Baby Won’t You Please Come Home

This side was recorded on April 17, 1929, by Frank Trumbauer and his Orchestra. Both Bix and Andy Secrest were present. This is OKeh 41286, re-released in 1947 in the Columbia 78 rpm album ” Bix and Tram”, A Hot Jazz Classic C-144.

In the liners for the album George Avakian states: “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” features a Trumbauer vocal and two solo choruses. Despite much speculation that Andy Secrest may have played one of these choruses, the accepted decision among most musicians and Bixophiles is that Beiderbecke is responsible for both solos.” Indeed there are two solos here, one at the beginning – a 16-bar open – and one toward the end – again 16 bars.

The complete recording is described in Castelli, Kaleveld, and Pusateri’s book “The Bix Bands: A Bix Beiderbecke Disco-biography”:

Intro 2 band, 2 vn & gt
(1) 16 band
(2) 16 tp
(3) 16 Tram (vo) & tp
pass 2 Tram (vo), 2 gt
(4) 16 Tram
(5) 16 Bix
(6) 8 band, 8 band & Bix
Coda 1 band

Clearly there is disagreement between Avakian and the Italian authors.

The first solo show as tp would be Secrest since there were only two cornet players present at the session. Sudhalter and Evans (Bix: Man & Legend, p. 465) provide the following information:

Soloists: Secrest (16 verse); Bix (first “fill”); Secrest (other “fills”); Bix (16); Secrest (lead last chorus);  Bix (muted, obbligato).

Sudhalter and Evans agree with the Italian authors in that the first solo is by Secrest and the second by Bix. In his liner notes for the Masters of Jazz set of CDs, Marc Richard provides the following information:

Solos: Secrest, c (16 verse) – Tram, voc, with Bix, c in derby obbligato (16) – Tram, Cms (16) – Secrest, c in derby (16) – Bix, c (leads last 16).

Evidently, we have a third opinion about the solos: Richard believes that Secrest took both solos! Moreover, in contrast with Sudhalter and Evans, Richard believes that the muted cornet behind Tram’s vocal is Bix and that Bix leads the last 16 bars.

First, let us take the question of the solos.

I totally agree with Sudhalter and Evans and with M. J. Logsdon who had comments about the recording in an earlier version of the website for the Wolverine Antique Music Society. Logsdon wrote:

Actually, only the second solo in “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” is by Bix, the first one being by Andy Secrest. This is attested by Philip R. Evans and William Dean Myatt in their Bix discography in their jointly-authored with Richard M. Sudhalter Bix: Man and Legend. Also, it is apparent to the careful ear. By 1929, when this tune and its flipside “I Like That” were recorded, Bix, due to ill health and fairly constant drunkenness, was more and more using a mute in an attempt to cover his less-than-accurate lip. The first solo in “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” does resemble Bix, but its crispness, clarity, and lightly-brasher-sounding-than-Bix sound are in distinct contrast to the muted second solo by Bix, which, after several listenings, does in fact sound different from the first solo, in spite of the mute.

There is no question in my mind that the first solo is taken by Secrest. Bix’s mellow sound is absent as is his usual high level of creativity. The first solo is typical of Secrest trying to emulate Bix. The second solo is clearly Bix: the inventiveness, the emotion, the tone, in spite of the mute or derby, are all there. Also, one can tell that Bix is in poor shape, as he fluffs one note. Randy Sandke in “Bix Beiderbecke: Observing a Genius at Work” comments on Bix’s health at this point in his career:

“His next session was for Trumbauer on April 17, but instead of sounding stronger, he seems even more unsure of himself. Secrest handles most of the lead. On both “Louise” and “Wait Till You See My Cherie” Bix again uncharacteristically finishes with high notes and the results are again strained. On “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” he settles down and plays a fine lyrical solo but by this time his lip is spent and it almost refuses to vibrate on the last four bars.”

Since Randy Sandke specifically refers to the lyrical solo, by implication we can infer that he does not feel that the first solo is by Bix.

The second question has to do with the “fills” under Tram’s vocal. Sudhalter and Evans assign the first to Bix and the remaining ones to Secrest. Richard states that they are all Bix. There is no doubt that the tone of the first “fill” is different from the tone of that which immediately follows. But, some of the subsequent “fills” display the tone and the weakness of Bix in this recording. This is a hard one to call. Could Bix and Secrest be taking turns with the “fills”?

