The record changer (Jan-Dec 1944)

tact selections impresses me as also having" given that matter more than cursory thought. Paul Miller picked a slugging, whole-bodied first band (except for Guarnari, whom I suspect to be out of place), and a flighty or in t r ica te t ype second line. Avakian's first group is essentially compatible. Campbell's second band is homogeneous but not likely a world-beater. In my opinion Moon and Smith gave little considerations to homogeneity. Moon remembered Buster Bailey playing good unison with Louie fifteen years ago so he stuck him not in the band with Louie, but in the second string alongside Shavers. Some logic. Smith confesses his men have divergent styles but hopes for the best. Hammond forces together with hydraulic pressure Higgy and Lester Young with Norvo and Teddy Wilson. Continue these examinations. You'll find most are hilarious. Did none of these judges refer to the recorded literature of jam bands for the evidence engraven in shellac, plainly, quantitatively, immutably? If they had, they certainly would have rediscovered the fact that the soundest small band foundation was laid by Fats (who was in the running at voting and therefore eligible) playing with unexcelled drive and taste with every one of the ten or twelve disparate groups with which he has appeared. With Fats as nucleus, finish off the rhythm section with Krupa ;(who was not in the running through a restriction on the ballot), or one of the first four drummers mentioned by the board, Of course Casey for guitar (preferably non-electrified). Not much matter which bass. Take a forceful trumpet, say Louie, Cootie, or maybe Roy, one of four fiery trombones, Barney or Benny on clarinet, and Hampton. Or now that Fats is gone, start with Hampton as the pivot and go backward, ending with Hines or as second choices, Stacey or Sul 1 i ven , t hi s time restricting rhythm selection to Catlett or Jones and admitting only strong basses. That's the first band. For the second group, which may be restricted in scope of expressiveness and dynamic range, a new problem arises. Shall we make it the counterpart of the first band or a Chicago group or an Ellington group, or a delicate-incisive combination or a bunch of heavy riffers. For an Ellington group or a Chicago group the answers are automatic. For a heavy beat gang, use Basie's strings, Jones and loud simple horns. For delicacy the course is plain with Hackett, Tea, PeeWee, Carter, Norvo and Teddy Wilson or Stacey with Wettling and other light r hy t hm i s t s . This simple method which requires no more equipment than an ear and a phonograph, would, if honestly adhered to, circumvent such anomalies as Art Tatum in a first band, --or in a band at all, equivalent ratings for Nance, Venuti, and South, or for Waller, King Cole, Guarnari, Hodes and undue scattering in all instruments. Since jazz artists like others develop to full talent rather gradually and are usually recorded before reaching full maturity, chances are strong that a reliable summary of the capabilities and compa t abi 1 i t i e s of the best eight or ten men on each instrument are available on wax. Pettiford is an exception; still Fettiford was a dark horse who came into No.l position only after a second ballot, therefore indications are that he is a compromise man. In general only on shellac can careful analysis of i n t e g r a t i o n a 1 aptitude be studied with concentration and cold objectivity, relistening to the point of memorizing, examining chronological development, breadth of style and adaptability under a variety of recording circumstances. Mr. Esquire, I recommend a few students of the record on your next jury. By the doors of ignorance or gratuity several misfits entered Esquire's list. Some are so absurdly out of place, I wonder whether they are not typographical errors. With a pencil strike out the names of vocalists Babbitt, Brown, Dukes, Jordan, Crosby, Eberly, perhaps Vinson, and females Mann, Roche, Waters, Forrest. Under piano listings Art Tatum and Mary Lou, both great feature and technically proficient soloists, were confused in the minds of their electors as integrating, foundational jam musicians, which they are not. King Cole, Hodes and Basie are present only through the generosity of sponsors whose inte g r i t y hereby becomes questionable. Drop the last three drums as unimportant. The bass controversy suggests that there is no really outstanding bassist now that Bernstein is in the military. The guitars of Purcell, Osborne, Hillman and Paul are incongruous in this listing as are the saxes of Phillips, Russin, and Hunter. Delete your own choices of clarinets, trombones and trumpets. In all catagories the first two men for any band are within the first four or five listed except for Bud Freeman, who may have been overlooked because he was recently married --or you give me a reason. Just a few small matters and then I can go back to my aspirin and ice pack. In Chapter VII you may observe that Nichols and Redman, each receiving one point, were allotted biographical and discological data to the length of 65 and 40 lines respectively, while Leo Watson, with njne points, eked out five lines with nothing specific,--not even a record mentioned, and Jo Jones, having 7 points, garnered 6 lines, --no records. I smell the singe of a hurry-up job. A phonograph record which was to have been issued with the magazine will probably have been held up, what with shortages and poor planning. Just as w e 1 1 , f o r g e t it. The solos are far from their performer's best. Play the Hawkins chorus for a tenor expert or Casey's bit for a guitar man. If he can hear it at all through the sizzle of the badly worn records from which these sides were copied, I'll warrent he won't identify. Only two pictures on the thirty-two pages of borrowed photographs included in the Jazz Book are obviously promotional, some are inane, most are good. The good in the book is worth a buck. 6