Tonight's the night of the jazz radio meeting at the Boston Copley Sq. BPL. No, the whole world is not watching, but interested jazz and blues fans in other cities will take note if creative solutions are advanced and consensus reached.
As a guy who's tried to get community action going on media (specifically, LPFM), I believe the trick is to keep the chaos at a minimum and to get volunteers to do things before they leave the room. Gotta get names and emails on lists, not let folks say "I'll sign up later online."
Should be interesting. I'll follow up tomorrow.
The The
Top 50 Jazz Blog
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Boston Jazz Radio Consortium?
The college radio stations I listed in my last post would have to be approached in different ways. Some are tightly formatted, fully scheduled and already have some jazz.
For the stations with some or no jazz but with time on the schedule, jazz DJ's (who seem plentiful among our ranks) could be recruited to take those slots.
It will be challenging to try to place shows such that jazz will be available somewhere on the Boston dial 24-7, but that should be a goal. I do think WHRB programmers should be asked whether they would consider moving their long jazz block to a time that is more propitious for the jazz audience.
All these stations would be asked to affiliate with some kind of jazz radio consortium.
I doubt any content coordination among these shows is possible although if someone does an interview with a musician, promoter, etc., they could make it available as an upload for another DJ in the consortium to play during his or her show.
In any case, stations would be agreeing that their jazz shows would have a dual identification-affiliated with a particular station and also with the consortium. On-air ID's would say something like "You're listening to Crepuscule Jazz on wwww, 80.1 FM, Brighton, Mass, an affiliated member of the Boston Jazz Radio Consortium (or something with a better acronym)."
Other publicity, like print ads, stickers, etc, would be able to list these shows and DJ's would be encouraged to cross-promote programs.
Or words to that effect.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Jazz & Radio; A Man, A Plan, A Channel
It makes sense that jazz fans want their music on the radio dial and not just on the internet. Even in the face of streaming stations, Satellite, Pandora, et al, radio continues as a force. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 85-95% of Americans listen to some terrestrial radio every day. Radios are everywhere, easy to operate and you don't have to put quarters in to make them work. The charges (and annoyance factor) are "hidden" in ads and underwriting. Americans, weaned on endless TV and radio ads from a young age, have built up an amazing tolerance for the 15-25 minutes of ads and promos per hour on commercial radio stations and for endless public radio fundraising drives.
But radio is changing in a way that's very important to anyone who wants jazz (or any other "demographically insignificant" format) on the radio: The idea of a high-power station playing more than one format (multi-format) is disappearing. Public stations, as we are learning, are moving rapidly towards all news/talk. Commercial stations hyper-refine their music formats to maximize desirable demographics and they have stopped the little jazz they used to play on the weekend. There was once some leakage in the tight radio edifice, but like every nook and cranny of urban real estate, all cracks have been accounted for and leveraged for maximum income.
I want to thank Larry Cronin for sending a vision for jazz in Boston radio (posted as a comment in my last post and on a Facebook group). Given the landscape as I see it, he presents a somewhat utopian vision.
I do think the Boston jazz community should unify under one organizational banner, either a new one or a pre-existing one like jazzboston. But, even if it does, it will still have little power at a bargaining table freighted with financial concerns. So, to make any of Larry's proposals happen would require large institutional backing. I agree that a consortium of local colleges would bring considerable weight. The question is, why would they do it? They would have to be convinced that this liaison would either greatly elevate their educational mission, or that it would somehow pay off financially. Either argument can be made, but I don't think either can be successfully made.
Instead, I would propose taking a close look at the following Boston-area college stations; radio resources we could actually leverage:
WMBR
WZBC
WUML
WMFO
WMLN
WZLY
WHRB
WBRS
(WERS is a "professionalized," tightly formatted station and of no use to us).
There's already a lot of jazz scattered through the schedules of these stations-especially WHRB. Taken as a group, I think they represent a tremendous opportunity.
Rah |
There are challenges. Some of these stations have strong community components and some don't. We don't know how management at these stations would respond to be approached. Their signals range from moderate to weak, certainly nothing like WGBH. It's a major challenge getting people to tune in at a certain time to get the program they want, as opposed to just going to a number on the dial and knowing what they'll hear. But if the coordination was done right, promotion could be effective. I.e., "You can find Jazz programming 24 hours a day on one of these stations." I'm one of a number of musicians with radio experience, invested in this process, who could provide the person-power.
There are scores of details that would have to be ironed out, but like Larry's post, this is just a beginning.
On the other hand, AM stations are getting cheaper all the time...
Friday, July 13, 2012
Building a New Jazz House
Jazz people are increasingly having their media sanctuaries taken by eminent domain. Here's the press release: "We got more cars, need bigger highways, something's gotta give. Sorry... Feel free to stand by the highway holding signs, trying to convince drivers to go back home and ride their bikes to work."
"You are a diminishing and not very desirable demographic. We're not saying you're not a wonderful human being, but romance without finance is a nuisance. The bigger the broadcast outlet-and we are the biggest around here-the bigger the gap between your needs and ours."
Ok. I hear you and I accept your explanation.
