Grammy nominations

[Dr. J.]

Assuming that the Grammy awards are taken seriously, which many people don't...

Luciana Souza's wonderful "Brazilian Duos," with all Brazilian songs sung in Portuguese and accompanied by Brazilian guitarists, was nominated for Best Jazz Vocal Album. Duduka daFonseca's also wonderful "Samba Jazz Fantasia," which includes jazz guest stars and songs sung in English, was nominated for best Latin Jazz album. What's up with that?

Any ideas or other comments about this annual ritual?




Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Coypu]

The award is a joke and any form of musical competion or awards should be banned.

[GA Russell]

The Grammys usually go to a Lifetime Achievement Award sort of thing; the artist rather than the album. Tony Bennett, Sonny Rollins, Joe Zawinul and this year Dave Holland come to mind.

That's OK. Better late than never.

The awards also run to best sellers. And typically to the major labels.

That's OK too, so long as everybody understands what the deal is.

It's not clear to me who the voters are, and how much exposure they have had to small label releases.

Better the status quo than to be ignored, I say.

I wouldn't mind a category for poorly distributed small labels' albums which no one has heard!

[clifton]

While I hardly take Grammy seriously, I admit to being pleasantly surprised that Dave Douglas' "The Infinite" got nominated for Best Jazz Album. So did Hancock/Brecker/Hargrove "Directions In Music". Two great, genuinely uncompromising CD's. The nomination should be good for Dave, who deserves the acclimation.

[bombastic]

that's all that any of these awards are is a popularity contest, in the end it has nothing to do with talent!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[3pointdeli]

milli vanilli won "best new artist" several years ago.

take them seriously? no thanks.

[clifton]

Silly or not, the jazz album category includes The Infinite, Footprints Live, and the Hancock/Brecker/Hargrove CD. For once, the Grammies idea of best jazz album has a corralation with reality. And I would like to see Norah Jones win, even if she's not singing much jazz at the moment. The jazz category ought to at least be interesting, even though the Grammies were irrelevant before Dave's nomination. (Sorry, couldn't resist).

[3pointdeli]

i didn't watch the grammies, but from what i've heard about it it seems like they got some things right for once.

[jazzypaul]

Yeah, can't say I argue with the nominations or winners too much. I think it would have been cooler to see The Infinite win, as opposed to what was essentially a tribute band, but, whatever, all the guys that won were incredibly talented and put out great music, so good for them.

[Pharaohrock]

Paul, you know I respect your opinions but I think The Infinite is totally overrated. That was a good band live but the record is really not all THAT. It's just a pale studio imitation of what they were doing live...

But about the Grammies.....I think Verve/Polygram pulls a lotta weight in this thing, don't you?? I also think Herbie is one of the few names these voters even recognize. Herbie is Hollywood to some extent too.

[bombastic]

there isn't much concern for the art of music involved. it's basically mainstream philistine crap.

[jazzypaul]

Pharaoh, I have to respectfully disagree with you on The Infinite if for only one reason: it's important that the album got out there in the first place. Yeah, the live band was PHENOMENAL, but the album being out there, being nominated for a grammy, and selling pretty damn well says that the tide is changing in modern jazz, for the better. Yeah, it might have been an overrated album (I thought the Matthias Lupri was by far the best album of '02) but if simply for the positive impact that it might bring to jazz (younger fan base, musically stimulating ideas) I think it should be remembered.

As for the Verve push, it's definitely there, but was there really a better vocal album than the Diana Krall record last year? And the Hargrove/Hancock/Brecker thing was bound to win, and I must say that I'm shocked that Wayne didn't win. What a great record. Insofar as a greater pull, though, the bigger the company, the more members of NARAS within that company, one would assume. Polygram, at this point, is the single largest record company in the world. One assumes that's going to weight things a little bit. Which might be another reason that it's time for a change in how they do business...

[Pharaohrock]

The Grammy's should have more outwardly be advertised as THE INDUSTRY awards. They make you believe these awards were chosen by critics which is far from the truth.

[clifton]

I watched some of the Grammies and most of the show was unfiltered b.s. Avril Lavigne? Was that a goof? But damn, it was nice to see Norah Jones blow away the competition, to see quality, jazz-inflected music win out over teen pop and overproduced idiocy. As for the jazz category, the Hancock album is still really good, even though I was rooting for Wayne and Dave. The Infinite may be a breakthrough album for jazz, every young listener I know digs it. BTW Verve and Blue Note have a lot of muscle in the jazz world. Also NARAS loves Michael Brecker. Whenever he's nominated, he usually wins.

