Bix v. Pops: And the Winner Is...

Who was the better horn player, Bix Beiderbecke or Louis Armstrong? It's a debate that has reared its head once again this past week across a series of forums and blogs, notably in reader exchanges at Doug Ramsey's Rifftides. The most recent knock against Bix is that he was merely an over-hyped white hope. Or a great white gin-soaked hope. Or a hopeless drunk who was less than great but still white. Or re-arrange the words any way you wish.

All of which prompted me to spend a few hours yesterday with both Bix and Louis (the horn greats say "hi," by the way, and wish everyone a happy Labor Day). To keep the match fair, I focused solely on 1927. In Bix's corner, I used the Complete Okeh and Brunswick box from Mosaic Records. For Louis, I put on discs from the Complete Hot Five and Hot Seven Recordings.

Here's the bottom line: Any attempt to match up these two players is a waste of precious time and distracts from the point of the music. I've interviewed enough jazz legends to know that ranking musicians is folly, a pointless fad imposed upon us by magazines and record labels of the 1940s and 1950s that hoped to elevate their brands and boost sales. There's only one way to listen to Louis and Bix: Use your heart, not your head, and feel what each artist was trying to say. Even better, listen to these guys in a dark room, and the point of the music will become instantly clear.

Bix remains fascinating not because of his weakness for bathtub booze or pale skin but because his timing was impeccably hip and infectious. Louis' recordings sustain their appeal not because of the trumpeter's charm or technique but because his heat and brazen risk-taking were extraordinary and inspirational. Louis invented swing. Bix invented space between the notes. Bix favored syncopation from within the ensemble while Louis preferred to break out, and in the process created the star solo. Both artists were colorists with different temperatures and textures. Both were compact stylists who adored messing with the beat. And both retain the magical ability to make us pay close attention to what they had to say.

Two recordings from roughly the same period make the point: Bix's Sorry and Louis' Chicago Breakdown. Sorry was recorded in October 1927 and opens with a full-ensemble downbeat. The first soloist is Don Murray on clarinet, with Bix rushing past him on cornet. Listen as Bix weaves and bobs laconically, building notes and leaving space and then jumping in hard on the offbeat. He swings around, shoots in, backs out, and hits notes behind and ahead of the beat. Bix's sense of timing here is razor fine, and his unassuming way of toying with syncopation sounds so deceptively easy. Bill Rank is next on trombone, interrupted by Bix, who is supported by the rubbery bark of Adrian Rollini's bass sax. Bix returns again, weaving and bopping before closing out the tune. According to Richard Sudhalter's fabulous 2001 liner notes, Bix told a friend, "I've never felt better on any recording date."

Louis' Chicago Breakdown was recorded in April 1927 and is paced similarly to Sorry. Louis' horn stands out instantly from the big band led by Carroll Dickerson. Louis' first solo states the song's theme, and he plays squarely on the beat. Earl "Fatha" Hines takes a stride piano solo, followed by Louis, who returns with even more vim and moxie. On the second pass, he virtually re-invents the melody, bending notes and ripping others wide. Clarinet and tenor sax solos are next, with Louis back swinging the melody with joyous abandon, adding a terrific tag at the end. This is Louis as soloist, leader and remarkable risk-taker.

Bix and Louis had different approaches in 1927, and both remain significant for different reasons. Bix wriggled around inside the fabric of a song while Louis danced right on top of it. One artist embraced space, giving the listener a moment to catch up. The other preferred heat while on a mission to dazzle. Forget about chops, runs and hype. In 1927, these were two instrumental dancers showing off their stuff with intelligence, soul and daring. The word that comes to mind when I think of Bix and Louis isn't "better." It's "clever."

To hear Louis' Chicago Breakdown, download it for 99 cents here. To hear Bix's Sorry, have a listen below—and see why it's absurd to think of these two as "either-or":

Comments

[Hans Eekhoff]

I have always maintained that the only records on which Red Nichols sounds like Bix are those made by the Paul Whiteman Orchestra in April and May 1927 (in particular "Love And Kisses"). However, with this ongoing discussion and attempts to make an old man use his ears, I suddenly realised that it is acually the other way around!
Nichols recorded these solos well before Bix had waxed such a wonderful "lonely relaxed cornet over large background" style; Bix did not record a similar styled solo until September 1927 on Goldkette's "Clementine".
It is therefore much more feasable and logical that it was Red Nichols who set the example which Bix followed and later developed in the Whiteman band.

