Band rhythm section

Message

Bob the Builder · #1 Post by **Bob the Builder** » Wed Nov 26, 2003 5:45 pm

Is the Rhythm section the most important section of a (swing) "dance" band?
From looking at bands in the past, and in current times, from my initial observation, a band with a strong rhythm section seems to work well with dancers. Basie’s band was known of having the best rhythm section between 37 and early 40’s or so. Webb also lead a very good rhythm section.
Is a good rhythm section, one of the key items a dance band needs?

JeremyLewis · #2 Post by **JeremyLewis** » Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:21 pm

Wait, a question I know the answer to.. Yes! I'll give you a perfect example. Paul and Sharon and I were doing a little CD shopping at Amoeba in Berkeley, CA, and I saw a Monty Alexander CD for something like $3. It was a bunch of standards, looked like it could have a couple of winners on it, and at that price it seemed a steal. Paul looked at the band backing up (esp. rhythm section) and noted he knew none of them. We picked it up anyways, and it was a full stinker. Nothing remotely danceable. The point is that a good artist is nothing as far as swing music is concerned WITHOUT a good backing rhythm section. It may be good music, but the rhythm section is what makes it swing.

falty411 · #3 Post by **falty411** » Wed Nov 26, 2003 8:12 pm

just as the rythm section is the most important part to a swing band it should also be the most important part to a swing dancer

funkyfreak · #4 Post by **funkyfreak** » Thu Nov 27, 2003 7:17 pm

"In April 1941 Gene Krupa played a battle of the bands with Jimmie Lunceford in Baltimore. "It was no fight at all - we lost terribly, it was rout", recalls trumpeter Graham Young.

"They pulled one thing in the first set; They started the last number and I remember the first guy to quit was the drummer, but the dancers kept on cooking as if they had one. Then, pretty soon afterwards, the bass player left, then the guitar and the piano, and they were swinging like crazy without a rhythm section at all - thus proving they were just using a rhythm section for sound, they weren't leaning on it".

(Christian Batchelor: "This Thing Called Swing" p. 239)

-FF

djstarr · #5 Post by **djstarr** » Fri Nov 28, 2003 2:50 pm

yeah but I think a band with a bad rhythm section will probably sound worse than a bunch of horns that know how to swing - you can hear this sometimes, the rhythm section just sounds really off, but the horn player is playing a very sweet line - the one Glenn Miller album I have is like this - as long as you dance to the trumpet solo you are ok ....

Doug · #6 Post by **Doug** » Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:00 am

So talk to me about the rhythm section on Bechet's Shiek of Araby. And I do love to dance to that song!

OTOH, a lot of early to mid ('43-'53's) uptempo bop is very!! danceable. And this is driven nearly entirely by the rhythm section.

I suggest that without a (good) rhythm section the burden on the musicians, if they are trying to create good dance music, is very high, but not insurmountable.

julius · #7 Post by **julius** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:33 pm

funkyfreak wrote:and they were swinging like crazy without a rhythm section at all - thus proving they were just using a rhythm section for sound, they weren't leaning on it".

However I believe the ultimate point of the story was that Lunceford's band was SO GOOD that they didn't need a rhythm section. Which implies that a rhythm section is, usually, quite necessary!

I think of swing music as a nice big wedding cake: on the bottom you have a nice wide solid foundation with not much frosting, and on top you have the little plastic people with lots of frilly frosting and cute words of congratulations, but people want to eat the base, not the little plastic people.

CafeSavoy · #8 Post by **CafeSavoy** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:15 pm

julius wrote:
funkyfreak wrote:and they were swinging like crazy without a rhythm section at all - thus proving they were just using a rhythm section for sound, they weren't leaning on it".
However I believe the ultimate point of the story was that Lunceford's band was SO GOOD that they didn't need a rhythm section. Which implies that a rhythm section is, usually, quite necessary!

Or at least they didn't need one to defeat Krupa. I doubt they'd go up
against one of the other top bands without a rhythm section.

Given that jazz was developed in the context of blacks i'd say that the
rhythm section is very important, since in Africa rhythm is king. You
can see it in all the music that was influenced by them. At a musicality
workshop with lindy hop heaven, the band mentioned that normally when
a band doesn't swing you should first look to see what's happening with
the bass (especially if they don't have a rhythm guitar).

djstarr · #9 Post by **djstarr** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:21 am

CafeSavoy wrote:At a musicality
workshop with lindy hop heaven, the band mentioned that normally when
a band doesn't swing you should first look to see what's happening with
the bass (especially if they don't have a rhythm guitar).

That's a great point - even in classical music - I remember our conductor asking us over and over again to listen down to the bass - the bass sets the rhythm and if you aren't playing with the bass you will not sound unified.