[Dixielandjazz] Dixieland Styles

[Steve Barbone]

Dan Augustine <ds.augustine at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

> 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.

And so are we who try and identify the music styles.

> 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.

I agree concerning the mass audience who hardly ever hears Dixieland.
However I disagree concerning the OKOM Jazz Festival Audiences and Jazz
Festival Promoters, and Jazz Society members. They have their preferences
for one style over another and often will not listen to styles they dislike.


> 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.

I think Condon was saying that what they played was more than the narrow
definition of "Dixieland" that most of his fans held. He was appalled at
those fans who objected to certain songs he wanted to play, especially the
more current tunes of the day, because they did not consider those tunes
"jazz". The fans wanted to hear the same old songs time after time. I have
also been subjected to blue haired fans who tell me after we play a tune
like "If I Were A Bell" . . . "huumph, that's not jazz." . . . What? Well
excuuuse me, I'm only a dumb jazz musician.

> 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.

I disagree. There are huge musical differences in the various styles of
Dixieland. San Francisco revival differs from Chicago which differs from
Downtown N.O. which differs from Uptown New Orleans, which differs from
British Trad which differs from "White" Dixieland (ODJB and NORK), etc., ad
infinitum. Often I find that a 2 beat reed player (SF Style) cannot function
in my band, but functions superbly in Tex Wyndham's local band here.

> 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.

Wait a minute, you said above that basically those kinds of listeners do not
exist. We do get folks who do not like Chicago style but love N.O. Uptown
and vice versa. Most times they walk out of a either session if they don't
like that particular style

> 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?)

Certainly agree there.

> 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.

There are certain tunes that Condon's group played 2 beat. No point
splitting that hair. And there are certain tunes that a guy like Ed Polcer
will ask the bass to play two beat because that's what the tune cries out
for. (e.g. Jazz Me Blues) Yet he is a Condon style 4 beat player. There will
always be an exception or two to muddy up the categories, but the reason we
categorize is to give other players or listeners an idea of what they are
going to hear when they come out to a concert.

There are also many ways to listen, sometimes a combination of mental,
aural, from the gut and with the feet. Many of us listen with all of those
things turned on. Main reason I like the categories is because when I have
to get a substitute musician to cover a gig, I want to be sure he can play
in the style of the band and a lot of musicians comfortable in one style
cannot cut it at all, in another.

In my case, I could neither cut it with Ed Metz's Bob Cats, nor with the
Independence Hall Jazz Band (Downtown N.O.). Both are wonderful bands, both
leaders, Ed and Doug know why, and both would no doubt agree.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone