Wynton's Sheet Music

[Big Al]

God, how many times have we seen this? Seems like it always follows a particular format:

1. Original poster asks a question about Wynton. If they're genuine, that's all it is: a simple question. If they're trolls, it's a statement instead of a question.

2. Some of the usual nonsense and BS follows, interspersed with the occasional heartfelt opinion which, unbeknownst to the opinion-maker and especially if that opinion is counter to the original post(er), will be taken as a personal attack.

3. The original poster then singles these few posters out for abuse without doing any research, but backing up their blanket condemnations with a simple and offhand "I know what I like, and I like what I know." (I have yet to see anyone follow that up with an opinion of the improved conditions of one's wardrobe, but that may be for a different time and space)

4. Targets of personal attacks try to calm the original poster by explaining that it's okay to disagree in a civil manner.

5. Original poster responds in a sarcastic manner.

6. Others gang up on the original poster, cuz they've seen this all before as well.

7. Original poster pleads innocence, attempting to put the blame for the acrimony upon those with whom he disagrees, saying it's THEIR fault this argument started. All the original poster was trying to do was start a simple conversation. And, oh by the way, the original poster is still right about everything and the other peons (like Chuck Nessa, f'rinstance) wouldn't know good music if they farted it out.

And so it goes. The dishonor roll is littered with "original posters:" Conan (the original), hardbop Heaney, the WM troll over at JC (name escapes me since I don't go there), and now, apparently, bluenote82.

And so it goes. This is the cycle that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends, some people started posting just because, and we'll keep right on replying forever just because this is the thread that doesn't end, it just goes on and on my friend......

[7/4]

So you're saying we're a bit hard on the beaver?

[JSngry]

"Trumpet player"? Hey, no doubt a master.

"Jazz Musician"? He becomes "greater" the more you apply his definitions of what "jazz" is, less so the more you don't. How convenient!

Maybe "he" (meaning somebody who simplified/selectively codified/etc an idealized "tradition" for the purpose of stopping progress to keep the brand name "pure" lest it slip away and remain real and non-objectified by all the fetishists-in-waiting) was a historical inevitability.

Ok, fair enough, but that's what the present is for - to get you into a future that gets you away from a past that don't work no more.

I went.

[Dan Gould]

I know the topic is Wynton but I have to admit to being both surprised and annoyed about Larry's comments about Scott Hamilton and Warren Vache. I mean, I've certainly heard Scott called a "slavish imitator" but I've never heard him called a piss-poor one. Therefore I would love to see Larry offer specific musical examples of his tweed jacket + candy-striped pants.

Otherwise, its nothing more than another one of Larry's nicely turned phrases.

[Aggie87]

I'm still impressed by the fact that he (not Wynton, the 26 year old dude) was into modal jazz when he was 4 years old. And yet can't explain *why* Wynton is one of the best ever, other than to say that "I know what I like, and I like what I know" (quote courtesy Big Al's great post)

P.S. - Peter Gabriel is now stuck in my head Al, thanks alot!

Edited February 20, 2008 by Aggie87

[7/4]

I'm still impressed by the fact that he (not Wynton, the 26 year old dude) was into modal jazz when he was 4 years old.

Wynton was into Mahavishnu and Crimson when he was 4.

Edited February 20, 2008 by 7/4

[Christiern]

Well, that and gumbo. Served up by grandma Bolden.

Thanks for all that, Larry. Alex, who resides in my Mac, will read it to me this evening.

[Big Al]

I was into the Ventures when I was 1. I even have the picture to prove it.

[Hot Ptah]

bluenote82, I thought that you might be interested in my early experience with Wynton Marsalis.

I first saw Wynton in two separate performances with Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, when he was very young and fully bearded, at the Jazz Gallery in Milwaukee. I talked to Bobby Watson about those performances last year, and he told me that the earlier performance was Wynton's third gig with the Jazz Messengers. I was blown away by this unknown trumpeter, as were all of the people with me.

I saw his group with Branford Marsalis, Kenny Kirkland, and Jeff Watts, in the spring of 1982, and in 1984, and enjoyed it very much. I thought that it was a very promising group, and that Wynton was an excellent player.

