carnivore

Rufus Thomas Whistling Rufus Aunt Jemima

that sounds like a cop-out. That music is created for a 'popular market' does not gainsay a need for a critical perspective. Armstrong seems to me to be someone whose playing had content, depth. individuality and musical sophistication that reached a level beyond 'American pop' even if he mostly performed in venues devoted to popular entertainment, as did Duke, Basie and everyone else. I can listen to and appreciate what Louis did during the years in question but pace your comment about imagination and taste, regret the opportunities wasted by the provision of second-rate arrangements, and imagine what might have been the fruits of him working with more skilled and talented writers. I did not refer to 'bad taste' arrangements but pointed out that they are mediocre and antiquated given the best of what was happening at the time - and far from saying 'the band sucked' praised it for rising above the material, and drew attention to its very high quality personnel.

Marion Evans Shirley Clay Babs Gonzalez

Charlie Holmes Celeste Holm Marie Celeste

In other words, as far as 'American popular culture' is concerned, it's all of equal value - Liberace, Celine Dion, Sammy Kaye, Ernest Tubb, Louis and Nirvana. We can check our critical sensibilities at the door and just have 'big fun' ? I think Armstrong had more to offer than that implies. I'm not really interested in the 'pop star' aspect of his career - just his music.

Yes - I was impressed by the band's playing on the Fleischmann broadcasts - it ought to have been great given the personnel, but I was still underwhelmed by the charts. I'm not unmindful of Allen's point about the context but I can't accept that Louis was best-served by cheesy arrangements. We can say "Gosh he's great, in spite of etc." Or "rises above" ad infinitum, but whichever way you look at it, they're still antiquated, lumpen and fundamentally square compared to what else was going on in, say, 1938. It is, of course a great tribute to Louis that he was able to make so many silk purses out of sows' ears and his playing is generally sublime whatever the vehicle. I think, though, that his playing at NY Town Hall in 1947, albeith in a totally improvised setting, gives a hint of the level of creativity he might have achieved with the big band via more challenging material and arrangements. Maybe Louis would have been better served by Irving Mills....

I wonder if Dan, in his notes, grasps the nettle and evinces any explanation as to why, during this time when Louis' abilities were at their peak, his band was provided with such mediocre arrangements - charts that often sound positively anachronistic in comparison with those of his contemporaries. Was it Glaser's cheese-paring? The thought that Louis is all that matters, we needn't spend much time on details? Also, at its best, the band was quite an all-star lineup - Holmes, Nicholas, Higginbotham, Big Sid, Red Allen etc. but you'd hardly know it from the majority of the recordings which generally stick to a rigid formula. I'll probably get the set but I've often felt a sense of disappointment as to the use made of Louis and the other guys in this period. I guess Joe and Jack Kapp knew what worked and that was that.

Eddie Shu Michael Foot Allen Sillitoe

Ashley Heenan Douglas Lilburn Robin Maconie

Flook Wally Fawkes Humph

Moses Larry Curly

Robert Helpmann Merce Cunningham Johnny Mercer

Katty Kay Kay Kendall Ken Kersey

Harry Gold Zinky Cohn Leadbelly

Sioux City Sue Rose of the Rio Grande Victoria de los Angeles

Everton Weeks Clyde Walcott Gary Sobers

Miff Mole Red Foxx Shirley Verrett

Olive Oyl Eggy Ley Jack Lemmon

Grocer Heath Thatcher Butler

Don Byas Spring Byington Max Bygraves

King Tut King Knut King Pleasure

Carlos Gardel

Federico Garcia Lorca Francisco Franco Buddy de Franco

Sylvester Ahola Victor Silvester Victoria Regina

Clancy Hayes Murphy Brown O'Neill Spencer