Thoughts on Louis Armstrong

[crawjo]

Tonight I was going through and cataloging my record collection, starting with the 'A's, and I came to the Hot Five & Hot Seven Recordings. In the Jazz documentary, Ken Burns and Gary Giddins make these recordings out to be the greatest thing ever, and I often see Armstrong proclaimed as a musical genius, the greatest musician of the 20th century, etc. etc.

This might be sacrilege to say this, but uhm, is there anyone out there that thinks Armstrong is a little, I don't know, overrated? His influence on the music is obviously profound, but how would you say his work stands on its own? Does anybody here listen to Armstrong a lot, and if so, are there any particular favorites? I do like West End Blues, but I find his 'scat' singing just plain annoying. And for sheer emotive power on the trumpet, I think I'd take Miles Davis over anybody.

Also, how do you guys view his later career? Was he a mere "entertainer" rather than an artist? Did he play into negative racial stereotypes?

I realize I'm covering a lot of ground here, but in my month or so as a member of JC, I haven't seen anything about Armstrong, so I'm curious as to what people's take on him is.

[stonemonkts]

Originally posted by crawjo
Tonight I was going through and cataloging my record collection, starting with the 'A's, and I came to the Hot Five & Hot Seven Recordings. In the Jazz documentary, Ken Burns and Gary Giddins make these recordings out to be the greatest thing ever, and I often see Armstrong proclaimed as a musical genius, the greatest musician of the 20th century, etc. etc.

This might be sacrilege to say this, but uhm, is there anyone out there that thinks Armstrong is a little, I don't know, overrated? His influence on the music is obviously profound, but how would you say his work stands on its own? Does anybody here listen to Armstrong a lot, and if so, are there any particular favorites? I do like West End Blues, but I find his 'scat' singing just plain annoying. And for sheer emotive power on the trumpet, I think I'd take Miles Davis over anybody.

Also, how do you guys view his later career? Was he a mere "entertainer" rather than an artist? Did he play into negative racial stereotypes?

I realize I'm covering a lot of ground here, but in my month or so as a member of JC, I haven't seen anything about Armstrong, so I'm curious as to what people's take on him is.

For me Armstrong's music from his earliest days up to 1936 or so represents some of the finest CDs in my collection. There are probably 50 or so specific tracks that never fail to fill me with wonder and awe. He is one of a handful of jazz artists I can say this about, most captivate and delight me, but his music has the power to make me swoon, and transport me out of myself.
From that same period, Bix Beiderbecke is in the same league, IMO.

As far as overrated, perhaps his work post 1940 could be deemed as such, but his first ten years were nothing short of magic. It's all in the ear of the "behearer" I suppose.

I spin Armstrong for several hours each month without fail. His music has what I call the "Grand Canyon" effect. No matter how many times I turn to it, it always blows me away.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Pops' "Town Hall Concert 1948" with Jack Teagarden and Peanuts Hucko was the first album I ever bought as a kid, and it's still a favorite. He was a pioneer of the music, its first great stylist and star, and the first notable jazz vocalist. No, I don't think he 's overrated. (We have had this discussion here before, though: you're not the first to propose this heresy.)

Everybody digs Miles, of course, but I personally prefer both Dizzy and Louis.

[moneyp]

Originally posted by crawjo
This might be sacrilege to say this, but uhm, is there anyone out there that thinks Armstrong is a little, I don't know, overrated?

Rated, shmated. He is what he is and to you, he is whatever you perceive him to be.

Please keep in mind, those Hot Five/Seven recordings were done under obscenely primitive standards, with Louis standing well away from the Mike. Regardless, please compare similiar recordings of the era. If you find anyone as distinctive or powerful as Louis, I'd be curious to hear whom.

People here have listed some great latter day Satch. Steve, I agree with you in regards to Satch and Dizzy as opposed to Miles. Miles was a great player, but I get more of a charge out of his bands than I did out of hearing him play personally.

[SinginSumo]

Crawjo - I strongly recommend the DVD (or VHS) of "Satchmo" to you.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...925858-8599132

Gary Giddins once remarked that Louis Armstrong is the most underrated of all American musicians. I would agree that he is underrated, at least from the subjective point of view of how much his music means to me. For me, Armstrong is the very embodiment of jazz.

I am very attached to a lot of Armstrong recordings, and I listen to Armstrong as frequently as any other musician. I love the vast majority of everything that he recorded through the 1940s. The 1950s were also full of masterpieces, although there exists a huge body of (mostly live) recordings from the 50s and 60s of various levels of inspiration.

