[Dixielandjazz] Re: 'Art Form' Dixieland

[Dan Augustine]

Steve and DJML others--
     Please forgive (if you can) what i am about to say.
     Like self-styled 'conservatives' railing against unspecified but 
disillusionary 'liberals' (one seldom sees the obverse), the argument 
from 'contemporary' dixieland-bands against 'festival' 
dixieland-bands is one hand on the elephant complaining about another 
hand on the elephant.
     I've recently heard many OKOM bands, whether in person or by 
recording, and (like many others far wiser than i have said) it's 
either jazz or it ain't.  I've heard 'dixieland' bands in modern 
styles lumber across a fetid plain of chord-changes without a clue 
about the song they're playing in particular and jazz in general, and 
i've heard other similar bands cook on the same tune.  And vice versa.
     Style ain't what matters.  East Coast vs. West Coast ain't what 
matters.  Blue-haired ladies in the audience (who probably know more 
than you think) vs. teenagers ain't what matters.
     I hate to see people trying to divide us into those who play 
'good' jazz and those who can't play 'good' jazz on bases like 
location, style, era, and external criteria.  Can't we just get along 
together?  Let's celebrate those who play well, and that's it.  Read 
Virgil Thomson's reviews of the orchestras who played around New York 
in the last century.  He never tried to arrogate to them aspirations 
to which they did in fact not themselves aspire, nor did his writings 
(not necessarily 'criticisms') about them elevate their playing above 
the level they deserved.
     We have many different kinds of dixieland these days in the good 
old USA, to which i say "Bravo!".  Should they quit playing because 
they are inherently incapable of playing as well as Eddie Condon's 
various bands?  Was Eddie Condon trying to re-create music of the 
past?  No.  Such bands are playing because they love the style, and 
because audiences (once they hear it) also love it.  Should a novice 
band not play at a local pizza-parlor because it would rob a 
(non-existent) professional band of a low-paying gig?  Come on.
     The art of music exists NOW, and only NOW.  It is a view of inner 
life heard from a raft speeding down a river of life-experiences, 
different for each person's musical-life, and unique.  We never hear 
the same tune twice, because we are always different.
     It is folly to try to say that one style is antiquated, or not 
well done, because in the end all is expression.  The youth-band from 
Canada i saw two years ago in Sacramento, in the cold night with the 
High Sierra Jazz Band, surpassed the experiences i had watching other 
well-established, advanced-age, highly (self-)promoted jazz-bands in 
any venue.  What the youth-band communicated to the audience was not 
so much jazz or OKOM but the stuff of life itself, striving to 
express things not expressible in words, and therefore richer.
    This is not 'art' (what an awful word; but if you are interested, 
'art' is that which most people can experience more than once with 
pleasure).  Who cares?  It's FUN, it's LIFE, it's immensely 
entertaining.  This is what Steve's band, other festival-bands,  and 
their audiences are reaffirming: live (improvised) music makes you 
feel good, elevates your perception of your own life and of others in 
intensely emotional ways, and generally brings your entire self into 
the NOW with a felt but not mentally understood (but that's OK) 
gladness of being and body, often expressed in bodily movement 
(dance, for those of us intellectuals suffering the usual mind-body 
dichotomy).
     It makes NO difference how much experience you have with the 
style of music. ("King Tzu confounded by the question of a dolt.") 
Like i said, it's all HOW you do it.  It don't matter if your band 
averages 70 years in music, or only 2. It don't matter who they 
played with.  What matters is: can they play the notes, and can they 
play the notes such that the audience (and they) will be moved by 
them?
     Sermon over.

     Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:33:08 -0400
>From: Stephen Barbone <barbonestreet at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] A parallel perhaps?
>
>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
>>
------------
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.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone

PS. Is much of today's Dixieland really jazz?
-- 
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**
**  Dan Augustine     Austin, Texas     ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu  **
**    "Ignoramus, n. A person unacquainted with certain kinds of      **
**     knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds **
**     of that you know nothing about."  --  Ambrose Bierce           **
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**