[Dixielandjazz] Uptown, Downtown all around the town

[Steve Barbone]

jazzchops at isp.com
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me whether I'm alone or if there are others that
> share my way of thinking. My point is I have spent enough time listening
> and studying the music to formulate my own opinion. I don't need to refer
> to some other person's system of codification to understand jazz history.
> I'm sure Dave Robinson (and by extension, Tex Wyndham), have the best
> intentions, and perhaps for the beginning student, they are useful. But
> for me these over-simplified categorizations are meaningless. Once I heard
> the Rhythmakers recordings with Red Allen, Pee Wee Russell, Tommy Dorsey,
> Eddie Condon, Pops Foster and Zutty Singleton, I realized that pigeon
> holes are for pigeons.
> 
> The bottom line is, when I'm listening to King Oliver's recordings I don't
> give a hoot whether what they are playing is uptown, downtown, or in Lulu
> White's chambers. I just listen and enjoy.

Couldn't agree with you more Chris. But then there are few of us who like
all the Dixieland styles out there. And I'm not trying to say that stylistic
description is right for you. It obviously is not.

But witness the many posts about "trad" jazz. Like "if it doesn't have a
banjo & tuba it isn't trad and I don't like it." Or "The Jubilee doesn't
have enough trad music." (whatever the hell that is)

Or "Chicago Style sucks". (Because soloists all have big egos).

Just as I find some folks disliking the early white Dixieland Bands because
they were too frenetic and/or hokey.

Or others disliking Preservation Hall because they are ragged.

Or others disliking some of the Oliver clones out there today because "They
have no balls."

Etc., etc., etc. IMO, most fans are very limited in their appreciation of
music and will only listen for any length of time to the style that they
like. You and I may well be more catholic in our tastes. And you certainly
have more knowledge about the music than most folks.

I've been asked many times what "style" my band plays, as have other band
leaders I'm sure. I often find the "knowledgeable" fans raising their
eyebrows when I tell them that my chord instrument is an amplified guitar.
"That's not Dixieland some will say." Well, it certainly is not S.F. Revival
style, however it is also certainly Dixieland as described stylistically by
Robinson and Wyndham, and certainly is Dixieland, the way we play the music.

I don't think most of the existing Dixieland audience is able to accurately
describe what they like or don't like without using a descriptor. So when
they say they like or dislike, Chicago, New York, Uptown, Downtown, S. F.
Revival, etc., it is easier to understand them.

And if styles help the new audience and/or students understand the music,
what is wrong with that? Seems a noble endeavor to me. Much more than just
performing, and daring the audience to like the music. And then getting
pissed because the "kids don't like OKOM." Or "saying "They don't understand
the music." And then, blaming them.

Regarding styles, OKOM is IMO, not too different at all from the various
forms of classical music. Taking just European Classical, the styles are
described both according to their periods (Baroque, Medieval, Renaissance
etc.,) or by their genre (Opera, Symphony, Choral, Chamber, Gregorian Chant
etc.) Where would the audience be without those descriptors?

Bottom Line? For those who do not need the style descriptors, fine. And for
those who do fine. Each to his/her own.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone