Great albums from the classic jazz and Dixieland revival (1939 onwards)

[T.D.]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:02 PM, HutchFan said:

Here's a dozen that I enjoy (in no particular order):

...

Don Ewell - Man Here Plays Fine Piano! (Good Time Jazz, 1961)
with Darnell Howard, Pops Foster & Minor Hall

...

 

I don't know enough to make worthwhile recommendations, but can vouch for Don Ewell, whose recordings I greatly enjoy.

[Big Beat Steve]

14 hours ago, JSngry said:

Bob Wilber et al don't play "Dixieland" imo. That's why I enjoy them! They play jazz, period.

But talking about them...what is there to say? It's fun, it's very musical, and...what else? It's also not surprising, it's not supposed to be. It's just supposed to satisfy. 

You want a surprise, here's a surprise

 

 

This Bob Wilber clip is nice!

Re-Soprano Summit, yes - I would not categorize them as Dixieland or Traditional Jazz but rather among comparatively recent Swing-style jazz.
As for being "talked about", what I think Rabshakeh meant to hint at (and I concur) is that there are so many styles and artists of jazz (of the "high-level artistic jazz" type, to describe it loosely) that are discussed and dissected in an atmosphere of listeners gravely nodding their heads and pondering every note. Jazz by artists who, for example, by their own admission are of the "searching" type (and from a certain point onwards might make you wonder "hey, how about FINDING?" 😉 )

OTOH there is this jazz that as you say is fun, musical, satisfying ... and it is indeed not talked about much (in whatever media) but just taken for granted - or is its existence just grudgingly admitted in some circles? Because it seems to be too much about fun, dancing, easily accessible enjoyment. (And therefore does not come with a high-enough level of "respectability" or "serious art"?? Pity ... )

Re- surprises, may I suggest another one from what at first sight looks like post-1945 Dixieland jazz?

A very young Steve Lacy with the Dick Sutton Sextet in 1954, playing what might be termed "traditional-cum-modern jazz crossover". (One of the original LPs was called "Progressive Dixieland".) Fascinating but not for the "purists" in either camp ...
Reissued on a twofer on the Fresco Jazz label . These clips are just tasters but there are some more on YT.

 

Edited April 10 by Big Beat Steve

[Rabshakeh]

On 4/9/2024 at 8:09 PM, JSngry said:

Bob Wilber et al don't play "Dixieland" imo. 

But he's still of the "Traditional Jazz" lineage, right? It's multifaceted. And he's not a purist.

13 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Re-Soprano Summit, yes - I would not categorize them as Dixieland or Traditional Jazz but rather among comparatively recent Swing-style jazz.

As for being "talked about", what I think Rabshakeh meant to hint at (and I concur) is that there are so many styles and artists of jazz (of the "high-level artistic jazz" type, to describe it loosely) that are discussed and dissected in an atmosphere of listeners gravely nodding their heads and pondering every note. Jazz by artists who, for example, by their own admission are of the "searching" type (and from a certain point onwards might make you wonder "hey, how about FINDING?" 😉 )

OTOH there is this jazz that as you say is fun, musical, satisfying ... and it is indeed not talked about much (in whatever media) but just taken for granted - or is its existence just grudgingly admitted in some circles? Because it seems to be too much about fun, dancing, easily accessible enjoyment. (And therefore does not come with a high-enough level of "respectability" or "serious art"?? Pity ... )

This is part of it. I am a strong believer in the benefits of Making Jazz Dumb Again (dumb in the sense of mass appeal / sweaty armpits music). I think that fist-pumping to Illinois Jacquet or Jazz at the Philharmonic, drinking to Dixieland, blubbing into your beer over a Johnny Hodges song, or relaxing after a hard day to Stanley Turrentine, is all as much what jazz is about as anything more abstract. Gripping, big grin music, that turns out not to be dumb when examined. All of that stuff tends to be ignored by the wider jazz culture in favour of foregrounding a kind of jazz based around Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Those four obviously made great music that we all love, but it isn't the whole story. I'm obviously not being original here in the context of this forum, where these views are thankfully widespread.

But there's always that thrill in flipping over the Marsalis side of Fathers and Sons, with its beautifully observed abstraction, to get to the opening track of the Freeman side, "Jug's Not Dead!", which just charges forwards at speed (and possibly, with more real depth than the Marsalises could manage). 

There were also two other motives in starting this thread.

First, I like to make my own mind up, and to do that you need the raw information, which for post 1939 traditional jazz is hard to come by.

