[Dixielandjazz] Jazz Styles

[Marek Boym]

Hello,
Whatever we think or believe, most modernists discard all traditional
jazz as "Dixieland."
Not all.  I have a friend who says he cannot listen to Dixieland
anymore (he got rid of all those wonderful Condon records).  However,
he loves Turk Murphy, and has recently ordered a Capt'n John Handy-Kid
Thomas concert on two CDs; when asked about that, he answered: "That's
not dixieland, that's New Orleans," referring to both.
So much for our beloved classifications!
One more thing: If I were asked the question Ken addressed to Chris,
my answer whould be: "traditional," or, if that would not be
sufficient, "Dixieland."
Cheers

On 18/10/2007, jazzchops at isp.com <jazzchops at isp.com> wrote:
> >Question for Chris Tyle---
>
> >Let's say you became aware of an unknown group who played some music that
> you really liked.  If you were to recommend that group to the list, would
> you attempt to give some clue to the style they played?  Maybe say they
> remind you a bit of the sound of XYZ group?  I can agree that the
> classification of styles can be misused or subject to confusion and
> misunderstanding, but how would you answer the question that might be
> asked in the example above?  What part of the large jazz spectrum are
> they in?
>
> >Ken Gates
>
> >PS--If you liked them, I probably would too----knowing  something of your
> jazz >taste. But perhaps your tastes are very broad---- I would
> appreciate some >small clue as to what to expect.
>
> I think my tendency would be to try describe the unknown group in terms of
> a band of the past. Some groups would be easy to describe this way. A band
> like the Yerba Buena Stompers I could easily liken to Lu Watters Yerba
> Buena JB. Others would be much more difficult. I play with the Paramount
> JB and I would have a very difficult time describing what they do, not
> only from the standpoint of their incredibly varied repertoire, but also
> because of their unusual instrumentation (two reeds, no trombone). I guess
> they would need to be described as a repertory ensemble, but then again,
> what kind of description is that, really?
>
> But, I think that comparing one group to another is more practical than
> using the geographic categories. For instance, since the subject of Kansas
> City has been mentioned before, if I heard a band with two
> trumpets/trombone/two or three reeds/piano/tuba/banjo/drums and they
> played the tune Jones-Law Blues, and described them as a Kansas City style
> band, somebody might object because there is a tuba in the equation --
> especially if that person's knowledge of KC jazz was only Basie. Yet that
> was the instrumentation of Bennie Moten's band around 1926. What of King
> Oliver's Dixie Syncopators at around the same time? They no longer are a
> "New Orleans" style band. They are playing in Chicago but not, according
> to the category, playing Chicago style jazz. But, then again, they are not
> really a big band because they don't have the requisite number of pieces.
>
> Bit of a conundrum, isn't it?
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Join ISP.COM today - $9.95 internet , less than 1/2 the cost of AOL
> Try us out, http://www.isp.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
>