Unnecessary musical modification

[robcat2075]

This must be the worst-est, white-est idea I've seen today. I'm sure it sold millions.

CrosbySousaSM.jpg

[BGuttman]

When you consider that Dixieland was often based on the pop music of the day (i.e. 2-steps, now called Marches) this is a rather odd reference.

[brassmedic]

Sounds OK to me. No, it's not bebop, but I don't think it was trying to be.

[OneTon]

Was not there a phase after WWII where bands were swinging anything that had not been previously swung, probably preceding or almost concurrent with the birth of bebop?

[BGuttman]

Was not there a phase after WWII where bands were swinging anything that had not been previously swung, probably preceding or almost concurrent with the birth of bebop?

It was during World War II. There were Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff pieces "swung" and Wagner's "Abendstern" was made into "Oh Evening Star", a nice Dorsey solo with vocal.

BeBop was post war.

[rickfaulknernyc]

This must be the worst-est, white-est idea I've seen today. I'm sure it sold millions.

Not necessarily as bad as it might first appear. A lot of early New Orleans standards were based on marches ("High Society", for example) or followed march-style forms, with multiple strains. And Crosby generally had a number of New Orleans-born musicians in his groups who would have been familiar with the tradition.

That said, I can't think of any examples of a traditional New Orleans group playing a Sousa march. Given that Sousa's prime years as a composer roughly coincide with the birth of jazz, that's a little surprising. It might indicate, though, that Sousa's compositions aren't great jazz material.

Addendum: Having sampled a couple of the tracks, I have a mixed reaction. "Stars and Stripes Forever" comes off a bit corny, maybe because it's so well-known in its original form. Less famous pieces like "Semper Fidelis" come off a bit better.

For comparison, here's Kid Ory's Creole Jazz Band playing "High Society" in 1945:

[robcat2075]

I think a Dixieland Sousa march fills about the same need as a disco Strauss waltz.

I feel like the 50's Dixieland revival was an attempt to cash in with jazz that parents felt safe letting their children hear.

Was not there a phase after WWII where bands were swinging anything that had not been previously swung, probably preceding or almost concurrent with the birth of bebop?

As Bruce noted, earlier than that, even.

The explanations vary but it seems to have been a combination of parody, pretentiousness and a dispute about broadcast royalties for songs still in copyright.

[brassmedic]

The YouTube video says 1950; definitely post war. Seems to me Dixieland was all about swinging tunes that were not conceived as swing. Not sure why this offends when others don't. Or I guess if you just don't like Dixieland then you would find all of it offensive.

[robcat2075]

I went to a Preservation Hall Jazz Band concert in the early 80's.

After about two numbers you've heard everything they're going to do... but they have a dozen more.

It's not a style with broad bounds. A little dixieland is a lot of dixieland.

[Posaunus]

It's not a style with broad bounds. A little dixieland is a lot of dixieland.

Chacun à son goût!

[BGuttman]

...

It's not a style with broad bounds. A little dixieland is a lot of dixieland.

You could just as easily say that Donizetti wrote one opera (he wrote a load). Or that Sousa wrote one march. Or that Johan Strauss II wrote one waltz. Each has his own genre and tends to work within it. If you don't like that genre, one piece sounds like another. The Nevers Band did a concert of Civil War pieces from our library. My wife listened to the concert and claimed that after the 2nd piece we were just playing the same stuff all over again. But we weren't. It was its own style and its own ensemble.

[OneTon]

I heard the PHJB some 20 years ago at Bass Hall in Fort Worth, Texas. I did not come away with thinking they were sawing away on the same log all night. On the other hand, we played an all Sousa concert in a park amid freight train horns, lightning, thunder, and rain on World Music Day this year. If Sousa liked a lick or theme, he re-used it. It would be an interesting humanities study to try to find out whether it was money or relationships that drove him to work harder at producing a unique and engaging march, or to turn the crank one more time.

[rickfaulknernyc]

I went to a Preservation Hall Jazz Band concert in the early 80's.

After about two numbers you've heard everything they're going to do... but they have a dozen more.

It's not a style with broad bounds. A little dixieland is a lot of dixieland.

Evidently not your cup of tea, which is perfectly fine.

Two points, though:

1) Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, properly speaking there's a distinction between Dixieland and New Orleans traditional jazz. The former is a (usually northern, often white) adaptation of the latter, which is (to me) more soulful and funkier. PHJB is emphatically a trad group, not Dixieland.

2) I'm a conservatory-trained musician, well versed in modern jazz styles, with a performing career encompassing a wide variety of genres. I still LOVE playing and listening to New Orleans jazz. It may sound "all the same" on the surface, but there's a lot of subtlety and depth when it's done well. The art of improvising three-part New Orleans-style polyphony is a lot harder than it may seem. And that New Orleans groove...

[robcat2075]

It's not a style with broad bounds. A little dixieland is a lot of dixieland.

You could just as easily say that Donizetti wrote one opera (he wrote a load). Or that Sousa wrote one march. Or that Johan Strauss II wrote one waltz.

But they are each one composer. It is not surprising if one composer should sound like himself.

However, Dixieland is not one composer, it is many composers and performers of different backgrounds and yet... somehow producing more sameness than any of those composers we might accuse of one-thing-ness.

[robcat2075]

I guess if you're a fan, you're a fan!

1) Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, properly speaking there's a distinction between Dixieland and New Orleans traditional jazz. The former is a (usually northern, often white) adaptation of the latter, which is (to me) more soulful and funkier. PHJB is emphatically a trad group, not Dixieland.

If the PHJB wasn't Dixieland they sure sounded like it and you get one guess as to which painful Dixieland cliché they closed with.