The third and final question deals with the identity of the cornet leader in the last 16 bars. I agree with Sudhalter and Evans that it is Secrest. It is stronger than what I would expect for a weak Bix, and the tone is harsher than what we are accustomed to hearing from Bix. Moreover, in the last 8 bars, there is a cornet obbligato which sounds very much like Bix.

I would be interested in hearing readers’ opinions. I acknowledge helpful discussions with and technical advice from Philip Colston.

 

---

 

Brad Kay writes on 8/10/99

 

Let’s end the fracas over who plays what on Trumbauer’s “Baby, Won’t You Please Come Home.”  This is no big mystery! Bix plays into a cup mute, and stands up close to the mike, right at Trumbauer’s side.

Secrest blows an open horn and is always ten to fifteen feet away from the mike. In other words, Bix: muted/close; Secrest: open/far away.

Why has there ever been any confusion over this?

 

Results of SpectraPlus Analysis of the Two Solos

On September 6, 2001, Tom Smith kindly sent me a message with part of a recent presentation for the Historic Brass Conference at Wake Forest University. Tom writes, “This  is an example of our Bix research. The actual sight of the moving compound sine waves is part of the presentation. I have cut out most of the lengthy Bix historical background since you guys know all that stuff already. You have our permission to use any or all of this email for your website and/or discussion groups.” I am grateful to Tom for his generosity. The presentation follows.

 

 

A Scientific Method for the Verification of Unidentified Brass Recordings(The Beiderbecke Mysteries)
EXCERPTED FOR ALBERT HAIM – Thomas Smith, Pfeiffer University / Gary Westbrook, Concord College – June 29, 2001

Smith and Westbrook attempted to accurately reveal mislabeled or unidentified brass instrument personnel on historical jazz recordings. A computerized matching system was used to compare unidentified recorded solos called, “mystery recordings” with recorded solos of known performers possessing stylistic attributes.

 

Motivation

Since the earliest days of recorded jazz, researchers and/or educators have been routinely deterred by incorrect or incomplete personnel identification. Four primary reasons can be credited to the said circumstance. Many instrumentalists from the early days of jazz recorded under assumed names. An example of this practice occurred in 1953 when Charlie Parker recorded for other labels under the alias “Charlie Chan.” Said deception was perpetrated to protect his exclusivity agreement with Mercury Records.

1. Established artists sometimes dispatched substitutes to recording sessions who possessed similar performance characteristics. Years later, researchers sometimes incorrectly identified these substitutes as the intended contract performers. This practice was especially common with artists like Bix Beiderbecke, who were known to confront issues of dependability and/or punctuality.  In various stages of inebriation or poor health, Beiderbecke may have replaced himself or been replaced by imitators like “Red” Nichols or Andy Secrest.

2. Producers often deceived the record-buying public by labeling the substitute as the original contractee, knowing with reasonable certainty that recordings featuring established performers outsold recordings performed by musicians of lesser notoriety.

3. Jazz recording sessions from the first half of the twentieth century were often casual affairs, where producers routinely neglected to list personnel accurately, if at all. Consequently, jazz discographies are inundated with terms such as “unidentified” and “unknown.”  These and similar circumstances have left historians and/ or researchers to trust their ears more than common recording label documentation.

4. After World War II, thousands of amateur recordings were responsible for a plethora of illegal “bootleg” productions, and artist-approved clinic sessions, usually distributed for educational purposes. In the field of jazz music, it is appropriate to assume that more recordings of this genre were manufactured than those produced by any facet of the mainstream recording industry.

In addition to the causes listed above, notes should be made of the thousands of musicians who recorded their own sanctioned concerts, dances, and club dates on a regular basis. Herbie Hancock’s frequent practice of recording Miles Davis’s engagements would alone provide enough material to significantly amend the collective discographies of both men.

 

Experimentation With Viable Solutions

As early as the 1960s, jazz historians and/ or researchers attempted to identify practical solutions for the problems of mystery personnel identification through a variety of methods, including a process called voice printing.