[Joel]

..though some of you have a your own definition of contemporary jazz...thats another story:D

For this year's nominees, the Grammy have got it right, and what I meant is that there was no Snooze (Smooth Jazz) performer that infiltrated the category....though Larry Carlton's Deep Into It sounds smooth during my previews but I never bought the album nor listen to it in full.

For a change, I wanted the Yellowjackets' Mint Jam to win and Pat boy did it again, not a problem here for a Pat Metheny fan.

BTW: Smooth Jazz is defined as Instrumental Pop in the Grammys and that what I prefer to describe that music as well.;)

[liamw]

Like most people (except the several million who bought her record) I don't know anything about Norah Jones (except her parentage). Apart from recording for Blue Note, what is her (current or potential) relationship to jazz?

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by liamw
Like most people (except the several million who bought her record) I don't know anything about Norah Jones (except her parentage). Apart from recording for Blue Note, what is her (current or potential) relationship to jazz?

as far as i can tell it's the same as diana krall or most other singers.

[liamw]

Well, the subject of jazz singing can be debated endlessly. Maybe has been in this forum (I haven't looked back that far). But I think there IS such a thing (I know some don't). As with all players, I think it's a matter of (for want of a better term) "jazz sensibility." Singers with a jazz sensibility sing jazz. Whatever Ella Fitzgerald sang (& there's that old saw about the phonebook) was jazz, as an example, whereas whatever someone like Bobby Darin sang was always pop. (And, similarly, whatever Jimmy Rushing sang was the blues.) Part of the problem with contemporary singers though is that there aren't any "straight" pop singers around anymore (people like Jack Jones or Vic Damone). Anybody who sings the standards from the American songbook gets to be considered a jazz singer, especially if they hang on long enough (Tony Bennet & Rosemary Cllooney come to mind). But it doesn't really work that way: Joni Mitchell or Rod Stewart or (G-d help us) Carly Simon aren't singing jazz just because the tunes are by Gershwin or Porter. So who DOES sing jazz these days? DOES Norah Jones bear the same relationship to jazz as Diana Krall? Karrin Allyson? Dominque Eade? I'm really interested in this question.

[jazzypaul]

I'm gonna run at this backwards...

1) Is Norah as much of a jazz singer as a Krall, Eade, Norby or Barber? Nope, not at all. But she is hinting at jazz, and the same respect that any self respecting jazz fan should have for Steely Dan should be also given to Norah Jones. Which brings me to my next point...

2) Just because someone may sing standards does not make them jazz. You're right. But listen to Shadows and Light or Mingus before you write off Joni Mitchell as not worthy of being called a jazz singer. If every artist loved jazz as much as Joni does, the musical landscape would be a far cooler place. Don't ever forget that. The Rod Stewart "songbook" record was shit. But Joni felt natural in that setting.

3) There still are straight pop singers. They've just grown beyond the Great American Songbook. The term you're better off using to describe Jack Jones and his ilk is "relic." They have nothing to do with jazz or pop music. They are period pieces that deal with a certain era of pop music.

4) Jazz sensibility, as a term, is a slippery slope. Norah sings like she's heard some jazz. As does Joni Mitchell, as does Eminem. Bobby Darin swung, when he did the right material. But Bobby was into far too much music to just do one kind of thing. Which has always made him interesting to me. To stop Mr. 5x5 at calling him blues, again, is far too narrow minded. His work with Brubeck and with various big bands is jazz all the way. Yeah, Ella could make the phonebook swing, because she didn't sing with a jazz sensibility, SHE SIMPLY SANG JAZZ.

I think you're being too open and closed on the subject. There have certainly been things that have careened against jazz and taken what they can away from it and brought it to the pop world. In some cases, it has worked wonderfully. In some cases, not so much. I think Norah is a case where she is not a jazz singer, but, she has brought jazz, on her terms, to the pop world. We should be wishing her the best.

[omar zamora]

I dunno how one would define a jazz singer nowadays.

It can't be because of the material they cover. I don't think Eva Cassidy was considered a jazz singer, though much of her material is considered jazz material (pop standards as well as jazz compositions), but she also covered more modern pop songs with the same ease and beauty as jazz songs. On the other hand, Patty Waters singing "Black is the Color of My True Love's Hair" or Lauren Newton singing wordless vocals with the Vienna Art Orchestra I'd definitely consider jazz (free jazz), Though many here will disagree, I'm sure.

Having said all that, I'm not all that knowledgeable of jazz vocalists, so I can't really comment any further.

