The record changer (Jan-Dec 1949)

the record > changer SEPTEMBER 1949 VOL. 8, NO. 9 Editor-Publisher BILL GRAUER, JR. Managing Editor ORRIN KEEPNEWS Production JANE GRAUER Art Staff West Coast Representative GENE DEITCH— Cover & Cat JACK LEWERKE PAUL BACON— Design & Typography 11800 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles 25, Calif. CONTENTS Firehouse Five (Plus 2) Robert S. Greene Last of the Olympians Rudi Blesh 12 Jelly Roll to Bop The Cat Charles Edward Smith 13 Gene Deitch Behind the Cobwebs Carl Kendziora 16 15 Good and Rare Records Noted Joe and Cecile Madison 16 George Avakian, Bucklin Moon 17 Record Exchange Section COLLECTORS' DISPLAY ADS 1 column (1/3 page; 78 lines) ... .$10.00 2 columns (2/3 page; 156 lines) .. $1:0.00 3 columns (full page; 234 lines) . .$30.00 No display ads for record lists less than one column accepted. SUBSCRIPTIONS United States: 1 year $3.00, 2 yrs. $5.50, 3 yrs. $7.50, Canada add 25 cents per year for postage. Foreign add 50 cents per year for postage. To subscribe, send your remittance to The Record Changer, 125 La Salle St., New York City 27, New York. CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES Classified sections; 13 cents per record, submitted on our special ad forms. For a supply of these forms address a post card to The Record Changer, 125 La Salle St., New York City 27, N. Y. The rate for classified advertising not submitted on these forms is 20 cents per record. COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING Address inquiries to The Record Changer, 125 La Salle St., New York City 37, N. Y. The Record Changer is published monthly by Changer Publications, Inc. 125 La Salle St., New York City 27, N. Y. Copyright 1949 By Changer Publications, Inc. let that foul air out Editor : The article on improvisation (Improvisation: the Fact and the Fable — June, 1949) had a good point to make. As one who plays both jazz and European classical music, I can heartily agree that a good jazz musician has to master the art of music itself — in other words, jazz isn't all pure emotion. Most of us younger musicians certainly do need some urging to broaden our musical experience and theory. But the point was made quite badly. In fact, this article represents the kind of criticism which musicians resent most because of the type of, or lack of, reasoning behind it. It is a possible conclusion with no, or false, premises. We are asked to believe that the reason paper music was not used in the old days was because one band had to hide its music to prevent theft of arrangements. It seems to be assumed that up to that time music and arrangements were in general use, in the face of much contrary evidence by survivors of that generation. It is categorically stated that no pianist today, by record evidence (a hell of a way to evaluate living musicians), is able to do Maple Leaf the way Joplin intended. Entirely possible. But then the writer makes the slight omission of what she thinks Joplin intended. A question or two. Is it meant that musicians should follow the printed music of Joplin? Then it certainly is played as desired. Should the musicians imitate the past exactly? If not, then what standards should be followed? Another bit of good reasoning from false premises is the writer's idea of improvisation itself. She seems to think of it as interpretation of existing compositions and arrangements, and mistakenly berates' our generation of players for tampering with jazz classics, when all that is. needed is to berate us justifiably for a persistent lack of technique. Evidence of the dozens of titles, keys, and arrangements on records of the chorus of Sister Kate shows how little respect the early players had for compositions and arrangements. Improvisation as practiced by preBeethoven Europeans certainly included actual composition in its technique if we are to believe music historians at all. Again, the reason this article is bad criticism is that it tells what may be wrong with the way traditional jazz is played today but does not offer specific, constructive suggestions to the musicians, other than to generally widen technique and experience, and for the wrong reasons. The criticism of classical music is accepted generally by musicians and public because its better authorities know enough about music, writing, and thinking to make sense to those who deal with musical problems in practice. Until jazz criticism reaches this level we musicians will read it more for laughs and anger than for help. Lowell Richards, Seattle, Wash.