[78-L] question for dance band experts

[David Lennick]

On 10/24/2012 5:00 PM, Julian Vein wrote:
> 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
> ________________________________________

I doubt that it would have occurred to anyone to use a bass in the 20s. The 
guitar wasn't even coming into use yet and banjos were still popular. If you 
couldn't dance to it or march to it, why bother?

dl