Print

Print


Aaron --

>> you seem intent upon elevating it at the expense of other things <<

And I don't understand why *some people* --  and this is part of my
complaint about contemporary American culture in general  --  insist on
denigrating it at the expense of other things.

Opinions.  We've all got 'em

Dave

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Aaron Levinson <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> Dave-
>
> First,  I didn't "invalidate"anything so please don't attempt to speak for
> me that's equally offensive and petulant. I asked you to back up your own
> assertion of a "significant black audience", I did not make the case for
> that barometer in the first place I simply asked for YOUR evidence to
> buttress your contention.
>
> You failed to provide it and then attempted to back pedal and dismiss its
> importance. I stand by my simple assertion of trad jazz as atavistic
> despite you looking it up in the dictionary.
>
>  Listen you love it and that's great have at it I'm genuinely happy you
> are doing the work but you seem intent upon elevating it at the expense of
> other things and that strikes me as both petty and mean-spirited and
> beneath you and everyone else on this list.
>
> AA
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 23, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Dave Radlauer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > AA --
> >
> > Regardless of what one thinks of the music, marginalizing a musical
> > movement by saying no one black listened isn't a valid argument.
> >
> > I can find one notable example of a black audience enthralled with
> > well-done revival music.  I cite Bob Mielke's Bearcats first and most
> > important gig where they jelled and developed their style as a band in
> > 1955-56 at the Lark's Club in Berkeley:
> >
> > *It was a long room with the bar to one side and the bandstand deep in
> the
> > back of the room.  With an integrated clientele, about half were
> > African-American, Lark’s Club was located in a black neighborhood of
> > Berkeley and was owned by Bill Nelson, a former trombone player in the
> > Jimmy Lunceford orchestra.  *
> >
> > But I admit that was an exception.  Was it *Not-Jazz* becaue it I fell in
> > the forest and no African American, or respected critic, heard it?
> Invalid
> > because it broke no stylistic ground?
> >
> > *****************
> > Innovative = If that is your main criteria, you've made your point.  But
> is
> > that the only value by which to judge?  I have other criteria.
> >
> > And I never claimed 'significant artistic innovation' was going on in the
> > revival.  You're entitled to your opinions and value judgements about
> > music.   But they don't invalidate it as a form of expression.  Anymore
> > than the entire genre of classical music is pointless in recreating music
> > of the past.
> >
> > I think I said -- or meant --  "creating something new within an existing
> > form" -- but I will reject your term  *atavistic*:
> > *"reverting to or suggesting the characteristics of a remote ancestor or
> > primitive type."  *
> >
> > Again, that's neither articulate or fact-based, just an old and recycled
> > slander.
> >
> > AA --
> >
> > Regardless of what one thinks of the music, marginalizing a musical
> > movement by saying no one black listened isn't a valid argument.
> >
> > I can find one notable example of a black audience enthralled with
> > well-done revival music.  I cite Bob Mielke's Bearcats first and most
> > important gig where they jelled and developed their style as a band in
> > 1955-56 at the Lark's Club in Berkeley:
> >
> > *It was a long room with the bar to one side and the bandstand deep in
> the
> > back of the room.  With an integrated clientele, about half were
> > African-American, Lark’s Club was located in a black neighborhood of
> > Berkeley and was owned by Bill Nelson, a former trombone player in the
> > Jimmy Lunceford orchestra.  *
> >
> > But I admit that was an exception.  Was it *Not-Jazz* becaue it I fell in
> > the forest and no African American, or respected critic, heard it?
> Invalid
> > because it broke no stylistic ground?
> >
> > *****************
> > Innovative = If that is your main criteria, you've made your point.  But
> is
> > that the only value by which to judge?  I have other criteria.
> >
> > And I never claimed 'significant artistic innovation' was going on in the
> > revival.  You're entitled to your opinions and value judgements about
> > music.   But they don't invalidate it as a form of expression.  Anymore
> > than the entire genre of classical music is pointless in recreating music
> > of the past.
> >
> > I think I said -- or meant --  "creating something new within an existing
> > form" -- but I will reject your term  *atavistic*:
> > *"reverting to or suggesting the characteristics of a remote ancestor or
> > primitive type."  *
> >
> > Again, that's neither articulate or fact-based, just an old and recycled
> > slander.
> >
> > Dave R
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Aaron Levinson <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dave-
> >>
> >> I for one am very curious to see the hard statistical evidence that SF