In 1990, Smith initiated experiments using voice imprint technology similar to another technology implemented by long-distance telephone companies.VIT was similar to an earlier procedure called sound spectrography, where a machine called a spectrograph performed analytical and comparative analysis by converting speech into patterns on paper. Said technology was much like the commonly referred “lie detector” test, where similar data was collected.  Unfortunately, like its celebrated counterpart, results were sometimes unpredictable and inaccurate.  In 1999, Westbrook concluded that a more accurate result could be attained through the exploration of a new computer software program called Spectraplus, which featured a similar technology that was superior to its VIT predecessors. Spectraplus analyzes data in a number of ways. But it possesses three significant features that are most beneficial.

1. It works as a spectrograph, an instrument that measures intensity (or loudness).

2. It provides the opportunity to examine and identify artists based purely on tone. This expands the horizons of said research to include music of all genres, including classical. It is discerned that it will now be possible to positively identify unknown personnel of recordings from all musical genres, including classical. In the initial testing phase, research has been limited to primarily brass and woodwind instruments. Yet, it may soon be possible to identify vocalists and performers of other instruments as well.

3. It provides a three-dimensional image of sine wave patterns that allows us to actually see the music, and differentiate between instruments.  Initially, Smith was concerned that other instruments heard on the recordings would hamper the collection of correct data. His first concern was that the software would pick up undesirable remnants of the total recording. A case in point: Suppose one were trying to analyze the sine wave pattern of a clarinet player, only to discover that the pattern had  been distorted by the drummer and/or the trumpet player. Westbrook demonstrated that Spectraplus was capable of overlapping the actual sound files. The facilitator is able to analyze up to three other solos and overlap them on the same graph. This allows one to identify the individual sound graphs, and compare them by means of a makeshift layering process. However, the researchers are not able to mask or filter out different instruments. To account for this effect in jazz music, the researchers compare solos/excerpts of musicians performing with the identical bands, and/or personnel from the same general time frame.

    

Testing Methodology

Westbrook implemented a means of data collection called a “t-test” to accurately verify Smith’s data.

A t-test is a process for examining differences between pairs of research findings (also known as “parametric” findings).

In selecting the t-test most appropriate for said research, Westbrook discerned that the related sample t-test would be preferable. This is a test that examines differences between sets of data that are very highly related, or correlated. The t-test identifies a critical t-value for each examined pair.

Researchers then compare that critical t value with a t table that is constructed for individual probability levels. Despite the intricacy of its application, the premise of the t-test is actually quite simple. If the critical t is higher than the t on the table, then the pairs are not from the same population, meaning that the suspected artist is not the same artist on the other recording. But, if the critical t is lower than the t on the table, a match within the parameters of practical certainty exists.

It was believed by the researchers that if the procedure were to be universally accepted, the test accuracy would have to be very high. After some preliminary discussions, it was decided that a t level or p=.05, (a five percent margin of error) would be required to ensure acceptable credibility.

 

The Beiderbecke Mystery Recordings (excerpt)

No recorded twentieth-century brass musician has elicited a greater need for accurate identification than jazz cornetist Leon Bismark (Bix) Beiderbecke.

Due to erratic behavior caused in part by chronic alcoholism, his attendance or lack thereof at as many as thirty speculative recording sessions has fueled a musical legend already elevated by martyrdom derived from the unfortunate happenstance of dying young. Beiderbecke’s alcoholic episodes were at a peak at or around the first five months of 1929.

This period, which includes a brief time spent in the employ of bandleader Paul Whiteman, coincides with extended interludes of paranoid insecurities, accompanied by a complete physical and mental breakdown, and a mysterious beating that may have resulted in permanent injury.  After a brief recuperation at his home in Davenport, Iowa, Beiderbecke was back in New York performing with Whiteman in March and engaged in a number of freelance recording sessions, that were ill-advised, due to the nature of his rapidly deteriorating condition.

In fact, the decline of Beiderbecke’s physical and mental health was judged so severe as to promote the budding career of a twenty-year-old cornetist, who for a time made his living performing the role of Bix imitator and “stand-in”. Whiteman actually hired Andy Secrest as a substitute during Beiderbecke’s recuperation, but kept him on later for the expressed purpose of performing Bix-styled improvisations, for those occasions when Beiderbecke himself was indisposed.

