TubeNet

I affirm. Also, both were willing to experiment with their music and go beyond sticking with a proven, popular formula. For example. Armstrong's groups had many different instrumentation combinations. He made due with less and took advantage of larger groups. Harrison's love affair with the sitar and other elements of traditional Indian music were (in all likelihood) the first time American mainstream audiences had been exposed to that genre.

Louis Armstrong didn't have that British accent, though!

windshieldbug wrote:Louis Armstrong didn't have that British accent, though!

Or a mop top! Anyone handy with Photoshop care to alter a picture???

Tim

I would also argue that Pops really didn't evolve after about 1932. He adapted to different groups, and sang more, but his playing style (or really, his singing style) really didn't change much, compared to the (r)evolution brought on by Goodman, Parker/Gillespie, Davis, Mulligan, et al.

The Ken Burns series "Jazz" infuriated me. Armstrong and Ellington were NOT the overriding influences in jazz for their entire careers. Both, after about 10-12 years of popularity, were far overshadowed by others. Armstrong, because he didn't progress (think R Strauss--wrote the same stuff in his late life as in early...compare him to Mahler) Ellington lost his edge in the later 30's when Basie got big, and then Ellington went off into more "classical" oriented directions, within the structure of a big band.

Harrison at least progressed beyond the Lennon/McCartney confines, even if he had comparatively little commercial success. (And, let's just ignore "When We Were Fab" and "Got My Mind Set On You").

eupher61 wrote:The Ken Burns series "Jazz" infuriated me. Armstrong and Ellington were NOT the overriding influences in jazz for their entire careers. Both, after about 10-12 years of popularity, were far overshadowed by others.

Agreed. This is PC BS that can probably be traced back to Marsalis revisionism.

George became a fairly decent sitarist when he studied with Ravi Shankar. Better than Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones. As a writer, he even synthesized some characteristic Indian musical sounds and devices with Beatles pop style(Within you without you, Love you to). A great musician he was.

It appears to me that pre - Armstrong dixieland players took themselves terribly seriously as do too many of us today.
He put the smile in dixieland and the growl on the vocals that made that type of music more palatable and recognizable to visitors.
Heard a story that "Satchmo" would show up for a gig at 8 P.M. with a gallon of gin. Seven o'clock the following morning the gin would be gone and Satch would be hitting high F's consistently and most other trumpet players that showed up would be passed out on the floor or rubber - lipped beyond recovery.

Announcer: In 1964, John Coltrane was at his peak, Eric Dolphy was in Europe, where he would eventually die, the Modern Jazz Quartet was making breakthrough recordings in the field of Third Stream Music, Miles Davis was breaking new barrier with his second great quintet, and Charlie Mingus was extending jazz composition to new levels of complexity. But we're going to talk about Louis singing "Hello Dolly" instead.

I know this has been posted before, but I just makes so much damn sense...

Screw 'em both. Give me Some Frank Zappa instead. At least he stood up to a current presidential candidate when the candidate was advocating for censorship (hint, this candidate worked with Tipper Gore). Plus, he is more fun to listen to.

Sou

Screw 'em both.

Same to you.

Frank was great, but WTF does political activism have to do with the art of music?

What does the support of the art not have to do with the art of music?


My strength is that I realize I know nothing.

My strength is that I realize I know nothing.

Why then do you post off handed insipid comments about things that you know not of?

Mojo workin' wrote:

Screw 'em both.

Same to you.

OOOH! Well I never

Mingus HATED being called "Charlie". And Armstrong always referred to himself as "Louis" (English pronunciation) or "Pops" or "Satchmo", but never as 'Louie'.

Their names both have 14 letters in them. Coincidence? I think NOT!

Really, George only stands a chance if he can keep Louis away with his jab. If he gets close enough to get tagged with a left hook, he's toast.

windshieldbug wrote:Their names both have 14 letters in them. Coincidence? I think NOT!

Not only that, but Lou Gherig actually died of- get this- LOU GHERIG'S DISEASE! Like, that is so freakin' WEIRD!

UncleBeer wrote:

eupher61 wrote:The Ken Burns series "Jazz" infuriated me. Armstrong and Ellington were NOT the overriding influences in jazz for their entire careers. Both, after about 10-12 years of popularity, were far overshadowed by others.

Agreed. This is PC BS that can probably be traced back to Marsalis revisionism.

you may have seen this before but whenever I think of the Ken Burns jazz thing I can't help but want to read it again...

enjoy....

The following has been making its way around Web jazz sites.
>
> ------
Presenting Ken Burns’ 144-hour, Extremely Important documentary: “Jazz.â€

and then came Ellington...