Patrice, I'm talking about the way Jazz was advancing downward over
the years. It started as something very actual. What I meant is that
many Jazz fans prefer to go back in time in order to hear Jelly Roll
Morton and Louis Armstrong in their peak rather than listen to
today's Jazz. There was a process that I'm talking about that made
Jazz not appealing as it used to be. In the process Jazz became what
it is today, it goes nowhere. And the thing that worries is that
someone tries to market the 1960's Jazz more than it's worth. There
are Rock fans that prey on Coltrane but they don't know that there's
a real Jazz to consume. I think big labels that started well like
Blue Note were later going into a whale suicide affect on Jazz that
lives us with not much future. And it started when they grabbed un-
naturaly the Jazz leading from the hands of African-American audience
and went into directions of Classical music ideas that were decided
by expert critics in order to expand their sales to broader crowds
and to open the gates to musicians that were playing outer to Jazz
music that seems "advanced", "energetic" and etc. I'm not saying it's
a good or no good music, just that it's not the way Jazz would evolve
naturally.
Tommersl

--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "Patrice Champarou"
<patrice.champarou@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tommersl"
>
> > Everybody knows Jazz wasn't as good as the early days.
>
> Sorry, Tommer, I am probably not part of the "everybody" you're
mentioning.
>
> I think it is always interesting to discuss the peculiarities or
early jazz,
> which were the reasons for me to create this group, compared to
post-war and
> contemporary music; but I guess you will have a hard time
convincing
> everybody that jazz ever died. Even if you do think so (which has
nothing to
> do with each and everyone's appreciation of the musical quality)
there must
> be a better starting point than just stating this as if everybody
here was
> stuck in the past ;-)
>
> Patrice
>

I am firmly with Patrice on this. Of course classic jazz has not died. Variants
calling themselves 'mainstream' or 'modern' may have died, or may not, I am not
really interested in those. I am also not interested in trad, although, to be
fair, that is how I discovered classic jazz.

Last weekend I was was playing with George Huxley who likes to model his soprano
sax playing on Bechet and his clarinet work on Dodds. He is very popular,
especially in the Midlands, and it is great for me to play classic jazz. It is a
performance art. As long as there are people who want to perform it, it will
never 'die', in the same way that Mozart's work will never 'die' while there are
publishers willing to publish it.#

Hugh


----- Original Message ----
From: tommersl <tommersl@...>
To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 16 March, 2007 11:36:23 PM
Subject: [RedHotJazz] Re: When did Jazz die?

Patrice, I'm talking about the way Jazz was advancing downward over
the years. It started as something very actual. What I meant is that
many Jazz fans prefer to go back in time in order to hear Jelly Roll
Morton and Louis Armstrong in their peak rather than listen to
today's Jazz. There was a process that I'm talking about that made
Jazz not appealing as it used to be. In the process Jazz became what
it is today, it goes nowhere. And the thing that worries is that
someone tries to market the 1960's Jazz more than it's worth. There
are Rock fans that prey on Coltrane but they don't know that there's
a real Jazz to consume. I think big labels that started well like
Blue Note were later going into a whale suicide affect on Jazz that
lives us with not much future. And it started when they grabbed un-
naturaly the Jazz leading from the hands of African-American audience
and went into directions of Classical music ideas that were decided
by expert critics in order to expand their sales to broader crowds
and to open the gates to musicians that were playing outer to Jazz
music that seems "advanced", "energetic" and etc. I'm not saying it's
a good or no good music, just that it's not the way Jazz would evolve
naturally.
Tommersl

--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogro ups.com, "Patrice Champarou"
<patrice.champarou@ ...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tommersl"
>
> > Everybody knows Jazz wasn't as good as the early days.
>
> Sorry, Tommer, I am probably not part of the "everybody" you're
mentioning.
>
> I think it is always interesting to discuss the peculiarities or
early jazz,
> which were the reasons for me to create this group, compared to
post-war and
> contemporary music; but I guess you will have a hard time
convincing
> everybody that jazz ever died. Even if you do think so (which has
nothing to
> do with each and everyone's appreciation of the musical quality)
there must
> be a better starting point than just stating this as if everybody
here was
> stuck in the past ;-)
>
> Patrice
>






___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of unwanted email come-ons? Let our SpamGuard
protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought this local event was a promising step in the preservation of
the sounds of Glenn Miller, and to bring these sounds back to life for
a new generation.

-Paul

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070316/news_lz1mi16miller.html

Glenn Miller exhibit swings its way into museum

By Linda McIntosh
TODAY'S LOCAL NEWS

March 16, 2007

Glenn Miller led his bands only from 1937 to 1944, but the sound he
created lives on today.

A tribute to the man and his band, known for swing hits, such as
"Moonlight Serenade" and "Chattanooga Choo Choo," is at the Museum of
Making Music through May 7.

Miller's daughter, Jonnie, and son, Steve, are slated to be at the
museum with veteran trombonist Paul Tanner tomorrow for a multimedia
presentation, "Glenn Miller: A Celebration of his Big Band Sound."

"It'll give people an idea of what Glenn Miller was able to do in the
music business," Steve Miller said from his Las Vegas home.

"The exhibit tells the story of Glenn Miller and the era of swing
music," said Tatiana Sizonenko, curator.

---

What: Glenn Miller: A Celebration of his Big Band Sound

When: Music and discussion 4 p.m. Saturday; exhibit through May 7;
museum hours 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday

Where: Museum of Making Music, 5790 Armada Drive, Carlsbad

Cost: Museum admission $5; seniors and students $3

Information: (760) 438-5996

---

The museum's historian, Dan Del Fiorentino, will lead the historical
presentation.

