[Dixielandjazz] Today's Jazz - Was Tears

[Marek Boym]

>> You often mention that while the Condon recordings are good, they do not contain the same energy and power that you experienced when you heard the band in person.
>> Have you thought about the same scenario with bands such as the Oliver band? What if you had heard it in person?
>
> Good point Bob. No doubt, at least in my opinion,  that Oliver seen/heard live was much superior to Oliver on recordings.


This has been mentioned by a lot of people who heard the Creole Band
live.  Also others.  It is certainly true of all bands which recorded
accoustically. Not to mention that tempos are often rushed because of
the 3 minutes constraint.  When Wilbur de paris was criticized for
playing "The Pearls" too slow, he replied that he had played with
Morton and that was the right tempo.  Morton had to rush in order to
sqeeze all the strains into a three minute record.



I think that's true for most recordings as compared to live
performance. I hear music with my eyes, as well as my ears and having
seen Armstrong live several times, remember those performances as some
of the most exciting jazz I've ever heard. Condon too. Ambassador
Satch, recorded live in concert is a good example of Armstrong's
energy, when compared with his studio recordings of that period.

True.  But with Armstrong it was less conspicuous than with, for
example, Hot Lips Page.  His studio recordings are good, but give no
hint as to why he was so highly regarded.  His lkive recordings,
however, despite inferior sound demonstrate all his power and the
excitement he created!
>

> I am not dissing Oliver. He was an an original. He innovated. He gave us Louis. What more could he have done? In context of the times, those recordings are superb. But that was then and Jon Erik or Randy are now.

Here we (finally!  I was already worried) differ.  I still consider
Oliver much superior (but you are right, not in his later days).  And
if I listen to the others more it's mainly because much more is
available.
>
> I am just saying that I prefer todays players and what they impart to the performance of the music. Also, I am not into revivalist bands, but rather those that have evolved and bring something new to the party. I prefer today's top of the heap Dixieland Jazz Bands that play their own styles. But I do listen to revivalists and appreciate what they do. New Black Eagles Tears is one example, as was Wilber's Bix project and Gota River is another. They are all superb in my ears.


The Eagles' "Tears" is so different than the Oliver's version!  I do
not think they are a "fevivalist" band; if they are, then all
contemporary Dixieland (or traditional) bands are.
>
> I don't think the music of Oliver and Armstrong et al, was meant as "art", but rather as dance music. I believe Armstrong,  like Bechet, considered himself a musicianeer, not an artist. Nothing wrong with that. It only became art when latter day fans decided to call it that.

Latter day?  Armatrong was treated as royalty (and played for the
royalty) in England already in the'30's!
>
> I note that some folks don't like vibrato the way some of the current guys do it. I look at it a different way. I loved the way Bechet did it, love the way Artie Shaw did it vs. Benny Goodman, adore Tony Scott's vibrato and I love the way it is done by the trumpeter in New Black Eagles. To me, it all goes back to Caruso.

I must (pleas note: under duress!) agree with you again; you are so
absolutely right!
>
> Different strokes for different folks is all. Viva la difference.

Amen!

Cheers
>