[Dixielandjazz] 2-beat vs. 4

[Loerchen2 at aol.com]

Charlie and listmates,
 
The point that Jack Stewart was trying to make in his article is that the  
rhythm was driven more by the dancers than by the musicians.  I tend to  agree 
with this (at least in theory), having studied 1910s dance for the past 20  
years, but here's the basic argument:
 
The predominant dance step from c.1890 until c.1910 was the two-step  
(basically, a polka without the hop), which works great with both ragtime and  march 
music.  From c.1910-c.1917, the predominant step was the  one-step, which is 
just walking, also done to march or ragtime music.   Popular variations on the 
one step were the so-called "animal dances" which  included the turkey trot, 
snake dip, and ..... fox trot.  The original fox  trot consisted of two walking 
steps on beats 1-2 and 3-4, and four quick steps  on four beats of the 
following measure (still in 2/4 time).  
 
Jack Stewart quotes from Nick LaRocca and says that the ODJB saw the  dancers 
trying to do the one-step (often using the fox-trot step) to the 2/4  music 
and it didn't look right, so the band changed to a driving 4/4 beat, which  
worked better with the dance.  The first recordings of the ODJB sounds  frenetic 
because they were geared to the normal tempo of the one-step, which was  quite 
fast.  Within a year or two, the fox trot step had smoothed out and  became 
more of a jog or loping step -- two slow steps on 1 and 2, and four quick  or 
shuffle steps on 3 and 4 -- and the music followed suit.
 
Naturally, this is a simplification and it did not hold true in every case,  
but if you see the proper period dances performed to both 2/4 and 4/4 music, 
it  makes a lot of sense.  And if any of you are planning to come to New  
Orleans for French Quarter Fest (April 13-15), I will be presenting a  
demonstration of popular dances from 1910-1920 at the New Orleans International  Music 
Colloquium on Saturday morning. (shameless plug)
 
Merry Christmas, if that's not being politicially incorrect these  days....
Sue
 
 
On Monday, December 25, 2006, at 09:40  AM, Charles Suhor  wrote:

> Pages 259-263 of listmate Dan Hardie's excellent book  EXPLORING EARLY
> JAZZ give as well documented and thorough discussion of  the 2 beat vs.
> fl;at four question as I've seen, and he comes down  lightly on the side
> of earliest jazz being the former. A new article by  Jack Stewart in the
> current issue of The Jazz Archivist is interesting  but to me, unclear
> on the matter.
>
>  Charlie