[Dixielandjazz] Help! What IS "sissified jazz"?

[Charles Suhor]

Thanks for the responses--some inter-paragraph comments, mainly 
revolving around the point that what you-all are calling sissified jazz 
goes by other names for me.--Charlie Suhor

On Jun 14, 2005, at 12:44 PM, TCASHWIGG at aol.com wrote:
> ...In my opinion Sissified Jazz is an attempt at making music by 
> usually an
> amateur band of guys who buy a fake book and put it on the stage and 
> rip through
> it one song after the other, and playing them all in a wimpy "Sunday 
> School"
> sounding fashion, and or delivering them in elevator music (musak) non 
> exciting
> or stimulating fashion...

For me, these bad amateur efforts (as distinguished from good or great 
jazz played by part-timers) go by a names such as crap, lame-ass jazz, 
and jazz-by-players-who-can't-play-jazz. When the amateurs are kids, 
they're usally have just are misdirected or don't know any better, and 
I have hope that someone will help them find a route into the music.

Tom also wrote:
> ...All groups simply cannot play ALL songs and deliver them 
> professionally and
> with listener appeal, that is how we got "Wedding Bands" and "Variety 
> Bands"
> from folks who try to please everyone all the time by playing just any 
> song they
> want to hear whether or not it fits the instrumentation and ability of 
> the
> band attempting to perform it...

Yes, and some of these are career players, aka "professionals." If they 
don't have a jazz conception, this is as unbearable as the the amateurs 
and more disgraceful because they're too limited to expand their range 
and too cheeky to back off from playing jazz badly.

And David Littlefield wrote:
> ...The body of tunes being referred to are 2-beat pop semi-novelty pap 
> like
> "Singing in the bathtub", "My canary has circles under his eyes". These
> were played by the dance orchestras of the latter 20s-early 30s.
> They ain't hardly jazz. But they can be a nice changeup for older 
> dancers,
> who'll also get a kick out of the lyrics.

There's a species of bands that reads vintage arrangements from this 
eras and earlier as a specialization. The music is of historical 
interest and it's admirable when they strive for authentic 
reproduction. I get the fantods, though, if they call it "jazz." Most 
of it is ragtime based in the articulation, with few improvised solos 
but lots of zippy syncopations that lived on for decades in the Mickey 
bands. Outside of the historical context, this would be call "corn" if 
peddled by a jazz player today. I wish we could own up to "corn" as a 
style of playing, but the term has so many negative associations that 
folks want to fall back on the "jazz" label for stuff like Spike Jones 
and earlier, Boyd Senter. Yes, many really fine jazzers played with 
both, but they knew the difference between the campy stuff and what 
happens at a jam session.

Finally, all of these things are a matter of degree, I think. Some very 
good bands have weak players, some poor bands have a fine jazzer or 
two, some Dixieland groups integrate corn and your "sissy" novelty 
tunes, etc. My mantra is to listen to what might be of jazz interest in 
such groups, and leave the room or jump to the next CD tdreack if it's 
not working for me.