That is the band that he learned in that was FORMED in 1988! If you
mis read or I typoed, sorry, I would think that an intelligent person
could have deduced that! And we are thus back to your very narrow view
of what Jazz was and what the music scene was in New Orleans.
Other than that its the Same old, same old,
On Jun 3, 10:13 am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[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.
This is your proof? An OPINION that is based on what Brian says is
based on suppositions and (something that seems to be evading you that
is the point of the whole thing!) is based on the premise that this
Nick LaRoca was, the first to play this kind of music, and that this
is the only facet of Jazz that was being played at the time! The very
fact that there are not very many recordings done PERIOD of that time.
He doesn't think that other things were jazz, that is his right just
as you have the right to say that the LaRoca style of jazz (which is
not really his style any more than it was anyone else's style that was
playing at the time.
It is very dishonest for you to dismiss Laine's band the way you did.
(Do you think that everyone is an Idiot!) Papa Laine's band was
started way before Nick joined it, one would think that this was
obvious, but apparently not to you. Just as it is not apparent to you
that this was only one style. It did become popular. Even Brian sees
that it was the Black musicians that were playing most of the gigs.
Without the recordings and without anyone commenting or writing about
their approach to music, his guess is not any more valid than yours!
and it does not address many of the issues that you brought up.
I still have not seen your clear explanation of what your position
really is that I don't understand. I suppose that this "hand copied"
quote is accurate except for the typos, but I can not even be sure of
that in lieu of some of the SNIPS that you have conveniently left out
in previous posts, and as I have pointed out, Brian's comments, as HE
points out, is purely a guess and based on his opinion of what was
being played.
NOW, if your opinion is, (and I still have no clarification and it
seemed to be the big point in your last post) that Nick LaRoca is the
first example of his approach to Dixieland Jazz, then OK. If that is
what you are not saying, I agree. It is quite a difference from all
the things that you have said before and that may be very well true!
It is still, however, not sup****ting the position that this was the
first JAZZ recording. It only shows that this was the first recording
of this particular aspect of the entire Jazz scene that YOU, and maybe
your fellow countryman, considers Jazz. I can tell you that your view
is not shared by all or maybe even most! And is not shared by the
musicians that have played and passed on the craft from generation to
generation.
The rest of the post is crap, but I did say that I would respond to
any do***entation that you provided and even though this is really
more of another opinion and does not offer anything new, it is
something. I don't know why you refuse to follow the links inside the
sites that I sent you. They may give you an idea of the vastness of
he many faceted style of music that was Jazz prior to its commercial
success with the rest of the world.
I can't actually show that he is wrong, as I am sure that it is his
OPINION because he says that it is his opinion. You are correct. This
is his opinion. He dismisses the statements of people that say that
they heard the style or were playing this style before Nick did. I
don't, however, see anything except for his opinion that this is true.
If you dig into what I have already sent, you will see many references
to the music, but certainly not with the term JAS uses as it was not
named. So the only thing that I see is a ****ft to the fact that you
are now saying that it was not the Creoles that created Jazz, it was
Nick LaRoca and his band that did and they created it in about a year
or two! And then everyone learned what they were doing and instantly
became jazz musicians! Even the LaRoca's that I have worked with
don't claim that!! All they want is the copyright on some tunes to be
credited to them rather than (I'm not sure who at the moment, but I
think it was..) one of the older Barbarans.
LJS
> ====
>
> 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
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm
|
