The possible importance of Medeski, Martin and Wood, Charlie Hunter, et al?

[jazzypaul]

So, am I the only one here that sees these guys as an important link between the jam-band scene and the jazz scene, and as ambassadors from the jazz world to the pop world? I would love to gather your thoughts on this one...

[3pointdeli]

"So, am I the only one here that sees these guys as an important link between the jam-band scene and the jazz scene"

no, you're not.

i used to be into the jam-band scene (before it was known as the "jam-band" scene...10 years ago.) the first time i heard mmw was when they opened for col. bruce hampton and the aquarium rescue unit (the best band that's ever been associated with latter-day hippies, imo.) i was very impressed, as were most of the other people in the audience. i remember they played a monk tune, a bob marley tune and some other stuff which i assume were originals. a couple months later i saw some mmw cds at a hippy friend's apartment. they've definitely grabbed the cross-over audience.

charlie hunter played with mike clark's prescription renewal a while back, and there were 1000 +/- people in attendance. at least 2/3 of the audience were jam-band types. the high point for me was their take on roland kirk's "this business ain't nothin' but the blues."

these guys are successful because they tour (and are willing to open for rock bands...or play lollapalooza like mmw did), which is something very few jazz groups seem to do outside of the jazz festival crcuit.

[RodneyDude]

I love Medeski, Martin, and Wood. They rock. I don't know alot about music, but I can see that they have influenced groups like Dave Matthews. You know alot of stuff JazzyPaul.

[jazzypaul]

I'm not just gonna let this one slip down the line. Don't just look, say something!

[3pointdeli]

i'll add that when i saw mmw for the first time i had never even heard of them. if my first exposure to them had been a record or cd, or even the radio, i probably wouldn't have cared much about them either way.

you can't expect the fans to come to you unless you're phish or the grateful dead. you've got to go to them. that's how every single one of the "jam" groups made it. the "jam band" audience is open to jazz, but very few jazz groups are taking advantage of it.

[clifton]

Clearly the jam band audience is a potential jazz audience. So is the punk rock audience, which constitutes some of the audience for David S. Ware and Matthew Shipp. My concern is that MMW, Charlie Hunter, etc. get virtually no radio or tv exposure in the corporate media, which I fear will limit their audience. I like this sort of "groove jazz", particularly Charlie Hunter, who thankfully remembers that music ought to be fun. Another big question is: can the jam band audience actually buy some CD's instead of just file sharing? MMW may draw crowds, but they've never had a gold record, and that indicates that the jam band audience isn't supporting the musicians sufficiently. I'm disabled and go to very few concerts but I sure as hell buy Charlie Hunter CD's. Jazzypaul, your feedback, please,even if you disagree. These are important considerations if jazz is to maintain an American audience. Oh yes, before I forget, I'm also digging Alex Skolnik. He takes those rock songs and somehow swings the hell out of 'em. He'll probably do more to build the jazz audience than any jam band. I never would have thought "Detroit Rock City" would be a vehicle for up-tempo bebop, but Skolnik did it, and more power to him.

[jazzypaul]

Clifton,

thanks for the thoughtful response. My thoughts on this...

1) I have always had issues with the way jazz is marketed. It's done completely wrong. Snobby critics want to see jazz in the symphony halls, where its greatness can be appreciated alongside classical music. Fine, whatever, but how does that bring in new fans, which is the true point of marketing? Record companies forget that groups like Charlie Hunter's band, Soulive and MMW could very easily be crossover acts. In addition to sending the CD to downbeat and taking out the ad in jazztimes, they should be taking out ads in Rolling Stone and sending CD's to Spin. They REALLY should be working hand in hand with magazines like Relix. The Alex Skolnik albums should have been sent to every hard rock and heavy metal radio station in the Northern Hemisphere. He has street credibility among the metal heads (he was the guitarist for Testament and later Exodus, two of the better Heavy Metal bands of the 80's.), and he was doing songs familiar to that audience. But, instead, it gets sent to jazz radio where half of the programmers in the country don't do anything with it because there's not another version of Love For Sale on it. Warner Brothers should be busting ass to get Brad Mehldau out on the road as a supporting act for a band with more progressive fans (radiohead comes to mind, as does, surprisingly enough, Weezer, who has been known to jam pretty heavily live). If you want this music to have a larger fan base, you'll have to think outside of the box. The musicians have been. Now it's time for corporate to catch up.

2) Clifton, I also agree that the whole MP3 thing is shady as hell. I know that Hunter's fans in particular are all about sharing live shows, which is great. The worst part of it is, Jazz fans, who should know better than anyone, are putting stuff up to be file shared. I think DarkFunk.com has it right. Yeah, it's online, yeah, you can stream it, but no, you can't download it. You want to hear what he has, great, but you're not going to continue the theivery that accompanies most file sharing. Of course, the jammy jazz bands have it good. They play 300 nights a year and sell just enough records to keep themselves afloat with the record companies. Face it, playing 300 nights a year, even if you were only making $1000/guy, is still $300,000/year. I want $300K per year. Like yesterday!

