Louis Armstrong Mosaic planned with his 1935-1946 Decca sides

[Fred]

Carnivore, have you checked out the set of Fleischmann's Yeast Broadcasts that were released last year?

There is a way to order this set, in Europe?

[carnivore]

"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 -

In other words, as far as 'American popular culture' is concerned, it's all of equal value - Liberace, Celine Dion, Sammy Kaye, Ernest Tubb, Louis and Nirvana. We can check our critical sensibilities at the door and just have 'big fun' ?

I think Armstrong had more to offer than that implies. I'm not really interested in the 'pop star' aspect of his career - just his music.

[JSngry]

The "Pop" in "Pop ______" tends to be socilogical and/or genre-specific in significance. The ______ is something else. Over time, the Pop will filter upwards or downwards as the ultimate signifier of "worth" of an item.

For instance (and admittedly subjectively) something like Pet Sounds today has infinitely more worth as "music" than as "pop". And something like "Surfer Girl" has infinitely more worth as "pop" than as "music".

EDIT to add that the above "filter" mentioned above can be administered on bot a collective and individual basis, and simultaneously or separately.

In short, if you know why you say it, it pretty much is what you say it is, at least within your own world.

Edited March 7, 2009 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Also adding that in many ways, "Pop" & "Music" are examples of the complimentary opposites that make up yin & yang, and that therefore the presence of one in no way negates the possibility of the other, nor does if preordain any set proportion thereof. In fact, one might posit that any work which perfectly balances the "yin" of "pop" with the "yang" of music is bound to be that rarest of creatures, an enduring "popular hit" which also holds enduring "musical worth".

[AllenLowe]

"in other words, as far as 'American popular culture' is concerned, it's all of equal value - Liberace, Celine Dion, Sammy Kaye, Ernest Tubb, Louis and Nirvana. We can check our critical sensibilities at the door and just have 'big fun' ?"

please do not put words in my mouth - my point was that if you want to look at American pop you cannot use the same measure as for other forms of art - and yes, FUN is a big part of it. And the so-called bad-taste accompaniments to Louis were part of the whole package; useless to say, he was great but the band sucked. Those arrangements and that particular band brought out something special in the man, and it was no accident. Sometimes, as I said many years ago, it is better to have imagination than taste -

Edited March 7, 2009 by AllenLowe

[John L]

Certainly, acquiring a full understanding of Armstrong's art requires digesting the whole package. Yet it is still possible to love his music without doing so. It is understandable that some people may have a problem swallowing the whole package, particularly in this day and age. More sad is the prospect that the presence of the whole package can prevent some people from enjoying the music, even just as music.

[tranemonk]

I have to say... If I was going to get one set... I'm iffy about .. it would probably be the Benny Goodman ahead of the Armstrong

any comments????

[jazzbo]

Get them both. Get the Armstrong first. More variety, more powerful music.

[Ted O'Reilly]

Certainly, acquiring a full understanding of Armstrong's art requires digesting the whole package.

There's another side of Armstrong-as-artist, just published (I have it on order, and await its arrival):

"Satchmo: The Wonderful World and Art of Louis Armstrong [iLLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)

by Steven Brower (Author)"

Here's Amazon's product description:

Satchmo: The Wonderful World and Art of Louis Armstrong is a biography in the form of an art book. It tells the story of Armstrong's life through his writings, scrapbooks, and artworks, many of which have never been published before. Armstrong was the single greatest creative artist in the history of jazz and the American popular song. A true American original, he was prolific in coining colorful expressions that entered the lexicon; he wrote long, colorful prose pieces about his experiences; and he made hundreds of collages using marvelous photographs that capture archetypal scenes in the life of a jazz musician. Everything he did was an extension of his artistry.

Satchmo is a vivid trip through American jazz at mid-century, to the beat of Armstrong's own jazzy words. The book also includes photographs of Armstrong and is framed by a text that describes his significance. It will be enjoyed not only by jazz fans but also by art lovers, who will welcome Armstrong into the pantheon of American visual artists.

[tranemonk]

Some of us are in a Mosaic Recession... :unsure: I'm leaning toward the Goodman.. but I hate that many alternate takes...

Did you get the Goodman?

Get them both. Get the Armstrong first. More variety, more powerful music.

[AllenLowe]

if I could afford it I'd get the Armstrong, as that body of music is one of the glories of the 20th century - and let's face it, Benny did his best playing by 1934 -

[jazzbo]

Some of us are in a Mosaic Recession... :unsure: I'm leaning toward the Goodman.. but I hate that many alternate takes...

