Swing

[Byas'd Opinion]

"Swing" in a jazz sense confusingly has two meanings. It's like the way "classical" can either refer to European art music in general (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms and Boulez), or more specifically to the style of European art music prevalent in the late 18th to very early 19th century (Mozart and Haydn but not Bach, Brahms or Boulez).

There's Swing, a style of jazz of the mid-thirties to mid-forties, and there's swing, a particular rhythmic feel in a musician's or band's playing.

[Ian Thumwood]

John

You raise some interesting questions. You are correct about the "Swing" phenomenum of the 1930's and comments like Bluensik's regarding the HCdF reinforce the fact that the responses consider the kind of mainstream Modern Jazz played by Miles in the 1950's epitomises "swing." I agree that the French group chugged but don't agree that the way they "felt" the music was anyway regressive. Alot of this has to do with the 4/4 rhythm and the use of the guitar to enforce this feel. This was a dominant style of the period.

However, I think that alot of the so-called "Swing" groups didn't actually swing or, in the case of many white bands, they seems incapable of swinging. The track you selected as an example typifies this for me - I don't know whose band it is but it sounds like a British dance band from the 1930's and, like so many of these kinds of bands, it does have a lilt about it but there is no drive in this band. So many white bands got the rhythmic feel so wrong it is staggering from the perspective of 80 year's hindsight that they were ever considered . In many instances, the bands might have just as well have amped up a metronome.

Compare the clip you chose as an example with this recording from 1932 by Bennie Moten. The score is pretty indicative of the more forward-thinking bands of this era yet in the riffs employed in the last third of the record you get a real impression of the music feel of jazz rhythm. for me, this session represents a landmark as it represented the emergence of the Basie -style rhythm which I believe was as important in the history of jazz as Parker's innovations in the 1940's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC7Z2BbNpZM

You can still hear how much impact this approach was having 10 years later when the Be-bop revelation was underway. Both bands curiously feature Tab Smith's alto:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhMfttICBDI

I would cite these two records as well as the whole Basie output through the 30's and 40's as defining what a "swing band" was as opposed to the pat garbage churned out by the likes of Glenn Miller and so many other white bands who totally missed the point about how to swing.

In some respects, I concede that the track you chose as an example is different from the kind of groove played by the likes of Miles Davis, etc. i think there were four seismic shifts in jazz rhythm which started with Armstrong in the mid twenties, then the Basie innovations in the 30's before Be-bop started to change the music even more albeit I don't think that Be-bop was anywhere as innovative as the kind of changes implimented by bands such as Miles Davis' 1960's quintet with the brilliant Tony Williams on drums totally re-thinking swing . However, I'm not convinced that it actually swings. The track is quite guanty and I like the acoustic guitar yet there is no drive or motor propelling that band. I think that the style and notion of swing has changed over the years and the excitement of the music for me is often dictated by the manner in which musicians try to liberate themselves from the beat whilst still maintaining the groove. Therefore, I would have to say that I feel this track swings just as hard as the Bennie Moten track albeit it shares almost nothing in comparison. Jack DeJohnette's drumming on this track epitomises swing for me in the same way:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_evntg86yiU

Thanks for your contribution which, as ever, always throws a different light on matters. It is good to have someone else on this board who is passionate about earlier forms of music too.

Ian

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

ian, I have repeatedly said that swing is contextual...Basie, Bird, Mingus. Ornette etc. all swing in their respective ways, in different contexts. It is not an absolute. What is there NOT to understand in that?

BN.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

BTW, in the first Soviet modern band, the Jazz Collectivists, they would shout, "Cmon Comrades, dont be lazy, gotta swing this band like Basie." Stalin had them all shot for playing "Midnight in Moscow" in six eight.

BN.

[burning dog]

With thanks to wikipedia


It is part and parcel of the whig interpretation of jazz that it studies the past with reference to the present

Typical distortions thereby introduced are:

Viewing post bop -Time, no changes - as the apex of jazz development;
Assuming that Time, no changes - was in fact an ideal held throughout all ages of the past, despite the observed facts of jazz history and the several power struggles between hot and cool, R&B/Gospel influence and third stream, chord progressions and modes.
Assuming that jazz figures in the past held current aesthetic beliefs (anachronism);
Assuming that jazz history was a march of progress whose inevitable outcome was Time, no changes

Presenting jazz figures of the past as heroes, who advanced the cause of this progress, or villains, who sought to hinder its inevitable triumph

[Serial_Apologist]

With thanks to wikipedia


It is part and parcel of the whig interpretation of jazz that it studies the past with reference to the present

Typical distortions thereby introduced are:

Viewing post bop -Time, no changes - as the apex of jazz development;
Assuming that Time, no changes - was in fact an ideal held throughout all ages of the past, despite the observed facts of jazz history and the several power struggles between hot and cool, R&B/Gospel influence and third stream, chord progressions and modes.
Assuming that jazz figures in the past held current aesthetic beliefs (anachronism);
Assuming that jazz history was a march of progress whose inevitable outcome was Time, no changes

Presenting jazz figures of the past as heroes, who advanced the cause of this progress, or villains, who sought to hinder its inevitable triumph

I tend to do this, as you've probably already guessed, BD.