The eager Secrest became so expert at imitating Beiderbecke, that he was able to extend his recording opportunities past Whiteman, and into other “Bix friendly” venues. In few places was Secrest’s impact more felt than in the studio sessions of saxophonist Frank Trumbauer; a man intensely devoted to his friend Beiderbcke, yet practical enough to understand the necessity for insurance when the situation warranted it.

 

The “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home” Session (excerpt)

Few mysteriously identified recordings have generated more controversy than the April 17, 1929, Trumbauer rendition of the song Baby Won’t You Please Come Home. Legend continues to forward three possible scenarios.

1. Beiderbecke performed both cornet solos.
2. Secrest performed the first solo (open) and Beiderbecke performed the second solo (muted).
3. Secrest performed both solos.

The source of the dispute derives from the intelligent observations of lifelong Beiderbecke researchers, whose opinions must be weighed with due consideration.

 

Procedure (complete)

For comparison, eight solos were selected.

Solo one was the Baby Won’t You Please Come Home open mystery recording and solo two was the Baby Won’t You Please Come Home muted mystery recording.

The recordings in dispute were compared to six solos known to be either Beiderbecke or Secrest. Examples of both open-horn and muted selections were included. For the facilitation of this procedure, they are identified as solos three through eight.

Solo three was Dardenella by Beiderbecke.
Solo four was Singin’ The Blues by Beiderbecke.
Solo five was You Took Advantage of Me, a muted solo by Beiderbecke. Solo six was Alabamy Snow by Secrest.
Solo seven was What A Day by Secrest.
Solo eight was Remember Me? a muted solo by  Secrest.

• The first two pairs analyzed were solos three and four: there was a strong and positive relationship between solo three (Dardanella) and solo four (Singin’ The Blues) (r = .794). A critical t value of 1.5 was found at the p = .138 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos three and four.
• The next two pairs analyzed were solos six and seven: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo seven (What A Day) (r = .523). A critical t value of .11 was found at the p = .916 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos six and seven.
• The next two pairs analyzed were solos six and eight: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo eight (Remember Me?) (r = .59).  A critical t value of -.24 was found at the p = .808 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos six and eight.
• The next two pairs analyzed were solos seven and eight: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo seven (What A Day) and solo eight (Remember Me?) (r = .69).  A critical t value of -.41 was found at the p = .682 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos six seven and eight.
• The next two pairs analyzed were solos three and five: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo three (Dardenella) and solo five (Took Advantage of Me) (r =.574). A critical t value of 3.16 was found at the p =.002 level. This result led us to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos three and five and to accept the alternative hypothesis that there were significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.
• The next two pairs analyzed were solos four and five: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo five (Took Advantage of Me) (r = .638). A critical t value of 2.51 was found at the p = .014 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos four and five and to accept the alternative hypothesis that there were significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

These first six tests were administered to compare known soloists to themselves – this gave the researchers the opportunity to test the procedure, again.

 

The next comparisons were tests constructed to identify the soloist on each mystery recording.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos six and one: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .555). A critical t value of 1.75 was found at the p = .084 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos six and one.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos seven and one: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo seven (What A Day) and solo one  (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .601). A critical t value of 1.94 was found at the p = .056 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos seven and one and to accept the alternate hypothesis that there were significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos three and one: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo three (Dardenella) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .629). A critical t value of -1.47 was found at the p = .145 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos three and one.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos four and one: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .636). A critical t value of -.41 was found at the p = .686 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos four and one.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos five and two: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo five (Took Advantage of Me) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .474). A critical t value of 2.56 was found at the p = .012 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos five and two and accept the alternative hypothesis that there were statistically significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos eight and two: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo eight (Remember Me?) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .625).  A critical t value of 2.72 was found at the p = .008 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos eight and two and accept the alternative hypothesis that there were statistically significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos three and two: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo three (Dardenella) and solo two  (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .515). A critical t value of -.51 was found at the p = .615 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos three and two.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos four and two: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .601). A critical t value of .57 was found at the p = .572 level. This result led us to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos four and two.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos six and two: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo two  (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .64). A critical t value of 2.93 was found at the p = .004 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos six and two and to accept the alternative hypothesis that there were statistically significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

• The next two pairs analyzed were solos seven and two. There was a moderate positive relationship between solo seven (What A Day) and solo two  (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) (r = .622). A critical t value of 2.95 was found at the p = .004 level. This result led the researchers to reject the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos seven and two and to accept the alternative hypothesis that there were statistically significant differences beyond the p = .05 level.

