Slim and Slam

[Durium]

SLIM AND SLAM

The music of Slim en Slam, jive music - rhythm & blues and rock and roll avant-la-lettre should be labeled as amusement or vaudeville music. It's entertaining and you don't need to have a music's degree to understand it. Great to listen to, but if you listen to the four songs of this 70 years old recording session it seems as if they all have the same drive - the same sound - the same melody - the same key: A dime a dozen?

Slim and Slam: A Dime A Dozen?

Keep swinging

Durium

[BillF]

Never underestimate Slim! Who else got Bird and Diz as sidemen?

[sidewinder]

Didn't he work as bar-man and boat hand for Errol Flynn at one stage.

And fly bombers in WW2?

Not to mention emigrate to the UK in his last few years and pull all the birds !

Edited November 9, 2008 by sidewinder

[Shrdlu]

Slim and Slam both rule! I love both of them.

The reviewer needs a kick up the reety vooty.

No Charlie Parker fan will ever forget "Slim's Jam" and the Red Norvo session with Slam on bass.

Funnily enough, I saw Slam on a Youtube a few weeks ago and he was playing in a very modern style. I had always thought of him as a (top quality) swing bassist, but he was much more versatile than that. Top drawer bassist. Hey, his arco style was a big influence on Paul Chambers.

[Big Beat Steve]

Slim and Slam both rule! I love both of them.

The reviewer needs a kick up the reety vooty.

Exactly!! (On both counts! )

This character that Durium (who I hope does NOT have these reservations towards Slim & Slam and Slim & Bam etc.) quotes fails to realize one MAJOR aspect:

Those 78 rpms were NOT intended to be listened to in one single series of 16 LP tracks or, what's worse under these circumstances, 24 CD tracks one after another. They were self-contained miniatures to be "consumed" and taken in one pair (A and B-sides) at a time.

The same holds true for a LOT of early (pre-war) blues records, for example, that might otherwise sound fairly repetitive on first listening too if you just looked at the superficial structure and instrumentation of the songs and listened to a huge bunch of them in one uninterrupted row.

It seems, though, that today's CD and Mp3 completist listening habits prevent the listeners more and more from grasping the essence of the music of some 60 or 70 years ago - at least as long as they don't really open up their ears and minds and listen to the music individually and on its own terms.

Remember this was a LONG time before all those LP-size "concept" albums came along.

Besides, a point could be made for a lot of hard bop (on LP) tunes sounding like all alike blowing to all those who don't take the time to get into the finer points of the music.

Not to mention other more modern jazz or rock styles and their musical output ...

That aside, Slim & Slam rule (and Slim with post-Slam Bam too )!

And as for the music being all alike, that character quoted by Durium who said that clearly hasn't done his homework. If he had listened e.g. to the live recordings of basically the same repertoire by Slim & Bam released on the Hep label he'd see how that music was worked with and elaborated on when the musicians stretched out on stage.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Wasn't Slim in some western movies or western TV series, as well as everything else? I mean as a straight actor, not a musician/singer.

MG

[bichos]

Slim and Slam both rule! I love both of them.

The reviewer needs a kick up the reety vooty.

Exactly!! (On both counts! )

This character that Durium (who I hope does NOT have these reservations towards Slim & Slam and Slim & Bam etc.) quotes fails to realize one MAJOR aspect:

Those 78 rpms were NOT intended to be listened to in one single series of 16 LP tracks or, what's worse under these circumstances, 24 CD tracks one after another. They were self-contained miniatures to be "consumed" and taken in one pair (A and B-sides) at a time.

The same holds true for a LOT of early (pre-war) blues records, for example, that might otherwise sound fairly repetitive on first listening too if you just looked at the superficial structure and instrumentation of the songs and listened to a huge bunch of them in one uninterrupted row.

It seems, though, that today's CD and Mp3 completist listening habits prevent the listeners more and more from grasping the essence of the music of some 60 or 70 years ago - at least as long as they don't really open up their ears and minds and listen to the music individually and on its own terms.

Remember this was a LONG time before all those LP-size "concept" albums came along.

Besides, a point could be made for a lot of hard bop (on LP) tunes sounding like all alike blowing to all those who don't take the time to get into the finer points of the music.

Not to mention other more modern jazz or rock styles and their musical output ...

That aside, Slim & Slam rule (and Slim with post-Slam Bam too )!

And as for the music being all alike, that character quoted by Durium who said that clearly hasn't done his homework. If he had listened e.g. to the live recordings of basically the same repertoire by Slim & Bam released on the Hep label he'd see how that music was worked with and elaborated on when the musicians stretched out on stage.

well written!!

keep boppin´

marcel

[Shrdlu]

That is an excellent post, Steve.

It comes after I had just gone back to the Parker Savoy and Dial sessions again. I have known all this material since the 1960s. This time, I put a selection of favorite tracks onto one CD. No more grinding through 6 takes of "Perhaps" and so on. Let alone listening for 4 hours in a row.