Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Wednesday, November 09 2011 @ 11:21 AM CST

Quote by: TobinMueller Quote by: michaeljayklein I don't know the titles offhand, being at work right now, but for answers to these questions and others, some biographies I've read regarding Armstrong, Ethel Waters, Duke Ellington, Bill Robinson (dancer),Bert Williams(comedian) and--a bit later, Lena Horne, shows they all were given the "Tom" label by a later generation--this despite the fact that these entertainers truly broke new grounds and acceptance with white audiences for black artists without losing (and more significantly, refusing to lose) any of their integrity. My reading is slightly different. Yes, it was the "later" generation that labeled him, but it happened at the height of his popularity among the white audience. It started in the late fifties, when a new generation of black jazz cats were making a case that jazz was black music, that black musicians should (and, in some cases needed to) fight white discrimination by forming all-black bands, and calls to not play with white jazz musicians. In a reaction against white discrimination, several black-owned clubs refused to let white musicians play. Louie Armstrong didn't discriminate and had white players in his band. His band was banned from playing in a few places. He refused to return to these towns. Thus, they labeled him an Uncle Tom, because, to them, he wasn't black-loyal enough. (But I also think some of it had to do with the new black-centric musicians' frustration that Armstrong didn't embrace their free-form jazz, and, on certain levels, the "old jazz" sound kind of embarrassed them, spoke to a social era they were trying to reform.) The label stung him. He was music-loyal. The first jazz musician. One of the inventors (if the THE inventor) of swing. Not only a great innovative trumpet player, but the most influential jazz vocalist that ever lived. An all-time great.

One thing almost ALL of these break through black artists faced was castigation from the black press and the NAACP, who, rather contrarily, also championed these artists' efforts. For example, Ethel Waters became perhaps the first black artist to become a name on Broadway when she starred in the Irving Berlin musical, "As Thousands Cheer". She was a huge critical and commercial success and the black press, NAACP and other groups lauded her for this achievement.

Then the show played in the south and was booked for an whites only theater (this was not known to Waters until the night of the show--and she was contractually obligated to appear or risk being dismissed from the cast). Just about all the black leaders and organizations, as well as the black press, put her under fire for that (even though Waters, out of her own pocket, put on a show at an all black theater in the same town, performing her dramatic scenes and songs in the show free of charge--nobody seemed to care about this part).

Duke Ellington, Lena Horne and a couple of others that I'm familiar with, had more or less this same experience during the height of their careers, so this sort of thing has been around for quite a long time--long before the 60s really.

[EDIT: The Ethel Waters story is from her biography "Heat Wave", which is currently still on the book store shelves--came out a few months ago I think

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Wednesday, November 09 2011 @ 08:10 PM CST

My thread was hijacked. The discussion was interesting. The point I was making was a bit different, and had a contemporary frame.
Thanks for your input fellas. Armstrong's stand on social issues cost him a great deal during his life. James Brown's concert in Boston after MLKs murder, if you think about for a minute, was courageous, and unequaled in American history.
IMHO Armstrong, and James Brown, are good examples for our shill dominated society, both payed a price for their actions. Never got close to that rap...

Daug

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Wednesday, November 09 2011 @ 08:54 PM CST

I don't give a Flying F*** what this one or that one said about Satchmo — no more than I care to hear about all the political views that fly around this place. Opinions are largely worthless representations of our self-aggrandizing egos.

All that counts is Louis' musical legacy. It speaks for itself. True genius.

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 08:28 AM CST

Quote by: J.A.Stewart I don't give a Flying F*** what this one or that one said about Satchmo — no more than I care to hear about all the political views that fly around this place. Opinions are largely worthless representations of our self-aggrandizing egos. All that counts is Louis' musical legacy. It speaks for itself. True genius.

Just for clarification, I shared recorded and reliable biographic history, no opinions about anything really. I think I am entitled to do so as I'm probably, just maybe, the ONLY one on this site that has a very extensive knowledge of artists like Armstrong and others from his era. Thank you!!!!!!!

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 11:19 AM CST

Quote by: michaeljayklein Quote by: J.A.Stewart I don't give a Flying F*** what this one or that one said about Satchmo — no more than I care to hear about all the political views that fly around this place. Opinions are largely worthless representations of our self-aggrandizing egos. All that counts is Louis' musical legacy. It speaks for itself. True genius. Just for clarification, I shared recorded and reliable biographic history, no opinions about anything really. I think I am entitled to do so as I'm probably, just maybe, the ONLY one on this site that has a very extensive knowledge of artists like Armstrong and others from his era. Thank you!!!!!!!

I was actually referring to the "historical" detractors cited by various people in this thread, Michael. There are always detractors, who have their own interests and agendas at heart. I appreciate artists for their work — not their politics or beliefs.

