Jazz History Course

[cannonball-addict]

I was kind of shocked by this.

A friend of mine who was a student at Washinton University in St. Louis said that the jazz history course is not taught by Prof. Gerald Early (who is an English professor there). I had assumed he would teach such a course given that he had a lot of good commentary in the Ken Burns film.

I don't mean to say that the Ken Burns film was authoritative in any way but I thought he would teach a course if he knew enough to be selected for that film. Maybe he's chummy with Stanley Crouch or something - who knows?

Anyways, the guy who does teach the course is a saxophonist named Paul DeMarinis. Has anyone ever heard this guy?

Check out his course syllabus:

http://streaming.wustl.edu/courses/music/m...inis/index.html

Click on a day to get the listening for that day. Apparently an online course

[Alon Marcus]

This is really not very important but I think this thread belongs more to "Miscellaneous Music" subforum or "Musicians" subforum. Not really related to "Artists".

[danasgoodstuff]

No organ combos in this history of jazz...?!

[MartyJazz]

No organ combos in this history of jazz...?!

Is that a bad thing?

[danasgoodstuff]

At this site, I should certainly think so...and in general too. I would've thopught we were well past the sort of rank stupidity which would think "ECM in the '70's" meritted inclusion in a history class but not Organ combos (I think they both merit inclusion, organ/funk/groove more so).

[Jim Alfredson]

Yeah right. Trust me, organ combos do not get their due.

Was there even one mention of Jimmy Smith in Ken Burn's shitty documentary? Nope. Not even in passing.

There were no organ combos on the 5 disc anthology of jazz that was required for one of my courses at MSU either.

[cannonball-addict]

IMO (and I know this is gonna start a flame war) it's because organ combos or organ trios (whatever you wanna call them) were kind of like the real Negro music of the time in the '50s. White folks (who have always run the jazz business) couldn't really get down with it early on because they weren't hip to it - the funk, the sweat, the rawness. By the '60s, when white record execs finally started to dig that gritty soulfulness, the "in-crowd" of black music (especially the chitlin circuit) had already gone on to soul and the more electrified versions of blues that eventually became known as funk. Do remember that there is no way in hell that Jimmy Smith was the first "jazz organ player." There must have been other cats who influenced him to play the way he did. But he became the poster-man for organ jazz by being the first big hit in this context (wasn't that 1959? when he made the big break).

I am really interested in why American white people always slowly find out what the latest cool thing is among blacks and by the time they adopt it, the black people have moved on to something else. It's really a fascinating phenomenon.

I'd really like to research jazz in the 50s more deeply because that's when I think there was kind of an undefined period. Bird died in '55 and the purest of pure bebop died with him. That's when people start to say 'hard bop' started to pop up. However at the same time, you had the whole "cool" thing (supposedly started by Miles - though I never really bought that) happening and then it went somehow from NY in 1949 to the West Coast.

I personally think these labels are silly because all it comes down to is that it was indigenous black music that the mainstream eventually glommed onto cuz they finally discovered it was hip.

[cannonball-addict]

But to tie this all back to the point with the jazz history class - I think today, a lot of guys teaching kids jazz history don't know anything about organ trios. Period.

Why? Well nobody ever said to them, hey go out and buy this Jimmy Smith record. Or this Jimmy McGriff record. There are a lot of styles missed by jazz history courses because you can only fit so much into a class that meets once or twice a week for an hour and the preferences are gonna be totally up to the professor.

Only the guys who made the history books - Miles, Trane, Dexter always get covered because they are the ones that jazz historians and journalists have chosen to idolize above all others. If it were up to me, yeah - I would definately devote a session or two to the organ trio/combo as an institution because it spreads deep into the musical consciousness of black people. It is soul music.

The 1960s also seem to be looked down upon by the history books as an era of crass commercialism and radio hits. Perhaps this is why teachers of jazz history exclude it - they think it was too watered down to be considered real heady sophisticated music. The idea that jazz can be a common denominator for all types of people to groove to may seem pedestrian to "jazz fascists" but I think it's equally important as Miles or Ornette or Jaco or Steve Coleman etc. etc.

