Sudhalter’s knowledge of and connection to Bix Beiderbecke were admirable, and I’m so glad he left us with this fascinating and very useful BBC special; It should really be more widely available. It plays like a concise mini-documentary about one of the most important figures from the early days of jazz, pop, and the intersection of both (Whiteman).
How the hell did I ever miss this first time around?! I would have been 15, and just getting into The Music big time. My uncle was nuts about Bix, and I remember listening to his records, so I guess I got the bug from him. From a time when the BBC produced content which was really worth watching. It seems a very long time ago, now.
Oh my gosh the interpretation of Bix playing Gershwins Concerto in F is stunningly fitting as to any previous rendition I have ever heard before ... forever !. It jumps and sings like no other, it has life and soul .Thanks Bix
Bix never played the Concerto in F! I'm not sure where that information comes from; maybe there's something I don't know - but the piece was way beyond Bix. He never learned to read music, for one thing, and the Concerto way way beyond Bix's technical abilities.
@@MrRezillo do you play a brass instrument ? why ask this ? because as a musician if so, you should know that with a few bars of practice even one that doesnt read music ,one can take a piece and play it by rote. Bix didnt read but went on to study under Whiteman. That doesnt mean to say I can guarantee it was Bix but not by your assessment. Way beyond ? Way Way beyond ? Wow sorry man, it appears to be personal with Bix and his musianship. Lets get technical ok ? His articulation ? Phrasing rythmnic interpretation / expression ? His and range ? His ability to emote the classical /modern Gershwin? Please inform me . R. Sudhalter is an author and excellant Cornettist in this you tube and you feel he has less information regarding history ?
@@oldtimedrumcorps I'm not sure why you made such a high handed response. Yes, I know, Bix was a gifted player. I didn't say he wasn't. I've studied and played his music for decades. Yes, he could "emote" Gershwin, no problem. Have you ever really listened to Rhapsody In Blue? Or the Concerto in F? I have, extensively. It takes nothing away from Bix's talents to say that these pieces were beyond his reach - technically. Interpretation, rhythm and phrasing, yes. Finger dexterity and articulation? As required by the big Gershwin pieces? I don't think so and have certainly heard no recorded evidence of it. I also play a bit of piano, BTW. I read Sudhalter's book a long time ago and have a number of his recordings. Did he say that Bix played these Gershwin symphonic pieces? Can you give me a reference? I've read several Bix biographies. None of them mentioned that he played these two pieces. You should listen carefully to Bix's recording piano music: In A Mist, basically, and "No Reason At All In C" and Big "Boy." Memory fails me, but he never recorded his other short piano pieces. Others did, after his passing. "Wow sorry man, it appears to be personal with Bix and his musianship." Kind of a nasty comment to make. I expected a bit more civility from fellow music lovers. I can only conclude that you haven't really listened to the Gershwin symphonic pieces enough before making the assessment of Bix's pianistic capabilities. I'm certainly open to someone else's opinion if anyone reading this cares to join in the discussion.
@@MrRezillo You may want to review the statement by R. Sudhalter " when Bix was asked " what was his (Beiderbeckes) outstanding performance ..." at 5:28. Appears to me you missed that bar . BTW , regarding your "open to opinions" it also appears your original post was written in a way to troll the waters . When it walks like a duck .... for me, this score has ended .
@@oldtimedrumcorps Yes, I did miss it - but Sudhalter was referring to the CORNET solo - a very different ball game than mastering the whole piano solo, which is what you seemed to be referring to and to which I responded. You neglected clarify that bit of info. As for me being a "troll". - fuck you and your name calling.
Mr. Tom Cash did NOT answer my question. His name in daily life was Tony. Very sad to read on Internet Tony Cash died in 2020 (86) - brain tumor. Tony R.I.P.
5:20 I disagree with that. Gershwin knew more about music theory than Bix and was a celebrated instrumentalist. (Not to discredit Bix' musicality in any way though)
I must be missing the point. Making music isn't a theory contest. I won't focus on the word "celebrated" because I doubt you'd want to defend it. What I would argue is that Bix is probably way ahead of Gershwin on a list of the greatest performers of the 20th century. So are Muddy Waters, B.B. King and the Beatles. So what? Gershwin is a great composer of American Standards. As is Irving Berlin, who had a specially made piano because he could only play in one key. * I once lived in a frat house with two piano players. The music major might have been technically better, but he was boring. His technique and theory were useless. The self-taught kid who improvised was amazing. You wanna play music or the piano? * This is true of classical musicians as well. We probably both prize accuracy. Alfred Cortot's Chopin recordings are legendary. So are the complaints about smudges and technical imperfections. But no one would care if they weren't amazing and because they are so amazing I don't care that much. Cortot is one of the most celebrated Chopin interpreters in history. And rightly so. He and Bix are magical.