Second, and most importantly, we all like music a lot, and I want to find out more examples of albums of the likes of Pee Wee Russell's Ask Me Now, Dave Dallwitz' Ern Malley Suite, and the second Soprano Summit record, where something really magical, creamy and unforeseen arises out of musicians from a traditional jazz background doing something interesting. 

[Rabshakeh]

14 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Re- surprises, may I suggest another one from what at first sight looks like post-1945 Dixieland jazz?

A very young Steve Lacy with the Dick Sutton Sextet in 1954, playing what might be termed "traditional-cum-modern jazz crossover". (One of the original LPs was called "Progressive Dixieland".) Fascinating but not for the "purists" in either camp ...
Reissued on a twofer on the Fresco Jazz label . These clips are just tasters but there are some more on YT.

 

That's a great example.

[JSngry]

1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:

But he's still of the "Traditional Jazz" lineage, right? 

A statement like this is kind of annoying to me (nothing personal). I have spent the better part of my life trying to learn all these "labels" with the aim of being able to forget them. I like to be fluent in music, not labels. Genres exist of course, but the goal of fluency is to enjoy the music itself, not the genre, and especially not the labels.

It's language first, product second.

There. Everything else is business.

[Big Beat Steve]

9 hours ago, JSngry said:

A statement like this is kind of annoying to me (nothing personal). I have spent the better part of my life trying to learn all these "labels" with the aim of being able to forget them. I like to be fluent in music, not labels. Genres exist of course, but the goal of fluency is to enjoy the music itself, not the genre, and especially not the labels.

 

I may not be the one to be able to "calm things down" here but just my 2c:

Labels such as Bob Wilber being of the "Traditional" school just indicate that he had his origins in Traditional Jazz as a "pupil" of Sidney Bechet. And he went on from there. So his earlier records will usually be filed under "Traditional", "Dixieland", "Classic Jazz" and the like. And such a label IS convenient and serves a purpose just to give "new ones to the game" an idea of what (genre) to expect in a broad stylistic sense. If, for example, someone is into Classic Jazz, nobody will do this listener (or the efforts to widen the audience for jazz) any service by shoving avantgarde acts (or possibly even Bebop or Hard Bop) down the ears of these listeners on the premise that "this is jazz and if you love jazz you GOT to like that too". (People who "argue" like this ARE and have been out there for decades, mind you!)

As an example, at one point I mentioned to a neighbor (who had rightly guessed that I am into Rockabilly and REAL Rock'n'Roll, i.e. the 50s variety) that I even more so am into various styles of jazz. His reply was, "Jazz isn't my cuppa, that's all too weird and bizarre for me."
Do I know what kind of "jazz" he had been exposed to to come to that conclusion?  Shrieks and screeches of what others would embrace as "avantgarde"? Was it Bird (who can be challenging on first hearing to the unaware) or was it "just" some high-note trumpet solo by anyone ranging from Cat Anderson through Dizzy to Maynard Ferguson?
But had my neighbor been exposed to something more accessible as a first taste of jazz he might feel differently now. So someone ruined his ears for "jazz" by what he made him listen to at some time in the past.

So things don't work that way with most of the "typical" music lovers. Just like someone who is deeply into Heavy Metal will likely be turned off by Techno (and vice versa) - at least upon initial exposure. You got to EASE people into exploring new styles and genres of music (new to them, that is ...) so they gradually discover what is palatable to their tastes after all and what will never be. And "labels" to describe genres do serve a purpose there!
And from then on it is up to everybody not to let himself be pigeonholed but to look beyond as he feels comfortable with. But you cannot force them - or leave them in the wilderness by lumping ANY genre into one big blob of "just music" from the start.

Getting back to Bob Wilber, this discussion of labels reminds me of one key experience I had decades ago. Listening to a jazz radio show, I was blown away by the Bob Wilber and Kenny Davern live recording of "Stompy Jones". Was I pleased when I later found this track on the Soprano Summit In Concert LP at Mole Jazz in the 90s ...
That killer track might not be totally out of place at a dance session for advanced jivers and lindy hoppers (with the right stamina - the track clocks in at 07:52!). So this might be one tune to increase the awareness of the not all that jazz-minded dancing crowd (though maybe not one of my buddies who is exceedingly knowledgeable of R'n'R/Rockabilly but has an intense dislike of horns  ).

 

[JSngry]

So the way to get people away from their compartmentalized tastes is to give the new/more compartments to play with?

Hmmm....

Came across this bit from Percival Everett's new novel James :

"...we must let the whites be the ones who name the trouble." 

