[Tradjazz] more on Condon

[Bruce McNichols]

  When this discussion group started, I vowed to keep up with it.  As you can see, I'm already way behind.  When I see the dozens of postings that came through in the past few days, I start to think that I'll never catch up.  But, I'll try.
Graham Martin's comments are very insightful.  The whole subject of More Ensembles vs. More Solos, could go on forever.  I revert back to my long-time credo; It ain't whatcha do, it's the way thatcha do it."  I love the San Francisco style trad bands (Lu Watters etc.) that were heavy on the ensemble work.  Lu himself, didn't solo very much, and when he did, they were usually short ones - an exception being his fine work on "Annie Street Rock" on an old Good Time Jazz LP I have (Vol. 3, I think it is).

As for the Condon bands, I never really thought about it, but they are very solo-heavy.  I hadn't thought about it because those guys were so damned good, I didn't notice.

I've had the dubious pleasure (?) of observing many a band, which gives ample solo space, to EVERYONE in the band.  Of course, it may be polite to the musicians, to do that, but it might not be polite to the audience.  Often, such bands will give two solo choruses, to each musician.  Many times I've observed that many of the musicians had "nothing to say" in their first chorus, and "less to say" in the next one.  To me, that's a Jam Session mentality.  In other words, let's go over to Joe's house and entertain ourselves.  

Ain't nuthin' wrong with that.  However, when I'm performing for an audience, a different philosophy kicks in for me.  I fully understand that whether the gig pays big bread, or is a freebie, ya gotta let the guys play. That said, I firmly believe that one must balance that, with a keen concern for the audience.  

I have the honor of performing with some mighty fine players, and even then, I tend to keep each selection, relatively short.  It's not uncommon for a "Dixieland Band" to play ten minute (or more) songs.  I prefer shorter tunes, split up with ensembles and some solos.  If a guy is really wailin', I often spur them on to take "one more," but I don't care for the pat, everyone takes two solos, theory.
  As always, I hasten to add, this is simply one guy's feelings and preferences.  There is no right and there is no wrong.  If ya like it, ya like it.  If ya don't, ya don't.  That, my friends (if I have any) is the way it goes.
McN


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: baglady4 at juno.com 
  To: muskrat at bestweb.net 
  Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:46 PM
  Subject: more on Condon


  Hi Bruce:

  This thread is simultaneously being tossed about on both lists...what fun!!!! Graham Martin's reply to the post I forwarded to yo earlier....Nancie



  I have seen the comment about "Much less emphasis on ensemble", or similar 
  words, in many of the critiques of Eddie Condon's band but I was a little surprised to see 
  Steve use it. I really wonder if it is true? The sound of Condon's band of the 1950s is 
  always what I have in my mind for the perfect band ensemble sound. I guess I am 
  particularly thinking of a Wild Bill, Cutty Cutshall, Pee Wee (or Ed Hall) frontline 
  combination. Wild Bill laying down a driving lead, Cutty always playing great connecting 
  lines and rhythmic phrases, and Pee Wee ducking in and out and over the top. Behind them, 
  a truly wonderful rhythm section that equalled the swing and excitement of the 
  All-American rhythm section" (if fact, Walter Page was in both). Then there are the 
  only seeming 'out of control' climaxes of those last choruses. Plus the superb Tags!

  Sure the solos are the tops. But to me the ensemble is perfectly structured with exactly 
  the right emphasis!

  BTW, those that think it was not possible to copy Pee Wee's style obviously never heard 
  Archie Semple. 

  Best,

  Grah





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.okom.com/pipermail/tradjazz/attachments/20061004/7db514b3/attachment-0001.htm