[78-L] Louis Armstrong

Fri Jan 22 05:51:24 PST 2010

I pretty much try to acquire any LA record I see that I do not have (and I already have plenty, and yes, they do vary in quality, IMO, but there are many from every decade of his career that I love to listen to). 

On the other hand, I don't have any records by Crosby, Buble, Krall, Feinstein & the many more like them, and it escapes me why anyone would; far as I'm concerned they would just be useless clutter that I would never have any interest in listening to.  Indeed, it is only when I realized as a youth that Crosby and his ilk were not the only kind of music around that I became interested in music at all. It's all a matter of taste of course, I'm not a believer in the objectivity myth & no offense intended to anyone.

Also, as a retired college teacher, I can echo first hand MB's (?) comments about teachers who lack any real backgrounds in their subject areas - I went thru a 7 year period where I did not work because there was no one culturally competent enough within the college to even understand the nature of my curriculum-based grievance (for which I was blatantly marginalized and retaliated against, even compared, on the record, to Sept. 11 'terrorists' by administrators); it took an outside arbitrator (who was obstructed every step of the way by the admin) to supply that. It is my impression that nepotism and cronyism are the number 1 influences on curriculum (at least at the place I taught at, Lansing Community College, here in MI). Intellectual integrity would seem to be pretty much irrelevant in my experience, and the lack therof is no reason for shame, it's the ability to be 'in control' that is important. 

Gene

--- On Thu, 1/21/10, Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com> wrote:

From: Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com>
Subject: Re: [78-L] Louis Armstrong
To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 9:49 PM

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge Armstrong fan, but I'm not one of those who think he never made a bad or ordinary record until the end of his career. I find SOME of Armstrong's recordings a little tiresome and predictable, but there is no doubt about his presence and charisma that was on everything he did. I don't consider everything he did as genius, but with what he accomplished in the '20s, he earned the right to coast a little in order to make a living. I do think, though, that Louis Armstrong is the only musician of the 20th century - and not just American - who I would not hesitate to put on Mount Rushmore. He was that rare combination of a bigger-than-life personality who contributed gigantic things to music. He even made "Black and Blue" sound joyous. 

But as far as influence goes, I would rank Bing Crosby higher than Armstrong as a singer and as an influence. Armstrong influenced jazz singing, but nobody could sing like him. Only a few (Wingy Manone, Tempo King, Louis Prima) tried to imitate him, but when you look at how Crosby revolutionized singing, making it more personal and more intimate - that brought on Sinatra, Bennett, Eddy Arnold, Peggy Lee, just about every singer who came after him in every field. It's true that Crosby himself learned from Armstrong's example, but I think that Crosby took it a step further; he sang more to the listener, one-on-one, than Armstrong did. Crosby could make you cry. Armstrong only made you smile. 

Now please bear in mind that my intention is not to denigrate Armstrong's importance as a singer. He did things to a song that nobody did before him or could do since. I just wouldn't go as far as some who have already spoken. All you have to do is listen today to Michael Buble, Michael Feinstein, or Diana Krall, and tell me who you hear in their voices: Louis Armstrong or Bing Crosby?

Cary Ginell

> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:21:44 +0000
> From: fnarf at comcast.net
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Louis Armstrong
> 
> Presence, exactly. Some people think his appearance in "High Society", for instance, is just an old man tomming for the white people with his 30-year-old jazz, but I tell you, when he's on the screen, he just GLOWS with power, authority, and charisma. I think Louis himself had about 30% of all the charisma that was ever allotted to human beings. The rest of us have to make do with the 70% that's left (Jonathan Richman has about 10% of it, if you've ever seen him live).
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Huskisson" <timhuskisson at btinternet.com>
> To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:57:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Louis Armstrong
> 
> I never heard a mediocre Louis performance. Even his most commercial
> recordings were magnificent because of his own presence. I don't know if he
> really was 'the single most important American who ever lived' - he may be
> (!) - but I'm convinced that he is the most influential musician in American
> popular music. If not him, who the heck comes even close?
> 
> Tim Huskisson
> 
> ============================================================================
> ==================================================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com
> [mailto:78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of fnarf at comcast.net
> Sent: 22 January 2010 00:17
> To: 78-L Mail List
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Louis Armstrong
> 
> Julian Vein:
> 
> > Unfortunately, whatever Armstrong's qualities as a human being, we are 
> > left with his recorded legacy, a lot of which is superficial and 
> > patronizing to his audiences and routine.
> 
> I know you're being deliberately provacative here, but you couldn't be more
> wrong, even if you'd said "Duke Ellington was a mediocre rock guitarist from
> Slovenia".
> 
> For starters, Armstrong's legacy includes the invention of jazz and the
> invention of jazz singing. He is by a wide, wide margin the most important
> figure in American music, and in ANY music since 1900. In MY pantheon, Louis
> Armstrong is the single most important American who ever lived, with Lincoln
> and perhaps Mark Twain up there on the podium with him.
> 
> Yes, yes, I know other people were playing "jazz" before him, but Armstrong
> broke through the rhythmic and tonal barriers that imprisoned all early
> players. His innovations led to EVERYTHING; there is before Louis and after
> Louis. He was the big bang. In a way, every instrumental player since
> Armstrong, in every genre, has been trying to recapture the magic of the Hot
> Fives and Hot Sevens. And mostly coming up short. The thing is, you can come
> up short to Armstrong and still be the best ever in your field.
> 
> 
> And singing: he's not just the first, he's still by a wide, wide margin the
> best that ever was. NO ONE has ever phrased like him. And, as with playing,
> every singer since him has tried to capture that warmth and tone and rhythm.
> Every jazz and pop singer in the post-Jolson world owes him EVERYTHING. What
> a singer; his voice was so much larger, and had so many more rooms in it,
> and so many fabulous, jaw-dropping, and beautiful ways to get around a word,
> he doesn't even sound like a man; he sounds like an entire nation of men.
> You could pick out single NOTES that surpass most careers.
> 
> When people talk disparagingly about Armstrong's recorded legacy, they're
> talking about a handful of records from late in his career when he was
> certainly no longer an innovator. But there are two things to say about
> that: innovation is overrated, and Armstrong had already packed more
> innovation in his career than any other musician in history, so who cares?
> Armstrong innovated more one ONE DAY in November 1925 than any other jazz
> musician did in his entire career. 
> 
> And after that, he made a HELL of a lot of great, great records. His later
> sessions with Ella Fitzgerald are stone cold magnificent. If he had only
> ever recorded those, as a vocalist, and never touched a trumpet in his life,
> he'd be an all-time great. You can say that about a lot of his stuff; if the
> only thing he ever did was "High Society" he'd be revered today.
> 
> No one has a recorded legacy like Armstrong. No one.
> 
> I haven't even read the Teachout book yet!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l