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

R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

Expand Messages
  • levi.marco@libero.it
    Dear Patrice,If RHJ will ever be reborn, it would be great if a small corner would be dedicated to the extra-american jazz.Marco I cannot agree with your
    Message 1 of 23 , Jun 16, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Patrice,
      If RHJ will ever be reborn, it would be great if a small corner would be dedicated to the extra-american jazz.
      Marco

       

      I cannot agree with your pessimistic view, Dave. Or it would mean that the
      mediatic surrounding which the young, and most the not-so-young, are
      methodically drugged with is gradually killing all kind of previous music -
      which is by no means true. Here in France, on the professional musicians'
      side, we have plenty of young, skilled "classical" performers who are by no
      means affected by listening to electro-techno-or-whatever contemporary stuff
      every day, and regrding the audienc, I can tesrtify that even an amteurish
      jazz combo appeals to most people, in the streets or in small cafés - Bix
      still catches the attention of young folks, you see... my brother and I are
      currently training two enthusisatic young guitarists in order to revive our
      (now scattered) "Gipsy swing" combo - Howard Rye once mentioned that
      Django's tradition is alive in the smallest French villages, but you can
      hear traditional jazz bands everywhere.
      Young folks are "open" to a variety of musical styles we could hardly access
      50 years ago, and this is the reason why when I created the group, Scott and
      I - as well as the people I thought of inviting in the first place - agreed
      that it shouldn't be another confidential place for mouldy figs to rant,
      fight, criticise, and complain about modern music.
      The job Scott achieved 14 years ago was a non-academic project, with the
      limited means of the time - plain html pages and poor samples, at the time
      almost everyone was on a slow, dial-up connection. The best thing we can do
      is, indeed, to take today's technology into account - I for myself only use
      a cell-phone for... phoning, but I am not blind to the point of ignoring
      that Internet access will gradually turn its back on our old-fashioned
      towers and laptops.

      There wouldn't be anything easier than cleaning up and updating the RHJA
      website as a "static" one, and sharing the nasty job of filling in templates
      with hand-typed data - I, and probably many others, are responsible for
      several pages we edited for Scott. But although I have enough webspace to
      host a dozen RHJA clones, I never undertook this because I agree that
      today's aim should be as ambitious as it was in 1999, using modern
      technology - not only to make the pages available from different devioces,
      but also to turn what used to be a single man's "labor of love" into an
      interactive team work. Both a modest and ambitious reference, and a "living"
      website, neither a blog nor a comprehensive discography, definitely not a
      collection of Wikipedia entries and pirated samples, but something with a
      "spirit" of its own, providing the same facilities as the RHJA without the
      hassle of using a computer and the awkward, obsolete Realplayer software.

      I think our ambition should be limited to the popularization of the music,
      we do not need to compete with Tom Lord's discography on the one hand,
      Deezer on the other... a database for early jazz, as suggested, can be an
      intersting stand-alone project, but as long I cannot see the link between
      this and an actual public website, my concern is that the Red Hot Jazz
      Archive - or something similar to it - does not die.

      Of course I suppose no-one minds discussing such general features here, but
      I created RHJ-tech (link below, at the bottom of each message) so that the
      strictly technical matters regadiding the existing and future sites be
      discussed separately and our main purpose remain talking about the... music
      itself. Please feel free to join if you have brilliant ideas !

      Patrice

      And yes, Yahoo mailing-lists *are* obselete, not even working properly. I
      received an invitation to join Facebook forums as well, and I will probably
      set up an account again (slammed the door of that brain-squeezing
      institution after two month's test, fed up with kind, real-life friends
      sending me unchecked "information" as soon as received, as a new generation
      of hoaxes... ) please allow the oldster some time to think about it, I don't
      like for once being sent individual messages I am not allowed to answer.



    • Patrice Champarou
      From: mailto:RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 2:32 PM To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com Subject: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so
      Message 2 of 23 , Jun 16, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
         
         
        Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 2:32 PM
        Subject: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech
         


        Dear Patrice,
        If RHJ will ever be reborn, it would be great if a small corner would be dedicated to the extra-american jazz.
        Marco
        Quite agree... Scott had alrerady made a clear attempt with the obscure Eduardo Armani... the problem is the same as with many Amercan dance bands, or prolific leaders and musicians like Harry Reser, making arbiitray choices so as to emphasize what was actually “jazz” in their output (which he had achieved with Ray Venture, selecting his earliest recordings and ignoring the hilarious songs which made him popular later on). To me a “dynamic” website would also mean this, the possibility if easily adding more subjects and characters (thinking that Oscar Aleman is totally absent from the RHJA !) maybe not as comprehensive essays and discographies, but at least as introductions to skilled, and sometimes little-known jazz musicians.
        Once again, such a policy would take... humans.
         
        P.
         
        (apparently, what I said about Yahoo groups going bananas is happening after I removed the moderation feature, I get plenty of “approval” requests and I am not sure they are properly handled, if you don’t see your own contributions, please repost them !)

      • Andrew Taylor
        Hi all (special shout-out to Dr. Terry), I ve made various posts considering how the site could be updated, or alternatively how a new site could be created.
        Message 3 of 23 , Jun 16, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all (special shout-out to Dr. Terry),

          I've made various posts considering how the site could be updated, or alternatively how a new site could be created.  A crowd-sourced project (done by many people) inspired by Scott's original site (Classic Jazz Archive) and acknowledging the RHJA's importance is certainly feasible.

          Patrice, do you know the last time the site was updated? 
          I know that the Bill Johnson page mentions Lawrence Gushee's Pioneers of Jazz, published in 2005, so it has been updated post-2005 at any rate.

          As Robert says, there are many (innumerable) tools available today that were not available when Scott created the RHJA - geospatial information systems, dynamic timelines, better database management systems.  Most of the audio that Scott hosted on the site is now accessible through YouTube and other services, as well as video not available to Scott.

          I myself am working on a dynamic timeline project about Classic Jazz, I started it because as a digital librarian, I am interested in "New Media" publishing, GIS and Timelines.  Originally it was going to be a short experiment, but it's snowballed into an ongoing project.  Principal sources of information and inspiration are the scholarly work of Gene Anderson, Lawrence Gushee, John McCusker and Al Rose.

          It's improving, but certainly not where I want it to be - I noticed the other day that I had embarrassingly written "Honore Dutrey, Clarinet," since fixed.

          Check it out if you are interested - it's as much an information presentation project as a Jazz project, but I've tried to find good info.  I'm working on a Desktop PC, so that is the platform it is optimized for.

          Timeline of King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band (1917-1923) - http://agt2.web.rice.edu/CreoleJazzBand/KOCJB.html

          I'm going to include links to contemporary musical examples for each musician, though I only have one so far, Mutt Carey (here he is with Ory in May 1922, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPntdfLGTtc&feature=player_detailpage#t=131).

