Talk:Benny Goodman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contradictions

"The notion of a "hot" band playing in such rarified environs was, for the time, absurd. Regulars of Carnegie Hall were the upper crust of society, and looked down upon the Swing dance craze spreading across the nation."

"This concert has been regarded by some as the most significant concert in jazz history.... After years of work by musicians from all over the country, jazz had finally been accepted by main stream audiences."

those two passages are irreconciliable. benny goodman was ALREADY successful, the "swing dance CRAZE" was already "spreading", countless jazz bands made a fine living during the same years. so why would the success of a single "upper crust" venue concert signify the "mainstream" "acceptance" of jazz?

it doesn't signal that at all. the statements are completely and utterly wrong.

Probably, as in other areas of human society and civilization, the acceptance of an otherwise popular phenomenon in an otherwise very distinguished environment signals the break-down of a "taboo". I would say this is the sgnificance of the Carnegy concert. brian stormen 03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth nothing that Goodman also played the Sax(alto and baritone)? Sure sure, he's wildly popular with the clarinet, but I have albums in which he's credited and PBS seems to think so as well.. LINK = http://www.pbs.org/jazz/biography/artist_id_goodman_benny.htm "In 1923, Goodman joined the musicians' union and played regularly with Murph Podalasky and Jules Herbevaux. That summer, on a lake excursion boat, he met Bix Beiderbecke for the first time. Beiderbecke's influence may be heard in Goodman's on-the-beat attacks, careful choice of notes, and across-the-bar phrasing on his recordings in 1928 of A Jazz Holiday and Blue. The latter especially shows these techniques in which Goodman played solos on both alto and baritone saxophone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.144.55 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost six years after the above comment, this article still contains contradictions and lacks coherent narrative. In the career section, the timeline is completely jumbled. No account is made of when Goodman assembled his orchestra and began recording same under his leadership, a pretty important sequence of events in Goodman's career. In the middle of the section's fourth paragraph, amid references to Fletcher Henderson all of a sudden there is the sentence "In 1932, his career began with Fletcher Henderson." Whose career? Goodman's? In the previous paragraph, there was already mention of events that took place in 1934, so what's this sentence doing in a following paragraph? The career section also starts at a point in time the first section, early years, has already gone past. John Hammond should weave in and out of the narrative, rather than having a separate section; the influence section should follow (not precede) the later years section; these are just the obvious problems. I have added the confusing tag, and invite editors to clean this article up, please. PJtP (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

January 16, 1938 and Carnegie Hall

1938 in music says: "Benny Goodman refuses to play Carnegie Hall because black members of his orchestra are banned." but here it states: "his band made a famous appearance at Carnegie Hall." Which version is correct?--Hhielscher 04:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Goodman's concert at Carnegie Hall in 1938 was the first jazz concert at Carnegie and one of the greatest jazz concerts ever. The recording of the concert was first issued in the 1950s and has been reissued several times since, most recently in 1999 (the first issue concert in its entirety). I just corrected the 1938 in music article. The Carnegie Hall concert probably deserves its own section within the Benny Goodman article, since it is considered to be a watershed moment for jazz. Maybe I'll get around to it someday ... Drumsac 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Benny and bebop

Here it says: "He embraced bebop in the late 1940s and early 1950s with less commercial success, although the recordings he made in that style for Capitol Records were very highly praised by jazz critics." Is this true? I've always heard that Goodman hated bebop, and I've never heard of any critically praised Goodman bebop sides. Drumsac 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodman *never* came to terms with bebop, although as a technician he undoubtably regarded its speed and chord changes as a challenge to be mastered, and as a commercial bandleader he recognised its (gradual) public acceptance...but he, personally, never liked it. Come to that, he didn't like quite a lot of pre-bop compositions, either: there can be few jazz players whose performances on record make it so obvious when they are not at home with a number. Listen to Goodman agonising on "I Must Have That Man", 1937: Teddy Wilson with Billie Holiday): it's obvious that Goodman *hates* the tune - in that key, anyway. The same goes for most of his stuff with Wardell Grey and Stan Hasselgard, when Goodman adopts a "cool", bloodless tone and phrasing that he surely cannot have beleived in. Presumably he thought he was being "modern". In fact, he was always best in the role of "hot" Chicagoan clarinetist: and at that, he was insurpassible.

Sixty years later it's hard to see what the problem was between swing and bebop. I don't think Goodman hated bop. Also, who is "Wilson" in the section on bebop. The writer says Goodman hired "Wilson" to be in his band. 67.11.169.152 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'Undercurrent Blues' is a recent (say in the last 10 years) album of BG Bebop on Capitol. It's interesting for Wardell Gray, Hasselgard, and Fats Navarro. Some of the 'ob-bla-dee' vocal stuff is crap. BG generally sounds great, but he soon retreated to his comfort zone of Big Band Swing (Most notably on 'BG in Hi-Fi"). --SeanO 21:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I play the clarinet. I have to study Benny Goodman. I think his music is really cool!

