equaled relaxation and po^(er.nLike Kenton, Basic had an ability tonhear greatness in young, relatively unknownnplayers and, like Kenton’s, hisnband was a hothouse for new talent.nForemost among his proteges was LesternYoung, the tenor saxophonist whoncarried jazz improvisation a step beyondnLouis Armstrong and ColemannHawkins. Dance’s chapter on Youngnmakes one understand why he needednthe loose power of Basic’s band tonsupport him as he scaled new heightsnin his development of the jazz solo.nRecollections by articulate Basic associatesnlike bassist Gene Ramey andndrummer Gus Johnson recreate thenKansas City musical milieu of then1930’s, one of the yeasticst times andnplaces in the history of American music.nRamey’s long narrative gives insightsnnot only into the inner workings ofnBasic’s band in Kansas City but also intonthe stylistic link between Lester Youngnand alto saxophonist Charlie Parker.nYoung and Parker, revolutionaries ofnsuccessive jazz eras, were two of thenmost important soloists to emerge fromnKansas City.nBasie was able to survive the winds ofnchange that Parker and others blewnthrough jazz in the bebop era. Dancentells how the band was allowed to absorbnthe principles of bop soloing, but nevernpermitted to substitute bop’s complexnrhythmic aspects for the smooth, unifiednswing that underlay Basie’s success.nBasie is still at the helm of his band 45nyears after it left Kansas City, evidencenthat his belief in his concept of musicnwas amply justified.nA definitive biography of Count Basienis yet to come. Nonetheless, Dance’snbook is still of value in explicating thenphenomenon of the Basie band and itsnimportance to the development ofnAmerican music. DnRecords: Symphonic Impressionismnand Other Goodiesnby Robert R. ReillynQuick, try to think of a French symphonist.nBizet, Frank, Dukas, maybenBerlioz.” Not quite. Each wrote only onensymphony. Other French composersnwho come to mind—Debussy, Ravel,nPoulenc, Satie—did not even try. ThenFrench do not seem to have found thensymphony as congeriial a form as theirnGermanic neighbors have. One exceptionnwas Albert Roussel (1869-1937),nwhose four ventures into the symphonicnrealm turned out at least two masterpiecesn(No.’s 3 and 4). An earlier work,n”Evocations” Op. 15, as its title suggests,nis derivative of Debussy’s impressionismn(which Roussel would later abandon fornMr. Reilly is a special assistant at the InternationalnCommunications Agency innWashington, D.C.nthe rigor and vigor of classicism). Yetnthere is nothing immature about thisnwork. It is an engaging depiction ofn(though I would never guess it withoutnreading the titles) Roussel’s impressionsnof India: the monumental Hindu deitiesnnnin cave temples, the ruins of Jaipur andnthe holy river. The latter is accompaniednby soloists and chorus. If you like impressionismnyou will love this music.nThere are signs of the later Roussel in itnthat will intrigue those who are familiarnonly with his postimpressionist works.n”Evocations” is given an exciting performancenby the Czech Philharmonicnunder Zdenik Kosler. The only thingnthat disappoints in this highly recommendablenrelease is Supraphon’s annoyinglynscratchy record surfaces (Supraphonn112 2454).nDavid Diamond, born in 1915, is anproductive American symphonist withneight works in that genre to his credit.nBut who would know it.” He has eschewednatonality (“I do not believe therenis any such thing as atonal music”), aleatoryndevices and other avant-garde trappings.nInstead he has had the nerve tonassert that the artist’s job is to composen”music that can uplift the spirits. . . .nMusic that does not nourish you spirituallynis not music, only aural sensations.”nAs a result he, like any number of nonconformistntraditionalists, has foundnhimself outside the purview of the musicalnestablishment. None of his symphoniesnhas been recently available inna recording. Thanks, to New WorldnRecords (NW 258) Diamond’s “SymphonynNo. 4” can now be heard in anlively, moving performance by the NewnYork Philharmonic under LeonardnBernstein. It is a resurrection of a 1958nColumbia recording, but the sound remainsnvery good. The music has immediatenappeal, is unmistakably American,ntouching and exuberant. This record isnworthy for Diamond’s symphony alone,nbut Side Two offers a bonus —PeternMennin’s “Symphony No. 7″ (1904).nMennin is also a formidable Americannsymphonist, having completed thenmagic number of nine works in thatnform. He composes tonal music and hasnmade such reactionary remarks as:n”Music reflects the soul of the composernand there is such a thing as thensoul.” However, any further comparisonnto Diamond ends here. Mennin’s musicnMarch/April 198Sn