I like to think of jazz - or any other art form for that matter - as reflecting at least, if not actually advancing, its time. Otherwise I think you get into a situation Boulez has commented on of preferring reproduction to contemporary. Change can show inner development too, even if it takes years to catch up, as it did me in the case of late Coltrane. Ellington and Miles showed that awareness of sounds changing around them and put their own stamp on new developments. This doesn't have to mean writing off personalities who stuck with what they were best at, but it draws me more to their output when they were at the peak of their powers, and following the creative process leading thereto.

[John Wright]

Ian, thanks for your contribution, as ever insightful and you explored my thoughts better than I could myself )

The Moten example was a perfect example, they were supreme, at bringing us swing, defining it even, and with his untimely death thankfully there was Basie to continue on.

The example I gave yes it is a British dance band, Ambrose, the singer is American, Evelyn Dall, the music arrangement by either Sid Phillips or Bert Barnes, but as I say it's purpose was as a dance record hence it is almost strict tempo throughout. This was British swing before Glenn Miller.

Bluesnik, apart from Basie, can't you suggest another word for the style of the other bands you mention?

As a youngster I was mad keen on the Benny Goodman small groups, and saw them as chamber swing. If I had time I would get familiar with Goodman again.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

John, I think swing is an elastic enough concept, hence perhaps the futility of ever nailing it to one stylistic mast or era.

BN.

What was that Ellington said about pulling petals off a flower to see how its beauty works? Or was that Gertrude Stein!

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

And final point from me...

The great blues drummer, Freddie Below, the Blakey of the blues, started out in jazz and said he then had to completely rething his style to play...and swing... with 50s blues bands...still SWING, but different contexts.

BN.

[burning dog]

I agreee SA, change is to be welcomed and music should show awareness of new sounds, as you say, ideally giving more options of expression, but I don't think earlier jazz musicans were especially conscious of leading "the music" in a specific direction, as opposed to thier own developement or that of their immediate social group ( I beleive some WERE at times). Of course all output is influenced by wider Society and social-economic conditions etc. In a sense it is advocates of neo bop ( need not be true of the practitioners) who are more guilty of historicism than either of us IMHO !! Thinking that all roads (apart from the dead ends of Third Stream etc.) lead to Miles Q2 (and that even that was a bit too far for it's audience)

[Quarky]

John, I think swing is an elastic enough concept, hence perhaps the futility of ever nailing it to one stylistic mast or era.

BN.

What was that Ellington said about pulling petals off a flower to see how its beauty works? Or was that Gertrude Stein!

Many thanks for contributions to this thread - certainly given me something to think about and currently listening to Jimmy Red and Leroy Carr. The historical approach seems to work very well, and I think this thread is proving it IS possible to define what is "Swing". A pity the origins seem not be well documented. I hate to think what might have happened if "swing" had appeared in this day and age, with litigation about merchandising rights and IP rights being the order of the day.

Courtesy of IPKat, this is a discussion of legal rights in "House" music, for those with nothing better to do:

The evolutionary path which has led humans to respond to music is unclear. And judging by some people's physical responses to a bit of rhythm [you mean 'Dad' dancing at weddings then - Merpel], it is questionable whether the race has advanced much from its pithecanthropoid days. Everyone also has their favourite musical genre and many become extremely protective over it. Particularly when it is threatened with dilution by new ideas and trends.


The dance music industry is currently in the throes of tribalistic schism over who should be entitled to use the term 'house' to describe their music. To the uninitiated, every form of house music can be cacophonous but this particular Kat has been known to throw some shapes from time to time [though dancing on four limbs seldom looks elegant] and wondered if the IPKat might come to the rescue.

The auditory antagonism is brought about largely as a consequence of a recent increase in popularity of the house music genre in the United States (where ironically it tends to be called electronic dance music or EDM). Artists such as the Swedish House Mafia (SHM) (a group of three DJs) as well as David Guetta and Deadmau5 [mmm tasty] have played a significant part in that upward trend helped along by collaborations with more mainstream popstars jumping on the bandwagon, such as Tinie Tempah, Will.I.am and Kelly Rowland. Even Paris Hilton is having a go.

