[Dixielandjazz] A parallel perhaps?

[Stephen Barbone]

Charles Suhor wrote:

> I'd be interested in hearing more, Steve (& other listmates), of your views
> about what "art form" Dixieland is, as contrasted with jazz.
>
> Charlie Suhor
>
> >The following snip from a NY Times Review of a female singer brought to
> >mind some parallels to OKOM as played by many bands these days. You
> >know, the kind that play so-called "art form" Dixieland instead of
> >"jazz".
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Steve (tell it like it is) Barbone

Charlie & List Mates:

IMO there is no such thing as "art form" dixieland. I first heard the phrase
about 6 months ago and this is how the OKOM expert who coined it, defined it.

"Art Form Dixieland": The Dixieland which is played at OKOM Festivals. Where
the audience specifically comes to hear the music played by a specific band.
That is "Art Form Dixieland". Because the audience is knowledgeable (?) and
are connoisseurs (?). Forget the fact that maybe most of the old folks who go
to festivals go there to be with their friends, chew the fat, see who died,
and schmooze. Are they really in the know about jazz? IMO, some are, most are
not. The definer also claims "art form" Dixieland is dying out in the USA and
OKOM Festivals will disappear soon. Implied in the definition was the idea
that the music had to be very close to that which was played in the 20s and
30s. Including some long forgotten tunes. (which IMO weren't any good the
first time around and why they were forgotten)

I was then told that what Barbone Street plays will always exist, but what we
play is not "art form" Dixieland. Regardless of the fact that last year we
participated, for example, as headliners at the Clifford Brown Jazz Festival,
Rehoboth Jazz Festival, Berk's Jazz Festival, Dover Jazz Festival. Media Jazz
Festival, Turk's Head Music Festival. West Chester University Jazz Festival
and Media Blues Festival. Because these were all "Modern Jazz" or Blues
Festivals, we were not playing "art form" Dixieland I guess. Forget that we
performed at the above festivals before general audiences there of more than
20,000 people in total. The argument is that folks went there to hear "modern
Jazz" or "blues" and not specifically to hear us. Excuse me?

Also, we play all improvisation / soloist oriented Dixieland. Kind of like the
black swing musos who got caught without work in the 1940s 50s when swing
bands disintegrated. To make money in NYC, they played a bluesy, Kansas City
adaptation of Chicago / NY Style. Never recorded, never heard by folks unless
you were there. Musos like Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, Roy Eldridge,
Charlie Shavers, Vic Dickinson and others. It was a marvellous sound and
certainly creative blowing. And make no mistake, it was Dixieland of the
finest sort. (Once I played The Chant and The Pearls with Hawkins in the seven
piece band on the same night) Most OKOM Festival Bands these days suffer badly
by contrast.

My reply was that by definition "art form" Dixieland makes absolutely no
sense. Furthermore if it is played by bands with their heads stuck in the
music, as I see it, it is not even jazz. For me, and I am sure many disagree,
jazz is "the here and now" and the creativity that occurs spontaneously on the
spot among musicians. Regardless of where the audience comes from. Plus, the
very definition of "art" is "that which is created" and has nothing to do with
the audience.

Perhaps those who would have us believe that "art form" is only OKOM festival
music, is suffering from withdrawal because in the US, that audience is
rapidly becoming irrelevant. So it is used as a "suffering artist" defense
while bands like mine which relate to today's audiences, make money and
satisfy the latent demand for good music among the mass audience are somehow
prostituting the art.

Simple fact of the matter as I see it is that the most creative Dixieland
bands today have found a way to make this music viable to the younger
audiences who are at the venues where they perform. Whether the audience comes
to here them or not is of no consequence. That audience hears them and stays,
is whatn counts. To me, if there were to be such a thing as "art form" that
would seem to be it.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone

PS. Is much of today's Dixieland really jazz? That is a question that others
may be better suited to answering and I refer them to paragraph 3 of the
Monheit review, as modified by me for OKOM below.

"It is when a band fails to connect with the material that the limitations
begin to irritate. Some have an unfortunate habit of appending formulaic jazzy
codas to songs and of decorating phrases with twirling embellishments that
amount to little more than empty decoration. And the patter is pedantic and
boring. During the show, the material is underscored by a dull sextet whose
over arranged presentation, offers little color and inventiveness."