Assassins Get Paid REALLY Well These Days!

[JSngry]

Obviously, Trane was not the kind of person/intellect/soul to perp on that (although, the proposed intent of the Olantunji school shows potential tendencies in the direction of "institutionalizing" which must be non-judgementally acknowledged, I think)

Well, wasn't the "Kulu Sé MaMa" whole operation supposed to raise funds for Juno Lewis' "Afro-American Art Center"? In that album's liner notes, Nat Hentoff writes just that. And Juno Lewis says in his "poem" that "Coltrane moves in that direction... A man who knows (that) directions for the future depend on how we artists of today cut the road".

I mean that someone had been toying with the "institutional" idea of a jazz art center for quite a long time, and that Coltrane had already been spotted as the right man to convey such institutionalizing energies.

Just my two cents.

Not at all a bad point. My only wonder is when/if Trane would have "crossed over" into outright corporate sponsorship, which would/has turned the whole thing into something else altogether than the grassroots, "doing it by ourselves, for ourselves" thing that this was looking like at that time.

Who knows?

Edited August 18, 2007 by JSngry

[clifford_thornton]

I don't know how it would've manifested itself, but I think Trane probably would have commercialized his music more greatly in some way. If I'm not mistaken, before he died he expressed regret at losing his audience. Of course, there's contradiction there because he also recorded some seriously out shit not long before his death. Still, I have to wonder...

Here's my perspective. The idea of mass appeal, at this point, is fairly hard to stomach - other than obvious pop crap (= pap), music has become a highly nichified thing. "Real" jazz, as well as "real" rock and roll and other types of music, has a small, steady and cultured audience. It may not grow, but it shows no signs of disappearing entirely.

The problem with a niche is that there are still a fairly large number of artists competing for a few gigs and a few record sales. But I think Wynton's pretty much entirely out of that picture.

[JSngry]

The problem with a niche is that there are still a fairly large number of artists competing for a few gigs and a few record sales. But I think Wynton's pretty much entirely out of that picture.

Record sales, yeah, no doubt. But gigs? I dunno... as gigs get to be less and less club/community-based and more and more "institutional" in both nature and sponsorship (a trend that has in no ways reached its peak, I'm inclined to think)... the Marty Khan thing is spot-on, I think.

Of course, pockets of resistance exist, and thrive, at least for now. Wal-Mart hasn't completely destroyed American retail. But I am not optimistic that that's in anyway going to mean growht & expansion of same as time marches on, especially as "jazz" recedes deeper and deeper into the public perception as a music of "historical significance", which is, of course, playing right into what the LC crowd wants/needs to furhter its own surivial needs.

Which is why I stongly suggest that "jazz artists" not looking to function in the LC perceptual mold of what jazz "is" start looking elsewhere, outside the "established jazz world" for both audience and business support. You're playing against the odds either way, but at least when you look outside, you got the chance of actually encountering people who appreciate your "different-ness" instead of...not appreciating it. Also, that those entities attempting to sponsor/promote/whatever such music from within the "jazz world" of today start seriously marketing the objects of their affections to "non-jazz" audiences. Because that scene - the "pure jazz" crowd - is getting more and more into the LC mold everyday. So forget about 'em and let's get this shit going someplace else, ok?

Edited August 18, 2007 by JSngry

[JSngry]

Ascension was actually performed a few times in the summer of 1965 by the classic quartet.

My bad then, and thanks for the correction! :tup :tup

Do recordings exist? That was my point of reference, & I've not heard any. My Trane "collection" is pretty deep in that regard, but not having gone into the dime/bit-torrent world, no doubt there's some/lots of material that I've missed out on.

[Larry Kart]

Jim's Trane versus Wynton model is interesting. What should not be forgotten there is that the thinking/feeling that ran through Trane's relationship to the rest of the scene from, say, 1961 to the end was inherently expansive, would-be spiritual, and, perhaps above all, full of belief (and/or belief and hope) that a new musical era was afoot. We all know (or think we know and then can argue about) how all that worked out -- musically, socially, econmically, etc. -- but that was the thinking/feeling involved.

By contrast, the thinking/feeling that has fueled the almost three-decade-long Wyntonian episode has been more or less reactionary/exclusionary and aggressive/defensive. First, both within the Wynton camp itself, within the corporate, instititutional and media support group(s) that so effectively marketed him, and within that portion of the jazz community that responded positively to all this, the upfront assumption was (and in many ways still is) that without some such appealing figure to rally around (then later on, without an institution like Jazz@LC and its offfshoots to radiate status, quality, and stability/verifiability) jazz itself was or might be cooked. The problem here, for people such as myself, is that even if these things were true (and for reasons that Marty Khan went into, I don't think that they are), anll this depends on Wynton himself being the major creative figure as a trumpeter and a composer that he is said to be (and based on more than 50 years of listening experience, I certainly don't think he is). And if he is not, then the whole darn edifice is built upon sand, no? In that vein, I recall a conversation I had a few years back with a prominent venerable figure in the jazz community who is a firm supporter of Jazz@LC and Wynton on a "They're vital to the practical survival of the music" basis. Then in the next breath he volunteered, "Of course, Wynton is not a jazz musician." Then he asked me never to repeat that remark, at least not as having come from him. I still remain amazed that an intelligent decent man could live with that paradox. And if, as I would guess, he's far from the only one who does, then how could that be a healthy thing?

