[78-L] Louis Armstrong

[David Lennick]

The only problem I have with "What a Wonderful World" is that it's become 
overexposed. I thought it was a great record in 1969 and it worked beautifully 
at the end of "Hitchhiker's Guide". And there's nothing wrong with having a hit 
record. How many hit records did Bing Crosby have after 1954? That aren't 
"White Christmas", I mean? Only "True Love", with Grace Kelly (speaking of 
performers who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket). (Yes, Wonderful World didn't 
even chart in 1969, but it was popular enough that we had instrumental versions 
of it from a few sources at the time.)

dl

Bill McClung wrote:
> A couple of comments on all that's been said.
> 
> Armstrong is on my musical personal Mount Rushmore.  And it is a very
> personal Rushmore-alphabetically Louis Armstrong, Milton Brown, Charlie
> Christian, Louis Jordan, Rosetta Tharp. I don't want to argue about the
> merits of these choices.  This falls into the realm of politics and religion
> so please don't go there unless you agree.  Many, many more musicians grace
> the foothills.
> 
> Any artist, anybody, whose career lasts as long as Armstrong's will have
> moments of gold and moments of dross. I like most of the Okehs but not all.
> I like some of the Deccas but not many.  The All Stars live trump the studio
> All Stars almost every time.  The energy Armstrong brings to his concert
> recordings has always amazed me.
> 
> And I have no problem with Wonderful World.  It is what it is but I can't
> imagine another singer making the song as universal as it has become.  And
> if that song is the path that brings someone to the larger world of Louis
> Armstrong then that is also a good thing.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:51 AM, eugene hayhoe <jazzme48912 at yahoo.com>wrote:
> 
>> 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!
>>>
>>> _____________________________________