[Joel]

Originally posted by liamw
Like most people (except the several million who bought her record) I don't know anything about Norah Jones (except her parentage). Apart from recording for Blue Note, what is her (current or potential) relationship to jazz?

Dont have her album but heard/read her say she does not consider her music as jazz.

...and she was not in any of the Jazz Grammy categories as well.

Diana Krall may not be singing a lot of Jazz standards but her music sounds Jazz to me, Norah Jones' is just jazzy.

When Wes Montogomery went from Riverside to Verve, he got heavy flack from these labcoat nitwits saying that he's gone Pop.....I dont hear Pop in Wes Mo...its Jazz.

[3pointdeli]

yeah, me neither. as much as i'd like to contribute to this thread, the only exposure i've had to norah jones' music is her appearance on saturday night live...which i thought was really good. that's what i've based my comments on...that and the fact that she's got a pretty solid cast of jazz players on her cd.

[liamw]

"Yeah, Ella could make the phonebook swing, because she didn't sing with a jazz sensibility, SHE SIMPLY SANG JAZZ."

I agree. Ella could sing jazz, others can't. But what does that MEAN?

Maybe Jazzypaul is right that "jazz sensibility" isn't the right term for Ella & other undisputed jazz singers. Maybe it should be applied instead to those who sing "like they've heard some jazz." I agree anyway that it's a good thing that jazz is having some influence on pop singers, if they do something with it that's interesting. I like Joni Mitchell but I didn't think much of her standards album (she did more with those types of songs within the framework of her own material, I think). I also meant no disparagement toward Jimmy Rushing. OK, it's an oversimplification to say that he made everything he sang into the blues, but that's not something just anybody could do ...

Still, there are singers who I consider to be jazz singers (Susannah McCorkle, for example) who work in a similar vein to others (Jane Monheit) who I don't. But I don't know how to explain that distinction.

Like Ellington you can say there's only good music and bad, but dammit it's fun to split hairs like this. Beats worrying about the real world, anyway.

[Anyella29]

Well, yes, it is fun to split hairs, isn't it?

In my never-to-be-humble-enough opinion, there are a couple of things that set singers apart in my mind from being true jazz singers or not. If, when someone attempts to sing jazz, they dishonor the music by insisting that their melismatic, R&B, pop, broadway, operatic, "I learned how to sing showtunes in Mrs. Minor's 5th grade pageant class" over-the-top styles rule, and they don't really give a good gosh darn about what jazz is for, except to give them a cool vehicle in which to be a diva holding a lightbulb, then they're not jazz singers. That's the bad news.

The good news is, when a singer's intention is to approach jazz as a jazz musician would (and all the things that jazz musicians go through, including improvisation, etc), in a pure way, then, they get to be called a jazz singer. Yay!

In my mind, there are many people who define the art of jazz singing in the way I'm suggesting. Shirley Horn pops into my mind. She is unaffected. She does her thing. She's not all caught up in some vocal style that she's trying cop. She's authentic. Her voice is pure. She's subtle. She's thinking about the lyrics, but interpreting them in an improvisational way. This is a result of years of listening to jazz musicians and finding her own voice within the jazz thing. She could do any damn tune she pleasesat this point, and she's still a jazz singer.

Kurt Elling. Innovative. Does his own thing. Takes inspiration from horns and other musicians who came before him. Completely different style than Shirley Horn. But he's a jazz singer, too. I'd argue similar intentions to Shirley's, though completely different style. Just like any other jazz musicians!

There is room in jazz for all types of jazz singers but there's not room in jazz for people who don't honor the tradition. The voice is just another instrument. When used for its' good powers, it can be the greatest inspiration for everyone on the bandstand. When used for evil, well you know what that looks like. (And I'm willing to hear debates on who these people are) Being a jazz singer is all based on intention... the intention to be a jazz musician using the voice instead of some other instrument.

It just bugs me when people say Norah Jones is a jazz singer. She's not. She's not intending to be. I'm not saying she bugs me like Mariah Carey, but she doesn't get my engines revving like Shirley Horn either. She's a wonderful, gorgeous singer, and talented musician, probably inspired by jazz, but...probably not exactly a jazz singer.

And I present this novel in the name of all jazz singers everywhere, Amen. *muuaaahhhhhh*

[Pharaohrock]

Please contribute more to this forum Anyella. It's so nice to see a new face that doesn't have some kind of ranting agenda and actually has something intelligent to say.

[3pointdeli]

most jazz fans seem to be put off by norah jones being called a jazz singer. most jazz fans would like to see more people getting interested in jazz. let people think norah is jazz. as far as i'm concerned, a door has opened that might make people more interested in jazz.

so you're a norah fan. you go to borders and ask the guy at the help desk to reccommend some "other jazz singers." congratulations, you just bought some jazz cds.

how is that bad?