Edited August 18, 2007 by Larry Kart

[Eloe Omoe]

Jim's Trane versus Wynton model is interesting. What should not be forgotten there is that the thinking/feeling that ran through Trane's relationship to the rest of the scene from, say, 1961 to the end was inherently expansive, would-be spiritual, and, perhaps above all, full of belief (and/or belief and hope) that a new musical era was afoot. We all know (or think we know and then can argue about) how all that worked out -- musically, socially, econmically, etc. -- but that was the thinking/feeling involved.

The point is that Trane was looking forward, whereas Marsalis is looking backwards, acting like a sort of a museum curator. That's the main difference, I think. At that time, there was hope of changing things. Now, it's only a matter of taking the money and running away (sorry, of taking the money without even thinking of going away, so that you can take some more).

[ghost of miles]

There are several quotes on record from Trane & others that he was indeed moving towards opening some sort of club, or "school," or what have you, where artists he liked and supported could perform... I don't have Porter's book here with me at home, but iirc Trane was going to finance it with his own money. Not exactly the LCJO, and I think Trane was much more interested in his & others' musical visions than he ever would've been in hobnobbing with corporate sponsors. If one wants a contemporary non-Marsalis parallel (not really a big believer in historical "parallels" anymore, but for the sake of discussion), then look to Ken Vandermark... frequently attacked on jazz internet boards for not being that great of a player/musician, but somebody who seems to have done whatever he could to support other improv players, who spread some of his Macarthur Grant money around, etc... (though I've heard others label him the "free-jazz Marsalis"). People who know the Chicago scene better than I do can surely offer more insight, but the improv musicians I know around B-town have a fair amount of respect & admiration for what KV's done. He helped inspire a local promotional collective, Beyond the Pale, that brought all kinds of amazing musicians here for a few years... g.d., I saw Brotzmann with William Parker and Hamid Drake, the DKV Trio, Gerry Hemingway and John Butcher, Joe McPhee with Henry Grimes, and all sorts of other great artists because of Beyond the Pale and other people here in town who worked hard to bring them here, pay them decently, and secure whatever they could find in the way of local support (free food, places to stay, etc.). There's another promotional collective here that brings somewhat more mainstream artists to town, but because of them I've seen Greg Osby, Dave Douglas, and Dave Young/David Baker (of George Russell Sextet note) all perform (and btw, that $17,000 price tag for Branford... well, there are artists much more beloved and "legit" by this joint's definitions than Branford that have asked for a lot more than that, and hence priced themselves out of this particular market).

Hats off to Jim for supporting Monday Michiru's latest project...hats off to any & all of us who buy in-print CDs rather than burning them, who go to live shows, who do anything to provide fiscal and moral sustenance for any modern music that we love. And I don't say that out of self-congratulation or feel-good backpatting, but rather out of despair at all of the self-pitying scapegoating that I tend to hear in some of these discussions. The LCJO is a jazz monolith--so what? It can't stop anybody from going out and playing the music that they love to play. And in the end, that's what has to be at the heart of any good music, writing, or any other kind of art. Gotta make a living? Sure do, and musicians, artists of ALL kinds should be paid more than they are. But gawd almighty, I've read enough "historical" interviews with musicians to know this problem has existed for 40+ YEARS at least... existed before WMarsalis was even born. Maybe LCJO has taken part of the pie away, though it's hard for me to imagine that Coca-Cola or any other big biz would want to sink bucks into most of the new music folks around here like or dig... and anyways, some in the classical world blame jazz for taking money away from THEM. (On the grounds that corporate bigwigs are more likely to support a relatively "modern" and "American" music over the Canon of Dead White European Guys, etc.) I'm not a working musician, so I can't speak with the kind of cred that others can about the impact of LCJO on gigs... but in public radio we face a somewhat similar challenge, in that jazz radio is considered outdated/passe in most markets, and talk/news has been the "wave of the future" for the past 12-13 years. It bums me out, and I want to do whatever I can to help keep jazz part of the programming landscape, including developing a program that will solely feature living/modern artists and new releases, doing what I'm already doing as well as I can, and getting more involved with the current local promotional collective here in town. Again, it's not feel-goodism, it's just simply saying, "OK, this is the landscape, this is reality, what small part can I play in trying to change it?" And I guess if ripping on WM for his cool million is a part of that, then maybe there's some point to all this lather... but why doesn't the revolution simply build its own network for televising?

