Page 7 of 12

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:43 pm
by Campus Five
I'll chime in with my own take on ITM.

In the Mood is a well crafted arrangement, with an incredibly memorable theme. The whole getting softer and softer, and then getting loud thing, very effective. Well played, tight.

However, it does have down sides. It was played by a band who could play jazz sometimes, but wasn't particularly a hot band. The main original recording by Miller is more about the arrangement than any improvisation. That means that, on its own, it was a well crafted arrangement that may not have really swung that well, but well crafted and perfectly played.

But add to that the cultural baggage, both in popular culture and our subculture, and you have something that is radioactive to some people, including me. There is a subtext to ITM and people that play or DJ it. ITM is certainly one of the first "swing" songs most people hear in life. It is also the thing that non-swing people think of emblematically as "swing." That means that playing or requesting it can (and generally does) imply being a novice about swing. Of course, a person who requests or plays it may well be an expert, more often than not it screams "newbie." To musicians, specifically the guys that I might hire to play in my band, it says, this is another corn-ball nostalgia band that isn't real jazz. It tells them that this is band that is just going through the motions. It tells them that this is "just another gig" and not something they should really be going for.

So is ITM really that bad, or really that good? I think it is definitely NOT the greatest swing record - milquetoast at worst and culturally significant at best. It is not a bad recording, because there are bad arrangements and bad performances from the era that are far worse and far more square. Still, I think songs like Shaw's "Lady Be Good", or Basie's "Woodside," Goodman's "Ridin' High," or Duke's "Cottontail," and many other lesser known tunes that could easily beat it out for a good arrangement and that really swings.

Personally, I don't and won't play it. If people request on a gig, I will flat out tell them "no" without making excuses to sugar coat it. If a client specifically requests it before the gig, I tell them "no" and give them the option of hiring someone else if that's important to them. My whole reason for having a band is to play real swing music which is completely danceable (to jitterbugs at least), and if possible to highlight songs that are lesser known and less than obvious, but still great. ITM implies too many things that I don't want to be about. It tells my musicians that I don't care. It tells my audience (particularly the swing dancers than know) that I don't really know the era well enough to find other tunes. It says were just another mindless, generic swing band with no originality or authenticity.

It may not mean these things to everyone, but that is what it means to me. ITM is not evil, and is certainly not the worst song or recording out there. I will grant that it is well crafted. However, its baggage far outweighs the positives. It is emblematic of many of things I try to avoid.

Without intending to open a side discussion on the merits of that song, I find that Sing, Sing, Sing, while having the similar pop culture significance, doesn't carry the same negative baggage for musicians, and there it is far better on its own. I could watch the clip or the Goodman band from Hollywood Hotel playing SSS a hundred times. Goodman, Krupa, James in 1937-1938 - some of the absolute masters of the craft at their peaks. Jimmy Mundy's arrangement is simple and tight. The Carnegie Hall version has that great solo by Jess Stacy. We've all had our experiences seeing a band with a modern drummer who plays a drum break that totally loses all the dancers, but still I think there is something much more there, especially in those seminal Goodman recording/movies.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:22 pm
by Lawrence
Campus Five wrote: But add to that the cultural baggage, both in popular culture and our subculture, and you have something that is radioactive to some people, including me. There is a subtext to ITM and people that play or DJ it. ITM is certainly one of the first "swing" songs most people hear in life. It is also the thing that non-swing people think of emblematically as "swing." That means that playing or requesting it can (and generally does) imply being a novice about swing. Of course, a person who requests or plays it may well be an expert, more often than not it screams "newbie." To musicians, specifically the guys that I might hire to play in my band, it says, this is another corn-ball nostalgia band that isn't real jazz. It tells them that this is band that is just going through the motions. It tells them that this is "just another gig" and not something they should really be going for.

So is ITM really that bad, or really that good? I think it is definitely NOT the greatest swing record - milquetoast at worst and culturally significant at best. It is not a bad recording, because there are bad arrangements and bad performances from the era that are far worse and far more square. Still, I think songs like Shaw's "Lady Be Good", or Basie's "Woodside," Goodman's "Ridin' High," or Duke's "Cottontail," and many other lesser known tunes that could easily beat it out for a good arrangement and that really swings.

Personally, I don't and won't play it. If people request on a gig, I will flat out tell them "no" without making excuses to sugar coat it. If a client specifically requests it before the gig, I tell them "no" and give them the option of hiring someone else if that's important to them. My whole reason for having a band is to play real swing music which is completely danceable (to jitterbugs at least), and if possible to highlight songs that are lesser known and less than obvious, but still great. ITM implies too many things that I don't want to be about. It tells my musicians that I don't care. It tells my audience (particularly the swing dancers than know) that I don't really know the era well enough to find other tunes. It says were just another mindless, generic swing band with no originality or authenticity.

It may not mean these things to everyone, but that is what it means to me. ITM is not evil, and is certainly not the worst song or recording out there. I will grant that it is well crafted. However, its baggage far outweighs the positives. It is emblematic of many of things I try to avoid.
I agree completely with the above. Well said.

I would put "Sing Sing Sing" in the same category, if only because of "Swing Kids."

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:46 pm
by Swifty
I love that part of Swing Kids.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:03 pm
by kitkat
Lawrence wrote:I would put "Sing Sing Sing" in the same category, if only because of "Swing Kids."
I'd put it in that category because of the Chips Ahoy commercial that used it. :-D

I remember that "the song from the Chips Ahoy commercial with the dancing exclamation points" was the first jazz song I liked.

Sorry. Waaaaaaay off topic.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:30 pm
by Campus Five
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not. I think SSS is good enough to survive all of that. Seriously, I could watch this over and over: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mJ4dpNal_k

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:33 pm
by Lawrence
Campus Five wrote:I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not. I think SSS is good enough to survive all of that. Seriously, I could watch this over and over: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mJ4dpNal_k
I agree with your main point (95% of your post) about "In the Mood;" I just disagree about Sing Sing Sing not having that same baggage. It is a great song, and I love it in large part because I never, ever, ever would play it. It might not be as overplayed now as it was back in the Neo Revival days, but it was played once or twice a night (every night) for about four or five years straight: driven much, much, much deeper into the ground than In The Mood.

Sing Sing Sing is actually one of the overplayed fad songs that inspired me to start DJing, and my never playing it was a large part of what made me an easy and instant success.

I would have chosen "A Train" as my counterexample of a ubiquitous "Swing" song that still can be played without a groan from the regulars.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:47 pm
by Eyeball
The ITM Wiki entry is exceptionally poor.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:59 pm
by kitkat
Lawrence wrote:I would have chosen "A Train" as my counterexample of a ubiquitous "Swing" song that still can be played without a groan from the regulars.
I groan. I'd much rather dance to Sing, Sing, Sing. But then, I like fastish dancing. To each her own, I guess.

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:55 am
by remysun
Eyeball wrote:The ITM Wiki entry is exceptionally poor.
That's what's great. You can change it, or if you give me the citations, I can. Wikipedia gets some knocks because it's only as good as the effort put into it, and as an online resource for plagarism, it doesn't get any easier, but I'm convinced that outside from vandalism, there's a good faith effort on the contributors to make it objective and informative, something that doesn't exist in other media.

So the biggest knock would be that people are forced to think and reason about the data they receive. That's true for anything, but the biggest knock is that some people don't like to do that. How anyone can live with their brain switch in the off position is beyond me.

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:11 am
by remysun
"Take the A train" and "Sing, Sing, Sing": two valid points. S3 was more overdone than ITM-- very, very long dance snob lindy circle is all I have to say. The song's redemption is that the soloists are allowed more freedom than Glenn Miller's tight arrangements. I've heard of covers that allude to "The Flintstones" theme and many other things. Lots of freedom.

TAT is on the level of ITM, I'm not going to recap the qualities, but I can't overlook the prejudices that might have held it back: the color barrier and Billy Strayhorn's homosexuality. That might have helped the song avoid become cliche, though.

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:23 am
by Eyeball
remysun wrote:"Take the A train" ....... is on the level of ITM, I'm not going to recap the qualities, but I can't overlook the prejudices that might have held it back: the color barrier and Billy Strayhorn's homosexuality. That might have helped the song avoid become cliche, though.
"Held it back"? Held it back from what? No one in the public ever had a clue that Strayhorn was gay. Most people still don't even know who he is, much less his sexual orientation.

I don't understand where you are getting your theories. How old are you? How long have you been interested in Jazz?

"A" Train was and is a huge hit - one of the biggest big band hits of the era.

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:26 am
by zzzzoom
Campus Five wrote:I'm not sure if you're agreeing or not. I think SSS is good enough to survive all of that. Seriously, I could watch this over and over: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mJ4dpNal_k
Anyone else notice that in this clip, Gene Krupa 'disappears'? He is right next to the trumpets as the camera moves back. Then the next shot is a close up of the trumpets and trombones and Krupa's not there. I guess it made for a more artistic shot to remove him.

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:33 am
by Haydn
Campus Five wrote:IITM is certainly one of the first "swing" songs most people hear in life. It is also the thing that non-swing people think of emblematically as "swing."
When I am struggling to explain 'swing dancing' to friends, I just mention 'Glenn Miller' and they understand :wink:

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:16 am
by Lawrence
Haydn wrote:
Campus Five wrote:IITM is certainly one of the first "swing" songs most people hear in life. It is also the thing that non-swing people think of emblematically as "swing."
When I am struggling to explain 'swing dancing' to friends, I just mention 'Glenn Miller' and they understand :wink:
Don't mistake those knowing looks for complimentary thoughts. :wink: You might want to choose a different example. 8)

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:44 am
by Haydn
Lawrence wrote:Don't mistake those knowing looks for complimentary thoughts. :wink: You might want to choose a different example. 8)
Yeah I've tried referring to Benny Goodman, Count Basie, etc, but I often get blank looks :shock:. Glenn Miller, in Britain at least, seems to be someone that most of the general population is familiar with, so it works as a reference.