Louis Armstrong Mosaic planned with his 1935-1946 Decca sides

[tranemonk]

From everything I know about him... that his on-stage persona actually did drive some of what he did.... (I'm not explaining it well.... )

I'm having a hard time with this one...

I have tried but I have NEVER been able to get into Armstrong.... I can't get past the smiling, grinning persona... (bugs me :angry: ) I know - I should... I might eventually cave on this one... but right now.... :beee:

What's Armstrong's "smiling, grinning persona" got to do with his music?

[Cliff Englewood]

From everything I know about him... that his on-stage persona actually did drive some of what he did.... (I'm not explaining it well.... )

I think we can all agree with you there. I haven't a clue what "his on-stage persona actually did drive some of what he did" means.

You really are missing out if you don't listen to Armstrong.

[AllenLowe]

well....I know this will bore Cliff, but Armstrong's on -stage persona is directly relevant to all of this, and this relates to my recent debate with Marsalis - the truth is that you can argue, probably correctly, that Armstrong assumed a kind of 20th century minstrel mask - but it was a new mask with a very different meaning. It took the techniques and attitudes of the old black minstrels, tied as they were to a whole persona of humor and put-on, and applied them to the material in an entirely new and original way. So it IS relevant. You cannot separate the two, IMHO - it was a new and very hipster-ish minstrel treatment, not unlike Fats Waller's (and Pigmeat Markham's and Moms Mabley's) -

[Cliff Englewood]

well....I know this will bore Cliff, but Armstrong's on -stage persona is directly relevant to all of this, and this relates to my recent debate with Marsalis - the truth is that you can argue, probably correctly, that Armstrong assumed a kind of 20th century minstrel mask - but it was a new mask with a very different meaning. It took the techniques and attitudes of the old black minstrels, tied as they were to a whole persona of humor and put-on, and applied them to the material in an entirely new and original way. So it IS relevant. You cannot separate the two, IMHO - it was a new and very hipster-ish minstrel treatment, not unlike Fats Waller's (and Pigmeat Markham's and Moms Mabley's) -

I don't think Armstrong was that "post-modern" in his onstage persona or in his general outlook on life.

[tranemonk]

You're kinda in the ballpark with what I mean...

well....I know this will bore Cliff, but Armstrong's on -stage persona is directly relevant to all of this, and this relates to my recent debate with Marsalis - the truth is that you can argue, probably correctly, that Armstrong assumed a kind of 20th century minstrel mask - but it was a new mask with a very different meaning. It took the techniques and attitudes of the old black minstrels, tied as they were to a whole persona of humor and put-on, and applied them to the material in an entirely new and original way. So it IS relevant. You cannot separate the two, IMHO - it was a new and very hipster-ish minstrel treatment, not unlike Fats Waller's (and Pigmeat Markham's and Moms Mabley's) -

[AllenLowe]

I would not call Armstrong post-modern - that term has a whole other connotation - but he was a modernist who basically, to my way of thinking, invented 20th century pop. The rhythm revolution he started led to swing (and thus bebop and rhythm and blues and rock and roll) and his singing completely altered the way EVERYONE sang -

Edited March 6, 2009 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

on top of it all, by the way, Armstrong was a real and total mensch, loved by everyone who knew him - so the grin was real -

[Chuck Nessa]

None of this crap matters. Armstrong was a genius and a musical/racial pioneer. He was also a wonderful entertainer and from all I know he was a first class human being. If you don't want to be rewarded (enjoy) his life work, you lose.

[J.A.W.]

None of this crap matters. Armstrong was a genius and a musical/racial pioneer. He was also a wonderful entertainer and from all I know he was a first class human being. If you don't want to be rewarded (enjoy) his life work, you lose.

Seconded.

[AllenLowe]

beg to differ, boys, it matters to some of us. Sometime if a musician's charm eludes us, it helps to understand why he does what he does. As a matter of fact, reading Dan Morgenstern about the Decca period of Armstrong's music made the whole thing light up for me, opened up a whole new understanding of the era and the music (and not just Armstrong's). As a matter of fact it gave me an entree to about 50 years of (other) music - these little epiphanies don't always happen by themselves, sometimes they need a little push -

Edited March 7, 2009 by AllenLowe

[blind-blake]

Jazz's first great soloist, one of its greatest singers, a genius at improvisation, a great showman, one of the greatest trumpet players of all time, an incredible musical communicator, and the single most important figure in the music. The guy was amazing! If you enjoy jazz, you'll enjoy Louis.