Jazz doesn't need a savior--dead or living. It needs a lot of people playing it, and a lot of people supporting it--listening to it, buying it, paying to see it live, playing it on the radio, writing about it, talking about it, etc. It doesn't need Trotskyist factional infighting, but rather a popular front. It's never going to have widespread commercial popularity, and I'm not even sure it should want or seek it. It just needs viability. And that viability shouldn't be dependent on Coca-Cola, for all KINDS of reasons. So let LCJO have it. Wynton is not the Anti-Christ--portraying him as such (and that's what most of this boils down to, whatever the complex critiques revolving around it) buys into the same paradigm that makes him out to be Louis II or the Duke Redux.

[JSngry]

There are several quotes on record from Trane & others that he was indeed moving towards opening some sort of club, or "school," or what have you, where artists he liked and supported could perform... I don't have Porter's book here with me at home, but iirc Trane was going to finance it with his own money. Not exactly the LCJO, and I think Trane was much more interested in his & others' musical visions than he ever would've been in hobnobbing with corporate sponsors. If one wants a contemporary non-Marsalis parallel (not really a big believer in historical "parallels" anymore, but for the sake of discussion), then look to Ken Vandermark... frequently attacked on jazz internet boards for not being that great of a player/musician, but somebody who seems to have done whatever he could to support other improv players, who spread some of his Macarthur Grant money around, etc... (though I've heard others label him the "free-jazz Marsalis"). People who know the Chicago scene better than I do can surely offer more insight, but the improv musicians I know around B-town have a fair amount of respect & admiration for what KV's done. He helped inspire a local promotional collective, Beyond the Pale, that brought all kinds of amazing musicians here for a few years... g.d., I saw Brotzmann with William Parker and Hamid Drake, the DKV Trio, Gerry Hemingway and John Butcher, Joe McPhee with Henry Grimes, and all sorts of other great artists because of Beyond the Pale and other people here in town who worked hard to bring them here, pay them decently, and secure whatever they could find in the way of local support (free food, places to stay, etc.). There's another promotional collective here that brings somewhat more mainstream artists to town, but because of them I've seen Greg Osby, Dave Douglas, and Dave Young/David Baker (of George Russell Sextet note) all perform (and btw, that $17,000 price tag for Branford... well, there are artists much more beloved and "legit" by this joint's definitions than Branford that have asked for a lot more than that, and hence priced themselves out of this particular market).

Hats off to Jim for supporting Monday Michiru's latest project...hats off to any & all of us who buy in-print CDs rather than burning them, who go to live shows, who do anything to provide fiscal and moral sustenance for any modern music that we love. And I don't say that out of self-congratulation or feel-good backpatting, but rather out of despair at all of the self-pitying scapegoating that I tend to hear in some of these discussions. The LCJO is a jazz monolith--so what? It can't stop anybody from going out and playing the music that they love to play. And in the end, that's what has to be at the heart of any good music, writing, or any other kind of art. Gotta make a living? Sure do, and musicians, artists of ALL kinds should be paid more than they are. But gawd almighty, I've read enough "historical" interviews with musicians to know this problem has existed for 40+ YEARS at least... existed before WMarsalis was even born. Maybe LCJO has taken part of the pie away, though it's hard for me to imagine that Coca-Cola or any other big biz would want to sink bucks into most of the new music folks around here like or dig... and anyways, some in the classical world blame jazz for taking money away from THEM. (On the grounds that corporate bigwigs are more likely to support a relatively "modern" and "American" music over the Canon of Dead White European Guys, etc.) I'm not a working musician, so I can't speak with the kind of cred that others can about the impact of LCJO on gigs... but in public radio we face a somewhat similar challenge, in that jazz radio is considered outdated/passe in most markets, and talk/news has been the "wave of the future" for the past 12-13 years. It bums me out, and I want to do whatever I can to help keep jazz part of the programming landscape, including developing a program that will solely feature living/modern artists and new releases, doing what I'm already doing as well as I can, and getting more involved with the current local promotional collective here in town. Again, it's not feel-goodism, it's just simply saying, "OK, this is the landscape, this is reality, what small part can I play in trying to change it?" And I guess if ripping on WM for his cool million is a part of that, then maybe there's some point to all this lather... but why doesn't the revolution simply build its own network for televising?

Jazz doesn't need a savior--dead or living. It needs a lot of people playing it, and a lot of people supporting it--listening to it, buying it, paying to see it live, playing it on the radio, writing about it, talking about it, etc. It doesn't need Trotskyist factional infighting, but rather a popular front. It's never going to have widespread commercial popularity, and I'm not even sure it should want or seek it. It just needs viability. And that viability shouldn't be dependent on Coca-Cola, for all KINDS of reasons. So let LCJO have it. Wynton is not the Anti-Christ--portraying him as such (and that's what most of this boils down to, whatever the complex critiques revolving around it) buys into the same paradigm that makes him out to be Louis II or the Duke Redux.

