Perspectives on Music - An Introduction

Over the course of the coming year, I want to begin talking more about one of my biggest passions, and that is collecting vintage dance band records and early jazz.  I have discussed various aspects of my hobby before, as it is a very defining part of my own identity as well as being something I have been into for about 36 years now.  I am not going to set a timetable for when I visit this topic, but there are a few things I am working on this year which more or less involve some new dimensions to it that have caught my interest, and some of them relate to the current socio-political climate in this nation as well.  I also have an objective at some point during the year to embark on a project of my own documenting the history and evolution of what is often called the "big band," and this will serve as kind of an introduction to coming attractions.

There are two topics I want to discuss as sort of an opening to this subject, as both of them are things I have pondered on personally over the years.  First, it is the term "big band" itself - is it appropriate terminology for this genre of music, or should a better designation be given to it?  Second, I want to also tackle the common mythos that jazz as a musical phenomenon is the exclusive creation of the Black community - research has shown that in its earliest days, jazz had other influences too that contributed to its sound, and many researchers (namely the late Richard Sudhalter, to whom I will be referring a lot, as his massive tome Lost Chords addresses this issue in detail) have begun to document that.  Mind you, it doesn't diminish the Black contribution, nor does it take away from appreciating such stellar talents as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, or Dizzy Gillespie, but it does show that more than one ethnicity contributed to the growth of what is in reality a truly American art form.  As I am still compiling my own material and research, this will be something ongoing that I will be dealing with.

Let us take the first topic first, the name "big band."  "Big band" is a common and generally accepted term, as are terms such as "dance band," "swing," etc.  The dictionary definition of a big band is simply an ensemble of typically 8-10 musicians, divided up into three sections (brass, reeds, rhythm) that play arrangements of jazz and other popular music.  A "dance band" is a broader definition, in that it is defined as an instrumental ensemble of any size that plays music for dancing.  "Swing" is a music that is played primarily by more jazz-oriented big bands featuring "hot" rhythms, improvised solos, and riffs and other musical devices.  In the strictest sense though, none of these terms for me truly capture the music.  For instance, as far as the term "big band" goes, there were many small groups of the era that played the same genre of music (notably John Kirby's sextet, Fats Waller, and early "lounge" groups such as the Three Suns), and by strict definition they were not big bands - some of them were even soloists.  "Dance band" is a little more inclusive, but a problem exists there too - many large ensembles, such as Paul Whiteman's, Fred Waring's, Horace Heidt's, and Stan Kenton's, were show bands (or, in the case of Kenton, more progressive large jazz ensembles) who rarely played dances, and in Whiteman's case there is also the phenomenon of "symphonic jazz" to consider.  In recent years, another type of orchestra, the "documentary orchestra," (such as the Netherlands-based Beau Hunks Orchestra) is of the same genre but doesn't play dance music necessarily either.  The third term, "swing," also has some problems, as this term is often associated with more "hot" jazz-oriented bands such as Benny Goodman and Count Basie and would omit some pretty popular orchestras - Guy Lombardo, Sammy Kaye, Lawrence Welk, etc. - who were also part of the era.  All of this leads to a very important question I have been pondering, as an aficionado of all this type of music - what DO you call it then?   As of yet, I have not come up with any takers, but in time there may be something that encapsulates the music as a whole without exclusion.  For many people who love this music as is though, there is really no problem with the terminology - older fans easily refer to both Glenn Miller and Guy Lombardo as "big bands," and also often include the Three Suns and other small groups in the description.  Unfortunately though, when it comes to something like this I tend to be a little more anally retentive, and want to find that right name that encompasses the entire musical form on this.  There is also eras to consider - for instance, being Paul Whiteman was the orchestra of the 1920's and terms such as "swing" often are relegated to a timeframe that spans roughly from 1935-1945, yet Whiteman was considered a "big band" leader as well; what exactly does one do with that??  Then, let's broaden the net further - this music didn't just appear out of a vacuum either, as prior to 1920 there were large bands around too - James Reese Europe, Art Hickman, Harold Yerkes, and others come to mind.  Some are even 19th-century bands which foreshadowed this great music, and deserve inclusion as well - Edward Issler, Will Marion Cook, and even Johann Strauss III come to mind here.  As a serious collector with the genuine love for the music, I am also one of those types of people who wants to dig back as far into its roots as I possibly can, and as I am also a history buff, I understand logically that nothing just appears out of a vacuum either - there are predecessors, contributing factors in the development of phenomena, etc., to consider.  In due time, I want to actually write something on those 19th-century roots of these large bands, and it should prove interesting to see.  Any rate, terminology is something that will continue to be a question for me personally, and maybe by looking more into it I can begin to formulate a solution.