@@mikem668 My point is that I think it is unjust to say Gershwin did not succeed in blending jazz and classical music, which is how I heard the quote. I love both Bix and Gershwin and Bix' contribution to the recording is lovely but I just don't think you should hail musical performers as geniuses and discredit others simply because they don't evoke the same emotions in you. Both Bix and Gershwin dedicated their lives to music
@@jazzygiraffe8589 I think we agree about a lot. We may have interpreted the remark differently, so I will focus on my own interpretation. I agree that many different kinds of music are of great value. And that those who devote their lives to art are worthy of admiration. I'm not sure I completely agree about emotional reactions. * Jazz was ill defined back in those days. It was also evolving. Bix playing with Whiteman is a later example. Earlier there was ragtime. Jazz? Or the Original Dixieland Jazz Band? Even military bands like James Reese Europe supposedly played jazz. And Al Jolson starred in The Jazz Singer. Great singer, not jazz. I think you and I have listened to a lot of older music. Yet while we hear differences, I'm not sure they cared. For one thing they were entertainers trying to make a living. *** As jazz was emerging, classical composers took note. Debussy - The Golliwog's Cakewalk - Eric Satie, Stravinsky. Charles Ives wrote 4 Ragtime Dances. Ironically, there's a Beethoven Bagatelle that sounds like ragtime. At least played by Glenn Gould. (I forget which one.) This mixing of "styles" included Louis Armstong playing with Jimmy Rodgers, and later either switching genres like Benny Goodman playing classical music or using classical harmony as inspiration like Charlie Parker. But back to the beginning. * Jazz coming out of New Orleans was often composed. Jelly Roll Morton, who played French opera, is said to have composed most of his work. Even jazz solos to some extent were "compsed" and not improvised on the spur of the moment. Though when it's polyphonic, I don't see how that could be. Anyway, jazz evolved from ensembles to soloist music. Armstong and Sidney Bechet being the two greatest early examples. Even if Potato Head Blues or Weatherbird are composed, they sound spontaneous. That is, they sound like what we think of as jazz. The Gershwin I've heard doesn't. But neither does a lot of average musicians in jazz/dance bands, white or black. That swing is special. Bix had it, and so did Django or Jimmy Dorsey, who influenced Lester Young. Bunny Berrigan has it in I Can't Get Started, even when it's buried under shmaltz. * A great example is Duke Ellington, a middle class kid from Washington, DC. Ellington's early band was said to be "square" based on its recordings. For a month, Bechet sat in. There are no recordings, but Bechet is said to have turned Johnny Hodges and the whole orchestra into what we love today. It don't mean a thing... * I believe emotion is very important. To me it's more important than pure technique. Some styles seem to be cold, even when played with tremendous virtuosity. The greats have it. They deliver emotion. IMO Armstrong is the greatest musician of the 20th century, including classical musicians. He changed both singing and jazz. He influenced classical trumpet players. To say he was a better performer than Gershwin or that Gershwin was a better composer isn't unjust to either of them. I started playing guitar again, and I'm struck by the humility and limitations of even the giants. Gershwin wrote much of the music that jazz musicians used as part of the foundations of their tradition, whether they used the melody or just the changes. That's a giant achievement.
@@mikem668 I hold in awe your knowledge and must voice my kudos to you for sharing all of this with me. Thank you. I too believe we hold very similar views on jazz music. Regarding emotions: Of course they are what makes one want to learn to play music, and those who hail a certain musical performance usually do it because it has an emotional impact on them. Personally, I try not to care about conveying emotions in the music I play. I just listen to what I like and put it together in new ways that I feel are natural. I try not to force emotions into my music just for the sake of inspiring the audience. Perhaps you wouldn't even disagree with that statement? As long as it's played with authenticity and is based on thorough study, any musical performance has something to be liked in it, imo. I like Bix's playing better than that of Armstrong, for example, because I never feel like he does something for the sake of showmansship.