I was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin in the spring of 1982, and with my poverty level situation, I wrote jazz reviews for the Daily Cardinal, the student newspaper, to get the free concert tickets and records. They were a godsend on my budget. I was certainly interested in writing the reviews, although I was not good at it. (As I cleaned my basement this week, I also ran across my folder of reviews, and it is shocking how poor they were). In that position I spent about 30 minutes alone with Wynton before his quintet gig in late April, 1982, in Madison, to get an interview for the paper.

He looked very young in person, and much thinner than he is now. He was very emotional, bursting out with pained statements often. Apart from just undirected emotionalism, of which he had plenty, the gist of his specific upset was that he was very uncertain that he should go back to the 1960s Miles Davis Quintet songs as a source of material and inspiration. He wondered, with anguish, whether it would be much better to just move forward into new music, and not look back into jazz history, whether the entire revival idea was a dumb idea. He mentioned no other jazz musician other than Miles, and no style earlier than the Miles Davis/Shorter/Hancock/Carter/Williams quintet.

He also blasted the Art Ensemble of Chicago, stating that in his 20th century classical music classes at Julliard, he had learned all about the kind of music they were trying to incorporate into jazz, and that "20th century classical music is the worst thing that could happen to jazz."

I described that part of the conversation in my student paper review. Shortly after that, Professor Joan Wildman, a jazz pianist and professor of music at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a letter to my school paper, stating that she had checked out that quote of Wynton's with his professors at Julliard, whom she knew. She said that she learned that he went to his one and only class in 20th century classical music only a very few times before dropping the class, and that he had no other coursework in 20th century classical music.

I have seen Wynton live several times since 1984, both in small group and big band settings, and have heard many of his albums. I have been disappointed by his inconsistency in effort, taste and musical results. The trumpet player I heard with Art Blakey around 1980 did not fulfill his promise, not even remotely. It's a real shame. Occasionally in live performance he bursts out with something that is reminiscent of his earliest live shows I attended, but not often enough. He is wasting his talent, in my humble opinion.

When I saw Wynton live a few years ago, I was truly surprised at how he was not even trying to play well, with his band of teenagers (or early 20s, tops). Bobby Watson joined him for the second set and then Wynton had to really play. The level of Wynton's effort increased noticeably when Watson came onstage. They joked around onstage about how Bobby had taught the green, country Wynton how to shave when he first came to the Jazz Messengers. That explains the overgrown, scraggly beard I saw on him at the Jazz Gallery.

The young, emotional guy I met with in 1982--it would have been very difficult to imagine him running a sizable business venture someday, even taking a normal amount of growth with age into account

[7/4]

Jazz is not museum music!

[Swinging Swede]

Yes, it is!

[Jim Alfredson]

3. The original poster then singles these few posters out for abuse without doing any research, but backing up their blanket condemnations with a simple and offhand "I know what I like, and I like what I know." (I have yet to see anyone follow that up with an opinion of the improved conditions of one's wardrobe, but that may be for a different time and space)

Nice reference!

[Aggie87]

Jazz is not museum music!

That looks familiar!!!

[7/4]

Jazz is not museum music!

That looks familiar!!!

It's mysterious, eh?

[Larry Kart]

I know the topic is Wynton but I have to admit to being both surprised and annoyed about Larry's comments about Scott Hamilton and Warren Vache. I mean, I've certainly heard Scott called a "slavish imitator" but I've never heard him called a piss-poor one. Therefore I would love to see Larry offer specific musical examples of his tweed jacket + candy-striped pants.

Otherwise, its nothing more than another one of Larry's nicely turned phrases.