If the You Tube link is to Stage Door Canteen, I don't think it matters, because Stage Door fell into the public domain a really long time ago. 67.11.169.152 23:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"He was the most important performer of popular music in the twentieth century."

This is not a fact, it's opinion. Elvis, Sinatra, the Beatles, and Michael Jackson all have a claim to this as well. And that's if we limit 'popular music' to music from English-speaking countries. --SeanO 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's getting annoying indeed. I have given the user an official warning on his Talk page. From now on, increasingly higher warnings can be given, possibly resulting in an admin user blocking him at one point. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the 20th Century this funny time period in England and the United States, when there were so many fashions, music styles, literary styles, art movements, everyone thought that everything was the end, that the art form of the moment could never be topped, and yet something different was always around the bend. Just a thought. -Feeling nostalgic for 1900-1999. 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC) About "He was the most important performer of popular music in the twentieth century": Isn't there room for an opinion on here? At least whoever wrote it, is enthusiastic about BG. 67.11.169.152 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"He was the most important..." was added again and I removed it, before I saw this discussion. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think that was added around the same time as the case discussed here., we just all never noticed it apparently Thanks for being so alert on such a thing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Christian section

I added the Charlie Christian section with the quote and I need to add some text around it. Give me a day or so and it'll be there. :) 67.11.169.152 03:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside sources

I added more outside sources so the article didn't come across as personally written by one person. 67.11.169.152 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC) All the comments on here, besides mine, seem to have ended around 2005, anyone have any comments, favorable or negative about the additions? 67.11.169.152 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Birthname and Ancestry

According to Firestone's biography of BG, Benny was born Benjamin David Goodman, not Beno Guttman. His parents are Jewish and from what is now Poland and Lithuania, not Hungary. If there are better sources that prove otherwise, let's discuss them here. --SeanO 08:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Beno Guttman" story is the first I've heard of it. 67.11.169.152 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's shown up on the page twice now. I'm hoping this will be the end of it. --SeanO 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and tips

I see there are a couple of people interested in this article. I happen to have it on my watchlist, due to some vandalism in the past, but am not really interested in writing anything. However I noticed the changes and figured I would do some cleanup. I converted most of the sources into wikipedia references style. I've also removed a reference to a usenet posting, a source which in general is NOT reliable enough for wikipedia. As a matter of fact that might go for more of the links. That should be checked.

Other things you can do:

1. expand the lead-in section of the article. It really doesn't do the man justice at the moment.
2. there are a "LOT" of quotations now. quotations should be used sparsely. If you can write it in your own words, then that is better. You don't always need to explicitely QUOTE something as long as the prose reference to the information is sourced.
3. please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and some of biographies that made it as Featured article. This will show what type of article is expected. For instance: AC/DC Frank Black Mariah Carey Phil Collins and Celine Dion.

--TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a lot of the quotes, you're right. I just wanted a quick way to make the article sound less like it was written by one person who didn't use any sources. I was trying for a more objective tone. I'll try to (or I'm sure someone will) blend the quotations or paraphrase them more into the body of the work. Also I don't have the James Lincoln Collier book available at my library where I live, so I was unable to find the sources. But I didn't want to go in and delete another person's work either. So if anyone has access to the Collier book, maybe they could help out.67.11.169.152 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Palomar ballroom and 'Jitterbug'

Article reads: "Over the nights of the engagement, a new dance labelled variously as the "Jitterbug" captured the dancers on the floor, and a new craze had begun.[9] Onlookers gathered around the edges of the ballroom floor. Within days of the opening, newspapers around the country were headlining stories about the new phenomenon that had started at the Palomar. Goodman was finally a nationally known star, and the Swing Era began, led by Goodman. Following this the big band era exploded."

This may be a correct portrayal of a 'sourced' article, but that does't make it accurate to the history of swing music and dancing. It is far more likely that (black and/or white) dancers who were 'in the know' about Lindy Hop, which had been evolving in big city black communities for about a decade found the combination of Fletcher Henderson and Berrigan perfectly suited to their style and introduced it to a largely white, 'foxtrot' audience. This event may have spurred the popularity of the dance style or brought it a more mainstream stamp of approval. To say it was a new dance and it was a new phenomenon, and that it 'began' the Swing Era is definitely misleading.

See the primary source interviews (for Ken Burns' Jazz) of Frankie Manning and Norma Miller of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers for support of this point at the bottom of page 19 as follows..."Norma: The Stone Age. Well, the Stone Age, I think musicians began to want people to sit down and listen to his, to their music. Particularly Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman. They wanted to do concert-style performances and they didn't want people to jump up and dance in front of them while they were playing their music. And I always had the idea, Frankie, that of all the bands, now you know, every band that came out of the Savoy Ballroom always took Lindy Hoppers with them. Benny Goodman never did. I always said, I thought, he just didn't like us. Because how could anybody dare go into the Paramount Theater, or someplace like that, and don't take Lindy Hoppers. He never, he wanted people to listen to his music. Now, from what the story I get, when Benny Goodman was playing the Paramount Theater, and the kids got up and started dancing in the isles and everything, I understand that he was the one that said they looked like a bunch of jitterbugs. And I heard that was how the phrase got, 'cause we were Lindy Hoppers. We didn't get the jitterbug phrase until afterwards, when, 'til the white Bobbysockers did it at the Paramount Theater. And that's what's, I always had the idea he didn't want dancers with him. That's competition. Wherein Chick Webb never went out and didn't have Lindy Hoppers with him."

