Your Favorite Big Band

[Cousin Hepcat]

1. Duke Ellington, 1941-1952. Best jazz orchestra. Ever. The collaboration between Strays and The Duke was never really equalled in terms of songwriting or arranging. Incredible stuff.

ditto

 

[WH1]

I am curious what my fellow Loungers opinion of Stan Kenton is? I recently inherited my father in laws big band collection and there quite a few Kenton albums in there. Very different than most of the others a lot stronger.

I still voted for Ellington above the others although Count Basie's later work was excellent.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Not a big fan of Kenton. Some of his earlier work I can enjoy but, his later work just became very progressive and random… big band went to space type of stuff… smarmy and really not my cup.

Love early Ellington, but again, into the post war era, progressive smarminess caught the Ellington sound like most of every band of the mid century. You Jazz enthusiasts can keep it, I’ll stick to the days when there was beauty in the melody, before it became about the notes they weren’t hitting. Eh, whatever floats yer boat I guess.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Moving away from the hard-jazz area, how about the great *dance* bands? They might not get much respect from the hepcat cognoscenti, but many of them displayed a very high level of musicianship, and the stereotype of all non-hot bands as being full of rickety-tickety mickey mouse tricks is very very uninformed.

Consider -

Richard Himber and his Orchestra -- a *very* underrated band that did its best work in the mid-thirties, featuring the outstanding Joey Nash on vocals.

Ray Noble and his Orchestra, with or without Al Bowlly, *the* band for a swanky night out. Noble's American band, organized in 1935, was hand-stocked by Glenn Miller, and had more jazz credibility than many realize.

Paul Whiteman and his Orchestra -- simply put, the mainstream Big Band Era doesn't happen without his contributions, and at his best his band presented quality music expertly played, with some pretty fine vocalists to boot. And they were one of the great show/stage bands as well.

George Olsen and His Music -- during the twenties thru the early thirties, another first-rate show band, with great vocalists and always-punchy arrangements. Don't make the mistake of dismissing him based on his shoddy post-1936 work.

Ben Bernie and His Orchestra -- The Old Maestro, in person, was something of a walking gimmick, but listen close to his band sometime. Always smooth, suave and sophisticated.

Ted Fio Rito and His Orchestra -- The Kay Kyser of the early thirties, another great show band with a very distinctive style.

They may not be "jazz" in the modern sense of the word, but bands like these offer an excellent showcase for appreciating the golden era of American pop music.

 

[Fletch]

:eusa_clap I couldn't have summarized it so nicely myself, Liz.

But how sad it is that the dance orchestra - which was so important to the culture of the era - now has no serious audience, despite the broad scope and range of the music! Jazz - film - theater - the classic songbook - the tradition of great singers...all came together in the bands. And we still appreciate all these things - but not the bands.

Were the Mickey Mice really the problem? Was it the hepnoscenti of the 30s making common cause with a socially and esthetically righteous music, jazz, then shutting their ears to everything else? Or was it just the myth of progress, which grinds up the good old along with the bad old and leaves only the pablum of nostalgia?

How is it that we're asked to believe that the Big Bands are not worth critical study? :eusa_doh: Maybe the tradition of educated pop music writing - which has always been done as it happens, in present tense - arrived too late for this music.

 

[skyvue]

I would second the names on Liz's list (and her earlier citation of Hal Kemp) while adding an orchestra I like a lot: Shep Fields' Rippling Rhythms Orchestra. They may have gone a bit heavy on the whimsy for the tastes of some, but I enjoy them.

 

[Lily Powers]

...Yeah, what about ol' Grumpy? lol Aside from his negative personality, he was sure a great band leader from 1938-1940.

His rotten reputation was the main reason I didn't really listen to Artie Shaw's music, but when I finally did, I have to say that his music is the one that makes my feet move the most. (Made me feel like I was cheating on Glenn Miller. lol ) His band worked with Billie Holiday around 1938, and their pairing was one of the first white orchestras playing with a black female. Summing up the Shaw ego, he is purported to have said, "Benny Goodman plays the clarinet, I play music!"

I can't pick just one favorite - there are essences of all of them that I like.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I would second the names on Liz's list (and her earlier citation of Hal Kemp) while adding an orchestra I like a lot: Shep Fields' Rippling Rhythms Orchestra. They may have gone a bit heavy on the whimsy for the tastes of some, but I enjoy them.

Shep Fields is my number one guilty pleasure, especially his 1936-38 stuff. It's corn, but it's really *good* corn.