[Pharaohrock]

if only it worked in such cut-and-dried fashion, that would be great.....the reality is I don't think most music consumers DO perceive Norah Jones as a jazz singer.......precisely because, sad but true- she's "too interesting to be a Jazz singer, who are all old-fashioned souls singing showtunes and the like" People's existing bias against jazz will mitigate against them perceiving something that they like as actually BEING jazz. Maybe you think this is a tad too cynical, but I've seen it play out in person......I heard someone at a party say "I don't like jazz, but I like Diana Krall." Now how do you like that?? lol.

[3pointdeli]

maybe that's true. still, it all sounds like a "woe is me" for jazz. i think that's horseshit. the second biggest section in any record store is the jazz section (except for some places that specialize in classical.) jazz is not in any danger, despite what you might hear people say at parties. certainly norah jones being called a "jazz" singer poses no threat to jazz. if kenny g didn't kill jazz i don't think a genuinely talented singer is going to.

[liamw]

Actually, if you go to the Borders or Amazon websites & check their listings for what "people who bought this album [Norah Jones] also bought", and their lists of "similar" items, it's not very encouraging as far as expanding peoples' jazz horizons. Only Cassandra Wilson & Diana Krall are listed, and if you do the same for THEIR most recent releases the lists aren't very encouraging either. It shouldn't be surprising to hear people say they don't like jazz but do like Diana Krall. They probably like the timbre of her voice or the material she records & don't hear what jazz people hear. But an interesting question: what would YOU all recommend to a Jones fan who asked for "some other jazz singers"?

[Pharaohrock]

One guy I am surprised hasn't been able to really cross over is Kurt Elling. The potential is all there so far as I can tell, and if you listen to some of the tracks from "This Time It's Love", there is some very radio-ripe stuff there. No dis on Kurt either....

Maybe he just doesn't want to present himself this way...

[3pointdeli]

my point, thought it wasn't well made, is that there is no reason to be fret over NJ being called a jazz singer. she won more grammies than she can carry. i'd say that makes her a pop singer, regardless of what style she, or anyone, considers her music.

BUT...

if people want to call her a jazz singer, it does not hurt jazz. i'd argue that it has the potential to turn ONE person onto something that IS jazz.

[Pharaohrock]

agreed. now if only there was such a thing as a populist instrumentalist. lol.

if james carter did some kind of gimmicky radio-ready diddy showing off all his ridiculous chops, would anyone care?

[jazzypaul]

Pharaoh -- no, but they sure did love it when Ramsey and Wes did it. And the Beastie Boys' attempts at jazz (which weren't half bad insofar as garage-jazz-soul-organ trios go) got some airplay and some notice. It's not chops and trickery, it's getting peoples asses to shake. This is why MMW, Soulive and Scofield's new band play rock venues. Because people like it when their feet tap and their asses shake uncontrollably.

[Pharaohrock]

Paul, I think I was considerings something more specific.....think of Yakety Sax......can you have an instrumental novelty like that succeed in this day and age, or is that a thing of the past?

[jazzypaul]

Yakety Sax would be a thing of the past. Our culture has moved away from expressions of technique, for better or for worse. From our friends in the pop world, look at it this way -- Clapton, once considered one of the greatest guitarists rock has ever known, is now known for tunes like Tears In Heaven and Change The World -- tunes that don't even have solos. People with any kind of chops are immediately considered wankers, which they may or may not be. Not to mention, where would something like that fit? Cliffs of Dover did well 10 years ago, but I doubt that an instrumental novelty like that could happen in todays climate of overly sensitive chick singers and whiny rap-rockers.

[ppjazz]

Perhaps there's more going on surrounding Norah Jones multiple Grammys than meets the eye. It was a bit refreshing and maybe a signal that many are tiring of the R&B acrobatic approach to vocalizing so many believe to be the way to success and recognition.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by ppjazz
Perhaps there's more going on surrounding Norah Jones multiple Grammys than meets the eye. It was a bit refreshing and maybe a signal that many are tiring of the R&B acrobatic approach to vocalizing so many believe to be the way to success and recognition.

let's hope that's the case. nothing grates my last nerve like vocal masterbation.

[3pointdeli]

another thought:

maybe the grammys are trying to distance themselves from the "american idol"/karaoke type singers.

[Anyella29]

Yaaayy-heayy-eeeeyaaa-yuh-ay-uh-yess......

That's long for "yes."

