Frank Sinatra - In The Wee Small Hours

---

Mission Control - Entry Number 007

Artist: Frank Sinatra
Title: In The Wee Small Hours

Release Date:  1955
Length: 49 min
Relevance: 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die;  RS #100 (2003) / #101 (2005)

My Favorites: "In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning"

TLDR: Music From and Inspired By The Film "Frank Sinatra's Heart Being Destroyed and Killed"

---

Finally, an album.  Not a collection, not a compilation, but a real, discrete album, a specific unit of music released as a whole.  What significance does this have for my mission?  Not sure yet.  It indicates that long-playing LPs (redundant) have started being manufactured and consumers started paying for an hour's worth of music at a time.  Beyond that, I'll have to wait and see.

This is not just the first album on the list, but the first concept album ever.  ...Pseudo.  The concept here seems to be "Frank Sinatra is sad," which makes sense because it came out during a separation from his wife, Ava Gardner.  Kind of surprising that Sinatra would record such a revealing set of songs and release it at such a time.  Seems kind of tabloidy.

But what about the actual music?  Well, it's okay.  It definitely feels like any of these could be a musical number two-thirds of the way through a movie, right when Mr. and Mrs. Protagonist are splitting up.  It has a very cinematic feel, and it's not hard to imagine scenes to go with the lyrical imagery and swelling orchestra.

A few of the songs aren't too slow to be catchy... and a few have memorable choruses... and a few you might be able to whistle... but lots of the record kind of drags on... and it's not at all what I'd call uplifting... and it's all sort of a downer... and some of it sort of meanders... and it's sort of... slow.  I'm sure it's a great breakup record, but I haven't ever had a breakup I've been too sad about, so I'll just have to assume it's relatable.  I don't think I'll listening to this record very much in the future.  At least I hope I won't.

Finally: where does this music fit in with the music I've heard so far in the mission?  Well, it doesn't fit in very much at all.  It seems to be the earliest example of a genre I've seen called "vocals".  Maybe it sounds a bit like jazz, but slowed down, and without the interesting, improvisational, fun parts.  Some of these may be songs from musical theater, or severely reimagined jazz songs.  Interestingly, it doesn't sound at all like the blues. 

---

Up Next: The rough draft of the blueprint for rock n roll.

---

Bloglovin code

Bloglovin, all your favorite blogs aggregated into one queue!  How convenient!  Follow my blog with bloglovin!

Grammy Album of the Year 2011 -- Arcade Fire - The Suburbs

SWEET!!

Little Walter - Best of Little Walter

---

Mission Control - Entry Number 006

Artist: Little Walter
Title: The Best of Little Walter

Release Date: 1958 (material recorded between 1952 and 1955; all material presumably previously released)
Length: 35 min
Relevance: RS #198 (2003) / #196 (2005)

My Favorites: "Tell Me Mama" & "You Better Watch Yourself"

TLDR: These aren't your great-grandparents' Blues.  Album could be called "While My Harmonica Gently Weeps."  Rock is imminent. 

---

So the first thing I learned about Little Walter--the first thing that fans seem to want newcomers to learn about him--is summed up (as these things always are) in the top paragraph of his Wikipedia entry:

Little Walter ... (1930-1968), was an American blues harmonica player whose revolutionary approach to his instrument has earned him comparisons to Charlie Parker and Jimi Hendrix for innovation and impact on succeeding generations. His virtuosity and musical innovations fundamentally altered many listeners' expectations of what was possible on blues harmonica.

That's a pretty impressive league to be put in.

Little Walter is allegedly a blues artist, but since I haven’t listened to any blues recorded since 1937 and since those 15 years have shown a marked increase in recording quality,  it’s not quite obvious that I’m supposed to group this in with Robert Johnson or Skip James.  I guess it's more accurate to say it's not obvious that this is still the same genre. Maybe The Blues has evolved far enough that this and James & Johnson aren't in the same category.  But since I know they're supposed to be, I can make that connection.