After reading the cited source for the statement in the Wiki article, I have even more doubts about its veracity. The writer of the BBC article is distinguishing between the dramatic aerial-laden Lindy Hop seen in the movies, competitions, or Jam Circles versus what was actually danced on crowded social floors. The BBC article is comparing 'East-Coast' style (a ballroomified evolution of Lindy) to 'performance' Lindy. It is an apples to oranges comparison and indicates a lack of depth in knowledge of swing dance technique, styles, and history. Lindy has both 'leaning in' and 'leaning out' postures and leads with one's partner in its social, dance hall form both currently and historically. Trust the word of Norma Miller above who lived through it.

--Natureboykm 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)natureboykm --Natureboykm 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | update

Norman didn't know Goodman, it seems. His was a Dance Band as he states clearly in "Kingdom of Swing" written in 1939. Also, she only heard about what happend at the Paramount. Still I may remove/reword that stuff.Steve Pastor (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"out on the Coast there were wall-to-wall people, and nobody could dance. They just stood there a and yelled and hollered and screamed. Oh, here and there a few people would dance, but they just did the regular fox-trot. They didn't really start Lindying until we came back to New York..." Helen Ward quoted in Swing, Swing, Swing: the Life & Times of Benny Goodman

James Lincoln Collier and the profession of David Goodman

"As a memember of the Benny Goodman family, first of all, I second what was said earlier about the name Benjamin David Goodman being the correct one, with his father David from Poland and mother Dora Rezinsky from Kauna Lithuania, all under the rule of Russia at that time.

I understand that James Lincoln Collier's biographies are controversial which is why I think it is safe to air my disagreement with him about a couple things. First of all, Benny was indeed the first of the family to earn money through music, but I think it is unfair to say that the other brothers were only through him able to gain success. They were accomplished musicians and businessmen too, not to mention his sister Ethel, who managed Benny for at least a while. I hope Collier's quote will not stay forever in this article for while it is important to give Benny credit for his generosities, a career as long as the other Goodmans had could not have been sustained only on generosity.

Secondly, David Goodman, my great Grandfather, was officially listed (I forget where) as a tailor by profession, but that is how it is told in most biographies. There was a bad time in which he worked in lard which gave rise to the story Benny told, but that was an exception, not the rule. He was quite proud of his news stand, in fact, that he was able to acquire later on." 66.7.86.115 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)justfure

Carnegie Hall concert

There seems to be contradictions within this section...the section in question states that it was Benny Goodman's Sister-In-Law that found the recordings and brought them to his attention...In the actual recordings Benny Goodman states that it was "one of my daughters" that brought the recordings to his attention after finding it in a closet after 12 years. Another curiousity is that Benny Goodman states that "we didn't know how many people would be on hand until we got there"...when this article states that the concert had sold out "weeks" before. The other question is that in the recording Benny Goodman states that one copy of the recording was made for him and the other for the Library of Congress...while the article states that one recording was made for Benny Goodman and the other for Albert Marx's wife Helen Ward.

This section of the article seems to be referenced well, which adds to my confusion...perhaps someone can clear these seemingly contradictory statements up. Thanks. LeMaster 22:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The liner notes to Columbia's 1950 (the first) LP release of BG's 1938 Carnegie Hall concert mentioned that Benny's daughter Rachel found the masters in a closet at home and gave them to her father, asking "What's this, Daddy?". I have this double LP here and the catalog number is SET SL-160. It was also one of the first LP's to sell over a million copies and perhaps the first set of LP's to meet that mark.

On a related matter mentioned above, Goodman had both Teddy Wilson and Lionel Hampton on this performance plus a number of other black musicains from the orchestras of Duke Ellington and Count Basie. No way did Benny say he wouldn't play at Carnegie Hall because of their racial policies.

Michou 13 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Forays into the Classical Repertoire

There is some discrepancy between this article and the article on Reginald Kell regarding Goodman seeking tutorship from Kell.

Kell: mentions 1948 and acceptance in 1952. Goodman: mentions 1949.