[Jim Alfredson]

Jimmy Smith's first BlueNote was "A New Sound, A New Star" in 1956. He was recording on organ as part of Don Gardener's band before that. As far as influences, you could probably count Wild Bill Davis, Milt Buckner, etc. But Jimmy Smith was not derivative of them. He carved out his own unique sound.

You have to remember that the Hammond B3, which Jimmy made famous, was released in 1954. Hammond had other models before that (they started making electro-mechanical organs in 1935) but Jimmy took the new features of the B3 and ran with them, creating his own sound basically out of thin air. He did use the big block chords and "roller rink" settings of the aforementioned pre-Jimmy Smith organists, but also developed his own technique and sound.

For instance, the classic Jimmy Smith lead sound (the sound he uses 99.9% of the time when he solos) is made by using the top manual, pulling the first three drawbars all the way out, using C3 chorus, and lastly using the third harmonic percussion on soft and with a short decay. The Hammond percussion feature was introduced with the B3. That means his sound, and the sound of all his contemporaries and followers, would not have been possible without the introduction of the B3.

Also, his foot pedal technique was different than the others previous to him. And, as is often mentioned, his focus on horn-like, single note lines.

I don't think it's really a "white dudes don't get it" attitude. I think it's more of a prejudice against electronic instruments in jazz. Somehow if you plug it in, it's not jazz anymore to some people.

[Alon Marcus]

I agree about the prejudice there is for non acoustic intruments.

On the other hand for each electronic instrument that has an acoustic counterpart I prefer the acoustic. The B3 does not have an acoustic parralel IMO, it resembles the big church organs but I think it's not quite the same.

b3-er a few questions:

1. Can you tell more about the pedal technique. As I understand you can play chords with your left hand, walking bass with pedals and horn lines with the right hand. Is this true or the left hand is used for walking lines?

2. Can you play a church organ? B-)

[Brad]

Actually it's not just organ trios that are neglected but soul jazz in general. No Lockjaw among the required listening or Shirley Scott or Stanley T? That's not good. How about some European jazz of the 60s on?

However, aside from that I envy the addict's friend.

[AllenLowe]

I'm not sure it's simply a black vs white thing but maybe even a class thing, when it comes to recognition of soul or organ jazz - whites are, after all, sometimes ahead of the black community in recognition of black artists - Paul Bley was hip to Ornette Coleman at a time when having Ornette in his band got him fired from a black club; Sun Ra was probably championed by more whites than blacks. Organ trios and soul jazz are acquired tastes for many of us, as they tend to emphasize the non-intellectual side of jazz, the more visceral, communal experience of the music. You are absoultely right, this is a vital element of jazz history and easily ignored. It should also be rememebered that there's lots of BAD music in this area - think some of Lou Donaldson's things (Hot Dog) and a host of other laughably bad 1960s recordings that tried to jump on this bandwagon. On the other hand, I learned as much about jazz hanging out in New Haven clubs listening to great organists like Bobby Buster or Richie McCrae (Richie was from New Jersey) as I did from anything else - and, of course, there was plenty of bad music going on in these places as well, as lot of tired repetition of old things. Jazz demands newness, and for some critics this kind of music is a throwback. And let's not also forget organists like Jeff Palmer, who really took the instrument and put it into a new and different context -

[Jim Alfredson]

I agree about the prejudice there is for non acoustic intruments.

On the other hand for each electronic instrument that has an acoustic counterpart I prefer the acoustic. The B3 does not have an acoustic parralel IMO, it resembles the big church organs but I think it's not quite the same.

Actually you can get some very convincing pipe organ sounds from a Hammond. In fact, when Hammond first marketed the instrument as an "electric pipe organ" he was sued by the pipe organ manufacturers. They claimed since it didn't use air or pipes, it could not be called a pipe organ or even an organ. Hammond setup a demonstration in Chicago using his best musician to play the Hammond. The church (can't remember which one) had a great pipe organ and Hammond's musician played a piece on the pipe organ and then played the same piece on the Hammond. The judge and jury couldn't tell the difference, so the judged ruled in Hammond's favor, although he had to drop the word "pipe" from his literature.