No problem, Dan. Scott came out of an R&B bar-band background (nothing wrong with that) and then got curious about some of the sources of the kind of big-toned, rhythmically rugged, overtly exciting sax playing that prevailed in the R&B bar-band realm and not only began to go more toward some of those sources stylistically (Flip Phillips no doubt was a key model) but also to work more with other young players, like Vache, who in their various ways had come to work in a neo-Swing manner. (It should be said that in addition to genuine musical and temperamental affinities on the part of these guys toward their Swing Era models, this was at least in part a response to the fact that there was a nice little niche market developing for that kind of music among The Dick Gibson Jazz Party/Concord Records et al. crowd -- i.e. people of a certain age who often had a fair amount of dough and whose feelings toward the kind of music that they genuinely loved was also significantly tinged with good-old-days nostalgia, plus in many cases a distate for much later jazz.)

Back to Scott. My main problem with his playing is that while he had the big, warm tone thing down nicely, and had a natural affinity for a somewhat simplifed version (especially in rhythmic terms) of circa 1944-5 "jump" tenor playing, he didn't seem to understand that when the better players of that style and era slowed things down and got rhapsodic, the nature and shape of their phrasing changed -- that they sounded "lyrical" because their thinking now was essentially melodic rather than organized around playing one set of "jump" figures off against another. Scott's ballad-playing, however, seemed to me to consist of much the same sort of figures as his "jump" playing, only here he just slowed them down. Think, by contrast, of how totally different in this respect up-tempo Ben Webster, or Flip Phillips, or Don Byas (the list could go on and on) are from their ballad selves. Now I'm not saying that there's only one right way to work within that style, and that because Scott's way is different, it has to be wrong. I am saying, though, that it sounds kind of lame to me and that the most likely reason he plays ballads that way is that being a genuinely lyrical improviser is not an option that's open to him. I'll add that I do have one Hamilton album that's notably better in this line -- "Soft Lights and Sweet Music" (Concord) with Gerry Mulligan. But nothing I've heard from him since has lived up to that moment of promise.

About Vache, I've changed my mind some over time. Either he's grown, or I have, or both (or he sounds better to me apart from Hamilton). I particularly liked the with strings album that Vache did for Arbors a while back.

[Dan Gould]

Larry,

thanks for the explanation. I'm going to pull out some of the earliest Hamilton recordings I have and listen to a few ballads to see if I can hear what you say is there. In the meantime, a few observations:

I think you mis-state the relationship between Concord/the jazz parties and Hamilton/Vache's development. Doesn't Hamilton have to develop beyond his presumed R&B bar band background before he becomes attractive to Carl Jefferson, et. al.? You seem to be suggesting that Hamilton did it in anticipation of finding an audience, whereas I'd argue that his development was far more organic than that. Furthermore, I don't recall a lot of mention of a "R&B bar band" background in the liner notes to those early Concord albums but it is certainly possible that Jefferson wanted to emphasize his following his Father's love of swing era jazz. Lastly on this point, did anyone of his age pre-date him in signing with Concord? I don't believe so, and would suggest that the reality was that Carl Jefferson started his label to record his favorites who had fallen out of favor in the wake of Coltrane and the rise of fusion. Thus you have a label very much like Pablo was for Norman Granz. When someone young came along who "fit" into what Carl was recording, he naturally jumped at the chance to support a young player in that

As for the comparison to Webster - a lot of other critics of the time made this connection (its said that in one concert, Scott started playing a ballad and someone in the audience yelled out "Ben Webster!" and Scott smiled through his reed and kept playing). Did all of them simply notice the surface similarities (slow, breathy tone) and never catch on to the apparent fact that his phrases themselves were inappropriate?

Last observation I'll make is that, presuming that Scott is indeed doing what you say he is doing, its at least somewhat ironic that someone who got criticized for recreating the past played ballads in a different way, and gets criticized for not knowing the style he's emulating well enough.

