[Dixielandjazz] Do subs de-legitimize a band?

[Marek Boym]

A fan's point of view:

First, some history: Jean Goldkeatte booked several bands under his
name at the same time, and no complaints have bee reported. So far for
booking several bands under the same name to play at different venues.

Now, subs: why is it "kosher" to change band members, but not to use
subs?  After all, that, too, changes, or is likely to change, the
sound of a band?

Of course, there are practical considerations: for example, should a
band reject a gig because a member or two have another gig, or are
travelling to Honolulu?  That might cause not only loss of income, but
loss oof a client:  You cannot play when I need you?  I'll find
another band.  So cpome off it!  Steve is right this time.  It happens
all over the place, all over the world, and does not hurt.  A "sub"
might even add new energy to a band.
Cheers

On 12 May 2011 16:38, Stephen G Barbone <barbonestreet at earthlink.net> wrote:
> A while back, we had a thread about the use of subs in a band. Some
> musicians felt that by doing so, you could no longer use the band's name to
> accurately describe the band. That the use of subs some how made it a
> pick-up band. Some bands refuse gigs if one regular can't make it. They
> deride Barbone Street and other bands that occasionally  books two gigs in
> the same time slot  and uses 3 regulars and 3 subs in each band, for somehow
> cheating the customer.
>
> Other musicians and bands felt that if the subs are competent musicians,
> then the customers get good music which is what they bargained for. That
> individual musicians and bands think far too much of their ability compared
> to that of subs
>
> Fans are also split on the issue.  Some say  it doesn't matter and others
> say the use of even one sub was disappointing to them.
>
> What can happen when a sextet uses 4 subs? Below is an interesting example.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone
> www.myspace.com/barbonestreetjazzband
>
>