You paint a rather sunny picture of what it takes to get over/through these days, and 10-15 years ago, it would have been fair/accurate, at least in terms of it still being a fair fight. But saince then, due to a lot of factors of which Wynton/LC is but one, the market for "jazz" that posits itself as such has pretty much come down to old farts who don't want anything past what they already know, no matter hip it may really be (Aric's phobia about middle-aged bald guys w/beards is not at all misplaced! ) and people who want their music uncompromised in any form, no matter what the implications to the artist are for doing it like that. Either way, it's a case of GIMME WHAT I WANT OR ELSE I'LL STAY HOME. And out of those two options, only the first is really growable, because as more and more people -including teen-aged girls! - become middle-aged bald guys w/beards who have had all that fast and loud rock stuff they can handle and now they're older and smarter, and hey, it's nice to have a little CLASS for a change, well hey - there's your ticket, literally and figuratively.

You say that "...going out and playing the music that they love to play..." is all that should matter.

Ok. Let's say that you're making music that falls outside of the popular (meaning both audience and "business") perception of what jazz "is" (and make no mistake that popular perception of today has been very much shaped by 25+ years of Marsaillis-ian Neo-Con Conning...). Where you gonna play? Where you you gonna get a gig? What are you gonna get to help you along?

Club dates? HA! They inevitably want "atmosphere", not music, no matter how much even the"best" of them protest to the contrary.

Concert series? HA! They want butts in seats, period.

Regional tours? HA! See above.

Media penetration? HA! You gotta have a buzz before you can have a buzz.

Catch 22, same as it ever was. And yet there was progress at a level that no longer exists. Some of that is the inevitablity of the form itself running out of steam as a matter fo course, but some of that is the result of systemic/institutionalized circling of the wagons that lets it be know in no uncertain terms that what we got is all we need, and who knows how much gets squashed before it even gets started by that sort otr mentality, how many impulses intuitively don't go there because the message is sent and received that no, don't EVEN think about it?

Yeah, it's always been a tough row to hoe going outside the "mainstream". And "whining" about the current difficulties in light of past difficulties of a far more blatant nature is obscene. But that's neither my point or intent, which is this - a viable portion of the resources that used to be there that were willing to take a chance on shit that they didn't know too much about but were willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the simple grounds that letting the shit be heard and letting the people make up their own minds and that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and that ain't a bad thing are all but gone today, at least on anything resembling a growable - and that's a key word right there, growable - scale. Yeah, you can still get into one of the many local/regional subsets that hustles its butt off just to make it happen where they are, but that's it. Period. End of story.

It wasn't always so (and to deny the parallel between what's happened in jazz post-Marsailis & what's happened in America post-Reagan is to very much miss the point, I think). There used to be at least a chance, a slight chance, that the confluence of events would allow for some sort of "breakthrough". I mean hell, Rahsaan was viewed as a freak and a sham by a large portion of the jazz "establishment" in his day, but there were enough people who felt/knew otherwise (and for a disperate # of reasons, not all of them necessarily benevolent) that he got to keep going until finally he got over and was taken "seriously" by at least some at at least some level by the "jazz establishment". and of course, now that he's dead, he's Loved By Millions & his catalogue is A Valuable Cultural Asset. Of course.

Can you really see something like that happening today? I mean, even if the talent/impulse existed (and I'm neither here nor there on that one, depends on if I'm having a good day or not), can you see the "jazz industry" as it exists today actually allowing for something/somebody to have the career path that Rahsaan Roland Kirk did from within the existing business structures doing what he did the way he did it?

If you can, I applaud your optimism. But damned if I can share it, because damned if I can see where there's cause for it.

I can, however, see endless high $$$ "tribute" concerts featuring "sanctioned" "talent", established and "new" alike, well, well into perpetuity. But for some reason, that just doesn't bring a smile to my face....

Really, it doesn't.

Edited August 18, 2007 by JSngry

[ghost of miles]

Jim, I'll reply more later, but just wanted to quickly say that my skepticism about "historical parallels" pertained to then/now comparisons, rather than of-the-same-moment, different-realms-of-society comparisons... we're on the same page about Reagan/Marsalis.

[JSngry]

Well, I'd also like to say that I agree with your "it is what it is, let's just get it done" POV, although if you're trying to convince me that "getting it done" now isn't an exponentially more daunting task than it used to be for reasons of which Marsailis-ian institutionalizing is but one (albeit a significant one), then I'm afraid that your irresistable force has just met its immovable object.

[JSngry]

Jim, I'll reply more later, but just wanted to quickly say that my skepticism about "historical parallels" pertained to then/now comparisons, rather than of-the-same-moment, different-realms-of-society comparisons... we're on the same page about Reagan/Marsalis.

But are you saying that lasting Reagan-fallout has not been accompanied by lasting Marsalis-fallout?

Or that there has been no lasting fallout from either?

If so, that does not compute...

[John L]

Ascension was actually performed a few times in the summer of 1965 by the classic quartet.

My bad then, and thanks for the correction! :tup :tup

Do recordings exist? That was my point of reference, & I've not heard any. My Trane "collection" is pretty deep in that regard, but not having gone into the dime/bit-torrent world, no doubt there's some/lots of material that I've missed out on.

Check out "Blue Valse" from the 1965 Paris concert that has been reissued on a number of labels.