"It was Miller's idea to have the clarinetist up front with the
saxophone, which made a big difference in the sound," Del Fiorentino said.

Del Fiorentino's presentation will feature band footage and recorded
interviews with several former band members, including Tex Beneke,
Billy May and Frankie Carle.

Del Fiorentino will share stories he collected while interviewing
members of the orchestra as a radio announcer in San Francisco for 15
years.

He recalled the time he talked to Ray Anthony, a former trumpeter in
the orchestra.

"He told me he was the only person fired four times from the band,"
Del Fiorentino said.

One of his favorite stories is about Miller's plans to start a series
of music stores with Vito Pascucci, who repaired instruments for the
band during the war. Miller's death in 1944 prevented those plans from
materializing.

The exhibit will feature original photographs, posters and memorabilia
loaned to the museum by the Glenn Miller family, including the gold
record presented to Miller by RCA in February 1941 for 1,200,000 sales
of "Chattanooga Choo Choo." It was the first gold record presented to
a recording artist.

Among the several dozen items on display are a Tiffany & Co. silver
cigarette box with engraved signatures of Glenn Miller Orchestra
members given by them as a gift to him, his dog tag from the Army Air
Forces, a V-mail letter - which stands for Victory mail and involved
microfilming letters to save cargo space - from Miller to his wife,
Helen, and a pocket Bible given to Miller by his mother.

There are music trophies, sheet music and a scrapbook with August 1939
articles collected by photographer, Sol Mednick.

"Glenn Miller left a massive legacy and we want to keep it alive," Del
Fiorentino said.

  Linda McIntosh: (760) 752-6756;linda.mcintosh@...

(c) Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site

Heyyyy    very good question....being a piano player...ive asked this question
since the 70s.  When was OUR music gonna run out?!     Back then i enjoyed
playing And talking to those people that actually heard And lived that
music...they would have 5 or 6 drinks and sing.... but as time went along    
there were fewer and fewer.... until the 90s when they would even bring their
own popcorn and drink water.....<bar owners dont make much on that>    lol   
you would have to be 100+years old now to know this music now  and im sure
theyre not big drinkers.  There are a lot of good festivals and musicians out
there still    but im afraid just like the jigs and reels of the civil war days
in the years to come   theres not gonna be a big calling or remembering of this
music that We love.

Patrice Champarou <patrice.champarou@...> wrote:          ----- Original
Message -----
From: "tommersl"

> Everybody knows Jazz wasn't as good as the early days.

Sorry, Tommer, I am probably not part of the "everybody" you're mentioning.

I think it is always interesting to discuss the peculiarities or early jazz,
which were the reasons for me to create this group, compared to post-war and
contemporary music; but I guess you will have a hard time convincing
everybody that jazz ever died. Even if you do think so (which has nothing to
do with each and everyone's appreciation of the musical quality) there must
be a better starting point than just stating this as if everybody here was
stuck in the past ;-)

Patrice






---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings.

   I'm a new member to this site.  I joined two days ago.  I've always been a
jazz fan; mostly Big Band, Swing, Dixieland, and the "Hot" jazz of the 20's &
30's.  While I can tolerate some of Charlie Parker's stuff, and enjoy Dave
Brubeck, Buddy Rich and George Benson here and there, I say, "Give me the JASS
that was meant to be, from the 1890's to the early 1940's", and skip Bebop,
(con)Fusion and most of the "newer" stuff!

   My wife and I just watched the entire 9-tape Ken Burns "Jazz" video
series.....twice in the past two months.  She has come to appreciate jazz
music--and the early, great stuff--ten times as much as she used to!

   I've been doing a research piece on jazz musicians and influential people, as
a follow-up to the tapes, and am enjoying learning quite a bit about the whole
thing.  I found the site as a cross-reference from the "Red Hot Jazz"
information site.

   I hope I'll have as much fun getting into lively discussion with other members
here, on occasion.

   Rick



Hugh Crozier <jellyrollstomp@...> wrote:
   I am firmly with Patrice on this. Of course classic jazz has not died.
Variants calling themselves 'mainstream' or 'modern' may have died, or may not,
I am not really interested in those. I am also not interested in trad, although,
to be fair, that is how I discovered classic jazz.

Last weekend I was was playing with George Huxley who likes to model his soprano
sax playing on Bechet and his clarinet work on Dodds. He is very popular,
especially in the Midlands, and it is great for me to play classic jazz. It is a
performance art. As long as there are people who want to perform it, it will
never 'die', in the same way that Mozart's work will never 'die' while there are
publishers willing to publish it.#

Hugh

---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
  with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am afraid I still do not understand the question (or did it contain the
reply already?)

I suppose everyone is free to fix their own limits to what they consider as
real jazz, and I guess there will be as many different replies as members on
this list. Some will even consider there is no real difference between
Lester Young and Archie Shepp, others will declare that jazz started dying
in the 30's  (wasn't Morton's piece called "Dirty, Dirty, Dirty" a parody of
swing?) but I doubt this can lead us anywhere.