I'm not happy about having my home bulldozed by the news/public affairs juggernaut (I'd be slightly happier if it wasn't lurching ahead on retread tires). But over the last 15 years I started several pirate radio stations because I knew the game was rigged and I knew the answer was to find another place to hang my porkpie hat. At a certain point, I stopped bad mouthing Clear Channel, as I'm done now with bemoaning the wrong-headed-ness of WGBH. There just ain't no traction in it, nor a convincing moral case. As my recent post about my daughter and her friend clearly showed, art and morality are in the eye of the beholder.
Call it a plea to the jazz community to use this moment to dream a little bit; to look for unthought-of creative solutions. Let's look ahead, not back. Regulatory action is a dead end. Positive actions win hearts. Jazz is at the center of all this. That should give us all the inspiration we need.
"You are a diminishing and not very desirable demographic. We're not saying you're not a wonderful human being, but romance without finance is a nuisance. The bigger the broadcast outlet-and we are the biggest around here-the bigger the gap between your needs and ours."
Ok. I hear you and I accept your explanation.
I'm not happy about having my home bulldozed by the news/public affairs juggernaut (I'd be slightly happier if it wasn't lurching ahead on retread tires). But over the last 15 years I started several pirate radio stations because I knew the game was rigged and I knew the answer was to find another place to hang my porkpie hat. At a certain point, I stopped bad mouthing Clear Channel, as I'm done now with bemoaning the wrong-headed-ness of WGBH. There just ain't no traction in it, nor a convincing moral case. As my recent post about my daughter and her friend clearly showed, art and morality are in the eye of the beholder.
Call it a plea to the jazz community to use this moment to dream a little bit; to look for unthought-of creative solutions. Let's look ahead, not back. Regulatory action is a dead end. Positive actions win hearts. Jazz is at the center of all this. That should give us all the inspiration we need.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Rockin' 'GBH
Last night's jam in front of WGBH demonstrated a beautiful sense of solidarity among the jazz community of Boston. It's impossible to know what the ripple effects of the event will be, but it felt freakin' great to be there.
There are several more videos at this link: http://bit.ly/Ma4Umw
There will be an open meeting at 6PM on Tuesday, July 31st at the Boston Public Library and I hope that some focused goal will emerge, as well as the right strategy to make it happen. B.C. readers are encouraged to send ideas.
![]() |
Photo by Cherrie Corey |
Monday, July 2, 2012
Jazz & Media-Teenage Perspective
I thought I'd ask my 14 year-old daughter and her same-aged friend what they thought of the whole jazz/WGBH/media thing. Their response was thoughtful-and instructive.
Generally, I wanted to know if they thought that jazz should be left to fend for itself in the marketplace, whether its cultural importance merited some kind of small subsidy through the government, or if public media had a mission to carry it. I made sure they understood the disbursement of "discretionary" funds by Congress, the huge amount spent on the military, pork barrel projects, the small amount I was suggesting each person pay, etc. They seemed to understand.
They are both very into music. In fact, my daughter wants to be a singer. Despite that, neither one thought jazz or classical or any other kind of music should get tax subsidies. Without brow-beating them, I made the case as best I could, but each time, they said that there were more important basic things that should get funded first-the environment, hunger, housing, etc.
If you're invested in this jazz/media campaign-if a campaign it is-it's easy to get frustrated about the fact that to most people, the meaning and history of jazz carry little weight. But such perspectives have to be reckoned with. Dismissiveness and glib responses will not carry the day. If you are actually interested in changing someone's mind, you have to respect what they have to say, persist, and trust that the weight of your position will eventually win out.
Generally, I wanted to know if they thought that jazz should be left to fend for itself in the marketplace, whether its cultural importance merited some kind of small subsidy through the government, or if public media had a mission to carry it. I made sure they understood the disbursement of "discretionary" funds by Congress, the huge amount spent on the military, pork barrel projects, the small amount I was suggesting each person pay, etc. They seemed to understand.
They are both very into music. In fact, my daughter wants to be a singer. Despite that, neither one thought jazz or classical or any other kind of music should get tax subsidies. Without brow-beating them, I made the case as best I could, but each time, they said that there were more important basic things that should get funded first-the environment, hunger, housing, etc.
If you're invested in this jazz/media campaign-if a campaign it is-it's easy to get frustrated about the fact that to most people, the meaning and history of jazz carry little weight. But such perspectives have to be reckoned with. Dismissiveness and glib responses will not carry the day. If you are actually interested in changing someone's mind, you have to respect what they have to say, persist, and trust that the weight of your position will eventually win out.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Jazz Exceptionalism and The Media
We all have to reckon with the fiscal concerns at the center of what happened at WGBH, but it also behooves us to make a case for the exceptionalism of jazz.
To begin with, we need to differentiate this campaign from previous grassroots media movements, like Action for Childrens Television or the groups that sprung up to keep Joss Whedon shows on the air. People who lobby for a certain show don't want to kill or resuscitate a type of show. They want their teen angst show. Or, they want certain kinds of advertisers not to pollute kid's shows. Tactically, to get this done, you can target specific sponsors-or networks-and this has worked.
