Wynton Marsalis

[Teasing the Korean]

12 hours ago, kh1958 said:

You don't have to be very active; they are available cheap and in abundance; the used LP and CD bins are stuffed full of them.

Understood, but it's 45 minutes or so that I could have spent listening to someone else. 

[gmonahan]

On 10/24/2017 at 2:50 PM, Larry Kart said:

Just asking, as a former Down beat assistant editor (1969-70) who nonetheless has little residual fondness for the magazine, but how can you blame DB for either poll? Yes, it selects those who vote in the Critics Poll (doing so on the basis of who's out there and writing,) but it certainly doesn't know how those people are going to vote nor, of course, does it try to influence how they vote and couldn't do so even if it tried. Now if you're going to say that DB is responsible for shaping the overall climate of jazz and thus shaping how the critics vote, I'd say "nah" or "meh." 

You're right Larry. I shouldn't blame the magazine for either one. I guess I just figured there was more editorial control over the critic's poll, especially in the membership of the small group that chooses the "historical" Hall of Fame members.

That said, I don't share the low opinion of Down Beat found among many of my friends here on the Board. I admire the magazine, if for nothing else than its sheer perseverance,  and I continue to subscribe. I often find the articles interesting, still like the blindfold tests, and do read the reviews.

 

 

gregmo

[danasgoodstuff]

My only problem with downbeat's Hall of Fame is that Ray Charles isn't in - if anyone is 'Jazz, Blues & Beyond' (as it says on the mast head) it's him...and yes, I think he's a genius.

Edited November 1, 2017 by danasgoodstuff

[clifford_thornton]

On 10/24/2017 at 9:16 AM, Scott Dolan said:

I greatly respect his work, too. A point that is obviously being lost or overlooked here. 

And no musician wants to be compared to another, nor do they usually compare any of their peers to others. So that's not exactly a telling metric. 

Are there differences? Of course there are! I've never said otherwise. 

You're saying there is a LOT of difference. And no, there isn't. There's a lot of difference between, say, Peter Evans and Freddie Hubbard. There's a lot of difference between Mats Gustafsson and Albert Ayler. There's a lot of difference between Paul Lytton and Elvin Jones. This is because what they are doing sounds absolutely nothing like 60's Free Jazz. 

 

Agreed. An emulation of those who most influenced him while also creating a voice of his own. And while that voice may be "singular", it's still built upon the same foundation that has been there since the 60's. There were lots of "singular" voices then, as well. But one can immediately identify 60's Free Jazz when they hear it. 

Listening to Cryptology the other day my original assertion still stands. That music could in no way have been made in 1965 or even 1975.

[Scott Dolan]

Then why didn’t you mention him amongst your geniuses of Jazz? 

Again, I think that you’re not really reading what I’m saying. You claim there is a huge difference. I’m simply saying no there isn’t a huge difference. 

If there were, this wouldn’t be a conversation. 

We’re talking variation of green tea. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[clifford_thornton]

Genius is something else. You don't have to be a genius to be singular. They're different.

[Scott Dolan]

C'mon, every artists is "singular" unless they're a cover band. 

[Daniel A]

9 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

Genius is something else. You don't have to be a genius to be singular. They're different.

I agree with this. An example: Chick Corea is instantly recognisable as a pianist and has made albums that do not sound much like anybody else's, like the first RTF albums. That's singular in the way I read Clifford's post. But does that make Chick into a genius?

I cannot agree with the statement there are only three levels: geniuses, singulars and cover bands.

[Scott Dolan]

But you can agree that David S. Ware doesn't sound anything like 60's Free Jazz? 

[Daniel A]

I wouldn't be the best judge since I only ever had one David S. Ware album. I did not understand or like the music at the time (it was 20 years ago) and I gave the album away.

[Dmitry]

4 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I agree with this. An example: Chick Corea is instantly recognisable as a pianist and has made albums that do not sound much like anybody else's, like the first RTF albums. That's singular in the way I read Clifford's post. But does that make Chick into a genius?

I cannot agree with the statement there are only three levels: geniuses, singulars and cover bands.

The first RTF album is genius. Pure genius. Can one not be a genius and write/play/record genius music?

[Scott Dolan]

2 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I wouldn't be the best judge since I only ever had one David S. Ware album. I did not understand or like the music at the time (it was 20 years ago) and I gave the album away.

The problem with Free Jazz is that it quickly reached an end point. It simply could not go any further. Yes, you can have singular artists with their own voice and twist on the sub genre, but at the end of the day they're really doing little more than playing variations on the theme. 

