jazz that sucks--kurt goes off on jazz

[alocispepraluger102]

http://blogs.ottawac...azz-that-sucks/

4) Trumpeter Nicholas Payton weighed in this morning, via Twitter: “I don’t see how any sensible person can look at all the bulls— masquerading as Jazz being celebrated today and not know why Jazz sucks.” Uh oh. His elaborations are here.

Edited September 2, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[Leeway]

Kurt's screed is one of those kind where people from completely opposite ends of the spectrum will agree, each thinking the other side is the problem. Personally, I think Kurt should start by looking in the mirror.

[JSngry]

http://blogs.ottawac...azz-that-sucks/

4) Trumpeter Nicholas Payton weighed in this morning, via Twitter: “I don’t see how any sensible person can look at all the bulls— masquerading as Jazz being celebrated today and not know why Jazz sucks.” Uh oh. His elaborations are here.

This is one of those things where New York players talk about themselves among themselves and people who don't know any better think it really matters to them, right?

[Larry Kart]

http://blogs.ottawac...azz-that-sucks/

4) Trumpeter Nicholas Payton weighed in this morning, via Twitter: “I don’t see how any sensible person can look at all the bulls— masquerading as Jazz being celebrated today and not know why Jazz sucks.” Uh oh. His elaborations are here.

This is one of those things where New York players talk about themselves among themselves and people who don't know any better think it really matters to them, right?

So it would seem, though I still have to send away for my Secret Decoder Ring.

[JSngry]

Forget the ring & just drink the Ovaltene. It's good stuff, and a lot better for you than Kool-Aid.

[danasgoodstuff]

What sucks is people who think 'x sucks' is any way to start a conversation 'bout anything...

[.:.impossible]

Well this is one way to make a tiny potential fan base even more tiny. Yawn.

I heard Nicholas Payton come out and play with David Tarkonowski, George Porter Jr., and Zigaboo Modeliste at NO Jazz Fest this past Spring. The group was called Fluer DeBris. He was guesting, but man was that rhythm section dynamic, empathic, exciting. Really great stuff and a complete surprise for me, only being familiar with Meters and various studio rhythm tracks. Wow. Too bad Rosenwinkel wasn't in that tent. Serious heat.

[Big Al]

That article was vague, boring, and damn near put me to sleep. Anyone reading this article would be forgiven for asking "why should I give a rats ass about jazz?"

[Dave James]

Not that I disagree with him, but Kurt could wind up being mistaken for a latter day Wynton Marsalis.

[RDK]

I want names, dammit, names! Who are these sucky jazz musicians so I can avoid them? And don't go giving me Kenny G. We already know about him.

[A Lark Ascending]

Is jazz dead again?

[David Ayers]

Is jazz dead again?

Yes, and it's waiting for us to join it.

[A Lark Ascending]

Is jazz dead again?

Yes, and it's waiting for us to join it.

Has it gone to heaven or hell?

[mikeweil]

Is jazz dead again?

Yes, and it's waiting for us to join it.

Has it gone to heaven or hell?

It depends, didn't you know?

[alocispepraluger102]

one of jazz' biggest problems is that it is too often arrogant and exclusionary.

walk in to the usual 15 people attending a jazz concert, and there is usually a certain arrogance, or at least intolerance of uninformed remarks, nonjazzmusicians, or questions.

i'm guilty, and i don't even play.......

if jazz is fucked up, you and i bear our individual burden of blame.

Edited September 3, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[David Ayers]

one of jazz' biggest problems is that it is too often arrogant and exclusionary.

walk in to the usual 15 people attending a jazz concert, and there is usually a certain arrogance, or at least intolerance of uninformed remarks, nonjazzmusicians, or questions.

i'm guilty, and i don't even play.......

if jazz is fucked up, you and i bear our individual burden of blame.