The jazz situation is different. We're talking about the elimination of an entire genre of music from the public airwaves.
"Market forces" are inevitably cited to explain the shrinkage of jazz on WGBH and the radio dial (TV exposure was lost long ago), but jazz advocates can't slough this off as the triumph of crass philistines. The battle won't be won on the basis of good or bad taste. The taste argument leads back to audience size and money, every time.
Public media outlets like WGBH must be forced to question whether or not they have drifted from their mission. The need to perpetuate the existence of the organization needs to be balanced by asking the question "why are we here?"

The jazz situation is different. We're talking about the elimination of an entire genre of music from the public airwaves.
"Market forces" are inevitably cited to explain the shrinkage of jazz on WGBH and the radio dial (TV exposure was lost long ago), but jazz advocates can't slough this off as the triumph of crass philistines. The battle won't be won on the basis of good or bad taste. The taste argument leads back to audience size and money, every time.
Instead, look at the historical precedent for a public media mission that allows more than money to be at play in programming decisions. It was a damn good thing back in 1934 and 1967 and is just as important now. Ask the question: what would art, music, theatre and literature in the US look like if they had always been forced to compete in a strict media marketplace environment?
We are asked to hand over our money to the IRS every year for a panoply of nonsensical and reprehensible uses. It makes sense to stand up and demand that valuable aspects of American culture be supported. The evidence that we don't is sobering.
Public media outlets like WGBH must be forced to question whether or not they have drifted from their mission. The need to perpetuate the existence of the organization needs to be balanced by asking the question "why are we here?"
Labels:
arts support,
CPB,
jazz,
media,
radio,
Steve Provizer,
television,
wgbh
Friday, June 22, 2012
Boston Jazz History Gets Its Due

My own idiosyncratic ramblings and obsessions usually suck up all the oxygen around here, but I'm very glad to have the chance to introduce B.C. readers to my friend Dick Vacca. Dick has been writing articles and giving illustrated talks on Boston jazz history for a long time and last month, after years of research and writing, he published The Boston Jazz Chronicles, the most authoritative book on Boston Jazz history yet written. Anyone with an interest in Boston jazz and jazz history in general will want a copy of this book. This interview should prove a good teaser.
A.
I wanted to do a project that involved two of my deep interests, jazz and
cultural/social history, but I didn’t start out with the intention of writing a
book. I wanted to create a walking tour along the lines of Paul Blair's
SwingStreets tours in New York. A walking tour goes from place to place and
relates stories about the people who were associated with those places, so I
started with places I knew because they live on through recordings—live at the
Hi-Hat, or Storyville, or Southland—and places mentioned in books I’d read,
like The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Nat Hentoff’s Boston Boy.
George Wein’s autobiography, Myself Among Others, had just been
published. And I started talking to people with long memories, like Ray Smith
of WGBH radio. I assembled a list of places, and then discovered most of them
have been demolished. In a few cases, even the streets are gone. Given that
there wasn’t much left to see, I abandoned that idea in favor of a tour in book
form. I’d write the stories rather than narrate them, and find photographs to
show a Boston that no longer exists. The walking tour idea lives on in the
book, though, because there’s an emphasis on places, and there’s a series of
maps of the entertainment districts that show where all these places were
located.
Q. With a hundred years
of Boston jazz history to work with, why focus on 1937 to 1962?
A. I started with what most
interested me, and that was the music made by the generation born in the 1920s
who came of age during World War II, and were mainly responsible for the
development of modern jazz after the war. Thus starting in the late 1930s was a
practical decision. I needed to go back just far enough to give a context to
the years that form the bulk of the story, so I started when swing was king and
the big bands were packing the dance halls, and jazz was as close to being
America’s popular music as it ever would be.
The material itself told me
when to stop—at the advent of the turbulent sixties. Much changed in the early
1960s in the world of Boston jazz. Modern jazz had matured, and so had the
generation who made it. Key people moved on, important venues shut down, the
“new thing” in jazz was emerging, and popular tastes changed. Beatlemania was
right around the corner. The sixties brought physical and cultural changes to
Boston and the country, and that is the starting point for a whole different
story.
Q. Where does your book
fit in the spectrum of jazz literature?
The Boston Jazz Chronicles is one of a number of books that document
jazz in cities other than New York and New Orleans. There are good books in
print now about the jazz scenes in Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco. Now Boston gets its turn. Jazz researchers will
appreciate this story, because some of its principal characters went on to long
careers in jazz, but their early days are often overlooked or under-documented.
Q. When did
Boston become a leading jazz city, and what led up to that?
A. Although jazz had been
played in Boston from the music’s earliest decades, the city became a jazz
center in the late 1940s and 1950s. Prior to that time, Boston’s jazz scene was
small but steady; the city could sustain a jazz scene but not grow it. World
War II changed that. Musicians follow the work, and there was work in Boston
during the war—it took a lot of musicians to entertain all those soldiers,
sailors, and defense workers, and some well-known jazzmen took up residence in
Boston then. After the war came the GI Bill, which brought many veterans to
Boston to study. They provided the critical mass, joining with Boston’s own
musicians to form an active scene. If you’re looking for a tipping point when
the scene starts to really grow, it’s the influx of musicians brought by the GI
Bill.
