The record changer (Feb-Dec 1943)

Ellington in 1943 »lfij 'Tom Willis ton To say anything in evaluation of Duke Ellington at this time may seem redundant in the extreme, in view of the fact that more praise and tribute have been heaped on him this year in magazine and press than in any previa ous year. For the first time he has won several magazine polls and has given a concert in Carnegie Hall. However, to record collectors and others with a real and lasting interest in jazz, public acclaim is not the sole measure of merit. On the contrary, far too often the winning of the Down Beat or Metronome poll has signalled the decline of a musician or group. Public acclaim has been commercial acclaim and our popular music magazines have followed rather than given guidance to the public. In the instance of Ellington, I believe a pleasant exception to the rule is being made, — belated to be sure, but still highly deserved. I have had many arguments on the place of Ellington in jazz, and I do not intend to argue that issue here; I am merely contending that if he ever "had it" he still "lias it". There is a tendency among jazz enthusiasts to fall away from publically acclaimed bands, and I am asking you, who have liked Ellington thru the years, not to take it for granted that the crowd is wrong as usual and that Ellington must be slipping. Give the band another hearing. I recently listened to Ellington three times under widely different circumstances,— Carnegie Hall, a college formal, and a big public dance. Bearing in mind the stock phrases of his detractors, I attempted to evaluate Ellington's music with as much objectivity as a 17-year follower could muster. The phrases "orchestral sophistication, ease and finesse", "too formal", "instrumental experimentation" "folk music grown up", "canned improvisation" are uttered in somber tone by critics like doctors consulting over a very sick patient. I found much truth in what they have said, but the patient still seems to be in good health. 1 found "orchestral sophistication, ease and finesse" just as one would expect to find it in a group of good musicians who had collaborated .constantly over a period of fifteen years. I didn't find that distracting, — rather the contrary. "Too formal?" At Carnegie Hall the pall that falls over jazz musicians in those austere surroundings and stiff ens up their work was evident that night. Black, Brown and Eeige, the 45-minute concert pi,ece was formal in style, but in spite of setting out on the well nigh impossible task of telling the history of the Negro in 45 minutes of jazz in 3 symphonic movements, good Ellington jazz kept popping up through out the thing. I do hope they take eight or ten of those tunes out and play them individually. I believe that Carnegie Hall concerts and symphonic jazz happen becausewe haven't yet made jazz musicians feel that their music is an art form that need not borrow or copy. As for "instrumental experimentation", it had an important role in the birth of jazz; why decry it now unless we feel that all has been said and done . I have never been able to understand the "folk music grown up" controversy. The crux of that question seems to me to be: what folks are you talking about? After all Duke Ellington and Lead Belly aren't giving expression to the same folks. "Canned improvisation?" That the Ellington men improvise one solo on a tune and from then on it is more or less fixed and always sounds the same, is a fairly frequent criticism. By and large, this is true, but if it is a good solo and you like it the first time, what makes it less admirable when repeated? Isn't your favorite Louie solo on wax good through hundreds of playings? Isn't the Picou chorus of High Society still good after twenty years of repetition by a half dozen different clarinets? If Hodge3 improvises a few or even one good solo on 200 compositions is he less inspired than some dead giant of jazz who left four choruses of Shimme-Sha-Wabble on the Champion label? After hearing the Duke under the adverse circumstances of Carnegie Hall, the subdued atmosphere of a formal dance where the more commercial tunes were requested, and a jamboree where he cut loose, I think I can say that Ellington in'43 is still producing the best jazz of any big band in the land. You may miss Cootie, but Rex and Tricky Sam have done an amazing job of filling that gap. I am sure that Bigard's loss is far more noticeable. The faithful imitations of his solos by Haughton with his entirely different tone only serves to remind you that Barney is not there. Ben Webster, now fully integrated into the band, gives me a new kick and helps to make up for the losses. Rockln' in Rhythm, It's Glory, and St. Louis Blues as played at the public dance were as bie a kick as they were 10 years ago. Let me commend to you Duke Ellington of 1943. Listen again and closely. See if you can't string along with the crowd. As Lincoln said "You can't fool all the people all of the time". Who knows, — this may mark the awakening of the people in general to good jazz.