Talk:Louis Armstrong
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Louis Armstrong is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Louis Armstrong is the king,
-
Practically invented swing,
-
Hero of the twentieth century.
-
Did duets with many a fella,
-
Father Hines, Bing, Hoagy, Ella,
-
Strange he never thought of Kenny G.
-
- "I agree with Pat Metheny (http://www.music3.com/kennyg_and_jazz.htm)" - Richard Thompson
The article is now *much* improved, IMHO. --Robert Merkel
The section on "Was Armstrong an Uncle Tom?" is interesting but slightly non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic in style. For a start, it would be good to identify those who labelled him one.
I knew it was pushing it, which is why I put it in the summary, which I just did again.
I felt the Uncle Tom accusation was such a common perception|misperception that it had to be dealt with. The quickie version of his career is "from artist to irrelevant cartoon". Downbeat magazine complained about the Zulu king bit. I have a couple of URLs on the rest of it I'll add soon.
I tried to keep the arguments neutral "he was born in the south in 1901" so people could put 2+2 together. also the Little Rock statement belongs, so only the Miles Davis quote is a bit of a stretch and basically unattributed (but wow).
I think of kids doing term papers. Lots of encyclopedias have sidebars where they take up interesting issues.
- Just to clarify (I'm the one who commented on the Uncle Tom issue, sorry for not signing), I agree that it is highly relevant to the article. I just felt that that section was too close to an argument rather than description of facts and opinions. --Robert Merkel
-- I thought it was the same person, which is why I left your compliment in when I took out the other stuff (but I just now put back the Pat Metheny bit).
My thought on the Uncle Tom section -- here are points to be discussed about Armstrong -- I tried not to be offensive about his act (obviously an admirer, but it was corny to say the least) and I tried to mention some items that put the thought in context -- it was entertainment after all, and old-timey at that, he did speak out at least once, and Miles Davis of all people stuck up for him. I really tried not to make an overt argument. Maybe you or someone else will come up with a better way to handle it, but that's my best shot, so if it's up to me, I'm keeping it. Thanks for your interest. Ortolan88
"Oliver's band brought New Orleans style ensemble jazz to the attention of a wide public for the first time, and Armstrong blossomed. The Armstrong-Oliver recordings of 1923 were the first jazz most of the world had ever heard. "
I changed this because, alas, it is not true. Outside of Chicago and New Orleans, the Oliver Creole Jazz Band recordings attracted little notice at the time other than in a circle of "in the know" musicians. They sold in tiny amounts compared to the recordings of other groups of the time like the Original Dixieland Jass Band and Paul Whiteman. They are important as doccumenting this band that had an important influence on other musicians in Chicago, who then spread this influence widely. -- Infrogmation
- So you took out the black bands because the white bands sold more. The ODJB was important (I wrote most of the article on them), but Paul Whiteman was a fraud and his orchestra played nothing like jazz. I will be replacing these paragraphs after some additional research. Musical influence is much more important than record sales. Ortolan88
- "Musical influence is much more important than record sales." I agree completely! Don't misconstrue what I said. The earlier version said "Armstrong-Oliver recordings of 1923 were the first jazz most of the world had ever heard." This is wrong; most of the world unfortunately did not hear them at all. I wish they did! But alas in the early '20s the public at large were first hearing jazz (or commercial products marketed as "jazz") from the likes of Whiteman, Ted Lewis, Red Nichols... and even for African American bands, groups like Wilber Sweatman and Johnny Dunn were selling more records at the time. That's why I changed the paragraph. -- Infrogmation.
78 collectors know that "scat" singing was recorded a number of times before Armstrong's "Heebie Jeebies" (including by Red Nichols a few years earlier and by Gene Greene in the 1910s).