Anyway, I don't think of the Hammond as an electric instrument (it's actually electro-mechanical). Every Hammond tonewheel organ sounds different and each one can sound different when different musicians play them. For example, think about how many organ records were recorded at RVG's Englewood Cliffs recording studio. They were all recorded on the same organ: Rudy's C3 with a Leslie 21H. So that means Jimmy Smith, John Patton, Don Patterson, Jimmy McGriff, Jack McDuff, Shirley Scott, Joey DeFrancesco, Groove Holmes, Billy Gardner, Larry Young, Baby-Face Willette, Lonnie Smith, and whoever else I forgot, they all played the same organ. Listen to those records and you can hear how different the organ sounds in each of their hands.

1. Can you tell more about the pedal technique. As I understand you can play chords with your left hand, walking bass with pedals and horn lines with the right hand. Is this true or the left hand is used for walking lines?

Some players do this and it's considered the "old", pre-Jimmy Smith style of playing. Jimmy used this technique as well, but mainly for ballads. The Hammond bass pedals are notoriously flabby sounding by themselves as compared to real pipe organ bass. That's why for uptempo tunes, Smith developed a "shadowing" technique. Basically you play the bass lines with your left hand and shadow those lines with your foot, tapping the corresponding pedal quickly, to add a staccato accent to the front of the note. This is what gives his bass lines the "hump". Jimmy's idea was that it simulates the attack of a real acoustic bass. Every now and then you lay into the pedal note, which adds another level of accent to the line.

Listen to Jimmy Smith's bass lines versus Larry Young. Larry didn't use a lot of pedals, not because he couldn't (he does on the old Prestige stuff) but because he wanted a different, lighter sound. Larry Goldings doesn't use much pedals either. Same with Mel Rhyne. It's a different sound. I like using the bass pedals and have adapted, with the help and ideas of my mentor, the style of Chester Thompson from Tower of Power for funk lines and such.

2. Can you play a church organ? B-)

I never really have. I'm sure I could, but I don't read music so I don't know how much good it would do me! It took me a long time to get comfortable with the pedals but I have it down now so I don't even really think about it, just like my left hand. It just goes where it should.

[Alon Marcus]

Anyway, I don't think of the Hammond as an electric instrument (it's actually electro-mechanical).

Yes that's what I was trying to say. Me too feels that the Hammond is a "natural" instrument (that's a better definition) while electric violins sound terrible to me.

Thanks a lot for your answers about the pedal thing, made me really hungry for some Smith, Young, Goldinds etc. stuff.

[Gary]

Thanks a lot for your answers about the pedal thing, made me really hungry for some Smith, Young, Goldinds etc. stuff.

Me too!

I'm off to dig out my copy of 'The Sermon'.

[pryan]

But to tie this all back to the point with the jazz history class - I think today, a lot of guys teaching kids jazz history don't know anything about organ trios. Period.

I think you just made that broad-based assumption and attached a negative stigma to them in a general sense. That's bullshit and you seem to think you can just make flippant remarks like that all the time. Just because you end off with "Period.", doesn't mean that your statement is authoritative. Far from it, I would think.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I will grant that organ often receives short shrift in "survey of jazz history" type courses - guitar does too. Part of this is simply the problem of lack of time. For a two-semester course to cover EVERYTHING from New Orleans to now is pretty ludicrous, but that's how it's done. Count the number of weeks, then deduct several of them for quizzes, tests, exams.

Realistically, there just needs to be more time - a two-year course would be an improvement, but most colleges don't value jazz history enough to allocate that much time. For heaven's sake, there are still two-semester courses on "history of music" - that go from Gregorian chant to today. That's over a thousand years. Jazz is about a hundred.

Do a websearch on "jazz history syllabus" and you'll see what the basic approaches are.

Mike

[mikeweil]

I don't think it's really a "white dudes don't get it" attitude. I think it's more of a prejudice against electronic instruments in jazz. Somehow if you plug it in, it's not jazz anymore to some people.

That pretty much sums it up for me. I know several jazz fans who dislike organ. And they don't relate to the funky groove that's invloved much of the time - they don't want to have anything in the music that could be commercial or popular.