          Hopefully this gives an idea of what is possible with modern technology.

          Regards, Andrew
          -- 
          Andrew Taylor, MLS
          Associate Curator, Visual Resources
          Department of Art History, Rice University
          713-348-4836
          https://twitter.com/agrahamt
          On 6/16/2014 7:32 AM, 'levi.marco@...' levi.marco@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
           
          Dear Patrice,
          If RHJ will ever be reborn, it would be great if a small corner would be dedicated to the extra-american jazz.
          Marco

           

          I cannot agree with your pessimistic view, Dave. Or it would mean that the
          mediatic surrounding which the young, and most the not-so-young, are
          methodically drugged with is gradually killing all kind of previous music -
          which is by no means true. Here in France, on the professional musicians'
          side, we have plenty of young, skilled "classical" performers who are by no
          means affected by listening to electro-techno-or-whatever contemporary stuff
          every day, and regrding the audienc, I can tesrtify that even an amteurish
          jazz combo appeals to most people, in the streets or in small cafés - Bix
          still catches the attention of young folks, you see... my brother and I are
          currently training two enthusisatic young guitarists in order to revive our
          (now scattered) "Gipsy swing" combo - Howard Rye once mentioned that
          Django's tradition is alive in the smallest French villages, but you can
          hear traditional jazz bands everywhere.
          Young folks are "open" to a variety of musical styles we could hardly access
          50 years ago, and this is the reason why when I created the group, Scott and
          I - as well as the people I thought of inviting in the first place - agreed
          that it shouldn't be another confidential place for mouldy figs to rant,
          fight, criticise, and complain about modern music.
          The job Scott achieved 14 years ago was a non-academic project, with the
          limited means of the time - plain html pages and poor samples, at the time
          almost everyone was on a slow, dial-up connection. The best thing we can do
          is, indeed, to take today's technology into account - I for myself only use
          a cell-phone for... phoning, but I am not blind to the point of ignoring
          that Internet access will gradually turn its back on our old-fashioned
          towers and laptops.

          There wouldn't be anything easier than cleaning up and updating the RHJA
          website as a "static" one, and sharing the nasty job of filling in templates
          with hand-typed data - I, and probably many others, are responsible for
          several pages we edited for Scott. But although I have enough webspace to
          host a dozen RHJA clones, I never undertook this because I agree that
          today's aim should be as ambitious as it was in 1999, using modern
          technology - not only to make the pages available from different devioces,
          but also to turn what used to be a single man's "labor of love" into an
          interactive team work. Both a modest and ambitious reference, and a "living"
          website, neither a blog nor a comprehensive discography, definitely not a
          collection of Wikipedia entries and pirated samples, but something with a
          "spirit" of its own, providing the same facilities as the RHJA without the
          hassle of using a computer and the awkward, obsolete Realplayer software.

          I think our ambition should be limited to the popularization of the music,
          we do not need to compete with Tom Lord's discography on the one hand,
          Deezer on the other... a database for early jazz, as suggested, can be an
          intersting stand-alone project, but as long I cannot see the link between
          this and an actual public website, my concern is that the Red Hot Jazz
          Archive - or something similar to it - does not die.

          Of course I suppose no-one minds discussing such general features here, but
          I created RHJ-tech (link below, at the bottom of each message) so that the
          strictly technical matters regadiding the existing and future sites be
          discussed separately and our main purpose remain talking about the... music
          itself. Please feel free to join if you have brilliant ideas !

          Patrice

          And yes, Yahoo mailing-lists *are* obselete, not even working properly. I
          received an invitation to join Facebook forums as well, and I will probably
          set up an account again (slammed the door of that brain-squeezing
          institution after two month's test, fed up with kind, real-life friends
          sending me unchecked "information" as soon as received, as a new generation
          of hoaxes... ) please allow the oldster some time to think about it, I don't
          like for once being sent individual messages I am not allowed to answer.



        • levi.marco@libero.it
          That s a very nice Band. I enjoyed a lot, specially cause the scat voc. by your alto player (c est chaud!). I feel your music in the groove of King Oliver,
          Message 4 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            That's a very nice Band. I enjoyed a lot, specially cause the scat voc. by your alto player (c'est chaud!). I feel your music in the groove of King Oliver, although your your lineup is a bit different.  

             

            As mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact that people who grew up with the N.O. revival are on their Zimmer frames does not mean that older idioms are dying any faster than before. If anything, we have gotten rid of a certain amount of ideological baggage that determined (and for no particular good reason) that Band A was respectable but Band B was a no-no. Historical distance is a great leveller, and people in their 20s and 30s tend to be unmoved by the random purisms and prejudices of 50 years ago. As for the music of the 1920s, the younger musicians I come across don't feel obliged to sneer at Ted Lewis or the Savoy Orpheans, simply because some self-appointed guru told them it was only cool to like King Oliver. I also notice there is a still an audience for anything that is reasonable melodic, rhythmic and adequately played, at least judging from the gigs I play on. Here's our little band liberating the Normandy beaches last week: check the audience reaction. Brotherly Love par Le Jazz à Bichon et Daniel Huck



             
          • levi.marco@libero.it
            P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20 s, 30 s and 40 s). The border between those kind of
            Message 5 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable. Just the usual example: Paul Whiteman wasn't the King of jazz for sure but his band has got its place in jazz History, we know why. And, Bix or not Bix, this band produced lots of very nice music. Jazz is a superior music, not the only music that deserves to be heard, IMO.

               

              As mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact that people who grew up with the N.O. revival are on their Zimmer frames does not mean that older idioms are dying any faster than before. If anything, we have gotten rid of a certain amount of ideological baggage that determined (and for no particular good reason) that Band A was respectable but Band B was a no-no. Historical distance is a great leveller, and people in their 20s and 30s tend to be unmoved by the random purisms and prejudices of 50 years ago. As for the music of the 1920s, the younger musicians I come across don't feel obliged to sneer at Ted Lewis or the Savoy Orpheans, simply because some self-appointed guru told them it was only cool to like King Oliver. I also notice there is a still an audience for anything that is reasonable melodic, rhythmic and adequately played, at least judging from the gigs I play on. Here's our little band liberating the Normandy beaches last week: check the audience reaction. Brotherly Love par Le Jazz à Bichon et Daniel Huck



               
            • jacobmarkus
              ... Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. There is a pretty definable border between the jazz
              Message 6 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                Thanks for reading, 

                Jacob Markus
                Nashville, TN
                MYJO  

                P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  

                On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:18 AM, "'levi.marco@...' levi.marco@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                 

                P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable. Just the usual example: Paul Whiteman wasn't the King of jazz for sure but his band has got its place in jazz History, we know why. And, Bix or not Bix, this band produced lots of very nice music. Jazz is a superior music, not the only music that deserves to be heard, IMO.