This is no place for me to explain why I consider John Coltrane's Alabama as
a masterpiece or why Thelonious Monk is the one I would take to the desert
island. I reject the idea of "downgrading" just as much as the concept of
"progress" applied to music, and if the original question concerned the
evolution of styles, I doubt that marketing purposes or the introduction of
long-playing recording by Blue Note played a greater part than what the
musicians wished to play and what the audience expected to hear.
Everyone is free to hate Gillespie or Bud Powell, but considering that their
music is no longer jazz is another thing, which cannot rely on shortcuts. I
remember some literature around Panassié's "battle" which introduced an
artificial play on the word "bop", so as to explain that Gene Vincent and
Charlie Parker played exactly the same "modern thing"! Here I cannot help
protesting that I never met a Rock fan who payed any attention to post-war
jazz, which they consider as too intellectual - and talking about "gods", I
wonder if we can still find anything as superlative as what my or your
parents said about Armstrong or Bix, at least in the jazz field (the only
"God" being, as everyone knows, Eric Clapton! ;-)))
If the complaint is about so little space being devoted to pre-war music in
record shops while Miles Davis or Keith Jarrett are oll over the place, I
can join, but have things ever been better? There have never been so many -
and so affordable - reissues than today, you can always state that they are
too confidential but I prefer seeing the place flooded with Blue Note
reissues than seeing Sinatra, the Four Tops, Presley or ZZ Top filed under
"jazz"!
And as far as more and more jazz lovers turning to musicians of the past,
why complain? It is no-one's fault if there haven't been any Mortons or J.S.
Bachs for a while, it is just the way music changes - and you won't force
the African-American audience to support styles that were clearly related to
segregation, prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible
unequality - this is purely intellectual nostalgia which only  wealthy
intellectual whites can afford, just like regretting the good old times of
hard work from sun to sun on the Mississippi Delta plantations which
produced such fascinating blues!

Patrice

part of the problem is the perception of "old time jazz" as not being 'real'
jazz.  I was told by a board member of a local jazz support group that they
"only support real jazz", meaning I don't know what.

That jazz--the bop, cool, fusion, whatever--might not be dead, but it only
has a small life support system, which is really only the players.  IMO,
they are styles for the informed, not the casual listener.  And, while I
don't claim to be the most talented ear-wise, I have a fairly advanced
ability to hear in the jazz sense.  But, I still don't get it.

steve

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01

One might as well ask "When did Ragtime die ?, or When did Strauss waltzes die?
or when did the Bible or the Koran become irrelevant and extinct? jazz like
emotion lies in the bones and soul of the musician and the listener.


-----Original Message-----
From: eupher61@...
To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] When did Jazz die?


part of the problem is the perception of "old time jazz" as not being 'real'
jazz.  I was told by a board member of a local jazz support group that they
"only support real jazz", meaning I don't know what.

That jazz--the bop, cool, fusion, whatever--might not be dead, but it only
has a small life support system, which is really only the players.  IMO,
they are styles for the informed, not the casual listener.  And, while I
don't claim to be the most talented ear-wise, I have a fairly advanced
ability to hear in the jazz sense.  But, I still don't get it.

steve

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01





Yahoo! Groups Links



________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

I'm a new member and first time poster.

I'm a professional clarinetist (both jazz and classical) in the
Washington, D.C. area.

As for this topic, I think the original poster was trying to be
provocative.  In truth, as long as there are performers and listeners
of jazz, it is not dead.  One can like or dislike a sub-genre of
jazz, but I think it is unfair to denounce any of it, even if this
forum is for pre-war jazz or if you don't like it.  The fact is that
all great performers of all sub-genres of jazz do what they do very
well.  Even though I don't necessarily like the "new" jazz, I can
appreciate what performers do in that sub-genre.  For my playing, I'm
definitely influenced by all forms of jazz that I've listened to, but
I've found my niche in what I call "old" jazz.  I prefer to recreate
the notes of the past from the 1920s on through Artie Shaw (my
idol).  That being said, I'm sure that some more modern harmonies
creep into my playing, just because I've listened to more modern
players.  My sound is definitely not like the old players, but more
modern.  Please feel free to contact me personally, if you are
interested in going to any of my concerts in the D.C. area!

Ben Redwine
www.redwinejazz.com
--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "eupher dude" <eupher61@...> wrote:
>
> part of the problem is the perception of "old time jazz" as not
being 'real'
> jazz.  I was told by a board member of a local jazz support group
that they
> "only support real jazz", meaning I don't know what.
>
> That jazz--the bop, cool, fusion, whatever--might not be dead, but
it only
> has a small life support system, which is really only the players.
IMO,
> they are styles for the informed, not the casual listener.  And,
while I
> don't claim to be the most talented ear-wise, I have a fairly
advanced
> ability to hear in the jazz sense.  But, I still don't get it.
>
> steve
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right
when you
> need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01
>

I am thousands of light years away from the knowledge of most of you
frequent posters in this list, but I can't resist give my layman insights on
this.

By reading Ted Gioia's "History of jazz" 6-7 years ago I was able to
understand why some artists and some records where key in the history of
jazz. It was my perception that from early days jazz headed to a dead end
with free jazz (which I don't understand, musically speaking). So, since
then, it's probably been mostly about revivals, recreations, etc. of the
different styles, but not true innovations as they happened in the 20's and
30's. Maybe it's so simple as that eveything -or almost everything- has been
invented in this idiom and that the pioneers will always be admired and
recognized, as it happens in every aspect of life.

I don't know if I went too off-topic, but this is my perception.

