[Dixielandjazz] Ken Burns Jazz Book & Turk Murphy

[Dan Augustine]

Steve (c: DJML)--
    I disagree completely with what you say below about the Watters/Murphy style being a 'rehashment' of older styles.  Watters and Murphy expanded the style and brought new life and new ideas to it, and similar bands up to the present continue to do so.  Condon's style TO ME is really the old-fashioned and unimportant one (but i like it, just not as much). 
    Of course, it has never mattered what i think, nor what you think, nor what any of us think.  What matters is what the audience likes, and from what i've seen and heard at festivals (on the left coast, to be sure) audiences of all ages love the West Coast style.

    Dan
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------**
>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:57:47 -0500
>From: Stephen Barbone <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
>Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Ken Burns Jazz Book & Turk Murphy
>
>Somebody said that Ken Burns Jazz Book was racist because there is only
>one mention of Turk Murphy?
>
>That's a real stretch. First, of all look up the definition of racist.
>Then don't be so "hurt" because your favorite musician got scant
>mention. Then read the book rather than skimming the index to check
>Murphy's mentions, which is on page 338.  Check out the accuracy of the
>Goldkette Band trashing Fletcher Henderson's group before attaching
>nonsensical labels. Then, ponder the following.
>
>For all of the wonderful things Turk Murphy did, we might wish to put
>into perspective the fact that Eddie Condon often referred to him and
>the other West Coast Bands as "archeologists". Because they were going
>far back into the past to dig up musical ideas. Condon felt that he
>alone was looking ahead and playing "modern" Dixieland. Those West Coast
>Bands, in his eyes were just looking backwards and doing the same old
>thing in the same old way.
>
>>From a historical approach to jazz, there really is not much to say
>about most "Dixieland" musicians from 1945 on except that they were re
>hashing the same musical problems that their musical fore bearers had
>already solved a decade or two before them. That is the main reason why
>there are not a lot of "Dixieland" articles or reviews in the media
>today. They also attach little importance of today's Dixieland as far as
>Jazz is concerned.
>
>As older folks, we love the music of Turk, Lu, and all the contemporary
>Dixieland bands. However in the grand scheme of Jazz, they are neither
>very important, nor listened to by many people other than us.
>
>Hate to say it, but that's the way it is.
>
>Battening down the hatches, but remember, I'm only the messenger.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve Barbone
>
>PS. Just got re-booked for New Years Eve 2004 at the same place we just
>played this year. Now that's great news. A wonderful gig at a wonderful
>price and we bring our wives/girlfriends. Not all Dixieland is dead.

-- 
**----------------------------------------------------------**
** Dan Augustine - ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu             **
** Office of Admissions, University of Texas; Austin, Texas **
**----------------------------------------------------------**