The troll who infests JC

[connoisseur series500]

Paul, with all due respect, I don't think that you were into jazz when Wynton broke on the scene, when the whole "Young Lions" thing was all the craze, or when Wynton's dogma was really taking over the institutional aspects of jazz. I was, and I tell you that the effect was real. Very real.

You're right on that, Jim. I was not into jazz at that time. He's had no influence on me regarding my jazz tastes.

Well obviously not. I mean, you own HOW many organ records?

Yeah, I see your point...

Also, he had no influence over my love of Blue Note and Verve and OJC and Steeplechase, etc...

[Harold_Z]

Harm? How about the creation of a "jazz culture" that doesn't look at jazz as a continuously evolving, living music and instead views it as a certain "style" that has to have a certain look and sound in order to be "real jazz"?

And lest that be construed as the view of an "avant-gardist", let me hasten to add this - has a B-3 player ever played Lincoln Center? Has the music of Lennie Tristano and his peers been celebrated? Wasn't George Russell dropped from the schedule simply because he planned on using electric bass? You're more likely to see Jimmy Smits at Lincoln Center before you are anything having to do with Jimmy Smith...

What the Wynton regime has given us is a look at what is or isn't "real jazz" that is in fact very narrow in scope, and one that doesn't allow for any deviation whatsoever. And they've become very adept at securing the funding and "official status" to put that vision across in no uncertain terms. Economically, that might be a wash, because those who fit that look and style now have a built-in audience, and one with fairly deep pockets. And believe me - the "status" that the agendas of these people have obtained does indeed filter down to the "local" levels.

Net result? An audience (and a fair number of musicians) that is LESS informed about the great scope and potential of this music, LESS curious about it, LESS eager to see/hear new developments, and LESS tolerant of anything that challenges the narrow parameters of the Wyntonian Doctrine. Jazz, you see, is JAZZ, and JAZZ is only one thing. Everything else is false, and must be either ignored or stifled. God forbid that it be ASSISTED in any form or fashion. That would be desecrating The Great Music, which must be kept pure, in it's original state and intent (now THAT'S a whole 'nother rant right there...) and be preserved for "presentation" to those who seek to become "sophisticated".

But is institutionalizing what is and isn't "real jazz" doing the music itself any real good? Especially when the people doing the institutionalizing are people with less than overwhelming talent and unabashedly revisionist socio-political agendas? I say it's harming the music, turning it, in all the wrong ways, into the real "American Classical Music" that some of us used to wish it would be come to be regarded as.

Be careful what you ask for, I suppose...

Great post, Jim.

[Larry Kart]

A footnote to the point Mike has made above, which I've heard before from several talented leaders of medium- to large-sized jazz ensembles (who were able to cite chapter and verse as to how rapidly and why the jazz touring circuit dried up): Your average arts-venue presenter out in the hinterlands (or anywhere for that matter) probably doesn't know that much about jazz. What he or she has to work with is a budget, a series of dates to fill, and a need or desire to book groups of various musical styles that aren't overtly or merely commercial, are artistically sound by some standard. and have enough of a name to put asses in the seats. (BTW, a lot of these venues are series operations and have the ability to effectively present names that aren't yet, or maybe never will be, big names -- e.g., to cover the stylistic spectrum, ensembles led by a Bob Brookmeyer or a Roscoe Mitchell.) So the multiple big-footing of Marsalis and the LCJO (and its offshoots) does two things 1) it "solves" the presenters' problem by filling the season's semi-obligatory jazz slot or slots with a brand name that everyone recognizes (albeit the "product" is artistically more-or-less empty IMO) 2) it virtually guarantees, as Mike said, that there will be only ONE jazz slot filled per venue because the price of the (publically subsidized) LCJO outfits is so damn high. Again, many of us may not have direct experience of the jazz touring circuit Mike speaks of because we may not live in a place where there is such a venue or because we only know what's up in the area we live in. But I've been told on good authority that not too long ago this circuit was healthy enough to support/justify the existence of, say, a nonet of talented players whose names we would know, led by a composer/player of whom the same could be said. And by "support" I mean no more than five or so concerts per year, at various places around the country.

