[Dixielandjazz] Top 10 Reasons--decline of Dixieland Jazz

[Charles Suhor]

-----Original Message-----
From: dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com
[mailto:dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com] On Behalf Of Charles Suhor
Sent: Sunday, 27 July 2003 6:04 AM
To: dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Top 10 Reasons--decline of Dixieland Jazz

Top 10 Reasons for the Decline of Dixieland Jazz

Here's are ten guesses, disguised as strong opinions, as to why Dixieland
jazz has been in long decline in popularity and lacking in appeal to most
young musicians. They're in no particular order.

1. Major-circulation jazz magazines ignore Dixieand jazz almost completely.
CD re-issues of better known artists might be reviewed but coverage of
current bands, let alone exposure of new talent, is slim to none (and as
they say, Slim just left town).

2. Smaller mags are usually too narrow in scope (e.g., JazzBeat mainly
writes of artists on their label) or they can't cover the great breadth of
the territory (e.g., New Orleans Music). Wait--I might not know what I'm
talking about here, because I don't subscribe to them all. Does any mag you
know of make a credible stab at covering the ground of pre-swing jazz
styles and active bands?

3. Jazz radio is overwhelmingly modern jazz and "smooth jazz." I love
modern jazz, but what a kick it would be to hear some stompin' and blue
earlier-style jazz in the mix. As for "smooth jazz," don't get me started.
Broadcasters will say they're just playing to the audience tht likes modern
& smooth, but does it ever occur to them to CULTIVATE an audience instead
of following formulas? Sounds too much like work and creativity, I suppose.

4. The radical Moldy Figs' heritage lives on. They've won the popular
imagination, in this sense--folks seem to think that the only true jazz in
early styles is played by black guys who are very, very old. The figs and
others long ago labeled Dixieland jazz (from the ODJB to NORK to Condon and
forward) as "white Dixieland" and saw it as a corruption rather than a
development of jazz.

5. The very term "Dixieland" carries tremendous negative baggage. It woud
have saved us a lot of grief if the ODJB had called themselves the Original
Riverside Jazz Band. The "Dixieland" stigma isn't just a matter of
political correctness. Understandably, young blacks don't respond
positively to a tag that calls to mind de land ob cotton and Confederate
stars and bars. It's true but not very consoling that black artists from
Jelly to Edmond Hall to Thomas Jefferson to Kermit Ruffin have played in
bands that have been called, stylistically, "Dixieland." All names are
arbitrary and all categories leak, but the inherited name sucks. And it
seems that we're stuck with it.

6. There are too many amateur Dixielanders who play badly. As you know, the
style isn't easy to play well. Even an amateur has to have a great ear in
order to learn the tunes and jam skillfully. But like early New Orleans
style, Dixieland is easy to play badly. The general public doesn't know the
difference, so poor players get delusions of adequacy. Even well-organized
Dixieland bands often have only a couple of players who can really hold
your attention and make the listening worth while. Good Dixieland calls for
adept amateurs (a great tradition in jazz) and good professionals, and
sometimes they're not on stage.

7. The opposite problem, at another level. The baddies being recognized,
there's still too much genuine talent for the market. There are more good
producers of Dixieland jazz than there are appreciative/spending consumers.
Even if larger audience were developed, all the deserving musicians
wouldn't likely get enough of a hearing. But that's true also of deserving
modern jazz artists, classical musicians, dancers, painters, writers, etc.,
in America. I'm always amazed the staggering among of unknown talent in
this country. I can't speak of other places that might be equally
productive, but everywhere you turn here there are people with fine
artitisic talent. The best sometimes rise to the top but it's often pretty
much of a crap shoot as to who wins fame, who remains a struggling artist,
and who keeps their talent as a sideline. I could knee-jerk blame this lack
of support and other down-sides of American life on capitalism, the media,
or whatnot, but first and always, I've got to marvel at the creativity
that's afoot in our culture.

8. Then there are the schools. Starting around the fifties, they taught
"jazz" mainly as section playing in big bands, moving gradually toward
teaching improvisation. But it's almost exclusively modern jazz solo work
in the context of modern jazz charts, and it's often a highly technical
method--chords, scales, range, etc. That's great, really. But the joy of
contrapuntal Dixieland ensemble playing, the uncluttered soloing, and the
historical perspective are special experiences that are to my knowledge
offered in few schools.

9. The cultural settings and opportunities for "learning in the trenches"
aren't as abundant today. In earlier times, spot jobs for a kid often meant
showing up for a neighborhood dance or tavern with your horn and a
willingness both to show your stuff and learn-as-you-go. Gigs like that,
plus frequent jam sessions and sitting in with more experienced players,
were a major way that youngsters got ear training and became good
general-purpose combo musicians with a command of the Dixieland repertoire
and style. Today the music at teen dances and neighborhood bars is largely
blues or  pop-rock, tightly arranged bands "covering" top tunes, etc. Maybe
they do it well, but you won't learn jazz of any kind in that environment.

10. Your call. I'm flat out of speculations...

Charles Suhor







_______________________________________________
Dixielandjazz mailing list
Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10/07/2003