The troll who infests JC

[Cornelius]

"Tell me what albums are really worth the time." [sonic1]

J Mood and Black Codes From The Underground are the two best bets.

"Wynton has "expanded" jazz? Are you high? How? Where? When?" [jazzy paul]

For the record, for whatever difference in connotation there is, I wrote 'extended' not 'expanded'.

Wynton Marsalis has not extended jazz in the way that some of the very greatest jazz musicians have. His music isn't a turning point nor does it lead to whole realms of jazz playing as does the music of, say, Charlie Parker or Ornette Coleman (along with their peers). But Marsalis does have an individual sound (which has influenced a fair number of trumpeters after him) and his albums do have new things to offer - in terms of his own sound in combination with some great peers of his and his own sound in arrangements that have the personality of his own band while offering incremental extensions of and elaborations upon styles before him. Some of his projects have not interested me but others are rewarding for their beauty and conviction, and sometimes for the way he combines his own post-Miles Davis conception with earlier jazz styles. ('post-Miles Davis', for lack of a better term, is just a quick way of describing music that is heavily influenced by the mid and late '60s work of the Miles Davis band and by other music in that vein.)

I wonder whether Wynton Marsalis ever set out to break through to a whole new jazz style. Clearly, he has not done this, and he probably won't. During the early part of his career, perhaps as his stint with Blakely was winding down, some people thought that he (and Branford too) might achieve such a breakthrough. That he did not is, for some people, one of the bases of disappointment with him. In the early years of his career I did have an easygoing hope that he would make such a breakthrough, but I did not hold strong expectations. Indeed, his first couple of albums never did a lot for me, though they are not bad albums. But with J Mood, Black Codes From The Underground and some albums that followed, he did come up with some beauts, and they do extend, even if incrementally, the jazz throughline.

Then it seemed that Marsalis moved toward an objective no one saw coming. He didn't want to just keep adding bit by bit to the post-Miles Davis throughline; he wanted to go even further back in jazz - way back. That seems to me a courageous decision. I don't feel that he's lacking the skill, talent, vision, or soul to move in any direction he wants. But he made a quite humble assessment that the history of jazz is so deep and great that the most honest thing he could do with his art is to keep moving forward - and not just for the sake of mere novelty but in whatever incremental steps he felt were valid - while digging the work of previous masters to bring their elements directly into his own music. Some of the results have been splendid while some seem to have fallen flat.

Chris Albertson, for example, has stated the gravamen of his case against Marsalis as being that Marsalis's achievements are too little relative to the opportunities (let alone the praise) that have been lavished upon him. I agree. But I'm not much interested in that kind of relativization. If I were to compare the artistic merit of many musicians with the disproportionate amount of adulation and economic success they've had, then I'd find a lot of good, even great, jazz coming up short. But mostly, at least as far as evaluation of merit is concerned, I try to look at just the music itself. In those terms I think Wynton Marsalis has made some great jazz. So I do recognize that his greatness has been blown out of proportion by the media (and especially by his Boswell, especially in those ridiculously overblown liner notes!). But still, he stands among several other jazz artists of the last few decades as among the best. And still, I agree with Mr. Albertson that for no other jazz musician has there ever been such a gap between what's been bestowed upon him and what he deserves bestowed upon him relative to his contemporaries (though, Dave Brubeck's success relative to other artists of his time would be but one example of this kind of thing).

So Chris Albertson and I respond to the situation differently. I prefer to stress what I like about the music. Albertson prefers to stress that he does not find much value in the music and that he sees it lacking value especially relative to other more deserving music. But on a more basic level I am extremely sympathetic with Albertson's outrage. Aside from just loving jazz for its beautiful sound, I also love that it represents an ethos of artistic integrity and honesty and of a meritocracy. One of the great things about jazz is that it's about not bullshitting. What's supposed to count in jazz is only what comes out of the bell of that horn - not costumes and charisma and hype (I see so many CD covers of pop albums that feature the young artist shirtless with oiled torso and bulging abdominal muscles, and I wonder whether people look at that and think, "Wow, great abs, this must be really good music."). And concern for this standard is especially acute in times, such as these, when, in certain ways, there seems to be less opportunity to be shared among jazz artists than ever. And not only are opportunities diminished for jazz musicians, but perhaps even more so for those who write about, produce, or present jazz. So how could one expect that those who devote themselves to jazz not be bitter about this? The bitterness over the general state of music and the music business is justified, and I share in it.