Musicians, though the most
important component, don’t themselves make a jazz scene. You need journalists,
broadcasters, educators, promoters, and presenters. All of these were active in
Boston in the late 1940s and 1950s, and among the “non-bandstand” landmarks of
the Bostonians were The Sound of Jazz
on CBS television, the Newport Jazz Festival, editors-in-chief at Down Beat
and Metronome magazines, and the Berklee College of Music.
Q. What came before this
awakening?
A. Several factors combined
to make the Boston area a fertile ground for postwar growth. First, the
populous northeast was at the center of dance band activity in the twenties and
thirties, and the Boston-based brothers, Charlie and Cy Shribman, were managers
and promoters who were recognized as kingmakers in the big band era.
Another factor was Boston’s
place as a center of music education. The Boston Conservatory and the New
England Conservatory of Music, though classical in outlook, were training a
steady stream of composers, arrangers, and musicians intent on working in the
popular idioms. And these schools, established in the years following the Civil
War, admitted students of color in an age when many schools did not.
A third factor was
proximity to New York, the jazz capitol of the world, which enabled a constant
interchange of people and ideas. And finally, Boston had talented musicians of
its own in place, playing the music from its earliest decades for a receptive,
mostly black, audience. So it wasn’t like the postwar growth came out of
nowhere.
Q. Tell me about some of
the famous jazz musicians from Boston in
these years.
A. First we should clarify
who I consider a “Boston jazz musician.” There are two groups of musicians
here; the Boston-area natives, and those who came here to work or study.
I’ll call a musician a
“Boston jazz musician” if that person lived and worked here for some part of
their professional life and contributed as an active performer, teacher, or
mentor. There are numerous well-known jazzmen who were born in Boston and left
town while still in their teens. The most famous were Harry Carney and Johnny
Hodges, the hall-of-fame saxophonists who were with the Duke Ellington
Orchestra for more than 40 years. Justly famous, yes, and Boston born—but I
left them out because they spent their entire professional career elsewhere.
On the other hand, most
jazz observers would not consider trumpeter Frankie Newton or trombonist Vic
Dickenson as Bostonians, but both rented apartments here and spent many years
as active members of the Boston jazz community. In my mind, Frankie and Vic are
“Boston jazz musicians” more than Harry and Johnny, who just happened to be
born here.
Q. OK, that said, who
are some of the important Boston jazz musicians in these years?
A. It is a fact of life
that if you spend your career working outside of New York or Los Angeles, the
general listening audience might not know your name, but you’ll be known to
other musicians and serious fans. That was true during these 25 years and it’s true now. Here are some of those “musicians’ musicians”
and high-impact individuals who spent considerable time, if not all their time,
in Boston. In no particular order we have: Sabby Lewis, Frankie Newton, Jaki
Byard, Charlie Mariano, Herb Pomeroy, Alan Dawson, Ray Perry, Lloyd Trotman,
Joe Gordon, Lennie Johnson, Bobby Hackett, Max Kaminsky, Serge Chaloff, Dick
Wetmore, Toshiko Akiyoshi, Dick Twardzik, Gigi Gryce, Rollins Griffith, Bernie
Griggs, Dean Earl, Jimmy Tyler, Nat Pierce, Ralph Burns, Sam Rivers, Mal
Hallett, Jay Migliori, Al Vega, Ray Santisi, Varty Haroutunian, Leroy Parkins,
John Neves, and Jimmy Woode. And four singers: Teddi King, Mae Arnette, Frances Wayne and Pat Rainey. And we can count George Wein here, too, because he’s been
playing piano with the Newport All-Stars for years.
Q. Was there a “Boston
sound”?
A. Evidence suggests not,
and none of the participants made a claim for one. It
was good modern jazz, well arranged and well played, and in the spirit of the
times. Boston was experiencing what other cities experienced as that generation
of musicians who came of age during World War II matured as artists. One writer
in the mid-1950s called the Boston sound “warm,” jazz at a midpoint between the
two leading schools of modern jazz, West Coast cool and the fiery hard bop then
dominating New York.
Q. What will people be
most surprised by in this book?
A. That’s hard to say. I
think people who know and like jazz will be surprised by the number of
well-known people who worked in Boston, and the depth of the activity. It was
an important scene. People without much exposure to jazz, who are reading
with more of an historical interest will be surprised to find out there was a
Ballroom District around Symphony Hall, and that at one point there were five
jazz clubs near the corner of Mass Ave and Columbus. This might also serve as
an introduction to some of the less laudible aspects of our city—that black
musicians stayed in rooming houses because they couldn’t stay in the Back Bay
hotels, and that female impersonators were banned from Boston stages. It was a
different time, and you found a very different scene when you went out on the
town then, as compared to now. That’s what will fascinate people.
Q. What surprised you?
A. You write this kind of
history to learn what you don’t know, and the more I dug, the more I learned,
and by no means is all of it in the book. I knew there was a “Jazz Priest”
named Norman O’Connor, but I had no idea what a fascinating character he was.