[AllenLowe]

I remember a weird night at Bradley's, a club on the east side of NYC, maybe 1977 or 1978 - I went to hear Al Haig and he had cancelled; in his place was a trio - Sonny Greer, Brooks Kerr, and Scott Hamilton - I thought I had stepped into a time warp; Hamilton had this little 1930s mustache; Greer played well but still sounded like 1935; Brooks was Brooks -

[Larry Kart]

Larry,

thanks for the explanation. I'm going to pull out some of the earliest Hamilton recordings I have and listen to a few ballads to see if I can hear what you say is there. In the meantime, a few observations:

I think you mis-state the relationship between Concord/the jazz parties and Hamilton/Vache's development. Doesn't Hamilton have to develop beyond his presumed R&B bar band background before he becomes attractive to Carl Jefferson, et. al.? You seem to be suggesting that Hamilton did it in anticipation of finding an audience, whereas I'd argue that his development was far more organic than that. Furthermore, I don't recall a lot of mention of a "R&B bar band" background in the liner notes to those early Concord albums but it is certainly possible that Jefferson wanted to emphasize his following his Father's love of swing era jazz. Lastly on this point, did anyone of his age pre-date him in signing with Concord? I don't believe so, and would suggest that the reality was that Carl Jefferson started his label to record his favorites who had fallen out of favor in the wake of Coltrane and the rise of fusion. Thus you have a label very much like Pablo was for Norman Granz. When someone young came along who "fit" into what Carl was recording, he naturally jumped at the chance to support a young player in that

As for the comparison to Webster - a lot of other critics of the time made this connection (its said that in one concert, Scott started playing a ballad and someone in the audience yelled out "Ben Webster!" and Scott smiled through his reed and kept playing). Did all of them simply notice the surface similarities (slow, breathy tone) and never catch on to the apparent fact that his phrases themselves were inappropriate?

Last observation I'll make is that, presuming that Scott is indeed doing what you say he is doing, its at least somewhat ironic that someone who got criticized for recreating the past played ballads in a different way, and gets criticized for not knowing the style he's emulating well enough.

About Scott's development as I understand it, I tried to be clear, but I guess I failed. I said that out of his initial R&B bar-band bag, Hamilton then "got curious" about the Swing Era sources for that kind of sax playing. I would think that "got curious" implies that this move primarily was self-motivated, which is what I believe. I mentioned the Dick Gibson Jazz Party/Concord connection, in terms of the nature of the audience both of those things drew/draw upon, because given the existence of that audience, that meant there were good gigs there, which then plays or can play some significant role in further shaping the styles of players like Hamilton and Vache and Howard Alden and Ken Peplowski et al. who are musically inclined in that neo-Swing direction, if only because they're then consistently playing that kind of music with like-minded souls and being rewarded for doing so. As for the Gibson thing and Concord, I believe that the latter more or less grew out of or was continuous with the former. In both cases, one had men who had made a bundle outside the music business (Waterpik/Gibson, car dealership/Jefferson) and felt they could pour their money into the kinds of music they enjoyed -- more power to them and others like them, should there be anymore.

About Scott and ballads, to me the irony is that the intention, and some of the surface mannerisms, were taken for the deed itself. Again, I thought I had made that point already.

[paul secor]

Whatever became of Brooks Kerr? Googled, but couldn't find anything recent.

[Guest bluenote82]

I'm not going to defend Wynton anymore, because I like him. I had more respect and admiration for him after I heard "Black Codes (From The Underground)." That album woke me up. I used to be afraid of his music because he was such a purist and was ignorant of the whole free jazz movement. While I don't like free jazz, I'm still aware of its place in jazz history. Then I just listened to his music and not what he thought or said. His music is great and I'm happy I finally got around to checking him out.

I own 16 Wynton Marsalis albums now:

Wynton Marsalis (self-titled album)

Hot House Flowers

Marsalis Standard Time, Vol. 1

Standard Time, Vol. 2: Intimacy Calling

Standard Time, Vol. 3: The Resolution of Romance

Standard Time, Vol. 4: Marsalis Plays Monk

Standard Time, Vol. 5: The Midnight Blues

Standard Time, Vol. 6: Mr. Jelly Lord

Black Codes (From The Undground)

J Mood

Thick In The South: Soul Gestures In Southern Blue, Vol. 1

Uptown Ruler: Soul Gestures In Southern Blue, Vol. 2

Levee Low Moan: Soul Gestures In Southern Blue, Vol. 3

Joe Cool's Blues

The Marciac Suite

Live At The Village Vanguard

All of these albums are great and are by far his best work.