The media's over-attention of Wynton Marsalis relative to other jazz artists (but, vastly, under-attention relative to pop music) comes at a time when media is more monomaniacal in this way than ever. Pick an object to hype and don't stop hyping it until the public begs for mercy for a new object of hype. And whenever jazz gets its infinitesimal spot of notice in the media, the one to hype is Wynton Marsalis. And it's unfair and it really does suck. And it's against the ethos. But it ain't Marsalis's fault. I'd be surprised if any artist, any entertainer, would turn down the success Marsalis has had (unless the artist turned it down for reasons of privacy or psychological reasons not having to do with qualms that his success is unfair to other artists). So my consternation is not directed at Marsalis the man, and surely not at his music (which, as I mentioned, I see as a separate issue) but at this culture of ours that allows itself to be led like lemmings by mega-corporate media. And, if we're speaking relatively, even this is hardly an issue in the Marsalis case compared to the gargantuan onslaught of praise and hype and idolization of pop relative to jazz. Then beyond that, is the dishonesty that tries to mask real evil in this world, such as genocide, torture, enslavement, war, and all the rest of the assaults and injustices upon humanity (in fairness, I recognize that Albertson, for example, does have a strong conscience about these things).

As to Jazz At Lincoln Center, 1) Some detractors have overstated its narrowness. 2) The institution exists to promulgate its own vision of jazz. Some people, were they in charge of the institution, would have a different vision, perhaps less narrow, and others might forfeit their personal vision so that the institution is not bound by just one person's idea of jazz. But the institution does not control jazz. I think it is legit to criticize Jazz At Lincoln Center for whatever reasons one finds to criticize, but one should not overstate the case, nor should we overlook that the more fundamental problem is not the narrowness of any single institution, but that we live in a corporate-consumer culture in which billions and billions of dollars go to pop crap while, relatively, pennies go to jazz.

As to Marsalis's outspokenness, he's been articulate and has inspired me, and he's also said some things that I thought ill-stated at least, and, in at least one instance, he wrote a piece that made me cringe for its foolishness.

"The man has made exactly ONE, count 'em, ONE brilliant record: Black Codes. And that album is what, almost 20 years old? And, at that, there was no expansion there. It was simply an absolutely killin' rehash of Miles' 65-68 Quintet."

The album is no mere rehash.

"Does he has flashes of brilliance? Yeah. Can he play? Yeah. Is he the second coming of Lee or Freddie or even Lew Soloff? Hell naw."

Lee Morgan and Freddie Hubbard are stupendously great. Soloff is beautiful. (By the way, Soloff sounds real nice on an album with Frank Wess and some other recently released. The producer(s) wanted him to play flugelhorn, but he told them that would not be necessary since he's already got the sound of a flugelhorn on his trumpet!)

"To tell me that Marsalis is anything more than just the pretty good trumpeter who knows all the right people is to tell me that you've bought into the hype machine."

Because someone disagrees with your evaluation of an artist does not entail that he could not come to that evaluation on his own. I loved Winton Marsalis's trumpet playing almost at the same time as I heard about him in the media. I saw him and Branford live with Blakey and it was a tremendous experience. I heard with my own ears, and made my own evaluation. Then I noticed the attention he was getting, and rather than confirm my esteem for Marsalis, this made me want Marsalis to prove himself yet again as worthy of that much praise. And, as I mentioned, I wasn't excited by his first couple of albums. So, please, don't play me for a fool by saying that I'm not capable of forming my own opinions.

On the other hand, while I recognize that many people do have their own independent reasons for believing that Marsalis is not much of a jazz musicians, some people have formed opinions, quite categorical, against his music based on the anti-hype. I've seen people post (not in this particular forum) that Marsalis is nothing as a jazz musician while admitting that they've barely heard his music, or even not heard him at all (!), and sometimes that they've only been interested in jazz for a few months.

"[...] outside of a few brave souls who sing his praises on a small handful of jazz boards, I don't know anyone who really likes him or thinks he's at all influential." [RDK]

He usually scores high in both reader's and critic's jazz polls. Some of his records have scored very high on jazz radio charts. There are many musicians, old and young, including ones that most of us treasure, who have expressed their admiration of him. So, while it's legit to disagree that he's a good musician, it would be factually incorrect to deny that he is widely popular and both critically praised as well as critically denigrated.

Edited March 7, 2005 by Cornelius

[Jim Alfredson]

I have to say, I heard pt. III of his band's take on A Love Supreme today on the radio and I didn't know who it was. I was listening and thinking, "Yeah, this is swingin!" It was nice.

Now that I've lost everyone's respect....

[Rooster_Ties]

That's it -- b3-er's officially banned.

[Jim Alfredson]

That's it -- b3-er's officially banned.

Aw crap.

[Guy Berger]

anything that i can do to help you make up your mind to stop posting here as well

I certainly hope not!

Consider yourself in good company, Christiern -- from what I've read, "l p" seems to have it in for Chuck Nessa, Jim Sangrey, Catesta, Soulstation 1... and now probably me as well!