I’d been told John McLellan was on the radio but I was astonished to learn he
wrote 400 columns for the Boston Traveler—imagine a time when there was
enough general interest in jazz to enable a daily newspaper to publish two
columns a week about jazz music for four years! And I knew vaguely about the whole “banned in Boston” thing,
but seeing what even up-and-up businessmen like Wein were up against with the
Boston Licensing Board, and public morals crusades, and the blue laws—amazing.
Nightlife was so different back when all those sailors were in town.
Q. What frustrated you
in preparing the book?
A. Boston-specific
photographs turned out to be very hard to find. I’m still looking for exterior
shots of places like the Hi-Hat and the Roseland-State Ballroom. And there’s
the whole process of tracking down copyright owners and licensing the images
for use, but every author faces that.
A second frustration was
people choosing not to be interviewed, including some people who were very
important on the local scene. They were all polite to a fault, but for whatever
reason they just didn’t want to talk. Maybe they’ll see the book and change
their minds—there’s always room in the second edition...
Q. You interviewed about
75 people. Who were the most interesting or the most enjoyable?
A. Most people were
enthusiastic about the subject and everybody contributed something, but of
course some interviews were more enjoyable than others. Some people who started
out as interview subjects ended up as friends. My favorite interviews were with
the people who remembered much more than the music they were playing, who were
aware of the world around them, and had rich memories to share of a Boston lost
to time. I hesitate to name names, but of the 17 people who have died since the
time of our interviews, the sessions with Eddie Logan, Sam Marcus, Herb
Pomeroy, and Sam Rivers stand out.
Q. How has the book been
received?
A. This is the wonderful
world of self-publishing, and let’s face it, there are a lot of bad
self-published books out there. Book sellers and reviewers stay away from them,
so first you have to convince them to take a look at it. Nat Hentoff loves the
book and he wanted to review it in the Wall Street Journal, but they
don’t publish reviews of self-published books [Ed. comment: That sucks.] So I’m working with reviewers
and bloggers to create awareness. Library Journal did give it positive
review, so that’s certainly helping to get it on library shelves. And readers
have been saying good things, so that’s encouraging.
Q. Where is Boston in
the cycle of jazz growth and decline?
A. Hard question, and
you’re probably a better judge of that than I am. Jazz isn’t a darling of the
media conglomerates, so people aren’t exposed to it, and if you keep reducing
that exposure over several generations, jazz loses its place in the public
consciousness. We’re seeing the effects of that in Boston with the shrinking
number of hours of locally produced jazz programming on the radio [Ed. comment: written before the WGBH reduction]. Half of the
schedules of our name-band jazz rooms are filled with music that isn’t jazz.
The Boston Jazz Society and the Cape Cod Jazz Society have passed from the
scene. So none of that makes me happy. On the other hand, JazzBoston is doing
good things, like the Riffs and Raps program in the libraries, and I’ve been to
a few house concerts recently, which is something the folkies have been doing
for a while and maybe it’ll catch on with the jazz crowd.
Q. You’ve formed your
own company, Troy Street Publishing. What are your plans for it?
A. What interests me the
most is the cultural and regional history of Boston and environs in the middle
of the last century. The jazz story is one part of that, and a large part,
because it touches so many areas of the culture. But there are many more
stories to be told about those years, and I’m already at work on the next one.
Plus, I’m talking to other authors who are interested in this period of Boston
history as well.
For legal reasons I can’t
produce The Boston Jazz Chronicles as an ebook, at least not yet anyway,
but that’s the plan for all other titles going forward.
Q. Any plans to continue
the jazz chronology?
A. The next 25-year chunk is 1963 to 1988,
and Boston in the sixties and seventies is a big, big story. What was the role
of the jazz musicians and journalists in that story? And is that something
readers want to know about? I’m not convinced. If someone did want to do the
work, quite a few people from those years are still around town, and the media
hadn’t yet splintered into a hundred targeted segments—if you wanted to know
what to do this weekend, you checked the Globe
or the Phoenix. So having people to
interview and a limited amount of media to wade through would make the research
phase easier than the one I just finished. Still, there are so many voices to
be heard, some of them still quite strident, and many styles of music to
represent, everything from the avant garde to smooth jazz. It’s everybody from
Lowell Davidson to Dave McKenna, and everywhere from Danny’s Cafe to the
DeCordova Museum. But I’d still need to know if the scene in these years was
important enough to document, or whether it was just nightlife for a diminishing
audience.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
WGBH Decimates Its Jazz Programming
Problem is, the effects of radio programming all have to be "quantified" into numbers and demographics. I had the same problem years ago, when I was a producer for a show called "Ready-To-go, a mostly live children's show on WNEV (now WHDH) TV Channel 7. The audience was there, but relatively expensive production (i.e., local, non syndicated) and an undesirable advertising demographic meant this well-loved show was axed.
Obviously, WGBH is pursuing a long-term goal of grabbing audience share from WBUR, which has had a lock on the local upscale-NPR news/public affairs audience for a long time. Taking this kind of action, for bottom line reasons (and what other reason could there be?) is ok, if you don't mind the acrid whiff of Bain Capital and Mitt Romney.