Cheers,

Lluis Sala
Girona, Spain
http://lsala66.spaces.live.com/

Hello Ben

Many thanks for your post, I think most of the "old-time" (and still young)
players I know would have said about the same thing. I also guess the
"original poster" meant to ask a real question, anyway I am also grateful to
Tommer for encouraging so many previously silent members to post in no time
;-)
Jazz is such a wide field that I suppose no-one can claim to be equally fond
of each style or each period, but the really important thing is that the
audience can still find what they like, even if some think that such or such
type of playing or repertoire is "outdated" or, on the contrary, too far
away from the "roots".  There has been (and still is) an unexpected and
outstanding rebirth of Django-like "Gypsy Swing" in France for the past ten
years (or something), and as far as I can remember this type of jazz never
lost the audience's support. You can hear a good deal of old-time bands in
Paris (le Petit Journal welcomes several bands supported by the HCF) and
many small festivals are devoted to traditional jazz. Boogie-Woogie pianist
Jean-Paul Amouroux once told me that his greatest satisfaction was to hear
people say something like "I don't like jazz, but I love what you do". Who
cares, as long as the music is alive?

I suppose it would be interesting, but somewhat off-topic, to wonder if the
birth of the "New Thing" really resulted into a dead end. I cannot help
linking this perspective to the predictions which accompanied free jazz...
Abert Ayler never killed Jazz, and Archie Shepp ended up learning harmony;
musicians remain musicians, even if they happen to get involved in funny
experimentation at definite periods of time. And if one accepts to ignore
the critics' verbiage (I think "waffle" is not clearly understood across the
pond;-), see and hear what is actually played rather than crying over the
most fashionable "tendencies", or the pompous declarations of some
disappointed, pessimistic avant-garde musicians regarding the death of
syncopated and harmonically structured music, there are good reasons to
think that jazz is here to stay.
Maybe with no new revolution before years, only clumsy (and IMO nasty)
attemps to dissove it into various mixtures...  but I do not think we will
ever reach the point where all types of living music boil down to a uniform
magma, that would mean there is nothing left to mix! ;-)

Patrice


----- Original Message -----
From: "redw1ne" <clarinet@...>
To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:58 PM
Subject: [RedHotJazz] Re: When did Jazz die?


Hello,

I'm a new member and first time poster.

I'm a professional clarinetist (both jazz and classical) in the
Washington, D.C. area.

As for this topic, I think the original poster was trying to be
provocative.  In truth, as long as there are performers and listeners
of jazz, it is not dead.  One can like or dislike a sub-genre of
jazz, but I think it is unfair to denounce any of it, even if this
forum is for pre-war jazz or if you don't like it.  The fact is that
all great performers of all sub-genres of jazz do what they do very
well.  Even though I don't necessarily like the "new" jazz, I can
appreciate what performers do in that sub-genre.  For my playing, I'm
definitely influenced by all forms of jazz that I've listened to, but
I've found my niche in what I call "old" jazz.  I prefer to recreate
the notes of the past from the 1920s on through Artie Shaw (my
idol).  That being said, I'm sure that some more modern harmonies
creep into my playing, just because I've listened to more modern
players.  My sound is definitely not like the old players, but more
modern.  Please feel free to contact me personally, if you are
interested in going to any of my concerts in the D.C. area!

Ben Redwine

Does anybody have a copy of the soundie "A Regular Trouper"?

There is a scene with an exceptional Eddie that plays with Ruth Etting
on a train.

Nino

on 17/3/07 17:16, Nino Frasio at ofellows@... wrote:

Does anybody have a copy of the soundie "A Regular Trouper"?

There is a scene with an exceptional Eddie that plays with Ruth Etting
on a train.

This cannot be a Soundie because they were not made until the 1940s, long
after Eddie's death.

It appears to be a Vitaphone short subject directed by Roy Mack and released
in March 1932 (#1378/9, so a two-reeler).


Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
howard@...
Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-Patrice, you wrote:
"... you won't force the African-American audience to support styles that were
clearly
related to
segregation, prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible
unequality - this is purely intellectual nostalgia which only wealthy
intellectual whites can afford, just like regretting the good old times of
hard work from sun to sun on the Mississippi Delta plantations which
produced such fascinating blues!"

I'm never sure what people mean when they link the jazz of the past with
"segregation,
prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible unequality" It's
true, of
course, to say that the musicians who produced the music had to live under these
intolerable conditions, but surely they produced music of such genius and beauty
that it
represents an heroic transcendence of those conditions? Would it not rather be
purely
"intellectual" for someone hearing, say, the Jelly Roll Morton Red Hot Peppers
recordings,
or the Louis Hot Fives & Sevens, only to "hear" in them the evidence of
segregation,
prohibition, depression and misery? I, for one, do not believe that anyone,
without some
effort of will, like some whining adolescent determined to make themselves
profoundly
miserable, could sincerely hear all that in the music. If they do, then this is
yet another
example of white, middle class self-loathing and self-flagellation that surely
dishonours
the music and the people who produced it.
Robert Greenwood

--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "Nino Frasio" <ofellows@...> wrote:
>
> Does anybody have a copy of the soundie "A Regular Trouper"?
>
> There is a scene with an exceptional Eddie that plays with Ruth
Etting
> on a train.
>
> Nino
>
Go to www.djangobooks.com

and under "categories" go to video archives; then scroll almost all the
way down to Eddie Lang "Without that Man".

There are a few other items in the archive of more than passing
interest.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Greenwood" <robertgreenwood_54uk@...>
To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: [RedHotJazz] Re: When did Jazz die?


