[Dixielandjazz] Condon (and other) Styles

[Dan Augustine]

DJML--
     Well, i know this is dangerous, especially after a snootful (or 
perhaps TWO snootfuls) of beer at the last Wurst Band of the season 
at Scholz's tonight, but i can't resist.  I'm not criticizing Mr. 
Kashishian nor Mr. Ingle nor Mr. Barbone--far from it, these are our 
best artists giving of their genius--but i am trying to encourage 
looking at a broader aspect of the music.
     We who play this music ('dixieland', OKOM, etc.) by inclination 
(but probably not necessity) tend to group it in much finer 
categories than those who hear us do.  To us, there is a perceptible 
difference among the various styles of dixieland.  To (i would guess) 
most of our audiences, however, these differences are not as 
apparent, nor (more importantly) as important.
     When Condon said, "We call it music.", he was emphasizing the 
common elements of our craft, not the divisive minutiae that we 
sometimes (and the critics love to) focus on.
     If you hear our music from a more catholic perspective, what we 
love and play is really pretty much the same: we play an intro to the 
song, or maybe a verse, then the main theme, then some solos, then 
wrap it up with the full ensemble.  One style may have fewer solos 
than another, but that's about the only difference.
     Picture a purported OKOM-fan in the front row of a concert by 
your band.  He has extensive mind-files of every type of dixleland 
and can tell you the characteristics of each style.  He knows all the 
history of jazz and jazz bands and jazz players.  You go down and sit 
next to him and try not to listen to him quibble about how this the 
first two sections of this tune is really a modified New Orleans 
uptown-style, whereas it's followed by (completely inappropriately) 
by a variation of the early Watters two-trumpet format but without 
two banjos.
     All you want to do is enjoy the music, but you've got this south 
end of a northbound horse talking your ear off about everything but 
the music itself.  (And why talk about it at all?  Can't you just sit 
there and LISTEN to it?  Or maybe dance to it?)
     Hell, i play both Condon-style and Watters-style on tuba in the 
same piece sometimes.  Four-beat PLUS two-beat.  What does that make 
it?
     The perception and appreciation of various styles is good if it 
increases one's pleasure of listening to the music, but it detracts 
from the experience (in my opinion) when doing so becomes more mental 
than aural and physical.  If you ain't tappin' your foot (or movin' 
some other body part) to the music, you might as well go home and try 
to solve a quadratic equation.

     Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:14:46 -0400
>From: dingle at baldwin-net.com
>To: jim at kashprod.com
>Cc: dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] FW:  Condon Style
>
>Jim Kashishian wrote:
>  >>The sound of Condon's band of the 1950s is always what I have in my mind
>  >for the perfect >band ensemble sound.
>  >There have been two posts making the above comment, and expressing surprise
>>at someone saying that "ensemble work" was not the main aim of the band, or
>  >words to that sort.
>  >I suspect that Steve was probably comparing Condon's style vs. the U.S. West
>>Coast style fashioned after Lu Watters, where the band plays few or even no
>>solos.  I doubt if he meant that the Condon band had no ensemble work to
>  >speak of.
>  >A band can have very intricate head ensemble arrangements (where a sit-in
>>would be completely lost!), but be more based around the solos of the
>  >individual musicians.
>  >Jim
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>For years I have wanted to point out that there were TWO schools of West
>Coast Jazz, not just one that centered on the Waters/Scober/Murphy
>two cornet approach. There was at the same time far more jazz of the
>Chiicago-New York approach, thanks to  the presence of so many people
>associated with the Crosby era Bobcats and related Chciago styles. In
>the late 40's in the LA area you could hear bands led by Red Nichols,
>Pete Daily, Ben Pollack, Eddie Miller or Matty Matlock, Kid Ory, Clyde
>Hurley, Nappy LaMare, Ted Vesley, Eddie Skravanic, Rosey McHargue, and
>others. Jack Teagarden played in small bistro's on Hollywood Blvd., and
>even Louis held down the stand at the Streets of Paris there for a time.
>These were not bands in  the San Francisco/Turk style, and for those of
>us growing up and entering the ranks of this other style, the learning
>curve was wide and wonderful for  a student-jazzer-in-preparation. Yet,
>these days mention "West Coast" jazz and  most only  think Turk or
>Scobey or similar styled bands.
>There were other faces to West Coast jazz, and for that....and for
>people like Clyde Acker and his Jump Records saving that style on
>records, it made  it  even more easy to lean to the "other West  Coast"
>school of jazz -- one that is often overlooked.
>Ah, such is the world's attention span -- here today, forgotten
>tomorrow. But not by this child. (Card me please, barkeep -- it's been
>so long!)
>Don Ingle

-- 
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**
**  Dan Augustine  --  Austin, Texas  --  ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu
** "Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from
**  from the foolish their lack of understanding." -- Ambrose Bierce 
**--------------------------------------------------------------------**