"LJS" <ljschenck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9a9e7f6d-eb93-49f4-8f30-92406c8156c4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Come on Dave, I heard those recordings 50 years ago. I studied them in
> the late 60s. Do you really think that I haven't heard these records?
Everything you say gives that impression.
> They are fine for what they are. They are a record of the state of the
> music when influence of the earlier musicians whose work spreading
> their craft reached the popularity that prompted the record industry
> to record this style of music.
No. There are plenty of examples of band music (in related styles)
recorded prior to 1917; it's just thet the ODJB's 1917 recordings are the
first to be generally agreed as being jazz.
> And then they chose a white band for
> the first recording!
They didn't 'choose' anything. The ODJB recorded; the ODJB played what
is
now considered jazz. The record studio was just recording music. That
it
is now considered jazz is very much after the fact. And it was them
largely because they happened to be in Chicago.
> The Original Dixie Land Jass Band's recording of
> "Livery Stable Blues", coupled with "Dixie Jass Band One Step" became
> the first Jazz record ever released on February 26, 1917 for the
> Victor Talking Machine Company. It was wildly successful.
Yes and other contem****ary recordings were very successful too - but they
are not considered to be jazz. [The ODJB recorded shortly before that for
Columbia, but it was pobaby not marketed as a "jazz record".]
[The sleeve notes of my copy of the recordings also affirm the fact that
there is no evidence that anyone was playing anything like this before
march
1916, when the ODJB first appeared at Schiller's Cafe.]
>The La Roca
> brothers and the other members of this band played with "Papa Laine's
> band in 1888 and these white bands did not start this whole thing. The
> La Roca's picked this style up from the Black musicians that was
> playing as they grew up!
Nick La Rocca developed his style as black musicians were also developing
theirs. It is difficult to imagine how or what he played in 1888,
especially as he appears to have been born on 11 April 1889. (Though he
did play with Laine a couple of decades later than that.)
I really don't know why I am continuing this conversation - everything you
come up with is the most utter drivel.
>> > Joplin, and Handy,
>>
>> Neither of whom were Creole AFAIK and neither of whom had anything
>> significant (directly) to do with jazz.
>
> Strange, the authorities say that these are directly related to the
> style..
Lots of things are "related" but they, personally, didn't have anything
directly to do with jazz.
> and all of this and other styles are the components that came
> from the thread of music that is and was Jass. BUT of course you know
> better than them.
You have it all backwards again: jazz arose partly out of ragtime and
partly
out of the blues (with which Joplin and Handy *are* connected). Not the
other way round.
>> Can you get much more partronising? You are talking about geniuses -
>> people who were better musicians than you or I will ever be.
>
> You have no idea of what kind of musician that I am! that is a very
> strange thing for an educated person to say.
Quite. But if you had the sort of talent that Handy and Joplin had, then
I,
and the rest of the world, *would* know about it.
> Lets see, recorded in 1917 and first concieved in 1915.
>Yes, that is how long it took to evolve!
What utter rubbish you do talk. Jazz wasn't "conceived". It evolved,
and it went on evolving, it is still evolving. But there is no evidence
that the factors which distinguish what we now recognise as jazz were
present before 1915. (And I am not giving a "time of conception" but
rather
an earliest bound.)
> Read the old posts, they are all in my earlier responses that
> do***ented the music back to the mid 1800s.
No, there was nothing there that did that.
>...Common knowledge
> and the research that I sent you show that this style was pretty well
> established before that! Long before that.
I'm aftraid "common knowledge" is on my side. Despite your desperate
attempts to redate Nick la Rocca's birth to 40 years earlier than it
actually was.
> After it was recorded, of
> course, things started to change and morph the style into various
> schools of Jazz. But the music was well established long before 1917
> or 1915! This is when the new era of popularity started.
So you keep saying - with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
>> > It just didn't happen that way. The early recordings were a
***ulation
>> > of decades and more evolution and mixing of all the aspects of life
in
>> > New Orleans.
>>
>> But not of decades of jazz.
>
> Only because the NAME was not yet invented! the music was there.
No. The music was not, as far as anyone has been able to discern, jazz.
>> >There as music at the funerals since before anyone can
>> > remember.
>>
>> And there were marches - but not jazz.
>
> You know this because? No, this is your supposition, the facts tend to
> suggest otherwise!
I know this because all the music history books say that there is no
evidence for jazz before around 1915. There are no recordings of it
before 1917, though there are planty of recordings which are not jazz.
>> > There was blues taken from the African music,
>>
>> How far the blues goes back is very obscure - it probably wasn't as
long
>> as
>> you think. But in any case it was not jazz.
>
> I see, even though the first recording was a blues, it has nothing to
> do with Jazz! That's logical!
Evidently you have no idea of what jazz and blues are, and how something
can
be one, the other, neither or both.
>> But no jazz.
>
> And no citations by you to refute the citations that I sent you!
You sent me no proof that jazz existed before 1915. One or two romantic
suppositions, but no evidence to sup****t them.
>> > The music was spread by many in its earlier stages and in its
>> > component parts. Way back before there were recordings.
>>
>> But no jazz.
>
> Again, only your unsup****ted opinion!
No it is the general view among jazz historians.
> No, they knew about Jass before the recordings of 1917
Evidence?
>> All you have done is rubbish the academic studies, the interviews of
the
>> musicianss who were there at the time, and point to one or two
internet
>> sites which give scant sup****t for their assertions (which do not in
any
>> event show that jazz existed before around 915).
>
> Then you didn't read the sites and follow the do***entation did you?
Yes and there was no evidence.
>> The recorded history of the popular music of the day goes a lot further
>> back
>> than the first jazz recordings of 1917. But no-one recorded jazz
>> because there wasn't any.
>
> You keep saying that!
Yes I do.
> but you don't provide any backup!
And I have quoted the academic studies. Here's another one from a very
well
know jazz historian:
====
"Whether of not other bands existed anywheer in the USA, playing music
comparable to that of the ODJB before the latter first appeared before the
public in Chicago's Schiller's cafe on March 3, 1916, we may never know;
there is certainly nothing on records, and it is all too easy for
omniscients to claim part of another man's success and assert "I was doing
that before they were", or "they hung around copying my style.
"My own personal opinion, after carefiul examination of the facts, is that
there may have been a bombilating brass-band ragtime music developing out
of
a fusion of *written* piano ragtime and *written* paragde marches, such
being played by bands of all kinds, negro and white alike, before the
arrival of the ODJB, but I contend that if it had had anything in common
with the music of the ODJB in its spirited, emancipated approach, it would
have succeeded as the ODJB succeeded. All te trivial arguments the
latter
reached the top because they were white, fall flat in view of the fct that
at the time, Jim Europe, Ford Dabney, Lousi Mitchell, Gus haston, and
Wibur
Sweatman were all successfully entertaining a vast public by means of
their
records and personal apperances, all of them negroes, all outstandingly
talented - and not one of them playing jazz."
Brian Rust.
====
So show me the evidence that I am wrong and that he is wrong and that all
the other jazz historians are wrong.
> I have given you a couple of years before that over and over again.
> You say that there was no jazz then before 1915! Big difference in
> light of the fact that I have shown you that it was well established
> before 1888 even in the White community....
Yes by Nick La Rocca (b1889) - at least I am getting *some* amusement
value out of your rantings.
As the rest of it seems to depend on your assertion that he was playing
jazz
before he was born, and other completely unsubstaniated statetments which
are just as silly, I don't think it will be productive to comment any
further.
Unless of course you can show some evidence.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/sup****t see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
|