The trumpet was a lead instrument in jazz before Armstrong; the trumpet or cornet was the usual lead instrument in the early New Orleans style. Armstrong's stylistic change was to make it a soloing instrument.-- Infrogmation
I cut the sentance "He learned music in a reform school." since that understates the importance of what he learned from older musicians, and the subject is dealt with in more detail further down in the article. -- Infrogmation 18:39 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I removed the misinformation just added alledging the Armstrong was born in Storyville. (Jane Alley is a good distance from the District). -- Infrogmation 23:18 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
I know nothing of Tad Jones's research, but if the only source for Armstrong's "actual" birthdate is "church documents from when his grandmother took him to be baptised", then I think there is still room for a bit of doubt. I once phoned up a relative of mine to wish her a happy birthday, having found her date of birth (21st Jan 1919) on a transcription of her baptism record in the OIOC. But she replied that it wasn't her actual birthday for another four days: she kept 21st Jan as her "official" birthday (written on forms and so on), because that was the date she had documentation for, but she had been told by her parents that she was actually born on 25th Jan, the priest having made an error when he filled it in on the baptism record. -- Oliver P. 20:31 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
- The Catholic Baptismal documentation was the "smoking gun", but Jones has uncovered quite a bit of other collaborative evidence; at one of the New Orleans International Music Colloquiums a couple of years ago Jones gave an hour long lecture on Armstrong's birthdate alone. As far as I know, all the serious Armstrong and early jazz scholars accept this. Perhaps we need a seperate article on Armstrong's birthday? It seems the subject that keeps getting the most attention here. -- Infrogmation 22:36 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, that's why I changed it to "currently accepted". :) I must admit that I'm terribly uncultured, and more interested in boring old facts like dates and things than in his music... -- Oliver P. 00:50 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Armstrong's Date of Birth
According to various Web sites, researcher Tad Jones found Louis Armstrong's baptismal record at Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, 139 South Lopez Street Street in New Orleans. I have examined many such records, and they are generally accepted to be accurate. They are obviously accurate as to the date of baptism. It is possible, of course, that the priest was given the wrong date of birth, or that he wrote it down wrong. But this is possible with any document. For my money, short of viewing a copy of this document myself, I'd go with the date reported by Jones. Regards, Peter J. Curry, e-mail: ka2ttu@aol.com
...transformed jazz from barrelhouse dance music into a popular art form.
I had no idea what 'barrelhouse' meant. So I looked it up at m-w:
1 : a cheap drinking and usually dancing establishment
2 : a strident, uninhibited, and forcefully rhythmic style of jazz or blues
Perhaps it should say something less obscure, and possibly confusing considering it is a style of jazz, that omits that word. Maybe just replace 'barrelhouse dance music' with 'the music of cheap bars and dance halls'?
mv from Legacy section
This IMO does not belong under his legacy:
- The Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana and serving New Orleans, Louisiana, is named after Armstrong. Also, the secondary stadium court at the USTA National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, the site of the US Open, is named for him.
-- Viajero 09:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
mv from Legacy section
This IMO does not belong under his legacy:
- The Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana and serving New Orleans, Louisiana, is named after Armstrong. Also, the secondary stadium court at the USTA National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows Park in Queens, the site of the US Open, is named for him.
The articles on those topics can mention, if necessary, that these places where named after him. -- Viajero 09:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"charismatic"
I don't see any reason to link adjectives in the first place, and particularly not in this case. The only thing in the charisma article beyond a dictionary definition is a discussion of Christian charismatics; it's misleading to link to this since Armstrong was not, to public knowledge, this type of charismatic. Jgm 20:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was tempted to delete anon's dubious linking of the term altogether myself. Looks good. -- Infrogmation 20:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
revert
I reverted 2 small recent changes. One removed the photographer's credit from the photo. I'm not sure of our use of this photo, is credit required here? The other was the removal of the link to krewe after the Zulu Social Aid & Pleasure Club reference, with the comment "slight technicality, but glaring--Zulu Social Aid and Pleasure Club is not a krewe". It is commonly refered to as a "krewe" in the sence that it is an organization that puts on a New Orleans Carnival parade. If this usage is incorrect, an explanation in the Zulu article &/or the krewe article might be appropriate. -- Infrogmation 15:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Because the image is contended to be fair use on the image description page (which also mentions Gottleib), I just took the photographer's name out. (That is, we don't have express permission to use the photo, nor any particular restrictions on what has to be in the caption.) Anyway, to address your concern I worked the photographer's name into the caption I wrote earlier today so that the caption would comport with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Captions. -- ke4roh
Possible POV issues
Here's a couple of paragraphs from the Music section of the article:
- In his early years, Armstrong was best known for his virtuosity with the cornet and trumpet. The greatest trumpet playing of his early years can be heard on his Hot Five and Hot Seven records. The improvisations which he made on these records of New Orleans jazz standards and popular songs of the day, to the present time stack up brilliantly alongside those of any other later jazz performer. The older generation of New Orleans jazz musicians often referred to their improvisations as "variating the melody"; Armstrong's improvisations were daring and sophisticated for the time while often subtle and melodic. He often essentially re-composed pop-tunes he played, making them more interesting. Armstrong's playing is filled with joyous, inspired original melodies, creative leaps, and subtle relaxed or driving rhythms. The genius of these creative passages is matched by Armstrong's playing technique, honed by constant practice, which extended the range, tone and capabilities of the trumpet. In these records, Armstrong almost single-handedly created the role of the jazz soloist, taking what was essentially a collective folk music and turning it into an art form with tremendous possibilities for individual expression.