"And why is that?" I asked.

(She) said, "because they need to know everything before us . Because they need to name everything." 

Because they need to name everything. Measure everything. Put a price on everything. Own everything. Sell everything. Soul becomes commodity.

No. Please don't do that. Please stop doing that. I refuse to play along with that sick game. I will not hear genre, I for damn sure will not hear style.

I will hear music. Period 

As best as I'm able, anyway.

[Big Beat Steve]

(Sorry to Rabshakeh for straying a bit OT )

If you intimately and immediately know (in EVERY case) which artist plays WHAT music (across the board of ALL genres and styles)  - fine.
But what makes you think that EVERYONE
a) KNOWS all that,
b) will embrace and love ANY sort of music alike ("sort" just to avoid the terms "genre" or style" or "label" you so hate ) at any time?

That's just not realistic - nor possible nor human. Because humans are different, have different tastes and preferences.
So why don't you just take these terms as OPTIONAL GUIDELINES to
c) tell those interested in looking beyond the categories (or artists) they are already familiar with what to expect from the music "out there in the great unknown musical territories",
d) explain to them where to look FIRST when they want to explore their stylistic preferences of music in greater depth and where not to look (at least not primarily) if they want to avoid pitfalls because a given artist may have changed his musical orientation radically through his career?

Examples:
c) Something probably not all that unknown to you as a Texan: One genre of music I like immensely is WESTERN SWING. Now this being a subgenre of Country music in the first place (so-called "serious" jazz fans often still sneer at it), why should it be out of place to guide those exploring the genre even in its broadest sense by tagging that stylistic label to the relevant artists? Anyone searching for info specifically on such artists would not necessarily (or rarely even) want to be forced to wade through Nashville assembly-line country music just because it all files under "Country" (nor would those preferring mainstream Country artists wnat to be bothereed with that "old hat" stuff at times they do NOT want to go there). Only human ...
d) The first Johnny Guitar Watson LP I ever bought was a Red Lightnin' reissue of his mid-50s recordings. At the same time his 70s Funk stuff was all over the place in the bins for a time. Would it have been a service to the customer to lump everything together in the racks? This one was much better placed in the "Blues" section. Even if there was a separate Watson section in the Funk corner of the shop as well.

Look, tomorrow I will check out a record clearance sale at a local shop. More than 50,000 LPs plus countless CDs and 45s on sale but NOTHING sorted by ANY genre or artist at all. (By your reasoning this would be heaven on earth for you about NOT compartmentizing?) Competitively priced and you CAN make finds there (because they also relegate regular stuff to those clearout sales that has been sitting in their bins for too long). So it is worth the effort browsing (last time I came away with more than 100 items) but it is TOUGH work sifting the gems from the dross. Yet the unexpected finds make it worthwhile but you have to EARN them under these circumstances.
But would I (or in fact anyone) want to do this every time even at full-price items throughout the year and would compartments by artist and/or style in the record shops therefore be dispensable? NO WAY ...

Anyone wanting to expand into other genres or categories is free to do so whenever he sees fit (I've done so too). But everyone decides for himself when and how he wants to go that route into new territories and can and will use such labels and genre categorizations at least as ROUGH GUIDELINES for orientation instead of being forced not to be able to see the forest for the trees ...

(I rest my case  ...)

[JSngry]

Here's wishing you good buying of commodities in the marketplace of commercial objects!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Big Beat Steve]

  Thanks!

Edited April 11 by Big Beat Steve

[Big Beat Steve]

On 4/7/2024 at 9:28 AM, Rabshakeh said:

... A strange flip side of this is that there are not many examples of the two New Orleans scenes of the time collaborating. George Lewis and his colleagues were Right There. Ken Colyer crossed the ocean to play with them. But for the Assunto brothers or Al Hirt they basically don't exist. Examples of them even playing with Black musicians are few and far between - perhaps the only famous example being that Louis Armstrong record with the Dukes, which I think is unlistenable. I think that a few had mixed bands when it came to playing live (including a young Ellis Marsalis) but on record that is not visible. ...

Getting back to the question about to what degree revivalist bands were integrated (in a natural way, in particular, without actually giving thoughts to the color of one's skin), here is an example that goes some way in that direction (the bassist is white):  an original from 1967 I picked up at that record clearout sale I went to yesterday.