He also doesn't like Sonny Rollins very much.

Guy

[Jim Alfredson]

I just read your entire post, Cornelius. Very good points in there.

I think I found my new motto: "Great abs = great music!!"

[Guy Berger]

I just read your entire post, Cornelius. Very good points in there.

Agreed. That was a great post. And I second the recommendation for Black Notes from the Underground -- it's an excellent album!

Guy

[Cornelius]

Thanks b3-er and Guy Berger. To continue that point, I think it's bullshit when media (including jazz magazines) add to the Marsalis hype by make anything out of the fact that Marsalis and the band wear Cardin suits, as well as bullshit when his detractors do. Jazz musicians have for decades made their appearence part of the entertainment package. That's fine because jazz fans know that is the function of wardrobe and that the music itself does not depend on it. So if some guy came onstage in a G-string, oiled body, with abs like a cartoon superhero, I wouldn't hold it against him one bit as long as what came out of his horn was good music. But it seems to me - I could be wrong - that that is not what's operating in pop music. The torso-closeup videos, the costumes, the "attitude", and all that crap seem to be so inextricable from the music that you really have to think that the music would not sell without it.

Edited March 7, 2005 by Cornelius

[Jazzmoose]

So if some guy came onstage in a G-string, oiled body, with abs like a cartoon superhero, I wouldn't hold it against him one bit as long as what came out of his horn was good music.

You're a better man than I, Cornelius...that might be a bit too much for me.

Jim, I heard A Love Supreme first without knowing who it was as well, and my reaction was totally different. I could see the ghost of Stan Kenton hovering over the ghost of John Coltrane saying "Nah, buddy; here, let me fix that for you." But that's just me...

[Jim Alfredson]

So if some guy came onstage in a G-string, oiled body, with abs like a cartoon superhero, I wouldn't hold it against him one bit as long as what came out of his horn was good music.

You're a better man than I, Cornelius...that might be a bit too much for me.

Jim, I heard A Love Supreme first without knowing who it was as well, and my reaction was totally different. I could see the ghost of Stan Kenton hovering over the ghost of John Coltrane saying "Nah, buddy; here, let me fix that for you." But that's just me...

I didn't hear the whole thing, I just heard Pt. III and I thought the band was swinging and there was some really neat ensemble lines being played, going up and down the octaves, through different sections, in neat ways.

I'm not accusing anyone specifically, and I will even count myself in this statement, but sometimes I think we listen too much with our heads.

For instance, I remember listening late at night to WEMU, while driving home from a gig (when I lived in Ann Arbor) and I heard this cut on the radio with an organist. The whole song I was thinking, "Man... this stinks. That organist doesn't know what he's doing." It was a simple blues tune... the organist wasn't even kickin' bass.

After the tune was done they said it was a Ronnie Earl record with Jimmy McGriff on the organ!!!!! I actually went and bought the record the next day because I couldn't believe that Jimmy sounded so bad on it... I thought I must've been tired. And sure enough, it wasn't very good. I mean, it wasn't terrible... but it wasn't the best playing I've heard from McGriff... and I love McGriff.

I just thought it was funny because once I heard who it was, I started doubting myself and thinking, "Naw, I must be wrong... it wasn't that bad." But because I didn't know who it was, I was listening with my heart instead of with my mind.

[Cornelius]

Well, I do draw the line at nudity.

/

I'm "conflicted" about Marsalis's A Love Supreme. I hear good things in it, but it's not clicking for me. Though, I'm not put off by the fact that it's such special material. An exception to that is the "handoff" sequence. It's really nutty for me. On the one hand I find it cute and I enjoy it; on the other, it sounds absurd and embarrassing to me.

Edited March 7, 2005 by Cornelius

[ghost of miles]

I have to say, I heard pt. III of his band's take on A Love Supreme today on the radio and I didn't know who it was. I was listening and thinking, "Yeah, this is swingin!" It was nice.

Now that I've lost everyone's respect....

It's actually not bad IMO. Part I works the least for me (that awful sequence where the instruments are all miming the chant), but it gets better as it goes along... well-done repertory, which is the function, I think, that Marsalis serves.