[Albert Haim]

As usual, Eekhoff misquotes me. He writes, "When Nichols says "I'd be the last to deny that his (Bix') playing had an influence on me", Mr Haim uses that as proof that Red Nichols was influenced by Bix to a degree that he adopted his style and sounded like him." Wrong again.

I challenge Eekhoff to find in any of my postings the phrase "he adopted his style and sounded like him." I never claimed that Red adopted Bix's style. Those are Eekhoff's words. My exact words were "We can hear Bix’s characteristic sound in several of Red’s and Jimmy's recordings." I stand by that statement. In fact, Eekhoff repeatedly stated that Red sounds like Bix in Red's recordings with Whiteman.

As far as I am concerned, the case for Bix's influence on Red Nichols has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. There is conclusive, documented evidence (Red Nichols's own words) that Bix indeed influenced Red Nichols. Those who have written here denying this fact are welcome to live in their world of fantasy, a delusional world where Bix did not influence Red Nichols.

Albert Haim

PS A brief comment about Red Nichols's statements, "I did not imitate him" and "Only a person who is musically ignorant finds any similarity between my work and Bix's."

In his own recordings, Red Nichols copied, almost note for note, two of Bix's solos. This is a clear example of imitation. I remind readers that The American Heritage Dictionary defines "imitation" as follows, "Something derived or copied from an original."

The phrase "any similarity between my work and Bix's" in Red Nichols's statement has a much broader implication than a simple similarity in sound in some recordings. "My work" is the entire body of Nichols's musical legacy. And let us not forget Jean Pierre Lions' comment, "The influence of the Wolverines' leader [Bix] on Red Nichols was greater than the latter would ever acknowledge."

[Sergio Calvé]

It’s really regrettable that the main thread on Bix and Louis degenerated into an out of topic though necessary discussion after the unhappy meddling of an individual called Albert Haim and his usual stupidities.
After Haim’s sudden but predictable silence, I’ll explain what I understand as Bix’s “influence” on other contemporary musicians, by quoting Philip Evans in his Prologue for “Bix: The Leon Bix Beiderbecke Story”:

“One cherished moment I’d like to mention took place in Davenport in 1974. Bill Rank and I were walking down the staircase of a Davenport hotel, on our way to breakfast. He was stopped by a young lady who said she was gathering information on Bix and asked if he had time for a few questions. Bill agreed to help her. She asked if it was true that Bix was ahead of his time? Bill replied this was the case. Then she asked: “If Bix was ahead of his time, how were you able to play with him?” Bill answered with a straight face: “We played a little faster!”

That’s the kind of “influence” Bix impressed on the rest, including Red Nichols: HE MADE THEM PLAY BETTER. Simple. But Haim believes that “influence” is copying note-for note a solo in a single recording (that is a “tribute”, or perhaps a “joke”, no more than that), and considers others’ opinions as “documented facts”.
Music is an Art, and Chemistry is a Science. Albert Haim should learn to discern the difference.
I wish to thank the Webmaster for his patience and space. I hope the “Bix or Louis?” thread go ahead. I’d like to see here more opinions about it.

[Hans Eekhoff]

Just to prove what a miserable man Mr. Haim is; I just received a message fom Sergio Calve in which he informs me that he has been banned from looking and contributing to the Forum of Albert Haim's website.
This clearly illustrates the way Mr. Haim thinks and acts - when he can no longer counter the arguments of those who do not agree with him he simply isolates these critics from his own website. At the same time he withdraws from those Forums where he has lost the argument.
Mr. Haim has proved once more that he knows nothing about jazz music and Bix Beiderbecke, that he has no musical knowledge to support anything he says about these subjects and that he is a vindictive little man who, as a last resort, abuses people and blocks their access from his website.

