[Dixielandjazz] the Dixieland Jazz dispute revisited

[Marek Boym]

When I was a budding jazz fan, I read in some weeklies that Dixieland and
New Orleans were the same thing.  It was only later that I learnt they were
not considered the same.  Still, some black '20's bands used the term
Dixielanders or other variation of Dixieland.
Then I heard "The Thesaurus of Classic Jazz" on American Columbia, and I
fell under the spell of Red and Miff.  Luckily, only later I read how
worthless that music was.  When the Hollywood Nichols film was in making, I
read in the Polish monthly "Jazz"  that hey were making a film about "the
mediocre trumpeter Red Nichols."
On the other hand, my "bible," aka "Recorded Jazz: a Critical Guide" bu
Brian Rust and Rex Harris highly praised the otherwise unpopular with
contemporary critics ODJB.  On the strength of that I bought an ODJB album;
now I have almost everything it made, with the exception of some later
items with syrupy vocals.
As I have already mentioned, we shouldn't put everything in little boxes
and catalogue it; labels are not important.  I remember a friend's father,
when his daughter mentioned Benny Goodman among her favourite jazz
musicians, commenting: "But it's not jazz, it's swing!"
If I use "traditional, " it's because it is an inclusive description, even
if some prefer applying it only to the Turk Murphy-like West Coast jazz.
Cheers,
Marek, just back from the Whitley Bay Mike Durham's Classic Jazz Party.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:30, Bert <mister_bertje at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Personally I never had any problems with the term Dixieland.
> When I started playing music (Classical at first, at 11 I "discovered" a
> music to which I responded strongly, is what we might call Jazz in a very
> broad definition) we were more or less taught at school, and what was at
> that time also supported by the press, that music called New Orleans Jazz
> was good, and Dixieland was bad.
>
> New Orleans Jazz stood for: authentic, black, the real thing, uncommercial.
>
> Dixieland stood for: imitation, white, cheap, commercial.
>
> But pretty soon I discovered that I could not live with these simple
> generalisations. When I listened to a great variety of jazz records, I
> simply liked those that were well-played. Independed from the fact if they
> were recorded in N.O. Chicago, N.Y, Japan or Europe. I could have
> appreciated wellplayed music recorded on the moon, if that would exist. And
> of course that accounts for skin color exactly the same.
>
> Alas in so many jazz history books we read really terrible
> generalisations. Black musicians were exploited by record companies, and so
> on. But if you really start digging deep into it, you might discover that
> musicians from all backgrounds were exploited. And on the other hand, we
> can't really blame the promotors and record companies for that actually.
> Everyone lived in a certain time and society, and just needed to make
> money. It was not the task of record companies to create high art, they
> needed to produce little items that hopefully would sell well, and soon,
> not with the idea that they might be considered great rediscoveries some
> 400 years later!
> As well so many early records had the main objective to improve sales of
> sheet music. Certainly in 1920's New York jazz records, one can find proof
> that white musicians were stimulated in recording situations, to play
> "whiter" than they did at public performances (Read the tragedies around
> Bix) and black musicians to record "blacker" than they normally did. (Rex
> Stewart, in Jazz Masters of the '30's, also Russell Procope and Don
> Pasquall, stating the Henderson band live played waltzes, tangos excerpts
> from classical music, about everything, but it was never recorded!). No
> wonder, since the Fletcher Henderson orchestra, like Ellington, played
> mainly for white audiences.
>
> If one knows music really well, it can't be held for a fact that jazz was
> a Afro-American invention only.
> To start with, without the well-tempered scale, first descibed in writing
> by the Chinese Chu Tsai-Yu in 1584, and really put into practise in Europe
> around the days of Johann Sebastian Bach, Jazz as it sounds now, could
> simply never have existed. Ragtime would not have been possible, but also
> Giant Steps would have been impossible.
>
> Then another notion, Ragtime has no form of it's own. Ragtime uses the
> grand form of European march music, nothing else.
>
> The instruments used in jazz, originally were developed in many different
> countries, saxophone from Belgium/France, individual drums usually stem
> from Turkey, I think one could argue that the development of the drumset
> though, might very well stem mainly from the USA. Piano, clarinets,
> trumpets and trombones stem from Europe. The guitar is a bit unclear, but
> Spain seems to have had an important place in it's history. The banjo might
> have some African descent, as does the vibraphone.
>
> To my ears, the most interesting jazz soloist on wind instruments in the
> '20's were:
>
>    - Armstrong - trumpet
>    - Bix - cornet
>    - Johnny Dodds - clarinet
>    - Adrian Rollini - bass sax
>    - Coleman Hawkins - tenor sax
>    - Abe Lincoln - trombone
>
> But not every Armstrong record is a masterpiece. I think I have nearly
> everything he did up till 1947, and there are really quite a few that I
> wouldn't necessarilry play two times repeated.
> But at least Armstrong had the opportunity to record many jazz records.
> Abe Lincoln only recorded one real jazz masterpiece in the 1920's, that is
> his solo on the 1926 version of San. Please check and compare BOTH takes.
> Nobody in the entire 1920's jazz records that I have listened to, had that
> ability of variation between different takes. He was a REAL improvising
> artist. A skill that no Kid Ory, no Tommy Dorsey, no Honore Dutray nor Miff
> Mole ever came close to. And even Arsmtrong never dared to take so much
> risk in the studio, on no record I ever heard at least.
> But after 1927 allready, Lincoln found better paying opportunities playing
> lead trombone in studio orchestra's. For a long time he was lost for jazz.