- Armstrong's work in the 1920s shows him playing at the outer limits of his abilities. The Hot 5 records, especially, often have minor flubs and missed notes, which do little to detract from listening enjoyment since the energy of the spontaneous performance comes through. By the mid 1930s Armstrong achieved a smooth assurance, knowing exactly what he could do and carrying out his ideas with perfectionism.
I have bolded the phrases/sentences I feel are opinion and not fact. Does anyone else agree? Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that these passages could use some NPOV improvement. I think, however, that there are some legitimate bits of fact in there as well, especially in the last example. We should give thought to rewriting those portions. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
hypochondria/laxatives
I've received this message from Infrogmation expressing reservations about my editing of the para on Armstrong's use of laxatives etc:
- Thanks for your work in improving the Armstrong article. I do have a concern that in your generally good edit to "streamline flabby and misspelt para" (I fear such flab and misspelling is likely my fault, sorry) some relevent information might have been lost. Specifically, that Armstrong thought that laxatives were good for preserving one's health in general, not just for losing weight. (There were other points as well, such as valuing the practice taught him by his mother. No doubt much more could be written about Armstrong and "Pluto water", Swiss Kriss, etc.) Perhaps we could discuss on Talk:Louis Armstrong? Thanks, -- Infrogmation 13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here is the para as it was:
- Armstrong was well known as an enthusastic advocate and user of laxatives as a means of preserving health, a traditional folk treatment he learned from his mother. He gave out sample packets of herbal laxitives to friends, fans, and other celebrities he met. He wrote about using laxitives as part of a weight loss plan, and published diet charts under the title Lose Weight the Satchmo Way.
And after I'd finished with it:
- Armstrong was greatly concerned with his health and bodily functions. He made frequent use of laxatives as a means of controlling his weight, a practice he advocated both to personal acquaintances and in the diet plans he published under the title Lose Weight the Satchmo Way.
Thanks Infrogmation for your points. I'm not an expert on Armstrong and if there are others around that know for a fact that all the above is true (and ideally can quote some sources) then I'll bow to their superior knowledge. But I do wonder whether there's a risk of going a bit over the top in terms of minute detail on this one very small point, and unbalancing an article which, although good, could still use plenty of beefing-up in more important areas both personal and musical. We don't want to end up giving the impression that the editors of the text were just as fascinated by Armstrong's bodily functions as he was himself.
Specifically, is it really true that laxative abuse was a "traditional folk treatment" in Armstrong's culture? For a start the use of the word "treatment" is questionable where no actual illness exists. I doubt that medical opinion then or now regarded routine laxative use as part of a normal healthy lifestyle.
Incidentally, on my earlier use of the word "hypochondriac" (now deleted), that was the word chosen by Humphrey Lyttleton on a recent BBC Radio 4 programme about Armstrong. I didn't say he was one, just that he had that reputation. It's probably a matter of opinion at what point a trumpeter's natural concern for his lips and teeth, and for his general health, becomes obsessive, but there seems little doubt that Armstrong was very much interested in his body and how it needed to be actively managed.
Harry 13:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
References?
The term bibliography is ambiguous. It can either mean a list of works about a subject or a lsit of sources consulted to fact check or add material to an article. The distinction is very important, so if someone knows which is the case for each work please split them into a references section and a further reading section or rename the section one way or the other. If no one knows, I guess it will need to be named further reading unless someone can get a hold of these works or others and fact check the article. See Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more. Thanks - Taxman 18:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)