I get the sense the term "traditional New Orleans jazz" has gained currency both to jettison the word "Dixie" and to avoid the corny connotations that "Dixieland" conjurs up for people like me.

The performers of the time were all-in on the label "dixieland"...

Typical commentary

Touring, Technology, and Adaptation

Traditional New Orleans jazz entered the American entertainment mainstream in two ways between 1907 and 1917— through touring and phonograph records. Prior to the first jazz recordings by the Original Dixieland Jazz Band in New York in February 1917, New Orleans musicians had already traveled widely throughout North America. For example, the Creole pianist and composer Jelly Roll Morton left the city in 1907 and remained itinerant for most of his life; the Original Creole Orchestra worked the Pantages vaudeville circuit from 1914 to 1918, including Canada; and Tom Brown’s Band from Dixieland played cabarets and theaters in Chicago and New York in 1915.

If someone is calling themselves "Original" I'm guessing there were also many imitators with similar "Dixie" names playing much the same music.

[BGuttman]

The Original Dixieland Jazz Band was anything but original. It was formed of New Orleans musicians by Nick LaRocca and was comprised of 5 white musicians. The genre was originated earlier by mostly Black musicians but because of the racial prejudices of the day these were mostly ignored.

ODJB made the genre more widely known because they were recorded. After 1918 other bands, both Black and white were recorded. The style was even adopted by early Jazz recordings that were considered more mainstream like Paul Whiteman.

[rickfaulknernyc]

If the PHJB wasn't Dixieland they sure sounded like it and you get one guess as to which painful Dixieland cliché they closed with.

They sound superficially similar, but there are differences. In a nutshell: Dixieland favors faster tempos, more "modern" repertoire (Tin Pan Alley pop songs of the 20's and 30's), less blues. New Orleans style tends toward somewhat slower tempos with more groove, heavy blues elements, and a Caribbean influence. The repertoire includes more spirituals and traditional tunes. Dixieland is more solo-focused, New Orleans more ensemble-focused.

To be fair, the Preservation Hall musicians of the 70's and 80's were generally well past their prime. The current version of the band is more interesting.

I get the sense the term "traditional New Orleans jazz" has gained currency both to jettison the word "Dixie" and to avoid the corny connotations that "Dixieland" conjurs up for people like me.

True to a fair extent.

The performers of the time were all-in on the label "dixieland"...

The white performers, yes. African-American, not so much. Look at the band names used by the great New Orleans figures (Kid Ory, Sidney Bechet, Jelly Roll Morton, Louis Armstrong, etc.) - very rare to see "Dixie" or "Dixieland" there.

If someone is calling themselves "Original" I'm guessing there were also many imitators with similar "Dixie" names playing much the same music.

True. For better or worse, the ODJB was much of America's introduction to jazz. They're a problematic group in some ways - the first jazz group to record, but not the best jazz band of their time (or even the best white band). King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band was far superior, but because of racism didn't get to record until several years after. The ODJB treated the music as a novelty, a shallow imitation of what the great black bands of the time were doing. A lot of the corniness associated with Dixieland can be traced directly to them. Oliver's band (and other black New Orleans bands) played with a lot more depth, soul, and sophistication.

A good starting place for the authentic New Orleans style are Kid Ory's Creole Jazz Band recordings of the 40's and 50's, especially the one called "Kid Ory's Creole Jazz Band 1954". Probably the closest we have to what the black bands of the 19-teens sounded, but in good recording quality. (Yes, it does include "Saints", but one of my favorite renditions of an often overplayed tune.)

Also, Dr. Michael White's "Adventures in New Orleans Jazz Vol. 1" is an interesting exploration of non-traditional material adapted into the style.

[Posaunus]

Back to Rob's original premise:

I have listened for years to "Dixieland" / Trad Jazz performed by many ensembles, live and on recordings, old and new. I now even venture to play this music with a small group of afficionado friends, and love the spontaneous interaction with others as we improvise.

I must disagree with Rob on pretty much all counts. This music is varied (within its genre) - just as there are many varied works composed in the (relatively rigid) baroque or sonata-allegro forms. The tunes do NOT all sound the same. (Especially when the improvisers are skilled.) Listeners (at least the open-minded ones) often love this music, and are grateful to be part of the audience. And I'm happy to bring this pleasure to them.

C'mon down, Rob - we meet every Tuesday morning to jam!

[BGuttman]

Don't think Rob can join -- he's in Texas. Then again, there are Trad Jazz groups there as well.

I do agree with you that ODJB was not Original nor were they exactly the same as played in New Orleans by the Black and Creole bands. (Nor was Tom Brown's Band, or the New Orleans Rhythm Kings). But I like that kind of music as well as the stuff played by, for example, Louis Armstrong and his All Stars, Sidney Bechet, and Kid Ory.

[rickfaulknernyc]

I do agree with you that ODJB was not Original nor were they exactly the same as played in New Orleans by the Black and Creole bands. (Nor was Tom Brown's Band, or the New Orleans Rhythm Kings). But I like that kind of music as well as the stuff played by, for example, Louis Armstrong and his All Stars, Sidney Bechet, and Kid Ory.

NORK made a lot of excellent recordings; to my ears they were a much better and more musical group than ODJB.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great music under the Dixieland label too. (Bobby Hackett's recordings with Jack Teagarden come to mind.). But I get what Rob objects to - music played by the straw-boater-and-arm-garter set, with a heavy dose of nostalgia and often somewhat tounge-in-cheek.

[rickfaulknernyc]

Honestly, to me Armstrong's All-stars fit more in the Dixieland category. Great band, but removed from the New Orleans tradition in many ways (especially the rhythm section).