                 

                As mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact that people who grew up with the N.O. revival are on their Zimmer frames does not mean that older idioms are dying any faster than before. If anything, we have gotten rid of a certain amount of ideological baggage that determined (and for no particular good reason) that Band A was respectable but Band B was a no-no. Historical distance is a great leveller, and people in their 20s and 30s tend to be unmoved by the random purisms and prejudices of 50 years ago. As for the music of the 1920s, the younger musicians I come across don't feel obliged to sneer at Ted Lewis or the Savoy Orpheans, simply because some self-appointed guru told them it was only cool to like King Oliver. I also notice there is a still an audience for anything that is reasonable melodic, rhythmic and adequately played, at least judging from the gigs I play on. Here's our little band liberating the Normandy beaches last week: check the audience reaction. Brotherly Love par Le Jazz à Bichon et Daniel Huck



                 

              • David Brown
                Hi Jacob Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read. The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and
                Message 7 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Jacob

                  Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                  The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                  Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                  You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                  But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                  Dave





                  jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                   
                  "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                  Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                  There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                  Thanks for reading, 

                  Jacob Markus
                  Nashville, TN
                  MYJO  

                  P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  


                • PETER GERLER
                  One other thing about the swing era --(I just gotta chime in here, even though I m likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word swing with
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 

                    To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                    PG
                    On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                     

                    Hi Jacob

                    Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                    The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                    Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                    You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                    But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                    Dave





                    jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                     
                    "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                    Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                    There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                    Thanks for reading, 

                    Jacob Markus
                    Nashville, TN
                    MYJO  

                    P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  




                  • PETER GERLER
                    One other thing about the swing era --(I just gotta chime in here, even though I m likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word swing with
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 

                      To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                      PG
                      On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                       

                      Hi Jacob

                      Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                      The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                      Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                      You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                      But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                      Dave





                      jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                       
                      "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                      Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                      There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                      Thanks for reading, 

                      Jacob Markus
                      Nashville, TN
                      MYJO  

                      P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  




                    • jacobmarkus
                      Thank you for your input, Dave! I see what you mean. Bop didn t have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you for your input, Dave! 

                             I see what you mean.  Bop didn't have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to start using some of the complex chord progressions and theoretical traditions that were incorporated into bebop.  You are right when it comes to bop being a continuum, but the transition from swing to bop seemed much more drastic than any of the other transitions at that point. 
                             And sure, I did mention in part that these styles of music coexisted.  I was merely pointing out trends and advancements.  I especially tried to focus more on the complexly and the advancement thereof.  As the jazz ensembles with string sections went on into the 30s, their music started to gain a little more depth in that they were playing more ballads contrary to almost exclusively hot jazz.  
                             And Fletcher Henderson was playing the same arrangements, but the instrumentation had its differences more likely than not.  Not to mention, it is sad that the reality of segregation led to the swing era starting in the mainstream due to Goodman, whether or not Satchmo or Henderson started the Swing Era underground.  But of course there are records from the 20s and early 30s that sound much like the swing that jazz would later turn into commercially, especially records by bandleaders such as Jimmy (and Tommy) Dorsey, with songs like "Tailspin" that come to mind.  But behind the scenes, I do admit that things happened much differently than in the mainstream.  

                        Thanks for reading, 

                        Jacob Markus
                        Nashville, TN 
                        MYJO


                             


                        On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, "David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                         

                        Hi Jacob

                        Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                        The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                        Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                        You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                        But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                        Dave





                        jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                         
                        "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                        Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                        There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                        Thanks for reading, 

                        Jacob Markus
                        Nashville, TN
                        MYJO  

                        P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  


                      • jacobmarkus
                        Peter, Anyone familiar with the swing era without knowing what swing actually is surprises me, personally! Of course swing has been around before the turn of
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Peter, 

                          Anyone familiar with the swing era without knowing what swing actually is surprises me, personally!  Of course swing has been around before the turn of the century, but the era in the mid-30s to early 40s is just a name.  I have actually heard people from that time who still call it "swing."  It's merely a name to differentiate it from the styles of popular music before.  When I mention the Renaissance, I can imagine the era with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, but the term "renaissance" can indicate revival of any past idea or tradition.  The Romantic Era in classical music was a renaissance in music in that it brought with it a renewed interest in Roman mythology and literature.  Although, I might have been preaching to a choir.  

                          Thanks for reading, 

                          Jacob Markus 
                          Nashville, TN
                          MYJO



                          On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:23 PM, "PETER GERLER pgerler@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                           

                          One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 


                          To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                          PG
                          On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                           

                          Hi Jacob

                          Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                          The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                          Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                          You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                          But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                          Dave





                          jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                           
                          "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                          Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                          There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                          Thanks for reading, 

                          Jacob Markus
                          Nashville, TN
                          MYJO  

                          P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  




                        • David Brown
                          Hi Jacob I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Jacob

                            I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless there is a divide.

                            The influence of Henderson on Goodman can be exaggerated. There were actually relatively few Henderson scores in the Goodman book. I count about a sixth of the discography  from 1935 - 1936. The band with which Goodman recorded 'King Porter Stomp' in 1935 is exactly the same same size and composition, excepting Goodman himself, as that used by Henderson on the same title in 1933 .

                            Goodman played the arrangements better than Henderson in that the intonation and section work was better. It is another matter who played the better jazz but the Goodman contains one of the greatest  jazz trumpet solos of all time.

                            Just played 'Tailspin', it's rather stiff and tends to novelty, especially J.D.s alto. I would place as hot dance rather than jazz.

                            Best

                            Dave



                            jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                             
                            Thank you for your input, Dave! 

                                 I see what you mean.  Bop didn't have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to start using some of the complex chord progressions and theoretical traditions that were incorporated into bebop.  You are right when it comes to bop being a continuum, but the transition from swing to bop seemed much more drastic than any of the other transitions at that point. 
                                 And sure, I did mention in part that these styles of music coexisted.  I was merely pointing out trends and advancements.  I especially tried to focus more on the complexly and the advancement thereof.  As the jazz ensembles with string sections went on into the 30s, their music started to gain a little more depth in that they were playing more ballads contrary to almost exclusively hot jazz.  
                                 And Fletcher Henderson was playing the same arrangements, but the instrumentation had its differences more likely than not.  Not to mention, it is sad that the reality of segregation led to the swing era starting in the mainstream due to Goodman, whether or not Satchmo or Henderson started the Swing Era underground.  But of course there are records from the 20s and early 30s that sound much like the swing that jazz would later turn into commercially, especially records by bandleaders such as Jimmy (and Tommy) Dorsey, with songs like "Tailspin" that come to mind.  But behind the scenes, I do admit that things happened much differently than in the mainstream.  