Many German jazz fans are like this - too intellectual or too conservative, and not the slightest affinity for black groove.

[Jim Alfredson]

I will grant that organ often receives short shrift in "survey of jazz history" type courses - guitar does too. Part of this is simply the problem of lack of time. For a two-semester course to cover EVERYTHING from New Orleans to now is pretty ludicrous, but that's how it's done. Count the number of weeks, then deduct several of them for quizzes, tests, exams.

That may be, but if you're going to spend a whole class on fusion and another class on the Young Lions, then you have time to mention Jimmy Smith. I mean, the man has been on the scene since 1954 and his Blue Note and Verve records sold like mad and inspired a whole new sub-genre of the music, as well as influencing everyone who's touched a Hammond organ since.

Maybe I'm imagining things, but I think something else it at play here.

[chris olivarez]

History of all sorts too often seem to be written from a narrow and some times dishonest point of view and that possibly could apply to Jazz history. Because of the staggering amount of history that jazz has already accumulated any course on it's history should last more than a semester and Jimmy Smith and the other B3 players should be covered. To not cover Jimmy Smith and others makes Jazz history courses the equivalent of a history course written and taught by "the Victors".

P.S. A pox on Ken Burns.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

The class on fusion is the one 1970s class. The class on the Young Lions is the one 1980s class. You'll be lucky if you even get anything past that.

The Jimmy Smith class is shoved to the side in the 1950s to deal with Gerry Mulligan, Dave Brubeck, Art Blakey, Horace Silver, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, et al. Maybe two classes there - and you're still going to ignore stuff like Duke and Basie of this period.

The Jimmy Smith class is shoved to the side in the 1960s to deal with Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Bill Evans, Cecil Taylor, Stan Getz, et al. Maybe three classes there (still a hell of a lot better than Ken Burns). Same problem exists with earlier artists who were still active.

You'll be lucky to hear any Wes Montgomery for the same reasons.

Can it be done better? Probably - one of my favorite survey albums is the second volume of the "Blue Note's Three Decades Of Jazz" albums that goes from 1949 to 1959. In 13 tracks it gets you the basic hard bop background - everything from Monk to Miles to Clifford to JJ to Blakey to Silver to Coltrane to Rollins to Lou Donaldson and it includes the 1957 "Yardbird Suite" by Jimmy Smith - a killer! With that set as required listening for the 1950s, though, you'd still need to cover a lot more - what about cool, what about Mingus, Miles on Columbia, etc.

Another consideration in teaching these courses is how much time is spent listening in class. Guided listening is important (students often have no prior experience at all) and outside listening is important too because in a one-hour class, if you listen to four full items, you've probably used up half your time. Another consideration is who's in the class - is this a class of jazz studies majors (a dreadful amount of whom don't listen to much of the history of jazz), is it music majors (classical performers filling up some music history elective credits), is it the unwashed masses ("normal" college kids looking for a non-demanding 3 credits)?

In my own utopian university jazz studies program, things are set up quite differently (integrating history with performance, ensembles, theory, etc.), but I don't imagine it will ever be implemented anywhere.

In the end, if you want to learn jazz history, you're not going to do it in a two-semester course at a college. It's a lifelong pursuit.

Mike

[chris olivarez]

Mike you've got a point. It is a lifelong pursuit but as a course taught at school I can't help but feel that it can be done better. Those who take such a course should be exposed to Jimmy Smith and others who have been unfortunately omitted.

p.s- A pox on Ken Burns.

[Jim Alfredson]

In the end, if you want to learn jazz history, you're not going to do it in a two-semester course at a college. It's a lifelong pursuit.

The same could be said of jazz itself.

[JSngry]

If somebody can make a totally clean distinction between "racial differences" & "class differences" as it pertains to America in general and jazz in particular, they're a better person than me, and I salute them.

[Christiern]

"A friend of mine who was a student at Washinton University in St. Louis said that the jazz history course is not taught by Prof. Gerald Early (who is an English professor there)"

• Judging by his appearances in the Burns series, that is probably a good thing.