The Swing Era: The Development of Jazz, 1930-1945

This voluminous tome is not your usual collection of reminiscences and short biographies of the big bands and their leaders (like those of George T. Simon or Richard Grudens), let alone a hagiography ('everything was better in the old days'). There are not even any photos or other illustrations. The book is an in-depth study of the development of jazz during the swing era. It is devided into sections concerning the major figures who shaped the development of swing (Ellington, Armstrong, Goodman, Lunceford, Basie etc.), a section on the great soloists (Hawkins, Norvo, Hines, Webster, Tatum, Teagarden, Allen, Russel, Wilson, Eldridge etc.), on the great black bands (Kirk, Mills Blue Rhythm Band, Webb, F & H Henderson, Erskine Hawkins, Calloway etc.), on the white bands (Casa Loma, Miller, Barnet, Shaw, T & J Dorsey, Herman, James, Kenton and even on Clinton, Chester etc.) territory bands (Leonard, Towles, Boots & His Buddies etc.) and the small bands. He assesses the performers' strengths and weaknesses, comparing their relative merits, putting their achievements in the right perspective (e.g. Casa Loma and Horace Henderson are finally given the credit they are due, Calloway and Miller are given a much fairer treatment than other jazz studies have done), often illustrated by transcriptions of the music in question (even writing out solos, which must have been a fiendishly difficult thing to do). Far from being an arid and academic work however, it is very well written in wonderful English which can be full of praise if something's good and delightfully scathing if something's not. A man like Artie Shaw, who often blew his own trumpet (if you'll forgive the pun) while savaging others, is relegated to his proper place with sweeping arguments based on aural evidence. Schuller listened to literally thousands of recordings to form his opinions and the book invites the reader to do the same. When you do (as I did), you'll find that quite often he is right in his conclusions. Since music is also a matter of taste you may not always agree despite his being right. In the almost ten years I've owned this book I have almost read it to pieces, jumping from chapter to chapter, always finding something new to discover. The greatest asset of the book is that it made me listen again in depth to recordings and bands I took for granted, plus that it made me dicover music and bands I would not have otherwise given serious consideration (like Boots & His Buddies) and that it helped me form an opinion of my own of what I like and what not and why. As such I can not praise the book too highly.

To get some idea of the achievement between these pages, just stop to think that Gunther Schuller listened to some 30,000 recordings, famous and obscure, from the period between 1930 and 1945, in chronological order for each band or performer. It took him fourteen years. Now you might think after all that that he would emerge with brain so fuzzy, ears so buzzed, that he could not write intelligently about the music, so submerged had he been for so long. But au contraire--this is the most lucid, the best anthology of any jazz era I've ever seen. No one could argue it isn't the most comprehensive. Schuller analyzes bands big and small, famous and unknown, national and "territory." Some of his opinions go against the critically-accepted grain, which seems to have ruffled a few other reviewers here, but his point of the survey, I think, was to go beyong "lazy, complacent listening" and evaluate each work afresh. So we have a Count Basie orchestra that, while indisputably fine, isn't quite the jazz sin qua non that it's often held out to be. As Schuller points out--accurately, I think--Basie's band was a triumph because of the magnificent soloists, but frankly the arrangements were often uninspired and formulaic, the tunes undistinguished, the colors and contrasts minimized. This made me realize why I never liked other midwestern territory bands as much as the Count's: they generally didn't have the soloists, and without stellar soloists (and not just "good" soloists) it's hard to sustain interest in riffs and themes which quickly become routine. This may upset the apple cart with some people, but I think Schuller is on the money. Similar, his assessment of Benny Goodman is generally spot-on, though I think I like some of the band's soloists more than he does and give them more credit than he does. However, he is mostly evaluating BG's studio recordings, and that band was far better live. (All bands are better in front of a live audience, of course, but the difference with BG's 30s group is truly stunning.) But Babe Russin was quite the fine understated tenor soloist, Chris Griffin was very underappreciated on trumpet (as was earlier Goodman trumpeter Nate Kazebier--hope I'm spelling that right). Jess Stacy is one of the unsung heroes of swing piano, especially as an accompanist (some of his best comping is on the 1938 Carnegie Hall Concert). Schuller basically ignores these sidemen. Even Ziggy Elman gets the short shrift, with a focus on his schlocky popular stuff instead of some of his logically-constructed solos. But I guess, even with 30,000 recordings under your belt, some performances are bound to escape your notice. Schuller's chapter on Ellington could itself be a course at a university. You could indeed buy the book just for this section and play through all the recordings mentioned and come away far more knowledgeable about Duke, about jazz, and about music and composition in general. Discussing Schuller's take on Elli

Unlike a previous reviewer, I find Schuller's "biases" quite refreshing. He is unafraid to distinguish the outstanding from the merely imitative or blantantly commercial, whether in comparing bands or musicians or in pointing out the strong points and weak points of individual artists. While not providing individual biographies, he does manage to put the music into a social/economic context and does better than any other writer in speaking frankly about the interplay between black and white artists during this era without prejudice on either side.

As far as I know it, this is the most comprehensive book on swing music available. Gunther Schuller is interested in music, not life histories, so biographical information on musicians is scarce. The music, on the other hand, is described and analyzed thoroughly, with great originality and enthousiasm, including information on cross-links, influences, analyses of arrangements, song structures and solos.I don't believe anyone will read this book from the beginning to the end: each chapter is about a separate artist, and an overall history is lacking. Moreover, one really needs to be able to listen to the described music to enjoy the book, but this is also its strong point: one becomes really eager to listen to the jazz described, often with 'new ears' provided by the author. As a reference book and as a tool to explore jazz between 1930 and 1945 with, "the swing era" is unsurpassed.

This work gives a thorough look at the bands, and their members, who played during the swing era. It explains how they formed, what influences earlier and contemporary bands had on their playing and how the changing of individual members altered their style.It gives many specific musical examples (some in written form for the first time). It traces the evolution of jazz into the be-bop form. It gives some biographies of outstanding individuals. All in all, this work is an important reference tool for anyone who wishes to understand how music changes with the times. Thoroughly recommended (but not if you just want a light read).