[Dixielandjazz] Re: 'Art Form' Dixieland

Sat Jun 19 15:59:08 PDT 2004

Dear Dan et al,

AMEN, I basically agree.
IMHO the "band sound" (ensemble again) in general terms is what really
counts and if you don't get some genuine audience reaction then something's
wrong regardless of how good the musicians are.  I am not speaking about the
automatic applause one gets at a concert with polite patrons but more the
spontaneous roar to a cookin' band or the kindergarten kids/down syndrome
people who are obliged to stand up and jig along with you because it makes
them feel good or a floor packed full of dancers because they obviously like
the beat.

Because of ego's treading on one another I also believe that if one put the
"so called" best musician of each instrument together in the same band it
would probably produce a crap (Scottish for unusual) band sound because they
often don't listen to each other whilst promoting themselves with excellence
on their instrument.  However, I do concede that each trying to compete and
upstage the other can sometimes produce a cookin' effect but changes the
band sound IMHO.  8>)

Cheers,
Tom (from OZ not AUS to avoid confusion with Austria) Wood

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Augustine" <ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu>
To: "DJML" <dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Re: 'Art Form' Dixieland

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