I hope that answered everything...

[clifton]

jazzypaul: Thanks. I agree. Apparently Skolnik has real credibility among metal fans and he's become a real ambassador for jazz. Big problem: the music business is in the hands of multinational corporations whose sole interest is short term profit. The corporate media also want a passive, submissive audience that will buy their product without questioning it. Jazz requires attention, intellect, and spirit, values that are anathema to the record companies. So much so that were Diana Krall older and less attractive she wouldnt even have a record contract with a major label. BTW I think Krall is a major talent, her success has a lot to do with marketing her looks but it's a blessing anyway. In any event, jazz is going to have to defy the corporate media to increase its American sales.

[3pointdeli]

hi guys.

the jam bands, even phish and the grateful dead...so i've heard, don't sell tons of cds compared to other pop/rock groups at a similar level of success. jazz groups that go over well with the jam scene are in the same boat, but they excell when it comes to selling concert tickets.

if i can use phish again as an example, they still never get played on the radio, and they were never on tv much, or ever, until the last couple of years (i saw them on letterman the other night.)

my point, however jumbled it may be, is that if you've got $20 to spend and you want to support a band, the best way you can spend that money is by going to their concert. bands get a FAR higher percentage of ticket sales than cd sales. record sales are important as well, but money's a bit tight for everyone these days, so spend wisely.

[andreimatorin]

back in college or something, medeski and martin asked my friend's teacher Wes Worth (i think his name is) if he wanted to tour with them or something. he declined and then they asked wood. maybe it would be medeski martin and worth today ;)

[3pointdeli]

they could still do that and retain the letters mmw. sort of like elp replacing carl palmer with cozy powell.

[clifton]

3pointdeli: points well taken. Live music is still the heart and soul of supporting the music, but I still maintain that buying a CD supports the music better than file sharing.

[3pointdeli]

you're right about that, clifton.

[andreimatorin]

what does jam-band refer to?

[Pharaohrock]

ahmad jamal's trio was jamming a long time before MMW. if you want to talk about an incredibly grooving rhythmic machine, his trio totally set the precedent IMO.

I only say this because while i respect and admire MMW, I think it's a shame if people get into them without any exposure to the jazz tradition and go ahead thinking they're like these unsurpassed rhythmic gods. they are creative folks, and their chief value as i see it is in relating/articulating the postmodern aesthetic a lot of young folk have (MMW is a mix of the retro and the futuristic), but i would disagree with anyone who thought that they were doing something totally new under the sun as far as the specific grooves they play. some- perhaps, but most were set forth by people like Silver, McCann and Jamal with a very high bar indeed.

[3pointdeli]

"jam band", if you want to get right down to it, means nothing more than "bands whose fans follow them from town to town." (see: grateful dead, phish, widespread panic, etc.)

[jazzypaul]

3pt, that might be a little narrow of a term there...jam-bands are bands that hold to the improvisational aesthetic, but are usually firmly rooted in the rock tradition. A few of those bands, namely The Dead (especially in the mid-70's) and Phish, used jazz quite extensively in the mix. Some jazz bands, such as MMW, were able to get their foot in the door of that movement. More jazz bands, like the Greyboy Allstars and Soulive are continuing that movement. If the growing number of Rahsaan shirts at MMW shows is an indication, then these kids are checking out some substantial music, and I can only hope that it continues.

[3pointdeli]

narrow but accurate.

it's easy to tell when a jam band is on town.

[Joel]

forgot to reply on this Jazzpaul,

I probably consider myself new to this band but its their kind music that I like.

Uninvisible was an album that I last bought and found it in the "Beat" section, this is where Dance, Techno, and Drum N Bass stuff are.

is that bad? I dont think so, not too many kids go into the jazz section anyway...best way (or one of) to entice the youth into jazz.

there should be more bands like these in the Contemporary Jazz or Modern Jazz arena.

[Ed Swinnich]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 3pointdeli
[B]"the first time i heard mmw was when they opened for col. bruce hampton and the aquarium rescue unit (the best band that's ever been associated with latter-day hippies, imo.)

Hey, I saw those guys at the Montreal Jazz Festival a few years ago. They put on a good show.

[Ed Swinnich]

I'm not really into the labels so much. All I know is that when I first heard Hunter and MMW, I loved the stuff. It grooved like hell.

