On Jun 4, 2:32 am, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:f882c739-83ab-486c-ac77-43611fe15d61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > That is the band that he learned in that was FORMED in 1988!
> >...I would think that an intelligent person could have deduced that!
>
> Yes Jack Laine formed a brass band in 1888, but it didn't play jazz.
Nick
> La Rocca was quite clear about what sort of thing he played with Jack
Laine
> when he was interviewed later in life.
>
> But no-one who knew the first thing about this period of jazz could ever
> have written as you did
>
> "The La Roca brothers [sic] and the other members of this band played
with
> Papa Laine's band in 1888"
>
> I didn't 'misread' it - you specifically say "...La Roca ...played ...in
> 1888." Any "intelligent person" can see this.
And you mis read it again as I said that this was a typo and
explained how an intelligent person should have noticed this. But
instead....
>
> What I was generous enough not to comment on are the less precise
> implications made by your statement: that Nick la Rocca had a broher in
the
> ODJB (he didn't) and that all the other members of the ODJB played with
> Laine (they didn't - though Edwards did).
>
> It is completely clear that you don't know the first thing about early
jazz
> and you're just, making it all up to sup****t some romantic notion.
Creoles
> being too upper class to play jazz, La Rocca playing before he was
born,
> and jazz before the Louisiana Purchase (presumeably using keyed bugles
and
> serpents), classical ragtime being cleaned up jazz, are just some of the
> more amusing, bizarre highlights, in a series of tirades which are wrong
> from beginning to end.
>
> You obviously have no affinity with this music at all. Give it up.
[It's
> alright, you know, it isn't compulsory.]
>
> But if you really do want to lean about what jazz, blues, and ragtime
are:
> try the Victor Military Band's 1914 recording of W C Handy's "Memphis
> Blues". It is an excellent example of what brass and wind bands were
doing
> at the time following the rise in popularity of ragtime. It is blues
(in
> form), ragtime (in style), and jazz in no respect whatsoever. Then
listen
> to any one of dozens of jazz renditions of Memphis Blues from the 1920s
and
> try and hear the difference.
>
> 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
Get a grip Dave,
Again, you bring out points that have no bearing on the music. I may
be wrong, or misinformed by his grand nephew about the brother playing
in the band. He probably said that he played with the band, and not
said that he was on the recording, however I don't see how this
applies to anything.. To the fact that the ODJB all played with
Laine's band, well <http://www.redhotjazz.com/odjb.html>
does seem to
disagree with you. Who knows and who cares! It all has nothing to do
with what I am trying to explain to you and your refusal to try to
look at our music from any point of view other than your own that
centers around these first recordings!
I will say it for the last time.
There was a body of music that had been going on in New Orleans for a
very long time before these recordings that you discovered.There were
piano players that improvised on tunes, there were improvisation on
the old hymns both vocally and instrumentally in church, at funerals
etc. There were bands hired to play for advertising functions that
were thrown together and improvised around the tunes that they play.
There were singers of blues and there were people playing with them
and improvising with them. ALL of this and more was the collective
body of music happening in New Orleans. There were also more organized
bands that played charts and popular music in various styles. These
musicians came from various cultures and were (at least in public)
very segregated groups. Being as they were all musicians, there was
also a whole lot of interaction with the various cultures and the
various styles. N.O. musicians do tend to mix more than most and learn
each other's styles. This collective musical body of improvised music
existed from way back in time to various degrees and musicians
traveled for years and years spreading some bits and pieces of this
around the country for so many years that it is hard to say exactly
when this music really started. BUT it is do***ented that it existed
in the links that I sent you from somewhere between 50 and 100 years
before you seem to acknowledge. It was not Jazz because there was not
a name for this large body of music, but this music certainly did
exist.
The pianists and their music was called "raggedity piano" and other
various names. The Gospel music wasn't called Jazz although it was
improvised, used the blues scale (to a great extent) was
improvisational in nature and followed the basic jazz form. There were
the instrumental versions of this that we used at funerals. There was
improvisational music going on here forever. BUT it wasn't Jazz, by
your definition, as it had no name.
In 1897 (about 20 years before your recordings) Storyville was
created. It was an area that tolerated prostitution and other
activities that were not generally acceptable in the other parts of
the city. In this district, the slang word, "Jas", was connected to
the music and became the basis of the term "Jazz". Its meaning, for
those that may not know, referred to the activity that was "sold" in
this district. I don't believe that this term was published by the
press until the bands opened in Chicago around the time of your
recordings, but this is where the word came about. So now, there was a
name for these improvisational styles of music that was part of the
N.O. culture, and the Storyville district was a place where the
musicians that were all trying to play their various forms of
improvised music seemed to meet each other as the people in this
district did not care so much if he "cultures" intermingled as much as
it mattered in the other parts of the city. This provided an
atmosphere where the music that you heard had a chance to develop more
quickly. The music that you have recorded from 1917ish is a result of
the intermingling of the various styles that were already happening
for years. These recording used a format and instrumentation that was
very friendly to this kind of music and it stuck (with some
alterations and refinements) and became what we call (although many
outsiders dispute the real term) Dixieland Jazz.
This is what you are saying is the beginning of Jazz. I don't agree
with you. Jazz is the collective body of improvisational music that
had been going on for years before. After the "Dixieland Jazz" format
became popular, it became the most well known form of Jazz at that
time. But there were still all of the other forms that benefited from
the success of Dixieland. And they all flourished. They all developed
and they all are Jazz weather they were called Jazz or not.
Thus, as I have said many, many times over. If you only consider this
one style of music that was on your records as Jazz, they you may do
so, but this is only a small part of the music that was going on in
our fair city. I consider all the improvisational music, recorded and
unrecorded as Jazz because of the nature of the music. It may not be
what YOU consider Jazz. I find your concept of what it is to be very
limited and to be honest, more than a bit racial, even though I
understand that you don't realize the racism inherent in your earlier
statements in the previous thread on this subject.
I am really tired of trying to point out to you that your views are
certainly correct as far as they go, but that they are NOT the entire
picture of Jazz (or improvisational music based on popular tunes) that
was part of out culture. Jazz as I know it today is an extremely
multifaceted genre as well. The early formations of it also had many
facets that you just won't accept as having any connections to jazz.
(Blues, Ragtime, marching bands, Gospel, etc) Well, this is something
that I just can't accept as not having a direct bearing on Jazz and I
certainly do not accept that your recordings is the total and
exclusive contribution that we have made to the music scene that
became know as Jazz.
So that is it. I am tired of your taking disputed details and trying
to make them "points of proof" for your outlook, I am tired of your
slurs and abusive statements both concerning me and our musical
culture. And I am tired of your not ever taking the time or making the
effort to clarify your thoughts and actually say something in response
to the ideas that I have suggested to you. You have made up your mind.
Your early recording is the exclusive beginning of JAZZ and that is
that. I have tried to expand your perspectives, but in doing so have
fallen into your trap of misreading and misrepresenting posts and
information and you can believe what you want to believe. You seem to
insist on doing this anyway, so don't look at the broader picture.
Consider Jazz that we recognize today to have been invented in 1917.
It certainly seems to be that this is the extent of what you can
accept as Jazz and so that is as far as you can go with it.
Enjoy your music.
LJS
|