[AllenLowe]

I generally agree, except - "Jazz's first great soloist" - maybe JR Morton, or Leon Rapollo (not sure if I am spelling this right) -

[Guest Bixieland]

I'm having a hard time with this one...I have tried but I have NEVER been able to get into Armstrong.... I can't get past the smiling, grinning persona...

Have you ever been the last man standing in a room full of enraged, angry creeps? All making fun of you and trying to embarrass you, your family. Telling you everything you know and love isn't real? As they step on your head and spit in your face -- you stand up, smile -not a grin- a smile. A beam of light, so bright, it shatters their facade and says: "you lose?"

That's Louis Armstrong.

[Fred]

For me, Louis IS mr. jazz in person, and if anyone don't listen to his work, looses an half of jazz beauty.

But why don't you speak (you, who can: I can't, with my very poor english) about his MUSIC, and not his person? I think we can discuss a lot about his Decca period, the beautiful sessions, the bad ones, and so on. I have preordered the set, of course, and I began to re-read the Schuller's - severe - discussion about the period.

Excuse again my english: very interesting discussions, I hate I can only read them...

Edited March 7, 2009 by Fred

[Ron S]

Fred, your English needs no excuses.

[tranemonk]

I respectfully disagree....

For example... does it help me knowing that Miles beat up Cicely Tyson... (yea a little).. Does it change whether or not I enjoy him? No but it does add context.....

None of this crap matters. Armstrong was a genius and a musical/racial pioneer. He was also a wonderful entertainer and from all I know he was a first class human being. If you don't want to be rewarded (enjoy) his life work, you lose.

Seconded.

[carnivore]

I wonder if Dan, in his notes, grasps the nettle and evinces any explanation as to why, during this time when Louis' abilities were at their peak, his band was provided with such mediocre arrangements - charts that often sound positively anachronistic in comparison with those of his contemporaries. Was it Glaser's cheese-paring? The thought that Louis is all that matters, we needn't spend much time on details?

Also, at its best, the band was quite an all-star lineup - Holmes, Nicholas, Higginbotham, Big Sid, Red Allen etc. but you'd hardly know it from the majority of the recordings which generally stick to a rigid formula. I'll probably get the set but I've often felt a sense of disappointment as to the use made of Louis and the other guys in this period. I guess Joe and Jack Kapp knew what worked and that was that.

[AllenLowe]

actually one of the things I like best is the amazing contrast between the slightly cheesy arrangements and Armstrong's intensity- I think that, like Schuller, you are missing the context in which this band played (see, Chuck, that's why we talk about this stuff). Commercially this music was something like the Perfect Storm - all conditions, musical and commercial, were just right - and the result is sublime -

[Ricko]

Carnivore, have you checked out the set of Fleischmann's Yeast Broadcasts that were released last year? They capture Armstrong and the Russell band in all their live glory, playing with a swinging sense of abandon that's often not present on the Decca records. A lot of the best Decca arrangements ("Struttin' With Some Barbeuce," "Alexander's Ragtime Band," "Jubilee") were done by Chappie Willet. Willet wrote a lot of unrecordedd arrangements for Pops that can be heard on the Fleischmann's set. And for those in the New York area, my good friend John Wriggle--the world's biggest authority on Willet--will be presenting a live concert of Willet arrangements with Vince Giordano's Nighthawks at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25 at the Elebash Recital Hall at the CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue @ 34th Street. The event is free and John is presenting three Willet arrangements he transcribed from the Fleischmann's set. This is what John personally wrote to me the first time I sent him the Fleischmann's stuff: "These recordings completely revise the reputation of the Russell-led band as an ensemble. So much of the studio-recorded stuff was obviously being played for the first time – but here the band is loose and driving. They never become exactly 'tight,' but at least they prove beyond a doubt that the hesitancy of the studio work was just that."

And when you listen to the Deccas AND the broadcasts, you'll really get a sense of what a prime, peak period Armstrong was going through in the late 30s and early 40s. Never mind the arrangements. Just keep your ear on Pops and all is right in the world.

Ricky

dippermouth.blogspot.com

[AllenLowe]

if they are being played by Vince, I recommend this concert to anyone within traveling distance - the Nighthawks, to me, are the ONLY "revival" band who play with the original (and non-condescending) spirit - I wonder if Randy Sandke's going to be in the trumpet section-

Edited March 7, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Guest Bixieland]

Absolutely! This is a GREAT set...