Another dance band I should have mentioned -- George Hall and his Hotel Taft Orchestra. King of the Businessman's Bounce, but he never let gimmicks get in the way of a good song, and he was blessed with a series of excellent vocalists: Loretta Lee, Sonny Schuyler and the unforgettable Dolly Dawn, who made some really fine records with the band, especially during 1936-37.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Ray Noble and his Orchestra, with or without Al Bowlly, *the* band for a swanky night out. Noble's American band, organized in 1935, was hand-stocked by Glenn Miller, and had more jazz credibility than many realize.

Ah, Ray Noble... what a band! I have a few sides of his on 78 with Al Bowlly... I have to say that Bowlly for me sounded best with Noble's large sound.

A truly romantic sound they had together... amazing! Noble in later interviews said that Bowlly sang with sincere feeling, Noble even saw Al turn away from the microphone to wipe a tear from his eye while singing.

Two of my favorites of his is of course "Midnight The Stars and You" and "Lazy Days"... Just heaven!

The others you mentioned Lizzie are some of my favorites too! Good taste, very good.:eusa_clap

 

[Greyfox]

Gotta say The Count

 

[Chas]

His rotten reputation was the main reason I didn't really listen to Artie Shaw's music, but when I finally did, I have to say that his music is the one that makes my feet move the most. (Made me feel like I was cheating on Glenn Miller. lol ) His band worked with Billie Holiday around 1938, and their pairing was one of the first white orchestras playing with a black female. Summing up the Shaw ego, he is purported to have said, "Benny Goodman plays the clarinet, I play music!"

I can't pick just one favorite - there are essences of all of them that I like.

Shaw gets the bad rep primarily from writers; not musicians or listeners. I understand what Shaw is saying here - Benny was driven and fairly obsessed with being the best. It was his rough and impoverished upbringing that was most likely the cause of that. He was very concerned about ratings, Downbeat Magazine polls and chart position. Shaw wasn't.

Benny Goodman did one thing very well - play the clarinet. Shaw was known as a clarinet player, but excelled at Alto, Tenor sax and was an arranger and songwriter as well. I have listened to both pretty closely, and for me Shaw is the better player. He did some stuff in the upper register of the clarinet that I still find mind-blowing at the very least.

I recommend the Renee Montagne interview, Artie Shaw: The Reluctant King Of Swing. It is one of the better interviews I have heard with a bandleader.

I was in contact with Artie before he died, trying to get in a phone interview. He was exceedingly polite- though I didn't get the interview.

Comparing Shaw to Miller - Shaw was a jazz musician, experimenter and intellectual. Miller was a bandleader and businessman. The result is pretty obvious to me.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Shaw gets the bad rep primarily from writers; not musicians or listeners. I understand what Shaw is saying here - Benny was driven and fairly obsessed with being the best. It was his rough and impoverished upbringing that was most likely the cause of that. He was very concerned about ratings, Downbeat Magazine polls and chart position. Shaw wasn't.

From what I have heard, most of them were business men and did want the band to succeed. At that time it was a big business and money was a large driving force behind keeping them all fed and employed. And because of their popularity, it was possible to outfit the bands with amazing uniforms and put on great shows that many tribute big bands lack today.

I adore Shaw's sound; a song I love to dance to that "drives" is "Man From Mars"... and many of his other 1939 hits.

For a mellow, warm sound I choose Goodman, for me he made that thing talk. He continued to play all the way up to his death in the 1980s when Shaw gave it all up and went to writing.

Honestly, I adore both of them for different reasons, Benny was the “King of Swing” and Artie was the “King of the Clarinet”. I like both of them equally, and I think they both had lots to offer and contributed amazing offerings to the great American song book. Goodman is better known mostly due to his longevity and his history making concert at Carnage Hall.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Honestly, I adore both of them for different reasons, Benny was the “King of Swing” and Artie was the “King of the Clarinet”. I like both of them equally, and I think they both had lots to offer and contributed amazing offerings to the great American song book. Goodman is better known mostly due to his longevity and his history making concert at Carnage Hall.

It's unfortunate, I think, that discussions of the two always seem to come down to "which one was better." There's no law that says you can like only one clarinet-led swing band. Corned beef and pastrami are similar but different, and both make equally tasty sandwiches.

 

[Lily Powers]

It's unfortunate, I think, that discussions of the two always seem to come down to "which one was better." There's no law that says you can like only one clarinet-led swing band. Corned beef and pastrami are similar but different, and both make equally tasty sandwiches.

Agreed. It's like picking which kind of chocolate you want to be left with on a deserted isle. Sometimes I might tire of hearing one band and switch to someone else, but I enjoy them all.