This needs to be cleared up. brian stormen 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I cleared it up brian stormen 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Franny Beecher

Franny Beecher, later of Bill Haley & His Comets fame, worked with Goodman's group in the 1940s. I'm trying to track down a source I can cite, but if any Goodman experts have a source handy, I think this is an interesting a notable bit of information to add to the article. 23skidoo (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

problems with BBC account

Goodman's band was eventually signed by the RCA-Victor Records Company in 1934; that summer, (It was actually 1935. SP) the band embarked on a tour of mixed fortunes, playing to quite a few flop houses (Stanley Theater in Pittsburgh, etc, were NOT flop houses SP)before finally striking lucky at their final event at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles during August, 1935 where, to Goodman's surprise, kids were spotted lining up in a queue spanning several blocks to hear him play. The people of Los Angeles were gripped and so too were the news reporters who reported that the kids were 'jitterbugging' in the aisles. This was the beginning of the Swing Era: swing bands, the jitterbug and swing dance for white Americans. During the summer of 1936, Goodman was called upon to play at the Paramount theatre in New York (It ws actually 1937) and yet again the reporters went crazy reporting similar outbreaks of the jitterbugging craze that had possessed the East coast. By 1938, the jitterbug was established, as Goodman's type of jazz was joined by fancy footwork, elaborate swings and twists and turns on the dancefloor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A8240438 rtvd 1.2010

Frankly, this overview has enough inaccuracies (there are more) that I don't think it is "reliable", even though it's on the BBC's site. It's obviously a poorly researched mash up. Steve Pastor (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And I see this has already been brought up, but from a different angle. Norma heard about the Paramount event, she doesn't claim to have been there. And even that event may have been hyped. Steve Pastor (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Niklas Stratmann Stratmann Stratmann

Goodman and racial segregation

This seems to be a pretty fair article, but I noticed in the article about Milt Bernhart a link to this account of how, when Wardell Gray was the featured sax soloist in the Goodman band, he was exposed to humiliating treatment while on tour in Las Vegas: he was forced to stay in a different motel from the white members of the band, and the management of the hotel where the band was playing insisted not only that Gray enter the hotel by a back door instead of the front, but also that he had to remain in a back room and not mix with guests after the show. According to Bernhart, Goodman apparently did not make any protest about this, which Bernhart (by his own account) found confusing given Goodman's deserved reputation as the white musician who had been a pioneer in breaking the colour line in jazz. Bernhart goes on to tell how Gray became depressed by his maltreatment and Goodman's apparent indifference to it, and started drinking heavily, with the result that one night he was late entering for a solo and Goodman fired him on the spot. This anecdote seems to me to illustrate something about Goodman's complex personality and perhaps it belongs in the article, or at least some allusion to it does. I'm not trying to blacken Goodman's name or paint him as a racist: there is an entirely contrasting story of Goodman standing up to a hotel manager in New York and threatening to cancel the show when the manager told him that the black musicians in the band (who included Sid Catlett, Charlie Christian and Cootie Williams, among others) would not be allowed in the restaurant. (Goodman got the manager to back down; this story is told in Jazz Anecdotes Second Time Around by Bill Crow, OUP 2004 pp.152-153.) His employees seem to have felt that Goodman was, as it were, an equal-opportunity misanthrope. But I'd like to read more about Goodman's personality. Lexo (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discography

The discography sections appears to have numerous errors related to the release date of the albums. The dates seem to have come from Bennygoodman.com, but many of the albums are compilations of recordings from that time frame, not actually released in those years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PBS show -- "A Tribute To John Hammond"

The article says: "Goodman appeared on a 1975 PBS salute to Hammond but remained at a distance." I'm not sure what this means. I didn't know, when I saw that show, that the two men were at odds with one another personally, and I don't remember if they shook hands or what. What I do remember is a stageful of musicians on risers forming a pyramid with Goodman at the top, and an incredible jam. Goodman was the farthest from Hammond because of the stage setup, but his playing was anything but distant. It's not very important, perhaps, but can we have a source for the statement in the article? 24.27.31.170 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Eric

Fletcher Henderson?

This really needs to be entirely rewritten by someone who actually knows the subject. Fletcher Henderson was highly important to the success of the bands from the beginning all the way through the '40s for instance. Benny was no more difficult than many other band leaders, and singers and musicians notoriously played musical chairs. He was a compassionate, helpful man who never forgot where jazz originated, and can always be found in the company of the best musicians of whatever color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.228.23 (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Let's Dance" broadcasts format.

An author's statement that the band's lack of popularity in the east being due to it's late broadcast time (1:30am on the east coast) is patently false and should be removed.

"Let's Dance" was sponsored by the National Biscuit Company (primarily to promote it's recent introduction of the "Ritz" cracker) and aired on the one of the two NBC(!) networks. Listeners located in the Eastern, (from where it was broadcast in NYC), Central and Mountain time zones "heard" the weekly program from 10:00pm (Saturday nights) to 1:00am (Sunday mornings) in their local time zones. Listeners located in the Pacific time zone "heard" the programs from 9:00pm to 12:00am LOCAL time. Each hour of the broadcast was split into three 20-minute segments and each band was allotted one segment each hour during which they played a typical dance/broadcast set of tunes. As far as "working" hours for the three bands are concerned, because of the differences in time zones across the continental USA, it was a FIVE hour "gig" for all three of the bands that took part in the program:

At 10:00pm NYC local (Eastern) time: program began broadcasting (from NYC) and was aired to the the Eastern time zone. At 11:00pm NYC local time: program was picked up in Central time zone (where it was only 10:00pm locally) and continued in Eastern time zone where it had already been in progress. At 12:00am (Midnight) NYC local time: program was picked up in the Mountain and Pacific time zones (where it was only 10:00pm and 9:00pm respectively) and continued in the other two time zones where it had already been in progress. At 1:00am NYC local time: program ends in the Eastern time zone and continues in Central, Mountain & Pacific areas. At 2:00am NYC local time: program ends in the Central time zone and continues in the Mountain and Pacific time zone. At 3:00am NYC local time: program ends in the Mountain and Pacific time zones and the broadcast was then finished.

