Talk:New Orleans Rhythm Kings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Good work expanding the article. However the claim that the NORK w/ Jelly Roll session was the first racially integrated recording session is one of those misconceptions that somehow keeps being repeated no matter how many times its disproven. In jazz recordings, earlier inter-racial recordings include those of Clarence Williams with Jules Levy and Joseph Samuels some 2 years earlier, and if one is going to count a light skinned Creole of Color like Morton as breaking the color line when playing with white musicians, by the same criteria one would have to label the Original New Orleans Jazz band as an integrated group, and they made their first recordings in New York in 1918. The claim currently in the article doesn't even specify jazz, just "first mixed-race recording session". Bert Williams recorded with white studio bands for Columbia a decade earlier, and George W. Johnson and Len Spencer recorded together at least as early as the 1890s. This explained, I will now modify the article. -- Infrogmation 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting, I didn't know that. Where is this other info available? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discographies like Brian Rust's Jazz Records, and finding out ancestry of individual musicians listed. I don't know if there's been any published compilation of early interracial recordings in one place (that might be an interesting project, and I bet many more can be found with research). However that there were various examples before the Morton/NORK collaboration was no secret among collectors of US acoustic era records even 20 years ago. -- Infrogmation 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really happy to see this article fleshed out -- many thanks! I'm no jazz history expert, but only last night I noted the absence of an article on Friar's Inn and started one. Kestenbaum 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"most famous for their residency in Chicago"?[edit]

Come on, what nonsense! Weren't they most famous for their music in the first place? I mean, how many hundreds of thousands residents did Chicago have in the 20s, were they all famous? This statement doesn't make any sense! 89.182.25.100 (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That means while they performed elsewhere, what the group did while in Chicago is what they are most famous for. HTH!-- Infrogmation (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]