Unpopular music opinions

[LizzieMaine]

Lizzie, do you feel that his contribution has worn-off considerably in the last 50 years? And that the book is still valuable if balanced out with other jazz-history sources?

Well, I think his real impact has been the idea that jazz-oriented bands were the only bands that produced any music of worth. As a jazz critic, he's certainly entitled to that opinion -- but when it becomes the *default* view because his book is considered the "definitive study of the era," that's where I have a problem. The snooty postwar jazz-scholar college boys might turn up their noses at a Johnny Green or a Richard Himber or a Kay Kyser record -- but that shouldn't make those bands any less worthy of your time. The "big band era" *wasn't* just about jazz.

 

[Widebrim]

It is also Simon who almost single-handedly created the Glenn Miller cult which still exists today -- while bands which were every bit as good, and every bit as popular in their day, remain forgotten and overlooked.

And Miller's death as a USAAC officer no doubt has helped to cement the man's cult status. Having said that, I love a lot of his music (including the "lesser played" tunes like Yes, My Darling Daughter, Booglie Wooglie Piggy, GI Jive). Yet as I've posted in the past, for a song like "Kalamazoo," for example, go to Phil Harris; quicker, jumpier, more vibrant arrangement and vocals.

 

[Widebrim]

Well, I think his real impact has been the idea that jazz-oriented bands were the only bands that produced any music of worth.

And that should be viewed for what it is: a very untenable, extremely-limiting, elitist position.

 

[Fletch]

The snooty postwar jazz-scholar college boys might turn up their noses at a Johnny Green or a Richard Himber or a Kay Kyser record -- but that shouldn't make those bands any less worthy of your time.

I don't think it helped that those less jazz-oriented bands were left to a small underground of people, many of them the same claque who kept forgotten older films alive - who focused mostly on camp. Camp eventually contributes back into mainstream culture, but before it reaches there, it's really the property of a subculture, and very easy to stereotype.

There was some gender bias acknowledged right during the swing era. George Simon, in about 1938, described the hotel-styled Henry King band as "sissified."

 

[LizzieMaine]

And that should be viewed for what it is: a very untenable, extremely-limiting, elitist position.

Well, what I think it does is that it creates a very narrow view of what music really was during the era -- the *song* was key, not the performance of it. I think what a jazz-purist view creates is a performance-centered mindset in which the song is basically irrelevant. Coleman Hawkins did an extraordinary version of "Body and Soul" as a piece of jazz virtuosity, but he would have been just as much a virtuoso if he'd been playing "Three Little Fishes." The song is far less important than how he performed it. But the song itself is a thing of beauty, and deserves better than to be just a showcase for another man's performance skill.

If you want to hear what really made "Body and Soul" a standard, listen to the Annette Hanshaw version. That's a record that spotlights a great song *as a song,* as an expression of pure emotion, with no jazz content whatever. But if you're a jazz-uber-alles type, you'll probably never bother with it -- and that'll be your loss.

As for "camp," I am its sworn enemy. Even if that *makes* me campy.

 

[rue]

If you want to hear what really made "Body and Soul" a standard, listen to the Annette Hanshaw version. That's a record that spotlights a great song *as a song,* as an expression of pure emotion, with no jazz content whatever. But if you're a jazz-uber-alles type, you'll probably never bother with it -- and that'll be your loss.

I'm ashamed to say I had not heard of Annette Hanshaw before, but I'm so glad you mentioned her. What a wonderful voice she had! Off to listen to more.....

 

[LizzieMaine]

While you're at it, look up the Helen Morgan recording of "Body and Soul" as well -- she was the queen of all torch singers.

 

[rue]

Wonderful! I can't decide which version I like best, but Helen almost sings it more like she lived it. Both are fantastic though. Thank you

 

[scottyrocks]

helped me connect the dots between genres....

Ive pulled your quote way out of context, but speaking of connecting between genres, Emerson Lake and Palmer really opened me up to classical music when I was in my early to mid teens. Much of their music was electronically synthesized classical music that made me go out and find traditional recordings of what they played.

 

[Fletch]

Well, what I think it does is that it creates a very narrow view of what music really was during the era -- the *song* was key, not the performance of it. I think what a jazz-purist view creates is a performance-centered mindset in which the song is basically irrelevant. Coleman Hawkins did an extraordinary version of "Body and Soul" as a piece of jazz virtuosity, but he would have been just as much a virtuoso if he'd been playing "Three Little Fishes." The song is far less important than how he performed it. But the song itself is a thing of beauty, and deserves better than to be just a showcase for another man's performance skill.

Hear hear. The idea that the songwriter's creativity is so secondary as to be no more than a vehicle for the improviser's creativity is not questioned today...and I think the reasons go beyond the veneration of the soloist as ultimate creator.

I suspect a lot of it is quietly sociological: the reappropriation of "commercial" White creative content by "artistic" Black jazz greats makes a nice parallel to the struggle of minorities as well as the struggle of artists. It's a less tainted, more liberating, more useful kind of creativity than that of a bunch of 'fays who ultimately wrote songs to keep the culture industry chugging along. But it must be said: that doesn't touch on the quality of the work, or its enjoyability or musicality or worth-our-while-ness 50-60-70-80 years on.