Chances are that Goodman's band, specifically hired to be the "hot" band (to play the newly emerging "swing" style) got even more adventurous in a "hot" sense (i.e. featuring out-and-out jazz solos by Goodman, Berigan and others in it) as the evening wore on, because it was typical of the entire era that bands would later on in the evenings (generally after midnight or 1:00am), especially the more hot or "swing" oriented ones, would stretch limits of "acceptability" considered normal or appropriate for many venues and play more jazz (I.e. feature more hot solos) by musicians who would be looked upon as being "needlessly exhibitionistic" by a large number of people who had already gone home (from a ballroom or hotel venue) or gone to bed (in the case of radio audiences), and I'm not talking only about "polite" upper-class society. It cannot be understated that "raucous" soloing and "grandstanding" was still not regarded as anything respectable at all by a large mass of the population or especially producers/radio sponsors, who were always far more concerned with public acceptance (and consumption) of what they were peddling than the product itself. Conditions and restraints imposed on all bandleaders by their venue-employers cannot be understated; as even Goodman's own difficulties with ballroom operators were highlighted in Denver and the public's dismal reception to the band elsewhere on the tour which culminated in the band's opening at the Palomar Ballroom in LA, where history was ultimately made. Bblegacy (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

wha? (sentence in Catalyst for the Swing era)

What is this sentence trying to say:

"In 1940, Benny developed a serious case of sciatica, and had others compose pieces for him, such as Eddie Sauter who did not fully compose flawless compositions such as Benny Rides Again where the clarinet piece sounded like two tempo pieces instead of one"

What does sciatica have to do with composing? How does one not fully compose something, is this comparable to Shubert's 8th? I think this should probably be three sentences, but even then the meaning of each should be made clear to the reader. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The cited source did not support any of that text, so I removed the problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look for a source for the Mundy and Sauter arrangements, I think this information should be re-introduced as important. The Copland etc is mentioned later in the "forays into classical" section. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you bring Sauter and Mundy back in, I think there is probably a better spot for them, chronologically. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Depending on when these arrangements were utilized, I completely agree. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted Sidemen Section

Just removed Ernani Bernardi (AKA "Noni") fr/ the "Noted Sidemen" section. He's not a musician of note. His claim to fame is as a politician, and this article is about a musician and his music. The other musician listed, Ralph Patt IS a musician of note. Visit the article--I never heard of him before today, but he's worth a good look. The section is a bit of problem since Goodman had a considerable number of sidemen who are/were giants of jazz--Kenny Burrell, f'rinstance. So a section with just Patt looks strange. Would it be a good idea to list all or most of Goodman's prestigious sidepersons? Tapered (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that Mel Powell (piano, composer, arranger) had nothing more than his name mentioned. He contributed a lot to the bands of both Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller while he worked for them. He is also the only musician to date that has won both a jazz poll (Best Military Jazz Musicain, 1945) and a Pulitzer Prize for Music (Duplicates, 1990).

Michou 13 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete

Your ‘discography’ section does not even come close to being a complete list of Benny Goodman songs. One that is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia is “And the Angels Sing", which is stated to be 1939’s #1 hit song. Other internet lists are similarly shortchanged. Would someone please provide a complete list of songs that Benny Goodman originated? The list should be sortable by date, title, etc. If a Benny Goodman cover of someone else’s song became more popular than the original, then there should be a second list of them. Perhaps 'Avalon'.

agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.174.248 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reprinting Russell Connor's 'BG on the Record' discography is not going to work here as it is almost 700 pages long. A link to it would be more than adequate for anyone interested in more information on this large nad complex topic.

Michou 13 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

record dates?

It makes absolutely no sense to try to apply original recording dates to later compilations as AllMusic does and you've copied here from the Benty Goodman official website http://www.bennygoodman.com/about/discography.html. Just confuses everything and doesn't make the task any easier. The best sources are Russ Connor's BG on Record http://www.amazon.com/Bg-Record-Bio-Discography-Benny-Goodman/dp/0870000594/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=03MC9GBS8MEF4JGGP5BT, Benny Goodman: Listen to His Legacy http://www.amazon.com/Benny-Goodman-D-Russell-Connor/dp/0810820951 and Wrappin' It up http://www.amazon.com/Benny-Goodman-Wrappin-It-Up/dp/0810831023/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=16SY7QFBHC0WDC8T2S08 as well as ,pre recently, Benny Goodman: A Supplemental Discography by David Jessup http://www.amazon.com/Benny-Goodman-Supplemental-Discography-Studies/dp/081087685X

It make a LOT of good sense to include oringinal recording or broadcast dates when dealing of a top musician like BG. Like many others, Goodman recorded and broadcast a number of tunes over and over, sometimes with the full band and others with his various small groups. Dates give the fans what the need to isolate one particluar preformance from the rest.

