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

[Erwin Kluwer]

Amen!

On 11/4/08, Francesco Martinelli <francesco.martinelli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>