No, there was a pretty long gap between the big-band craze and the rock-n-roll craze. The latter didn’t replace the former. There was indeed a huge cratering of big-bands in 1946, when both major bands and minor ones disbanded. Some of the milder bands (like Les Brown) generally seemed to survive a bit better, and ultimately lasted many decades, but at a much lower profile.
I’m not saying rock and roll immediately replaced all bb music. I stated that bb music was around in the sixties and into the seventies. I watched them on the Ed Sullivan Show and other venues. But my parents, who grew up during the BB era, never bought one album of any type of music. However, the future was dictated in the fifties when teens started getting their grubby hands on more money. Teens liked rock and roll and shunned bbm. When those teens got older, they didn’t start buying BBm albums, they started buying more r and r. If BBm would have been popular, it still would have made money.
I also always wondered why the big bands died so quickly.
Interesting to hear.
I am no fan of cabaret or any other form of tax. I believe the compelling theme for taxing the rich is the simple vice of covetousness. (I want what you have and give it to me now or at least share it with everyone else - or else)
But I believe like others here that the death of the Big Band would have happened anyway.
For this reason - people love the loud sound of many instruments.
The difference to the ear between the acoustic way of doing this with many instruments vs. the electronic way of reproducing lots of sound is pretty small.
And as an unfortunate side note - electronic sound can get much louder.