Did you get the Goodman?

Get them both. Get the Armstrong first. More variety, more powerful music.

Yes. I have all the in print Mosaics (and then some). I have all this Armstrong material as well, but have ordered the Mosaic. There's no comparison, the Armstrong is deeper music than the Goodman if you ask me (and I'm a BG fan).

Edited March 8, 2009 by jazzbo

[jazzbo]

Certainly, acquiring a full understanding of Armstrong's art requires digesting the whole package.

There's another side of Armstrong-as-artist, just published (I have it on order, and await its arrival):

"Satchmo: The Wonderful World and Art of Louis Armstrong [iLLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)

by Steven Brower (Author)"

Here's Amazon's product description:

Satchmo: The Wonderful World and Art of Louis Armstrong is a biography in the form of an art book. It tells the story of Armstrong's life through his writings, scrapbooks, and artworks, many of which have never been published before. Armstrong was the single greatest creative artist in the history of jazz and the American popular song. A true American original, he was prolific in coining colorful expressions that entered the lexicon; he wrote long, colorful prose pieces about his experiences; and he made hundreds of collages using marvelous photographs that capture archetypal scenes in the life of a jazz musician. Everything he did was an extension of his artistry.

Satchmo is a vivid trip through American jazz at mid-century, to the beat of Armstrong's own jazzy words. The book also includes photographs of Armstrong and is framed by a text that describes his significance. It will be enjoyed not only by jazz fans but also by art lovers, who will welcome Armstrong into the pantheon of American visual artists.

I'll have to get this. . . Armstrong was a total genius, he could express himself in so many fulfilling ways.

[Chuck Nessa]

Last thing I need is a "new" book on Armstrong.

[carnivore]

"in other words, as far as 'American popular culture' is concerned, it's all of equal value - Liberace, Celine Dion, Sammy Kaye, Ernest Tubb, Louis and Nirvana. We can check our critical sensibilities at the door and just have 'big fun' ?"

please do not put words in my mouth - my point was that if you want to look at American pop you cannot use the same measure as for other forms of art -

that sounds like a cop-out. That music is created for a 'popular market' does not gainsay a need for a critical perspective.

Armstrong seems to me to be someone whose playing had content, depth. individuality and musical sophistication that reached a level beyond 'American pop' even if he mostly performed in venues devoted to popular entertainment, as did Duke, Basie and everyone else. I can listen to and appreciate what Louis did during the years in question but pace your comment about imagination and taste, regret the opportunities wasted by the provision of second-rate arrangements, and imagine what might have been the fruits of him working with more skilled and talented writers. I did not refer to 'bad taste' arrangements but pointed out that they are mediocre and antiquated given the best of what was happening at the time - and far from saying 'the band sucked' praised it for rising above the material, and drew attention to its very high quality personnel.

[Ted O'Reilly]

Last thing I need is a "new" book on Armstrong.

....but Chuck, this is a new book BY Armstrong. How many of those do you have?

[AllenLowe]

"that sounds like a cop-out."

only if you ignore everything else I said -

"That music is created for a 'popular market' does not gainsay a need for a critical perspective. "

correct - what do you think I am offering? a critical perspective - I've written 2 books about these things -

"Armstrong seems to me to be someone whose playing had content, depth. individuality and musical sophistication that reached a level beyond 'American pop' even if he mostly performed in venues devoted to popular entertainment"

these venues don't house individuality and sophistication? It was in such venues that Bert Williams, Lenny Bruce, Red Foxx, Pigmeat Markham, James Brown, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Muddy Waters, Mike Bloomfield and Ellington DEVELOPED their art - not 'beyond' American pop but as PART of it -

"as did Duke, Basie and everyone else."

thanks for proving my point -

" I can listen to and appreciate what Louis did during the years in question but pace your comment about imagination and taste, regret the opportunities wasted by the provision of second-rate arrangements, and imagine what might have been the fruits of him working with more skilled and talented writers. I did not refer to 'bad taste' arrangements but pointed out that they are mediocre and antiquated given the best of what was happening at the time - and far from saying 'the band sucked' praised it for rising above the material, and drew attention to its very high quality personnel.

regret the opportunities that produced one of the greatest bodies of music of the 20th century? I actually dont think that you've listened to much of it - the music is real, far from antiquated, just down to earth, like Armstrong himself (and let us not forget his famous praise of Guy Lombardo). The band did not (need to) rise above the material - they just needed to deliver it as part of the whole glorious package, which they did - those performances are of a whole, Armstrong reacting to the band and vice versa - would he have sounded better with Stan Kenton? You're not only missing a lot here, but you are misunderstanding the entire nature of African American entertainment -

Edited March 9, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Ted O'Reilly]

Wow, Allen, that last post is hard to follow: who says what, where?