The second issue is a little more controversial.  As we live in a society that is increasingly capitulating to the mindset of "political correctness," it seems that almost anything that anyone says or does can be misconstrued as "bigoted," "racist," etc.  It is to the point that civil discourse is not even a possibility anymore, being that an opposing view can easily be shut down if the person opposing it finds it in some weird way "offensive."  The area of music, and in particular jazz, hasn't escaped this nonsense either.  One particular example of this involves the personage of Richard (or "Dick") Sudhalter (1938-2008), a very outstanding musician and historian who did much to preserve the classic orchestral jazz of the 1920's and 1930's, in particular the legacy of Bix Beiderbecke.   Sudhalter, in the early 1970's, was so into this that he organized a fantastic ensemble called the New Paul Whiteman Orchestra, and if you have the opportunity, you can check out videos of this on Youtube and other venues.  In 1999, Sudhalter authored a massive tome called Lost Chords, and its primary focus was on the "unsung heroes" of early jazz who happened to be White musicians, of which there were many.  The book was excellently documented, and actually did quite a service to a lot of forgotten legends of both the "Jazz Age" and the "Swing Era."  However, the ever-vigilant lapdogs of "political correctness" also took notice of this, and they attacked Sudhalter's book as being "Eurocentric," "racist," and other stupid and ridiculous allegations.  He was called "the Pat Buchanan of Jazz" (which was also unfair, since Buchanan is not a racist either), and even respected Black jazzmen such as Branford Marsalis said "This book does not deserve the dignity of a response.  It's not an argument I'm prepared to devote five minutes to." (Matt Schudel, "Musician Richard Sudhalter: Jazz History Left Bitter Note," Sept. 20, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903832.html - accessed 2/1/2018).  Another pundit of "political correctness" under the guise of being a reviewer, Jason Berry, said that "This is a mountainous, flawed vast reach of a book that promotes a color-blind interpretation of jazz history." (Jason Berry, "White Men Can Jam," July 11, 1999 at http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/11/reviews/990711.11berryt.html - accessed 2/1/2018).  Another writer, Gerald Early, is a little more charitable but no less critical when he asserts that Sudhalter is trying in desperation to over-inflate the worth of the subject matter (seriously??) (Gerald Early, "Multiracial Roots - Clearing a Larger Space for Whites in the History of Jazz," March 7, 1999 at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-03-07/entertainment/9903070152_1_richard-m-sudhalter-jazz-lost-chords - accessed 2/1/2018).  There are tons more of these types of reviews, and the reviews themselves need a critical analysis too, as they are doing what they accused Sudhalter of doing but that he was not even guilty of - viewing jazz through the eyes of race rather than fact.  Sudhalter's book, at almost a thousand pages, is a bit to tackle - I am still slogging through it even as I write this.  However, by what I have read so far, there is no evidence in Sudhalter's writing that even suggests that Blacks were less important, nor does anything suggest that he is in any way "racist" against Blacks and thus guilty of "White revisionism."  On the contrary, anyone who is familiar with Sudhalter's work knows for instance that he rightly acclaims Duke Ellington's genius (and who doesn't - Duke was phenomenal!) as well as always giving credit to the tremendous talents of great Black jazz legends such as Louis Armstrong.  Credit is given, in other words, where it is due.  But, here's the rub - Sudhalter didn't want to tread a well-worn path of writing yet another "history" of jazz with the same narrative.  That road was already paved, and many good works are out there which document the Black contribution quite thoroughly - therefore, instead of nitpicking Sudhalter's book the "critics" need to eschew "political correct" dogfighting and just read the other works available!  The focus of Sudhalter's book is the same as any great scholarship would encourage - he is dealing with a particular aspect of jazz history, one overlooked a lot, and there is nothing wrong with that at all.  For those who insist that jazz is an exclusively Black art form somehow "hijacked" by the White man, to me they are fostering a narrative that is racist, as anyone who collects records understands that jazz was not only full of White musicians in its earliest days, but they were even multicultural - of those "White" musicians, many were Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Mexicans, other European immigrants, and others; jazz, like America itself, was birthed in a "melting pot," and this included as well the valuable Black contributions too.  And, let's look at those Black contributions and where they came from - mostly, they were borrowed from Europeans, tweeked with the touch of the musicians themselves, and there you have it!  Bottom line, no one "stole" jazz from anyone - many ingredients went into the pan to create the recipe, and that is what Sudhalter's actual premise in the book was.  If the politically-correct "critics" really wanted to pursue this, the same could also be said of rock and roll - rock and roll was as much the creation of Appalachian Whites as it was Black rhythm-and-blues, and most honest historians of rock music will tell you that the earliest rock and roll recordings were in reality more like country and western music (Bill Haley, etc.) than they were like Black rhythm and blues.  That assertion should raise the hackles of the "thought police," to be sure!  This Balkanization and fragmentation of American society needs to stop, people - many people of all backgrounds made contributions to this nation, and jazz is a microcosm of America in general - Blacks, Latinos, Whites....they all gave something to what is America!  If some idiot considers that "racist," then I would suggest such a person make an appointment with their physician for a cat scan, as you need one - people like that have some unresolved issues, seriously.  I personally believe Sudhalter did a great service to those of us who appreciate jazz as an American art form, and much of the nit-picking and race-baiting done against his work is extremely unjustified.  This crucifixion of Sudhalter's work by ding-dongs who want to politicize everything is starting to get very old, and to be honest I would like to tell these morons to just enjoy the music and SHUT UP!  I will have more to say on that too as the year progresses and I am able to do a more thorough reading of Sudhalter's work.