                            Thanks for reading, 

                            Jacob Markus
                            Nashville, TN 
                            MYJO


                                 



                          • jacobmarkus
                            Dave, Personally, I would consider sweet bands to be part of the jazz idiom because they played a huge part in the development of the big bands that would come
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave, 

                                   Personally, I would consider sweet bands to be part of the jazz idiom because they played a huge part in the development of the big bands that would come a few years later.  

                                   They also composed and arranged songs that are considered standards today, such as Richard Himber's "Winter Wonderland."  Improvisation was also starting to become more prevalent in huge bands like this, as a band such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra didn't really have a lot of improv unless it came from Bix or a few others. Not to mention, sweet jazz also helped commercialize jazz to a greater extent, since at this time listeners were leaving classical music and going on to these bands.  Why would you not consider the sweet bands to have played jazz? 
                                   
                                   You are correct about the size of both bands, upon further research.  But regardless of the amount of arrangements Henderson gave to Goodman, "King Porter Stomp" and "Sometimes I'm Happy" were the two songs that launched Goodman's, both arranged by Henderson.  Before that, his band was failing, for lack of a better term.  
                                   "Tailspin" is rather stiff, but it still sounds closer to the big band swing that would hit the mainstream a year later than others.  And you're right about Jimmy's solo sounding novel, but once again, it doesn't sound exactly like big band swing, but it still sounds more like that than hot jazz.  It was an inept example, I suppose.  

                              Thanks for reading, 

                              Jacob Markus
                              Nashville, TN
                              MYJO 





                              On Jun 17, 2014, at 4:10 PM, "David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                               

                              Hi Jacob

                              I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless there is a divide.

                              The influence of Henderson on Goodman can be exaggerated. There were actually relatively few Henderson scores in the Goodman book. I count about a sixth of the discography  from 1935 - 1936. The band with which Goodman recorded 'King Porter Stomp' in 1935 is exactly the same same size and composition, excepting Goodman himself, as that used by Henderson on the same title in 1933 .

                              Goodman played the arrangements better than Henderson in that the intonation and section work was better. It is another matter who played the better jazz but the Goodman contains one of the greatest  jazz trumpet solos of all time.

                              Just played 'Tailspin', it's rather stiff and tends to novelty, especially J.D.s alto. I would place as hot dance rather than jazz.

                              Best

                              Dave



                              jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                               
                              Thank you for your input, Dave! 

                                   I see what you mean.  Bop didn't have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to start using some of the complex chord progressions and theoretical traditions that were incorporated into bebop.  You are right when it comes to bop being a continuum, but the transition from swing to bop seemed much more drastic than any of the other transitions at that point. 
                                   And sure, I did mention in part that these styles of music coexisted.  I was merely pointing out trends and advancements.  I especially tried to focus more on the complexly and the advancement thereof.  As the jazz ensembles with string sections went on into the 30s, their music started to gain a little more depth in that they were playing more ballads contrary to almost exclusively hot jazz.  
                                   And Fletcher Henderson was playing the same arrangements, but the instrumentation had its differences more likely than not.  Not to mention, it is sad that the reality of segregation led to the swing era starting in the mainstream due to Goodman, whether or not Satchmo or Henderson started the Swing Era underground.  But of course there are records from the 20s and early 30s that sound much like the swing that jazz would later turn into commercially, especially records by bandleaders such as Jimmy (and Tommy) Dorsey, with songs like "Tailspin" that come to mind.  But behind the scenes, I do admit that things happened much differently than in the mainstream.  

                              Thanks for reading, 

                              Jacob Markus
                              Nashville, TN 
                              MYJO


                                   



                            • alan504450
                              Listen to Bach - even without Jacques Louissier it swings. TTFN - 007 ... From: PETER GERLER pgerler@verizon.net [RedHotJazz] To:
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Listen to Bach - even without Jacques Louissier it swings.
                                TTFN - 007



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: PETER GERLER pgerler@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:23
                                Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                 
                                One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 

                                To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                                PG
                                On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                 
                                Hi Jacob

                                Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                                The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                                Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                                You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                                But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                                Dave





                                jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                 
                                "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                                Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                                There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                                Thanks for reading, 

                                Jacob Markus
                                Nashville, TN
                                MYJO  

                                P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  




                              • alan504450
                                Sugar Foot Stomp by King Oliver s Dixie Syncopators is clearly a pointer to what happened n the mid thirties - it was always there, it just needed someone to
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sugar Foot Stomp by King Oliver's Dixie Syncopators is clearly a pointer to what happened n the mid thirties - it was always there, it just needed someone to tease it out.
                                  TTFN - 007



                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                  To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:19
                                  Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                   
                                  Thank you for your input, Dave! 

                                       I see what you mean.  Bop didn't have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to start using some of the complex chord progressions and theoretical traditions that were incorporated into bebop.  You are right when it comes to bop being a continuum, but the transition from swing to bop seemed much more drastic than any of the other transitions at that point. 
                                       And sure, I did mention in part that these styles of music coexisted.  I was merely pointing out trends and advancements.  I especially tried to focus more on the complexly and the advancement thereof.  As the jazz ensembles with string sections went on into the 30s, their music started to gain a little more depth in that they were playing more ballads contrary to almost exclusively hot jazz.  
                                       And Fletcher Henderson was playing the same arrangements, but the instrumentation had its differences more likely than not.  Not to mention, it is sad that the reality of segregation led to the swing era starting in the mainstream due to Goodman, whether or not Satchmo or Henderson started the Swing Era underground.  But of course there are records from the 20s and early 30s that sound much like the swing that jazz would later turn into commercially, especially records by bandleaders such as Jimmy (and Tommy) Dorsey, with songs like "Tailspin" that come to mind.  But behind the scenes, I do admit that things happened much differently than in the mainstream.  

                                  Thanks for reading, 

                                  Jacob Markus
                                  Nashville, TN 
                                  MYJO


                                       


                                  On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, "David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                   
                                  Hi Jacob

                                  Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                                  The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                                  Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                                  You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                                  But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                                  Dave





                                  jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                   
                                  "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                                  Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                                  There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                                  Thanks for reading, 

                                  Jacob Markus
                                  Nashville, TN
                                  MYJO  

                                  P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  


                                • alan504450
                                  I would take you to task over the assertion that the section work in the Godman band was better than that in the Henderson organisation. It may be slicker
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jun 17, 2014
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I would take you to task over the assertion that the section work in the Godman band was better than that in the Henderson organisation. It may be 'slicker' but it doesn't have the drive of the Henderson band. If you want good trumpet work listen to Rex Stewart in 'Ol Man River' by Luis Russell from 1932 - that man would have give a flautist a run for his money.
                                    TTFN - 007



                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                    To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:11
                                    Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                     
                                    Hi Jacob

                                    I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless there is a divide.