On the subject of sound quality, there's a noticeable variance in what these recordings sound like, as if some of these songs were recorded live in venues rather than in studios.  Echoing, amplifier squeaks and other sound anomalies, particularly on some of the instrumental songs, makes me wonder if they’re actually improvisations that have been captured.

One main difference between this type of blues and the blues from the 1930s I’ve already heard is that here, I’m listening to three or four musicians, while before I was listening to individuals.  In addition to giving Little Walter a more well-rounded sound and the opportunity for multiple things to be happening at once with the music, this music doesn’t sound as lonely or hopeless as Robert Johnson and Skip James.  Obviously Little Walter has at least two friends, and they’re obviously in close synchronicity. Back in the 30s, Skip James often couldn’t even get his own instrument and voice to align (now that shows some troubles, amirite?).

About one-third of these songs are instrumental, but still definitely qualify as blue-sy.  This is especially impressive because Little Walter is able to use a harmonica as a stand-in for the pained vocals that are typical of blues singers (which he can’t really pull off as well as other artists anyway).  If I remember correctly, the harmonica started out classified as a toy rather than a musical instrument, so Little Walter's expressive playing probably went a long way toward it being taken seriously, in addition to giving him his reputation as an amazing player.  The harmonica here also sounds very playful at times, which is interesting because out of everything I’ve heard so far, the lyrics (in the songs that have lyrics) have less humor or joy than anything previously heard... including the Harry Smith Anthology where all the songs are about death.  Bummer.

But not so much of a bummer that it's not enjoyable.  The playfulness makes these songs as exciting as Hank Williams' fun songs, and we're getting so close to inventing rock & roll that I can taste it.  It's almost rowdy enough and it almost has enough swagger, and if it were a little more upbeat and sexually-charged this would be a great collection of rock songs. 

---

Up Next: The first actual album on the list, and the first concept album ever.

---

Surprising Omissions

Whether it's due to their reputation/influence, their considerable record sales, their longevity or sheer prolific output, I am surprised that the following artists are not represented on any of the reputation/critic-based criteria:

Bad Religion
any Ben Folds project
Bikini Kill
Blue Oyster Cult
Bright Eyes *
Built To Spill
Charlie Parker
Cher
Crass
Daniel Johnston
Dave Matthews Band *
the Decemberists *
the Doobie Brothers
Garth Brooks
Gnarls Barkley
Heart
the Hollies
Hootie and the Blowfish
any Jad Fair project
Jandek
Joe Jackson
John Denver
John (Cougar) Mellencamp
Journey
Kenny Rogers
KMFDM
Lead Belly
any Les Claypool project, but especially Primus
Louis Armstrong
Melvins
the Misfits
Modest Mouse *
The Moody Blues
Negativland
Ozzy Osbourne (solo)
Pete Seeger
Phish
Placebo
Rancid
Rilo Kiley
Roy Orbison
the Shins *
Spoon
Sting (solo)
Stone Temple Pilots
Styx
Sublime
They Might Be Giants
Tool
Warren Zevon
Woody Guthrie *
Yo La Tengo

*these are included in the mission due to recommendations from friends and family

PS: I'm sure some of the items on this particular list give away the generation I lived in or my own personal taste in music.  coughsublimecoughnegativlandcoughrespectivelycough.  So, yeah.  We don't need to discuss that.

Hank Williams - 40 Greatest Hits

---

Mission Control - Entry Number 005

Artist: Hank Williams
Title: 40 Greatest Hits

Release Date: 1978 (material recorded between 1947 and 1952; all material previously released)
Length: 1 hr 47 min
Relevance: RS #129 (2003) / #94 (2005)

My Favorites:"Ramblin' Man" & "I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive"

TLDR:  Redundancy equals genre-definition.  Wonderfully simple, not just plain simple.  Like rock & roll without the sex.

---

I wasn't wondering why Rolling Stone chose to include this Hank Williams collection over any other, but if I had been, Wikipedia has provided a good answer:

Significantly, it was the first anthology in quite some time that did not subject Williams' recordings to either rechanneled stereo, posthumous overdubs, artificial duets with family members (like his son Hank Jr.), or most or all of the above. Because of both this major fact, and ... having a deeper song selection than previous single-disc compilations ... many reviewers consider this anthology to be the perfect starting point for newcomers to Williams' recorded legacy.