[ghost of miles]

Jim, I'll reply more later, but just wanted to quickly say that my skepticism about "historical parallels" pertained to then/now comparisons, rather than of-the-same-moment, different-realms-of-society comparisons... we're on the same page about Reagan/Marsalis.

But are you saying that lasting Reagan-fallout has not been accompanied by lasting Marsalis-fallout?

Or that there has been no lasting fallout from either?

If so, that does not compute...

No, I'm saying that I can't see comparing historical figures in times so radically different (1961 vs. 1981--or 1967 vs. 1981, for that matter) and roughly presenting an equation that says, "Look at all this good guy did, vs. what this bad guy did or didn't do." You & I may prefer the cats that Trane got signed to Impulse to the Young Lions Wynton got signed to Verve, Palmetto, or whatever... in both cases, I'm not sure they sold all that well (with the exception of Pharoah's "Master Plan"? Others? I need a brushup on my Impulse history...) and it is pretty much a slam-dunk IMO that the guys Trane pushed will have a surer footing in the canon than the Marsalites ever will. But if Trane had lived to 2000 I don't think the situation would be very different, and I guess that's where I do buy into the notion that this unpretty pass was pretty much on the way anyway. (And as much as I love Trane, who's to say he wouldn't have turned into something akin to post-1971 Sonny Rollins? Which is not a bad thing at all, really... lots of post-1971 Sonny I'm very happy to have heard and/or have around.) We're all very passionate about jazz here, almost to the point where I think there's the underlying subtext of "Dammit, this music simply MUST endure. I mean, there should be a law!" But there is no law, and--as we've all said, pointed out, discussed before--the "break" with popular music goes all the way back to the mid-1940s. I guess the question is, how does "jazz" survive? And if part of that equation is as a "popular" music to any degree, then aren't we all the way back to Ralph Ellison, ironically enough? (Ironic in all sorts of ways, in that the Marsalites supposedly venerate Ellison, and yet he argued that jazz needed to retain its dancing element... not something that I generally feel like doing whenever I hear the modern folks under discussion, but maybe that's just my particular feet & anatomical points posterior.)

OK, I'll grant that figureheads can matter for the advancement of an ideology. MLK certainly helped the civil-rights movement, and it's hard to imagine Reaganism without Reagan. But they reflected much larger cultural forces at work--good in the case of civil-rights, obviously, and IMO the negative "oh-hell-what-have-we-unleashed, let's-turn-the-clock-back" forces at work in Reaganism. (And the screwed-up failures of Reaganism factor into my skepticism about relying too much on historical parallels, models, etc.) FWIW I think Reagan--even speaking in terms of scale--had a much more significant impact on the culture at large than Wynton's had on jazz culture. Look at Wynton's record sales! (Lack thereof, I mean.) Sure, he makes a million at JALC, but that's a freakin' executive position, a CEO-type JOB he finangled because he's played his game well. I just think you're giving the man too much credit (destructive kind)... maybe we're just arguing over degrees of significance here. If what people lament is the passing of jazz as an exciting, vanguard music that's always evolving, changing, moving forward, then... maybe it was only Miles who ran out of avenues to explore circa 1975, but I think jazz was going to cede that ground anyway. OR turn into something that few here would consider "jazz"--another irony! In fact, isn't that part of what accounts for the rise of Marsalis? The feeling prevalent circa 1980 that jazz was in trouble, that it had gotten too far away from whatever made it "jazz"? Either way, the past is past and the big bands ain't NEVER comin' back.

And maybe I am too optimistic that people of a different bent can make a difference, even if it's just on their own small scene. (Our small scene here enjoys what success it has largely because of IU and the IU School of Music... as a local musician said to me, "Bloomington without the IU School of Music would be Bedford." And Bedford probably hasn't had jazz since Hoagy was whistling Bixie. Just about all of the people that have started collectives, helped bring people to town, etc., are here because of the university, and sometimes because of the jazz studies program. I suppose that could be used to validate the attack on the LCJO when it comes to the "institutionalization" of jazz, but for me it only validates my own belief in a popular front.) I'm not quite as crazy about Maria Schneider as others are around here, but I sure do respect what she's done on ArtistShare... I respect what Dave Douglas is doing on GreenLeaf. And I certainly respect you, sir, for your wide-open ears and mind. There are alternatives to the Marsalis model, and there are people under 30 out there grooving to things quite close to "jazz," or to "jazz" itself as it's known around these parts... but sometimes I feel as though they're as despised as the Marsalites. So which way hence? Whatever way I try to help make it. The world doesn't owe me and my love for jazz anything--on the other hand, I feel I owe jazz and the people who have made it (including you) and the people who have shed light on it (you again and others like Larry) and the people who have helped to make it happen and available (Chuck & some others here) all I can do to keep it in the culture of consciousness. But this is where I'M pessimistic--remove WMarsalis from the picture, and I think all that happens is WMarsalis is removed from the picture. I do not think that the cooler cats we all venerate begin to ascend in his place. Again, I think Wynton takes up waaaaaaayyyy too much time and place in people's minds when it comes to what's ailing jazz (commercially speaking, that is).