[Dan Gould]

I probably said enough vis a vi the country music establishment, but another example is Lee Roy Parnell. Clearly country, but with a love and talent for a lot of other roots genres, particularly blues (he's a really fine slide guitarist). Nashville never really embraced him, though he had a couple of strong hits 10+ years ago.

While the song is lighthearted, his lyrics,

When a country boy sings the lonesome blues

The Music Row Mob gets a little confused

has a strong background in his own experience.

OK, thought about that after my earlier post, had to share it. Back to Jim's worthy comments about Wynton. Even though I tend toward the Wyntonian definition of "jazz" (with a big allowance for organ and soul jazz in general) I am coming to believe that the institutionalization of it is not a positive thing.

[couw]

Harm? How about the creation of a "jazz culture" that doesn't look at jazz as a continuously evolving, living music and instead views it as a certain "style" that has to have a certain look and sound in order to be "real jazz"?

In the end all of this must boil down to preferences, and preferences can only be stated, not argued. You cannot argue that jazz needs to be an open type of music that is continuously evolving. You can only state your preference for it to be like that; a preference which I share BTW. But I will also admit that that is as equally restricting a definition as any other one.

I wonder, is this anti-WM@TLC movement in anyway organised or is it just a loose collection of lonesome shouters in the deep dark forest?

[Larry Kart]

Couw writes: "In the end all of this must boil down to preferences, and preferences can only be stated, not argued. You cannot argue that jazz needs to be an open type of music that is continuously evolving. You can only state your preference for it to be like that; a preference which I share BTW. But I will also admit that that is as equally restricting a definition as any other one."

You logic-choppers wear me out; save your "must boil downs" and "will also admits" for the mirror. As my old friend Ludwig Wittgenstein used to say: "We just do not see how very specialized the use of 'I know' is."

[couw]

I know that you know.

[JSngry]

You cannot argue that jazz needs to be an open type of music that is continuously evolving.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that that is what the music used to be, and that Wynton's machinations have changed that. Or have a least attempted to, and with a fair amount of success.

Really, there's no need to argue that that is what the music used to be. Those of us who lived through it know it to be the case, and those of us who didn't need merely to do the homework.

Of course, I prefer the music the way it used to be. Or more precisely, the environment of the music. It was a lot more "alive" then, or so it seems to me. Now, it seems either dead or on life-support. Not all of it, but a whole damn lot of it. Maybe the music was going to die anyway, I don't know. The sociological/cultural circumstances that bred so much of the music have defintiely changed and/or disappeared, so maybe it's natural that the music would go with them. But if it was, it was going to die in the process of evolving into something else. Again, I don't know. That's playing "what if", and that's a game that can have any number of endings.

What I do know, what actually has happened, is that "jazz" as put forth by the Wynton Regime bears a superficial stylistic resemblance to only a portion of the jazz that I've come to know and love, and no spiritual/emotional resemblance whatsoever to same. I get a "continuity of message" from, say, Louis Armstrong to Roy Elderidge to Dizzy Gillespie to Clifford Brown to Booker Little to Don Cherry to Woody Shaw to Lester bowie to Leo Smith to Hugh Ragin, a message taht overides any and all stylistic/technical factors, that I don't get even a glimmer of in the music of Wynton Marsalis.

If it was just a case of the guy being "popular", hey no big whoop. Chet Baker once sold more records than Miles, & Herbert Alpert's no doubt sold more than the both of them put together. Big whoop, shit happens, right? And if it was just a case of him having a "constituency", again, no biggie. I lived through the whole "jazz education" movement where Stan Kenton was promoted as being more "important" to contemporary music. Duke's music and my taste survived anyway, thank you.

But this Marsalis thing, this is....different. It's like we reached a stage in the music where all the significant figures of the past were either dead or not feeling well, and the significant voices of the present (and possibly future) had yet to reach thier full potential in terms of finding their audience, and all of a sudden, here comes this little twerp with a big mouth telling everybody who'd listen who wass who and waht was what, and by god, if we didn't accept it, we were THE ENEMY!

