Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RedHotJazz] Wild Bill Davison was Introduction

Expand Messages
  • David Brown
    No, no Howard I never for a moment read you as other than reporter of received bollocks. I m not sure what records he spoiled. If you mean the Bechet Blue
    Message 1 of 66 , Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      No, no Howard I never for a moment read you as other than reporter of
      received bollocks.

      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
      derived origins.

      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.


      Dave











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Patrice Champarou
      Friends, 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
      Message 66 of 66 , Nov 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Friends,

        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:
        http://tinyurl.com/d4ha6xr

        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
        so.
        Might "work" with... somebody else, not me.

        Early Winter greetings,

        Patrice - redhotjazz-owner@yahoogroups.com (and it works)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.