And here I am; I am that newcomer.   The first point, about the integrity of this collection, makes me want to find one of the meddled-with ones, mostly out of curiosity.  How bad could they be?  That's not a dismissive hypothetical question.  I'd really be interested to see some executive meddling in action, especially to hear what new Hank Williams fans in the first 25 years after his death may have had to suffer through.

The second point, about having a greater song selection, strikes me as sort of a benefit and a drawback.  With someone who's developed as much of a reputation as Hank Williams, I'm glad to get an extensive introduction.  I will say, however, that I could probably cut the number of songs in half without greatly reducing the overall diversity.  If I wanted to be rude, I would create a list of twenty of these songs which effectively show the range of Hank's songwriting and musical ability, and put the other twenty into a list of redundant extra material.  I won't though, because I don't want to be rude.  Besides, it's not Hank's fault if huge numbers of fans want to listen to the same song under multiple names.  And anyway, how can you build such a strong foundation for a musical genre without a little redundancy, to solidify what exactly the genre is and isn't? 

But the songs, Comet, what about the actual music?  Well, let me tell you.  I liked these songs well enough upon first listen.  It sounded like the music I'd imagine at a cattle-drive or in between acts at a rodeo in the 1950s.  I remember thinking things like, "Well, that's pretty simple" and "Fun stuff, but kind of predictable."  I found myself trying to anticipate when the title of a song would be dropped or how each pair of rhyming lines would be resolved.  It's not a difficult game.  Maybe that's why Hank Williams was so influential, why he's stayed so popular, and why I went so quickly from First-Listen to Foot-Tapping-Along to Humming-When-It's-Not-Even-Playing.  Dan Levitin would say that I get a sense of satisfaction when my expectations of what will happen in the music are accurately met.
Having said that, I need to give credit for all the stuff that's happening with the music that wasn't apparent the first few times I listened.  Instead of lengthy, noodley guitar solos, Hank (I assume it's him) tends to throw in noodley bits through the whole length of the song.  I bet many of these songs would work if the vocals were wiped out; I'm sure I've heard worse instrumental compositions.

I'm excited to see where this is going.  I can tell, from 2010, that rock & roll is just around the corner.  With all due respect, I'm sort of looking forward to hearing what this would sound like if it grew some balls.  Hank doesn't seem interested in being dangerous, or in appealing more to youth than adults.  That's probably fine, because baby boomers haven't gotten close to hitting double-digit ages yet.  (Elvis hit it big in 1956, when the earliest baby boomers were turning ten, so the puberty/record sales connection probably doesn't really count.  I'm sure someone's already written about this.)  Listening to Hank Williams, and guessing as to how his sound developed in response to fan feedback, I can almost hear that he's trying to whip the audience into a frenzy, but he's much too nice to use sex to do it.  Well, that will change in a few years.

Here's where I repeat myself about not listening to the ten hour Hank Williams collection yet.  Ten hours, for God's sake.  I'm thinking it will need to be done in some sort of stream-of-consciousness, one-listen, blog-as-I-go type event, because I'm certainly not going to agonize over the listening for that item like I've been doing so far. 

---

Up Next: The Jimi Hendrix of the Harmonica

---

Django Reinhardt - Djangology-The Gipsy Genius

---

Mission Control - Entry Number 004

Artist: Django Reinhardt
Title: Djangology-The Gipsy Genius

Release Date: 1990 (material recorded between 1936 and 1940; all material is presumably previously released)
Length: 1 hr 9 min
Relevance: Recommendation from Vignesh

My Favorites: "Limehouse Blues" & "Shine"

TLDR: Perhaps the second best choice for a first impression of jazz.