                                    The influence of Henderson on Goodman can be exaggerated. There were actually relatively few Henderson scores in the Goodman book. I count about a sixth of the discography  from 1935 - 1936. The band with which Goodman recorded 'King Porter Stomp' in 1935 is exactly the same same size and composition, excepting Goodman himself, as that used by Henderson on the same title in 1933 .

                                    Goodman played the arrangements better than Henderson in that the intonation and section work was better. It is another matter who played the better jazz but the Goodman contains one of the greatest  jazz trumpet solos of all time.

                                    Just played 'Tailspin', it's rather stiff and tends to novelty, especially J.D.s alto. I would place as hot dance rather than jazz.

                                    Best

                                    Dave



                                    jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                     
                                    Thank you for your input, Dave! 

                                         I see what you mean.  Bop didn't have any direct relationship with the music of Duke Ellington, but he was one of the first to start using some of the complex chord progressions and theoretical traditions that were incorporated into bebop.  You are right when it comes to bop being a continuum, but the transition from swing to bop seemed much more drastic than any of the other transitions at that point. 
                                         And sure, I did mention in part that these styles of music coexisted.  I was merely pointing out trends and advancements.  I especially tried to focus more on the complexly and the advancement thereof.  As the jazz ensembles with string sections went on into the 30s, their music started to gain a little more depth in that they were playing more ballads contrary to almost exclusively hot jazz.  
                                         And Fletcher Henderson was playing the same arrangements, but the instrumentation had its differences more likely than not.  Not to mention, it is sad that the reality of segregation led to the swing era starting in the mainstream due to Goodman, whether or not Satchmo or Henderson started the Swing Era underground.  But of course there are records from the 20s and early 30s that sound much like the swing that jazz would later turn into commercially, especially records by bandleaders such as Jimmy (and Tommy) Dorsey, with songs like "Tailspin" that come to mind.  But behind the scenes, I do admit that things happened much differently than in the mainstream.  

                                    Thanks for reading, 

                                    Jacob Markus
                                    Nashville, TN 
                                    MYJO


                                         



                                  • David Brown
                                    Hi Alan Technically better. Drive would bring us back to jazz values. And I left open which was the better jazz. The 1933 Henderson, and indeed the 1932 New
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jun 18, 2014
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Alan

                                      Technically better. 'Drive' would bring us back to jazz values. And I left open which was the better jazz. The 1933 Henderson, and indeed the 1932 'New King Porter', certainly have the better R.section and more 'drive'. Both have opening solos from the neglected Bobby Stark.

                                      'Ol Man River' is 1934. It's very articulate playing but he does not manage to swing nor provide form at that speed. Rex was an original but he could tend to circus.

                                      Nothing to approach the magisterial, always architectonic playing of Berigan.

                                      'Ol Man River ' is more interesting for the clarinet and alto solos. Three sax clarinet doublers in the section but I think it's Charlie Holmes. The fine alto certainly is. Boyhood Boston buddy of Hodges and it shows.


                                      Dave


                                      alan.bond@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                       

                                      I would take you to task over the assertion that the section work in the Godman band was better than that in the Henderson organisation. It may be 'slicker' but it doesn't have the drive of the Henderson band. If you want good trumpet work listen to Rex Stewart in 'Ol Man River' by Luis Russell from 1932 - that man would have give a flautist a run for his money.
                                      TTFN - 007




                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                      To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:11
                                      Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                       
                                      Hi Jacob

                                      I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless there is a divide.

                                      The influence of Henderson on Goodman can be exaggerated. There were actually relatively few Henderson scores in the Goodman book. I count about a sixth of the discography  from 1935 - 1936. The band with which Goodman recorded 'King Porter Stomp' in 1935 is exactly the same same size and composition, excepting Goodman himself, as that used by Henderson on the same title in 1933 .

                                      Goodman played the arrangements better than Henderson in that the intonation and section work was better. It is another matter who played the better jazz but the Goodman contains one of the greatest  jazz trumpet solos of all time.

                                      Just played 'Tailspin', it's rather stiff and tends to novelty, especially J.D.s alto. I would place as hot dance rather than jazz.

                                      Best

                                      Dave



                                    • alan504450
                                      Rex Stewart not swing ! of course he does on that title and many others. The secret is to be articulate and swing at the same time - see Warren Vache and Bix.
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jun 18, 2014
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Rex Stewart not swing ! of course he does on that title and many others. The secret is to be articulate and swing at the same time - see Warren Vache and Bix. Most of the top clarinet players were that articulate and that includes Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw but does not exclude Joe Dixon, Johnny Mince, Heinie Beau and Buster Bailey. No one would dispute that Wilton Crawley could be corny in the same way as Ted Lewis but the Morton sides showed that he was taken seriously by Morton if no one else, as was Johnny Dunn.

                                                   What we need to remember is that these were all musicians making a living and few would have considered themselves to be jazz fans per se even if they were inspired by jazz to get into the business.
                                        A very dear friend who died many years ago was working for HMV in the 1930s and had many chances to be present when American musicians were recordng in Britain. Just to mention two of these, starts with his encounter with Fats Waller in 1938. The studio recording session which produced a batch of sides using British musicians, who included George Chisholm and Edmundo Ros, are a case in point. They were all professional dance band musicians who were mostly interested in making a living and the gig with Waller would have been lucrative to say the least as well as being prestigious on their musical CVs. On arrival at the the studio the chosen musicians and recording engineers were invited by Waller to come round to the back of the piano and 'meet my manager'. He had esconced a case of whisky there and proceeded to hand each musician his own bottle. Fats was more than just a jazz pianist - he was a master of stride as well as being a prolific songwriter, raconteur, theatrical director, choreographer and producer and many other things besides. His day's work was his life and he wouldn't have spent a moment analysing what he did - he just got on and did it. The least we can do is appreciate the works of him and others like him who make their music sound so fresh and relaxed. The other man whom Hugh had a huge admiration for was Johnny Hodges, whom he met in 1933 on Duke's tour of that year. Hugh had the opportunity to be at Decca in July and spoke at length to Hodges and he was astonished at the matter-of-fact attitude of the great man to playing jazz - it was simply his job, at which he was very, very good without even having to think about it. I don't bother to add labels like good jazz or better jazz - I just enjoy what I hear and give thanks that these musicians gave us so much to enjoy for as long as there are people prepared to listen.
                                        TTFN - 007

                                         
                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                        To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:03
                                        Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                         
                                        Hi Alan

                                        Technically better. 'Drive' would bring us back to jazz values. And I left open which was the better jazz. The 1933 Henderson, and indeed the 1932 'New King Porter', certainly have the better R.section and more 'drive'. Both have opening solos from the neglected Bobby Stark.