@@jazzygiraffe8589 I think we agree. I don't like forced or emotion for the sake of emotion. I also agree that a colder or more intellectual or abstract style works. Monk has that quality, so does Lester Young compared to Coleman Hawkins. Although, though Young is cooler, you can hear Hawks brain working. * I played the trumpet as a kid. I hadn't heard the great Armstrong or Miles Davis until 10 years after I stopped playing. I wanted to be a music historian but shifted to art history because I didn't think my ear was good enough. I actually took a music theory class, doing my homework like I was doing geometry. Early in my jazz exploration, I ran into a theorist from the 30s who argued that players can be divided into Hot and Cold. Armstrong and Bix were the first example. Hawkins and Young another. Obviously this is an oversimplification. But it can be useful. All of the above are great musicians. * I spent a zillion hours listening to all kinds of music. I used to buy boxed sets of "complete" recordings. And researching its history. Just when you think you'll never hear another great musician, they show up. What's valuable is listening to classical music. I believe some pianists or violinists, say, are better than others. Why? You can compare them since they are playing the same pieces. I live near a world class music school that has free student recitals. I also have had friends who taught at major universities. All of them are very good. But you can hear the difference between players. What composer they play is different. For example, at a recital, sometimes international students will play a composer from their own tradition. Asian players tend to play the "greats." Or, because they are in the same class, they'll all play Brahm's say. It's hard not to compare. And they will all ultimately be compared. * Comparison is both unavoidable and problematic. But it helps to have people to discuss the relative "virtues" with. Thanks for the discussion.
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Sudhalter’s knowledge of and connection to Bix Beiderbecke were admirable, and I’m so glad he left us with this fascinating and very useful BBC special; It should really be more widely available. It plays like a concise mini-documentary about one of the most important figures from the early days of jazz, pop, and the intersection of both (Whiteman).
His biography of Beiderbecke is one of the best, most thorough documents of an artist I've read.
@@ronbo11 Good to know, thank you very much for passing that along, I will get a hold of that book.
The last tune, Singing The Blues is beautiful tune and had a gorgeous arrangement.
This arrangement was actually done by the Fletcher Henderson Orchestra and is probably out on youTube somewhere.
A truly remarkable work of love and brilliantly executed. Incredible really.
How the hell did I ever miss this first time around?!
I would have been 15, and just getting into The Music big time. My uncle was nuts about Bix, and I remember listening to his records, so I guess I got the bug from him.
From a time when the BBC produced content which was really worth watching. It seems a very long time ago, now.
Wow thank you for the upload. Fabulous documentary. What a superb group of musicians.
Giving the Rhythm Boys part to the trombones does work well.
Nice Eddie Lang lines going on around 9:20!
Superb program! Thanks for posting this.
Oh my gosh the interpretation of Bix playing Gershwins Concerto in F is stunningly fitting as to any previous rendition I have ever heard before ... forever !. It jumps and sings like no other, it has life and soul .Thanks Bix
Bix never played the Concerto in F! I'm not sure where that information comes from; maybe there's something I don't know - but the piece was way beyond Bix. He never learned to read music, for one thing, and the Concerto way way beyond Bix's technical abilities.
@@MrRezillo do you play a brass instrument ? why ask this ? because as a musician if so, you should know that with a few bars of practice even one that doesnt read music ,one can take a piece and play it by rote. Bix didnt read but went on to study under Whiteman. That doesnt mean to say I can guarantee it was Bix but not by your assessment. Way beyond ? Way Way beyond ? Wow sorry man, it appears to be personal with Bix and his musianship. Lets get technical ok ? His articulation ? Phrasing rythmnic interpretation / expression ? His and range ? His ability to emote the classical /modern Gershwin? Please inform me . R. Sudhalter is an author and excellant Cornettist in this you tube and you feel he has less information regarding history ?
@@oldtimedrumcorps I'm not sure why you made such a high handed response. Yes, I know, Bix was a gifted player. I didn't say he wasn't. I've studied and played his music for decades. Yes, he could "emote" Gershwin, no problem. Have you ever really listened to Rhapsody In Blue? Or the Concerto in F? I have, extensively. It takes nothing away from Bix's talents to say that these pieces were beyond his reach - technically. Interpretation, rhythm and phrasing, yes. Finger dexterity and articulation? As required by the big Gershwin pieces? I don't think so and have certainly heard no recorded evidence of it. I also play a bit of piano, BTW.
