[Dixielandjazz] The problems of keeping music alive

[Ministry of Jazz]

Shalom Jazz Fans,

Must add my 2 shekels' worth here. IMHO, as one who did not get to hear most
of the great OKOM original artists live, I am grateful for the recordings,
and the high quality means of preserving and playing them that we have had
for the past century. If we had only had such luxuries throughout history!
Imagine! But I doubt whether I'd ever have developed the drive to learn to
play the music, never mind to beat my brains out trying to make a living at
it, if I had not heard relatively faithful reproductions of it by live
revival groups. Recordings certainly serve their purpose, but I don't agree
with Hal, that it is the same as listening to an artist presenting a
"faithful reproduction". There is no comparison between a recording and a
live show. They're apples and oranges, two different things. Like a movie
and a play.

I will grant that arguably a faithful reproduction concert is arguably not
jazz in the technical sense. .It is more a representation of what jazz was
at a certain time and place, played by certain artists. OK, Hal, maybe you
got me there. Bu I'll still take that any day over -- well, along with --
the original artist recordings.

Personally, I am not a good enough player to accurately represent the great
artists. I do some things on trumpet that may be reminiscent of Louis, or
here and there, others, depending on whose songs I'm playing. Same with bone
or banjo. Sometimes people even notice that. But it seems to me that a
capable performer who is presenting a reproduction of an original artist's
sound can be compared to an actor portraying a historical character. He
won't be a clone. A good actor will represent the character faithfully, but
will bring out nuances, subtle interpretations, simplify or complicate, to
help his audience appreciate the figure he represents. This can be done
without violating the original artist's style. Surely Louis didn't play The
Saints the same way every time. Which version would be the "original". There
is always some room for interpretation, and that's where the jazz is.

I've been around long enough to hear OKOM reinterpreted many ways, and most
of the time I think that's great. But that isn't always "jazz" either.
Sometimes it becomes folkish, or rock and roll (e.g. the 50's version of
"Blue Moon", the performer of which I have mercifully forgotten, though
there is a certain charm to his rendition of the piece). I draw the line
when an alleged "New Orleans" band uses the old tunes as excuses for modern
jazz solos, which I hear done all the time in concerts that are billed as
classic jazz. Or worse yet, those inane, mind-bending disco versions of
everything from classical to Dixieland to swing to who knows what from the
70s, that pounded the tune into your head with a beat that must have been
made with a sledge hammer. I don't think I would call that jazz anymore. But
hey, I guess if it got kids dancing to Bill Bailey, it couldn't be all bad.
Seriously.

Finally, IMHO, for the term jazz to mean anything historically as well as
musically, it has to encompass some blend of faithful reproduction and
reasonable interpretation. Bend the idiom too far, and it isn't jazz
anymore. It might be good. Might even be great. But I wouldn't call it jazz.
Fusion, maybe.

My 2 shekels' worth,

Elazar
Dr. Jazz Dixieland Band
Tekiya Trumpet Ensemble
Jerusalem, Israel
www.israel.net/ministry-of-jazz
+972-2-679-2537


-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Vickery [mailto:hvickery at svs.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:46 PM
To: dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
Subject: RE: [Dixielandjazz] The problems of keeping music alive


...  As far as OKOM is concerned, imho faithful reproduction is anathema to
jazz.
You might as well just listen to the original records.

Hal Vickery