It's like a Monk solo. Sure, THAT bar sounds completely different than THIS bar, but they're both just variations on the theme. Not something completely different at all. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[Daniel A]

3 hours ago, Dmitry said:

The first RTF album is genius. Pure genius. Can one not be a genius and write/play/record genius music?

Can you be sure it wasn't Airto who was the genius? 

[clifford_thornton]

I think it depends on your definition of "Free Jazz." I don't really like the term in the first place because it's so limiting. But if we're going to say creative improvised music or whatever, there are still directions in which the art form can and will go, even in terms of energy playing. For example, through queering the inherent masculinity in high-octane tenor saxophone playing, Michael Foster is a significant new voice in this music. I've heard him with Weasel Walter, Andrew Barker, Ben Bennett, and in his duo project The New York Review of Cocksucking (which is electroacoustic improvisation) -- all excellent outfits. Some stylism, sure, but he's also plotting a way out of otherwise narrow routes. I've also heard some profoundly moving work by trumpeter Jaimie Branch's Fly Or Die group and Dave Rempis' Percussion Quartet (which continues to refine its own specific language). Not yet sure if any of these folks are geniuses and don't really care, but are they singular artists who work hard and have individual concepts? Yes indeed.

This gets back to my original thought re: genius, in that someone considered as such would have changed the world no matter the medium they were given. I can imagine Bill Dixon, Cecil Taylor, or Miles Davis being a hugely significant author, visual artist, scientist, choreographer, or whatever else. I could imagine David S. Ware being a significant drummer, pianist, or composer of strictly notated music, but perhaps not a playwright or political thinker.

[Guy Berger]

1 hour ago, clifford_thornton said:

I think it depends on your definition of "Free Jazz." I don't really like the term in the first place because it's so limiting. But if we're going to say creative improvised music or whatever, there are still directions in which the art form can and will go, even in terms of energy playing. For example, through queering the inherent masculinity in high-octane tenor saxophone playing, Michael Foster is a significant new voice in this music. I've heard him with Weasel Walter, Andrew Barker, Ben Bennett, and in his duo project The New York Review of Cocksucking (which is electroacoustic improvisation) -- all excellent outfits. Some stylism, sure, but he's also plotting a way out of otherwise narrow routes. I've also heard some profoundly moving work by trumpeter Jaimie Branch's Fly Or Die group and Dave Rempis' Percussion Quartet (which continues to refine its own specific language). Not yet sure if any of these folks are geniuses and don't really care, but are they singular artists who work hard and have individual concepts? Yes indeed.

So sure.  But I think you could say this for pretty much every style.  I think it's pretty clear that Wynton Marsalis for instance, was also exploring directions in which the art form can/will go.  Even mature art forms - whether straight-ahead or free or whatever - aren't necessarily creatively exhausted.

[clifford_thornton]

Oh, were we talking about Wynton?

[Scott Dolan]

No genre of music that has been around for multiple decades has much, if any, creative ground left to break which will truly separate the contemporary artist from those who came before, IMO. 

I'm not saying the concept of the new thing is dead, just that we shouldn't kid ourselves that said new thing is going to be some kind of evolutionary leap. 

Fusion was, for example, because it was a hybrid. Then again, Fusion is also older than I am. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Scott Dolan

[Guy Berger]

4 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

I'm not saying the concept of the new thing is dead, just that we shouldn't kid ourselves that said new thing is going to be some kind of evolutionary leap. 

We should rebrand energy music as "the old thing"

[Scott Dolan]

That’s the point. It already IS the old thing...

[Steve Reynolds]

5 hours ago, clifford_thornton said:

I think it depends on your definition of "Free Jazz." I don't really like the term in the first place because it's so limiting. But if we're going to say creative improvised music or whatever, there are still directions in which the art form can and will go, even in terms of energy playing. For example, through queering the inherent masculinity in high-octane tenor saxophone playing, Michael Foster is a significant new voice in this music. I've heard him with Weasel Walter, Andrew Barker, Ben Bennett, and in his duo project The New York Review of Cocksucking (which is electroacoustic improvisation) -- all excellent outfits. Some stylism, sure, but he's also plotting a way out of otherwise narrow routes. I've also heard some profoundly moving work by trumpeter Jaimie Branch's Fly Or Die group and Dave Rempis' Percussion Quartet (which continues to refine its own specific language). Not yet sure if any of these folks are geniuses and don't really care, but are they singular artists who work hard and have individual concepts? Yes indeed.

This gets back to my original thought re: genius, in that someone considered as such would have changed the world no matter the medium they were given. I can imagine Bill Dixon, Cecil Taylor, or Miles Davis being a hugely significant author, visual artist, scientist, choreographer, or whatever else. I could imagine David S. Ware being a significant drummer, pianist, or composer of strictly notated music, but perhaps not a playwright or political thinker.