That ability to separate out artists from their politics — and/or from their religious beliefs, sexual preferences, personal behavior, etc. — enables me to appreciate a much broader spectrum of artists. We all have our demons... and shortcomings, but it is rare that any of those are legitimate criteria for judging an artist's work.

As far as knowledge of the era's artists, I don't have the same passion for it as you do, but I do have a curious interest in artists of all eras, of their circumstances and experiences that led them to follow their Muses and develop their skills.

Regarding Satchmo, I know that he was an inspiration to a young Bing Crosby, whose own personal interpretation of Armstrong's style of jazz helped usher it into the white mainstream. And when Bing became a movie star, he used his clout to break the color line in the movies and bring Satchmo to the screen. Crosby's passion for the music made him, at least to some extent, color-blind. I think there's a broader lesson to be learned from that approach.

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 11:34 AM CST

Quote by: J.A.Stewart Quote by: michaeljayklein Quote by: J.A.Stewart I don't give a Flying F*** what this one or that one said about Satchmo — no more than I care to hear about all the political views that fly around this place. Opinions are largely worthless representations of our self-aggrandizing egos. All that counts is Louis' musical legacy. It speaks for itself. True genius. Just for clarification, I shared recorded and reliable biographic history, no opinions about anything really. I think I am entitled to do so as I'm probably, just maybe, the ONLY one on this site that has a very extensive knowledge of artists like Armstrong and others from his era. Thank you!!!!!!! I was actually referring to the "historical" detractors cited by various people in this thread, Michael. There are always detractors, who have their own interests and agendas at heart. I appreciate artists for their work — not their politics or beliefs. That ability to separate out artists from their politics — and/or from their religious beliefs, sexual preferences, personal behavior, etc. — enables me to appreciate a much broader spectrum of artists. We all have our demons... and shortcomings, but it is rare that any of those are legitimate criteria for judging an artist's work. As far as knowledge of the era's artists, I don't have the same passion for it as you do, but I do have a curious interest in artists of all eras, of their circumstances and experiences that led them to follow their Muses and develop their skills. Regarding Satchmo, I know that he was an inspiration to a young Bing Crosby, whose own personal interpretation of Armstrong's style of jazz helped usher it into the white mainstream. And when Bing became a movie star, he used his clout to break the color line in the movies and bring Satchmo to the screen. Crosby's passion for the music made him, at least to some extent, color-blind. I think there's a broader lesson to be learned from that approach.

Thanks JA--and I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure Bing was the very first white artist to record with black artists (i.e., the Mills Brothers and of course Armstrong) which doesn't sound very impressive today, but was quite a huge risk on Crosby's part (you KNOW the record labels didn't want him to do that--believe me!).

Armstrong inspired MANY people--including me! The very first recording I remember hearing was his "Hello Dolly". I fell in love with that song at age 4 and wore out 8 copies of it according to my mom. I didn't realize it at the time, but my taste in music was forever sealed and I've enjoyed that style of music ever since--I also truly doubt I'd have learned piano if not for that introduction at a young age.

Michael

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM CST

I don't care what tag got hung on him. When I hear his rendition of Wonderful World I just get all messed up. Something about that song seems to bring people together.

One night while having dinner at The Palace Cajun in Santa Barbara they played this and handed out the words to every table and got the entire restaurant singing. After it was done this one girl got up and said, give your neighbor a hug and hugs went down the line until everyone in the restaurant had bonded as human beings for just a moment. Pretty special.

Been back a few times and they've done the song but it hasn't had the same effect as it did that one night.

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 05:36 PM CST

Two great artists at their best. One made jazz singing popular and the other practically invented jazz.

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 07:33 PM CST

Graham, Satchmo smoked lots of weed. I mean LOTS of weed. Some time after a recording session where they waxed "Hello Dolly", while he and his band were in Spain, audiences were clamoring for them to play the song at their concerts. The record had become a hit around the world and they hadn't realized it! The problem was, they had been SO STONED when they originally recorded it, they had to get a copy of it and memorize what they had played on the disc. In fact, Armstrong contended later that he barely remembered recording the song in the first place!

Also, he was very fond of this particular brand of laxative. He swore "keeping regular" was the key to good health and even sent out Christmas cards one year depicting him sitting on the toilet holding up a bottle of this stuff, whatever it was. Whatta guy![/QUOTE]

Splendid!

Re:Louis Armstrong classic!
Thursday, November 10 2011 @ 07:41 PM CST

I agree Armstrong was supremely gifted. He also seems to have been a "good" man, by all contemporary accounts, who achieved many things despite his difficult start in life. James Brown perhaps was a trouble man who rose to the opportunity when MLK was murdered, his actions have been sited as instrumental in stopping violence in Boston after MLKs murder. Character counts. I disagree with the notion of separating the artist from the work, as if the music exists independently of the creator.
My point was both men stood against forces in our country who wanted to use them, because they were popular figures on the national music scene, to further their social/political agenda, and paid a price for that choice.

Daug