• The last pairs analyzed were the two mystery recordings solos two and one: there was a moderate positive relationship between solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home)  (r = .517). A critical t value of -.86 was found at the p = .393 level. This result led the researchers to retain the null hypothesis that there were no statistically significant differences between solos two and one.

 

Conclusions

Testing analysis concluded that solos three  (Dardenella), four (Singin’ The Blues), and five (Took Advantage of Me) were performed by Bix Beiderbecke; and that solos six (Alabamy Snow) seven (What A Day), and eight (Remember Me?) were performed by Secrest.

This was expected since these were recordings where the status of said personnel was never in question.

The researchers hoped to identify the mystery performers by finding no statistically significant differences between the mystery recordings (solos one and two) and either solos three, four, and five (Beiderbecke) or solos six, seven, and eight (Secrest).

The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences (t = 1. 5, p = .138) between solo three (Dardenella) and solo four (Singin’ The Blues). Therefore, the researchers concluded that both solos must be from the same population. The result was expected since the performer of each solo was definitely Beiderbecke.

The comparison of solo three (Dardenella) and solo five (Took Advantage of Me) revealed statistically significant differences (t = 3.16, p = .002). The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences (t = 2.51, p = .014) between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo five (Took Advantage of Me). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from different populations. This result was unexpected since the performer of each solo was definitely Beiderbecke. 

However, solo five was a muted solo where Beiderbecke traded fours with Trumbauer.  Westbrook initially “red flagged” this solo, since Trumbauer’s and Beiderbecke’s continuity in the exchange was so fluid as to have interfered with the Beiderbecke sample. This undoubtedly accounts for the statistical error. This also verifies and confirms the need for clean and clear samples, possessing definite points of embarkation and departure.

The results indicated that there was no statistically significant differences (t = .11, p = .916) between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo seven (What A Day). Therefore, said research concluded that both solos were from the same population. The result was expected since the solos had been positively identified as Secrest.

The comparison of solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo eight (Remember Me?) revealed no statistically significant differences (t = -.24, p =  .808). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from the same population. This result was also expected since the performer of each solo was definitely Secrest.  However, the researchers were initially unsure of testing that compared an open brass solo to a muted brass solo.

These results revealed that a performer has a unique sound, which is not affected by the use of mutes.

The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences (t = -.41, p = .682) between solo eight (Remember Me?) and solo  seven (What A Day). Therefore, the researchers concluded that both solos must be from the same population.  The result was expected since the performer of each solo was definitely Secrest.

The comparison of solo seven (What A Day) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) revealed statistically significant differences (t = 1.94, p = .056). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from different populations. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences (t = 1.75, p = .084) between solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home). Therefore, the researchers concluded that both solos must be from the same population.

However, since the alpha level (p = .084) was so close to the p = .05 level, we decided to give this analysis a closer look. After all, Secrest was regarded as perhaps the most celebrated imitator of Beiderbecke, and had even possibly fooled some of the world’s foremost Bixophiles.

The comparison of solo three (Dardenella) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) revealed no statistically significant differences (t = -1.47, p = .145). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from the same population. The results indicated that there was no statistical difference (t = -.41, p = .686) between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home). Therefore, said research concluded that both solos were from the same population.

Said research concluded that the soloist on the open solo of Baby Won’t You Please Come Home was Beiderbecke: a conclusion that stands in disagreement with a large number of Beiderbecke researchers, but one that the researchers stand by nonetheless, based upon strong scientific principals, and an inconsequential margin of error.

The comparison of solo five (Took Advantage of Me) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) revealed statistically significant differences (t = 2.56, p = .012). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from different populations.

We again referred to the solo in You Took Advantage of Me as problematic because of the interference of the other soloist. The results indicated that there was statistically significant differences (t = 2.72, p = .008) between solo eight (Remember Me?) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home). Therefore, we concluded that both solos must be from different populations.

