clifford_thornton Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Wait, now we're back to sqare one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm at square zero. I have never heard a single tune from ANY of the bands you guys are talking about. I stopped lisenting to rock music 25 years ago. Can't say I missed anything . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm at square zero. I have never heard a single tune from ANY of the bands you guys are talking about. I stopped lisenting to rock music 25 years ago. Can't say I missed anything . . . Me too; except in my case it's about forty years. So long that I can't tell whether this is relevant to the thread or not. Am I supposed to be learning something from this? MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I'm at square zero. I have never heard a single tune from ANY of the bands you guys are talking about. I stopped lisenting to rock music 25 years ago. Can't say I missed anything . . . Me too; except in my case it's about forty years. So long that I can't tell whether this is relevant to the thread or not. Am I supposed to be learning something from this? MG I believe the discussion had shifted to how a musician attains an iconic status and what that implies for the self-experiential derived component of their music. Anyway you can pick up "In Utero" for $8 from Amazon. Worth it just to participate in these discussions (in my opinion). Edited January 31, 2006 by johnagrandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md655321 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm at square zero. I have never heard a single tune from ANY of the bands you guys are talking about. I stopped lisenting to rock music 25 years ago. Can't say I missed anything . . . You have missed a great deal of phenomenal music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I think the real question is staring us in the face: Who wins in the Greatest-Musical-Genius-Of-The-20th-Century-Smackdown, Kurt Cobain or Woody Shaw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Lynn Hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm at square zero. I have never heard a single tune from ANY of the bands you guys are talking about. I stopped lisenting to rock music 25 years ago. Can't say I missed anything . . . You have missed a great deal of phenomenal music. Perhaps there's a generation gap here. By '85 I gave up on rock except for bands like King Crimson and with in 10 years they lost me too. Got more into fusion and jazz, by the early '90s I was dipping into 20th century classical, hindustani raga, gamelan and other non-rock music. No wonder I'm so unimpressed by that grunge crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest akanalog Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 yeah i mean i am 28 and i don't even listen to music from the past 25 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Lynn Hope. YEAH!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm sure much of the frustration evident in this thread emerges from the fact that jazz is a niche market, and there only appears to be room for one or two "public faces of jazz" at any one time. Who gets to represent jazz. (Actually this is related to, but a slightly different issue of who does the public immediately think of when you say "name a jazz musician". This topic is closer to the original query, I think.) It's particularly frustrating when that public face was Wynton. For a brief nanosecond, it looked like it was going to be Joshua Redman for a while. I honestly don't know who it would be now. The one small mercy is that smooth jazz has hived off, and many people understand that Mr. G is not the spokesman for jazz. I think we shouldn't underestimate marketing. You can in fact lead the public to almost anything once. People will buy KOB, and it is a good album and they will often seek out more. Columbia has these fliers that list every possible Miles CD and compilation that goes into every copy of KOB. I don't see that extended marketing push for any other jazz musician on Columbia. Impulse does make a similar push with Coltrane, however. I don't begrudge Miles his status, but I do think there are a handful of other artists who could have fit the bill with a similar marketing effort -- to me the most likely candidates would have been Art Blakey or Lee Morgan. (Mingus and Monk being too unstable to be elevated to the "ultimate jazz icon" status.) Obviously it would have been easier to do this if Miles hadn't been around. Maybe they wouldn't have been the whole package -- the cool and the hot together, the take-no-prisoners attitude, the multiple styles and genre hopping. But I think another jazz icon would have emerged. But maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Pretty sure that Mingus & Monk are far closer to "general public icon" status than Blakey or Lee could ever dream of being, at least in terms of name recognition. That "unstable" quality being no small part of it. That's the part the "general public" is aware of! America loves its Eccentric Negros... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 America loves its Eccentric Negros... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Them's some big heads! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Them's some big heads! Neither of them is from Indiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Them's some big heads! They belong in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCity Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Them's some big heads! Them's some yellow teeth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Pretty sure that Mingus & Monk are far closer to "general public icon" status than Blakey or Lee could ever dream of being, at least in terms of name recognition. That "unstable" quality being no small part of it. That's the part the "general public" is aware of! America loves its Eccentric Negros... I hear you, but I am still not sure that Columbia would have marketed Monk or Mingus to the same extent, to try to push them to #1 jazz icon. They filled other niches well -- the eccentric genius niche, for example, as well as the Angry Black musician (of course Miles had a piece of this too). Maybe I am attributing too much cleverness to the marketeers. Maybe they just gave Miles a bit of an extra push, but he spoke to a vast audience (everything up to Bitches Brew) and did the rest on his own and it became a self-perpetuating machine. It would be interesting to rerun history to see who the labels would have promoted in the absence of Miles and whether it would have worked, but I'm certainly glad we have his music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can anyone reference my Indiana mention? Rachel, Litweiler and Mark don't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Pretty sure that Mingus & Monk are far closer to "general public icon" status than Blakey or Lee could ever dream of being, at least in terms of name recognition. That "unstable" quality being no small part of it. That's the part the "general public" is aware of! America