                                        'Ol Man River' is 1934. It's very articulate playing but he does not manage to swing nor provide form at that speed. Rex was an original but he could tend to circus.

                                        Nothing to approach the magisterial, always architectonic playing of Berigan.

                                        'Ol Man River ' is more interesting for the clarinet and alto solos. Three sax clarinet doublers in the section but I think it's Charlie Holmes. The fine alto certainly is. Boyhood Boston buddy of Hodges and it shows.


                                        Dave


                                        alan.bond@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                         
                                        I would take you to task over the assertion that the section work in the Godman band was better than that in the Henderson organisation. It may be 'slicker' but it doesn't have the drive of the Henderson band. If you want good trumpet work listen to Rex Stewart in 'Ol Man River' by Luis Russell from 1932 - that man would have give a flautist a run for his money.
                                        TTFN - 007



                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                        To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:11
                                        Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                         
                                        Hi Jacob

                                        I do not stretch the definition of jazz wide enough to include the sweet bands. There is no line in the sand between jazz and popular but nevertheless there is a divide.

                                        The influence of Henderson on Goodman can be exaggerated. There were actually relatively few Henderson scores in the Goodman book. I count about a sixth of the discography  from 1935 - 1936. The band with which Goodman recorded 'King Porter Stomp' in 1935 is exactly the same same size and composition, excepting Goodman himself, as that used by Henderson on the same title in 1933 .

                                        Goodman played the arrangements better than Henderson in that the intonation and section work was better. It is another matter who played the better jazz but the Goodman contains one of the greatest  jazz trumpet solos of all time.

                                        Just played 'Tailspin', it's rather stiff and tends to novelty, especially J.D.s alto. I would place as hot dance rather than jazz.

                                        Best

                                        Dave



                                          
                                      • David Brown
                                        Hi Alan Well, I guess swing is in the feets of the beholder. And I twitch mine to Bach too. No doubt Rex did mostly swing but speed can be a hindrance.
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jun 19, 2014
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi Alan

                                          Well, I guess swing is in the feets of the beholder. And I twitch mine to Bach too. No doubt Rex did mostly swing but speed can be a hindrance. Racehorse tempos are never good for swing.

                                          Big question. Did Bix swing ?

                                          Your account of the sessions is very interesting, thanks. Yours is a very good  philosophy for enjoying the music.

                                          Hodges was notorious for his seeming journeyman pragmatism. Some reports suggest that this belied his shy and sensitive soul. Hard to believe when you hear him that he did not have the sensitive soul of an artist.

                                          Dave


                                          alan.bond@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                           

                                          Rex Stewart not swing ! of course he does on that title and many others. The secret is to be articulate and swing at the same time - see Warren Vache and Bix. Most of the top clarinet players were that articulate and that includes Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw but does not exclude Joe Dixon, Johnny Mince, Heinie Beau and Buster Bailey. No one would dispute that Wilton Crawley could be corny in the same way as Ted Lewis but the Morton sides showed that he was taken seriously by Morton if no one else, as was Johnny Dunn.

                                                     What we need to remember is that these were all musicians making a living and few would have considered themselves to be jazz fans per se even if they were inspired by jazz to get into the business.
                                          A very dear friend who died many years ago was working for HMV in the 1930s and had many chances to be present when American musicians were recordng in Britain. Just to mention two of these, starts with his encounter with Fats Waller in 1938. The studio recording session which produced a batch of sides using British musicians, who included George Chisholm and Edmundo Ros, are a case in point. They were all professional dance band musicians who were mostly interested in making a living and the gig with Waller would have been lucrative to say the least as well as being prestigious on their musical CVs. On arrival at the the studio the chosen musicians and recording engineers were invited by Waller to come round to the back of the piano and 'meet my manager'. He had esconced a case of whisky there and proceeded to hand each musician his own bottle. Fats was more than just a jazz pianist - he was a master of stride as well as being a prolific songwriter, raconteur, theatrical director, choreographer and producer and many other things besides. His day's work was his life and he wouldn't have spent a moment analysing what he did - he just got on and did it. The least we can do is appreciate the works of him and others like him who make their music sound so fresh and relaxed. The other man whom Hugh had a huge admiration for was Johnny Hodges, whom he met in 1933 on Duke's tour of that year. Hugh had the opportunity to be at Decca in July and spoke at length to Hodges and he was astonished at the matter-of-fact attitude of the great man to playing jazz - it was simply his job, at which he was very, very good without even having to think about it. I don't bother to add labels like good jazz or better jazz - I just enjoy what I hear and give thanks that these musicians gave us so much to enjoy for as long as there are people prepared to listen.
                                          TTFN - 007


                                           


                                        • alan504450
                                          Two more names to conjur with - Clifford Brown and John Pugh. Both very erudite musicians who knew all about triple tongueing and the execution of fast
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Jun 19, 2014
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Two more names to conjur with - Clifford Brown and John Pugh. Both very erudite musicians who knew all about triple tongueing and the execution of fast passages. Right at the other end of the jazz spectrum I grant you, but 
                                            swinging nevertheless.
                                            TTFN - 007


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                            To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 8:43
                                            Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                             
                                            Hi Alan

                                            Well, I guess swing is in the feets of the beholder. And I twitch mine to Bach too. No doubt Rex did mostly swing but speed can be a hindrance. Racehorse tempos are never good for swing.

                                            Big question. Did Bix swing ?

                                            Your account of the sessions is very interesting, thanks. Yours is a very good  philosophy for enjoying the music.

                                            Hodges was notorious for his seeming journeyman pragmatism. Some reports suggest that this belied his shy and sensitive soul. Hard to believe when you hear him that he did not have the sensitive soul of an artist.

                                            Dave


                                            alan.bond@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                             
                                            Rex Stewart not swing ! of course he does on that title and many others. The secret is to be articulate and swing at the same time - see Warren Vache and Bix. Most of the top clarinet players were that articulate and that includes Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw but does not exclude Joe Dixon, Johnny Mince, Heinie Beau and Buster Bailey. No one would dispute that Wilton Crawley could be corny in the same way as Ted Lewis but the Morton sides showed that he was taken seriously by Morton if no one else, as was Johnny Dunn.

