THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

Evening Star, Issue 22336, 12 May 1936, Page 13

THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

[By L.D.A.] Music gives lone to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, a charm to sadness, gaiety and life to everything.—Plato. Looking at the music column in Ihe Wellington ‘ Dominion ’ the other- day, my eye was caught by the sub-headings; ‘ Rhythm—The New Vogue,’ by “ Swing Bass.” Naturally, I was intrigued to knowwhat this “ now vogue ” might bo, also what lay behind the pseudonym, “ Swing Bass.” Partial enlightenment came speedilj-. The term “ Swing Bass ” means the left-hand accompaniment to what is called “ swing music,” hut it was some time before 1 lit upon any definition of “ swing music,” and oven now I am by no means sure about it—which is hardly surprising, seeing that the people who ought to be able to define it are not agreed amongst themselves. The only thing certain is that it is alleged to be some new form of dance music—the “ new vogue,” in fact. “Swing Bass” himself has only the haziest notion of the matter, because after stating that “ Definitions of jazz and ‘ swing music ’ have never been satisfactorily fixed,” he quotes from an American paper as follows; “ Jazz addicts . . . have been utterly unable so far to agree on defining the terms of their cult. . _ . . The jazz cult splits on tho question of whether credit for the development of ‘ swing music ’ must be given to white men ... or black men.” But at all events, “ Swing Bass,” by his expression, “ jazz and ‘ swing music,’ ” certainly differentiates between the two; one gathers that, in his mind, they are not one and the same thing. For a day or two I pondered tho matter. Of course, I developed some ideas of my own on the subject. Could it he, I asked myself, that “ swing music ” is what they play at hangings? Is there, after all, some tangible connection between music and murder?— and I immediately conjured up a possible news headline of the future: AUDIENCE APPLAUDS CROONER’S EXECUTION! » * * « A few days later, quite by chance, I opened a copy of the London ‘ Radio Times.’ and there, staring me in the face, was an article headed: 1 What is This “ Swing Music ”? ’—the writer of which immediately answers his own question thus: “There is nothing new about it. ‘ Swing Music ’ is just jazz—iazz in its purest and most essential form.” That seems plain enough, doesn’t it? The writer is said to he an authority, too, and a leading personage in the dance music world, for he is Leonard Hibbs, and he edits a dance magazine called ‘ Swing Music.’ So when he says quite definitely and distinctly at the commencement of his article that “ swing music ” is “ just jazz,” naturally wo accept his word for it, as coming from a man who ought to know. But here’s the snag: After a column or two of dithyrambs concerning jazz, Leonard suddenly forgets what he wrote in his first paragraph, and staggers ns by this unexpected recantation: “No words of mine can say just what 1 swing music’ is.”!!!

I am not easily surprised, but this naive confession. I must own. fairly took the wind out of my sails: it makes confusion worse confounded. These dance music authorities contradict themselves and one another to an extent that leaves the poor “ straight ” music “ addict ” high and dry and gasping. ’E dunno where ’e are, in fact. First we have the ‘ Dominion ’ scribe, who implies that jazz and “ swing music ” are two different forms ; then Leonard Hibbs makes them one—unites them, as it were, in unholy cacophony, only almost immediately to put them asunder—to enter, so to speak, a plea of nullity, on tho grounds of non-recognition of the swinging partner. Talk about the swing of the pendulum! Well, well; it's all very perplexing, and when we read more statements and assertions by various Pooh Balls in tho domain of dance music we find ourselves getting still further out of our depth—-or is it they who flounder? Let us see.

Says Leonard Hibbs : “ Jazz lias contributed at least one vital thing to music.” [Perhaps he means “ fatal.”] “ I refer to the ‘ hot ’ chorus, which is a .spontaneous, inspired solo that cannot be written down ; its very character defies notation.” (So does that of the cat's song; on the tiles.) Says Maurice Winnick: “ After a careful analysis, covering a period of years, I have come to the conclusion that at least 85 per cent, of the listening public do not like ‘ hot ’ music. _ It seems to me that a dance leader’s job is not to perform acrobatics of technique or distortion of melody, but to play to his public. Working on this principle, my policy is to eliminate 1 not ’ music completely, and to give a straightforward rendering of melody.” If Maurice Winnick is right, this “vital thing” contributed to music by jazz-—i.c., this so-called “hot” music, which is so inspired that it “ cannot bo written down,” may after all he written down ns being merely aerobatics of technique and distortion of melody.

I ought to have made it clear that Maurice Wimiick is a leading dance band conductor in London.

I'n the same issue of the ‘ .Radio Times ’ we find S. B. Mais inquiring plaintively “ why should the ordinary man have to defend his liking for dance music ” Why, indeed? The answer is partly supplied by Mais himself, who, a little further on, says: “If dance music is not ‘ love fodder.’ what is It is the haunting refrain and the girl in our anus that count.” Exactly. Especially the latter. So we are not surprised to read, still in that same issue, this opinion of Eric Maschwitz, the 8.8. C. variety director: “Jazz, if it is to remain entertaining, badly needs a breath of fresh air.” Hear, hear! But I have still more views to quote. From Leonard Hibbs: “The beauty of jazz is not so much in the generally maudlin melodies, but in the improvisations they evoke.” * * * * Those are the exact words of the editor of 1 Swing Music,’ with my own emphasis. He admits the tunes are maudlin, but lays stress on the resultant “ improvisations.” What does he mean by the word “ improvisation ” in this connection? We are told, in the American extract quoted by ‘ Swing Bass,’ that “ improvisation means playing a melody as it is not written ” evidently an allnsian lo “ hot ” melody, which is not written because it can’t he writ leu.

And, again, Leonard Bibbs: “ Where others seo the tawdriest of tinsel—i-e., in “ Swing ” music—we can sec the pur© gold. We find varied delights in what is for the majority, the superficial sameness of ‘swing!’ ” 'Die italics are mine, but the thing to note is that here we have the editor of a prominent dance publication telling us what we all know—that the majority of people find nothing but sameness "in jazz, alias “swing” music.

Another well-known musician, Fine Coates, has the following to say in that same ‘ Radio Times ’: “ With regard to present-day dance tunes ... I find it disappointing that manv of them are nothing more than poor imitations of previous numbers, allied to nauseating and illiterate words.” How can it be otherwise when we learn how these dance tunes arc manufactured ? Listen to Henry Hall (still quoting from the ‘ Radio Times ’) : “ 1 have completed four years of broadcasting dance music, and have performed 7,000 numbers each year--28,000 new numbers in all. _ The strain of providing these is considerable, as each programme means hours of rehearsal. A group of arrangers is constantly working at high pressure to produce the endless supply of new tunes demanded by dance bands.” lon see, it is “ arrangers ” who are employed, not composers; and this accounts blithe continual stream of so-called now “ hits,” which are simply old tunes turned upside down. And these require “ hours of rehearsal.”

When Eric Maschwitz said that jazz badly needs a breath of fresh air, what he really meant was that it needs a batch of fresh airs.

But I haven’t quite done with quoting from the ‘ Radio Times.’ Here is another welPknown dance band conductor, Chalmers Wood, who makes this startling statement: “ i’m afraid L don't worry about the dancing fans as such. I’ve made extensive inquiries, and liar© yet to meet anyone who actually dances to radio music.” There’s a nasty one lor you! And yet we are told that the BB.C. is now providing 10 programmes a week played by dance bands in addition to several sessions dailv of dance music gramophone records. On the whole I am inclined to think that our New Zealand broadcasting service is a lot better than the radio fare in Britain.