There will be pushback. It remains to be seen if a critical mass of music partisans can have any influence on a local media outlet whose mission, over the last couple of years, has grown foggier and foggier.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Vocals II-Jazz and Blues "Firsts."
As noted last time, a wide range of popular music was not documented in recordings before the late 19-teens to the early 20's. This makes it hard to be definitive about " firsts." And, in the music that was recorded, it's no simple matter differentiating "jazz" from "ragtime" and "blues." A song that was called a rag may now be more recognizable as jazz than something that used the word jazz, which now sounds more minstrelsy. There will never be complete agreement on genre categorization, so to some extent, you have to approach it as the Supreme Court approached pornography: "I'll know it when I see it."
The recordings in this post do represent consensual choices and are fair models of how "jazz" and 'blues" stylistically gelled as they moved into the center of American popular culture...
Common wisdom sets blues recording as an early 20's phenomenon, but blues were recorded well before then, the first one most likely back in 1914: W.C. Handy's Memphis Blues. The first vocal blues recording was white vaudevillian Morton Harvey's version of that tune:
Not bad, if a bit too reminiscent of Robert Goulet.
The recording sometimes mis-represented as the "first blues record" is Mamie Smith's "Crazy Blues" which was actually the first blues recorded by a black woman. Its lasting cultural renown grew from the fact that it was a smash hit. It quickly became a million-seller and opened the floodgates of what the record companies called the "Race Market." Stylistically, Mamie personified the kind of gutsy blues singing that was well documented in the 20's and which continues to this day.
Norah Bayes and Marion Harris, both very big vaudeville stars, also recorded blues in the teens. Harris, however, was probably the first woman to record a song with "jazz" in the title. "Keep sousa, gimme the jazz," says "When I Hear That Jazz Band Play:"
As far as while male jazz vocals, I said in the first vocal post that Collins and Harlan were the earliest performers of songs with "jass" in the title, although calling them jazz singers calls for a loose interpretation of the word.
It's clear that early black instrumentalists in the pre-jazz to jazz style-Buddy Bolden, Frankie Dusen, Freddie Keppard, Jelly Roll Morton, Wilbur Sweatman and others-used vocalists or sang themselves. Despite this, almost no black males in the jazz/blues category were recorded during the teens. Why this is so, one can only conjecture. W.C. Handy's group, which, in 1917, was arguably the first black jazz group to record, had no vocals. George Johnson, Bert Williams, Will Marion Cook and others recorded very early on, but they were not doing jazz.
The guy I think must get the nod as the first African-American male to record in a discernibly jazz style is Noble Sissle. Sissle is better known for his work as a composer, stage performer and collaborator with Eubie Blake, but he should be recognized for his early jazz singing, including his recordings in 1919 with James Reese Europe's Hellfighters Jazz Band, which include this chestnut:
Residual stylistic traits are still there in these "firsts:" declamatory inclinations (bad name for a rock band), fast vibrato and intense enunciation. But, there is also increasing rhythmic freedom, instrumental backing that has improvisational elements and self-referential lyrics that make it clear that the makers of the music knew they were doing something modern, fashionable and slightly risque.
Next Time: Crooners, Country and Scat
.
Thank you to pals on the Come On and Stomp and Hot Jazz Records Facebook groups for their assistance with the Sissle section.
The recordings in this post do represent consensual choices and are fair models of how "jazz" and 'blues" stylistically gelled as they moved into the center of American popular culture...
Common wisdom sets blues recording as an early 20's phenomenon, but blues were recorded well before then, the first one most likely back in 1914: W.C. Handy's Memphis Blues. The first vocal blues recording was white vaudevillian Morton Harvey's version of that tune:
Not bad, if a bit too reminiscent of Robert Goulet.
![]() |
Mamie |

As far as while male jazz vocals, I said in the first vocal post that Collins and Harlan were the earliest performers of songs with "jass" in the title, although calling them jazz singers calls for a loose interpretation of the word.
It's clear that early black instrumentalists in the pre-jazz to jazz style-Buddy Bolden, Frankie Dusen, Freddie Keppard, Jelly Roll Morton, Wilbur Sweatman and others-used vocalists or sang themselves. Despite this, almost no black males in the jazz/blues category were recorded during the teens. Why this is so, one can only conjecture. W.C. Handy's group, which, in 1917, was arguably the first black jazz group to record, had no vocals. George Johnson, Bert Williams, Will Marion Cook and others recorded very early on, but they were not doing jazz.
The guy I think must get the nod as the first African-American male to record in a discernibly jazz style is Noble Sissle. Sissle is better known for his work as a composer, stage performer and collaborator with Eubie Blake, but he should be recognized for his early jazz singing, including his recordings in 1919 with James Reese Europe's Hellfighters Jazz Band, which include this chestnut:
Residual stylistic traits are still there in these "firsts:" declamatory inclinations (bad name for a rock band), fast vibrato and intense enunciation. But, there is also increasing rhythmic freedom, instrumental backing that has improvisational elements and self-referential lyrics that make it clear that the makers of the music knew they were doing something modern, fashionable and slightly risque.
Next Time: Crooners, Country and Scat
.