---

Standard blog apology for long break since last update.  But this time, it has a happy ending.  Taking so long to feel inspired to write about this CD (it predates the proper "album") led me to grow tired of listening to it over and over again.  After deciding to power through an entry about it, I turned my bus-ride-listening attention to "This is Your Brain On Music" by Daniel J. Levitin, as read by Edward Herrmann, or, as I like to call him, Eddwwarrdd Herrmmann.  The book is great, and I'd recommend it to anyone.  I'm enjoying it so much, in fact, that I'm narrating this entry in Herrrrmmmmannnn's voice, and possibly choosing words and phrasing that Lorelai Gilmore's father might choose.  If you know Herrrrrrrmmmmmmmannnnnnn's voice well enough, I'd recommend letting him narrate to you as well, and if you don't know it, imagine what Herman Munster would sound like as a Yale-educated insurance company executive. 

Anyway, the book is a bit dense and I have Attention Deficit Disorder, so I'm sure I'll get quite a bit extra out of a second listening, but one of the many things it's made me think about is this: my perception of what jazz sounds like is centered around "Take Five" by Dave Brubeck.  Things are more "jazz" or less "jazz" by being more similar or less similar to this song, and perhaps other Brubeck songs that also played on the car radio when Grandpa Schulenburg would drive us to church, or in his den when I would go in there to browse the stacks of ancient (1970s) books.  Knowing then that Grandpa was a huge jazz fan, and hearing Brubeck and especially "Take Five" more than any other* artist or song, perhaps as frequently as every week, I naturally assumed he was the best jazz artist, or the most prolific, or the more famous, or the earliest, or perhaps all of these together.  Later on I heard that Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway and their peers were some of the earliest jazz artists.  I say I "heard" this because I can't say that I "learned" it, as it wasn't added into my overall perception of jazz enough to replace Brubeck as the essential example of what jazz is.

* Of course, I've probably heard Vince Guaraldi's music from the Peanuts holiday specials more often than Dave Brubeck, but that always had an asterisk attached, much like the one you're reading now, that indicated it was Christmas-jazz, or just Christmas music, and therefore a novelty.  I can tell now that this is unfair.  Don't cut me out of the inheritance, Dad.

I'll start talking about Django Reinhardt very soon, but I'd first like to point out how great it is that, though jazz is a famously American invention, the first recordings in the jazz genre that I get to listen to in this mission are from a French group with a Romani leader (and a homosexual co-pilot; Hitler must have loved them [... according to this, my snark has a ring of truth: Django's survival through WW2 was assisted by Nazi jazz-fans]).  I would have loved to have heard some Louis Armstrong or other early jazz artist, but none are on the mission list, and I have a strange tendency to not add items to my own list simply because they deserve to be on it.  In fact most of what I've personally added are included due to a reputation for being among the worst albums ever.

So, then, Django Reinhardt and the Quintet of the Hot Club of France.  I loved it instantly.  Something makes me want to describe them by using the word "pleasant" as strongly as possible.  Fiercely enjoyable, often whirlwindy, and perhaps the most bad-ass I can imagine music getting before offending someone.  Though G-Rated, nothing here is boring or tame.  While guitarist Reinhardt and violinist Stephane Grappelli are able to rest when it's the other one's turn to solo, as a listener I'm driven along the entire time, tossed from one instrument to the next without a lull.  Levitin, in "...Brain...," describes the common jazz practice of playing the conventional melody of a song once or twice before launching into improvisations, as sort of a starting point for the song, and recommends humming the basic melody during the improvisations to help anchor the continuity of the song.  Both of these ideas helped me make sense of what I was listening to, and to feel like I was listening to it the way I was supposed to be, like I was listening for the right things.  The common-melody-then-improvisations is done here on standards I'm somewhat familiar with as well as on songs that are new to me, and it's a very satisfying effect in both cases.  These are all great reasons to listen to this collection as an introduction to early jazz, all of which overshadow the fact that it isn't performed by an American.  Obviously I don't yet know the differences between Django Reinhardt and Louis Armstrong, but Reinhardt definitely admired Armstrong, and the two hung out and played together a bit, so I'm thinking this may be the second best choice for an introduction to jazz.

---

Up Next: Another alcoholic who didn't make it to 30

---