50s bands for swing dancing

Everything about the swinging music we love to DJ

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
Doug
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:38 am
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

#196 Post by Doug » Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:56 am

The tracks I posted were:

1. Froggy Bottom - Big Joe Maher, 2000; Ultra-Swingers
Small group. Almost all that is left of my (too) many neoswing CDs!

2. Swinging The Century - Bill Elliott, 2000; Swingin' The Century
Re-creation Big Band (15-piece big band). Bill Elliott is a modern day Swing Era re-creation band. Although this piece was written in 2000, it has the same flavor, feel and sound as many of Elliott's re-creation pieces.

3. Zot - Duke Robillard, 1987; Duke Plays Jazz
Small Group (7-piece). Sax is Scott Hamilton, who makes some of us happy

4. Banned In Boston - Illinois Jacquet, 1962; Illinois Jacquet,
Small Group (7-piece). Jacquet ts, Roy Eldridge tp, Sir Charles Thompson piano, Jo Jones drums.

5. Benny's Bugle - Campus 5, 2003;
Small Group (5-piece) swing era inspired, but not quite a re-creation band like some of the others (I don't think). Do any of you who know Jonathon care to comment on his intent??

6. Tickle Toe - Kansas City Band, 1997; More KC After Dark
Small Group (7-piece), Sound Track from Altman's Kansas City. Effort at re-creating an authentic KC sound of the 30's.

7. She's Crying For Me - Marty Grosz, 1995; Ring Dem Bells
Small Group (6-piece) - Picked just cause I like this song!

8. Rigamarole - Dean Mora, 1999; Call Of The Freaks
Re-creation Big Band (15-piece big band). THE major "vintage swing-era" re-creation band. Dean goes to great pains to try to capture the authentic sounds and style of the songs that he covers. For example, all the arrangements on his third album, Goblin Market, are "Spud" Murphy arrangements out of the '30s

9. Gettin' In The Groove - Panama Francis & his Savoy Sultans, 1977(?); Gettin' In The Groove
Small Group. A good re-creation of the sounds of Al Cooper and the Savoy Sultans (8-piece dance band in 1940). But, if you get a chance to listen to the original Al Cooper version, the most obvious difference is in the drumming. Although Panama Francis' was there (played drums for Lucky Millinder in mid '40s) his percussion style changed noticeably between the '40s and the recording of this piece in the 1970's. And personally, I think that the change was not for the better. And it is not just a sound quality issue.

10. Rose of the Rio Grande - Bob Wilber & the Tuxedo Big Band, 2000; Fletcher Henderson's Unrecorded Arrangements
Re-creation Big Band (17-piece big band). Fletcher Henderson did a large number of arrangements for Benny Goodman, not all of which were recorded. Goodman donated many of these arrangements to the Yale University Library. This is an authentic 40's arangement for big band by THE MAN, Fletcher Henderson. Again, no blaring horns.

So I put these up with malice aforethought. In particular, 3 of the pieces were by re-creation big bands. Note that they did not, even if you listen all the way through the pieces, have the very bright blaring wall of sound '50s big band sound. Moreover, the cymbals were not played in the chicking '50s style. And these are guys who know their stuff.

Doug
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:38 am
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

#197 Post by Doug » Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:00 am

Jerry - So I think that this will be my final effort to wrap up my feeling about '50s style big bands and to try to persuade you that it isn't just that the dancers like the filtering of otherwise blaring brass and chicking high-hats provided by the low sound quality recordings. First, let me make it clear that although I love a lot of bebop and modern jazz, the white big bands of the 50s (Kenton, Herman's Herds, Les Brown, Les Elgart (ugh!!), Billy May, etc...) do very little to nothing for me. Just my personal tastes. Secondly, I find it quite simply not as much fun to dance to those big bands as either the bands of the 30's or to the re-creation bands of today, something that I suspect you will not understand as long as you insist on not dancing and only listening.

Drumming styles evolved through the 40's and 50's to allow increased flexibility of the bands. In particular, by dropping the 4-on-the-pedal bass drum sound, the drummer leaves more room for the standup bass players to create more complex figures and to even solo (boooo!!) over the percussion. Also, by time keeping on the high hat and decreasing reliance on the snare drum, he got out of the way of the mid range instruments, again allowing a more flowing and flexible sound by the bands. The predominance of timekeeping on the high-hat, and in particular playing a ride pattern on it while chicking on 2 & 4, was NOT a part of the drum styles of the 30s and early 40s. So yes, as a listener, this is great. It offers increased rhythmic and harmonic flexibility to the bands. As a dancer, it just plain sucks. It drops rhythmic energy and often drops the feel of the beat for the dancer. You have to remember that dancing is a whole body effort and not just one of the ears. I need to FEEL that rhythm.