I think the world is sick of the vocal masturbation thing. I know I aaaaa-haa-eee-aaaya-haya-aaayeee-ammmmmm.

To chime in on the Norah Jones thing. From the marketing/public relations/record sales aspect, calling her "jazzy" is great. The mainstream world needs their hands held. Jazz hands across America. I totally get it.

From the inside of the jazz community artist crowd, calling her a jazz singer is innaccurate. She won't kill jazz singing, no, and frankly, she's nowhere near as annoying as Kenny G. It's just that, well...she's a pop singer with a "jazzy style."

But I'd hate to think that people think jazz is just a style when it is so much more than that.

[clifton]

Since Norah Jones has studied jazz, played jazz, and sung jazz, perhaps she could be considered a jazz singer who chooses not to sing jazz at the moment. Jazz clearly influences her phrasing and her delivery. But people must want something other than teen pop, hard rock, or gangsta rap. Norah offers intimate, warm music, intelligent songs, and nuance. She's sold a ton of records, won a pile of Grammies, and made big bucks for Blue Note. That happens to be a win-win situation at the moment. As for calling Norah "jazz", or not liking jazz except for Diana Krall, it's certainly clear how powerful the stigma attached to jazz happens to be. I'll bet when most people hear the word "jazz", they think "difficult", "elitist", "passe", "my grandparents' music", even "boring". That stigma got slapped on us by the first generation of punk rockers and new wave rockers. (Yeah I know the late Joe Strummer liked jazz but how many Clash fans followed suit?) I'm convinced use of the word "jazz" is a turn-off. I sometimes wonder if my kids would have liked jazz as much if I had used that word before I played the music.

[Joel]

anyella29, thats very funny :D

I said it on other boards that I never like the way R&B vocalists are prolonging words and raising their pitch up and down, if that is still a cool thing, then leave it in the R&B world but dont carry it over to Jazz.

[jazzypaul]

...it's certainly clear how powerful the stigma attached to jazz happens to be. I'll bet when most people hear the word "jazz", they think "difficult", "elitist", "passe", "my grandparents' music", even "boring". That stigma got slapped on us by the first generation of punk rockers and new wave rockers.

The funny thing is, those of us who are late gen X/gen Y jazzers, are indeed, the truest punks of today, musically. Rebelling against the lameness of garbage that means nothing to us, we go back to the roots (i.e. The Clash playing Rockabilly and the Sex Pistols playing Chuck Berry tunes). The roots, for us, were jazz. We hear jazz, we hear something pure (just like the Sex Pistols and those Chuck Berry tunes) and we want a piece of THAT. Now, of course, we can't help the fact that we're influenced by society and the sounds around us, so we incorporate them into what our take on jazz is. Thusly, you get Seamus Blake and Robin Eubanks playing through effects, you get The Bad Plus deconstructing Blondie and Nirvana tunes, you get Matthew Shipp playing with rap groups, you get Alex Skolnick, Bobby Broom and Christian McBride exploring the music that they grew up with. Then on top of that, you add Dave Douglas, the Kurt/Mark tag team, Sco and other various artists, and you suddenly have a YOUTHFUL artform again. We are the punks of this generation. Now it's time to let people know. The Bad Plus was smart...sent the album to Rolling Stone, where it got a 4 star review. sent the album to Bully magazine (an alt-metal magazine) where they had to wipe the drool off of their copy. Look on Amazon.com, where you'll see that album (a jazz album if ever there was one) is #150 in the sales ranks right now. Not bad for a debut jazz record. It all goes to prove one thing: People aren't afraid of jazz, per se. They're afraid of Harry Connick, Jr, Wynton, and what jazz advertises itself as.

[3pointdeli]

good post, jp.

i got the bad plus cd the other day (at borders for $12.99...it's $9.99 through amazon) all i've got to say about that is:

LOOK AT THE PRICE TAG. $9.99 RETAIL SELLS CDS, MOTHERFUCKERS. #150 on amazon! WAKE UP RECORD LABELS! this $18-19 shit's gotta go and the bad plus JUST PROVED IT!

oh, by the way, i dig the cd.

[liamw]

What would YOU all recommend to a Jones fan who asked for "some other jazz singers"?

I'll answer my own question, having now had some time to think about it. I'd send that person right to the Billie Holiday CDs. What better place to start? And who is more immediately accessible? If even one person was thus turned on to real jazz in that way it'd be worth all the grammies ever manufactured, at least to that one person. But how likely is that to happen?

I don't think we should run away from the word "jazz." Historically it's been in disfavor among musicians from time to time, but it's the word for the music we all love, in all it's wonderful variety.