One of the nice things about a postmodern era is the right to put our favorite stuff in as little or as much context as we want. That is its own freedom, but it does not rank with the freedom of the soloist, the creator, the improviser. And culturally, we're not as po-mo as we could be. Where issues of color, ethnicity, gender...identity...are concerned, one pays respect or one pays a price. The quality of the cultural product outside of identity is one the intelligentsia agree to disagree on, mostly by not looking at it at all. Saying John Green was as inspired in his own way as Coleman Hawkins is seen to diss Hawkins, which is more important than whether it meaningfully does diss him.

Even the idea that we may be comparing apples vs. oranges is a little uncomfortable for academics. This era of music has been determined to be relevant only in set contexts - jazz, film, the theater, ethnic identity. The rock-oriented sociology of modern pop music can't apply. So instead of apples vs. oranges, the comparison is unframeable - apples vs. ...what??? Maybe we'd better stick to apples.

If you want to hear what really made "Body and Soul" a standard, listen to the Annette Hanshaw version. That's a record that spotlights a great song *as a song,* as an expression of pure emotion, with no jazz content whatever. But if you're a jazz-uber-alles type, you'll probably never bother with it -- and that'll be your loss.[/i]

The jazz student isn't likely to hear anything of value in Leo Reisman's orchestral version, either, however expressive and well-crafted it is at getting an affecting and musical treatment out of 14 musicians and a singer, all in unrelenting, foxtrot time - an arrangement and performance that only adds to the song. From the jazz standpoint, it can only be understood as "not jazz" - corny white showbiz stuff made to make dough. Again - their loss. Probably the musical theater student's, too, as it's not quite theater that Reisman is up to - it's music. What is really good about his recording is not, today, critically relevant - maybe can't even be expressed in critical discourse. That makes me feel something has been lost.

As for "camp," I am its sworn enemy. Even if that *makes* me campy.

Don't you ever change, missy.

 

[martinsantos]

I tried to say that, in those or in our days, to get 14 or 16 guys together everynight, playing all night long, MUST be something profitable; a business. (but sometimes my English doesn't help me, sorry).

I don't think Miller's band so standardized. He got a way to get wonderful results from just novelty songs, or very common songs. Boogly Woogly Piggy; In the Mood. Ever Moonlight Serenade; the only really good version from this is from Miller.

Maybe he started to be somewhat mechanical at the end of the Orch; that's when Harry James became the first orch in popularity, isn't it?

Dance bands were a business (I wish I could say are). But Glenn was their Henry Ford, or should I say their Ray Kroc. He standardized the sound and interpretation, I would say, a little too much. My favorite Miller records are from before he succeeded in this - say mid 1939.

 

[LizzieMaine]

One of the nice things about a postmodern era is the right to put our favorite stuff in as little or as much context as we want. That is its own freedom, but it does not rank with the freedom of the soloist, the creator, the improviser. And culturally, we're not as po-mo as we could be. Where issues of color, ethnicity, gender...identity...are concerned, one pays respect or one pays a price. The quality of the cultural product outside of identity is one the intelligentsia agree to disagree on, mostly by not looking at it at all. Saying John Green was as inspired in his own way as Coleman Hawkins is seen to diss Hawkins, which is more important than whether it meaningfully does diss him

Which is all the more reason why identity politics should have no place in the music room. It's impossible to finger the keys while you're wringing your hands.

 

[Amie]

If you want to hear what really made "Body and Soul" a standard, listen to the Annette Hanshaw version. That's a record that spotlights a great song *as a song,* as an expression of pure emotion, with no jazz content whatever. But if you're a jazz-uber-alles type, you'll probably never bother with it -- and that'll be your loss.

.

I absolutely agree. Hanshaw's version is the absolute greatest. It's so pure, so timeless.

 

[jamespowers]

Which is all the more reason why identity politics should have no place in the music room. It's impossible to finger the keys while you're wringing your hands.

:amen::amen::amen::eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[Fletch]

Which is all the more reason why identity politics should have no place in the music room. It's impossible to finger the keys while you're wringing your hands.

Unfortunately - from my POV as a former conservatory jazz student, FWTW - what gets into the music room has been determined by identity politics. And it's been so cleverly and carefully done, with such laudable intentions, that you'd come off a total crank to question it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

...you'd come off a total crank to question it.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Fletch]

Not all by itself. But it's a game you can't win, break even, or get out of, unless you want your unique perspective on, and contribution to, the way people listen to, understand, and love music to be limited to a few dozen of your - excuse me, our - fellow cranks.

 

[rue]

How about:
Earth Wind and Fire..... not a fan.

 

[Fletch]

But you're a shining star, no matter who ya are.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Not all by itself. But it's a game you can't win, break even, or get out of, unless you want your unique perspective on, and contribution to, the way people listen to, understand, and love music to be limited to a few dozen of your - excuse me, our - fellow cranks.

Gee, I'm glad I live in an open-minded, progressive era. But I sure feel sorry for these poor 21st Century folks.