                                                       What we need to remember is that these were all musicians making a living and few would have considered themselves to be jazz fans per se even if they were inspired by jazz to get into the business.
                                            A very dear friend who died many years ago was working for HMV in the 1930s and had many chances to be present when American musicians were recordng in Britain. Just to mention two of these, starts with his encounter with Fats Waller in 1938. The studio recording session which produced a batch of sides using British musicians, who included George Chisholm and Edmundo Ros, are a case in point. They were all professional dance band musicians who were mostly interested in making a living and the gig with Waller would have been lucrative to say the least as well as being prestigious on their musical CVs. On arrival at the the studio the chosen musicians and recording engineers were invited by Waller to come round to the back of the piano and 'meet my manager'. He had esconced a case of whisky there and proceeded to hand each musician his own bottle. Fats was more than just a jazz pianist - he was a master of stride as well as being a prolific songwriter, raconteur, theatrical director, choreographer and producer and many other things besides. His day's work was his life and he wouldn't have spent a moment analysing what he did - he just got on and did it. The least we can do is appreciate the works of him and others like him who make their music sound so fresh and relaxed. The other man whom Hugh had a huge admiration for was Johnny Hodges, whom he met in 1933 on Duke's tour of that year. Hugh had the opportunity to be at Decca in July and spoke at length to Hodges and he was astonished at the matter-of-fact attitude of the great man to playing jazz - it was simply his job, at which he was very, very good without even having to think about it. I don't bother to add labels like good jazz or better jazz - I just enjoy what I hear and give thanks that these musicians gave us so much to enjoy for as long as there are people prepared to listen.
                                            TTFN - 007

                                             


                                          • Andrew Taylor
                                            Hi Dave, I d say definitely, played around the rhythm. Here he is with Tram in 1927 on Singin the Blues. He juxtaposes straight/square with swinging,
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Jun 19, 2014
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi Dave,
                                              I'd say definitely, played around the rhythm.  Here he is with Tram in 1927 on Singin' the Blues.  He juxtaposes straight/square with swinging, actually adds to the dynamics.
                                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uo11LQGu3X8#t=63
                                              Might want to check this out, thoug Phil Schaap isn't everyone's cup of tea.  Six hours! - Andrew
                                              Duration: 6:34:36

                                              We at WKCR realize that Ornette Coleman and Bix Beiderbecke, in at least a broad sense, represent the same thing--genius. And so we celebrate both birthdays in conjunction, with the knowledge that there are listeners who have trouble listening to either artist, and listeners that delight in both. For those who are tentative in their approach to Bix Beiderbecke's music, he is best contextualized as the cornetist who provided jazz content to Paul Whiteman's pop songs, and in so doing made possible Whiteman's unique orchestral approach to creating an American identity through art. Phil discusses the social, cultural, historical, and musical importance of Bix's music during this epic 6.5 hour broadcast.



                                              On 6/19/2014 2:43 AM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                               

                                              Hi Alan

                                              Well, I guess swing is in the feets of the beholder. And I twitch mine to Bach too. No doubt Rex did mostly swing but speed can be a hindrance. Racehorse tempos are never good for swing.

                                              Big question. Did Bix swing ?

                                              Your account of the sessions is very interesting, thanks. Yours is a very good  philosophy for enjoying the music.

                                              Hodges was notorious for his seeming journeyman pragmatism. Some reports suggest that this belied his shy and sensitive soul. Hard to believe when you hear him that he did not have the sensitive soul of an artist.

                                              Dave


                                              alan.bond@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                               

                                              Rex Stewart not swing ! of course he does on that title and many others. The secret is to be articulate and swing at the same time - see Warren Vache and Bix. Most of the top clarinet players were that articulate and that includes Benny Goodman and Artie Shaw but does not exclude Joe Dixon, Johnny Mince, Heinie Beau and Buster Bailey. No one would dispute that Wilton Crawley could be corny in the same way as Ted Lewis but the Morton sides showed that he was taken seriously by Morton if no one else, as was Johnny Dunn.

                                                         What we need to remember is that these were all musicians making a living and few would have considered themselves to be jazz fans per se even if they were inspired by jazz to get into the business.
                                              A very dear friend who died many years ago was working for HMV in the 1930s and had many chances to be present when American musicians were recordng in Britain. Just to mention two of these, starts with his encounter with Fats Waller in 1938. The studio recording session which produced a batch of sides using British musicians, who included George Chisholm and Edmundo Ros, are a case in point. They were all professional dance band musicians who were mostly interested in making a living and the gig with Waller would have been lucrative to say the least as well as being prestigious on their musical CVs. On arrival at the the studio the chosen musicians and recording engineers were invited by Waller to come round to the back of the piano and 'meet my manager'. He had esconced a case of whisky there and proceeded to hand each musician his own bottle. Fats was more than just a jazz pianist - he was a master of stride as well as being a prolific songwriter, raconteur, theatrical director, choreographer and producer and many other things besides. His day's work was his life and he wouldn't have spent a moment analysing what he did - he just got on and did it. The least we can do is appreciate the works of him and others like him who make their music sound so fresh and relaxed. The other man whom Hugh had a huge admiration for was Johnny Hodges, whom he met in 1933 on Duke's tour of that year. Hugh had the opportunity to be at Decca in July and spoke at length to Hodges and he was astonished at the matter-of-fact attitude of the great man to playing jazz - it was simply his job, at which he was very, very good without even having to think about it. I don't bother to add labels like good jazz or better jazz - I just enjoy what I hear and give thanks that these musicians gave us so much to enjoy for as long as there are people prepared to listen.
                                              TTFN - 007


                                               




                                              -- 
                                              Andrew Taylor, MLS
                                              Associate Curator, Visual Resources
                                              Department of Art History, Rice University
                                              713-348-4836
                                              https://twitter.com/agrahamt
                                          • PETER GERLER
                                            Wow--a Jacob in Nashville! Who knew? Anyway, they may know what it is, but they may think it started in the swing era. I ve got a friend in his 80s, a jazz
                                            Message 22 of 23 , Jun 19, 2014
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Wow--a "Jacob" in Nashville! Who knew? Anyway, they may know what it is, but they may think it started in the "swing era." I've got a friend in his 80s, a jazz fan, who apparently thinks "jazz" and "swing" are two entirely different things! (In a way, they are: I've heard swing from bluegrass groups, Balkan dance bands--you name it.)

                                              PG
                                              On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:41 PM, jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                               

                                              Peter, 

                                              Anyone familiar with the swing era without knowing what swing actually is surprises me, personally!  Of course swing has been around before the turn of the century, but the era in the mid-30s to early 40s is just a name.  I have actually heard people from that time who still call it "swing."  It's merely a name to differentiate it from the styles of popular music before.  When I mention the Renaissance, I can imagine the era with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, but the term "renaissance" can indicate revival of any past idea or tradition.  The Romantic Era in classical music was a renaissance in music in that it brought with it a renewed interest in Roman mythology and literature.  Although, I might have been preaching to a choir.  