Michou 13 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ref Benny Goodman

could better sec.

ideas

References

Benny Goodman "in the 1970s"

The photo that purports to show Goodman in the 1970 was taken later than that. That looks more like an 80s photo, probably not long before he died. In the 70s his hairline wasn't as receding.Here's a good example of a 70s image of BG:

https://img.discogs.com/vMvXZX4y2nF3dIW09UsFnT-BiRs=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2952631-1486271365-9665.jpeg.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8104:730:6C5B:9D0C:5C4C:5688 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Benny Goodman's name

Since I see that this article is in the middle of some intensive editing by Vmavanti, I will not make any changes to the article page now. But I would like to air some thoughts about one thing: the form of Goodman's name at the beginning of the lead section.

The first mention of Goodman's name has been transformed in several ways since the creation of this article in 2002. First, it was Benny Goodman. Later, it became Benny Goodman, born Benjamin David Goodman; then it was, for many years, Benjamin David "Benny" Goodman.

The latter form was changed by JesseRafe to just Benjamin David Goodman. Then I added a later phrase, "... best known as Benny Goodman ...".

But then JesseRafe reverted my last change. His rationale was as follows:

You are so confident, yet still so wrong. The MOS is explicit in this regard at MOS:HYPOCORISM, “If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name”. There are exceptions, but the “Benjamin (Benny)” etc type is exactly what is not wanted.

I disagree, at least in part. It may be (per MOS:FULLNAME) that we do have to have the full Benjamin David Goodman at the beginning of the article. Nor can we any longer have Benjamin David "Benny" Goodman. I was willing to go along with that. Yet my subsequent change, leaving the original mention of the full name intact, was reverted as well. But I strongly believe that the name Benny Goodman must appear early in the article, well before the end of the lead section. Why? Because Goodman's notability was and remains entirely as Benny Goodman, never Benjamin David Goodman. Those of us who follow jazz know that Goodman was always known as "Benny Goodman". That name is inextricably bound up with his notability. Do we ever hear, "Now appearing at the Palomar Ballroom, Benjamin David Goodman and His Orchestra? No, of course not. That's an absurdity.

Further, after having reread the following MOS section, MOS:MULTINAMES, I'm wondering whether it might be acceptable to begin with "Benny Goodman, born Benjamin David Goodman". That might be too extreme, as his name was never legally changed to Benny Goodman. There is, no surprise, nothing specific about the names of jazz musicians in the MOS, at least not in any parts I've read. But there is an emphasis on the importance of the name a biographical subject is notable as. I do not find a prohibition in the MOS against adding in the lead section, after the first, full mention of the birth name, a hypocorism or other variant of the subject's name. In many cases, that would be considered trivial. In this case, however, I feel strongly that it would be justified. Benny Goodman's notability is inseparably tied to the name "Benny Goodman".

So, which should it be?

Benny Goodman
Benny Goodman, born Benjamin David Goodman
Benjamin David "Benny" Goodman
Benjamin David Goodman, professionally known as Benny Goodman (or some variant?)

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

--Alan W (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to litigate the MOS with you, if you have a problem with its rules take it up there. But it is clear, obvious hypocorisms (Benjamin/Bennet --> Benny/Ben/Bennie) etc do not need to be spelled out here. He didn't change his name, he didn't adopt a nickname not obviously or commonly derived (say, "Bill" or "Tom") from one of his birth names, and he did not get a complete sobriquet not based on his name at all, like Magic. You also might be confused that at no point did I argue that his common name is not Benny. The page is still at wiki/Benny_Goodman and the infobox is still Benny Goodman, and any captions or other wikimedia selections that use his full name will still say Benny Goodman. It's just that the MOS calls for not spelling out obvious nicknames in biographies. Full stop. Also, please have this conversation in ONE place. This is the 4th talk page now, it's very tedious. JesseRafe (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know how the the first name works because I've seen experienced editors make changes for seemingly arbitrary reasons. One said the article's name absolutely must appear somewhere in the lede but he didn't give a reason why. I try to be guided by common sense, clarity, simplicity, and above all helping readers, putting myself in the reader's shoes. The MOS as I read it suggests a point consistent with the formality of encyclopedia prose, that an article should start with the person's full, formal name if known. If necessary, this is followed by "known professionally as", their performance name, popular name, the name they recorded under, act under, and so on. If their performance name is similar enough to their real, formal name, you don't need to add a shortened form. Shortened forms include Johnny, Jack, Ray, Barb, Milt, Kate, Mike, Dave, Dan, Danny, Ed, Benny, Bill, Billy, Will. This is of course subjective because readers have varying degrees of common sense and familiarity with the shortened forms of names. This is another one of those points that will probably never be consistent on Wikipedia, and it's not the end of the world or worth getting excessively angry about. I'm OK with this article if it says "Benjamin David Goodman" and nothing more, but I have no doubt, no doubt, that someone will strongly disagree. There ought not to be any confusion for readers, because "Benny Goodman" is at the top of the page as the name of the article, and enough people can, I think, make the connection between Benjamin and Benny. I use "known professionally" only when there is a significant difference between the real name and the performance name, as in "Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson known professionally as Katy Perry".
Vmavanti (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I still do strongly disagree, in two ways. First of all, the lead section should sum up the subject's notability; and that notability in this case is inseparable from the name "Benny Goodman". Readers are looking to read about the famous jazz musician Benny Goodman. I have no problem with starting off with the subject's full name, without incorporating any hypocorisms or whatever variants. But in explaining Goodman's notability, we need to explain it as the notability of Benny Goodman, not Benjamin David Goodman. The fact that the title is the common name only makes things worse, as I see it; there is then a jarring dissonance. Just as we cannot assume that because some fact is in an infobox, it doesn't have to be in the body of the article, we cannot assume that because a name is in the title, it doesn't have to be in the article in that form. Yes, the common name, with hypocorism, does appear later in the body of the article. But then it seems stranger that the name, so associated with the subject's fame and probably the reason we are reading the article, appears nowhere in the lead.