I saw Hunter about 5 years ago up in Quebec City in a very memorable FREE show. It was on the heels of the Ready Set Shango record. I've been a fan ever since. I'm a big fan of MMW and Scofield as well, tho I prefer Scofields pre jam band work. I caught his jamm band at the Toronto Jazz Festival 3 summers ago and the one thing that struck me was that the crowd loved him. People were dancin' and groovin' and having fun. It was something to see.

Hopefully, some of this enthusiasm will spill over into further explorations of jazz. I know when I got hooked on fusion in the 70s, it led me to mainstream jazz in short order. Wil someone who digs Scofield's jam band stuff pick up ScoLoHoFo and dig it? Will they then pick up some of Lovano's stuff and Holland's ECMs and dig them? One can only hope.

[Ed Swinnich]

Another thought - what about artists like Ronny Jordan, Marc Moulin, Rodney Jones, St Germain, Erik Truffaz? I look at them in the same way - possible pathways to the jazz world.

[tipitina]

Bands like Karl Denson, Robert Walter, MMW, Soulive, Charlie Hunter, GBA, Galactic, etc. deserve better recognition than being called a "Jam-Band". I hate the term "jam-band". There are so many different styles being played by those bands that grouping them under one label is wrong. The one and only jam-band that there will ever be is The God Damned Grateful Dead.

All of those bands I mentioned above were formed to pay tribute to a certain style of jazz/soul/funk that they love. They have opened the minds for those that want to listen. I would have never listened to Silver, Ellington, Kirk, Donaldson, Booker T, The Meters, Patton, etc. if it weren't for those bands. And by listening to those cats, I discovered, Harris (Gene and Eddie) Morgan, Turrentine, Ulmer, Mingus, Professor Longhair, etc..

Are bands like that important in the history of jazz? Yes. For those that truly listen.

[JSngry]

Originally posted by Pharaohrock
ahmad jamal's trio was jamming a long time before MMW. if you want to talk about an incredibly grooving rhythmic machine, his trio totally set the precedent IMO.

This is a very good point, and one that I had not consciously considered before. I always looked at the Vernell Fournier/New Orleans Drumming linkage. Farrell Faubus, thanks for seeing this connection. Has one of these bands ever covered "Poinsietta", "Poindexter", "Poinadelica", WHATEVER that Jamal hit was? ;) Might be interesting...

Personally, I dig this whole scene, but I also feel it's still in it's comparative infancy, the same as the jazz/hip-hop scene. But I think it will continue to develop.

[Joel]

I'll add some acid to the mix...

Down To The Bone
Four 80 East
Shilts
Fishbelly Black

acid jazz that is.... ;)

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by tipitina
Bands like Karl Denson, Robert Walter, MMW, Soulive, Charlie Hunter, GBA, Galactic, etc. deserve better recognition than being called a "Jam-Band". I hate the term "jam-band". There are so many different styles being played by those bands that grouping them under one label is wrong. The one and only jam-band that there will ever be is The God Damned Grateful Dead.

All of those bands I mentioned above were formed to pay tribute to a certain style of jazz/soul/funk that they love. They have opened the minds for those that want to listen. I would have never listened to Silver, Ellington, Kirk, Donaldson, Booker T, The Meters, Patton, etc. if it weren't for those bands. And by listening to those cats, I discovered, Harris (Gene and Eddie) Morgan, Turrentine, Ulmer, Mingus, Professor Longhair, etc..

Are bands like that important in the history of jazz? Yes. For those that truly listen.

hey, they got you to open up to more music, so who cares what they are labeled? if they had been called "jazz" you, and most of their fans, would probably never have heard them in the first place.

[tipitina]

hey, they got you to open up to more music, so who cares what they are labeled? if they had been called "jazz" you, and most of their fans, would probably never have heard them in the first
place.

I was listening to most of these groups before "Jam-Band" was a label, so it doesn't really apply to me. But, you make a good point.

But, look at it the other way. I have jazz friends who won't go check out bands because they have been labled as a "jam-band". The label brings a lot of baggage.

[3pointdeli]

you're right, the "jam band" label came about fairly recently...post-"h.o.r.d.e." i remember going to see bands like the aforementioned col. hampton/aquarium rescue unit, blues traveler, etc. and i never heard the words "jam band." people equate it with hippies, and we all know how rotten and horrible they are...wanting to be peaceful and kind to others and respectful of the earth and its creatures...what a bunch of losers!

it's always a mistake to judge a band based on their audience.

[3pointdeli]

let me rephrase that last sentence...

it's always a mistake to judge a band based on *what you think you know about* their audience.

[tipitina]

it's always a mistake to judge a band based on *what you think you know about* their audience.

3pt - well said.

I'm not sure when "Jam-band" came about but I remember it being used a lot after that band from Vermont went on hiatus.

[3pointdeli]

haha. that sounds about right.