>
> So he choose for the money. But don't let lead that to confusion, EVERY
> jazz musician at that time did that. Jazz was not considered  art at the
> time it was developping. It was nothing more than what the German's would
> call: gebrauchsmusik. So simply music that was USED for all kind of events.
> Because they lived in a segregated society, there were different work
> opportunities for black and white jazz musicians. Esp. after the 1929
> economic crisis there was a huge decline of playing opportunities for ALL
> musicians. But at least Ellington and Henderson sailed through this period
> with quite steady gigs in the Cotton Club, the Roseland and Connie's Inn.
> (playing for white audiences almost exclusively, which was the most
> prestigious, since it were the best paying gigs) White musicians didn't
> have those opportunities at that time, at least not playing hot jazz.
>
> That historians later found this music valuable enough to study is just
> great. And there is no denial that jazz slowly evolved into art. Of course
> there is this fantastic romantic thought about the suffering artist who
> preferably should die in poverty and hardship to create the highest art.
> But reality is a little different. To state that "original" N.O. jazz after
> WWII, was uncommercial and "the Real Thing", actually was a rather smart
> COMMERCIAL move. Those bands were suddenly encouraged to drop their
> saxophones, and take up banjo's by some smart business people who thought
> it would better sell that way. Some records are great, some is just highly
> out of tune crap.
> But to simplify everything by stating that N.O. jazz is good and Dixieland
> wrong by definition, in my view can't and shouldn't be continued.
>
> Jelly Roll Morton's version of Climax Rag 1939 is nice, but honestly I do
> prefer Chris Barber's life version from 1959 in Berlin. Morton's slightly
> over-arranged and what a groove Barber's rhythm could deliver in those
> days!
>
> So to me the most important factor is: how well is music played? Certainly
> I am interested in seeying music in it's historic context. But I have seen
> too many wrong comments that are based on romantic made up stories, not on
> musical facts. Like Django Reinhardt being burnt down by reviewers for his
> performance with Ellington in Carnegie Hall. The recordings have not yet
> been published, but I have heard it. Django at that time simply was capable
> of outmodernising the entire Ellington Orchestra, and the reviewers were
> simply not ready for a European who could deliver that!
>
> Very kind regards,
>
> Bert Brandsma
>
>
>
>
>
> *Subject:* [Dixielandjazz] the Dixieland Jazz dispute revisited
>
> The last three issue of *Syncopated Times* have included lively exchanges
> over use of the term "Dixieland Jazz," based on the reasonable point that
> "Dixieland" is inherently is associated with images of the Old South.
> plantation life, slavery, etc. The November issue includes two pages of
> readers' views, including my ambivalent one, below. —Charlie
>
>
> I appreciated Joe Bebco’s thoughtful views on the term “Dixieland Jazz”
> and the exchanges that followed. I totally agree with Bebco that musicians
> who don’t want that tag applied their music should be respected. I fact, no
> practitioners of any art should be saddled with labels that they don’t
> approve of.
>
> But we’ve been dealt a  confusing, stilted hand as we inherited the
> “Dixieland Jazz” term, with its racist associations. I was born in New
> Orleans in 1935 and grew up when the term was simply functional--the
> coin-of-the realm name referring to a style that arose after early New
> Orleans jazz. To oversimplify, musicians had moved away from rapid vibrato
> and ricky-tick phrasing of non-jazz (and some early jazz) musicians. The
> “Dixieland” style was being wonderfully realized in New Orleans, Chicago,
> New York, and elsewhere by Sharkey Bonano, the Bobcats, Art Hodes, Eddie
> Condon units, Ben Pollack, Muggsy Spanier, Armstrong’s All-Stars, and
> innumerable other groups.
>
> The music wasn’t “revivalist” in intent or style but a fairly recent
> evolutionary development. The terms“revivalist” and “trad" didn’t even
> appear until around the mid-forties, mainly through the British bands that
> were enamored of Oliver, Bunk, and Bechet--similar to West Coast conscious
> revivalists like Bob Scobey and Turk Murphy. I had a few of their records,
> but Dixieland players and many critics saw the revivalists as reactionary
> or outright corny. (Bobby Hackett remarked, “It’s certainly funny hearing
> those youngsters trying to play like old men.”) A rash of bands with tubas
> and banjos in the rhythm section, varying hugely in quality, emerged in
> following decades and continues today. A more inventive revivalism flowered
> only in recent years with groups like Tuba Skinny.
>
> The “Dixieland” term came to be increasingly (and justifiably) regarded as
> offensive. I’d welcome a new term, but “traditional jazz,” “classic jazz,”
> “hot jazz,” “New Orleans jazz,” and “Chicago jazz” are either too general
> or limiting, or they already have other popular meanings. Any new term
> would have to gain a foothold in the jazz community and ultimately, in
> general usage. I believe that my choice, “post-foundational/pre-swing jazz”
> gets to it, but it’s a mouthful.
>
> As a historian, I’ve had to deal with the fact that the “Dixieland” term
> is embedded in the literature of jazz. I dealt at length with the problem
> in my 2001 book, *Jazz in New Orleans--The PostWar Years Through 1970. *I
> didn’t presume to settle the matter but set out operational definitions so
> that readers would know what I was talking about when I discussed kinds of
> jazz. I acknowledged the “Dixieland" dilemma but had no other term to
> communicate the fundamentally identifiable sub-genre which, through
> accidents of history, a came to be called “Dixieland Jazz.” I’ll continue
> to use the term with a short explanation of the historical context, or when
> a musician or band self-describes with it.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.islandnet.com/pipermail/dixielandjazz/attachments/20191107/8c0ea631/attachment.html>