With respect to the blaring brass. First, listen to the re-creation bands in the clips that I posted. These are knowledgable, hard working band leaders and musicians making their best efforts at re-creating the sounds of the 30's and 40's. I don't hear blaring brass. Second, look at the evolution of the big bands. In the 30's a big band typically had 13 players, with 5 brass, 4 reed and 4 rhythm players. Look at Simon's "The Big Bands" for a listing of the musicians in 10 of the big bands of the era. This list includes Basie, Goodman, both Dorsey's, Glen Miller, Lunceford, Chick Webb, Ellington - you name it! The re-creation bands closely mirror this composition. Now look at today's Basie band under Grover Mitchell. 5 reed players but 8 brass!! The Kenton band of the mid 40's had 9 brass players!! Woody Herman's band evolved from 4 to 7 to 8 brass from '38 until '71, but the reed section stayed fixed at 5. So please don't tell me that the brass didn't move to the front over the years as the big band sound evolved. That the resulting blaring and blatting is not favored by the dancers has nothing to do with sound quality. Arrangements that require doubling the number of brass instruments while keeping the number of reeds fixed are the problem.

IM(ns)HO. End of Doug's 50's big band rant.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#198 Post by julius » Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:03 am

Doug wrote: The predominance of timekeeping on the high-hat, and in particular playing a ride pattern on it while chicking on 2 & 4, was NOT a part of the drum styles of the 30s and early 40s.
Huh? I thought Jo Jones invented this style and it took the swing era by storm. On the recordings where I can hear cymbal at all it seems to predominate, but maybe I've just been taking it for granted and I haven't been listening as closely as I thought.

Doug
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:38 am
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

#199 Post by Doug » Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:49 pm

Julius - OK. So I see that I misspoke (exagerated??). I believe that you are absolutly right that a ride rhythm on chicking high-hats was used early on in the swing era, and that Jo Jones is largely credited with developing this style. But it wasn't my impression that it replaced the bass drum as a (the?) primary time-keeping device during the 30's or even early 40s. And that was what I really meant. I think that many (most?) swing era drummers, as typified by Krupa, Cozy Cole and Sid Catlet, maintained the bass drum as a primary time keeping instrument throughout what I think of as the swing era. And if Jo Jones transitioned earlier than others, he, at least while playing with Basie, had the unfair advantage of Freddie Green.

Many of the small groups in the swing era of necessity played with an "incomplete" rhythm section. For example, listen to Kirby's small group sessions. No chicking of the high hat there. So although the chicking high hats did happen in some subset of the big bands, it doesn't appear to be seen as the universal jazz timekeeping approach like it is now. And, although Jerry is right that recording quality flavors our understanding, I don't think that the high hat chicking dominated rhythm sections of the '30s big bands like it does in many of the 50's big bands.

But shit. Even as old as I am, I wasn't there, so how do I know?? All I have are these lo fi recordings!!

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#200 Post by CafeSavoy » Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:38 pm

Doug wrote: But it wasn't my impression that it replaced the bass drum as a (the?) primary time-keeping device during the 30's or even early 40s. And that was what I really meant. I think that many (most?) swing era drummers, as typified by Krupa, Cozy Cole and Sid Catlet, maintained the bass drum as a primary time keeping instrument throughout what I think of as the swing era. And if Jo Jones transitioned earlier than others, he, at least while playing with Basie, had the unfair advantage of Freddie Green.
I thought that was the point of the innovation of the Basie Rhythm Section, to replace the use of drums as time keeper with the bass and rhythm guitar.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#201 Post by julius » Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:11 pm

http://www.drumtek.com.au/html/century.html

halfway down it mentions that the modern hi-hat mechanism became popular in the mid-thirties, although something similar called a "lowboy" (played with the foot, just like the chick sound of a hi-hat is played) had been in use since the mid 20s.

we probably need to ask lt. jim on yehoodi.

User avatar
Mr Awesomer
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: Altadena, CA
Contact:

#202 Post by Mr Awesomer » Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:46 pm

A piece of equipment becoming popular is one thing.
The method/style of using said equipment being popular is quite another.
Reuben Brown
Southern California

User avatar
Jerry_Jelinek
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:33 am
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Contact:

#203 Post by Jerry_Jelinek » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:34 pm

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the clip list. I've already set aside some buck$ for the Duke Robillard. In sampling that on CD Connection,
it sounds great.