[Pharaohrock]

Yeah, but a lot of people get bugged by the grainy sound. I would turn someone on to Jeanie Bryson's records she did on Telarc. Nice, cute stuff.

[omar zamora]

Originally posted by clifton
(Yeah I know the late Joe Strummer liked jazz but how many Clash fans followed suit?)
Here!

There were some great real hardcore punkish things done in the early days, before the definitions and barriers solidified. The british improv scene is full of them. Steve Beresford is a prime example of that, as are guys like Lol Coxhill, Mark Sanders, etc. And how about that Jah Wobble/Evan Parker album?

ps: and unlike older rock fans-turned-jazz fans, I *detest* about 80% of prog rock.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by liamw
What would YOU all recommend to a Jones fan who asked for "some other jazz singers"?

I'll answer my own question, having now had some time to think about it. I'd send that person right to the Billie Holiday CDs. What better place to start? And who is more immediately accessible? If even one person was thus turned on to real jazz in that way it'd be worth all the grammies ever manufactured, at least to that one person. But how likely is that to happen?

I don't think we should run away from the word "jazz." Historically it's been in disfavor among musicians from time to time, but it's the word for the music we all love, in all it's wonderful variety.

that is VERY likely to happen. seriously, if you don't think *ONE* person will check out other jazz singers because of norah jones you're hopeless.

[3pointdeli]

jp, i agreed with your post yesterday, but the more i thought about it i realized i'd have to strongly disagree with your claim that punks were anti-jazz. on the contrary, it was fusion, prog rock and arena rock (the eagles, pink floyd, etc.) that they hated. during the original british punk scene one of the popular articles of clothing was a t-shirt with "loves" on one side and "hates" on the other. coltrane was on the "loves" side. i think some other jazz folks are on the "loves" side, too, but i'll have to look into it. also, the los angeles punks in the early to mid '80s (primarily the bands on sst records) were known to be jazz fans. greg ginn from black flag and mike watt from the minutemen, just to name two, have always openly admitted to being jazz fans.

i don't know what these dorks who call themselves "punks" nowadays are into, but it sure aint the punk rock, or jazz, that i know.

[3pointdeli]

ok here's a link to that "loves/hates" thing if anyone is inerested:

http://www.yk.psu.edu/~jmj3/cre_tshr.htm

[3pointdeli]

crap, i'm sorry to continually post on this thread but i've got to apologize to jazzypaul. it was clifton, not jp, who stated that "punks" created, or helped create, the stigmatization of jazz. i was confused, since jp quoted it in his post. i completely agree with the point you were making, clifton, just not that part of it.

[bombastic]

Who gives a rats ass what no talent punk rockers thought about anything? that whole scene was an insult to the ears of people who loved good music. the clash were okay, at least they could play their instruments. i saw the t-shirt quotes; anyone who hates the great surrealist dali, especially a non-talent punk, doesn't understand art. it's a trivial concern anyway. i think that john"rotten" lydon is probably embarrased now by the sex pistols thing. John Coltrane was a master musician, and if you truly love jazz, you respect musicianship. it takes time and study to become a competent musician. Coltrane practiced all the time from what i've read about him. Jazz Lives. punk was never music to begin with, just a bunch of no talent punks .

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by bombastic
Who gives a rats ass what no talent punk rockers thought about anything? that whole scene was an insult to the ears of people who loved good music. the clash were okay, at least they could play their instruments. i saw the t-shirt quotes; anyone who hates the great surrealist dali, especially a non-talent punk, doesn't understand art. it's a trivial concern anyway. i think that john"rotten" lydon is probably embarrased now by the sex pistols thing.

i agree that "john" rotten is a no-talent, but that's got to be the stupidest post i've ever seen here. surprising because i've agreed with every single post i've read of yours.

your view of punk rock is misguided, to say the least.

[bombastic]

What is misguided about it? you agree that rotten was a no-talent, right? i know that every band didn't suck. i liked black flag, i liked the clash, i've heard the minutemen could play their instruments, but i've never heard them. i'm talking about the punk mentality en masse. what ever happened to that? it couldn't last because what they were doing was shit, in my humble opinion.what am i misguided about? please don't try and tell me that nirvana was a great band. i won't buy it. the ramones sucked too. three chord,one minute and 30 second song bores.

[3pointdeli]

bombastic, you said: >>>that whole scene was an insult to the ears of people who loved good music. <<<

all blanket statements are misguided.

how much punk rock have you heard? it sounds like you only know a couple of british groups...and maybe the ramones.