                                              Thanks for reading, 

                                              Jacob Markus 
                                              Nashville, TN
                                              MYJO



                                              On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:23 PM, "PETER GERLER pgerler@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                               

                                              One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 


                                              To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                                              PG
                                              On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                               

                                              Hi Jacob

                                              Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                                              The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                                              Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                                              You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                                              But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                                              Dave





                                              jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                               
                                              "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                                              Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                                              There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                                              Thanks for reading, 

                                              Jacob Markus
                                              Nashville, TN
                                              MYJO  

                                              P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  







                                            • alan504450
                                              Light Crust Doughboys - Bob Wills Texas Playboys - The list is endless. . So much great music it would fill a hundred lifetimes. TTFN - 007 ... From: PETER
                                              Message 23 of 23 , Jun 19, 2014
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Light Crust Doughboys - Bob Wills' Texas Playboys - The list is endless. . So much great music it would fill a hundred lifetimes.
                                                TTFN - 007


                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: PETER GERLER pgerler@... [RedHotJazz] <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
                                                To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:05
                                                Subject: Re: R: Re: [RedHotJazz] What a shame to be so lo-tech

                                                 
                                                Wow--a "Jacob" in Nashville! Who knew? Anyway, they may know what it is, but they may think it started in the "swing era." I've got a friend in his 80s, a jazz fan, who apparently thinks "jazz" and "swing" are two entirely different things! (In a way, they are: I've heard swing from bluegrass groups, Balkan dance bands--you name it.)

                                                PG
                                                On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:41 PM, jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                                 

                                                Peter, 

                                                Anyone familiar with the swing era without knowing what swing actually is surprises me, personally!  Of course swing has been around before the turn of the century, but the era in the mid-30s to early 40s is just a name.  I have actually heard people from that time who still call it "swing."  It's merely a name to differentiate it from the styles of popular music before.  When I mention the Renaissance, I can imagine the era with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, but the term "renaissance" can indicate revival of any past idea or tradition.  The Romantic Era in classical music was a renaissance in music in that it brought with it a renewed interest in Roman mythology and literature.  Although, I might have been preaching to a choir.  

                                                Thanks for reading, 

                                                Jacob Markus 
                                                Nashville, TN
                                                MYJO



                                                On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:23 PM, "PETER GERLER pgerler@... [RedHotJazz]" <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                                 
                                                One other thing about the "swing era"--(I just gotta chime in here, even though I'm likely preaching to the choir.) Whenever I use the word "swing" with people, they say, "Oh, you mean the swing era, and big bands." Even musicians I know have no idea that "swing" in jazz is an action, not a style. Before it is a noun or adjective, it is a verb. Some American music was swinging even before 1900. 

                                                To my mind, this heartbeat of American music, coming as it did from work song, brass bands, and the sanctified church, is the "active ingredient" in all jazz styles--the river than runs through.

                                                PG
                                                On Jun 17, 2014, at 1:33 PM, David Brown johnhaleysims@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:

                                                 
                                                Hi Jacob

                                                Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Paras would make you easier to read.

                                                The history of jazz is that of a multi-cultural continuum. Periods and styles overlap. 'Hot' and 'Sweet' -- or rather pseudo jazz influenced dance music -- coexisted throughout 20s-40s. There was also the genre of 'Hot Dance' which straddled these two.

                                                Henderson was playing his own arrangements before he sold them to Goodman. Was this not swing ? It could be argued that the swing era began with Louis.

                                                You are right about the importance of dance. Jazz was a functional music and when it forsook this function it lost most of its audience. It did this with the advent of bop although bop was also part of the continuum and a natural extension of late swing style, however, nothing specifically to do with Ellington.

                                                But you're reinventing the wheel. Why not consult the ideological baggage of jazz history and criticism ?

                                                Dave





                                                jacobmarkus@... [RedHotJazz] wrote:
                                                 
                                                "P.S. I forgot to say that I fully agree with your statement about jazz music and dance music (of the 20's, 30's and 40's). The border between those kind of music is not clearly definable."
                                                Before I type this, I want to encourage anyone to write back why they disagree with me if anyone does. 

                                                There is a pretty definable border between the jazz of those three decades, most notably distinguished as four periods: the Dixieland (or "Hot" Jazz) Era, which actually started in early 1917 with the Original Dixieland Jass Band (I do not neglect bands before them, but they paved the way for the era as they released the first jazz record); the next would be the Symphonic (or "Sweet") Jazz Era, which caught on in 1929 with the Great Depression.  I say that orchestra jazz became trendy in the late twenties instead of the early twenties is because although there were still many jazz orchestras that included a string section, such as Paul Whiteman's orchestra, bands started to sound different than their 20s counterparts in that more ballads were being played and the music started to sound more complex harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically.  A great example could the change Isham Jones made to his style of composing and arranging from the early twenties to the thirties.  A good comparison could be made between a song like "I'll See You In My Dreams" that has depth, but is relatively simple, melodically, harmonically, and rhythmically.  A great example of change can be heard in Jones's song with the Three X Sisters in October, 1932, "What Would Happen To Me If Something Happened To You" (which was intentionally avant-garde).  Although there were still faster numbers meant for dancing that the bands played, such as "Jig Time," but they tunes were usually prettier and slower in nature.  Another good example of the music of this period is that of Richard Himber.  The last era would be the Swing Jazz Era, which started between July and August of 1935 with Benny Goodman and his orchestra.  The music from this time has a lot in common with the Dixieland era in that many of the most famous songs were dance numbers.  It even debatably started partly because of Fletcher Henderson, since he was the arranger for Goodman's band, which pretty much started the Swing Era.  What makes this era different from both, though, is that music from this era was pretty complicated; the arrangements were much more complicated and "modern" in sound, as was the improvisation.  Also, the instrumentation was more simple and smaller than the sweet jazz of the late 20s and early 30s, but larger than the dixieland bands of the period before that.  Also, they added the string bass permanently and ditched the tuba.  There are other differences in instrumentation that make this longer than it already is, plus you are probably aware of them anyway.  An example of the complexity could be just about anything by Duke Ellington.  His revolutionary ideas help lead to harmonies that can be heard in the next era: the Bebop Era.  Started in 1944 with Charlie Parker's "Ko-Ko," which was really a variation (or reharmonization) of a much earlier song, "Cherokee."  This style is much different from all other aforementioned styles in that they music was much faster than even the fastest hot numbers of the 20s, 30s, and early 40s.    Also, bebop was built on improvisation more than anything, which was a different practice as well.  Another difference in this style were the harmonies and melodies.  Major and minor 7 chords started replacing minor and major 6 chords, as an example if the difference in theoretical terms.  There are other differences concerning this era, such as size and the fact that this kinda jazz stopped the idea that it is solely for dancing, but the idea has been conveyed well enough I think.  Once again, to those reading this who disagree, I encourage you to state why.

                                                Thanks for reading, 

                                                Jacob Markus
                                                Nashville, TN
                                                MYJO  

                                                P.S. I didn't look back over this thoroughly, so I excuse and errors in grammar, or whathaveya.  








                                              • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.