[78-L] question for dance band experts

[Julian Vein]

On 24/10/12 19:53, Tim Huskisson wrote:
> Although it is true that the Tuba and Banjo both recorded better than String
> Bass and Guitar, I think live performance instrumentation was pretty much
> the same as that used in studios, though sometimes bands were augmented with
> extra musicians for recording (eg. strings). There are plenty of photos of
> Dance bands in their resident surroundings (Hotels, etc).
>
> What is interesting however is the possibility that the use of
> Tuba/Sousaphone may have become widely used in live performance AS A RESULT
> OF THE POPULARITY OF THE SOUND heard on records. i.e. If the phonograph
> hadn't been invented, perhaps arrangers would have preferred to write for
> String Bass. Electric recording seems to have begun the gradual
> transformation from Brass bass back to String bass.
>
> It's also interesting to note that in many small groups - notably the
> Original Dixieland Jass Band - No Bass instrument was considered necessary -
> either in live performance or on record. The Piano did all the work!
>
> Tim Huskisson
>
============
One point to consider is what would be the purpose of a bass instrument? 
Obviously, a brass one would add colour and rhythmic and harmonic lift 
to a performance, both in the studio and live, whereas a string one 
would only supply harmonic and rhythmic lift in the studio and live, but 
little or no colour in the latter. So, it was mainly there for the 
benefit of the musicians, not the listener.

      Julian Vein