[ejp626]

But this is where I'M pessimistic--remove WMarsalis from the picture, and I think all that happens is WMarsalis is removed from the picture. I do not think that the cooler cats we all venerate begin to ascend in his place. Again, I think Wynton takes up waaaaaaayyyy too much time and place in people's minds when it comes to what's ailing jazz (commercially speaking, that is).

This is an interesting question/dilemma. If it weren't Wynton/LJCO would it be somebody else? Specifically, if Wynton and his crew weren't penciled in every bleeping year at the Ravinia Music Fest would it be some other artist barely above smooth jazz level? Most likely it would be. Ravinia for example has four dates per season for jazz, one goes to Ramsey Lewis and Nancy Wilson, one goes to Latin Jazz, one goes to Wynton and that leaves one open for a more serious artist. One year it was Sonny Rollins. That's slim pickings, but it reflect the reality that people aren't looking for serious jazz at Ravinia.

I think where LCJO going away might help is that the fees they charge are high, and if the next best thing to them cost half as much, then there would be enough money to put on other concerts. The way that LCJO sucks up so much in the way of corporate sponsorships and high concert fees is a problem, leaving less on the table for others, since we have seen already that they don't grow the pie.

[John Tapscott]

But the question remains: Is WM "worth" over a million a year? I know you take what is offered, but from what I've heard, no way. And I'm not a real Wynton basher. I enjoy some of his music; some of it I find quite dull; truthfully I find myself listening to him less and less all the time, not that I was ever really 'into" his music in a real big way.

When I want to listen to a big band - I rarely reach for a LCJO CD- I much prefer Maria Schneider, Bill Holman, Bob Florence or the Vanguard Jazz Orch. Lots of creative new music from those circles.

I recognize that Wynton is a top-notch trumpet player, but again when I want to listen to current trumpeters, there's others I enjoy as much or more. (These days I'm really digging Brian Lynch).

As for having WM being a "spokesman" for jazz, well maybe that's important for some people (especially the moneyed cultral "elite", who need to feel they're "doing something" for jazz). But I think the music can speak for itself. I was able to discover and explore jazz music (and I'm sure it's true for most of us here) without Wynton's help, thank you very much. I predate him anyway. My biggest help in discovering and exploring jazz was Martin Williams "Jazz Tradition" book which I "lifted" from my high school library over 35 years ago and "forgot" to return.

Overall, Wynton is neither the destroyer nor the Savior of jazz. I just find him increasingly irrelevant and if Wynton and all his music suddenly disappeared it wouldn't affect me very much at all (and maybe jazz in general).

The point is: Compared to what other jazz musicians make, is Wynton worth 10 or 20 times as much per year? I think the answer is quite obvious.

[ghost of miles]

You say that "...going out and playing the music that they love to play..." is all that should matter.

No--I'm just saying it needs to be at the heart of whatever's driving somebody to perform/write/create. (And generally is... I mean, who except a fool sets out writing a novel or recording a jazz album in hopes of getting rich?) And in some ways, the landscape today is actually better... has it ever been as easy to record an album/CD, for example? One lamentation I run into these days is that there's too much recorded and released music available, that everybody and his/her brother is putting out a CD, and howthehell is a critic/DJ/fan supposed to sift through all this stuff? I mean, if somebody wants to make a STATEMENT... in the age of blogs, Internet sites, self-produced CDs, etc., ain't no stoppin' them now. Now what kind of response they're going to get is another matter altogether--and again I'd say the world & culture don't owe anybody anything, regardless of real or fake auspices of jazz. Of course, an artist running his/her own label and website doesn't owe anybody anything either! Yeah, it's probably too idealistic and naive to see something like ArtistShare as realizing some of the goals of the October Revolution, or the Jazz Artists Guild (and that infamous assassin Archie Shepp! ), but for me that particular glass is half-full... that to me is the future. LCJO moh be there too... and Monday Michiru too. If you love what you do, there's at least a decent chance that you'll find some way to do it, even if (most likely) it's not your main gig in life. (And hell, I've gotten very lucky, as of the past two years, to be doing something I love doing, but even then it's only a part of what I do... lotsa monotonous, not-so-fun tasks and responsibilities that go along with the "fun" part, and I do a fair amount of the "fun" work/part after hours and/or at home.) Unless you sink into a sea of negativity, which is what I've seen happen to a fair amount of people... or else their priorities change, for whatever reason. The game's over in their minds, and so it is.

[JSngry]

Jim, I'll reply more later, but just wanted to quickly say that my skepticism about "historical parallels" pertained to then/now comparisons, rather than of-the-same-moment, different-realms-of-society comparisons... we're on the same page about Reagan/Marsalis.

But are you saying that lasting Reagan-fallout has not been accompanied by lasting Marsalis-fallout?

Or that there has been no lasting fallout from either?

If so, that does not compute...

No, I'm saying that I can't see comparing historical figures in times so radically different (1961 vs. 1981--or 1967 vs. 1981, for that matter) and roughly presenting an equation that says, "Look at all this good guy did, vs. what this bad guy did or didn't do." You & I may prefer the cats that Trane got signed to Impulse to the Young Lions Wynton got signed to Verve, Palmetto, or whatever...

Ok, once again, that was not what I was doing!

I was responding to some people who said that Wynton as leader/figurehead/spokesman/whatever of jazz thru his Lincoln Center gig had not had an impact on the jazz landscape, which I feel is total nonsense. So I set up a hypothetical "what if?" scenario where Trane undertook the somewhat the same task and speculated as to probable outcome based on provable deeds up to that point.

It was indeed a silly game, and I as much as said so myself, but it's sole intent was to show that, yes, the role of "the face of jazz" or whatever does indeed have impact, and that implications otherwise are ignoring some pretty basic realities.

Again, as with KB's misinterpretation, it's not about what anybody "should" or "shouldn't" so with any power they get. It's about the fact that such power does indeed exist, and that it can - and most certainly is and has been - used. That's a point that some of the posts here lead me to believe is not universally understood/accepted, and I want to correct that, if for no other reason than that such misunderstanding only fuels acquiesence past a point of healthiness. At least that's what I think...

Maybe, like Reaganism it's a generational thing. If all/most of what you know is life post-Reagan, then it's really hard to understand just what a fundamental shift that entire trip was, as well as how fundamentally it shifted the game forevermore (one could argue quite convincingly, I thnk, that the major flaw of "liberalism" has been it's naive expectancy that some day things would go back to being like they were pre-Reagan. Uh-uh. Not gonna happen. Ever. And people are finally starting to come to grips with that.)

With jazz, hell, unless you grew up with the music, it's unlikely that if you're going to truly remember things as they were pre-Marsalis if you're too much this side of, say, 40, maybe even 45. But anybody who was around in jazz in a practicing manner from between, roughly, 1975 thru 1985 will almost certainly tell you that A) things definitely did a 180 during that time (for better or worse will depend on who you ask); & B) Wynton Marsailis was ceraintly "the face" of it all, even if only as a figurehead. (and again, for better or worse...etc.)

Note that this 10 year window is distinctly beofre the creation of Lincoln Center. The perceived "problem" here did not begin with Lincoln Center. Far from it. But it the creation of Lincoln Center definitely gave the "problem" (or, if you dig it, the "solution") the means to dig in for the long haul, wait out the oppositition, and just keep on keepin' on w/o fear or worry of any serious potential for overthrow of its industrial hegemony.

Nice work if you can get it....

Now, if that's all/most of what you know in terms of the "jazz landscape" and how/why things get promoted and respources allocated, all this bitching and moaning about how it fucked everything up might well seem like a bunch of crying over spilt milk and/or sour grapes which to some extent it is. And if you like the outcome, it definitely will seem like that.

And yet... it seems wrong to me to go into the future without a clear understanding of why the present is as it is, which means understding that whos/whats/whys of the past. And that's where the fundamental dislike of Wynton Marsalis - a dislike that goes further and deeper than simply a dislike of his musical work and/or his simple outspokeness - comes in. Because we saw the whole game change right in front of our eyes, and we know what his role was. We know that he wasn't the only one, or even the instigator at the very beginning. But we know that he got hip to the trip real quick, that he played along at every step of the way, and that he was all too willing to build his empire on his terms first and foremost for his benefit.

And to paraphrase Richard Pryor, even if we can someday come to forgive (and that day ain't here yet for me), we ain't never gonna forget.

If some of y'all can, hey, beautiful. If some of y'all don't know any different and/or don't want to know any different, fine. Everybody does their own dance. But please please please don't anybody try to convince me that the "Marsalis Effect" on jazz has been neutral, or that it has become neutral. Because that, dear friends, is just so much bullshit. If you don't want to know how sausage gets made, if all you wanna do is eat them yummies up and think to yourself (as do I when eating a patty of my favorite), "What a Wondeful World!", that's your perogative. Just don't try to convince somebody who does that it's not an ugly process, ok?

[JSngry]

One lamentation I run into these days is that there's too much recorded and released music available, that everybody and his/her brother is putting out a CD, and howthehell is a critic/DJ/fan supposed to sift through all this stuff? I mean, if somebody wants to make a STATEMENT... in the age of blogs, Internet sites, self-produced CDs, etc., ain't no stoppin' them now. Now what kind of response they're going to get is another matter altogether--and again I'd say the world & culture don't owe anybody anything, regardless of real or fake auspices of jazz.

Good news - Internet & digital DIY makes/is making "institutions" obsolete (literally or relatively) in terms of "finding" an audience.

Bad news - After you find it, what do you do with it other than provide it w/more digital content w/o that macroinfrastructure of old skool promotion, venue, and captial infusion that you still got to have to get to that "next level"? And into whose hands has the lion's share of this power gone?