You seem like the kind of person who would be happier with "Benny Goodman (born Benjamin David Goodman"). I've seen that format. It's not the one I would use but I wouldn't say it's terrible. It makes sense that you want the reader to see "Benny Goodman" right away before anything else.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)`

That relates to the second part of my disagreement. As I've said, JesseRafe, the MOS is clear enough about the requirements for the first mention of the name. I don't disagree with you there (though you seem to imply that I am assuming some kind of antagonistic stance). But I cannot find any prohibition against incorporating the common name, with the hypocorism if present, into the lead once the formal name is stated in that first mention. You seem to be assuming a much broader prohibition than I can find. Can you point me to a specific passage in the MOS that prohibits any such placement? And yes, if it makes you happy, I will be glad to continue this discussion only in this one place.

One other thought here. I don't see how any hypocorism is "deducible" automatically from the formal name. Those not that familiar with Goodman might just as well assume that maybe he was Benny; but maybe sometimes he was Ben Goodman. The name Benny Goodman, and only that name for this subject, had a certain resonance during the period of Goodman's influence, continuing to this day. It's part of his notability. According to WP:MOSLEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." In the case of the present subject, the name "Benny Goodman" is inextricably bound up with his notability. --Alan W (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Oh, and no, I don't have a problem with the the MOS and its rules. I do have a problem with your increasingly broad interpretation of those rules. Please point out where in the MOS the mention of hypocorisms (and their being obvious or not is not my point) is prohibited in the lead (after the first mention of the full name), much less, as you now are contending, in biographical articles as a whole. Sorry you find this tedious. But not everything in the MOS is as explicit as you suggest; please accept that it is possible for someone else to have a different opinion about the interpretation of some parts of it. --Alan W (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I too think "Benjamin David Goodman" is fine here, and there's no need to mention his nickname "Benny" in the lead because it can obviously be deduced from his full name. This is in the spirit of the relatively recent RFC that established this guideline. The only time it's not obvious is in cases like Gordon Claude "Chris" Griffin, who was in Goodman's band. Graham87 03:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"I don't see how any hypocorism is "deducible" automatically from the formal name"—which is why I said it's subjective. It's hard for me to say how many people automatically know that Benny comes from Benjamin. People of different ages, experience, education, will have varying levels of awareness. It's logical or at least obvious that Johnny comes from John. Less so, that Jack comes from John or that Peggy comes from Margaret. Herbert can give you either Herb or Bert.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly the relationship of the hypocorism to the full name that matters the most to me. I'm still not sure I've gotten my point across. Vmavanti, yes, I would be happy with the way you suggest. But I would also be happy leaving Goodman's birth name at the beginning, as is, if the name Benny Goodman were inserted gracefully somewhere else in the lede as a way of emphasizing that it is precisely as Benny Goodman that Goodman is notable. That is the connection I am trying to emphasize the most. You have written so well about jazz in these articles (and great to see you're putting in so much work on this one now) that perhaps you could come up with something acceptable that I haven't thought of.

