<div dir="ltr"><div>I started the "pianoless" discussion by stating that it was strange to hear a pianoless version of an Ellington number. What I meant had nothing to so with solos, but rather with pianoless rhythm sections. In general, I prefer rhythm sections with a piano - a strange statement coming from an avid of the (pre-Jazz and Blues) Barber band, which, by the way, recorded quite a lot of Ellingtonia.</div><div>In the same posting I mentioned Eli Preminger's penchant for reviving obscure Ellington numbers. While the last time I heard him play such a tune it was with a piano, his band (Eli and the Chocolate Factory) is usually pianoless, and plays Ellingtonia, not only obscure, very well.</div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Marek<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 02:14, Shaw, Tim <<a href="mailto:Tim.Shaw@vidrl.org.au">Tim.Shaw@vidrl.org.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear all, <br>
I agree with Bill - always nice to fine "new" old tunes resurrected - especially if they deserve it - not all do - but "Awful Sad" does - & it's not unique amongst Ellingtonia - listen (eg) to <br>
"The Mystery Song" (which does have a bit of DE piano but mainly decorative, not so "functional" -<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlveGjxUeFw" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlveGjxUeFw</a> <br>
<br>
Really "good" tunes (& most music in general) is independent of instrumentation. (Think of the baroque greats Bach, Scarlatti, Handel et al. as the extreme case). <br>
Ellington's pianistic skills pre-mid-1930s were very secondary to his ability to "herd (musical) cats" - clearly a thankless & exhausting task, considering what a bunch of bad lads the DE band were - and continued to be until his son, Mercer Ellington took over the job of trying to clean up their behaviour. Mercer probably kept them in work, but the musos resented him & I'm pretty sure that most of us on the listening end (OKOM dept.) much prefer the earlier bands stacked by "bad" (in both, opposite senses) dudes. <br>
I reckon the really "great" Ellingtonia mostly sounds great regardless of instrumentation - listen to (eg) piano-less Tuba Skinny doing Jubilee Stomp.<br>
Very best,<br>
tim<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bill Haesler [mailto:<a href="mailto:bhaesler@bigpond.net.au" target="_blank">bhaesler@bigpond.net.au</a>] <br>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2020 2:02 PM<br>
To: Shaw, Tim<br>
Cc: Dixieland Jazz Mailing List<br>
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Check out my band playing Ellington's Awful Sad!<br>
<br>
> <a href="mailto:gerard.bielderman@telfort.nl" target="_blank">gerard.bielderman@telfort.nl</a>> <<a href="mailto:gerard.bielderman@telfort.nl" target="_blank">gerard.bielderman@telfort.nl</a>> wrote in reply to Jim Kash:<br>
> Serious jazz lovers (like me) will always be happy when there are some new tunes on a cd and not the old warhorses. So it should be a mix of standards and obscure tunes I think.<br>
<br>
Dear Listmates,<br>
I'm with Gerard.<br>
I always look for new tunes and often ignore a CD if it comprises selections of warhorses or those taken from the list I call the '100 standards'.<br>
The same rule applied generally with the tunes played by my several bands for engagements and recordings over the years. <br>
However, I suppose it depends on the intended audience for the CD.<br>
In Jim's case it is usually aimed at the point of sale; his tourist audiences. A memento. And therefore an exception.<br>
And I know, from watching/listening to his videos and mp3s of his band, Jim does them all extremely well. <br>
<br>
It is interesting that Madison picked that rare and neglected 1928 Ellington tune "Awful Sad".<br>
A good choice - and it is an excellent rendition. Congratulations.<br>
Although the 1928 version is well known to older collectors Ellington, for some reason he only recorded it twice in his long career. <br>
And, as has been pointed out, it did not contain a piano solo. Why? <br>
Oddly, the second (1933) rendition was never released, notwithstanding that there were three takes. Another "why?"<br>
Cheers to all,<br>
Bill.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dixielandjazz mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com" target="_blank">Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com</a><br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
WARNING: This message originated from outside the Northern/Melbourne/Western Health e-mail network. The sender cannot be validated. Caution is advised. Contact IT Services for more information.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dixielandjazz mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com" target="_blank">Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>