> -Patrice, you wrote:
> "... you won't force the African-American audience to support styles that
> were clearly
> related to
> segregation, prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible
> unequality - this is purely intellectual nostalgia which only wealthy
> intellectual whites can afford, just like regretting the good old times of
> hard work from sun to sun on the Mississippi Delta plantations which
> produced such fascinating blues!"
>
> I'm never sure what people mean when they link the jazz of the past with
> "segregation,
> prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible unequality"
> It's true, of
> course, to say that the musicians who produced the music had to live under
> these
> intolerable conditions, but surely they produced music of such genius and
> beauty that it
> represents an heroic transcendence of those conditions? Would it not
> rather be purely
> "intellectual" for someone hearing, say, the Jelly Roll Morton Red Hot
> Peppers recordings,
> or the Louis Hot Fives & Sevens, only to "hear" in them the evidence of
> segregation,
> prohibition, depression and misery? I, for one, do not believe that
> anyone, without some
> effort of will, like some whining adolescent determined to make themselves
> profoundly
> miserable, could sincerely hear all that in the music. If they do, then
> this is yet another
> example of white, middle class self-loathing and self-flagellation that
> surely dishonours
> the music and the people who produced it.
> Robert Greenwood

Hum! Did I ever say that the music itself expressed anything of the kind???

I don't even think it was "transcending" everyday life by any means other
than being purely recreative, efficient for dancers, and usually joyful. I
just meant that, whatever its instant meaning, music was always "dated" and
that the memory of *that* past was no convincing reason for the colored
audience to hold on to what musicologists consider as their necessary
heritage.

I could go on with the serious case of young ladies who dress up in the
1920's fashion and do some role-playing, complaining that morals and
elegance vanished as soon as the Beatles issued their first single while
everything was so perfect in a period of time they never knew... but I'd
rather not.

P.

I feel that genre labels should be used for convenient identification
rather than strict definition.  Each piece of music--whether recorded
or "live"--is a unique entity, so I think it's important not to
over-generalize.  I subscribe to Morton's view that jazz is a style.
As such, it would seem to have characteristics, rather than qualities
which define it absolutely.  During our vintage period, there were
many relatively unorthodox jazz performances (by jugbands for example,
or in the case of Waller's pipe organ works).

"Modern jazz" may as well begin with Art Tatum's solo piano sides of
1933-34.  Tatum was a devotee of Fats Waller--and yet a huge influence
on Charlie Parker.  I had thought that Parker's solos sounded like
Tatum solos transposed; eventually I met an artist who'd been friends
with Parker.  He told me (unprompted) that during his early years,
Parker listened to lots of Bach and Art Tatum.  The point is that the
chain of influences/evolution is, in a certain sense, unbroken.
Ellington also had a great deal to do with the bop "revolution,"
especially in his group with Jimmy Blanton and Ben Webster (the body
of Gillespie's "Salt Peanuts" is virtually identical to Duke's "Cotton
Tail," and both Gillespie and Parker played in Duke's band).

Regarding Parker's work, my experience has been almost entirely
mental, meaning that I tend to think "this man has mastered the
alto saxophone" but I don't feel much.  For me, the "best" jazz
achieves a balance between heart and head, and the problem with much
modern jazz is that it's too much "head," not enough "heart" (perhaps
vice versa for certain "Free jazz").  Still, I do feel each piece
should be judged (if at all) on its own merits, and not by a
surrounding context, though it may otherwise enhance our appreciation.

John

ps  The delineation of certain "eras" is relevant:  I think primarily
the '20s (beginning with Prohibition and Mamie Smith's breakthrough,
ending with the stock market crash) or Prohibition itself (ending
prior to the commercial "Swing" era).  The most important point of
division is indeed World War II:  after the war, one sees a huge
difference throughout the cultural landscape, in literature, film, and
music.  Perhaps a sublimated cynicism brought about by fear of atomic
power, although I blame commercial television for lowering aesthetic
standards in general (we won't discuss fluoridation)...

John wrote:

> ps  The delineation of certain "eras" is relevant:  I think primarily
> the '20s (beginning with Prohibition and Mamie Smith's breakthrough,
> ending with the stock market crash) or Prohibition itself (ending
> prior to the commercial "Swing" era).  The most important point of
> division is indeed World War II:  after the war, one sees a huge
> difference throughout the cultural landscape, in literature, film, and
> music.  Perhaps a sublimated cynicism brought about by fear of atomic
> power, although I blame commercial television for lowering aesthetic
> standards in general (we won't discuss fluoridation)...

Many consider late 1929 as the end of the 1920's jazz era since it
coincides with the beginning of the Great Depression.

But I tend to view that as arbitrary. I think the real dividing line,
which is fuzzy of course, to be the beginning of 1933. We do see some
"proto-swing" in the 1930-32 era (mostly the "big band" black jazz
orchestras, such as Duke Ellington). But by and large I see the
1930-32 recordings to be a more sophisticated form of 1920's jazz.

Certainly the move to "modern jazz" starting in the mid 40's is
probably a bigger jump in jazz than from the 1920's to classic swing,
but the jump from the 1920's sound to swing is also a quite major
jump that to me is quite noticeable.

In my opinion, of course.

Jon


p.s., this is why I think Red Hot Jazz should set Dec. 31, 1932 as
the cutting-off point, not late 1929. Most of the 1930-32 Kardos, Joe
Haymes and Casa Loma Orchestra (e.g. "Alexander's Ragtime Band") have
that 1920's sound, with only a hint of the Swing era soon to come.