Thank you to pals on the Come On and Stomp and Hot Jazz Records Facebook groups for their assistance with the Sissle section.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
New/Last Woody Shaw
This is the last unposted song from the video tape I made of Woody's gig at the Charles Hotel courtyard in Cambridge on 8.21.85.
Personnel is:
Woody Shaw-trumpet.
Stanley Cowell-piano
David WIlliams-bass
Terri-Lyne Carrington-drums
Personnel is:
Woody Shaw-trumpet.
Stanley Cowell-piano
David WIlliams-bass
Terri-Lyne Carrington-drums
Friday, June 1, 2012
Sampling Pre-Jazz Vocals

Jazz qua jazz wasn't recorded until the late teens and blues until the early 20's, but beginning in the 1890's, some of the styles that were grist for the jazz mill did find their way onto cylinders and discs: string and brass band music, "parlor" songs, ragtime, ethnic, vaudeville, minstrel and concert hall music. It's a partial record, but we'll try to get a sense of where vibrato and other expressive elements used in vocal jazz came from by listening to some influential vocalists who recorded during the first couple of decades of the twentieth century. Yes, instrumentalists always influence vocalists and vice versa, but we'll leave that tangle for future posts. Also, although it's clear that recordings of music from places like the Caribbean and South/Central America had an influence on jazz, I won't go into music with vocals targeted for foreign-language groups.
![]() |
Enrico enjoys a smoke |
Many early recordings fall under the light classical/parlor music/Stephen Foster umbrella. Practitioners often came from an operatic tradition, but used vibrato with a lighter touch. Soprano Nellie Melba is a good example, as you can hear here.
![]() |
The inspiration for Peach Melba |
![]() |
A more direct line to a jazz style can be drawn from the vocal music that was derived from minstrelsy, vaudeville, ragtime, or some combination of those. Clarice Vance is credited as developing the naturalistic, almost vibrato-free style which influenced many other popular singers. She reminds me of Blossom Dearie. Here's "Goodbye to Johnny":
Bert Williams was probably the most well-known African-American stage/vaudeville performer and recording artist from the turn of the 20th century until about 1920. Stylistically, this recording is an archaic and modern amalgam, with comedic effects, stuttering and trombone smears, with a subtle undertone of emotionality.
![]() |
Last of the Red Hot Mamas |
As time took a toll on Tucker's voice, she increasingly laid on the vibrato, but she explored time in a very jazz-like way:
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Scaling Amanda Palmer
On 5/23/12 1:57 PM, my friend George Mokray sent me a link:
http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/23551030051/where-all-this-kickstarter-money
Steve Provizer replies:
Thanks for sending that. I don't really think you can scale what Amanda Palmer has done down to the level at which almost everyone (especially a jazz musician) operates. At any level you try to implement it, creating the materials and doing all the things she talks about is a full time job with big expenses. In fact, it's more expensive per unit to produce fewer cd's, vinyl, printed material, etc., so your percentage costs on a smaller scale are higher.
Palmer ends up with about $100,000 after getting a million, so 10%. A year's Kickstarter effort that brought in, say, $100,000 (a very high return for a jazz project) would result in $10,000 and, as I said, I think the higher percentage outlay per unit would reduce that amount; far from a living wage.
I suppose it is THE FUTURE OF MUSIC [insert reverb here, as you say], but its influence will always be subject to the differences between the bent of one person to be a lawyer, one to be an accountant and one to be a musician... Some people, like Palmer, have the head for more than one of those things, or the entrepreneurial skill and/or charisma to pull it together and essentially become their own label, as she has.
The reason people want to be signed by a label is that they don't want to do or aren't good at doing that range of tasks and willingly give up the control that Palmer achieves. It's not realistic to think that most musicians-especially us senior jazz citizens-will undertake this serious entrepreneurial effort. On the other hand musicians, to their detriment, are often not proactive enough in this process, especially on the accounting side, and the result has been a real lack of fiscal accountability. Historically, this has drawn a certain amount of malfeasance and villainy into the industry and musicians have gotten screwed.


It does take all kinds and perhaps what we need here, as my mentor Broadway Danny Rose says, is "Acceptance, forgiveness and love." To which, I might add: "And Musicians-keep one hand firmly on your wallet."
Monday, May 14, 2012
Vibrato
Vibrato is kind of the eminence grise of jazz improvisation, working behind the scenes as a stealth emotional force.
May 14 is the birthday of Sidney Bechet, one of the bedrock performers in jazz. Great player, but whenever I hear Bechet blow, I want him to take about 35% off his vibrato. On the other hand, you could drive a charette through Louis Armstrong's vibrato, but it connects with me while Bechet's doesn't.
My emotional responses not withstanding, Bechet and Armstrong both fall in the category of "hot" players and, in general, the degree to which a player utilizes vibrato marks him as either "hot" or "cool."
It's the most straightforwardly emotional part of the arsenal that horn players, especially trumpet players, can call on, some of which I mentioned in my Lee Morgan post: half-valve, smears, shakes, rips, growls, flutter-tonguing, double and triple tonguing, false fingering and vibrato.
