50s bands for swing dancing

Message

GemZombie · #91 Post by **GemZombie** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:19 am

A distiniction was made that radio DJs would prefer audio quality of the post 40's recordings. I am here to say that it's just not true. I prefer to play the music that make me want to dance on my radio show.

That's music, as was said by someone else, with drive.

Harry James, while technically a master, put together bands and arrangements that were showcases for his technical ability, while definitely lacking in that drive.

I, also, make the distiniction of Basie from the 30's-40's, and later. It has nothing to do with the quality of the recording, but the quality of the style and energy.

Many musicians and bands changed their style along with the musical styles. That progressed away from dance music and what was considered "Swing".

mark0tz · #92 Post by **mark0tz** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:36 am

Did Benny Goodman have that drive when Harry James was with the band? Did Count Basie have that drive when Harry James played with him? I agree some of James' band stuff is fluff, some of it is better suited for ballroom than lindy hoppers (probably the majority), but there's plenty of stuff pre 1950 and post 1950 that has it.

Also, I'd totally agree with the statement that audio fidelity (unless it's really bad) should never prevent a DJ from playing a certain song. Even if it's on the radio. I love listening to the the various jazz shows when they play hot jazz, some scratchy Lunceford, or lo-fi basie. And I know I'm not alone because "Hot Jazz Saturday Nights" here on 88.5 has been around for years and well supported come pledge time. Energy and ability almost always triumph despite lo-fi recording quality.

Ron · #93 Post by **Ron** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:20 pm

Well, I definitely prefer, and I think a lot of dancers prefer, high-fidelity recordings. So I don't necessarily agree that the performance almost always trumps the recording quality.

But just because something is high-fidelity doesn't make it good, as these 50's clips show. What makes them poor is not the technical playing or the sound quality (usually), but the arrangements. I think saying something lacks "drive" isn't really saying anything very descriptive, but sometimes a generic term like that or "cheese" is the best we can come up with to say that the arrangements are poor.

In contrast I'd like to bring up "B.G. in Hi-Fi" by Benny Goodman recorded in 1954. I think Reuben said he didn't like those versions compared to the 30's versions, but I think this album has what those clips didn't have: good arrangements. Even more, good arrangements of fundamentally good songs. Basically the same arrangements as the classic versions.

A lot of the Basie charts in the Atomic period are fundamentally good arrangements, too. Like "Splanky", one of my all-time favorite dance songs. The Big 18 recordings are again good because of the fundamentally good arrangements.

Ron · #94 Post by **Ron** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:22 pm

Also, I have to disagree with another post, that Mora's isn't cheesy. I think a lot of their vocal songs are very cheesy. So when I spin Mora's, I rarely if ever play the vocal songs. They make me cringe, it's something about the over-exagerated delivery, I think.

Doug · #95 Post by **Doug** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:19 pm

Ron wrote:Also, I have to disagree with another post, that Mora's isn't cheesy. I think a lot of their vocal songs are very cheesy. So when I spin Mora's, I rarely if ever play the vocal songs. They make me cringe, it's something about the over-exagerated delivery, I think.

That was me. And I won't argue with you about the vocals

I guess that I meant his instrumental arrangements.

djstarr · #96 Post by **djstarr** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:24 pm

mark0tz wrote:Did Benny Goodman have that drive when Harry James was with the band? Did Count Basie have that drive when Harry James played with him? I agree some of James' band stuff is fluff, some of it is better suited for ballroom than lindy hoppers (probably the majority), but there's plenty of stuff pre 1950 and post 1950 that has it.

So I got to listen to tracks from Sing, Sing Sing by Benny Goodman on Sunday night when we were hangin out - some of these I have forgotten how good they are. It is so good in fact that I have to remember to DJ these tracks more often. This album has tons of drive; however according to allmusic no Harry James; Gene Krupa is there plus Fletcher Henderson's arrangements.

I was going to say that the rhythm section makes the biggest difference, but looking at the lineup and noting the Fletcher Henderson arrangements I am wondering if you need a good combination of both.

I like the later Basie stuff also, but I've gotten feedback from the hardcore jank lovers here that they prefer early Basie to dance to - especially for fast lindy - I put on Jumpin' at the Woodside from Live at the Sands and was told later it was a lot harder to dance to than earlier versions of this song by Basie.

djstarr · #97 Post by **djstarr** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:25 pm

Doug wrote:
Ron wrote:Also, I have to disagree with another post, that Mora's isn't cheesy. I think a lot of their vocal songs are very cheesy. So when I spin Mora's, I rarely if ever play the vocal songs. They make me cringe, it's something about the over-exagerated delivery, I think.
That was me. And I won't argue with you about the vocals I guess that I meant his instrumental arrangements.