Graham87, thanks for pointing out that recent RFC. I will soon read it, step back and try think about this in a different light. I am really trying to keep an open mind. I appreciate your and Vmavanti's willingness to discuss this. Yes, Vmavanti, we are all human, and we will not always share a single opinion, that's for sure, especially in view of all the clashes I've seen on Wikipedia over these fifteen years. --Alan W (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Alan, the reason why you're maybe not feeling you're getting your point across is that "as Benny Goodman that Goodman is notable" is not being challenged, either in these Talk discussions or by the removal of the hypocorism. It's still the name of the page. It's still the header of the infobox. It's still used in all direct quotes. It's still used in all of his bands' names. I went into the conflation you're having with how Wikipedia uses "notable" in a different way than you're presenting you understand it on the parallel discussion you insist on having about Shelly Manne. If he were the first Benjamin to go by Benny in the history of English and started a fad of using that name, that'd be notable. If not, it's just his name and he's notable for who he is, not what his name was. JesseRafe (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesse, I'm not posting comments to multiple places to annoy you. I'm following Wikipedia practices. If I plan to make a change that might be might be controversial (or just did), as this one has proved to be, I first post to the talk page. I was just trying to get other opinions. Since I got no response other than yours on the other page, I refrained from pursuing the matter there. On this page, I got two responses, and Graham87 and Vmavanti have given me food for thought, including pointing me to that RFC, which I haven't had a chance to look at yet. From this last response of yours, I see we're coming from radically different places. We're not even using the same words in the same ways. We may never see eye to eye, but that's life, I guess. I am going to step back, read the RFC, and think about this some more. As I said, I am trying to keep an open mind. --Alan W (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(That's false on its face. I wrote on your talk page as this was about more than one article otherwise I'd've written it there. You responded on your talk page, then opened up a discussion at my talk page, then opened one up at Shelly Manne and then opened up this one. All within like 15 hours. That is not Wikipedia SOP.) JesseRafe (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I have to disagree. You speak of Wikipedia rules and practices, yet you keep ignoring one: WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Note that I have not continued my comments on any page but this one. And I told you why I opened more than one discussion. I wanted to see if anyone else who might not be watching all the pages would have any comments. And notice also that I said I would step back and read that RFC. I am trying to listen to what you have to say, but you keep on ignoring what I'm saying, or placing it in the most unfavorable light. --Alan W (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Need for more citations?

@Vmavanti: in November you tagged this article as needing more citations. You subsequently made a significant number of edits and looking at the article, it seems sufficiently well referenced that the maintenance tag can be removed? Or are there specific areas that you feel need more supporting citations before that can be done? AllyD (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I skimmed it a minute ago and it looks like everything has been referenced except for the part that begins with "Goodman helped racial integration in America." I would like to see a reference and citation for that paragraph. EddieHugh and I would like to see every sentence of every article sourced, though that doesn't mean every sentence has to have a citation. It depends one one's style, I guess. The discography has not been sourced, but that has been a bone of contention. I have debated other users about that. They seem content to leave the discography unsourced.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that paragraph starts with a big claim which would need reference support (though the boxed Hampton quote there and also in Racial segregation in the United States may be enough), and then strays to describing the wider context and future changes in sports, before returning to specifics about the Goodman band and the quote regarding Wilson which is found in multiple sources. Maybe the text can be simplified to focus on the facts, e.g.

  Goodman hired Teddy Wilson for his trio and added vibraphonist Lionel Hampton for his quartet, and then in 1939 hired guitarist Charlie Christian, significant breaks with the prevailing Racial segregation in the United States. "Goodman's popularity was such that he could remain financially viable without touring the South, where he would have been subject to arrest for violating Jim Crow laws." <with a citation>" According to Jazz by Ken Burns, when someone asked him why he "played with that nigger" (referring to Teddy Wilson), Goodman replied, "I'll knock you out if you use that word around me again".

  while also maintaining the Hampton quote in the box at the side. AllyD (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote up to "significant breaks with the prevailing racial segregation in the United States". As far as I know, there was no law forbidding a white musician like Goodman from hiring black musicians, so I don't know what "significant breaks" you're talking about. I would need to see a clear statement from reliable sources about specific laws. Black and white jazz musicians mixed without problems from the beginning. I'm not fond of titling the last section of a biography "Legacy and influence" because those subjects are always subjective. Such a header invites people to make grandiose claims. We should stick to music and facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. It's not my job to tell people what to think.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Section titles

These seem a little overly whimsical for an encyclopedia trying to be neutral? DemonDays64 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sweet’s Ballroom was renamed to McFadden's Ballroom in Oakland, California

• Originally a dance studio built in 1923, it was managed by Bill Sweet and turned into an impeccable, acoustically pristine ballroom. The ballroom was known as McFadden’s in the 30’s and as Sands Ballroom in the 70’s.

• historicsweetsballroom.com/pages/info_pages/Information.PDF

• Note A:
  

Collier, in his book Benny Goodman and the Swing Era (page 164), listed both a "McFadden's Ballroom in San Francisco" and "Sweet's in Oakland" as separate engagements for Goodman, with Pismo Beach in between. However, there was never a McFadden's or a Sweet's Ballroom in San Francisco, and the trip from there to Pismo Beach was inconveniently long. Oakland and San Francisco are about 15 miles (24 km) apart, but Pismo Beach is more than 235 miles (378 km) south of both of them. Pismo Beach is only 175 miles (282 km) from Los Angeles and would have been a more convenient place for Goodman to have played while traveling from Oakland to L.A.

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

bennygoodman.com/biography says:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200329234838/https://www.bennygoodman.com/biography/ :

• when he was 14, he quit school
• when he was 15, his father died

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)