My two cents. My main problem with this article is that Chicago was "a
major jazz capitol" long before 1922. Jazz bands from New Orleans were
resettling in Chicago
as early as 1915, alongside Southerners who migrated north to work there.
Louis Armstrong's influence was stronger after he returned to Chicago from
New York in 1925;
before that,he was an obscure sideman in a well-known band led by King
Oliver. The transfer of jazz talent from Chicago to New York began long
before 1938; try 1920,
when Ray Miller's band relocated from Chicago to the Big Apple. Miller's
early Okeh and Vocalion records demonstrate that there was still a lot of
the "Chicago sound"
in their playing when they first arrived, though by 1924 they had adapted
to the smart, more tightly arranged New York style. Richard Sudhalter
commented that Miller's first recordings
include some of the earliest aural evidence of the Chicago sound.
Traditional jazz never really went away, but it was definitely eclipsed in
popularity in the depths of the depression; even some of the guys in New
Orleans that didn't
convert to some kind of swing were playing empty joints. The "revival"
approach, which Condon and his gang developed before the revival truly
happened, and which Bob
Crosby's Bob Cats developed before even them, involved adding swing
drumming to the traditional format and extending solos. I find the
statement "Unfortunately, Chicago
jazz is largely overlooked today by most jazz fans, who are more familiar
with bebop of the 1940s, hard bop of the ’50s and fusion of the ’70s" kind
of ridiculous. Even at its
peak in the early 1950s, "Dixieland" was a cottage industry and never the
main event; saying that it is neglected in favor of fusion is kind of like
saying Sha Na Na had the
potential to be as popular as Led Zeppelin in the 1970s. As to "much of the
music on this set will require a shift in mindset to the aesthetic values
of the prewar era. In the 1920s
and early ’30s, jazz solos came in explosive bursts atop the choreographed
calamity of all instruments playing at once," it makes my head hurt to all
of the 1920s.and early
1930s jazz groups and soloists to whom that does not apply.
David N. Lewis
Hamilton, OH
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hey Dave, cut the bloviating yourself! And can you stop personally
> attacking those who don't walk lock-step with your thinking? Sheesh.
>
> I know a good bit of the revival history, but not as much as you probably
> do. And, I happen to like the music, the well-played parts of it (to my
> ears there were definitely some hacks involved in the mix, on both coasts).
> These records show up a lot at yard sales of old white guys, it seemed to
> have great appeal to men of a certain age who had hifi sets in the 50s. I
> wouldn't say it's antique music, like 1920's dance-band fare, but I doubt
> it's of interest to many kids today (I'm sure you can cite some
> exceptions). The moldy figs have all rotted into the earth by now. To my
> ears, it's a return to some of the original jazz recordings' forms and
> tunes but in higher fidelity so one can hear the arrangements and details
> better. Performance-wise, as I said some of it is excellent.
>
> Regarding the Austin High School Gang, I again sense a west coast bias
> against them. Of COURSE they were great promoters. They were in New York,
> in a big and crowded music market with jazz talent around every corner.
> They weren't the big fish in a small market, playing at beach clubs or
> auditoriums. Plus, they had revival competition in the NY market, and
> clearly many of the west coast revival recordings sold relatively well in
> the east because they show up at yard sales and in used record stores here.
> As far as lasting impact, I don't necessarily disagree with you that the
> SF-centric bands survived longer and influenced many people whereas most of
> the east coast revival folks rode a wave in the 50s and then mostly
> disappeared (along with the audiophile-oriented labels that had released
> the albums). Those on the west coast who recorded for what became
> Contemporary Records had the good fortune of ending up in the Fantasy
> Group, which reissued just about everything on CD, so they got new legs in
> modern times.
>
> I'm not positive about this, but I'd think a modern jazz fan looks at
> fine-slicing of this kind of music and shrugs. What's called jazz
> encompasses so much more than the "Dixieland" style today. All of this --
> Condon, Austin, Watters, Murphy, Preservation Hall, etc -- is just another
> sub-genre within a very big tent. Why take "sides" and get personal about
> any of it? People either like the music or not. In the end, it's just music.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Radlauer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:05 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Of interest to hot jazz fans
>
>
> Tom --
>>
>> First of all, WE are way off topic. If you are really interested here is
>> some evidence:
>>
>> Yerba Buena Jazz Band
>> http://jazzhotbigstep.com/372012.html
>>
>> Yes, I have some passion on the topic. I've been broadcasting and
>> researching this music for three decades and won over a half dozen
>> broadcast and writing awards on the topic. I'll invite you to my website
>> which is a compendium of jazz before 1950 stylistically. You will join
>> the
>> more than 15 million annual viewers.
>>
>> And no, I'm not hung up on the West Coast tuba and banjo "Watters/Murphy
>> chain-drive." That is merely one aspect of the revival, but a very large
>> one influential worldwide. Dismissing them based on prejudice is
>> inexcusable, sir.
>>
>> I can name a dozen bands and regional jazz movements worldwide that
>> launched following directly on, or inspired in no small part by Watters
>> and
>> company in Australia, England, France, Germany and many regions of the US.
>>
>> Condon was a promoter and media celebrity. In the end, his music is
>> mostly
>> jam sessions. Ephemeral.
>>
>> If you wish to engage with me after looking/listening to some of the
>> content on my site with open ears and mind, I'll be happy to engage
>> respectfully in an appropriate medium. Otherwise you're standing on low
>> ground, my friend.
>>
>> Tom you are widely informed in many matters. I hope you can cut the
>> bloviating and learn something new.
>>
>> Dave Radlauer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Dave, lighten up.
>>>
>>> I'm not sneering at all. I was asking a question. Agree that Austin High
>>> School take on hot jazz was not exactly like the original New Orleans
>>> style, but neither was the revival. I also disagree with your statement
>>> about Lu Watters, please provide some evidence. I sense from you a strong
>>> west coast circa 1952 bias.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Radlauer" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Of interest to hot jazz fans
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom --
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not for everyone wanted to play bop. Haven't you heard of the famous
>>>> war
>>>> in jazz between the moderns and the moldy figs? Really your statement
>>>> is
>>>> beneath you.
>>>>
>>>> There were still young urban middle and working class white guys
>>>> inspired
>>>> by New Orleans music. In the end, that generation including Lu Watters
>>>> had
>>>> a larger and still ongoing impact worldwide and culturally than the
>>>> Condon
>>>> gang, who were playing bastardized New Orleans anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but sneering at guys playing music they loved is not a pretty
>>>> stance.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Why a "revival" then, of something that was still being played by
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> originators?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't bebop that "new generation" music?
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Radlauer" <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> >
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 7:41 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Of interest to hot jazz fans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every generation wants its own music, that's why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Radlauer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question - if the Austin High School Gang was still putting out
>>>>>> records
>>>>>>
>>>>>> through the late 40s and well into the LP era, why was a "hot jazz
>>>>>>> revival"
>>>>>>> necessary or commercially viable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> hm# 510-848-8323
>>>> cell# 510-717-5240
>>>> www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> hm# 510-848-8323
>> cell# 510-717-5240
>> www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com
>>
>>
>>
|