Vince Giordano and the Nighthawks: The Goldkette Project

[carnivore]

Carnivore, have you checked out the set of Fleischmann's Yeast Broadcasts that were released last year? They capture Armstrong and the Russell band in all their live glory, playing with a swinging sense of abandon that's often not present on the Decca records. A lot of the best Decca arrangements ("Struttin' With Some Barbeuce," "Alexander's Ragtime Band," "Jubilee") were done by Chappie Willet. Willet wrote a lot of unrecordedd arrangements for Pops that can be heard on the Fleischmann's set. And for those in the New York area, my good friend John Wriggle--the world's biggest authority on Willet--will be presenting a live concert of Willet arrangements with Vince Giordano's Nighthawks at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25 at the Elebash Recital Hall at the CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue @ 34th Street. The event is free and John is presenting three Willet arrangements he transcribed from the Fleischmann's set. This is what John personally wrote to me the first time I sent him the Fleischmann's stuff: "These recordings completely revise the reputation of the Russell-led band as an ensemble. So much of the studio-recorded stuff was obviously being played for the first time – but here the band is loose and driving. They never become exactly 'tight,' but at least they prove beyond a doubt that the hesitancy of the studio work was just that."

And when you listen to the Deccas AND the broadcasts, you'll really get a sense of what a prime, peak period Armstrong was going through in the late 30s and early 40s. Never mind the arrangements. Just keep your ear on Pops and all is right in the world.

Ricky

dippermouth.blogspot.com

Yes - I was impressed by the band's playing on the Fleischmann broadcasts - it ought to have been great given the personnel, but I was still underwhelmed by the charts. I'm not unmindful of Allen's point about the context but I can't accept that Louis was best-served by cheesy arrangements. We can say "Gosh he's great, in spite of etc." Or "rises above" ad infinitum, but whichever way you look at it, they're still antiquated, lumpen and fundamentally square compared to what else was going on in, say, 1938. It is, of course a great tribute to Louis that he was able to make so many silk purses out of sows' ears and his playing is generally sublime whatever the vehicle. I think, though, that his playing at NY Town Hall in 1947, albeith in a totally improvised setting, gives a hint of the level of creativity he might have achieved with the big band via more challenging material and arrangements.

Maybe Louis would have been better served by Irving Mills....

[AllenLowe]

"Gosh he's great, in spite of etc." Or "rises above"

see, I don't subscribe to this - it is all of a part - cheesy, pop-ish, than swinging and jazz-like - these were all part of Armstrong's persona- maybe he was the first real pop star, both part of the system and than apart from it - you just cannot separate the two in American popular culture - it is one big and fun package -

[danasgoodstuff]

Bixie:

As much as I have found many of your previous posts on politics and other subjects obnoxious and wrong-headed, I must say that I found your explanation above re Pops smiling persona to be fundamentally right-on and quite wonderful, Thank You. I loook forward to your thoughts on your namesake, and if we continue to disagree on other subjects that's life...

Thanks again, Dana

[JSngry]

I'm having a hard time with this one...I have tried but I have NEVER been able to get into Armstrong.... I can't get past the smiling, grinning persona...

Have you ever been the last man standing in a room full of enraged, angry creeps? All making fun of you and trying to embarrass you, your family. Telling you everything you know and love isn't real? As they step on your head and spit in your face -- you stand up, smile -not a grin- a smile. A beam of light, so bright, it shatters their facade and says: "you lose?"

That's Louis Armstrong.

Consider the same situation, and instead of getting up with a smile, the same person gets up and says ,"later for this crap" and builds a room inside the first room, a room where only what he wants to get in gets in, and he gets out of the room only when he wants to get out. This guy lets pretty much everything in except, very rarely, hurt, but he carries, carries deeply, the hurt from the time before he built his room-within-a-room. What he lets get out of the room, either carried by himself or others, is so overwhelmingly brilliant and powerful that all but the most willfully ignorant recognize it as the brilliance that it is, and therefore those who had previously inflicted the hurt are shown to have been the beings of lower intellect and character that they in fact were. Once again, they lose, only the message is carried by implication and inference instead of first hand, becuase hell, what's the use in getting beat up by these clowns yet again? If anybody's going to do it, let it be done by yourself.

That's, for instance, Charlie Parker.

In both cases, though, what's perhaps not being examined is what gives these people the gumption to not stay down when beat down. "Triumph of the human spirit" and such only gets us so far. I myself prefer to look at it as confirmation of the unity of life, how the uplift of the yin and the downward pull of the yang are of one larger piece, a piece we can call, for lack of a better term, "life". Both forces are constantly at play in everybody's life, including/especially our own, and knowing what's going on, either intuitively or consciously, or a bit of both, gives us the potential power to not get beat down and put down for good like so many others, but instead to fight back and redirect the forces at play to a more positive end.

Music is only "music" up to a point. After that, it becomes a part of "life" in a quite literal sense, and then it becomes as serious/frivolous/whatever as you care to make it.

Edited March 7, 2009 by JSngry