You guys are so picky

I actually like the vocals - especially Smoke Rings - although I agree they are on the cornball side --- good if used well though.

julius · #98 Post by **julius** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:35 pm

djstarr wrote:I've gotten feedback from the hardcore jank lovers here that they prefer early Basie to dance to - especially for fast lindy - I put on Jumpin' at the Woodside from Live at the Sands and was told later it was a lot harder to dance to than earlier versions of this song by Basie.

That version is one of the worst versions of Woodside I have ever heard from anybody, anywhere. The drummer is dropping bombs, the rhythm section is incredibly sloppy, and the horns can't figure out how to get it together at that speed.

main_stem · #99 Post by **main_stem** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:41 pm

julius wrote:
djstarr wrote:I've gotten feedback from the hardcore jank lovers here that they prefer early Basie to dance to - especially for fast lindy - I put on Jumpin' at the Woodside from Live at the Sands and was told later it was a lot harder to dance to than earlier versions of this song by Basie.
That version is one of the worst versions of Woodside I have ever heard from anybody, anywhere. The drummer is dropping bombs, the rhythm section is incredibly sloppy, and the horns can't figure out how to get it together at that speed.

Ditto. New Testement Basie really can't swing at fast tempos. The only version I like, other than the origional, are the ones from Count Meets Duke and the duet between Basie and Peterson.

mity · #100 Post by **mity** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:43 pm

julius wrote:
djstarr wrote:I've gotten feedback from the hardcore jank lovers here that they prefer early Basie to dance to - especially for fast lindy - I put on Jumpin' at the Woodside from Live at the Sands and was told later it was a lot harder to dance to than earlier versions of this song by Basie.
That version is one of the worst versions of Woodside I have ever heard from anybody, anywhere. The drummer is dropping bombs, the rhythm section is incredibly sloppy, and the horns can't figure out how to get it together at that speed.

the worst one i heard was when shorty dave played some slow version of it.

mark0tz · #101 Post by **mark0tz** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:50 pm

a band here played it that was about 150-160... pain. paaain. teeth gritting. Add insult to injury, it was for a planned jam.

djstarr · #102 Post by **djstarr** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:28 pm

julius wrote:
djstarr wrote:I've gotten feedback from the hardcore jank lovers here that they prefer early Basie to dance to - especially for fast lindy - I put on Jumpin' at the Woodside from Live at the Sands and was told later it was a lot harder to dance to than earlier versions of this song by Basie.
That version is one of the worst versions of Woodside I have ever heard from anybody, anywhere. The drummer is dropping bombs, the rhythm section is incredibly sloppy, and the horns can't figure out how to get it together at that speed.

dang! Where was the hivemind when I needed you guys?

Now I know - scratch that off my list.

GemZombie · #103 Post by **GemZombie** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:57 am

mark0tz wrote:Did Benny Goodman have that drive when Harry James was with the band? Did Count Basie have that drive when Harry James played with him? I agree some of James' band stuff is fluff, some of it is better suited for ballroom than lindy hoppers (probably the majority), but there's plenty of stuff pre 1950 and post 1950 that has it.

Yes actually. I said it before, I like a lot of James' work with other bands. It's hit and miss, but hits more often than his solo work. James' just had a preferences for a style I don't enjoy as much... and he used that style on his own more. But in those cases it's about the band he played in, not him specifically.

mousethief · #104 Post by **mousethief** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:05 am

mark0tz wrote:a band here played it that was about 150-160... pain. paaain. teeth gritting. Add insult to injury, it was for a planned jam.

You know, you could always have the band stop playing the song in mid-jam and then get them to start up a faster version of the same song.

tee hee.

Kalman

GemZombie · #105 Post by **GemZombie** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:06 am

Ron wrote:Well, I definitely prefer, and I think a lot of dancers prefer, high-fidelity recordings. So I don't necessarily agree that the performance almost always trumps the recording quality.
(snip)...(snip)
In contrast I'd like to bring up "B.G. in Hi-Fi" by Benny Goodman recorded in 1954. I think Reuben said he didn't like those versions compared to the 30's versions, but I think this album has what those clips didn't have: good arrangements. Even more, good arrangements of fundamentally good songs. Basically the same arrangements as the classic versions.
(snip)

The arrangements may be the same, but direction, performance, and how the performance was captured can make all the difference. I really think many of the HI-FI recreations, even by the original bands, were over produced because they were all hip to the new technology. They over used it, with too much reverb and softness that didn't do the band justice.

Not to mention the change in the musicians' age/manner/ability/preference. It changed the whole dynamic of the songs, so much so that I think it loses the original energy... This is especially true of the Benny Goodman Big Band stuff.