I read Sudhalter's book a long time ago and have a number of his recordings. Did he say that Bix played these Gershwin symphonic pieces? Can you give me a reference? I've read several Bix biographies. None of them mentioned that he played these two pieces. You should listen carefully to Bix's recording piano music: In A Mist, basically, and "No Reason At All In C" and Big "Boy." Memory fails me, but he never recorded his other short piano pieces. Others did, after his passing.
"Wow sorry man, it appears to be personal with Bix and his musianship." Kind of a nasty comment to make. I expected a bit more civility from fellow music lovers. I can only conclude that you haven't really listened to the Gershwin symphonic pieces enough before making the assessment of Bix's pianistic capabilities.
I'm certainly open to someone else's opinion if anyone reading this cares to join in the discussion.
@@MrRezillo You may want to review the statement by R. Sudhalter " when Bix was asked " what was his (Beiderbeckes) outstanding performance ..." at 5:28. Appears to me you missed that bar . BTW , regarding your "open to opinions" it also appears your original post was written in a way to troll the waters . When it walks like a duck .... for me, this score has ended .
@@oldtimedrumcorps Yes, I did miss it - but Sudhalter was referring to the CORNET solo - a very different ball game than mastering the whole piano solo, which is what you seemed to be referring to and to which I responded. You neglected clarify that bit of info. As for me being a "troll". - fuck you and your name calling.
1975 was the year I read "Bix , Man and Legend" . I first heard his music two years before on an old time jazz show on the radio .
Just found this. Many thanks for the posting. My father was a huge Bix fan and this explains the attraction beautifully.
Truly excellent
Mr. Tom Cash did NOT answer my question. His name in daily life was Tony.
Very sad to read on Internet Tony Cash died in 2020 (86) - brain tumor.
Tony R.I.P.
Thanks for posting!
Who are these musicians and are there any CDs of their work?
great, thanks for posting!
Terrific!
❤😂🎉
4:25
5:20 I disagree with that. Gershwin knew more about music theory than Bix and was a celebrated instrumentalist. (Not to discredit Bix' musicality in any way though)
I must be missing the point. Making music isn't a theory contest. I won't focus on the word "celebrated" because I doubt you'd want to defend it. What I would argue is that Bix is probably way ahead of Gershwin on a list of the greatest performers of the 20th century. So are Muddy Waters, B.B. King and the Beatles. So what? Gershwin is a great composer of American Standards. As is Irving Berlin, who had a specially made piano because he could only play in one key.
*
I once lived in a frat house with two piano players. The music major might have been technically better, but he was boring. His technique and theory were useless. The self-taught kid who improvised was amazing. You wanna play music or the piano?
*
This is true of classical musicians as well. We probably both prize accuracy. Alfred Cortot's Chopin recordings are legendary. So are the complaints about smudges and technical imperfections. But no one would care if they weren't amazing and because they are so amazing I don't care that much. Cortot is one of the most celebrated Chopin interpreters in history. And rightly so. He and Bix are magical.
@@mikem668 My point is that I think it is unjust to say Gershwin did not succeed in blending jazz and classical music, which is how I heard the quote. I love both Bix and Gershwin and Bix' contribution to the recording is lovely but I just don't think you should hail musical performers as geniuses and discredit others simply because they don't evoke the same emotions in you. Both Bix and Gershwin dedicated their lives to music
@@jazzygiraffe8589 I think we agree about a lot. We may have interpreted the remark differently, so I will focus on my own interpretation. I agree that many different kinds of music are of great value. And that those who devote their lives to art are worthy of admiration. I'm not sure I completely agree about emotional reactions.
*
Jazz was ill defined back in those days. It was also evolving. Bix playing with Whiteman is a later example. Earlier there was ragtime. Jazz? Or the Original Dixieland Jazz Band? Even military bands like James Reese Europe supposedly played jazz. And Al Jolson starred in The Jazz Singer. Great singer, not jazz. I think you and I have listened to a lot of older music. Yet while we hear differences, I'm not sure they cared. For one thing they were entertainers trying to make a living.
