Playing music from the 1920s and 1930s

[tbdana]

The period just before the big band era saw a huge change in popular music styles, going through the syncopation style into the baby swing style, before finally maturing into the big band swing dance style of the 1940s.

Back then one of popular music's characteristics was a fast, wide vibrato on every note longer than a quarter note. Unlike today, where vibrato tends to be placed on the end of notes, back then it began immediately upon articulation and went through the entire note.

There are bands around that specialize in that earlier style. But there are a variety of sensibilities on the use of vibrato. I've noticed that saxes and clarinets tend to still use that old vibrato technique in those bands. Less so with trumpets. And even less with trombones.

Also, I've noticed that all the saxes/clarinets use vibrato, while usually only the lead trumpet and lead trombone player use it in the brass section. That's not universal, but appears to me to be the majority.

There seems to be no consensus about how vibrato should be used in these old style bands. Some try complete fidelity to the old way, while others bring a compromise approach that might be more pleasing to modern ears.

As trombonists, what are your thoughts on how you would approach the music and the vibrato if it were left completely up to your whim? What's the way it "should" be played, if left completely up to you?

[Doug Elliott]

First rule is to make it sound "good" and not seem like a caricature.
Second rule is to record yourself to see how it actually sounds, vs what you think you're doing.

[harrisonreed]

Music from earlier than 1930 is in the public domain now so you can play it however you want.

[BGuttman]

There were some bands (I'm thinking particularly of Guy Lombardo) where that wide vibrato was considered part of their style.

If you listen to recordings of the Whiteman Band (1920s), a lot of the vibrato was in the string section; not so much with the winds or brass.

Each major band of the 1930s had its signature sound. Some with lots of vibrato and others with none. Some played ahead of the beat, while some played just behind. Again, all a matter of style. I'm not going to judge whether one was better or worse than the other.

As to doing your own interpretation of the tune, that has been the way from the get-go.

[BrassSection]

Nice thing about practice before service is I can try something different than usual. If the leader smiles, good to go…if he looks quizzical, that didn’t work like I thought it might! We often use various big name contemporary groups chord sheets, but rarely try to imitate their sound, and we don’t always follow the original verse/chorus/bridge sequences. Drummer, bass players, and myself on brass do the most experimentation on styles. Bottom line, we play to our style.

It ain’t you’re grandmother’s hymnal!

[AndrewMeronek]

Big bands today are a lot more homogenized in their performance practices than in the 1920s and 1930s.

As trombonists, what are your thoughts on how you would approach the music and the vibrato if it were left completely up to your whim? What's the way it "should" be played, if left completely up to you?

I like to use slide vibrato. It can be very impactful. It can also devolve into nonsensical mush if done in the wrong context.

I play in a band where I occasionally have to whip out a Dorsey solo, and a lot of his stuff is so iconic IMHO because Dorsey's vibrato really is the way it needs to be played.

In general, I think that the proper use of vibrato is a kind of performance vocabulary, much like learning changes and other articulations in different styles. There are some charts where it simply doesn't work (Chicago covers!) and some charts where it *might* work and might not (Sammy Nestico, depending on the band and who is playing lead). Sometimes vibrato would appear to work on lead but really doesn't when there are sustained lead notes with counterpoint in the inner voices. Sometimes it doesn't work because it draws too much attention to the trombones and away from a more musically important thing happening elsewhere. The vocabulary is building up knowledge of repertoire and awareness of what's going on around me to be able to make informed decisions about vibrato.

[dwcarder]

I think my questions would include if do you want to faithfully recreate the old time sound or not, is it just one or two songs from that period, or is it an entire performance. That might influence where on the spectrum you would want to be and what would sound appropriate to audience ears. If you listen to some of the recordings from that era, there is a wall of vibrato from the entire brass section. You would need everyone to buy in on it (and be able to do it!).

[tbdana]

I think my questions would include if do you want to faithfully recreate the old time sound or not, is it just one or two songs from that period, or is it an entire performance. That might influence where on the spectrum you would want to be and what would sound appropriate to audience ears. If you listen to recordings from that era, it's a wall of vibrato from the entire brass section. You would need everyone to buy in on it (and be able to do it!).

One thing I wonder about is whether or not true fidelity is desirable and should be hued to faithfully. There is an argument for that kind of authenticity.

However, the "wall of vibrato" you mention can be displeasing to modern ears, and for a modern audience it may be better to interpret that period's music in concept but not necessarily with completely faithful execution. Bringing a modern touch to the style might be the better choice.

But really, I don't know the answer.

[JohnL]

However, the "wall of vibrato" you mention can be displeasing to modern ears, and for a modern audience it may be better to interpret that period's music in concept but not necessarily with completely faithful execution. Bringing a modern touch to the style might be the better choice.