[bombastic]

maybe i did generalize too much. give me an example of some great punk rock. of course, excepting those who were competent musicians, and therefore couldn't have advocated those who knew nothing about music. am i wrong in what i'm saying? i admit that i could be wrong.please clarify your point. thanks. nothing personal, just what i've observed to be true. do you play an instrument, 3 point? if you do, you're aware that you have to work to become a musician, it doesn't happen by magic, right? practice,practice,practice.

[3pointdeli]

i totally agree about nirvana...they're completely overrated, mainly because they got the most lucrative record contract out of all the bands in their scene.

the ramones...i don't care about them one way or the other.

many people think punk rock is a sound. it's not. not being able to play your instrument is no more a characteristic of punk than it is of pop or rock or blues. it's just that idiots like sid vicious were got famous and now that's what people think punk is.

the punk mentality is not dead. it's about finding meaning in your life and making your life worthwhile by NOT doing all the cookie cutter b.s. we're all expected to do. it's no different than the free jazz "movement." learn a little about mike watt, the bassists from the minutemen and firehose...still touring in a van, doing 100% of the driving himself after 40+ tours of the US and many tours in other countries.

some of my favorites (that i can remember off the top of my head) are:

gang of four (before they got dancey)
television
wire
minutemen
husker du (actually, i'm not crazy about them, but they could certainly play their asses off)
the damned
dead kennedys
black flag (pre-henry rollins)
meat puppets

none of these bands sound alike, but they're all great punk rock bands.

yes, i play drums. i know that it takes practice to play an instrument well. so do all of the best punk rock musicians.

of course, none of this is meant as an attack against you, bombastic. i just couldn't keep quiet about something i disagreed with so strongly.

[bombastic]

Interesting, because i like the groups you mentioned, the ones that i've heard, anyway. i regard the so called "punk rock" movement as those who were not competent musicians, and thought it was okay that you were unable to play the instrument. i like black flag with rollins too, and ginn, the guitar player is a competent musician, from what i've heard. i'm interested in hearing his group, "Gone", But i've never been able to find the discs anywhere. i like mould, i just bought a compilation of his solo songs. i think "punk" may not be the right term for this music, though. when i think of punk i think of the sex pistols and ramones, as they are praised as the inventors of "punk". to me it's just a waste of money to buy something that contains no musicality. listen to brad mehldau's "Largo", if you want to hear some happening music. the guy plays the hell out of the piano.also, check out "back at the vanguard" vol. 4 of art of the trio, which i just picked up. hey, if i'm going to pay 20.00 for a c.d., i want to hear a talented musician, ya know. otherwise, i'm just holding a cheap,worthless piece of plastic in my hand, and supporting a non-talent. remember, Trane was no punk, he was a phenomenal saxophonist , who desired to bring peace and harmony through sound vibes- he knew the horn inside and out. give a listen to "The Olatunji Concert". It's much more than a bunch of noise. i'm learning to play the tenor sax, i wouldn't call myself a competent musician yet, but that is my goal. keep wailin' on those drums, buddy. it'll keep you young. look at elvin jones and roy haynes, they're both 75, and they work and play their asses off. Jazz Lives!

[3pointdeli]

punk rock was never defined by a lack of musicianship. that's a common misconception (thanks to the obnoxious behaviour of a few numbskulls that made up the vast minority of the punk scene.) the minutemen's music, for instance, is full of melody, dynamics, all sorts of rhythmic variety, solos!, etc.

unfortunately, you fell into a trap on that one, bombastic...a trap similar to the one that makes so many people enjoy whatever they hear on the radio.

[bombastic]

i haven't listened to the radio since i was a teenager, 30 years ago. by the way, i agree that corporate rock sucked too! you're point is well taken though. thanks. my point was,before you break the rules in art, you first have to understand what the rules are to begin with. All great artists realize this fundamental idea, i think. to be a rulebreaker, you have to understand what it is you're breaking. i think this is the nature of innovation. before an architect builds a great building, he first has to know how to design the simplest structure. the same holds true for musical composition.

[champjams]

Norah Jones is irrelevant to Jazz. But thank goodness she beat out all those JAMF rock'n roller's at the Grammy's. At least it's not their s*#t.

[3pointdeli]

>>>when i think of punk i think of the sex pistols and ramones, as they are praised as the inventors of "punk".<<<

so, when you think about jazz do you think about buddy bolden and king oliver? :)

seriously, i've enjoyed our discussion. even though it was way off topic i enjoyed it because it made me think about why i like certain things. that's a good thing to do from time to time. so i'll say it once more and then let it rest: punk rock was not against jazz.

thank, bomb!

