Why do record collectors hate Big Band music?

[larryh]

A couple years ago I purchased a bunch of 78 record binders in order to get my early electric records into. But when I got them home they were all filled with 40's records in near perfect condition. I started to play though them and found that many of the vocals and some instruments had a very appealing sound to me. So I ended up keeping most of them. I think there were about 10 albums full. I have no particular era for which I want to choose only from. I have everything from the early 1900s though the LP and Tapes period. The CD's I went reluctantly to when it all became the rage all ended up going out in the trash a few years ago.

[marcapra]

Larry, and the Big Band records sound great in juke boxes, and even modern stereos with the right turntable and stylus. I don't for a minute advocate playing them on acoustic machines as some above thought. My musical taste is very broad as I like everything from early rock, to opera, symphony, chamber music, jazz including bebop and big band, as well as Edison DDs, and 20's jazz and pop.

[gramophone-georg]

Larry, and the Big Band records sound great in juke boxes, and even modern stereos with the right turntable and stylus. I don't for a minute advocate playing them on acoustic machines as some above thought. My musical taste is very broad as I like everything from early rock, to opera, symphony, chamber music, jazz including bebop and big band, as well as Edison DDs, and 20's jazz and pop.

I play mine on acoustic machines quite often.

[CarlosV]

Maybe the question missed a word: Why SOME record collectors hate big band music?

As for me, I collect records and machines and I love big band music, from the 20s until now (yes, it is still going strong, listen to Maria Schneider). There are even some big band records from the 40s that are amongst the best music ever recorded in the US, like the ones by Duke Ellington's Blanton-Webster band.

Maybe the impression of general dislike of such music by collectors (beyond musical taste) come from two reasons: big band records from the 30s and 40s are easy to find, which makes them intrinsically loathed by the collectors that enjoy chasing rarities, and adds the impression that they are worthless pieces of clutter. The other reason may be the lack of compatibility between the records from that period onwards with the acoustic machines that most of us collect.

[Roaring20s]

Maybe the question missed a word: Why SOME record collectors hate big band music?
Maybe the impression of general dislike of such music by collectors (beyond musical taste) come from two reasons: big band records from the 30s and 40s are easy to find, which makes them intrinsically loathed by the collectors that enjoy chasing rarities, and adds the impression that they are worthless pieces of clutter. The other reason may be the lack of compatibility between the records from that period onwards with the acoustic machines that most of us collect.

For me, I think you have "hit the mail on the head" here. When my interest began in the 80's and 90's. The Swing generation of listeners still thrived and that music has still being played to that audience and the swing dance revivalists. That music was more commonplace and wartime and post-war discs were mountain high. I wanted music that has not getting play. I wanted phonographs intended for older music.

Now that I've accumulated a good deal of pre-war disc music, I am picking and choosing the latter that will play well on acoustic machines. My focus to obtain older discs had me turn a blind "ear" to all else. I figured that I could always get a Big Band record if I wanted one.

James.

[larryh]

Just my opinion but to me very few records produced in the 40s are suited to early acoustic play back. I have found a few vocals that did a resonable job on the Columbia 800 but then it was designed for electrical records. Still often the clarity or volume leaves a lot to be desired to my ear. The loud portions can be jarring sounding to my taste. I see people playing late records on you tube but generally they don't seem to work very well.

The other thing is that a lot of people don't hear things the same way. So what some find acceptable others may not. I guess its a matter of what you want to hear.

This off this topic but sort of proves a point. When I got back in to Edison machines and records the most popular diaphragms left more than a lot to be desired to me. Its how I ended up tying to improve the sound so that people could actually hear the music as it was intended to be, not a shallow dull version which was all the rage at the time. I was just thinking about making a comparison video using my first internet purchased diaphragm and where things stand now it could prove interesting.

Larry

[bart1927]

While I certainly don't hate big band music, I just don't really care about it. I'm just not that much into Swing, I guess.
My main area of interest is 1920's dance bands. My favourite period is 1925-1929.
I have nothing in my collection of 78's that was recorded after 1932. I don't know what it is, but after that the music just doesn't appeal to me any more. It doesn't grab me like 1920's music does. Perhaps it has to do with the Great Depression, that somehow made the music sound less carefree. Or it has to do with different orchestration. I really like banjo's, ukulele's and kazoo's, and those are a lot more prominent in 1920's music.

[gramophone-georg]

Maybe the question missed a word: Why SOME record collectors hate big band music?

As for me, I collect records and machines and I love big band music, from the 20s until now (yes, it is still going strong, listen to Maria Schneider). There are even some big band records from the 40s that are amongst the best music ever recorded in the US, like the ones by Duke Ellington's Blanton-Webster band.

Maybe the impression of general dislike of such music by collectors (beyond musical taste) come from two reasons: big band records from the 30s and 40s are easy to find, which makes them intrinsically loathed by the collectors that enjoy chasing rarities, and adds the impression that they are worthless pieces of clutter. The other reason may be the lack of compatibility between the records from that period onwards with the acoustic machines that most of us collect.

I think there's a third reason- all of the "authorities" tend to look down on the Swing Era as "not spontaneous" or some such drivel, in the same way such authorities also favor black artists as the "true" jazz guys while white artists are interlopers. It's all nonsense. Jazz never could have been without EVERYONE'S contribution. Klezmer plays as big a role as African rhythm here, to name just one example. Jazz was the first real attempt at civil rights in practice, and it worked because all jazzmen listened to and earned from each other. A really little known example of this that I've brought up before was the fact that Armstrong and Lombardo were huge fans of each other's musical style in the Twenties and legend has it that they met up quite often. In later years it was Armstrong and Teagarden. You had the intermixing of Goldkette and McKinney's, Billie Holiday sang with Benny Goodman and then Artie Shaw, and on and on.

As far as the Swing Era goes- looking down on it as some lesser form of jazz is ridiculous. I'm not talking "sweet" bands here- I'm talking about Goodman, Shaw, Dorsey, Basie, Ellington, Barnet, Woody Herman, Teagarden, Teddy Wilson, etc. Listen to Goodman's Carnegie Hall concert to see what it was REALLY about.

The Twenties were no more "pure" in many ways... Goldkette, Whiteman, Fletcher Henderson, Redman with McKinney's... they were all developing a "book" of arrangements a decade or more before the Swing Era- and ALL of the Swing Era greats "apprenticed" in these bands.

[gramophone-georg]

Just my opinion but to me very few records produced in the 40s are suited to early acoustic play back. I have found a few vocals that did a resonable job on the Columbia 800 but then it was designed for electrical records. Still often the clarity or volume leaves a lot to be desired to my ear. The loud portions can be jarring sounding to my taste. I see people playing late records on you tube but generally they don't seem to work very well.

The other thing is that a lot of people don't hear things the same way. So what some find acceptable others may not. I guess its a matter of what you want to hear.

This off this topic but sort of proves a point. When I got back in to Edison machines and records the most popular diaphragms left more than a lot to be desired to me. Its how I ended up tying to improve the sound so that people could actually hear the music as it was intended to be, not a shallow dull version which was all the rage at the time. I was just thinking about making a comparison video using my first internet purchased diaphragm and where things stand now it could prove interesting.

Larry

I was listening to Charlie Barnet's "Skyliner" from '47 (I think) last night as well as Count Basie's "It's Sand, Man!" and "Ride On" from just before the recording ban and they played just fantastic on my Columbia 810. I'll post some videos later. I also often play these on the Victor V with Victrola No. 4 soundbox and they do just fine.

[CarlosV]

Just my opinion but to me very few records produced in the 40s are suited to early acoustic play back. I have found a few vocals that did a resonable job on the Columbia 800 but then it was designed for electrical records. Still often the clarity or volume leaves a lot to be desired to my ear. The loud portions can be jarring sounding to my taste. I see people playing late records on you tube but generally they don't seem to work very well.

Larry

I agree with you, Larry. I play my 40's records on the EMG, which can cope very well with their higher volume and extended range. The older machines I have, like the Credenza and the Columbia 810, although designed for the electrical records, do not reproduce well these later records.