He was charming at first, in his own arrogant way, and said some things that needed saying. But it soon became apparent that he didn't just want to "save" the music, he wanted to define it, and by doing so, OWN it. Whatever "vacuum" might have existed in the direction(s) the music was taking, he magnified all out of proportion, turning a natural evolution into a matter of a GRAVE spiritual/social/racial/you-name-it CRISIS. And a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons, bought into it. The kid saw his chance, he took it, and he played it to perfection, at least as far as his vision was concerned.

Even that would not be too terribly odious if he had been able to produce work that even slightly justified his ascension to Arbiter Of All That Is Jazz. But he hasn't. The time, energy, and resources (ESPECIALLY the resources) that could have gone to letting the evolution and/or death of the music play out naturally instead went to the propping up of an emperor who, if not exactly naked, had some pretty piss-poor clothes on.

So here we are, roughly 20 years later. HAs the self-appointed "savior" of the music saved it? Are we, the jazz community better off becasue of Wynton? Have new developments in the music been documented and/or promoted the way they would have been if he had not been "in power'? Has the jazz audience at large been well-served by his many efforts? Has the market for jazz grown significantly, if any? Do any relevant number of people look at "jazz" as a relevant music of today? You tell me. But from where I sit, the answer to all of these questions is easy - hell no. HELL no.

Perhaps it was inevitable, perhaps not.

[couw]

Well, it seems that he at least didn't save your and my version of the music, but did his best to preserve his own version, even if it's only a snapshot and not the process itself. Then again, looking at the North Sea Jazz Festival, they have in recent years been having a lot of turntablism acts for which an argument can indeed be made that they fit on the grand line of jazz. So they stuck their heads out to have some of the most modern music in an attempt to preserve the process and do people like it? No. And they moan and stay away and ask whatever became of jazz as this certainly isn't it. And they will stop at the music store on their way home and buy and armful of reissues and go home to listen to them and get older and older all the while. Maybe Wynton is to blame, maybe not.

[sonic1]

Marsalis is a poopy-head.

[JSngry]

Before Bev eventually beats me too it I should add that the "jazz scene" to which I refer is strictly the American one. But that's the one that I live in, so...

Really, I don't think you can seperate the neo-conservative bent of the jazz world today from that of the world at large. Wynton & Reagan rose to prominence at the same time, roughly. Coincidence or portrait of a world in transition? Your guess is as good as mine.

Thing is, when young people today think of jazz (if they think of it at all) it's as this "establishment" music, something that's a cultural value to be preserved. The irony of that, giventhe history and culture of the music from its beginnings up to the ascendancy of Wynton, is striking, to put it mildly. But that's the way it goes, eh?

There's always been a "conservative" faction to the jazz audience. For all the heat that Dan takes from some quarters, he's actually in a grand tradition - that of the fan who knows exactly what they like, and to hell with everything else. Which is totally cool, afaic.

The difference is that this type of fan was once part of the overall fanbase for jazz. Now, it's become pretty much the whole thing. Not that there's not fans of other types of jazz (there are, obviously), but those fans of those other jazzs are not being courted by the jazz establishment (the American one, anyway). They don't want them, becasue in their minds, it's not "real jazz".

That leaves these other jazzs/musicians between a rock and a hard place - what they play is too "difficult" for mainstream rock/pop/etc. circuits, and too "not real" for the establishment jazz circuits. Funny thing is, I've personally had the experience of playing for both groups (through some perverse flukes of providence, I guess...), and the music went down well with both. It wasn't the audiences who recoiled in horror, it was the people who did the hiring. And no matter how well we did, we were not going to be asked back. Ever. Just because we didn't fit the mold. THIER mold.

Again, same old story, up to a point. But you gotta wonder how much future there is for a music when the power-brokers are more concened with promoting an agenda than with promoting music itself. It's getting to the point where these types are more than happy to put ANYBODY up there who presents an imitation/approximation of the real thing rather than admitting that today's "real thing" might, just MIGHT not be the same as it was in 1957. Look at Newport. Hell, they had more adventurous billings 30 years ago! But most of those headliners are dead now, so they get people who are "like" that. And they sell tickets, but to who? And how much longer is THAT audience going to be alive and/or mobile? You gotta wonder...

Is all of this Wynton's fault? Of course not. But he damn sure helped create the environment, and he ain't done a damn thing to make it better. Like I said earlier, he's gotten all this power; just what has he done with it?

[Jazzmoose]

Really, I don't think you can seperate the neo-conservative bent of the jazz world today from that of the world at large. Wynton & Reagan rose to prominence at the same time, roughly. Coincidence or portrait of a world in transition? Your guess is as good as mine.

Off topic, but this is one of the aggravating things about history and the brain's tendency to label and categorize things. Until your post previous to this one, I had never made the connection before as to how key the time Marsalis came on the scene was. Where was that discussion about conservatives and jazz, anyway?

[couw]

... I should add that the "jazz scene" to which I refer is strictly the American one. But that's the one that I live in, so...

Really, I don't think you can seperate the neo-conservative bent of the jazz world today from that of the world at large. Wynton & Reagan rose to prominence at the same time, roughly. Coincidence or portrait of a world in transition? Your guess is as good as mine.

America at large you surely mean.

To what extent does the 1980s escape into conservatism mirror that of the trad jazz revival in the middle of the last century?

[Larry Kart]

"To what extent does the 1980s escape into conservatism mirror that of the trad jazz revival in the middle of the last century?"

The trad jazz revival took shape not in the middle of the last century but in the mid-to-late 1930s (Lu Watters and others in San Francisco, the re-discovery of Bunk Johnson in 1937 by William Russell, the advent of the Bob Crosby Band with its neo-Dixieland approach and material, the Condon Commodore sides of 1938, etc.). Oddly enough, some of this music was fervently celebrated in Left Wing circles at the time on the grounds that the big Swing bands were a bourgeois commodifiction of what once had been an authentic music of the people, and that the trad revivalists were radically returning to the one true source.

[Dmitry]

After reading this I almost feel sorry for WM. Someone should let him know that he singlehandedly destroyed jazz music.

Does he even realize that he is the anti-Christ, for chrissakes?!

[AllenLowe]

Larry, please elaborate, if you feel like it, on your response to Couw. I for one feel that all music has to evolve and change and offer novelty - that it has to ask new questions, to cite Alain Robbe Grillet of the new novel - as a matter of fact, when it comes to the arts, I believe in change simply for the sake of change -

Edited February 14, 2005 by AllenLowe

[sonic1]

I am bowing out of WM threads maybe forever. I must say that there is some interesting stuff to chew here at the O on this subject. But for some reason WM cannot be discussed without a lot of people getting offended. And I think it blows his effect out of proportion (negative or positive). I really appreciate some of the above points of view, it is quite educational. But I am just not interested enought in this subject to suffer through the attacks anymore, and don't like the lowness the subject brings out in me. I appologize to anyone who may have felt personally offended by any of my comments. Ridiculous to say that I know, being how we can discuss all kinds of other artists without this kind of occurance. But the subject of WM somehow brings out the worst in us. ANd I am not sure why.

See you in the other more enjoyable threads.

Jared

[Larry Kart]

Allen -- I was just pointing out some facts (or at least I think that's what they are) about the dawn of the trad impulse in jazz. Otherwise, to the degree he can bear it, I associate myself 100% with what Jim Sangrey has posted on this thread -- shrewd, accurate (IMO), in-the-trenches, from-the-heart, seat-of-the-pants history and analysis.

BTW, some of that first-generation trad music was marvelous music, though not quite the teturn to the holy source that some of its ideological backers supposed it to be. Particularly remarkable -- almost to the point being an alternate-world phenomenon -- was the music made from the early 1940s on by the best of the Australian trad people: The Bell brothers (Roger and Graeme), Dave Dallwitz, Ade Monsborough, et al. The remarkably fertile Dallwitz, for example, took off from Morton and other late '20s Chicago and New York small band strains and built upon it a body of music that was more or less "in the style of" but not really modeled after any one thing in particular. Dallwitz, who died about two years ago at a relatively advanced age, is one of the great jazz composers period IMO. Check out his "Ern Malley Suite" or "Gold Rush Days" on Swaggie.

[RDK]

Count me among those who could take or leave WM. I mean he's never killed my dog or spat upon me, but neither have I found any particularly intense pleasure from his music either. I actually have a fair number of his CDs, but only because I often pick them up used for anywhere between $1-3.