Well, as I am always hinting here, the problem of jazz is that it is boring to most folks, and rightly so. Interesting to musicians, and the recorded music is interesting to collectors (often people without any musical preparation). So it is for musos and - ok I won't provide a term but people who like lists of records, personnel, recording dates, and the corresponding lines of objects. It is basically rarely interesting as composition (instrumentalists mistakenly think they are composers and think that their passe musical ideas are different idiomatically rather than just being cliched and outdated) and does not really work well as either a popular or public music - i.e. not catchy, but no gravity either. I'm not applying this to the music of the 20s and 30s which worked differently and in a different context, and in terms of the 30s is still organically connected to a lot of what gets done popularly today. Much music is minor music, that's it, and it is all optional (Zappa's idea: the world's finest optional entertainment). Contrary to the presumed attitude of the jazz audience aloc described, jazz is not so highbrow, but it is fiddly, fussy and musician centred, and if you ever worked with musicians you'll know, uh, all about that...

[Quasimado]

one of jazz' biggest problems is that it is too often arrogant and exclusionary.

walk in to the usual 15 people attending a jazz concert, and there is usually a certain arrogance, or at least intolerance of uninformed remarks, nonjazzmusicians, or questions.

i'm guilty, and i don't even play.......

if jazz is fucked up, you and i bear our individual burden of blame.

I don't feel there's any blame or burden ... things move on, for better or worse. But you know and I know how good it was/ is.

Q

[alocispepraluger102]

one of jazz' biggest problems is that it is too often arrogant and exclusionary.

walk in to the usual 15 people attending a jazz concert, and there is usually a certain arrogance, or at least intolerance of uninformed remarks, nonjazzmusicians, or questions.

i'm guilty, and i don't even play.......

if jazz is fucked up, you and i bear our individual burden of blame.

Well, as I am always hinting here, the problem of jazz is that it is boring to most folks, and rightly so. Interesting to musicians, and the recorded music is interesting to collectors (often people without any musical preparation). So it is for musos and - ok I won't provide a term but people who like lists of records, personnel, recording dates, and the corresponding lines of objects. It is basically rarely interesting as composition (instrumentalists mistakenly think they are composers and think that their passe musical ideas are different idiomatically rather than just being cliched and outdated) and does not really work well as either a popular or public music - i.e. not catchy, but no gravity either. I'm not applying this to the music of the 20s and 30s which worked differently and in a different context, and in terms of the 30s is still organically connected to a lot of what gets done popularly today. Much music is minor music, that's it, and it is all optional (Zappa's idea: the world's finest optional entertainment). Contrary to the presumed attitude of the jazz audience aloc described, jazz is not so highbrow, but it is fiddly, fussy and musician centred, and if you ever worked with musicians you'll know, uh, all about that...

you are getting awfully close to the kernel, david, and in very few words. thanks.

[AllenLowe]

1) like a prior post, I agree that all of this means nothing without specifics

2) I was recently the object of a pretty nasty attack on Facebook in which it was asserted that my own music indicated signs of mental illness. So I tend to think the rhetoric needs to cool off.

[Noj]

Zombie jazz must...eat...BRAINS!

[.:.impossible]

"Uninformed remarks"

I think jazz's biggest problem is that it feels the listener has to be informed. Dumb old rock n roll has taken the same turn. Not everyone cares to read or talk about music. Some folks just want to listen, socialize, imbibe.

If someone could please tell me where I fit in to this whole thing, I'll feel a lot more confident in my taste in music.

[Dave James]

This may be somewhat selfish on my part but, frankly, I don't give a hoot in hell what anyone else thinks. I know what I like and if I was the only person in the world who liked it, that would be fine with me. Folks waste way too much time and energy analyzing music and allowing others to influence their judgement, but not enough listening for themselves. Follow your own muse, it's the only one you have and, more importantly, it's the only one you need.

[Noj]

Totally agree, DJ. I like great music, everyone else likes shit!

[A Lark Ascending]

We all come from such different contexts that music will inevitably sound different to each one of us. Ralph Vaughan Williams might fill me with utterly bliss given my closeness to the English countryside but leave a Brooklyn uber-hipster quite unmoved.

Musicians/critics who think they see, with their projections, music's true, objective worth are only fooling themselves.

Edited September 4, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[.:.impossible]

Themselves, and me. Because I only think what someone else writes. Thanks a lot Kurt Rosenwinkel.