RE: [RedHotJazz] Wild Bill Davison was Introduction
- No, no Howard I never for a moment read you as other than reporter of
I'm not sure what records he spoiled. If you mean the Bechet Blue Notes I
have them on now. 'Tin Roof Blues' at this very moment. Bill there is
extremely restrained, tasteful and respectful of the enormous ego that was
Bechet. Both are declamatory in style and a wonder that it works so well,
which I put down to Bill's sensitivity and willingness to accommodate
Bechet. 'Nobody Knows' now and Bill's playing a refined second to Bechet's
lead. I hear it as a splendidly homogenised session. The racehorse elements
on up tempo I hear as a Bechet tendency .
Bill never imitated Louis in the slightest, he worked out a style using a
small part of Louis' vocabulary (again !) amalgamated with his own Bix
I am interested in who 'any of the several Chicago trumpets' might be. There
must also have been other candidates in NYC but I can't think that any could
have done a better job. Bechet just didn't get on with trumpeters -- for
obvious reasons. The greatest Bechet of 40s onwards is with Bunk whose
seniority demanded, at least temporarily, Bechet's respect for teamwork.
As to Condon, Tony -- and nice to hear -- I have it all too and enjoy but
just think that players like Bill and Pee Wee and Hackett were rather
constrained by the 'enhanced Dixieland' Condon style and repertoire. I don't
think that any at heart were Dixielanders.
[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)