[Dixielandjazz] Young Audiences - was Jazz For kids - Was Is Jazz Dying

[Steve Barbone]

Couple of thoughts from a band leader with a background of playing for kids
since 1992. And just about to start up our Kindergarten programs at local
schools for the 4th year in a row. ("kids" defined as under 50 years old)

1) Old Songs: The "old" tunes are not "old" to the kids.

2) It is indeed how you play them that make them relevant to the audience,
   or not. As Ron says, he never played the same tune the same way in
   decades of playing. When you get right down to it, Barbone Street has
   been playing the same 200 songs since 1992 for the "new young" Audience.
   We do broaden the range for Jazz Societies etc., but for the kids, find
   that they love our Fidgety Feet, Tiger Rag or Muskrat Ramble etc. And we
   too never play them the same way twice. Think Louis Armstrong All Stars.
   From 1947 to 1971 they played mostly the same tunes, with a few newer
   numbers thrown in, for millions of people. They were HUGELY successful.

3) Changing the way the song is played works great. Example is Kenny
   Davern's last album for Arbors. Muskrat Ramble as a Samba. Or the banjos
   in his High Society. Or even the clarinet duet in HS with Peplowski.
   Fresh, imaginative and relevant to the young, or young at heart.

4) Dixieland and Opera? Heck, Opera has been changing its presentations for
   a hundred years. Seems as if they create controversy with their new
   programs annually at the Wagner Festival in Bayreuth Germany. (see below)


>August 30, 2007 - NY TIMES - By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN

>It Wouldn¹t Be Opera Without an Outrage (1st paragraph below)

>BAYREUTH, Germany, Aug. 29 ‹ Every opera season demands a scene-chewing scandal
>to feed fans¹ appetites for outsize drama, and this summer that niche has been
>filled in Europe by the new production here of Wagner¹s ³Meistersinger.²
>Tuesday was its final performance, and it was a mess, as advertised, but at
>least it was a diverting mess.

   What was the bottom line at this festival? 500,000 applications for the
   50,000 available seats. To see a "NEW" version of "Meistersinger". Even
   though the critics panned it and the "Knowledgeable" opera buffs booed
   it, the audience paid good money to see it and apparently enjoyed it.
   Could Traditional Opera generate 500,000 ticket requests? Not likely.

5) Doesn't that sound familiar? IMO, Classic Jazz is in the same situation.
   Many "Knowledgeable" fans want to hear the same old, same old
   arrangements of what "they" consider classic jazz. But most of the new
   audience doesn't  dig that highly arranged dance music. From our
   experience, They prefer high energy and relevance to their lifestyles.
   Personal involvement with both music and the band.

I think it all depends upon what a band wants to accomplish. If they seek to
expand the audience, then re-invent the music. If they seek to re-create the
music, then re-create it. Either way will work depending upon the niche the
band seeks. But from my experience, it is much more exciting to get a large
crowd of kids all enthused about about the music, then play in front a a
small group of aging "knowledgeable" fans who will excoriate you for not
sounding like Bix, or Baby Dodds, or Albert Nicholas or whoever, when you
reprise one of their numbers.

Like my pal Kenny Davern said about clarinetists trying to sound like George
Lewis . . . "Why would anyone want to do that?" Not as a put down, but from
the perspective that Lewis already did it . . . said it . . . so why do, or
say it again? Why should the "new" audience get excited about that?

Cheers,
Steve Barbone