chicago mob during his 30s exile in Milwaukee, consequent
on being held responsible for the death of Frank Techemacher, which must
have assisted the development of an independent style.
The only mystery in all this is just how he came to represent ³unpolluted
imitation 1928 Armstrong² to the record producers, and why they did not
import from Chicago any of the several trunpeters still working there who
could have done that job so much better. I suppose I have just answered my
own question there. Good enough for jazz.
[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)