Which is not to say that everything, or even the majority, or even 1% of this massive outpouring of content is what you and I would probably consider "deserving", just that the always finite resources available to possibly get it over, really over, are more finite and more concentrated now more than ever.

I mean hell, you can't even hear the good, innovative dance music on the radio anywhere that I know of. It's either clubs or mixes circulated "underground". And that's music that at least in theory has the potential to be really "popular". What the hell chance does jazz that doesn't fit the prevailing archival mode have? Club dates is out, and sanctioned underground circulation of non-historical material is still a far-fetched idea for too many jazzfolk (fortunately, that's beginning to change).

No, this is a music still by and large dependent on old-school business and musical models, so whatever gets out there goes through those channels if it's to get past a certain level. Hopefully the day when the curtain is lifted and the wizard exposed is coming, and then we can all get about doing what comes naturally, but the situation must be recognized before it can be changed. And I'm hearing too many voices here not willing to recognize it.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Reaganism without Reagan would still be Thatcherism

I'm with you on the impact of the Thatcher/Reagan years. But it's clear to me that Thatcher & Reagan didn't change what was in people's heads. They were, at the time, the latest version of what to me has been the tragedy of the post WWI world - an increasing ruthlessness, manifested throughout societies, not just at the political level. And yes, they were a lot worse than what had gone before (or most of it). But they've been surpassed subsequently, to my even greater regret.

But even Thatcher and Reagan were themselves only symptoms, as are Bush and Cheney. The problem is us. And how do we find solutions?

MG

[Eloe Omoe]

I'm with you on the impact of the Thatcher/Reagan years. But it's clear to me that Thatcher & Reagan didn't change what was in people's heads. They were, at the time, the latest version of what to me has been the tragedy of the post WWI world - an increasing ruthlessness, manifested throughout societies, not just at the political level. And yes, they were a lot worse than what had gone before (or most of it). But they've been surpassed subsequently, to my even greater regret.

Just look at what has happened here in Italy with Berlusconi. A Prime Minister who owns national TV channels, national newspapers, the biggest Italian publishing house, big insurance companies, banks and so on.

[MoGrubb]

...The problem is us. And how do we find solutions?

I agree. The media and computers blow everything out of proportion, and with tremendous speed and repetition. It makes the abnormal appear to be the norm, or as if times are a-changing. There's no stability. We're drowning in our excesses too boot.

I think I'll go hide under the bed until all this blows over.

[Larry Kart]

...The problem is us. And how do we find solutions?

I agree. The media and computers blow everything out of proportion, and with tremendous speed and repetition. It makes the abnormal appear to be the norm, or as if times are a-changing. There's no stability. We're drowning in our excesses too boot.

I think I'll go hide under the bed until all this blows over.

You're going to have to be pulled out from under that bed and "re-educated."

Edited August 19, 2007 by Larry Kart

[7/4]

I'm not defending Lockhart, unless I'm missing something in your post, fwiw, the conductor's main function is to rehearse the orchestra/band. By the time the group gets on stage everything is supposedly so well prepared, the group is so together, that all he needs to do is give downbeats and cutoffs, maybe a few cues. It's common knowledge that he is mainly for show and emotional appeal at concerts.

He's there to keep time and coordinate a big group. Do you really think everybody can really hear each other that well?

[MoGrubb]

I'm not defending Lockhart, unless I'm missing something in your post, fwiw, the conductor's main function is to rehearse the orchestra/band. By the time the group gets on stage everything is supposedly so well prepared, the group is so together, that all he needs to do is give downbeats and cutoffs, maybe a few cues. It's common knowledge that he is mainly for show and emotional appeal at concerts.

He's there to keep time and coordinate a big group. Do you really think everybody can really hear each other that well?

I'm thinking a symphony orch concert where it's pretty darn quiet, they can hear a pin drop. I agree that the conductor is the visual focal point. As long as he knows where he's at the musicians can read him, know pretty much where they're at by reading his body english/emotional sensitivity.

I think you'll agree that his main gig is rehearsing?

[7/4]

I'm not defending Lockhart, unless I'm missing something in your post, fwiw, the conductor's main function is to rehearse the orchestra/band. By the time the group gets on stage everything is supposedly so well prepared, the group is so together, that all he needs to do is give downbeats and cutoffs, maybe a few cues. It's common knowledge that he is mainly for show and emotional appeal at concerts.

He's there to keep time and coordinate a big group. Do you really think everybody can really hear each other that well?

I'm thinking a symphony orch concert where it's pretty darn quiet, they can hear a pin drop. I agree that the conductor is the visual focal point. As long as he knows where he's at the musicians can read him, know pretty much where they're at by reading his body english/emotional sensitivity.

I think you'll agree that his main gig is rehearsing?

I'm under the impression that someone else does that and he just whips them into shape. I know a few people that play in orchestras and when I get an answer, I'll PM you.

Edit: I guess I'm thinking of the concertmaster, the string section leader.

Here's a bit about the conductor.

Edited August 19, 2007 by 7/4