The comparison of solo three (Dardenella) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) revealed no statistically significant differences (t = -.51, p = .615). Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from the same population. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences (t = .57, p =  .572) between solo four (Singin’ The Blues) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home). Therefore, the researchers concluded that both solos must be from the same population.

The comparison of solo six (Alabamy Snow) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) revealed statistically significant differences (t = 2.93, p = .004).  Therefore, the researchers concluded that the solos must be from different populations. The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences (t = 2.95, p = .004) between solo seven (What A Day) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home). Therefore, said research concluded that both solos must be from different populations.

Said research concluded that the soloist on the muted solo of Baby Won’t You Please Come Home was also Beiderbecke. A comparison of solo one (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) and solo two (Baby Won’t You Please Come Home) found no statistically significant differences (t = -.86, p = .393).  Therefore, the researchers concluded that both solos must be from the same population. This comparison shows that the soloist on solo one must be the same as the soloist on solo two.

 

FINAL RESULTS: BEIDERBECKE PLAYED BOTH SOLOS

SpectraPlus.com is an ongoing official sponsor of our research, and it should be noted that the Smith/Westbrook method is licensed and cannot be administered without the permission of both Smith and Westbrook.

But, said researchers are more than willing to attempt to identify “mystery” brass performers of any musical genre in exchange for using the information in an upcoming book.

Email submissions may be sent to Smith at either [email protected] or [email protected] or to Westbrook at [email protected]. The intention of Smith/Westbrook is to provide a meaningful initiation of studies beneficial towards the development and implementation of similar studies, not necessarily limited to jazz.

Based on the preliminary research, music of other genres including, but not limited to classical and indigenous folk music could benefit from the procedure as well.  With assessments of twentieth-century music a paramount concern to contemporary musicologists, it is crucial that the clarification of inaccurate discographies be addressed, before said inaccuracies become ingrained into the fabric of accurate historical content.

 

---

 

Chronicle of Higher Education 

From the issue dated June 20, 2003 – The Case of the Mysterious Cornetist – By PETER MONAGHAN

 

From here, it’s a long way to the jazz joints of New York and the art form’s birthplaces, like New Orleans and Kansas City.
Here at Concord College, on a damp, green ridge of the Appalachian Mountains, Gary Westbrook doesn’t exactly resemble a ghost of Dixieland as he peers at a laptop computer. A sequence of contorted lines shudders across the screen. “It’s all in the tone,” he says.

Mr. Westbrook and a colleague, Tom Smith, say that readouts like these are the solutions to mysteries that aficionados of early jazz, a proudly fanatical breed, have fixated on for
decades. Was it, for example, really the cornetist Bix Beiderbecke on that 1929 recording of “Baby Won’t You Please Come Home”?

Accounts of who played on what recordings were often incomplete, sometimes purposely. Louis Armstrong and Muggsy Spanier, among numerous early jazzmen, recorded at times under assumed names. Some — Beiderbecke, famously — had other musicians sit in for them while they say, recovered from a drinking binge. Sometimes the producers colluded to keep unpleasantness concealed from the record-buying public.

To identify uncredited or miscredited performers, jazz experts have depended on their own ears, a practice that in almost all cases leaves room for disagreement — and further speculation. So, aficionados who venerate 78-rpm platters and earlier wax-cylinder recordings will surely be disappointed if Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Smith are right in their claim that they can ascertain lineups by using modern sound-analysis software, backed by biographical research. They say that the software lets them differentiate players by measuring their tonal characteristics. The method’s limitation, the two researchers say, is that it works only with instruments that produce tone, such as horns and woodwinds.

“At worst”

says Mr. Westbrook, a percussionist who is an adjunct professor of music at Concord,

“We can reduce it to, well, there may be four people it could be, but it couldn’t be so-and-so because he was in Tokyo that day”

He stares at the patterns that syncopate across his computer screen. They do not readily surrender their secrets to a nonspecialist. In any case, one has the distinct impression that something is missing.

Sound!

No cornet or clarinet or trombone is heard. Mr. Westbrook does not analyze heard sound at all. He converts selected recordings to digital files, which his sound-analysis software works on in silence. An onlooker can only imagine, or recall,Armstrong with his blatting power and tireless invention; Spanier, his tone fat, his growl exuberant; Beiderbecke, sonorous and quicksilver in lyrical solos.