There is a distance of time, style, and recording technology that I imagine can be a barrier to someone who is approaching Armstrong for the first time after becoming familiar with modern jazz and beyond. All I can do is recommend some effort to overcome that barrier. The rewards are extraordinary.

[Pete C]

I think Armstrong is somewhat underrated because for years he was perceived, at least by the general public, as a "mere entertainer."

I think his thirties vocal sides for Decca are sublime.

Originally posted by John L
There is a distance of time, style, and recording technology that I imagine can be a barrier to someone who is approaching Armstrong for the first time after becoming familiar with modern jazz and beyond. All I can do is recommend some effort to overcome that barrier. The rewards are extraordinary.

An excellent point, John. I experienced this barrier at work when I was a disc jockey, and I recall wishing I had (to prove my point) a Cannonball Adderley recording (his group was hot at the time) made using acoustic or early electrical recording techniques.

[yardbird]

I know no other trumpet player with the such intense and personal sound - and have to support John L's advice to spend some time getting into Armstrong's music, especially the Hot 5s and 7s, but you'll find jewels from all decades.

Of trumpets in later generations, I think Clifford Brown would have come close, if he had lived more than 26 years.

[crawjo]

If Louis Armstrong is underrated, then he might be the most overrated underrated musician in history. He's like the Honus Wagner of baseball. For years, Wagner was underrated, and then historians started talking a lot about how underrated he was, and pretty soon everybody was saying how underrated he was, so he wasn't underrated anymore.

It may have been that at one time Armstrong was dismissed as an entertainer, but I can say, as someone who wasn't born until after he died, that this is never the impression I've gotten of his legacy. I think the work of Giddins, Burns, et al has changed that around forever, and so that now I routinely hear people say he's the greatest musical genius this country ever produced or something to that effect. The only things I've listened to are the Hot Fives and Hot Sevens, and also the W.C. Handy album. On the latter, I find a lot of inspiration in his trumpet playing, but the way he hams it up on the record irks me. I'm sure I do need to listen more, however.

In terms of emotive power, however, I'll take the playing of Davis over anyone, including Armstrong. I think Davis' body of work, taken in total, both in his playing and in his arranging and group leadership, surpass what Armstrong accomplished. But that's just what my ears are telling me.

[Pete C]

But without Pops, no Roy. Without Roy, no Diz. And without Diz, no Miles (regardless of how much they diverged).

[crawjo]

I should also add that Davis had a lot more to work with, because of the longer playing records that allowed him to express ideas that lasted beyond 3 minutes. For this reason, I think that modern jazz is better, because the technology allowed for more expansiveness, and I like expansiveness. (My favorite writer is Marcel Proust...Imagine if Proust had been limited to 100 pages, instead of 3,000.) It may well be that Armstrong would have taken even greater advantage of the longer playing record than Davis did, but from what I've heard, I think Miles's playing gets shortchanged sometimes, with people saying that he lacked the technical skills of Armstrong or Gillespie. I'm not a musician, and that might be true, but when I'm listening to music the most important thing for me is the emotion, the energy, the idea behind the sound, not the player's range (though these two often go hand in hand.) I guess I like my art a little rough around the edges, and Miles's playing kind of represents that for me.

[crawjo]

But without Pops, no Roy. Without Roy, no Diz. And without Diz, no Miles (regardless of how much they diverged).

True, but then you can say that for just about any foundational artist in any field. Without Balzac no Proust. Does that make Balzac a better writer than Proust? Without Manet, no Monet. Without Babe Ruth, no Barry Bonds.

Also, everybody has their influences, the question is what you do with them. Armstrong didn't just invent the music out of thin air. He, too, had to come from somewhere.

Originally posted by crawjo
Without Babe Ruth, no Barry Bonds.

???

As for Louis the entertainer, remember that jazz was entertainment when he came along--musicians dressed up and put on a show. Louis was a great all-around entertainer as well as a great musician, and he practically invented jazz singing, making the vocal an extension of the instrument. Some people, especially blacks in later years, were embarrassed by his wide eyes and expressive facial movements, shall we say. They associated that with the "tom-ing" of Hollywood stereotypes (Steppin Fetchit, et al), but I think Louis overcame such stigmas with sheer talent and personality. There was nothing stereotypical about his trumpet playing and singing.

[crawjo]

Sorry, should have explained that Bonds/Ruth thing a little more, or just left it out.