***
As jazz was emerging, classical composers took note. Debussy - The Golliwog's Cakewalk - Eric Satie, Stravinsky. Charles Ives wrote 4 Ragtime Dances. Ironically, there's a Beethoven Bagatelle that sounds like ragtime. At least played by Glenn Gould. (I forget which one.) This mixing of "styles" included Louis Armstong playing with Jimmy Rodgers, and later either switching genres like Benny Goodman playing classical music or using classical harmony as inspiration like Charlie Parker. But back to the beginning.
*
Jazz coming out of New Orleans was often composed. Jelly Roll Morton, who played French opera, is said to have composed most of his work. Even jazz solos to some extent were "compsed" and not improvised on the spur of the moment. Though when it's polyphonic, I don't see how that could be. Anyway, jazz evolved from ensembles to soloist music. Armstong and Sidney Bechet being the two greatest early examples. Even if Potato Head Blues or Weatherbird are composed, they sound spontaneous. That is, they sound like what we think of as jazz. The Gershwin I've heard doesn't. But neither does a lot of average musicians in jazz/dance bands, white or black. That swing is special. Bix had it, and so did Django or Jimmy Dorsey, who influenced Lester Young. Bunny Berrigan has it in I Can't Get Started, even when it's buried under shmaltz.
*
A great example is Duke Ellington, a middle class kid from Washington, DC. Ellington's early band was said to be "square" based on its recordings. For a month, Bechet sat in. There are no recordings, but Bechet is said to have turned Johnny Hodges and the whole orchestra into what we love today. It don't mean a thing...
*
I believe emotion is very important. To me it's more important than pure technique. Some styles seem to be cold, even when played with tremendous virtuosity. The greats have it. They deliver emotion. IMO Armstrong is the greatest musician of the 20th century, including classical musicians. He changed both singing and jazz. He influenced classical trumpet players. To say he was a better performer than Gershwin or that Gershwin was a better composer isn't unjust to either of them. I started playing guitar again, and I'm struck by the humility and limitations of even the giants. Gershwin wrote much of the music that jazz musicians used as part of the foundations of their tradition, whether they used the melody or just the changes. That's a giant achievement.
@@mikem668 I hold in awe your knowledge and must voice my kudos to you for sharing all of this with me. Thank you. I too believe we hold very similar views on jazz music.
Regarding emotions: Of course they are what makes one want to learn to play music, and those who hail a certain musical performance usually do it because it has an emotional impact on them.
Personally, I try not to care about conveying emotions in the music I play. I just listen to what I like and put it together in new ways that I feel are natural. I try not to force emotions into my music just for the sake of inspiring the audience. Perhaps you wouldn't even disagree with that statement? As long as it's played with authenticity and is based on thorough study, any musical performance has something to be liked in it, imo.
I like Bix's playing better than that of Armstrong, for example, because I never feel like he does something for the sake of showmansship.
@@jazzygiraffe8589 I think we agree. I don't like forced or emotion for the sake of emotion. I also agree that a colder or more intellectual or abstract style works. Monk has that quality, so does Lester Young compared to Coleman Hawkins. Although, though Young is cooler, you can hear Hawks brain working.
*
I played the trumpet as a kid. I hadn't heard the great Armstrong or Miles Davis until 10 years after I stopped playing. I wanted to be a music historian but shifted to art history because I didn't think my ear was good enough. I actually took a music theory class, doing my homework like I was doing geometry.
Early in my jazz exploration, I ran into a theorist from the 30s who argued that players can be divided into Hot and Cold. Armstrong and Bix were the first example. Hawkins and Young another. Obviously this is an oversimplification. But it can be useful. All of the above are great musicians.
*
I spent a zillion hours listening to all kinds of music. I used to buy boxed sets of "complete" recordings. And researching its history. Just when you think you'll never hear another great musician, they show up. What's valuable is listening to classical music. I believe some pianists or violinists, say, are better than others. Why? You can compare them since they are playing the same pieces. I live near a world class music school that has free student recitals. I also have had friends who taught at major universities. All of them are very good. But you can hear the difference between players. What composer they play is different. For example, at a recital, sometimes international students will play a composer from their own tradition. Asian players tend to play the "greats." Or, because they are in the same class, they'll all play Brahm's say. It's hard not to compare. And they will all ultimately be compared.
*
Comparison is both unavoidable and problematic. But it helps to have people to discuss the relative "virtues" with. Thanks for the discussion.
Bix is an LGBT icon.