[Dixielandjazz] ODJB

[David W. Littlefield]

Well, if nothing else, they composed some tunes that are basic in the
repertoire even today:
Tiger Rag
Original Dixieland One Step
Fidgety Feet
At the Jazz Band Ball
Sensation
Ostrich Walk

And at least helped popularize others that are still in the repertoire:
Indiana
Margie
Royal Garden blues
Some of these days.
Jazz me blues

They generated a lot of interest by the public and musicians; it was
certainly exciting stuff by any reasonable standard, they did it in public,
and they made a lot of records here and in the UK, many of which sold very
well.

I too find it hard to listen to them, but that's my personal taste and it comes
l-o-n-g after their heyday, when I've had a chance to listen to several
generations of musicians who further developed the art form in ways that
are more congenial to the ear. 

It's presumptuous to apply our personal and modern standards/tastes so as
to read them out of OKOM's Hall of Fame. They were there at the start, and
while their specific style didn't remain popular, and apparently had little
lasting effect, what they did to get the ball rolling has earned them a
*right* to a place in our Pantheon.

As for Dan Levinson's Roof Garden Jass Band, why decry their efforts?
They're studying the style under a microscope and presenting their findings
in the form of a re-creation like archaeologists. Why? At a minimum, for
the same reason paleontologists put dinosaur bones together and use them to
make pictures of the beasts, to visualize the original for further study:
because the artifacts are there. And if the result entertains some people,
and generates support for further study, fine and dandy.

What's the problem with that? 

--Sheik



At 05:08 PM 11/16/2003 -0500, Stephen Barbone wrote:
>Why all the flap about the ODJB as being so important to the development
>of jazz?
>
>The style in which they played had disappeared by about 1925, less than
>a decade after they became popular. (except perhaps as cartoon music in
>the movies) And to this day NOBODY plays in that style. It remains the
>only style of OKOM that NOBODY is copying today. Excepting Nick LaRocca
>Jr.
>
>Why? Because it was not really very jazzy, contained a lot of hokum and
>had virtually no improvisation. That kind of music is very stultifying
>to play and very boring to most listeners.
>ODJB? Their style has been dead a long time.
>
>Their contribution to jazz? The initial records. Getting the audience
>interested. Even on records, within 5 years, others had contributed a
>hell of a lot more. Who knows what the others had done prioir to
>recordings?
>
>One might also consider that Sudhalter's book, Lost Chords, spends all
>of it's energy on those who influenced a type of jazz (OKOM) which is
>virtually ignored by the mainstream of jazz today. Why then are we so
>concerned about "contributors"? Shouldn't we be more concerned with OKOM
>"innovators", or more specifically the lack thereof over the past 50
>years?