I know that I may have gotten a little impassioned in writing this, but to be honest politicizing of almost every subject under the sun has been a personal pet-peeve of mine for a long time.  In regard to this great music, we need to think about this nugget of wisdom - would Louis Armstrong, Red Nichols, or any other legendary musician of that era have really cared who created the music??  Probably not - they loved playing it and making sure their audiences - Black, White, and everyone in between - enjoyed it, and many of us do; it is great music to be loved, preserved, and passed on to the next generations.  Maybe that is a big problem that is contributing to America's decline these days - we are so damned polarized and politicized about everything that we cannot enjoy the simple pleasures of life.  You can't watch a TV program for instance without some aspect of either the feminist mindset or the "gay agenda" being rubbed in your face, and people who like sports cannot enjoy a football game without some overpaid, spoiled athlete making political statements by "taking the knee" whenever the national anthem is sung.  This is insanity, and the average person is getting kinda sick of it.  We cannot even surf the internet or participate on social media in anything unless some dumb "troll" takes offense and tries to start fights and stir up trouble.  What did it for me recently though was the new Star Trek -Discovery series.  I have been an ardent Star Trek fan for many years, and have watched practically every series and every movie, so like many fans I was elated to see a new series.  And then, I watched it - in pushing political agendas, the new "writers" of this series made it so sloppy that it was hardly recognizable; the story was disconnected from the rest of the legacy, and all the writers seemed to want to do was push agendas by introducing gay characters and other crap at the expense of the story line. Two episodes of that claptrap was all I could stomach honestly.  And now, the "political correct" Nazis are trying to even re-write past material now by attacking jazz and other music - many of these people are unemployed, probably have a substance abuse (or Tide pod consumption) problem, and they have nothing better to do with their time than to grouse about alleged "injustices."  They need to leave my music and interests alone, and allow free expression and history to be what it is without "offense" and alteration to accomodate pansies.  You will find me addressing this more as I go along, as I will have a lot more to say about it too.

The legacy of the orchestra in American music is a rich one, and with the tampering of "thought police" aside, I have found collecting recordings of this music to be a fulfilling hobby for many years, and hope to continue to do so.  I want to share this interest with others, but in doing so, I have a dire warning - in writing these articles, I am sure to draw some disagreement, and for those that disagree, that is your right to do so.  But, one thing I will not tolerate is slander and censorship of my perspective - I don't do that to you, so leave me alone too.  Also, the best advice I have for those who take issue with my perspective on things is this - don't read it!  Some of these people have better things to do with their time than to troll what I and others write or say, and perhaps they could make themselves more useful if they got their own hobbies.  And, I refuse to engage such idiocy anymore personally - if I "offend" you, suck it up, buttercup!  That being said, I will be back soon with more on this subject and others.