[Dixielandjazz] The Rosetta Stone of Jazz?

[Steve Barbone]

> "Fr M J (Mike) Logsdon" <mjl at ix.netcom.com>
 
> Now that we're all agreed (even Mr Barbone; heavens!) as to the value of
> the Archeophone 1923 Oliver recordings, I've got a new question:
> 
> Generally, it is taken as a given that the Armstrong Hot 5s and 7s are
> the "Rosetta Stone" of jazz.  In what sense can it be said that the 1923
> Olivers are said "Stone"?  After all, they did come first, and seemingly
> define, or at least trigger, the genre...,
 
I think you mean do the Hot 5 Hot 7 define Jazz? The Rosetta Stone is
another matter entirely. Perhaps a tenuous analogy?

The Rosetta Stone was the key to translating hieroglyphics into modern
written languages. Prior to its discovery, we could not decipher
hieroglyphics. The stone fragment contains writing in two languages
(Egyptian and Greek), using three scripts (hieroglyphic, demotic and Greek).

All three scripts were used in Egypt at that time, circa 200 BC.

Hieroglyphics were used for religious documents. Demotic was the more common
written Egyptian language and Greek was used by the then rulers of Egypt.

The Rosetta Stone has the same information written in all three scripts so
that the priests, government officials (and others who could read) and
rulers of Egypt could read what it said. It enabled modern day folks to
translate hieroglyphics by comparing those old writings.

Do Hot 5/Hot 7 define jazz? If that's what you are asking, I vote no. IMO,
what they do is change the direction of jazz and/or the language of jazz. By
doing so they were, IMO, the most important jazz recordings of the first
half of the 20th century.

Do the Oliver's define jazz. IMO they are a sound bite of what Oliver's
concept of jazz was at that time. And because Louis Armstrong was mentored
by Oliver, they give us some insight into what went on musically in Pops'
mind. Bear in mind that the Archeophones merely sound better than other
versions. Listeners will hear exactly the same musical thoughts. So their
value depends upon how you listen and what you listen for.  E.G.  I have
some homemade tapes made at Jimmy Ryans in NYC in the 1950s that sound just
awful because of the quality. Horns sound tinny, etc. Some people hear the
tinny sound and disparage the musicians. Yet the music they play is
astounding. 

ODJB preceded Oliver. Do the ODJB recordings define jazz. IMO, no, for the
same reasons. Maybe when those Buddy Bolden wax cylinder recordings become
available, we'll learn even more. :-) VBG

I think all of the recordings from day one until now are just an aural sense
of what the musician sounded like and what the bands sounded like at that
particular moment. I hear the evolution of OKOM, from ODJB to Oliver, to
Louis. to Bix. to Condon, to Turk, To Lu and Bob, Back to Louis, to today's
folks like Reinhart, Kellso, Barrett, Helleny and a bunch of others who are
bringing something new to the genre.

The definition? Folks have been arguing about that since the genre began to
no avail. Why worry about it?

Cheers,
Steve Barbone