I'm alternately confused and bemused by threads such as these because so much effort seems to be put upon bashing WM and his success and/or lack of artistic accomplishments. But 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. Certainly the press (and his managers) pushed him back in the 80's, but does anyone now (and did anyone then) ever believe the hype?

I know my experiences differ from that of working musicians who are more directly affected by such things - and the story earlier about the LCO taking up all available jazz budgets was telling - but to me WM and his entire "posse" seems merely irrelevant. Most of those who take their jazz "seriously" - who buy ever new RVG, Conn, Verve, Hat, whatever release, follow the jazz trades, support new artists and regularly attend clubs - seem to hold WM in great disdain and fail to support him. Meanwhile, those who do - the LC crowd, PBS, etc. - seem only interested in him as a sort of jazz "artist" for the elite, fundraising set. And those two camps - represented if you will by LC and Birdland - don't seem to cross. Of course I exagerate with generalizations, but hopefully you get my drift.

And now I'm late for a meeting...

[AllenLowe]

well, he didn't kill my dog, but he castrated my parakeet -

[Chuck Nessa]

well, he didn't kill my dog, but he castrated my parakeet -

I wondered why he walked like that.

[Christiern]

• Jared, I hope you have noticed the marked difference between this thread and the one on JC that inspired it. Sure, when WM is the subject, feathers will fly, but the vitriolic exchanges we see on that other board are rare here, and never allowed to go on ad infinitum. It is amazing how one poster with an agenda can destroy a thread.
  
  Having said that, I agree that WM simply isn't important enough to warrant a discussion of his work. More interesting to me is the fact that musically challenged performances and charts are taken seriously, often at the expense of true creativity. WM's work has not influenced jazz, but his position of power has, so our argument should not be with him but rather with those who placed him in that position and turned him into a brand name. I have never blamed WM for taking advantage of the hype that elevated him way beyond his talent and fueled his arrogance, but it is dismaying to see a product of media ignorance and corporate opportunism cast as the spokesman (albeit unofficial) for jazz. That is especially regrettable when one considers how narrow his musical horizon is. If WM had the broad view that his position cries out for, I, for one, could overlook the fact that his playing favors technical skill over musical substance and his compositions reflect neither.
  
  What we have here is a parallel to "The Emperor's New Clothes." The point of H. C. Andersen's story was not that the nude ruler paraded in virtual clothes, it was that the multitudes turned blind eyes to the fact until a child shouted it like it was. In the parlance of today's WM supporters, the child from whom one heard the truth would have been labeled an "emperor basher." In Andersen's story, the child's exclamation opened the eyes of the emperor's loyal subjects--in our story, the blinders are still in place.
  

[AllenLowe]

"I wondered why he walked like that. "

You mean Marsalis or the bird?

[Chuck Nessa]

"I wondered why he walked like that. "

You mean Marsalis or the bird?

Do I have to choose now?

[Lazaro Vega]

The only logical retort to the "LEE'S DEAD, & FREDDIE DON'T PLAY NO MORE!" line that would even sink in is, "So are Louis and Duke." The rejoineder, of course, will be something about timelessness. Hard to say Lee or Freddie aren't timeless. Wading into this if only you want to be heard by the person speaking in the first place.

It is interesting that Branford will lay this style over substance issue at the feet of the cult of "Giant Steps" worshipppers, young musicians he sees as jazz geeks, who are mainly the result of the turn from jazz as a way of life to jazz as a "major" in school. (Not that I'm speaking for him, just read his thoughts on it quite a bit at his forum). The anthropological influences on many of the early modernists is perhaps one reason why their period of imitation and assimilation of the language of jazz was, well not "shorter," but happened at an earlier age -- Kenny Dorham at 20 was not that different than Kenny at 30 in terms of the identity Jim is speaking of -- his personality as a player. Same with Miles, Diz, Rollins....Yes, they changed, but they seemed to be aware of themselves as musicians sooner than the current set.

It is George Lewis who equates Lincoln Center appearing in the world of jazz with Wal Mart appearing in a city of mom and pop stores.