[Hans Eekhoff]

And furthermore, there are no recordings known of Red Nichols where he sounds anything like Bix Beiderbecke - except the aforementioned recordings of Red with Whiteman which were made BEFORE Bix did anything of that nature and are therefore examples of purely Red's style which Bix adopted and developed later. Thus, Red doesn't sound like Bix here, no Bix, from about 4 months later, adopts that style which he got from Red.
Mr. Haim can talk and argue until he is blue in the face - the facts (and his lack of musical knowledge) prove him wrong.
Nichols was NOT influenced by Bix to a degree that he imitated him or ever sounded like him. Even if Red copied a few Bix solos here and there (AS BIX PLAYED VERY MUCH IN RED'S STYLE ON AT LEAST ONE RECORDING) Mr. Haim has continuously stated the contrary (although he now tries to weaken his statements) and is therefore, in Red's own words, "musically ignorant" - something we all knew long before.

[Hans Eekhoff]

And another thing - Mr. Haim has always criticised (from the beginning and in a very unpleasant way) Jean-Pierre Lion's fantastic book about Bix which puts Richard Sudhalter's sentimentalities very much in the shadow.
That Mr. Haim now seeks a quote from that book (of which he otherwise thinks so little) to substantiate his twisted views says much about this little chemistry teacher's character. Besides, much as I likie Lion, who says that, in this case, he is right? Few of us agree!
And again, Mr. Haim's complete lack of knowledge of musician's feelings prevents him from understanding that when one musician copies a solo of another musician, once, twice or even 20 times does not mean that he is influenced by that musician. He merely thinks "this is a nice solo, let's do it too".
The final word is Red's. "Only a person who is musically ignorant finds any similarity between my work and Bix's."
Therefore Albert Haim is musically ignorant. We have all known it for years but the proof is here. QED.

[Albert Haim]

I thought the argument was over in view of the conclusive evidence presented in Red Nichols' quote.

But, no. Eekhoff ans his cronies do not seem to understand or do not want to understand the clear meaning of what Nichols said. Eekhoff and Co. must be totally frustrated -in fact, by now, desperate. They don't know what else to do, and keep on repeating over and over the same arguments. They turn to insults. Well, they can write whatever they want about me. Insults from mentally inferior creatures mean nothing to me.

These guys can't face reality. And the reality is that Red Nichols was indeed influenced by Bix. The words of Red Nichols himself demonstrate this beyond any doubt, "Bix made a tremendous impression on me, and I'd be the last to deny that his playing had an influence on me, but I did not imitate him."

Eekhoff and company close their eyes and minds, and deny what Red Nichols enunciated so glaringly. In denying this documented fact, all Eekhoff and his followers are able to accomplish is to demonstrate what utter fools they are.

Albert Haim

I am the founder and owner of the Bixography Forum. As such, I decide who has access to it.

[Sergio Calvé]

Mr Haim: let me tell you that my name is not “his cronies”, “and co.”, “these guys”, “and company” or “his followers”, but SERGIO CALVE. Please don’t be coward and use my name when you refer to me.
“They turn to insults”. Excuse me, Mr. Haim: I did not insult you. Not yet.
This discussion looks like an endless one. That’s what happen when one is dealing with an old conceited idiot (in this case, his name is Albert Haim). Here you have your insult.
As a “mentally superior creature” he claimed that “West End Blues” is not “a blues composition”.
As a “mentally superior creature” he is unable to answer straightly a straigh question (whose possible answers are: “Yes” or “No”).
As a “mentally superior creature” he claims that he supports his idiocies with “documented facts”. They are just opinions from other people. No matter how competent or learned they are. Opinions are not facts.
As a “mentally superior creature” he states that a copy note-for-note is “relevant information” to state that there is an influence. Following that “avant garde” reasoning, Bud Freeman was “influenced” by George Johnson!!! (“Copenhagen”).
As a “mentally superior creature” he says that I “can't face reality. And the reality is that Red Nichols was indeed influenced by Bix.”. His “superior” mind prevents him to read and understand my previous comment, where I say that Bix indeed influenced Red, but in a subliminal way. Why? Obvious. It does not fit with his narrow-minded statements.
As I said before, “his comments here, there and everywhere speak for themselves”.
Finally, the fact that Albert Haim blocked my access to his mediocre Forum is anecdotal. That site is, long ago, at the bottom of my list of priorities.

[Boss Jim Geddes]

Thanks guys for a most amusing exchange. Will this clever parody of dueling 20's jazz fans ever appear in book form?

[KCSM Jazz 91.1 fan]

Seems Richard Hadlock is both a respected jazz scholar AND a musician: http://www.kcsm.org/jazz91/announcer_hadlock.php