[Dixielandjazz] Charlie Parker & Brit Trad

[john petters]

Steve said
> PS. Perhaps if UK trad musos had listened to more Parker, the world would
have
> avoided all that "awful British Trad" (only kidding, VBG ;-), not
including the
> couple of good bands)
>
Oh dear Steve. I do agree with you about the awful British Trad Bands, but
they would have benefited more by listening to the roots players rather than
Parker etc. It is understandable why Brit trad is bad because recordings
were of poor quality and few and far between so it required effort. Pioneers
like George Webb, Humphrey Lyttelton,  Acker Bilk, Cy Laurie & Ken Colyer
and a few others made the effort. Many more did not and modelled their
playing on Ball, Barber & Bilk. Of those three, Bilk's was the most exciting
and closest to swinging New Orleans Jazz. But of course those that copy the
copyists create a watered down version of a watered down version, which 50
years on is still awful. Humph's early Parlophone records stand up to the
test of time  - but - why listen to them and other Brit bands when you can
now hear in better fidelity than ever, the Olivers, Mortons, Hot Fives etc.
Can traditional jazz develop? Of course it can because each creation by
musicians playing in the style is a development. It does not require rock
rhythms from the drummer, nor does it require be-bop phrases from the
clarinet player, or comp chords from a piano player. Art Hodes, when I
played with him in the late 80s  when he was in his 80s was still
developing, but he had not gone progressive like some players. He stayed
within the form. Did Louis Armstrong stop developing? Why did he not follow
the Be bop trail?

John Petters
Amateur Radio Station G3YPZ
www.traditional-jazz.com