[Dixielandjazz] Offended by Dixieland?

Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:14:52 EDT

--part1_3b.2a8cd851.2a7ffe7c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 8/5/02 9:23:25 AM Central Daylight Time, 
barbonestreet@earthlink.net writes:

> Hear hear. Speaking of "Jazz Aficionados" aren't they just older people
> who when they were young, like the audiences Charlie and I target, were
> "just people looking for happy  music . . . or party attendees..." That
> was of course, before they became knowledgeable aficionados. :-)
> 
> Heck, I only know about 100 "knowledgeable jazz aficionados" and they
> can't seem to agree on anything except the importance of their own
> diverse and often conflicting opinions. Not a big enough audience to
> target. And not much fun in a group by themselves.
> 
> Plain speak: If you are looking for intellectual music Dixieland ain't
> it. What we would like to believe, as musically informed Dixieland
> aficionados, is/was art form dixieland between 1920 and 1940, is/was
> simply warmed over pop music done in a jazzy style. Real jazz, yes
> before 1920 and after 1940. It's peak, Eddie Condon groups, 1940 to
> 1975, and the groups at the Metropole in NYC.  (My opinion, maybe not
> yours)
> 
> And those groups were fun. Biggest problem they had was that they were
> in clubs where you couldn't dance. (That damn 20% tax on dance joints)
> Those bands, black and white, were fun. The laughed, they hollered, they
> had a good time, and the audience did too.
> 
> Now, we aficionados say, "keep the dancers in the back, we want to
> listen and not be distracted". Are we kidding? Listen to what?
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone

   Excellent statement, Steve.  thanks for writing and posting it.  
Especially the slot about the '100 knowledgeable jazz afficionados'.  You hit 
that one right on the head.

   Jim Beebe

--part1_3b.2a8cd851.2a7ffe7c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 8/5/02 9:23:25 AM Central Daylight Time, barbonestreet@earthlink.net writes: 
 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Hear hear. Speaking of "Jazz Aficionados" aren't they just older people 
who when they were young, like the audiences Charlie and I target, were 
"just people looking for happy&nbsp; music . . . or party attendees..." That 
was of course, before they became knowledgeable aficionados. :-) 
 
Heck, I only know about 100 "knowledgeable jazz aficionados" and they 
can't seem to agree on anything except the importance of their own 
diverse and often conflicting opinions. Not a big enough audience to 
target. And not much fun in a group by themselves. 
 
Plain speak: If you are looking for intellectual music Dixieland ain't 
it. What we would like to believe, as musically informed Dixieland 
aficionados, is/was art form dixieland between 1920 and 1940, is/was 
simply warmed over pop music done in a jazzy style. Real jazz, yes 
before 1920 and after 1940. It's peak, Eddie Condon groups, 1940 to 
1975, and the groups at the Metropole in NYC.&nbsp; (My opinion, maybe not 
yours) 
 
And those groups were fun. Biggest problem they had was that they were 
in clubs where you couldn't dance. (That damn 20% tax on dance joints) 
Those bands, black and white, were fun. The laughed, they hollered, they 
had a good time, and the audience did too. 
 
Now, we aficionados say, "keep the dancers in the back, we want to 
listen and not be distracted". Are we kidding? Listen to what? 
 
Cheers, 
Steve Barbone</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; Excellent statement, Steve.&nbsp; thanks for writing and posting it.&nbsp; Especially the slot about the '100 knowledgeable jazz afficionados'.&nbsp; You hit that one right on the head. 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; Jim Beebe</HTML>

--part1_3b.2a8cd851.2a7ffe7c_boundary--