Babe Ruth basically invented the modern game of baseball as we know it: with the emphasis on power, drawing walks, swinging for the fences, striking out, etc. Prior to Ruth, the prevailing wisdom was that it was foolish to try to swing for the fences. Ruth changed all that, singlehandedly. Baseball since 1920 has been largely centered around the home run, and that's because of Ruth.

[Tom Storer]

I don't think Armstrong is currently "underrated," but apart from that I agree whole-heartedly with John's post. He's certainly not overrated. I don't think Armstrong's reputation is based solely on his influence or importance as a founding father. His music stands on its own very well, in my opinion. Like many jazz musicians from the earlier decades, he was an artist and an entertainer at the same time.

Apart from Armstrong, are you much of a fan of early jazz? I got into modern jazz and worked my way back to Louis; I didn't "get" music from the 20's and 30's right away, preferring well-recorded modern styles with their long, expressionistic solos and richly responsive rhythm sections. But when my ears became acclimated and I really heard the immense beauty and power of those Hot Fives and Sevens, I was floored. I still listen to his music from the 20's and 30's a lot, as well as the wonderful records he made with Ella Fitzgerald, and a few other things from the 50's.

I love his singing. ALL his singing. He could sing the yellow pages and make it sound great.

As for playing into negative racial stereotypes, I don't know - some think so, but I've always been so subjugated by his radiant personality that it never struck me that way. In any case I'm not about to pass judgment on how a black man born at the turn of the last century negotiated his success in a violently racist society.

• Since I was a European, living in Europe when I first became aware of (and started collecting) Louis Armstrong, the notion of stereotype did not enter the picture. That's an American thing, and not until I moved here, in 1957, did I see Louis from that angle. Even so, it just did not occur to me, at first, that his stage demeanor might be offensive or embarrassing to some. I say stage demeanor, because--contrary to what some believed--Louis did not run around popping his eyes wide open. I recall a dreadful made--for-tv, mid-70s ABC movie that purported to be biographical; in it, Ben Vereen portrayed Louis, grinning and rolling his eyes throughout.

[clinthopson]

Uh, you are mistaken, my friend.

Listen carefully to Louis on "WIld Man Blues" or "Sunday Date" in the context of the time and you should realize his greatness.

Sure he was an entertainer, but also a jazz giant who not only defined jazz trumpet but also jazz singing.

I saw him a number of times both in clubs and in concerts and he always entertained me with his stage performance and thrilled me with his playing and singing.

I feel that too many critics put down his later work but I have always enjoyed his All-Stars performances and his work with Ella and Oscar Peterson.

And as far as your contention about Bonds I have one question: how good do you think Babe Ruth or Willie Mays would have been if they were pumped up on steroids?

Nice posts, Tom and Chris.

We should also keep in mind that, when push came to shove, Louis Armstrong was always ready to take a stand on civil rights issues that goes beyond what most of his "critics" were willing and able to do. He proved this especially during the Governor Faubus scandal, when he publicly referred to President Eisenhower as "gutless" and refused to participate in a State Department sponsored tour of Russia because "when the people over there ask me what's wrong with my country, what am I supposed to say?" Furthermore, when his road manager tried to apologize for this statement the next day on behalf of Armstrong, Pops became furious and refused to retract anything. He never gave into the continual pressure on this issue, not even partially.

How many other prominent African American entertainers were taking stands like that back in the 50s? What was Miles doing, for example?

They say that when President Nixon invited Louis Armstrong to the White House in the 1970s, his response was "fuck that shit."

Louis Armstrong may have continued some stage traditions that dated back to minstrelsy. After all, he was from that era. But he was certainly no Uncle Tom. His basic human principles were rock solid.

[crawjo]

I don't know Clint, how good would Barry Bonds be if he only had to face white pitchers?

[crawjo]

I might be mistaken on this, but didn't Louis Armstrong tour the South playing for segregated audiences?

Did Miles Davis ever do that?

[crawjo]

Uh, you are mistaken, my friend.

Listen carefully to Louis on "WIld Man Blues" or "Sunday Date" in the context of the time and you should realize his greatness.

Where am I mistaken? I am quite certain that Louis Armstrong was a great trumpet player. That does not, however, preclude the possibility that he is also overrated.

[Uli]

Originally posted by crawjo
That does not, however, preclude the possibility that he is also overrated.

No, it doesn't. That's when all the rating experts come in handy.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Originally posted by Uli
No, it doesn't. That's when all the rating experts come in handy.

