The record changer (Jan-Dec 1944)

ESQUIRE IN SHREDS S/ am compelled to hurry out a gripe on <o squire's BY JOHN STEINER With its February issue, its Jazz Book, and the promotion over networks and at the sanctimonious Met of an elected 'All American' jazz octet, Esquire with characteristic skyrocket effulgence bursts upon the jazz scene. Esquire has treated jazz generously albeit popularly for the past decade, lately gaining inertia for its present climactic ascension to the role of Prophet of the New Music. Esquire, bravo!! You may do jazz good if you would. The factual, properly proportioned and well directed aspects of Esky's far-flung program are self-evident. Compliments thereon. Bu t , un f o r t un a t e ly and avoidably, the very feature upon which the validity of its contribution will stand or fall, the selection of a jury who in turn elected their All American Jazz Band proved to be one-half part pure commercial blooey. The glamour faction amongst their experts, beautiful but dumb, careened so dangerously on its first ballots as to require its recasting second qualified ballots. Notwithstanding risk of accusation that I am breaking confidence, I feel duty impelled to reveal that their judge, Abel Green, elected, in his first vo t ing , swi sh -pi ani s t Carmen Cavallero!! When Green's abortion was received, the editors sighed and returned a second ballot advising substantially look , Abel, we want a jazz band, not a beautified Meyer Davis unit for the Astor's ladies' lounge.' If you doubt in the least our story about Abel, look up his selection of jazz vocalists; that batch, ludicrous in a less consequential placement, is heart rending tragedy here. Green is an example of that fifty per cent of the jury chosen from the ranks of commercial journalists and unknowns in the field of hot criticism for the purpose, so I am told, of providing breadth to the board and to their selections. That in jazz an idea of breadth in favor of correctness should ever exist makes sad commentary on the artistic seriousness of its protagonists. Were Ga t t i -Ca s a z za to a 1 1 Am e r i c a n i z e an opera, would he seek for breadth of opinion from the Dionne girls, Mrs. Fortescue, Strangler Lewis or Colonel McCormick? Not on your tintype. And qualitatively, the analogy is not neccessarily absurd, for any of the latter eight while being popular, familiar, glamorous or expert in their own ways, may be unbiased and at least vaguely informed in the opera while obviously Esquire's wrong eight were not so toward jazz. The evidence will follow shortly. Of the sixteen men on the board fifteen are Easterners from in or near New York. Only one judge is a Negro. Since one-half of the ace hot men by this or any ballot are colored, I can't believe that the ridiculous divergence between critical intelligence and musical virtuosity in the Negro obtains as implied by the ratio one to fifteen. When Leonard Feather wrote of his choices for the All American Jazz Band, 'These selections are arbitrary* and 'I found it painful to have to omit dozens (sic) of superlative saxophonists and guitarists and girl singers whose work is just as brilliant as my selections' he said patently 'my votes don't mean a goddam thing.' I'll bet that holds for many others. Some of the judges simply didn't know what they were doing. Further Feather explained that (presumably) like all the other judges he was probably in f luenced by familiarity. Indeed it is understandable that a lack of self-confidence and erratic selections must follow from a confessed limited familiarity with the greatest jazzmen. But why pick judges not equipped? Why for example, use llanov, whose special talents are at some distance from familiarity with an eight piece hot jazz band? He is a technical dance band analyst who bases his judgments of ensemble efforts on tonal perfec tion and commercial appeal. Why employ the unfamiliar Grennard, Moon, or Kay, --or do they supply the man-on-the street viewpoints? An overly large batch cf precious votes went as gratuities to personal friends or favorites. In the careJess mismanagement of consecrated funds, Green again leads the parade. With torturing consciences, Rosenkrantz, Miller, Avakian, Hammond, and Goffin must walk through life for the points they snitched. I'm willing to assume for Kay, Grennard, Ulanov and Feather that they just didn't know anybody better than the second raters they selected in several catagories. Not many judges had the requisite imagination or familiarity with an eight-piece improvising band to be able to fulfill the obligation of selecting a rounded-out personnel. What most appear to have done was simply lump together soloists, that's all,-just lump them together. From what he says in explaining his votes, Lim, an experienced experimenter with the jam ensemble, more fully realized his responsibility. Judge Stacey by his in