[78-L] Jazz heritage (was: Price's Price)

[Michael Biel]

-------- Original Message --------
 Subject: Re: [78-L] Price's Price
 From: Malcolm Smith <malcolms at redshift.com>
 Date: Mon, July 27, 2009 11:30 am
 To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
 
> This opens the door on a sad part of the history. Yes, it
> was Europe,  especially France, where most of the early
> interest in jazz and jazz  records occurred.

What do you mean by "early" in "early interest"? 1900? 1910?  1920? 
1930?  And what jazz were they interested in?  And what records were
available to them or that they reissued or recorded?  

> There are many on this list who are more familiar with
> the history than I am and I hope they will add to what
> I have too say. 

Perhaps Reiner Lotz and Tim Brooks might speak to this issue.  Reiner
has written a book about Black performers in early 20th century Europe,
and Tim has written a book about the many Blacks who recorded but have
been overlooked by other historians and collectors.

> One simply needs to note the way black musicians were 
> treated in France and the number of them who ended up
> there and why wouldn't they!

What about all the white musicians who ended up in Europe?  What about
all the Black musicians who stayed in the U.S. with enormously
successful careers?

> I will never forget meeting Lil Hardin in Paris in the early fifties, 

I thought you were talking about EARLY history.  This is late history.

> A fascinating wonderful pianist and singer. She was the pianist
> in the original Creole Band. One can't do any better than that!
> She was greatly respected in Paris unlike here.

When?  During the era of her tenure in the Creole Band or in the 50s
when most of Jazz had moved on to BeBop and other modern forms?  Did the
French record a large catalog of her in the 50s?

> Sadly, there is very little in the way of early records of jazz,

Again you go back to "early" after talking about the "early fifties". 
Again, what do you mean by "early"?  1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, etc.?

> and what there is is usually recorded with old worn equipment
> that had been used to record white musicians. 

You can't be serious.  Tell me that this is your idea of a joke. If you
are talking about the 20s and 30s, the jazz musicians who recorded for
Victor, Columbia, Brunswick, Edison, OKeh, and all the majors were
recorded on the same equipment being currently used, updated, improved,
for ALL recordings.  Some of the specialty labels such as Paramount,
Black Swan, Gennett, etc. constructed their own equipment which was
brand new when the companies began and were used for all of their
performers because it was usually the only equipment they had.  If you
are discussing Harmony's comtinued use of acoustical equipment into 29
or so, that was new equipment for 1924 which was not racially motivated.
 Columbia/OKeh used their new electrical equipment for the Black artists
on their labels.  

If you are talking about post-war Europe where you met Lil Hardin in
Paris in the early fifties, I think you will have to consider what was
available in post-war Europe.  Can you give some specific details of
what you are referring to when you said that Black musicians were
recorded with old worn equipment that had been used to record white
musicians.

> We should have records going all the way back to Bolden but don't.

If you are talking about the U.S., have you read Tim Brooks' book?  If
you are talking about Europe, have you read Reiner Lotz's book?  There
were more Black performers recorded than you seem to know about.

> Little interest in the first quarter of the last century was
> shown until a brief revival brought about by the discovery
> of Bunk Johnson in the early forties.

Are you saying that there was little interest shown DURING the first
quarter of the last century?  It was a local regional music for many
years in an era when many new musical styles were competing for
attention.  And many "within the Race" considered this music cheap,
demeaning, and dirty.  Are you saying that there were no interest in
early jazz recordings until the early forties?  It was discussed last
week about the growth of jazz journals, collector stores, collector
reissues, jazz discographies, jazz collector lists, and other such in
the THIRTIES.  Bunk Johnson and the dixieland revival on the West coast
such as Good Time Jazz Records, was a type of "oldies" like happened
starting in the 80s with rock.  Except for Swing, jazz has never truely
been "mainstream".  Get over it.  
    
> Very sad history and musically a terrible loss. Malcolm Smith

Both Tim and Reiner have talked about the many Black performers who had
recorded but have been overlooked either because their records were not
popular at their time, have been overlooked because their records are
rare, or have been forgotten because no copies of their records can be
found.  Reiner discussed in his ARSC presentation about hundreds of
recordings made in the early years by Blacks in Europe which have never
been found and may not sold because they were produced "on-demand" and
there had been no inquires for them at the time.  Rare and non-existant
recordings are truly a loss.  It makes me wonder, what new exciting
music are we, right now at the start of THIS century, ignoring and/or
not recording?  100 years from now, what are WE going to be blamed for
ignoring, not recording, or using only old equipment on?   

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com