Journal 7 – What is Swing?
Read the two articles from Keeping Time, edited by Robert Walser. They are by Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, both about Swing. Reflect and write about four interesting things that caught your attention in the articles. Feel free to comment on other people’s posts.
The first thing I found interesting was the stereotypes of that time. Often, a stereotype can ruin a reputation worse than actual action. The second thing that interested me was the fact that swing will never die. The fact that it would always come back signifies that it is more of a feeling than a musical composition. The third thing that interested me was that you can let a swing band loose with their instruments, and they would make a song with no recital or preparation. The amount of trust and prediction that takes is crazy to me. The final thing that stood out was that you never hear a live performance of swing the same way twice. Each band has their own playing style that cant be replicated.
Both articles were very interesting to read however the first thing that stood out to be was Swing is about feeling, not just structure. Both Ellington and Armstrong emphasize that swing isn’t just about following a written score, its about the musicians creativity and instinct. Another interesting topic discussed was Swing being deeply rooted in history and culture. Duke Ellington traces the origins of swing back to African rhythms and styles of early jazz musicians in New Orleans. It shows the beauty behind the history of swing and taking a piece of history from every style of jazz. Both Musicians highlight emotional depth and the cultural significance of Swing, making it clear that is was more than just a passing musical trend, it was a way of life.
Though we are meant to expound on 4 things that stood out to us, the main element that caught my attention was the fact that throughout both articles, there was an emphasis more on the feeling and ability to improvise in swing more rather than a structural form of music. It’s supposed to give the vibe of “letting loose” and “screw the rules” kind of thing. Another element that seemed to express itself from Duke and Louis was their recognition on the aspects of what influenced their line of music, being their racial community, the evolution of swing itself, etc. Nowadays, it’s a fact that people are less social and the way we interact one with another isn’t the same as it used to be. With this as a backdrop, the two articles seem to magnify the statement that they couldn’t have done their jobs so well without those that were around them, especially their band. Not only that, but it’s important to be aware of how things make you feel and developing the skill to convert that to music.
I read both articles and I thought it was very interesting that Duke didn’t always dream of being a musician. I always thought that in order to be a great at anything you had to start from a young age but its cool to know that he sort of got back into it and it just started back into it. I also was interested as how he mentioned that swing wouldn’t die, you could get rid of all the swing musicians and in 6 months you would have swing style jazz against but probably with a new name.
Louis Armstrong had and interesting sight on both conductors and its players. part of what he says is in a good band with all great players you don’t need a conductor because they know when to join in and exit and they would all be able to flow. but with other bands while you might just have a few amazing players you need that conductor to help out the other players but still not the great ones becauset they know when to begin and stop
I found that the Louis Armstrong article detailed some of the interesting opinions that he had on swing music. I find it really interesting that he true swing can not be fully transcribed or orchestrated. He believed that swing must be improvised. In this vein, he was passionate about he jam sessions he was a part of which he believed kept the spirit of swing alive with their spontaneity and informality.
The article about Duke Ellington included some cool information about his creative process. It details how he would write swing pieces collaboratively with other musicians often late at night or early in the morning. It also explained how Duke Ellington identified swing as its own genre and style before it hit the mainstream audience which I thought was cool
What caught my attention the most was Louis Armstrong talking about swing players, how much practice it takes, and often just how natural improvising and “swinging” in an out of melodies was for some people to make them the best swing instrumentalists. Hearing him talk about how creative the artists need to be for this genre had me confused on why it was hushed away for so long and swept under the rug since musical recordings and publishing began booming. Listening to other genres like EDM and their remixes of songs I grew up with is what I would compare about how non-swing fans felt about their classics being turned into swing music which firstly had me confused so successful of a jazz style but then understanding that we do the same here today. The last thing that had me interested was when Duke Ellington wrote, “Swing encourages sexual immorality” and comparing swing tempos to be similar to the beat of a heart which is what gets you lost in the music.
I didn’t know that there is a Spanish syncopation in swing, that stood out to me. Another thing from Ellington was that swing is honest music with deep feeling and if the feeling was honest so was the music. From Armstrong he talked about how much swing was just based just off feeling, no conductor could tell a swing musician what to play. They had to “feel” it. Lastly I love the almost rebellious nature of some of the musicians even to their own kind. The guys who just wouldn’t learn scoring cause they wanted to play it they way they liked. Armstrong says they kept swing alive in bars by doing what they wanted even if they didn’t make it big.