Lawrence-
Just about everything you said in your post is not true. Flat out wrong. You have reached erroneous conclusions based upon specious premises. You really need to do some research before you post these things as 'facts' for you do not have a handle on things as they were.
Lawrence wrote:
Exactly. Indeed, many people from "back in the day" noted that bands played many of the vintage recordings faster than they played the same songs live, purely to meet the 3-minute time limit of 78 records. LPs freed them from that constraint. With LPs, the focus on brevity not only was lost, it sometimes shifted to "take as long as you like" so as to fill up an entire LP.
OK - what people back in the day noted that live performances were slower than the recorded ones? In fact, it was Gene Krupa, IIRC, who "noted" that live performances of recorded tunes tended to get faster as time went by.
Likely the only tune of consequence that you can name as sounding slower live is IN THE MOOD.
I cant think of any tunes right now that have stood out over years of listening where the tempo was markedly different between the recorded and the live.
More over - the 10" 78 disc had about 3.45 of time on one side. If they made the performance a 2-sided disc, you could have a 6 - nearly 8 minute recording.
On LPs, the focus on brevity was *not* lost...and who says 3 plus minutes is "brief"? On LPs, people expected to get 12 - 16 songs.
"Take as long as you like" - bogus theory. The only people really stretching out were Jazz and classical artists - and neither of them were reaching out to a dance audience.
It is amazing to me how you keep trying to dance to music that was not created to be danced to.
Lawrence wrote:The shift from big to small band also affected the brevity. Instead of featuring one (MAYBE two) soloist(s) per song, each band member in a small group combo routinely started taking solos on each song, which makes the songs all MUCH longer, which in turn makes me inclined to want to edit out the weaker solos. Doesn't happen in Big Bands as much, because you simply cannot go around the horn in a big band.
Again you issue a blanket statement. Not everyone in a group soloed on each song and not everyone soloed extensively nor for long minutes at a time.
Lawrence wrote:Another factor comes with the cost of recording. As the cost went down, the number of "excessive" recordings went up. The focus on making a recording your best shot diminished because another recording opportunity was just around the corner.
Specious premise! Your second sentence is pure crap. Talk to the musicians who couldnt pay rent back them..or now.....and has it ever been cheaper to record?
Lawrence wrote:Another element is that improv soloing started becoming the heart of jazz in the post-swing era. But with improv comes lots of experimentation, which artificially extends the length of all solos. It is a trade-off that a listener welcomes or readily accepts because he just needs to sit there, whereas s dancer needs to keep moving.
Baloney! You seem to have forgotten the decades of New Orleans and improvised Jazz that pre-dates the Swing Era. Improvisation has always been one of the hearts of Jazz. It had to share the spotlight when arranged music of the Swing Era was top dog, but there was still much improvised Jazz soloing.
'Artificial extension of solos'? Only someone who does not understand Jazz could come up with a concept such as that.
Lawrence wrote:The change also didn't happen overnight because arrangers and musicians from the Swing Era still held onto their habits. Only when the new generation of jazzmen arose in the 50s did the obsessive focus on brevity get completely weened out from the jazz ethic. Now a brief solo is considered odd.
Nothing much up there. Just more curious notions.
There was never an "Obsessive focus on brevity". Where do you come up with this stuff?
"Now a brief solo is considered odd."?? On what planet? What are you talking about? Can you back anything up at all?
Dude - just go be a dancer.