PBS had a 1-hour special called "Big Band Magic" and they interviewd the young men and women (now fun and feisty in their 70's and 80's) about big band music in the Bay Area and how it shaped their lives - their enjoyment of the music, what it meant to hear their favorite bands play live... The show was enhanced with archival footage of the venues, their personal photos and cutaways to current swing dancers enjoying the music. In the end, the seniors are back on the dance floor (possibly the Cocoanut Grove in Santa Cruz, CA) enjoying the music, along with the current dancers. I TiVo'd it and have forbidden anyone to erase it.

 

[Forgotten Man]

It's unfortunate, I think, that discussions of the two always seem to come down to "which one was better." There's no law that says you can like only one clarinet-led swing band. Corned beef and pastrami are similar but different, and both make equally tasty sandwiches.

I agree, it is unfortunate... the Corned beef and pastrami analogy is perfect.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Were the Mickey Mice really the problem? Was it the hepnoscenti of the 30s making common cause with a socially and esthetically righteous music, jazz, then shutting their ears to everything else? Or was it just the myth of progress, which grinds up the good old along with the bad old and leaves only the pablum of nostalgia?

How is it that we're asked to believe that the Big Bands are not worth critical study? :eusa_doh: Maybe the tradition of educated pop music writing - which has always been done as it happens, in present tense - arrived too late for this music.

I think a very big part of it is the need for music critics to *always* appear to be hipper-than-thou. If it was commonplace and widely popular, as thirties-style dance music was, than it *couldn't possibly* be worthwhile.

And there's also the "social" aspect you hint at -- to be suitably hip in the right circles, one cannot appreciate the music of the Establishment. It wasn't the hippies that came up with that idea -- it was widespread far back into the thirties among the young bohemians of the day, who would compete to see who could come up with the most obscure, marginalized bands and musicians. Not much different from the "more indie than thou" crowd today, really. And it was those young bohemians who grew up to be the influential music writers of the fifties, who pretty much codified the Big Band Era Canon and the belief that pop dance bands were all whitebread dull and unworthy of notice.

Average people thought differently, well into the forties. I was reading an article in a 1947 Time magazine today talking about the unexpected success of Ted Weems' 1932 recording of "Heartaches," and it commented that the fad was being driven by people in their mid-thirties and forties who were nostalgic for the music of their youth. Those tunes and bands simply *weren't available* unless you had a stack of old records in your attic, which isn't likely -- because those years coincided with the rock bottom of the record business. If something like "oldies radio" had existed in the postwar years, it'd have thrived on the music of Ray Noble, Richard Himber, and George Hall, and perhaps our musical canon might look a little different today.

 

[Widebrim]

I am curious what my fellow Loungers opinion of Stan Kenton is? I recently inherited my father in laws big band collection and there quite a few Kenton albums in there. Very different than most of the others a lot stronger.

I still voted for Ellington above the others although Count Basie's later work was excellent.

"Tampico" is solid!

 

[skyvue]

Comparing Shaw to Miller - Shaw was a jazz musician, experimenter and intellectual. Miller was a bandleader and businessman. The result is pretty obvious to me.

I don't entirely disagree, but I think you're not giving Miler enough credit. I'm not saying he was one of the great players of all time or anything, but he sure worked steadily, and with some top-notch groups, before he started leading his own bands, so he clearly brought something to the table as a musician.

He also crafted a distinct sound that clicked with (and is still beloved by) the public -- no small achievement.

 

[vitanola]

I am curious what my fellow Loungers opinion of Stan Kenton is? I recently inherited my father in laws big band collection and there quite a few Kenton albums in there. Very different than most of the others a lot stronger.

I still voted for Ellington above the others although Count Basie's later work was excellent.

I find Kenton to be a might strident for my taste, but then I prefer brass bass and banjo to string bass and guitar, and so am rather old-fashioned.

LOVE the Washingtonians and the Cotton Club era Ellington organization, but his post-Creole Rhapsody stuff is not for me.

 

[vitanola]

I don't entirely disagree, but I think you're not giving Miler enough credit. I'm not saying he was one of the great players of all time or anything, but he sure worked steadily, and with some top-notch groups, before he started leading his own bands, so he clearly brought something to the table as a musician.

He also crafted a distinct sound that clicked with (and is still beloved by) the public -- no small achievement.

Miller does a pretty good job on the 1928 Bennie(sic) Goodman & His Boys sessions, holding his own with Dorsey. He made fine contributions to quite a number of Ben Pollack sides, as well as some Shilkret sessions. His work on the Mound City Blue Blowers' "Hello Lola" and "One Hour" should establish his jazz bona fides, for on "Hello Lola", Miller's chorus immediately follows Coleman Hawkins' justly famous double chorus. Miller's work holds up well in this august company.