I'd say ya gotta know your audience. If it's a general audience, a more modern approach is probably appropriate. OTOH, if you're playing for a crowd that's specifically there because they LIKE music of a particular era, perhaps an approach that's more faithful to the original style is expected.

If you look out on the audience and see ladies with bob hairstyles wearing "linear" frocks and men with brlillanitined hair wearing suits with cloverleaf lapels, go with the wall of vibrato.

[VJOFan]

My grad school seminar was focussed around the question of what constitutes authentic performance.

It was a grad seminar, so there was no answer, or rather, like here, many good ones.

I like the thoughts above about the first responsibility being creating a good experience for the listener.

[Wilktone]

My philosophy is that ensembles should play in the style of the original performance/recordings. If that includes a tight vibrato played by the entire section over the entire note, then that should be how it's played. Stylistic articulation, rhythmic feel, timbre, and all the other elements come into play too, of course.

When I've subbed in ghost bands (Guy Lombardo, Glenn Miller) the entire section played vibrato, for what that's worth. As an aside, I once heard a ghost band perform a concert where the bandleader was not feeling well and so the band played without him. They were obviously a little too excited and some of the soloists went loose and bopped over the swing style charts. I empathize wanting to stretch out a bit, but it sounded wrong and was pretty disappointing to hear.

In the area where I live there is one big band that pretty much dedicates itself to performing older charts from the 20s-40s. Not all the players join in the section vibrato, which is frustrating. That also happens with other big bands when they play older charts. When I was the music director for one of them I was able to get everyone playing with section vibrato - but only with many reminders each time we played those charts. Left to their own devices, many of these musicians would turn their stylistic feel off and just play like they were playing a more contemporary chart.

As long as I'm griping about pet peeves, another thing that drives me nuts is when section players start using vibrato, scoops, and other stylistic devices under the lead player when it's not called for. In more contemporary styles I think it's more appropriate for the lead player to add some of those playing techniques and the section players should judiciously play it straight or add more subtly underneath. If the lead player isn't scooping into a note or playing vibrato there the section players shouldn't add it underneath. If the style doesn't call for section vibrato, don't add it just because the lead player is doing so.

[Richard3rd]

In the area where I live there is one big band that pretty much dedicates itself to performing older charts from the 20s-40s. Not all the players join in the section vibrato, which is frustrating. That also happens with other big bands when they play older charts. When I was the music director for one of them I was able to get everyone playing with section vibrato - but only with many reminders each time we played those charts. Left to their own devices, many of these musicians would turn their stylistic feel off and just play like they were playing a more contemporary chart.

Playing a practice yesterday with my band, we discussed this very subject. As one of the players pointed out, very few people in our audience will know the original versions of the tunes, so why duplicate the originals.

I'm the director of a local big band and I steer them to a more modern version of tunes to help engage with our audiences. I don't think the audiences want to hear exaggerated vibrato and "old timey" sounds. The people who remember that sound are largely gone now anyway.

[Wilktone]

If your audiences haven't heard the original charts played stylistically how do we really know they won't enjoy them? If you don't think they will enjoy that don't play those charts, play something more contemporary that your audiences will like.

Maybe the audiences in my neck of the woods are different. There's a pretty active swing dance group around here (and a huge swing dance festival year once a year). They've largely gone to DJing their regular dances since covid, but they definitely play the original recordings and when I happen to perform for those audiences I try to make everything true to the original style.

Stylistic choices change over time, of course. But big band charts from the 30s and 40s were hugely popular at the time, so there's definitely something to be said for recreating those performances with some accuracy.

[AndrewMeronek]

Another angle In My Humble Opinion: if you're studying jazz in school, you should DEFNITELY adhere to the original performance styles. That's just a basic part of building up a student's vocabulary.

[Wilktone]

Another angle In My Humble Opinion: if you're studying jazz in school, you should DEFNITELY adhere to the original performance styles. That's just a basic part of building up a student's vocabulary.

Yep, I've had this conversation many times with students and teaching colleagues. For the most part, they would all agree with you but I'm sometimes surprised at reactions against this. The basic argument here is that it's turning jazz into the same "static, Ivory Tower" subject as classical music is supposedly stuck in.

There is plenty of music that I had little to no interest in while a music student that I had to learn about. Fortunately, I had good teachers who helped me get enough of a foundation that I'm now able to perform convincingly in many different styles and found that my interests have changed since then.

I guess my main point here is that bands can certainly choose to play in a more contemporary style when performing jazz from the 20s and 30s, but I feel it should be a conscious choice derived from the particular performance situation. Most of the time I've found lack of stylistic playing is either out of ignorance or laziness.

Dave