[Dixielandjazz] Preservation ? Creativity? Rule # 1

[Steve barbone]

"Larry Walton <larrys.bands at charter.net> wrote: (polite snip)

> Preservation shouldn't suffer as long as you are in the style and are
> abiding by the rules of the style.  If you are playing traditional Dixieland
> and interject the most original best 1950's or smooth jazz solo that exists
> you will be mucking it up because it isn't appropriate.  Romping into swing
> is the same thing although because they are closer in time is somewhat more
> acceptable to my ear.  The point is, If the old guys were playing original
> licks (within their style) then if we play in the style why can't we play
> original licks too?  That's the difficulty that we younger (than 100 )
> musicians face.  After hearing swing my whole life and playing with early
> rock bands then switching to society music and big band jazz it becomes
> extremely difficult to play originally in this style which has more rules.
> My hat is off to the guy (or lady) who can preserve this jazz and still be
> original and creative.

Permit me to offer another take on that.

I agree that if you are a re-creating band, then by all means sound as close
as you can to the folks you are aping. Call it whatever you want, but IMO it
is not preserving anything. The originals are already preserved by those
jazz musicians who created them. IMO (and I'll take the heat for it and
duck) too much re-creating is simply musical masturbation.

However, an example of a Band that knows how to create within a general
style is the Bobcats led by pianist Ed Metz. He/They take the preserved
music and then artfully re-arrange it so that the listener gets the sense
that yes, this is somewhat like the Original Bobcat music . . . but . .
there is solo space, there are chordal extensions in those solos that are
not bound by rules, and the overall effect is a NEW version of the old
music. IMO, the Metz Bobcats are better than the originals as individuals as
is their music in the ensemble.

Regarding Rules in Jazz including OKOM, there are 2 as I hear it.

Rule # 1 Jazz has rules

Rule # 2 Ignore Rule #1.

Point being that ALL of the OKOM players we adore, Louis, Bix, Mole,
Teagarden, Dodds, Russell, et al., broke the rules when they originally
created the music. Like where would we be if Louis never soloed because it
was against the rules? Or if Bix never played modern harmonies?

Why should today's wannabe's be any different? Why should any of us want to
devote our musical life to sounding like someone else. Is it any different
than writing a book that has already been written, or slavishly copying a
painting when the original is easily seen? (other than for money, that is)

Cheers,
Steve Barbone