loves its Eccentric Negros... I hear you, but I am still not sure that Columbia would have marketed Monk or Mingus to the same extent, to try to push them to #1 jazz icon. They filled other niches well -- the eccentric genius niche, for example, as well as the Angry Black musician (of course Miles had a piece of this too). Maybe I am attributing too much cleverness to the marketeers. Maybe they just gave Miles a bit of an extra push, but he spoke to a vast audience (everything up to Bitches Brew) and did the rest on his own and it became a self-perpetuating machine. It would be interesting to rerun history to see who the labels would have promoted in the absence of Miles and whether it would have worked, but I'm certainly glad we have his music. How the heck do you think Monk showed up on the cover of Time! Columbia "moved mountains" to get this done. Mingus always sabotaged his own self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Pretty sure that Mingus & Monk are far closer to "general public icon" status than Blakey or Lee could ever dream of being, at least in terms of name recognition. That "unstable" quality being no small part of it. That's the part the "general public" is aware of! America loves its Eccentric Negros... I hear you, but I am still not sure that Columbia would have marketed Monk or Mingus to the same extent, to try to push them to #1 jazz icon. They filled other niches well -- the eccentric genius niche, for example, as well as the Angry Black musician (of course Miles had a piece of this too). Maybe I am attributing too much cleverness to the marketeers. Maybe they just gave Miles a bit of an extra push, but he spoke to a vast audience (everything up to Bitches Brew) and did the rest on his own and it became a self-perpetuating machine. It would be interesting to rerun history to see who the labels would have promoted in the absence of Miles and whether it would have worked, but I'm certainly glad we have his music. Well, Columbia did have Brubeck, and for a substantial number of people at the time, he was "the face of jazz". Which goes in a way to the point that Columbia in the 50s had a lot of "name brand" players under contract, including Blakey & Silver. But not all of them could deliver to the company the "total package" that I suspect the company was looking for, a package that surely included more than just good/great music. And that goes, I think, to the artists not only understanding what "the game" was/is, but also, again, to their willingness to play that game on its own terms. It involves, as I see it, a willingness to both create an image and also to simultaneously have one created for you, as well as a willingness to be "exploited" for the ends of then being able to exploit the system back, to turn the exploitation into power for yourself, all without turning into a helpless, disposable pawn. It's a game. It's defintely a game. Like I've said before, for most jazz musicians (hell, for most people) that's too much work, too much diversion from the real task at hand. But Miles seems to not only have been comfortable with it, he seemed to have actually thrived on it. People (most people anyway) are attracted to power. And power is definitely attracted to power, if only to see if one side can break the other. "Cruel" & "shallow" perhaps, but that's the way things seem to work in This World Of Ours. Miles had power, Miles enjoyed his power, and Miles enjoyed playing with his power. Ditto Columbia. It was a natural match, I think, and both sides got what they wanted/needed out of the other. A Business Love Affair, that's what I'd call it. Edited February 1, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can anyone reference my Indiana mention? Rachel, Litweiler and Mark don't count. Former Veep and Longhorn-bandwagon jumper Dan Quayle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Can anyone reference my Indiana mention? Rachel, Litweiler and Mark don't count. Former Veep and Longhorn-bandwagon jumper Dan Quayle? No cigar, but that open wrist (free for slitting) is a pic I'll treasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 BTW, can you supply pics of him jumping a longhorn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Which goes in a way to the point that Columbia in the 50s had a lot of "name brand" players under contract, including Blakey & Silver. But not all of them could deliver to the company the "total package" that I suspect the company was looking for, a package that surely included more than just good/great music. And that goes, I think, to the artists not only understanding what "the game" was/is, but also, again, to their willingness to play that game on its own terms. It involves, as I see it, a willingness to both create an image and also to simultaneously have one created for you, as well as a willingness to be "exploited" for the ends of then being able to exploit the system back, to turn the exploitation into power for yourself, all without turning into a helpless, disposable pawn. It's a game. It's defintely a game. Like I've said before, for most jazz musicians (hell, for most people) that's too much work, too much diversion from the real task at hand. But Miles seems to not only have been comfortable with it, he seemed to have actually thrived on it. People (most people anyway) are attracted to power. And power is definitely attracted to power, if only to see if one side can break the other. "Cruel" & "shallow" perhaps, but that's the way things seem to work in This World Of Ours. Miles had power, Miles enjoyed his power, and Miles enjoyed playing with his power. Ditto Columbia. It was a natural match, I think, and both sides got what they wanted/needed out of the other. A Business Love Affair, that's what I'd call it. Well then extending this definition into the modern internet peer-to-peer era, Charlie Hunter is the premier icon of modern jazz. At this point, clearly a proven jazz genius capable of communication on a sublime level, a self-taught pioneering innovator on his self-invented instrument at the level of a Rhasaan, one of the most distinctive stylists around, practically invented the modern "jazz plus" culture, self-taught, self-promoted, more-and-more self-marketed and self-distributed (music and merchandise), anti-corporate, extremely web-savvy, a shrewd businessman in both performance realms (live tours and studio sessions), ability and true love for multiple funk-rock-jam-band-whatever genres and unashamed if these are probably more profitable that serious acoustic jazz, a rock-solid bandleader, an emerging educator, a consumate associate and promoter of younger talent (most notably, John Ellis, the best 20-something tenor on the scene) ..... ... and, finally, easily the most well-known name in jazz in the under-40 set who have even a modicum of hipness (in other words, their knowledge of jazz extends outside the doors of Starbucks), And from what I can tell, he massively enjoys it all. Not just the music, but also running his own show in life. Edited February 1, 2006 by johnagrandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.