[3pointdeli]

i just checked, out of curiosity, the amazon sales rank of the "bad plus" cd.

#63

that means it's the 63rd best selling item on amazon.com. that boggles my mind.

[bombastic]

when i listen to jazz, i do know that it came from even before bolden and oliver. the history of jazz is the history of a music deeply rooted in various musics. ragtime,african, european classical, slave chants,gospel,marching bands,creole-etc. it doesn't belong to any one race as far as i can tell. i'm sure all of the forefathers and mothers of what we hear today were learned in their respective field. they were competent musicians and composers. i enjoy this discussion too. the best thing in the world is learning from our fellow humans. peace.

[liamw]

"that is VERY likely to happen. seriously, if you don't think *ONE* person will check out other jazz singers because of norah jones you're hopeless."

Why do so many of you folks assume every question is rhetorical? I was really asking how likely it was that someone who bought Norah Jones' disc would be referred by a record store employee to other jazz singers (Billie Holiday in particular) and thence become a jazz fan. I don't think it's at all impossible that her listeners could turn to jazz, but I'm wondering, given the marketing of her disc, the hype, the general disregard for jazz out there, how much of whatever jazz elements her music has can get across to the sort of people who buy discs on the basis of Grammy awards. Didn't this thread start out being about the Grammies?

[clifton]

I was very much alive and kicking in New York in the late 1970's when punk rock first exploded. While a number of so-called punk and new wave musicians (Richard Hell, Tom Verlaine, Greg Ginn) liked jazz, their listeners detested jazz, and it is also true that many so-called punk musicians detested jazz. In its earliest days, punk was not only a rebellion against art rock and prog rock, it was a rebellion against musicianship. It may have been pre-Gen X, but I saw it, I heard it, I was there. The punk audience may be more open-minded now, but that was emphatically not the case 25 years ago, when jazz was in fact stigmatized by the original punk rockers.

[bombastic]

punk listeners, as far as i'm concerned, then and now,if they didn't think musicianship was important, they have alot to learn from the jazz tradition. popular music wouldn't even exist without jazz and blues, which i believe is the origin of pop music.(true or false?) didn't louis armstrong or one of his jazz forefathers, along with sidney bechet, invent the solo in jazz? the whole point of the solo is to express ones emotions through their developed skill on the instrument. what benefit can an unskilled person with an electric guitar or any other instrument offer to the listener? anyone can throw pots down a concrete stairway. that's not music. it's called cacophony and it's what most of those so called "punk bands" were doing. there are exceptions, as 3 point made clear earlier, but i think they were few and far between. punk lasted for 2 or 3 years. Jazz has been around for over 100 years. which one would you say is an Art Form? Which one was a cultural fad?

[omar zamora]

I'm sure there were many punks who hated jazz, and many who liked it. Just like the rest of the population. Isn't it also possible that what they didn't like was the predominant form of jazz at the time, which was fusion, because it was too close to the bloated prog rock that they detested (mostly with good reason, I might add)? I've heard Iggy Pop describe the emotional catharsis that came from listening to Coltrane's "My Favorite Things".

[jazzypaul]

and the MC5 used to cover Upper and Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Sanders. but everyone from every background ever always hated Lionel Ritchie. (sorry Angela... :p )

[Anyella29]

Paul you ignorant slut.

It's ANYELLA, not Angela.

Jeeze. Get it right. Hello? Is it me you're looking for?

[jazzypaul]

sorry anYella, the g was sticking...but...sigh...

You are the sun, you are the rain, that makes my life this foolish game...You need to know, I love you so, and I'd do it all again and again.

Dammit, you've got Lionel Ritchie in my head, anYella. That's not very nice.

[liamw]

I don't really understand what this punkrock discussion is all about. Punk was a refreshing antidote to the awful stuff that was dominating pop music at the time. Some of it was fun to listen to, on its own terms. But who cares what Mr.Viscious & Mr Rotten (as the New York Times was forced by its style book to refer to them) thought about jazz? Much less what their fans thought of it. Punk was never really about music anyway. Why seek to justify a liking for other types of music by linking them to jazz? Is everything else just a "guilty pleasure?" (And these ARE rhetorical questions.)

Now, to get back to Norah Jones (which is somehow how all this got started), here's another way to put the (nonrhetorical) question I asked awhile back: What could or should Blue Note do to capitalize on Jones' success, as a means of marketing jazz? Since they have an extensive jazz catalog, it would obviously be in their interest to do this.

[bombastic]

"punk was never really about music anyway". my point exactly.