The record changer (Jan-Feb 1945)

started blowing his horn. And he had hardly blown a few notes when he was cut off the air. A radio program on a coast-to-coast network is necessarily very carefully arranged. Everything is timed to the second. 1 am therefore forced to believe that the scandalous way in which Bunk was treated by the organizers of the concert was deliberately planned out. The rest of the program, emanating from New York and Los Angeles, was of such poor quality that I shall refrain from entering into any details. Although the winners were introduced as the Kings and Queens of Jump and Hip music, which they most probably are, their performance never reached the level of any 52nd Street joint where Swing is the order of the day, in spite of the fact that the above-mentioned level is, ^o low that not to be able to reach it seems an impossibility. I must say, for instance, that I have never heard the Duke Ellington band sound so bad as when they played a composition by Leonard Feather known as the Esquire Jump. That the Esquire concert gave us New Orleans music that had nothing to do with New Orleans music is far less astonishing than the fact that the jive music it offered was of such inferior quality. Not a single tenor sax solo was heard during the entire program ! What did the hep cats think of that? For an hour and a half countless thousands of listeners heard bad jazz and bad swing. Anyone with a discriminating taste in music, for whom jazz is a new musical adventure, will be permanently alienated from it if he forms his opinion on the state of jazz from the Esquire concert. Except for the few seconds Bunk played and the few moments Bechet was heard, music of utter mediocrity was presented to the American audience as the best jazz that is played today. Can such lies be of service to the cause of jazz? As long as New Orleans jazz was so often mentioned, why couldn't we hear Kid Ory and his group from Los Angeles, and Bunk Johnson's Band from New Orleans? Is it impossible for Esquire to show a little intelligence and fairness and honesty in its bunglings for the cause of jazz? IT. THE ESQUIRE JAZZ NUMBER The Esquire Jazz Number of 1945 constitutes in no way an improvement upon the Esquire Jazz Number of 1944. To think such an improvement possible, it would have been necessary to believe in miracles, once the list of critics vited to vote in the annual poll was ■ nounced. The miracle has not tai place. This will not come as a surprise anyone. The whole trouble is in the select, of the critics, which, from all appe ances, seems to be completely arbitra Personal friendships, the shims «. caprices of Mr. Gingrich and his cl advisers, and a prediction to unco complete unknowns in the field of j; criticism, seem to be the dubious stai ards required to make the grade an Esquire authority. The choice critics indicates very clearly that the c< trolling forces behind the poll had d inite preferences among the trends a, schools of jazz and wanted to assure election of musicians who illustrai their favorite style. To put it mi bluntly, there is no objectivity what; ever in the Esquire poll. Leonard Feath in his article summing up the voti would like to have us believe that su an objectivity is achieved by the pr< ence of an all-inclusive board of e perts. In the first place, more than h; of the illustrious critics, illustrious I cause of the phoney prestige they acqui by being on the Esquire panel, are r expert in any form of music, wheth modern or not. The mere fact of i porting jazz news for purely commerc publications like Billboard or Orchest World is not a sufficient qualification establish someone as a recognized a thority. Many of the other voters doi even possess this feeble justification. Ja is too important an art-form, and a pr sumably serious discussion of who i great musicians are should not be le in the hands of people who have no re understanding of its history, its trac tions, its impact upon contemporary ci ture and its place in modern art. Whic ever style a critic happens to prefer entirely a personal matter and of no co sequence to my argument. But I insi that he must be truly a critic, that must have a thorough knowledge of Y subject and that he must be fully awa of the uniqueness of the jazz langua; and all its consequent implications. Tr rigorous standard should be establish at the very outset, which would ir mediately eliminate many of the Esquir sanctioned critics who voted this ye* The American public is misled when ; incompetent jury makes a confused ai haphazard selection of musicians, ai Esquire presents this selection as a fin verdict on the great men of jazz reach by an objective and well-qualified boa of experts. Is it too much to hope th 4