[78-L] The 5 most influential 78s ever/ Charlie Parker

[Francesco Martinelli]

> OK, agreed. But by this explanation, I find it difficult to call Parker's 
> record "influential" in the same way Caruso, Elvis or the ODJB were - 
> unless you are also talking of "negative" influence in terms of popularity 
> and record sales. After be-bop, jazz never again was a mass-compatible 
> music (unless you are talking about dixie and swing revival bands). In 
> this way, the comparison to Schoenberg is perfect - he did the same for 
> "classical" music in the widest sense of the term. The non-specialist part 
> of the public will usually think of pre-bop music when they hear the word 
> "jazz", just as they think of (conceptually) pre-Schoenberg compositions 
> when they talk about "symphonic" or "operatic" music, and the latter fell 
> out of fashion as a *contemporary* and popular art form, becoming a 
> "highbrow" and/or nostalgic niche product, around the time Schoenberg 
> published most of his works, just like jazz fell similarly out of fashion 
> in Parker's heydays and never recovered against  the myriad of rock- and 
> r&b-related forms that followed.

I thought a lot about this message. Where do you think that Charlie Parker 
and the other musicians of his school got the power to sway the course of 
the music, especially supported by agents, labels, radios etc. like the 
previous popular jazz styles? How come such an unpopular music put an end to 
the era of jazz as dance music, especially since it had such tiny 
circulation on small label, compared to contemporary sales of other 
musicians while being under attack from the press? Why people did not listen 
to big bands anymore - was it the actions of an individual leading a small 
coterie stopping the masses from crowding the dance halls where they were 
playing? How could "Ko Ko" divert customers from buying "the jazz they 
liked" anyway, since it was amply available both live and on record?
Was this individual never born, or had he played like Earl Bostic all his 
life, jazz would be a popular art form now and Wembley stadium would be 
filled with the sound of Dixieland bands and Swing?
Same with opera - how come the very existence of, say, Berio and his small 
group of listeners prevented composers to write hugely successful operas 
like Rigoletto and Tosca but at best pale imitations of them?
The fact is that after KoKo was played all previous jazz sounded dated and 
unhip to musicians and listeners all over the world, and no-one was forcing 
them - if anything, the contrary. My answer is that for a recording to be as 
influential as KoKo or West End Blues it needs to interpret, or anticipate, 
the spirit of the times. Jazz had to change - for better or worse, in a 
positive or a negative way it is a matter of opinions, but the change is 
there - and these recordings were a poetic expression of major changes in 
society and culture. While the outer shape changes, in its nature I feel a 
deep unity in jazz from Armstrong and Morton to Coltrane and Threadgill and 
points beyond - the music changed with the world, before and after Charlie 
Parker. A plot theory - a group of nefarious individuals (Parker, Gillespie, 
Monk, Davis) armed by the powerful Dial and Savoy labels hijacking the music 
at gun point and silencing the "popular" voices forcing the audience out of 
Armstrong and Basie concerts - may provide a scapegoat, but not an 
understanding. Trying to recapture (recapture, not analyse and understand) a 
bygone era can be nostalgically tender and comfortingly protect us form 
change, but will not appeal to further generations.
And this not deter to the validity of Morton, Armstrong and Bechet in their 
own time and style - to the contrary, it enhances it.
fm