Vibrato is hard to hear in short notes, so it's mostly about held tones: quarter, half or whole notes. It can be applied either through the player's lips or through his hands moving the horn at whatever rate he wants the vibrato to be (more violent hand movements become "shakes").
Vibrato as exemplar of hot and cool goes back pretty far into jazz history. It's been personified by the difference between Louis Armstrong and Bix Biederbecke, or Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young. Miles Davis brought the cool approach pretty much as far as it would go, but while the notion of "cool" became bundled with less vibrato. everyone, even MIles, has some vibrato in their playing. Hot or cool is less a question of whether it's there, but how "heavy" or "wide" it is; how subtle or overt.
The choice to play cornet, as opposed to trumpet, is also a choice to use more vibrato. It's easy to hear in the playing of those who followed the cornet lineage from King Oliver and Louis Armstrong- Wingy Manone, Muggsy Spanier, Bobby Hackett, Wild Bill Davison, Ruby Braff, Warren Vache and pretty much anyone playing in the "Trad" style.
Vibrato has been one way that improvisers-and, of course, musicians in general-have tried to communicate emotion to an audience. That kind of exposure to overt (unhip) emotion seems to have become less acceptable and/or less effective, in the jazz environment. Do improvisers still want to connect emotionally with an audience? Of course, but as I've said a few times here at Brilliant Corners, a lot of that emotional connection appears to be missing and seems to a large extent to reside more in the vocalist's domain.
[All the above links go to musical examples, so I hope you check them out].
Next time: Vocalists and Vibrato.
May 14 is the birthday of Sidney Bechet, one of the bedrock performers in jazz. Great player, but whenever I hear Bechet blow, I want him to take about 35% off his vibrato. On the other hand, you could drive a charette through Louis Armstrong's vibrato, but it connects with me while Bechet's doesn't.
My emotional responses not withstanding, Bechet and Armstrong both fall in the category of "hot" players and, in general, the degree to which a player utilizes vibrato marks him as either "hot" or "cool."

Vibrato is hard to hear in short notes, so it's mostly about held tones: quarter, half or whole notes. It can be applied either through the player's lips or through his hands moving the horn at whatever rate he wants the vibrato to be (more violent hand movements become "shakes").
Vibrato as exemplar of hot and cool goes back pretty far into jazz history. It's been personified by the difference between Louis Armstrong and Bix Biederbecke, or Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young. Miles Davis brought the cool approach pretty much as far as it would go, but while the notion of "cool" became bundled with less vibrato. everyone, even MIles, has some vibrato in their playing. Hot or cool is less a question of whether it's there, but how "heavy" or "wide" it is; how subtle or overt.
![]() |
Wild Bill |
Vibrato has been one way that improvisers-and, of course, musicians in general-have tried to communicate emotion to an audience. That kind of exposure to overt (unhip) emotion seems to have become less acceptable and/or less effective, in the jazz environment. Do improvisers still want to connect emotionally with an audience? Of course, but as I've said a few times here at Brilliant Corners, a lot of that emotional connection appears to be missing and seems to a large extent to reside more in the vocalist's domain.
[All the above links go to musical examples, so I hope you check them out].
Next time: Vocalists and Vibrato.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Lee Morgan; Thoughts, Audio & Transcriptions
Prodigy, post-Parker junkie, dead by homicide at a young age (1938-1972). Whatever. The myth shouldn't crowd out the player. Musically, Lee Morgan was a muthahfucka.
No matter what influences he brought into his music-funk, modal, latin, free-Lee always sounded like Lee and the quality of his playing was always superb (apart from a period of chops trouble resulting from a drug-related tooth debacle).
The mid-50's Philadelphia that Morgan grew up in was an active and supportive jazz scene. He started the trumpet at 13 and by 14, he was playing at sessions, first at the Jazz Workshop at the Heritage House and then at Music City. He crossed paths with Clifford Brown, with whom he hung out for about 2 years, until Clifford's death on the road. He gigged around town with fellow teens bassist Spanky DeBrest and McCoy Tyner. Jess McMillan's authoritative article on Lee's days in Philly says that when Chet Baker came to town, the 15 year-old Morgan cut him-"blew him completely out of the room."
Dizzy Gillespie also made the Music City Club sessions and when he heard Lee, who was at that point 18, he recruited him for his big band.
No matter what influences he brought into his music-funk, modal, latin, free-Lee always sounded like Lee and the quality of his playing was always superb (apart from a period of chops trouble resulting from a drug-related tooth debacle).
The mid-50's Philadelphia that Morgan grew up in was an active and supportive jazz scene. He started the trumpet at 13 and by 14, he was playing at sessions, first at the Jazz Workshop at the Heritage House and then at Music City. He crossed paths with Clifford Brown, with whom he hung out for about 2 years, until Clifford's death on the road. He gigged around town with fellow teens bassist Spanky DeBrest and McCoy Tyner. Jess McMillan's authoritative article on Lee's days in Philly says that when Chet Baker came to town, the 15 year-old Morgan cut him-"blew him completely out of the room."
Dizzy Gillespie also made the Music City Club sessions and when he heard Lee, who was at that point 18, he recruited him for his big band.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)