Thanks for this post. Certainly the Rempis Percussion Quartet is expanding on previous/existing musical forms. No way to listen to this and think I’ve heard something like it before. Whatever Haker Flaten is doing on bass on the last release is something I’ve never heard before. Fly or Die is a striking 35 minute new piece of assembled music that is at least stunning in it’s vibrancy. I know again I’ve not heard other music of this sort. Even Tomeka Reid’s more straightforward quartet with Mary Halvorson, Jason Roebke & Tomas Fujiwara is music that would not or could not have existed 10 or 15 years ago. How about Max Johnson’s The Prisoner  with Ingrid Laubrock & Mat Maneri also with Fujiwara? Taylor Ho Bynum’s Triple Double with the 2 guitar, 2 trumpet/cornet & 2 drummer line-up?

Ches Smith’s most recent These Arches needs to be recorded with Herb Robertson & Devin Hoff on electric bass. I saw this band on 10/1/2016 and is was brand new grooving out there creative music. Herb Robertson remains one of the great underheard voices on trumpet this music has ever had. Same can be said for the amazing Ches Smith trio with Craig Taborn & Mat Maneri. They are astounding live and I’ll hopefully see their one set (boo for the new 1 set booking) at The Stone on 12/20. 

Last Friday I experienced 2 sets from the new cooperative trio of Daniel Levin, Tony Malaby & Randy Peterson. Fierce powerful escatic almost hyper manic insect music with Malaby as strong as I’ve heard him in a few years on both tenor & soprano. 

This is just a bit of the stuff I’m familiar with and I don’t listen to this music nearly as much as I once did / so to my ears the wide array of the unfortunately named “free jazz” is alive and well and new from the creative perspective. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Steve Reynolds

[Scott Dolan]

The irony being that nearly 20 years ago you and I were having this same argument on the long lost Freejazz.org message board, with you claiming Free Jazz was passé because of what the Euro Free Improv guys were doing, with me defending good ol’ traditional Free Jazz. 

This conversation has now taken a turn for the hilarious! 

[Steve Reynolds]

1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

The irony being that nearly 20 years ago you and I were having this same argument on the long lost Freejazz.org message board, with you claiming Free Jazz was passé because of what the Euro Free Improv guys were doing, with me defending good ol’ traditional Free Jazz. 

This conversation has now taken a turn for the hilarious! 

Yes it has!! The actual music being made on the “margins” has almost always been the most fascinating to me. So different yet seemingly the same but it’s not. Somehow if one is not ensconced I this music, it can all blend together. You will have trust me that when I first saw the Tom Rainey trio with Mary & Ingrid I think in 2011 that it was really very exciting and very new. As good as Laubrock is, the singular unique abilities of both Mary & Tom made and make that improvising trio “sing” like few others. The combination of a distilled seasoned player like Rainey with a younger melodically based experimental guitarist like Mary melded a trio into a sui generis band with it's own voice. Will they be genre defining? Of course not and neither will the somewhat similar somewhat cooperative trio mentioned above - Ches Smith’s trio with Maneri & Taborn. That trio also has 2 very unique voices - one older - Mat and Ches is, of course, a contemporary of Mary’s. Band filled out by one the great pianists of our time, Craig Taborn but to my ears, it’s the other 2 who take a fine trio and make it an incandescent one.

[Scott Dolan]

1 hour ago, Steve Reynolds said:

So different yet seemingly the same but it’s not. Somehow if one is not ensconced I this music, it can all blend together. 

Ah, wine snob theory. 

While you enjoy all of your intense tasting notes, digging deeply into your well-honed sense of smell and taste, and waxing poetically on the limitlessness of the universe you’ve discovered with just one sip of this wine...

...I can still sit back from the table and say, “yeah, I taste all of that, too. But it’s still fucking Merlot.” 

While you and Clifford want to carry on about the complexity/depth/difference, there are still two things neither of you are getting. 

1. I hear those differences, too.

2. At the end of the day, it’s still fucking Merlot. 

UNLESS! You’re talking hybrids. Like Mary Halvorsen’s blend of European Improvisation with a more traditional Free Jazz, and even Garage Rock approach. 

BUT! David S. Ware plays no hybridized forms. None. 

[Daniel A]

So if one person thinks there is a big difference between two artists and another one thinks it's not, the first one is a snob and the other one is right?

[Guy Berger]

5 hours ago, Daniel A said:

So if one person thinks there is a big difference between two artists and another one thinks it's not, the first one is a snob and the other one is right?

So I'm not sure I would make this argument in those words.  But yes, I think people who are pretty deep into one corner of something will tend to overestimate how meaningful variation/details within that corner are to the world at large.