[78-L] Shaw and Goodman

[Taylor Bowie]

Oh no...this is the original "chicken vs. egg" argument among jazz 
fans....not who came first but which one is the "better" jazz musician. 
But I can't resist jumping in.

I've listened to Shaw and Goodman since I was a little kid on the late 
50s...even at his best,  to my ears Shaw always sounds as if he's trying too 
hard.

And as to tone...uh...is it just my imagination or do I often hear a strain 
in Shaw's upper register?  And how about low register...let's compare 
Goodman's passage on the Victor band of "Get Happy" with Shaw's...what?  I'd 
like to hear an example of Shaw attempting something similar,  but no of no 
such record.  Perhaps someone can clue me in.

I could go on...as could any other Shaw or Goodman devotee/partisan...but 
I'll stop for now.


Taylor B




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Howard Friedman" <hsf318 at comcast.net>
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Venuti!


>>> Sacre bleu!! You don't know what you're missing. Venuti was
>>> technically better as a violinist but I've found Grappelli's tone to
>>> be sweeter, his swing stronger, and his melodic improvisation far
>>> more sophisticated. If you still question whether the violin can be a
>>> suitable jazz instrument, listen to the QHCF's "You're Driving Me
>>> Crazy." If that don't move you, nothing will.
>>>
>>> Cary Ginell
>
> Re the above, Benny Goodman was the better clarinetist technically, but 
> Artie Shaw was far better at improvisation, with a better tone as well. 
> PeeWee Russell's clarinet literally squeaked most of the time, but what 
> came out was amazing!  In other words, technique ain't everything.
>
> Howard
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>