[Dixielandjazz] Entertainers vs. Artists

[Steve Barbone]

I'm with Kash. IMO, entertaining the audience is why many jazz musicians
perform. If you google search <Louis Armstrong + Entertainer> you will come
up with all sorts of articles like this one:

"It can be argued that Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong has been the most
influential entertainer not just in jazz music, but in the history of
American pop culture. Certainly there were others such as Scott Joplin who
contributed to jazz's early years as a new progressive sound in music. But
it was Armstrong who changed how America perceived entertainment when the
New Orleans native literally blew jazz music into the mainstream with his
innovative trumpet sound in the early 1920's. It is chic in modern times to
celebrate musical entertainers who attain longevity with regular makeovers.
But none compare to "Satch" who would stay on top of the entertainment world
for six decades (not to mention his hit single "What a Wonderful World" that
charted in Billboard more than 20 years after his death)."

We might also ask ourselves whether there were any jazz "artists" before the
late 1930s or so. <grin> Seems to me many of the "artists" are those who
have no audience. Kind of like musical masturbation then, isn't it? But then
why not make love to the person one loves best . . . oneself?

Or why not, like that pop icon, call oneself "The artist formerly know as
Prince". 

Cheers,
Steve Barbone