You have but to listen to Billie Holliday sing, "Strange Fruit", and Louis
Armstrong sing, "Black and Blue", to know that black jazz artists--despite the
"fair look" given them by supporters such as John Hammond, Benny Goodman and
Dave Brubek--felt the depression and segregation and outright bigotry
surrounding them.  It WAS prevelent in their day-to-day life, both at the turn
of the century and much later; and to say that their music "transended" the
conditions they lived with is well-intended and idealistic, but not very
realistic.

   Rick Hensel



Robert Greenwood <robertgreenwood_54uk@...> wrote:
           -Patrice, you wrote:
"... you won't force the African-American audience to support styles that were
clearly
related to
segregation, prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible
unequality - this is purely intellectual nostalgia which only wealthy
intellectual whites can afford, just like regretting the good old times of
hard work from sun to sun on the Mississippi Delta plantations which
produced such fascinating blues!"

I'm never sure what people mean when they link the jazz of the past with
"segregation,
prohibition, depression and misery, and the most incredible unequality" It's
true, of
course, to say that the musicians who produced the music had to live under these
intolerable conditions, but surely they produced music of such genius and beauty
that it
represents an heroic transcendence of those conditions? Would it not rather be
purely
"intellectual" for someone hearing, say, the Jelly Roll Morton Red Hot Peppers
recordings,
or the Louis Hot Fives & Sevens, only to "hear" in them the evidence of
segregation,
prohibition, depression and misery? I, for one, do not believe that anyone,
without some
effort of will, like some whining adolescent determined to make themselves
profoundly
miserable, could sincerely hear all that in the music. If they do, then this is
yet another
example of white, middle class self-loathing and self-flagellation that surely
dishonours
the music and the people who produced it.
Robert Greenwood






---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you very much!


--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "heckman_michael"
<heckman_michael@...> wrote:
>
> --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "Nino Frasio" <ofellows@> wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody have a copy of the soundie "A Regular Trouper"?
> >
> > There is a scene with an exceptional Eddie that plays with Ruth
> Etting
> > on a train.
> >
> > Nino
> >
> Go to www.djangobooks.com
>
> and under "categories" go to video archives; then scroll almost
all the
> way down to Eddie Lang "Without that Man".
>
> There are a few other items in the archive of more than passing
> interest.
>

Please forgive my pidgin English... and "soundie" term!
Thanks for the info.

--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, Howard Rye <howard@...> wrote:
>
> on 17/3/07 17:16, Nino Frasio at ofellows@... wrote:
>
> Does anybody have a copy of the soundie "A Regular Trouper"?
>
> There is a scene with an exceptional Eddie that plays with Ruth
Etting
> on a train.
>
> This cannot be a Soundie because they were not made until the
1940s, long
> after Eddie's death.
>
> It appears to be a Vitaphone short subject directed by Roy Mack
and released
> in March 1932 (#1378/9, so a two-reeler).
>
>
> Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
> howard@...
> Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

You misunderstand the point I am making, Rick. Of course I am aware that black
jazz artists
like other black people felt the depression and segregation and outright bigotry
surrounding
them; in fact, they more than "felt" it, it dictated to a large degree their
very conditions of
existence and permeated their day-to-day lives, but they still made music of
profound
beauty. Your posting cites just two recordings. Do you mean to imply that when
Billie sang
When You're Smiling, or when Louis played Bessie Couldn't Help It, they were in
denial of the
segregation and outright bigotry that surrounded them?

Robert Greenwood.

--- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, "Patrice Champarou"
<patrice.champarou@...> wrote:
>
> I am afraid I still do not understand the question (or did it
contain the
> reply already?)
>

Hi Patrice, the question is when Jazz died. It contained a suggestion
but it is open for a discussion.

> I suppose everyone is free to fix their own limits to what they
consider as
> real jazz,

So everything can be real Jazz. A picture on the wall or a baby's cry.

> and I guess there will be as many different replies as members on
> this list. Some will even consider there is no real difference between
> Lester Young and Archie Shepp, others will declare that jazz started
dying
> in the 30's  (wasn't Morton's piece called "Dirty, Dirty, Dirty" a
parody of
> swing?) but I doubt this can lead us anywhere.

Sure there are several views lets hear it!


> This is no place for me to explain why I consider John Coltrane's
Alabama as
> a masterpiece or why Thelonious Monk is the one I would take to the
desert
> island.

It doesn't need to be a Jazz in order to be a masterpiece. Speaking
and evaluating from the Jazz point of view is interesting.

> I reject the idea of "downgrading" just as much as the concept of
> "progress" applied to music,

Interesting, but the progress is what many critics over the years
demanded. They didn't prove how often a music should "progress", but
they wanted it to progress at their will otherwise it was out of date
and something new was state of the art.

> and if the original question concerned the
> evolution of styles, I doubt that marketing purposes or the
introduction of
> long-playing recording by Blue Note played a greater part than what the
> musicians wished to play and what the audience expected to hear.

Blue Note that were looking for progress and bebop they got to a dead
end in 1965 and sold themselves.


> And as far as more and more jazz lovers turning to musicians of the
past,
> why complain? It is no-one's fault if there haven't been any Mortons
or J.S.
> Bachs for a while, it is just the way music changes - and you won't
force
> the African-American audience to support styles that were clearly
related to
> segregation, prohibition, depression and misery, and the most
incredible
> unequality - this is purely intellectual nostalgia which only  wealthy
> intellectual whites can afford, just like regretting the good old
times of
> hard work from sun to sun on the Mississippi Delta plantations which
> produced such fascinating blues!
>

Here is a 1920's quote from Roger Pryor Dodge "Much as Jazz is
supposed to dominate our modern music, it's really rare in it's pure
state... The only feasible way to hear good jazz in quantity is
through phonograph records"
Now, can we say in 1926 he was talking about a purely intellectual
nostalgia when he said in 1926 that the place to find real Jazz is on
records? Or maybe we see a progress as he describes it in his article
as Paul Whiteman syncopating the classics, in my words, a process of
adding Jazz elements to Classical themes so it will "ring a bell" that
it is Jazz but not contain really the Jazz art, like a Pavlov's Dog
that hear the bell and think he is about to get a real meal.
Tommersl

on 18/3/07 10:14, Robert Greenwood at robertgreenwood_54uk@...
wrote:

>Your posting cites just two recordings. Do you mean to imply that when Billie
>sang When You're Smiling, or when Louis played Bessie Couldn't Help It, they
>were in denial of the segregation and outright bigotry that surrounded them?

"When the black man smiles in jazz, look for the sadness in his eyes"

Thus Langston Hughes, who knew a lot more about it than most of us. (And if
anyone can provide me with an actual citation for this much quoted remark,
I'd be glad if they would.)

In any case this particular discussion seems to have gone off at a tangent.
I took Patrice's original point to be not about the actual emotional content
of the music, still less about how anyone should react to it now, but about
how it was perceived by many later African-Americans, particularly in the
1940s to 1970s.

That this has rather dramatically changed in the last decade or so owes
quite a lot to a man called Wynton Marsalis who has set about reclaiming the
African-American musical past for the descendents of its creators....
somewhat too ruthlessly for some tastes!

Some quite serious attempts at restarting jazz history have been made. Try
the albums under Wycliffe Gordon's name on Criss Cross Records, the piano
solo recordings of Marcus Roberts, the several albums by Kermit Ruffins on
Basin Street Records. Out of the Marsalis orbit, Howard Wiley's
extraordinary album "Twenty-First Century Negro" on High Cotton is worth
anyone's attention. (It would be even better if all three drummers who
appear were as swinging as the best of the three.)

Jazz "died" when its avant-garde decided that they didn't want to play for
dancers any more. By so doing they flung away at least 80% of their ecomomic
base and ensured that jazz would become a niche market. The swing-dance
movement (which Wiley is a product of) has demonstrated that the process
isn't necessarily irreversible. At any rate there is still (or again) some
remarkably good music being produced.

Frank Johnson in his book Australian Jazz Explosion rather pithily
identifies two types of fool: Those who think something old is always good,
and those who think something new is better. One of our problems is that
since the 1940s so much of the jazz audience has consisted of one or other
of these types! It has made it very difficult to sell innovative work which
seeks to develop the jazz idiom rather than render it obsolete.

Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
howard@...
Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098

My personal feeling is that, while Jazz is not altogether dead, it is
really, really struggling. And of course I'm talking about Jazz as a
whole, not the traditional Jazz we love, as for some reason that has
always adapted to fit the dimensions of the audience that was willing
to support it.
The current museum environment for Jazz, and its commercial, "smooth"
counterpart, seems an uncomfortable fit for the music. The continued
exploration of jazz in the historical context of racial injustice is
likewise serving to kill it. Even from the beginning it appears that
there was a lot of involvement of Italian and Jewish musicians in
Jazz, who had intolerance of their own to bear, but are not getting a
lot of love from jazz "scholars," due to a kind of prejudice that
shuts them (the Jewish and Italian musicians) out of the history.
Jazz was a great social revolution, but it is not about racial
injustice; it is about freedom and different cultures from within the
United States learning to get along.
Albert Ayler, if anything, helped to revive ultra-traditional jazz
within a new framework - his fat, wobbly tone is closer to the sound
of really early jazz musicians than most others of his era. So I
don't think Free Jazz killed Jazz. But we are closing in on about 30
years since there were any significant stylistic developments in
Jazz. Commercially, Wynton Marsalis and the smooth stuff are both in
the toilet from the standpoint of the major record companies, and I'm
surprised that they continue to support it. There have been no "Take
Five"s or "Kind of Blue"s for a long time at this point.
Also, audiences are strangely divided as to what they will go for in
terms of Jazz. I was in contact recently with a New York based group
that has a female singer and plays slightly out, freeform jazz within
a loose framework. They were getting nowhere fast trying to pitch
their album, and I suggested that they try some other labels more
oriented towards avant-garde classical and improvised music. They
thanked me and wrote "We try to play at jazz gigs, but that's not our
audience - they hate us! We really do much better at the arty Gallery
type shows and with people who like kind of off the wall classical
music."
So at this point, Jazz is not developing forward because cultural
philistines have backed it into a corner. Will it get out? What's the
use of it if the very definition of what "Jazz" is is proscribed by a
few very selfish "experts" who are utilizing its legacy to pursue a
social agenda?
Just my thoughts,

Uncle Dave Lewis

My sincere apologies for coming in on the middle of something and
misunderstanding.  It was getting off the point of discussion, indeed; and I did
not mean to be too critical of anyone, just lending a thought to the discussion
as a way to "dive in" to things, being new.

   I wonder what year the question among march music enthusiasts ("When did March
Music die?") first took place?  (lol)



"David N. Lewis" <udtv@...> wrote:
           My personal feeling is that, while Jazz is not altogether dead, it is
really, really struggling. And of course I'm talking about Jazz as a
whole, not the traditional Jazz we love, as for some reason that has
always adapted to fit the dimensions of the audience that was willing
to support it.
The current museum environment for Jazz, and its commercial, "smooth"
counterpart, seems an uncomfortable fit for the music. The continued
exploration of jazz in the historical context of racial injustice is
likewise serving to kill it. Even from the beginning it appears that
there was a lot of involvement of Italian and Jewish musicians in
Jazz, who had intolerance of their own to bear, but are not getting a
lot of love from jazz "scholars," due to a kind of prejudice that
shuts them (the Jewish and Italian musicians) out of the history.
Jazz was a great social revolution, but it is not about racial
injustice; it is about freedom and different cultures from within the
United States learning to get along.
Albert Ayler, if anything, helped to revive ultra-traditional jazz
within a new framework - his fat, wobbly tone is closer to the sound
of really early jazz musicians than most others of his era. So I
don't think Free Jazz killed Jazz. But we are closing in on about 30
years since there were any significant stylistic developments in
Jazz. Commercially, Wynton Marsalis and the smooth stuff are both in
the toilet from the standpoint of the major record companies, and I'm
surprised that they continue to support it. There have been no "Take
Five"s or "Kind of Blue"s for a long time at this point.
Also, audiences are strangely divided as to what they will go for in
terms of Jazz. I was in contact recently with a New York based group
that has a female singer and plays slightly out, freeform jazz within
a loose framework. They were getting nowhere fast trying to pitch
their album, and I suggested that they try some other labels more
oriented towards avant-garde classical and improvised music. They
thanked me and wrote "We try to play at jazz gigs, but that's not our
audience - they hate us! We really do much better at the arty Gallery
type shows and with people who like kind of off the wall classical
music."
So at this point, Jazz is not developing forward because cultural
philistines have backed it into a corner. Will it get out? What's the
use of it if the very definition of what "Jazz" is is proscribed by a
few very selfish "experts" who are utilizing its legacy to pursue a
social agenda?
Just my thoughts,

Uncle Dave Lewis






---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hensel" <nomcaller@...>
To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: When did Jazz die?


> My sincere apologies for coming in on the middle of something and
> misunderstanding.  It was getting off the point of discussion, indeed; and
> I did not mean to be too critical of anyone, just lending a thought to the
> discussion as a way to "dive in" to things, being new.

No problem, I think I was responsible for the sub-topic in the first place
because some sentence by Tommer (and his subsequent explanations) seemed to
relate his views upon the "death of jazz" to the old discussion about
"Whites stealing from Blacks".  I had a loooong reply to this, with more
questions about what can "pure jazz" possibly be, or didn't "hot" mean
"contemporary" some decades before it started meaning old-fashioned... but
I'll keep this for the time being, as other aspects seem much more
interesting.

Patrice

>  I wonder what year the question among march music enthusiasts ("When did
> March Music die?") first took place?  (lol)
>

Is the reply "every year on April 1st"? ;-)

Here in Norway, we have a much bigger audience for march music than for Jazz.
There are processions over the whole country on May 1st and May 17th (Norway's
National Day). All of these processions use at least one marching band, and the
route is usually lined with the public.

March music is one of the foundations of our kind of jazz. The marching bands
playing an early type of jazz are still active; I've just seen a documentary
about the New Orleans tragedy, and a marching band was very much in evidence in
this. Admittedly there's not much recorded jazz by marching bands, but I think
The Original Zenith Brass Band and Bunk's Brass band are a clear enough
indication of the importance of marching bands to jazz development.

Cheers

Bob Smith


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, I agree.  March music--along with Ragtime, Minstrel, and West African
styles of music--combined with a stronger Blues influence, of course--all seemed
to be equal in contribution to what was known as "Jass" music at the turn of
last century.

   I have learned my lesson (and I say this lightly, with a friendly smile): 
this is a site for serious discussion, and you take a chance when you try to kid
about anything pertaining to the discussion at hand.  (lol)

   Cheers to all of you, too,

   Rick H.



Robert Smith <robert.smith@...> wrote:
           Here in Norway, we have a much bigger audience for march music than
for Jazz. There are processions over the whole country on May 1st and May 17th
(Norway's National Day). All of these processions use at least one marching
band, and the route is usually lined with the public.

March music is one of the foundations of our kind of jazz. The marching bands
playing an early type of jazz are still active; I've just seen a documentary
about the New Orleans tragedy, and a marching band was very much in evidence in
this. Admittedly there's not much recorded jazz by marching bands, but I think
The Original Zenith Brass Band and Bunk's Brass band are a clear enough
indication of the importance of marching bands to jazz development.

Cheers

Bob Smith

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Too expound on my previous post....I think jazz,   or our jazz <trad
Jazz>  is dying....but not dead,,,,,,yet.    Like I said earlier, and
if I am correct about the ORIGINAL question and understood it properly,
I've thought about this for 30 some yrs.  and using TV as an analogy,
We in the states <some of us> can remember, say, 'All in the family',
or, "Gilligans Island'. or maybe even 'Leave it to Beaver' , those
programs are gone now.....but we now can click on the cable box and see
them EVEN better than we did 30, 40 yrs ago.    Jazz isnt dead... I've
been asked a thousand times if Big Bands are dead....noooo....you just
have to support it.    minstral music is not dead....March music is not
dead, and Classical music is not dead.   And when I hear P.Diddy
Rap 'Darktown strutters Ball' i'll know that our music is not
dead       just kidding