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

Tue Nov 4 13:54:06 PST 2008

Actually some guys in Paul Whiteman's band (i.e. Henry Busse et al) made 
over $180 per week, and that was in the middle and late twenties. Even 
section men in the run-of-the-mill big bands of the middle late thirties and 
early forties made $40 to $80 per week while the leading soloists made $80 
to $200 and over.  It wasn't greed ,as " scale" was not relevant for the big 
succesful bands.  All sidemen made over scale. Ballroom owners couldn't 
afford fifteen piece bands when people stopped coming to dance. Greed is a 
universal characteristic but it didn't kill the big bands.
The times they were a-changing.
(except for Guy (ugh) Lombardo who could even afford twin pianos.)

Al Simmons

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bud Black" <banjobud at cfl.rr.com>
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Fw: The 5 most influential 78s ever/ Charlie Parker

> IMHO, greed was one of the contributing factors in the demise of the big
> bands.  I can recall when union scale for sidemen was seven dollars for a
> three hour engagement.  As the prices rose (under "Little Caesar" 
> Petrillo)
> the bands kept getting smaller.  I can recall a Vaughn Monroe engagement
> that I attended about 1949, and was surprised to see only eight musicians 
> on
> the bandstand. When I remarked on this to one of the managers of the place
> (the Ches-Arena, located outside Pittsburgh), I was told "Who the hell can
> afford them?"  Soon, the same place was booking acts like Jon and Sandra
> Steele.
>
> Bud
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: simmonssomer
> Date: 11/04/08 13:10:39
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Fw: The 5 most influential 78s ever/ Charlie Parker
>
> What kiled the big bands? Probably because new generations want to make
> their own discoveries and most likely they'll be as different from the
> previous ones as they can make it. It's the way of our species.
> Further there was the recording strike and the subsequent advent of the
> vocalists. The jitterbug was old stuff (after all pop music is /was for
> dancing) and the call-response, single section at-a-time big band sound 
> was
> sounding tired especially the frenetic, hollow flag wavers. Big turn-off.
> Still, we were not yet ready to dump tonality (still aren't) so we all 
> sang
> together...like birds of a feather.
> Besides, eventually you couldn't get the chicks with a trombone or sax
> anymore.. Needed a guitar.
> Go with the flow.
>
> Fiction and fact from Al's almanac.
>
> Al S.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francesco Martinelli" <francesco.martinelli at gmail.com>
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:35 AM
> Subject: [78-L] Fw: The 5 most influential 78s ever/ Charlie Parker
>
>
>> My questions remains unanswered, or rather you subtly change categories
>> between jazz  styles and other genres:
>>
>>> "The general public, being less sophisticated but probably very honest 
>>> in
>>> their more conservative taste, wouldn't follow beyond the point at which
>>> *tonality* was left as THE base of musical activity, and turned their
>>> minds and ears to more accessible and listenable GENRES."
>>
>> (my emphasis). In other words, the great unwashed turned to rock'n'roll
>> because of Charlie Parker.
>>
>> I rephrase my question: what killed the big bands and swing music? What
>> prevented the masses to keep listening to the previous musical styles,
>> offered commonly and copiously both live and on record? Why the advent of
>> a
>> new style of music in small circles drove the public away from, say,
>> Hampton
>> and other big bands (who kept a dwindling following)? More to the point,
>> why
>> the "new swing" of the 80's for example is not nearly as good as the
>> originals of 40 or 50 years before? Or you listen to the Cherry Popping
>> Daddies and you enjoy it like Basie?
>> Or you think that the critics and the avantgarde musicians could prevent
>> them to play as well, and also prevent latest composers to compose 
>> another
>> Cavalleria? (why should they other than for being evilish, is another
>> matter - as far as I can remember Schoenberg did not achieve fame or
>> power,
>> nor Parker did)?
>>
>> Besides, tonality and harmony are most emphatically NOT universal
>> mathematical concepts (the mathematics are, not the sounds) but an
>> historical product of a specific development in music, relative to a tiny
>> (even if dominant) fraction of the globe, its history and its population,
>> and depend on a specific convention (equal temperament). Being both a
>> confessed dodecaphonist and a confirmed free-jazzer, not to mention a
>> dedicated listener to non-European musics, I have to tell you that there
>> are
>> multitudes on the planet that listen with pleasure to seconds or
>> microtonal
>> intervals, finding european polyphonic music unbearably tuneless, raw,
>> unmelodic an monotonous (read any testimony of Chinese or Arabic traveler
>> to
>> Europe). Your conception of "singable melodies and danceable rhythms" is
>> widely different from "folks" in other areas of the planet, unless you 
>> can
>> tell me that you can sing along pygmies' music (seconds) and korean opera
>> (microtonal) respectively more popular there than Andrews Sisters and
>> Verdi.
>> I do not speak Chinese, and for me they only make funny sounds, but I 
>> know
>> that for them is the same. Ignorance prevents enjoyment, and vice
>> versa.....
>>
>> FM
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 78-L mailing list
>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 11/4/2008
> 8:26 AM
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 
8:26 AM