> >> trad bands had "significant black audiences". What does that mean? Half
> the
> >> audience or 3% ? I am pleased that these older cats like Bunk or Wellman
> >> found a new career playing music that they loved long after the initial
> >> period that produced the first flowering. But the plain fact is that no
> >> significant artistic innovation that I am aware of was produced by the
> >> movement and it remained largely atavistic from what I can tell.
> >>
> >> In the 1950's, during the height of the trad revival Charles Mingus was
> >> releasing such classic albums as The Clown, Ah-Um and a host of other
> >> groundbreaking recordings. He embraced both New Orleans and Ellington
> among
> >> many others but also stood at the vanguard of forging a new vocabulary.
> He
> >> was in no way dismissive of older jazz forms but he did not "recreate"
> >> anything in the process. Jazz (at it's best) has always been a field
> that
> >> respected its own past but concomitantly had both feet planted quite
> >> squarely in it's own zeitgeist.
> >>
> >> Mingus borrowed freely from these earlier innovators like Armstrong and
> >> Duke (who he adored) but he did so in service of making an evolutionary
> >> leap. A leap that encompassed all of jazz up to that point and yet was
> >> entirely contemporaneous. Listen to "Fables of Faubus" as substantive
> proof
> >> of my assertions. Much of his ensemble work incorporated the controlled
> >> mayhem of New Orleans group improvisation but it cannot be mistaken by
> >> anyone as anything but integrating these ideas into a totally
> idiosyncratic
> >> and vital context and not in the service of "recreating" a bygone age.
> In
> >> both message and sound it was entirely immersed in the present day.
> >>
> >> I am perfectly happy to agree that (overwhelmingly) white people sat
> back
> >> on a sunny day and enjoyed a recreation of a bygone age on a Sunday
> >> afternoon in 1956. But to suggest that they were creating something new
> >> considering the extraordinary and genuinely innovative work being done
> by
> >> people like Mingus and the Jazz Workshop at the same moment in time
> seems
> >> to me hubristic at best.
> >>
> >> One man's opinion,
> >>
> >> AA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On May 23, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Dave Radlauer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tom --
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your note.
> >>>
> >>> << The young guys driving the revival were second generation white guys
> >>> playing dixieland, with little or no personal connection to the
> original
> >>> musicians. >>
> >>>
> >>> Again, not supported by facts.  There were just as many interactions
> >>> between the Frisco guys and Black musicians from New Orleans -- if not
> >>> more.  Watters, Helm and those guys sought out black musicians & music
> >>> (given the segregation in America at the times), and visited New
> Orleans.
> >>> And the best bands had significant black audiences -- at least in the
> >> East
> >>> Bay.
> >>>
> >>> The whole tradition of Sunday afternoon sessions came from the Watters'
> >>> Hambone Kelly's club: Sunday pm was for special guests and jammers
> like:
> >>> James P Johnson, Danny Barker, Mutt Carey (and even Eddie Condon!).
> This
> >>> tradition led to most of the Jazz Societies, and eventually Festivals
> >>> around the country.
> >>>
> >>> Many New Orleans/Black guys came west to LA and SF.  And interacted
> with,
> >>> hired, or jammed with the younger revivalists:
> >>> A partial list of New Orleans or 'original' black musicians active and
> >>> engaged with the young West Coast white guys included:
> >>>
> >>> Bunk Johnson - spent a year in SF 1942-43 and played with the white
> guys
> >> &
> >>> rump YBJB (& roomed with Burt Bales)
> >>> Kid Ory - Club in SF hired all kinds of musicians
> >>> Amos White - popular trumpeter at Bill Erickson's Pier 23 jam
> >>> Pops Foster - jammed and played with young dixielanders
> >>> Wellman Braud - I heard him play with a revival band in the 1980s
> >>> Earl Hines - performed, broadcast, hired young white guys
> >>> Darnell Howard - close relations with many Frisco jazz guys
> >>> Frank Big Boy Goudie - played almost exclusively with 'dixielanders'
> >>> 1957-63 - Born near and played NOLA golden age
> >>> Clem Raymond - few facts but played and recorded with Oxtot
> >>> Sister Lottie Peavy
> >>> others
> >>>
> >>> And several old NYer/Chicagoans were also active here into the 1950s
> and
> >>> 60s: Muggsy, Marty Marsala, Joe Sullivan, Joe Darensbourg.  But I can
> >> tell
> >>> you that the impact of early jazz and swing on those guys was just as
> >>> profound an experience as it had been for the Chicagoans.
> >>>
> >>> There were gradations of 'revival.'  Nor was it simply
> >>> Dave Radlauer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> hm# 510-848-8323
> >>> cell# 510-717-5240
> >>> www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > hm# 510-848-8323
> > cell# 510-717-5240
> > www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com
>



-- 
hm# 510-848-8323
cell# 510-717-5240
www.JAZZHOTBigstep.com