[Dixielandjazz] Couple of thoughts about music.

[Shaw, Tim]

Hi Steve, 
I agree with all of that(except perhaps your trumpet geanology I doubt Bolden and oliver had much in common and I think Miles Davis is a more-or-less directly descended from Oliver).
Nothing wrong with dance bands (lot right with them); nothing wrong with being entertaining or derivative (I think of Kenny Davern). Modern musicians are undoubtedly technically better and better equipped with better instruments. 
I've listened to all sorts of music for years and been playing with pretty much the same group of friends for >40 years.  On a good day, we can still surprise each other.
I'd rather hear modern players using their technical advantages to play contemporary music that to re-create the past, though.
Except in the case of exceptional players (like Davern) it rarely captures the character of the original players, who were playing leading edge contemporary music of their time.  "The trouble with traditionalists is that they're traditional" as someone once said. 
Regards
tim

-----Original Message-----
From: dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com [mailto:dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com] On Behalf Of Stephen G Barbone
Sent: Tuesday, 05 June, 2012 1:38 PM
To: Shaw, Tim
Cc: Dixieland Jazz Mailing List
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Couple of thoughts about music.

Following is my 2 cent opinion about a couple of points.

1) King olivers Creole Jazz Band was the greatest "jazz  band" of that era.

2) It was also primarily a (horrors) DANCE BAND!

So what, are dance bands bad?

3) Armstrong played for Royalty in England way back when.

4) He was also roundly criticized in England for being an over the top clown.

So what, does that make him an artist?

5) Todays players are derivative. 

6) The old dead guys were the originators.

So what, does that mean derivative players are bad? I think not. All musicians are derivative. Armstrong listened to Clarke, Bechet to Caruso, etc., etc., etc. If we want to understand Armstrong, shouldn't we spend lots of time listening to those he listened and learned from?

7) The dead guys were so good, we must listen to them over and over again.

Hey, I'm almost 80, a cancer survivor, love all genres of music including (gasp) modern jazz, and still working about 100 gigs a year as I slow down. And yes, I am a relatively quick study. How many more times should I listen to those dual Armstrong / Oliver breaks in order to absorb their genius for collective improvisation? How much and how many times, should I listen to the same classical, OKOM in  all its genres, bebop, avant garde, free jazz, fusion, records etc., etc., etc. With all my other interests added, like maintaining my horse farm, stargazing, bird watching, visiting friends, political activism, I do not have the time to keep listening to the same music over and over. To me that's like reading the same book over and over. B O R I N G. 

Folks of average musical intelligence who have been playing together with the same band personnel for a lot of years, learn how to do those devices by rote. Biggest problem today may well be that there are not a lot of bands working steadily together with the same personnel. Few have done in  the last 20 years, as many gigs with the same personnel as Armstrong and Oliver did together during 2 years in years in Chicago. 

My trumpet player, bass player, guitarist and I have been together almost 20 years. About 3500 gigs. I think we pretty much know what the other guy is going to do. On top of that, the bass player and guitarist have played together for 50 years. About 12000 gigs. I think they can read each other's minds. And since we all have good ears, never charting our music except on very rare occasions, we to listen to each other. 

Bottom line is simple. Music and musicians evolve. It's  a series of begats. For example; Bolden begat Oliver who begat Armstrong who begat Eldridge, who begat Gillespie, who begat Navarro who begat Brown. By the time the trumpet got to Clifford Brown, jazz musicians were a very different animal. He, in my ears, was a far superior player than Armstrong and that was only the mid 1950s. BUT, that does not make Armstrong any less of a genius.

I simply prefer todays musicians. I respect the views of those who do not. Whether or not anyone agrees with our respective views is of no consequence. But I repeat, if you are continually listening to Armstrong in order to learn something, why not take a break and listen to the musicians he listened to. When listening to Clarke, you might even discover the roots of Armstrong's cadenza on West End Blues. 

But then again, when you hit 75 or so, take some time to smell the roses because if you haven't learned all you need to know from Armstrong and Oliver recordings by then, you likely never will.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone
www.myspace.com/barbonestreetjazzband






_______________________________________________
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


WARNING: This message originated from outside the Northern/Melbourne/Western Health e-mail network. The sender cannot be validated. Caution is advised. Contact IT Services (+61 3 ) 9342 8888 for more information.