[AllenLowe]

speaking of hearing things blindly and giving a more honest appraisal - I, too, was riding in the car and heard this big band - I remember thinking, "this is pseudo Ellington, annoying mannerism, pretensious 'old timey' posturing" - and it was the Lincoln Center Orchestra. On an objective level we can say Wynton is an excellent trumpeter, and his music is his music, whatever. Politically, however, I've described him and Crouch as making a club out of tradition and beating us over the head with it - it's fine to do what he does, but their critical attitudes amount to a kind of coerciveness when you think of his power and influence. And, in practical terms, Lincoln Center has not only sucked away funding and valuable resources, but Marsalis himself, with his inflated fees, has hurt a lot of musicians. Talk to people who book these things - there is no longer a middle ground of booking fees, everything has gone through the roof as a result of what they charge - and if your local organization books Wynton et al, you can be sure there ain't gonna be much (if anything) left over for other groups or concerts -

Edited March 7, 2005 by AllenLowe

[ghost of miles]

Allen,

Despite my mild liking of the LCJO's version of ALS, I tend to agree with you--a sentence that I removed from my earlier post b/c I wanted to ponder it more was, "My main problem with Marsalis is that he's hustled mainstream jazz into the graveyard"--in other words, elevated jazz repertory to a position akin to what you describe.

[Dr. Rat]

speaking of hearing things blindly and giving a more honest appraisal - I, too, was riding in the car and heard this big band - I remember thinking, "this is pseudo Ellington, annoying mannerism, pretensious 'old timey' posturing" - and it was the Lincoln Center Orchestra. On an objective level we can say Wynton is an excellent trumpeter, and his music is his music, whatever. Politically, however, I've described him and Crouch as making a club out of tradition and beating us over the head with it - it's fine to do what he does, but their critical attitudes amount to a kind of coerciveness when you think of his power and influence. And, in practical terms, Lincoln Center has not only sucked away funding and valuable resources, but Marsalis himself, with his inflated fees, has hurt a lot of musicians. Talk to people who book these things - there is no longer a middle ground of booking fees, everything has gone through the roof as a result of what they charge - and if your local organization books Wynton et al, you can be sure there ain't gonna be much (if anything) left over for other groups or concerts -

Yeah, I've talked to some folks who book and have heard numbers that I thought were just astronomical for some artists. But I am not sure how much of this is Marsalis (though he was probably in the lead on this) and I am not sure how much of this is the realization that jazz had the sort of stature that would make arts center concert series find the money for jazz stars the way they always have for classical music stars.

But I don't think this is going to be a worry for long--a lot of this sort of funding--grant supported concert events, donor-sponsored special concert events--is drying up already and artists with very high fees are more in a position of getting those fees where they can rather than absolutely demanding them. Frankly Wynton Marsalis or (fill in high-ticket artist of your choice) just isn't four, five or six times better than the next tier of hardworking touring artists, and poeple haven't been showing up in sufficient number to justify the expense on that score either.

The grave train for jazz as art looks like it might turn out to be quite a short one.

--eric

[AllenLowe]

people I've talked to in the business, actually, trace it directly to Marsalis and the Lincoln Center Orchestra, saying that as his fees started to rise the whole industry began to change in response -

[Soulstation1]

when i talked to b3er on the phone about a month ago, i told him i'd seen wynton perform a.l.s. live

a friend's wife was sick, so they gave me the tickets

ss1

[ghost of miles]

It's actually easier where I live to bring in an avant-garde group or act than it is a more mainstream/straigtahead one. The only way we get people like Dave Douglas, Greg Osby, etc., to come here is because we have an organization (Jazz From Bloomington) that's willing to risk losing its shirt from time to time on these acts (and it generally does). DKV Trio, Vandermark, Gerry Hemingway, and other such acts are much more of a break-even proposition (they were brought in by a now-defunct promotional group called Beyond the Pale). There are artists I would love to see performing here in Bloomington, including several who are quite revered on this board, but it will happen only if they're somehow subsidized by the university--their fees are simply far more than what attendance will cover. And believe me, I want to see a Hill, a Tyner, or whomever get what they're worth--but the "market" will not allow it in this neck of the woods. Therefore it's all dependent on either the local college or a group of individuals willing to shell out and accept the likelihood that they're going to lose thousands of dollars on bringing a gig to town.

[Dr. Rat]

It's actually easier where I live to bring in an avant-garde group or act than it is a more mainstream/straigtahead one. The only way we get people like Dave Douglas, Greg Osby, etc., to come here is because we have an organization (Jazz From Bloomington) that's willing to risk losing its shirt from time to time on these acts (and it generally does). DKV Trio, Vandermark, Gerry Hemingway, and other such acts are much more of a break-even proposition (they were brought in by a now-defunct promotional group called Beyond the Pale). There are artists I would love to see performing here in Bloomington, including several who are quite revered on this board, but it will happen only if they're somehow subsidized by the university--their fees are simply far more than what attendance will cover. And believe me, I want to see a Hill, a Tyner, or whomever get what they're worth--but the "market" will not allow it in this neck of the woods. Therefore it's all dependent on either the local college or a group of individuals willing to shell out and accept the likelihood that they're going to lose thousands of dollars on bringing a gig to town.

My impression is the willingness to lose money on big artists is in decline.

--eric