According to house music traditionalists, this rise of DJs from relative obscurity on the much smaller ‘underground’ house scene to commercial megastars has coincided with a change in their musical style - so much so that there is a question over whether what they now produce can even be called house music at all. The charge is that, where once the DJs would carefully craft a unique ‘set’ of tracks and mix them live for their exclusive audience, now the sets are pre-recorded and churned out time after time to synchronised fireworks in huge concerts. Is there anything then that the self-styled connoisseurs of house music can do to wrest back ‘their’ expression and return it to its pure form?

As a descriptive and non-distinctive term, 'house' has no registered protection for musical goods or services. However, the English common law tort of passing off recognises that a group of businesses may collectively share goodwill in such a term because if it were to be misappropriated then the goodwill would be diluted, resulting in an erosion of its attractive qualities. The businesses that rely on the expression to bring in custom will accordingly suffer loss as a direct consequence of the incorrect use. The case law which developed this form of extended passing off follows a bibitory theme and features champagne, sherry, whisky, advocaat and vodka (see, for example, IPKat post here). That might reflect the fact that alcoholic products have very clearly identifiable characteristics. Where the qualities of a genuine product are neither precise nor distinctive, it is unlikely that consumers will be deceived and therefore there can be no civil wrong or claim in passing off.



Putting to one side the goodwill for a moment, passing off requires the claimant to suffer economic loss and is therefore available only to those who actually trade. That means the bedroom DJs and mere fans can do little other than continue to eloquently [or not] express their vitriol online, probably by aligning with DJ Sneak, an experienced Chicago-house producer, who, judging by his tweets, clearly sees himself as the genre’s gatekeeper. In making his case against what he sees as pollution by mainstream artists, DJ Sneak points out that house music should be created from a love for and homage to the music and Djing craft rather than a focus on making a catchy ditty which can be plugged repeatedly and shared virally on social media.

Unfortunately for DJ Sneak and his minions, there is little consensus on what exactly is ‘house music’. Born in Chicago in the mid-1980s from disco, the definition is extremely broad. It generally features a drum beat of between 120 and 150 beats per minute, and has a synthesised and minimalistic electronic sound. That encompasses an incredibly broad variety of sub-genres and the average consumer may be able to discern varying degrees of mellifluence across the spectrum but will struggle beyond high-level classification. Even for those familiar with the industry, accurate terminology beyond this top tier frequently proves elusive and is rarely agreed upon. Indeed, at the micro level many artists will claim to have their own unique style personal to them, which defines their ‘brand’.

All of this indicates that house, like some great matriarch of musical taxonomy, functions as the umbrella term for a large number of sub-genre offspring. Everything in its family, including manufactured pop house and EDM, is still house. The parent may not like the sullying of its good name but the bastard child has inherited the same genetic code nonetheless and is simply establishing its own identity. And as a consequence, whilst the relevant public may not appreciate the slight differences between Chicago house, Detroit techno and EDM, it is likely that a substantial part will regard artists in all three genres as constituting 'house' music.

Like language, the nomenclature of musical genres will evolve naturally. Purists will object but relish the feeling of superiority in doing so. New adopters will remain indifferent. And just in case you were wondering, the IPKat's favourite tracks are played between 20kHz and 75kHz; so it’s just a shame you will never hear them.

History of house music here.
Little mouse music here.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think earlier jazz musicans were especially conscious of leading "the music" in a specific direction

In terms of the history, a relatively recent example has been cited in this thread: "Chameleon". Herbie Hancock relates how, at the time of its production, he had reached a stage of "recognising" that he would never be in the same league as musicians like Miles he had worked with, in terms of making a comparable impact or charting new directions, so he "only" went on to record what back then became biggest-ever selling jazz LP!

[burning dog]

He commented that his family and friends owned his records but he doubted they ever played them!

I'd regard that as his personal direction, influenced by the sounds around him (which refect "the times")as well as ..ahem economic factors

He was heading away from post bop anyway!

I'm a big fan of that stuff BTW


PS Standng in for Michael Jackson wasnt his strongest suit

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Nothing wrong with Historicism, Comrades...!

But Herbie's Vocoder should be executed as an enemy of the people...

BN.

[burning dog]

Nothing wrong with Historicism, Comrades...!

But Herbie's Vocoder should be executed as an enemy of the people...

BN.

BN See above