 

Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Smith, who is a jazz trombonist and a professor of music at Pfeiffer University, four hours south of here in North Carolina, depend for their detection on sound-wave-analysis software called SpectraPlus. It measures the tone in terms of how comparatively loudly the musicians characteristically play in various parts of the spectrum of sound that their instruments produce. The two-dimensional spectrograms on Mr. Westbrook’s screen register frequency on one axis and amplitude, or strength of sound, on the other.

In a three-dimensional mode, they can also show how frequency and amplitude are related over time. Mr. Westbrook switches to that mode points to one region of the display, which resembles a topographical map of a mountain range.

“See that ridge there? On most Bix solos, right around 11,000 hertz, there seems to be this peak that’s just way out on its own. I went back and looked at all my Bix examples, and that peak was present in all of them.”

No humans, he notes, have ears so finely tuned that they can say:

“Oh, he has a very high 11,000-hertz level.”

Rather, one hears the combination of such characteristics as the player’s tone.

Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Smith say they have found that just as trumpets, for example, share a characteristic sound, each player produces characteristics of tone that the software program can register. In a sort of sonic fingerprinting, the researchers compare various recordings and determine whether they were made by the same player.

“We’ve found that we can take an artist in his 20s who to the naked ear sounds completely different at 60 years of age, but when we test him it is almost identical,”

says Mr. Westbrook.

Certain emphases within the spectrum of the sounds that a player produces never change, he says. The researchers presume that this distinctiveness results from the physiology of a player’s mouth, trachea, and lungs; the embouchure; and the diaphragm’s strength and action.

Mr. Westbrook has analyzed several dozen recordings, using a test of statistical significance to compare them with recordings on which the lineups are known for certain. That produces likely matches. In the case of Beiderbecke, the two researchers have weighed in on which of his supposed recordings actually were played by a substitute, Andy Secrest.

Throughout Beiderbecke’s playing career — which alcoholism brought to an early end — the cornetist often missed recording dates and gigs. Secrest, a skilled imitator, often was called on to take his place.

Once a technical diagnosis is complete, Mr. Smith sets to work to try to substantiate the findings with biographical research.

“All the mystery recordings have a story that’s so fascinating,”

says the music historian, by telephone. Among early-jazz fans, he says, the fact is often a matter of

“the agreed-upon lie.”

His investigations are attempts to set the records straight. He is gathering them into a book he plans to call The Jazz Detectives, a sobriquet that colleagues have come to attach to him and Mr. Westbrook. The book will be full of “Sherlock Holmes-type scenarios,” says Mr. Smith.

“Musician X spits blood in balls, another guy has to fill in — that sort of thing.”

The jazz press has been fairly quiet about the two researchers’ findings, although JazzTimes did report on their work in October. But some academics are skeptical. They doubt that the technology can do what the researchers say it can. The measurements are not sophisticated enough; factors like microphone placement affects qualities of the recorded sound; background noise makes it nearly impossible to isolate a soloist’s sound in order to be sure what SpectraPlus is analyzing.

Such objections frustrate the jazz detectives:

“We have covered those factors as thoroughly as possible with present technologies,”

says Mr. Smith.

“We have argued ourselves silly with reputed experts everywhere, who are never satisfied.”

He ascribes the skepticism to two causes: He and Mr. Westbrook are

“treading on the sacred turf” of “reputed sound technology experts,”

and

“When we come up with this research, it kills their fun. I hate to be rude, but we really don’t care. We’re historians.”

Doubters also wonder about the jazz detectives’ claim that their research involves a proprietary method, one that no one else can use without their permission. Why, then, don’t they file for a patent, so that the details of their testing could be made public?

“We have,”

answers Mr. Smith. Mr. Westbrook is not too bothered by these critics. He simply asserts that the method works.

“Our system doesn’t have anything to do with the rhythms or actual individual notes musicians are playing. It’s just analyzing their sound,”

he says, as more patterns dance silently across his computer screen. It doesn’t even matter if a musician is playing the same notes. one sample to another.

“It’s still him playing that horn.”