I don't really care for Larry's comments about Scott Hamilton. Scott is a remarkable musician and it's a shame that more people simply don't know about his work. In defense to Scott, I will say that Scott does play in an old style, but so did Paul Desmond. Paul Desmond played the same way until the day he died. The same with cats like guitarist Ed Bickert. I like the way they play and no it's certainly not experimental or innovative, but it is damn good music, nonetheless. Something doesn't have to be innovative for it to be enjoyed or be good music.

I get tired of the mentality that alot jazz fans have where they feel the need to listen to the innovators all the time, instead simply trying to find enjoyment in what say somebody like Red Garland, Phineas Newborn, Jr., or Stan Getz plays. There's alot of jazz that's traditional, but still very enjoyable and timeless. Don't discount the music because it doesn't hold up to your expectations of it being innovative or not. If a cat can play and plays really well, then by all means enjoy what they do.

If all someone does is fold their arms and critique every little thing about somebody like Herbie Nichols, then they'll never find any enjoyment whatsoever. Loosen up and stop selling musicians short. If a jazz musician can play and plays his ass off and plays good music, then I'm all for that.

Edited February 20, 2008 by bluenote82

[Larry Kart]

How the hell did Herbie Nichols get in there?

Also, while Desmond stuck with his style to the end (and why not?), he more or less invented it; Scott Hamilton more or less assembled his from pre-existing parts.

[BillF]

How the hell did Herbie Nichols get in there?

Also, while Desmond stuck with his style to the end (and why not?), he more or less invented it; Scott Hamilton more or less assembled his from pre-existing parts.

Larry, isn't there a name for assembling things from pre-existing parts? Isn't that what they call "postmodernism"?

[JSngry]

Uh....most of the music I listen to/like/whatever isn't particularly "innovative" ("personal", yes, but innovative? Hell how many real innovators have there been?), but I still find Wynton a bore.

Look man, if you dig him, cool. A lot of people do. But a lot of people don't, and believe it or not, for a lot of us, it all comes down to one thing - we just don't like the way he plays. period. All the other stuff makes for "good" (sic) debate fodder and such, but take all that away, and he still moves me and many others to tears of yawns.

Myself, I'd respect your like of him a lot more if you didn't try to find "ulterior motives" in those of us who have next to no use for him. That's the mindset of a cultist, and since I'm twice your age and lived through the ascendency/etc of Mr. Marsalis, I've come across more than a few of them, thank you very much. There's always some "other" reason why "we" don't like him, becuase hell, he really is the shit, ya' know? It's never the simple fact thay we just don't like the way he plays, period.

And please don't give me a lecture about how to listen to/appreciate/or otherwise encounter this music. You apparently know what you know - whatever that is, and iot seems to be a big bunch of records - but you don't know shit about what I know, so respect/recognize that or else kiss my motherfucking ass, you arrogant little boybitch.

If you want it to be like that, we can make it like that. If you wanna do right, we can do that too. Your call.

Edited February 20, 2008 by JSngry

[Guest bluenote82]

How the hell did Herbie Nichols get in there?

Also, while Desmond stuck with his style to the end (and why not?), he more or less invented it; Scott Hamilton more or less assembled his from pre-existing parts.

I'm just making a point, Larry. I couldn've thrown in Dizzy Reece's name and it would have the same effect. I was just making a point.

So Scott Hamilton didn't invent the way he played, huh? That's crazy, because Scott has said on numerous occasions he is a self-taught saxophonist. I guess you'll say the same about Bill Frisell too, huh? Bill Frisell has reputed mentioned he stole everything from Jim Hall, while I disagree with that, Hall's influence in Frisell's music evident, no doubt about it.

You're also taking what I said about Desmond out of its' context. I said he played damn good music. I love Paul Desmond and I think he's a great player.

This leads me to a quote by the great Larry Coryell:

"There's two kinds of music: good and bad."

Edited February 20, 2008 by bluenote82

[JSngry]

This leads me to a quote by the great Larry Coryell:

"There's two kinds of music: good and bad."[/size="6"]

That's Larry Coryell quoting Duke Ellington.