As well as the Rating Expert Raters, without whom we would have no way of rating the raters and would in effect have unrated ratings, and these would be indistinguishable from mere opinions.

[crawjo]

Even so, it just did not occur to me, at first, that his stage demeanor might be offensive or embarrassing to some. I say stage demeanor, because--contrary to what some believed--Louis did not run around popping his eyes wide open.

Chris,

Doesn't that make it even worse? I mean, if that's not the type of person Louis really was, then what does it say that he played this role for primarily white audiences? His stage demeanor did play into a lot of white stereotypes about black people, and considering Louis's prominent exposure to white audiences, I can very easily see why a lot of blacks would be offended by him. I think that I do have a problem with it if he's making a conscious decision to put on this act so that he can make himself a better entertainer (as opposed to a better artist.) The latter is about the integrity of an individual's artistic vision, the former is about making money.

Also, he gets a lot of credit for refusing to go on the State Department's tour of the Soviet Union, but at the same time he did go on a State Dept sponsored tour of Africa. I don't know. He doesn't get many points in my book for civil rights.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Concerning the music, we listen to Armstrong with modern ears. Many of his innovations were incorporated into American music decades ago. You have to do the difficult, try to put Armstrong in context with what was going on at the time. Listen to the music from a historical approach. It's difficult because most people do not (and it's not a requirement) listen to music for historical purposes. But if you're trying to evaluate a musician's place in history you've got to do a lot of listening.

Concerning the image: Chris and I have talked about this a couple of times. I'm black, born in 1956. The only Armstrong I knew was the one I saw on TV. I couldn't stand his stage act as a child "of the '60s", and even today, knowing what I know about Armstrong, his upbringing, the era in which he had to perform, his stage act is still hard for me to take. I think the majority of his white fans have a hard time understanding this feeling. It's like Sammy Davis, Jr. hugging Nixon. In the real scheme of things it's harmless, but damn it just looks bad.

[Tom Storer]

Darryl, I don't have a hard time understanding that feeling. I just don't think I'm in any position, personally, to moralize at all about Armstrong's choices, let alone his "artistic integrity."

Crawjo, I don't know if your integrity is ever put to the test the way I imagine that of a successful black celebrity was in the pre-civil rights era. That's personal integrity I'm talking about. As for artistic integrity, I don't think Louis Armstrong needs to worry.

I once saw an extract from the Perry Como show where Armstrong was a guest. After his band played a number Como joined him in center stage. Armstrong was grinning and engaging in the simple-minded banter that everyone engages in on TV shows like that, and I suppose if you wanted to say that was playing into racial stereotypes you could, but in that instance I just saw a hard-working musician doing the usual dumb-ass TV thing like many a white performer would have done. But he was black, so grinning for the camera had an extra connotation which I'm not sure I'd indict him for.

Anyway, Perry Como and Louis Armstrong launched into a duet. Seeing them standing next to each other singing was like watching a hurricane blow down a house of cards; it was like watching a lion next to a sick kitten. Every note Como sang was trivial, meaningless, less than weightless, empty; every note Armstrong sang was intensely full of feeling, personality and yes, art. Como was an annoyance, and Armstrong's thrilling presence made him look startlingly out of place on that stage. I don't remember what piece of fluff song they were singing, but the commercial constraints did not dilute the artistic integrity; on the contrary, Armstrong's art made the commercial constraints irrelevant.

[Sergio Zamora]

It seems like the ole' "Pops was Overrated" thread gets started every once few years. Not something I get into, because it's usually a matter of perception.

One thing I disagree with is the false dichotomy of artist and entertainer. Certainly, Armstrong was both. In fact, Armstrong was first an entertainer. That he developed his artform to such an elevated and sublime level within the context of entertainment is an amazing feat.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Tom,

Actually I'm not moralizing. As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder what I would've done in the same situation. Born into grinding poverty, no visible opportunities to better myself, and I'm given this amazing gift that makes me wealthy beyond my own dreams. On top of that, I earn the admiration of an audience that's pre-deposed to hate me and my ilk. I may have done the same thing.

What I am discussing is my reaction to an stage act. I have similar reactions to some of the mindless sit-coms on the WB or UPN networks. Or Jimmy Walker on "Good Times". Maybe I'm mirroring the attitues of my parents who were both born under similar circumstances that Armstrong was, in 1914 and 1915, who couldn't stand his act to.

What I do with Armstrong is the same thing I've done with Miles. I do my best to ignore some of the unsavororay (for me) aspects of their personas and admire the talent.