[gmonahan]

Get them both. Get the Armstrong first. More variety, more powerful music.

I'm with Lon (I usually am). I have the Goodman, but if I were facing a choice, I think I'd get the Armstrong, and like Lon, I already have a lot of the material on LPs (the old Jazz Heritage series--remember that one?) and Definitive. I've enjoyed the discussion of this material, and agree with many of the points made, but Satch HIMSELF is so amazing on so many of these recordings that they're just essential, IMHO.

greg mo

[Chuck Nessa]

Last thing I need is a "new" book on Armstrong.

....but Chuck, this is a new book BY Armstrong. How many of those do you have?

One. Louis Armstrong In His Own Words, edited by Thomas Brothers, 1999 Oxford.

[AllenLowe]

Ted - anything in quotes is the previous post by Carnivore - each graf underneath is my response -

[carnivore]

would he have sounded better with Stan Kenton? You're not only missing a lot here, but you are misunderstanding the entire nature of African American entertainment -

which is, of course absurd and you seem to be missing my original and somewhat more modest point which was that it would have been interesting and possibly very productive if Armstrong had recorded with charts by the likes of Jimmy Mundy, Eddie Durham, Sy Oliver, gosh - maybe even Duke himself, Jerry Gray, Eddie Sauter and so on.....(yes - I know he recorded with Oliver later on). There's little in Louis' recorded output from this period that I haven't heard many times over (even Elder Eatmore) - probably more times than you've had hot dinners - and as far as I'm concerned they are mostly good, sometimes great performances by him - and I get it that Glaser and Kapp were marketing what they thought of as a a pop star. But Louis was also more than that and to say that the arrangements are not always top notch and equal to his talent hardly seems to me to amount to 'misunderstanding the entire nature of African American entertainment'

I trust you're not out on that slippery slope that resounds to the slogan "It's All Good" which we hear increasingly these days. Finally - to throw Kenton into the mix is, with respect, a bit pathetic.

[AllenLowe]

no, maybe, but to see his output as lost opportunity IS to misread a whole generation of African American entertainers and entertainment, which so sublimely balanced all those elements we might call art with those we find entertaining. Anyone who reads my posts here knows that I don't think it's "all good," once again, please don't put words in my mouth - Pops without those bands and arrangements wouldn't have been Pops, that's all. And I think they sound, as a rule, fine, they put him where he wanted to be put and his playing showed it.

And the Kenton remark was a trick question, which you unfortunately failed - spend a little time listening and you'll find he had a pretty good if generic swing band. Time for you to put some new things on the CD player -

and using the phrase "with respect" doesn't mitigate the use of the term "pathetic," which seems to be of a par with the tolerated tone of argument on this board-

Edited March 10, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Cliff Englewood]

and using the phrase "with respect" doesn't mitigate the use of the term "pathetic," which seems to be of a par with the tolerated tone of argument on this board-

Sorry everyone, I couldn't resist, but that sentence above, coming from you, is fucking hilarious.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Cliff Englewood

[carnivore]

And the Kenton remark was a trick question, which you unfortunately failed - spend a little time listening and you'll find he had a pretty good if generic swing band. Time for you to put some new things on the CD player -

- yes of course he did and a combination of Louis and the very early Kenton band - Harlem Folk Dance, Body and Soul, for instance might have worked but I wasn't advocating Louis with other people's bands and it's plain that that's not what you had in mind when you threw Kenton into the mix was it? ('pretty good if generic swing band'? - you certainly know how to damn with faint praise, don't you...) as it turned out rather than Kenton, Louis actually wound up with something more approximating Gus Arnheim....

but that doesn't really address the point which you still don't seem to be able to understand - forget all the stuff about 'African American entertainment etc etc' - are you seriously claiming that 'Pops wouldn't have been Pops' if better arrangers than the likes of Chappie Willett had supplied some charts? Armstrong the brilliant improviser of the 20s was still alive, well and comparatively young in the thirties and deserved better than the combination of worn-out popular songs and novelty items, mostly scored in stock arrangement fashion, that he was saddled with.

Material that was more challenging would almost certainly have been good for Armstrong and his body of work.

Some of us on the list have listened as widely - and thought about jazz as deeply as have you. Just came to different conclusions I guess.