[Dixielandjazz] Blue Yodel #9 Louis Armstrong, Jimmie Rodgers, Lil Armstrong

[Steve Barbone]

Anton Crouch wrote:

>For example, in the "backgound" posted by Steve B it says "They (ie
>Armstrong and Rodgers) met in Holly-wood on July 16, 1930, at the end of a
>long session ..." This is misleading. Rodgers spent a lot of time in the
>Victor studio between 30 June and 16 July 1930 but only made a single side
>("Blue yodel no 9") on 16 July. That day was actually a very short session.
>I suspect that the recording was
>a "spur of the moment" event, thought-up by A&R man Ralph Peer.

>Also, to be pedantic, the Victor files (from Brian Rust's Victor Master
>Book vol 2) show the accompaniment as "cornet and piano".

>As for the identity of the pianist, it has long been agreed that it is not
>Earl Hines. But is it Lil Hardin? I don't think so. Miss Lil always kept
>the rhythm going and the pianist on this recordingn plods a bit. It's more
>likely that he/she is an unknown studio musician.


I haven't got the slightest idea whether Lil  would or would not have played
like that on a given day. It may well have been an unfamiliar tune to her,
she may have felt ploddy that day, who knows? And while she was a good
pianist, she was not a great pianist. Perhaps he or Bill Haesler would check
the below matrix # to see if there is any more info there?

"Blue Yodel No. 9" (Standin' On the Corner) (Jimmie Rodgers) Original
recording: 16 Jul 1930, Hollywood Recording Studio, Los Angeles, CA (with
Louis Armstrong, cornet, and Lil Armstrong, piano) (matrix PBVE 54867-2)
Reissued on "America's Blue Yodeler" (Rounder CD 1060, 1991) All tracks also
available on the Bear Family Records boxed set.

Regarding the clip I posted, the source is: Charles Wolfe in an issue of
"Oxford American". See the following web site, Scroll down for the part I
posted, or read the entire article:

http://www.oxfordamericanmag.com/content.cfm?ArticleID=81&Entry=Home

Whether the following sentence, which Anton takes issue with, from that
article is misleading is a matter of debate since the entire sentence reads:
"They met in Hollywood on July 16, 1930, at the end of a long session to
stockpile Rodgers¹s records."

The sentence neither says nor means Rodgers had a long recording session
that day. It reads; "at the end of a long session to stockpile Rodgers
records." Those are two very different events, at least in my mind. That's
the lawyer in me complaining about taking words in an article, or sentence
out of context. To chop the sentence off at "session" and infer that it
therefore means recording session gives us the wrong idea of its context.

The article does imply that the meeting and backup on Yodel #9 were by
chance, or on the spur of the moment as Anton says.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of information on the web about Armstrong
and Rodgers. Fun reading as well as educational.

Is some of it wrong? No doubt. Some of all historical writing is wrong.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone