Bet you can't guess who played Jungle Blues in 1928?

[Cody K]

So, Marc -- Didja play the flip side?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJJFf8Rh_E

And hey, while I'm at it, the side that started this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvny3CARJuU

(...And how about that sweet Expert?)


-- Cody

[Edited to add: Seems like Brunswicks of this vintage are composed of up to 50% Tallulah Bankhead's Cigarette Ashes or something, I guess due to wartime strictures -- they play great when they're in new condition, but seem to degrade fairly rapidly once they get much use, leaving telltale black dust on the needle. Or is this just mine?]

[tinovanderzwan]

Some very witty answers here!!! Tim got it right with the movie picture. He's the guy with glasses and a moustache. I had the pleasure to see him perform at a 1976 outdoor theater concert at San Diego State University where he appeared with the San Diego Symphony. After he played the Mozart @%!%^*@#! concerto, he played some of his swing pieces and was still doing some of the shtick that he did in the movie above. Like trying to beat out time with his leg, looking more like a clumsy horse trying to count, and dropping his mouth piece off the stage to the ground. Yes Ted Lewis did record Jungle Blues complete with bird calls, but he recorded for Columbia exclusively. Jelly Roll Morton recorded it first, as he wrote it, I think on Victor records. The 40s repressing of this record can be found in the Brunswick Collector's Series album No. R-1007 and titled Chicago Jazz Classics. This album was released in June, 1943 during the 1942-44 musician's strike, so record companies were forced to re-issue old records by calling them "classics". Brunswick, which I think was owned by Decca, Columbia, which had access to the 1920s OKeh library, and Victor reissued albums during and after WWII which they called jazz classics. And lucky for us as you can buy one of these four disc albums today for
from $5 to $10 an album.

you almost gave something away there i rectified it in your quote!

nnnnn.jpg (33.59 KiB) Viewed 1153 times

tino

[marcapra]

[Edited to add: Seems like Brunswicks of this vintage are composed of up to 50% Tallulah Bankhead's Cigarette Ashes or something, I guess due to wartime strictures -- they play great when they're in new condition, but seem to degrade fairly rapidly once they get much use, leaving telltale black dust on the needle. Or is this just mine?]

I have many of these Brunswick Collectors Series albums, but haven't noticed the records deteriorating like that. Maybe I have so many of them, I haven't played just one that many times. I also play them a lot on my 1941 Philco Beam of Light with a lite-weight tonearm.

[phonojim]

CodyK: Those Brunswicks won't last on if played acoustic machines. I have several like new sets that I only play on my modern turntable with it's lightweight arm.

Jim

[Valecnik]

His band and also the Dorsey bros. put out some absolutely great stuff in the late 20s. His Jungle Blues is one of my all time favorites. They lost me though by 1932 as they evolved into the big band style.

[Cody K]

Y'know, Marc and Jim, what you point out is truer than true, and I know it, but it's something I just can't seem to wrap my head around consistently. 'Forties pressings aren't going to stand up well to an Orthophonic reproducer. Simple as that. But there's some kind of disconnect in my brain that insists that '20s electrical recordings get played on the Credenza, despite the fact that pressings like the Brunswick Collectors' Series will eventually suffer. Maybe it's the fact that they're so available and inexpensive, as noted above, that makes me keep feeling as if I can get away with it. But you're right: these records weren't meant to be played the way I play them.

On the other hand, even red-label Columbia reissues of '20s recordings seem to hold up better than the Brunswicks under the Orthophonic soundbox.

Bruce, I'm with you on the 1932 date. With some exceptions such as the Ivie Anderson recordings, even Duke Ellington, who's one of my biggest favorites, starts to lose me by that year when compared with the 1927-'30 recordings. Once the sound starts to edge toward swing, I start to lose interest for reasons I can't really define. Maybe just the loss of any "rough edges" that keep the music less predictable. To my ears, I guess, it don't mean a thing once it starts to sound like swing...

[Valecnik]

Bruce, I'm with you on the 1932 date. With some exceptions such as the Ivie Anderson recordings, even Duke Ellington, who's one of my biggest favorites, starts to lose me by that year when compared with the 1927-'30 recordings. Once the sound starts to edge toward swing, I start to lose interest for reasons I can't really define. Maybe just the loss of any "rough edges" that keep the music less predictable. To my ears, I guess, it don't mean a thing once it starts to sound like swing...

Cody I think with me the problem is that by 1933 they started to loose the spontaneity. The bands got bigger and everyone was just expected to do their part. That late 20s stuff that Goodman and the Dorseys' put out just was just awesome.

[Cody K]

Very definitely. It's that sense of spontaneity that gets lost, and things just get a little too smooth and slick, for my tastes anyway.

[marcapra]

It's called commercialization. Those bands just made more money when they started the big band dance craze with smooth, written out arrangements and lots of pop tunes. Even Louis Armstrong dropped his Hot Five and Hot Seven, and concentrated more on singing the pop tunes of those times, for example Jeepers Creepers.

[FloridaClay]

And while sometimes better and sometimes not, what is current and popular evolves over time. What was cutting edge and cool among the young turns into "that old stuff that grandpa likes" and something new becomes the rage. I love the jazz from the 20s and 30s and swing too.

Clay