The Saints & Sinners band led by pianist Red Richards was around throughout the 60s as an "all-star" band. The liner notes describe the music on this record as "mainstream" and "swing" but teh Classic/Traditional Jazz overtones are very, very evident. It is an easy-going, relaxed, naturally swinging session (not dull, but not at all extrovert like many white revivalists and not as cliché-laden as some post-circa 1960 New Orleans bands ).

Otherwise, this discussion was of course on my mind when I browsed the bins for hours ... 😁 
At 1 EUR per item throughout the bins you can take chances ...  Yet I shunned the European trad platters (nothing that special or "early pressing" there anyway) and really could not bring myself to buying any of the Firehouse 5+2 or Dukes of Dixieland LPs (there was a handful of each). But I took home one more Soprano Summit LP and (admittedly) did pick up two Turk Murphy Columbia/Philips original pressings from the 50s .
And for history's sake I grabbed a 70s reissue of the 1959 Atlantic LP of the Young Tuxedo Brass Band (recorded in 1958, no revival but ongoing tradition from the source .... ).

[Rabshakeh]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Getting back to the question about to what degree revivalist bands were integrated (in a natural way, in particular, without actually giving thoughts to the color of one's skin), here is an example that goes some way in that direction (the bassist is white):  an original from 1967 I picked up at that record clearout sale I went to yesterday.

The Saints & Sinners band led by pianist Red Richards was around throughout the 60s as an "all-star" band. The liner notes describe the music on this record as "mainstream" and "swing" but teh Classic/Traditional Jazz overtones are very, very evident. It is an easy-going, relaxed, naturally swinging session (not dull, but not at all extrovert like many white revivalists and not as cliché-laden as some post-circa 1960 New Orleans bands ).

Otherwise, this discussion was of course on my mind when I browsed the bins for hours ... 😁 
At 1 EUR per item throughout the bins you can take chances ...  Yet I shunned the European trad platters (nothing that special or "early pressing" there anyway) and really could not bring myself to buying any of the Firehouse 5+2 or Dukes of Dixieland LPs (there was a handful of each). But I took home one more Soprano Summit LP and (admittedly) did pick up two Turk Murphy Columbia/Philips original pressings from the 50s .
And for history's sake I grabbed a 70s reissue of the 1959 Atlantic LP of the Young Tuxedo Brass Band (recorded in 1958, no revival but ongoing tradition from the source .... ).

I think that I have heard of the Saints and Sinners as a group. What are the best records to start with?

I am actually still quite nervous with my own purchases of trad jazz. My wife's dad loved the scene and she has happy memories of old timers coming round to play piano at house parties, so she is quite tolerant. But even then I only have a tiny number of traditional jazz records. Pee Wee Russell is a big favourite of my wife's and we have a nice £1 comp of very early Acker Bilk when he was still actually trying. But that's all That's leaving aside the box of weird amateurish records by groups with names like The Hull Librarians River Stompers that I inherited from my father in law.

[Big Beat Steve]

33 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

I think that I have heard of the Saints and Sinners as a group. What are the best records to start with?

This is the first one I ever bought of them (on the strength of the lineup - and at 1 EUR apiece you can take chances. )
According to Discogs they recorded 3 LPs during the 60s (my find is the second one of them). So you will have to wait for others to chime in.

[JSngry]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Jazz_%26_Heritage_Festival#:~:text=The New Orleans Jazz %26 Heritage Festival was established in 1970,attendance of only 350 people. 

Read the "Background" section for insight into why the New Orleans bands weren't integrated.

[JSngry]

Have you checked out Eddie Miller? He was a good player who often made good records. But not always!

[Niko]

which Eddie Miller records would you recommend? (I have some that I like but there's room for more)

brought back from Copenhagen and now playing for the third time or so... a meeting of two bands, one built around McPartland, the other around Hodes, with most players from both bands on most tracks, including e.g. Pee Wee Russell, Bud Freeman, Vic Dickinson, George Brunies, George Wettling... the state of "Chicago Jazz" ca 1962

[JSngry]

I don't know his work in great detail myself. But every time he pops up he sound nice.

On the Capitol Jazz Mosaic, some of his cuts are commercial-jazz ballads which don't do too much for me. But when he swings, he swings!

 

[JSngry]

Found this on Spotify. It's just a bit messy, but a least that much more again fun!!!!

[Niko]

I have that Lesberg album, it's a good one... I have two more nice ones featuring Miller, one is the four tenor meeting of Ben Webster, Lockjaw, Miller and Bud Freeman - can't really go wrong with this even though it's not quite as great as I would have hoped, the other a split LP on Southland with a small group (and the other half by Armand Hug, fine pianist)