I'm not going to go in much detail on the 50s bands versus the 30s bands, or the recreation bands. There are obvious
differences, and it is doubtful that our differences in tastes will lend well to enhancing the discussions:
Doug wrote:Jerry - ...do very little to nothing for me. Just my personal tastes. Secondly, I find it quite simply not as much fun to
dance to those big bands as either the bands of the 30's or to the re-creation bands of today, something that I suspect
you will not understand as long as you insist on not dancing and only listening.
There is very real differences in the style of the 50s big bands. I think the preference of danceable tracks is more
personal taste, as oppossed to the beat or rhythm being set by the rhythm section.
Doug wrote:With respect to the blaring brass.....
Well we are going to disagree on this. I think the differences maybe be clear when I put the following quote up:
Dictionary.com wrote:v. blared, blar·ing, blares
v. intr.
To sound loudly and stridently: a stereo blaring in the next apartment.

v. tr.
To cause to sound loudly and stridently: Don't blare the stereo.
To proclaim loudly and flamboyantly: headlines blaring the scandal.

n.
A loud, strident noise.
Flamboyance.
I'll stick by my statement that it is nearly impossible for a larger size group to not be blaring. I'll let the
definition of blaring stand alone.

Thanks Doug for the clips. I'm looking forward to more.

I'm starting to gather a few more csamples of various styles to throw to the crowd. But my focus is now trying to expose more
artists up that I haven't heard dialog yet about.

User avatar
Jerry_Jelinek
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:33 am
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Contact:

#204 Post by Jerry_Jelinek » Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:24 am

Doug wrote:...Now look at today's Basie band under Grover Mitchell. 5 reed players but 8 brass!!....
One slight correction, Grover Mitchell was the leader for a number of years. He passed away in 2003. The current co-leaders are Bill Hughes and Butch Miles.

User avatar
Ron
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:29 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

#205 Post by Ron » Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:48 am

Jerry-
There's usually a lot of differing opinions by the DJs on this board about what makes a danceable song. But if I might take a risk at trying to speak for the group, most of the 50's big band songs you've put forward have been clearly deemed mediocre as dance songs at best, and its not just a couple people's "personal taste". Also, the blaring brass of a lot of 50's songs is clearly a definite negative trait that definitely detracts from their suitability as dance songs. I just don't think that no matter how much you argue, that we are suddenly going to see things the same way as you.

That being said, I think its great that you are trying to turn us on to different and new tunes. And you've prompted an interesting discussion.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#206 Post by julius » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:36 pm

Last night I caught Bill Elliott's orchestra in a jazz club (no dancing) with an awesome sound system and a great sound guy. They played nothing but old Ellington material (from the 30s on up to the suites). They were LOUD. LOUD LOUD LOUD. And even though the horns qualified as 'blaring' it didn't bug me because the sound was evenly balanced. The rhythm section and the horns complemented each other perfectly.

This whole focus on "blaring" isn't just about the volume, it's about how it stands out compared to everything else.

PS this was a friggin amazing gig. angelenos who didn't go are LOSERS.

User avatar
Kyle
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#207 Post by Kyle » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:06 pm

On the same note, if the song it too quiet, it makes for a difficult time dancing. Not only can the crowd noise overwhelm the song, but the song has little to no energy. Even with the volume turned ALL THE WAY UP, the song will not have any kick to it. (exception given to late night dancing where the mood is chill)

User avatar
Ron
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:29 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

#208 Post by Ron » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:38 pm

julius wrote:This whole focus on "blaring" isn't just about the volume, it's about how it stands out compared to everything else.
Yes, that is a much better description.

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#209 Post by falty411 » Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:35 pm

CafeSavoy wrote:I thought that was the point of the innovation of the Basie Rhythm Section, to replace the use of drums as time keeper with the bass and rhythm guitar.
I have to completely disagree with this statement. The drums did not get replaced as a time keeper. How the drums were used is what changed. When basie reached popularity, bands were already using Bass and Guitar in conjunction with Drums and Piano to form a rhythm section. Tubas and Banjos were a thing of the past. The innovation you might be speaking of was the very smooth bass lines of Walter Page, Freddie Greens style of rhythm guitar making it more of a percussive instrument and the fact the Jo Jones took the time keeping from the bass drum to the hihat. But the drums were still part of the time keeping.
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

Zev
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: New York City

#210 Post by Zev » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:58 am

Jerry_Jelinek wrote:...blaring...Well we are going to disagree on this...
I don't know why we're still going on about this. Julius put it as perfectly as it can be, like 5 pages ago:
julius wrote:..."Blaring" doesn't just mean loud to the critics here, I think...Most of the older big band songs I hear in my head seem to build up to the blasting riffing. It doesn't go "sneak sneak sneak BWAAAAH sneak sneak sneak BWAAAAH" it goes "BWAAH BWAAH BWAAH" ...
There's not a whole lot more to be said. You don't have to dislike it too, but it should be perfectly clear whether you dance or not.

The blaring that everyone's complaining about has obviously nothing to do with fidelity or recording technology (except for maybe a possible look-what-I-can-do factor.)

Locked