Wynton Marsalis?

[PiousBionicus]

I have been informed many times that Wynton Marsalis is disliked amoungst the Jazz community, but could someone tell me why? What has he done to get such a bad reputation?

[shawn·m]

The charges are many and usually revolve around Wynton not recognizing the value of all jazz’s history, his opinionated nature, his ongoing personal interest in past musical eras and his receiving kudos and support from conservative critics and agencies.

As for me? I like the guy and his music —especially The Majesty Of the Blues (an older recording, but there you go). I see nothing wrong with exploring established styles, voicing strongly held beliefs or finding some degree of success.

[James]

....................I'm ducking for cover. :-/

[Mnytime]

Originally posted by James
....................I'm ducking for cover. :-/


Tell me about it. Where's Chris? :D

[Joel]

Anyone know of a website which states what WM idea of jazz is?

If his brother Brandford is eclectic enough to have come up (in hiding mode) with Buckshot Lefonque. I wonder what Wynton thought of it?

and can anyone recommend his best album? I dont own any of his music...not even one song...just one. thanks:cool:

[bubber]

One problem with WM might be that we often fail to seperate the man and the musician.

The man - On occasions he's come forward as narrowminded in his opinion on other people's music and on contemporary styles in jazz.

The musician - he can play. His music might be conservative, but that does'nt disqualify him being a good jazz musician. I think Scott Hamilton is a great jazz musician, even if he plays a style of jazz originated before he was born.

That said - what's wrong with the musician WM?

I don't think it primarily has to do with him playing music from Ellington to Miles, to me at least it has to do with a feeling I get from listening to him that his music is kind of cold, even if it is supposed to be hot - he lacks the cry and the
combination of humour and anguish I think most really great musicians communicate.

IMO he can play in the style of King Oliver if he sounds like he mean it.

Another reason why people dislike him probably is that there apparently is some disproportion between quality and exposure, at least compared to most other jazz musicians.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by hadi·blues
The charges are many and usually revolve around Wynton not recognizing the value of all jazz’s history, his opinionated nature, his ongoing personal interest in past musical eras and his receiving kudos and support from conservative critics and agencies.

As for me? I like the guy and his music —especially The Majesty Of the Blues (an older recording, but there you go). I see nothing wrong with exploring established styles, voicing strongly held beliefs or finding some degree of success.

well, we're all opinionated, and SHOULD all have strongly held beliefs. the problem people have with wynton is that he has been considered for many years (by everyone except for jazz afficionados) to be the ultimate living authority on jazz. he was featued in the ken burns film FAR more than anyone else (with the possible exception of louis armstrong...how fucked up is that?) and he's been the head of lincoln center's jazz program (which maintains a high profile inside and outside of the jazz world) for several years. when a person in that position discredits large chunks of the jazz music (fusion, free jazz, most avant garde) you can expect there to be some *dislike* towards him.

[John L]

In all fairness, Wynton brought a lot of the controversy on himself. He came on the scene in the early 1980s talking a lot of trash about the state of jazz and many established jazz artists, some of whom were more than old enough to be his father. He proclaimed that nobody accomplished anything in jazz throughout the entire 1970s, that we have to work instead at the higher level of Armstrong and Ellington, etc.

On the one hand, I actually found his brash and confident attitude to be somewhat refreshing. On the other hand, you have to expect that whatever he does after that is going to come under heavy scrutiny. Has Wynton produced the goods in the past 20 years to back it all up? Many would say no.

[kh1958]

It sat on my shelf for quite awhile, but when I finally started listening to it, I found Wynton's Village Vanguard box set to contain much excellent music.

[Claude]

To get an idea what Marsalis is criticized for:


An Open Letter to Stanley Crouch - A Fantasy by Steve Hahn (http://www.birdlives.com/crouch.html)

Audiosyncratic (http://www.muse.ie/070100/thescope/audiosync2.html)

Acid Jazz Archive: Re: the latest jazz episode (http://www.cmd.uu.se/AcidJazz/Backup/2001-Jan/0197.html)

I personnally like his early albums a lot, especially "Black codes from the underground". Simply great tunes and playing, and not yet flawed by his later traditionalism.

[Spiman]

In all fairness, Wynton brought a lot of the controversy on himself. He came on the scene in the early 1980s talking a lot of trash about the state of jazz and many established jazz artists, some of whom were more than old enough to be his father. He proclaimed that nobody accomplished anything in jazz throughout the entire 1970s, that we have to work instead at the higher level of Armstrong and Ellington, etc. John L

The first recollection I had of Wynton "trash talking" other musicians was in around 1980 when he said "I wouldn't prostitute my horn like that" in reference to Tom Browne's Funkin for Jamaica hit. As a big fan of Tom back in the day, I was incensed. Later, I can to realize that he was railing against what would become smmmmmooooooooth jasssssss.

Since I've been posting at the former board and this one, I've been perplexed by the high level of dissin' of Wynton. So much so that -- as soon as this semster is over -- my plan is to put Wynton on random with Redd Rodney, Sweets Edison, Dave Douglas, Clifford Brown, Lee Morgan, Eddie Henderson, Blanchard, Warren Vache, Hargrove and a few others in the juke box. If what I've been hearing here is true, Wynton should stick out like Chuck Mangione or Kenny G. in this group of real players. The dropoff should be dramatic. Bad tone, lack of swing, formulaic, boring, rehash should be self evident.

In a less charitible moods, I often wonder if some of this vitriol is directed against two Black men (Marsalis and Crouch) for daring to delve into intellectual pursuits on the nature of jazz. Too many times I see or heard the comment "Why doesn't he just shut up and play?" Should he not have strongly held opinions? I for like what Wynton's doing and playing and see no nefarious plot behind his statements and music.

Spiman

[3pointdeli]

>>>In a less charitible moods, I often wonder if some of this vitriol is directed against two Black men (Marsalis and Crouch) for daring to delve into intellectual pursuits on the nature of jazz.<<<

you've got to be kidding me.

[Noj]

Isn't Wynton the dude who was quoted as saying guitars should be banned from jazz? That was a Marsalis comment that I found narrow-minded. Has he ever recorded anything the caliber of a Wes Montgomery or a Grant Green?

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by Noj
Isn't Wynton the dude who was quoted as saying guitars should be banned from jazz? That was a Marsalis comment that I found narrow-minded. Has he ever recorded anything the caliber of a Wes Montgomery or a Grant Green?

I believe the guitar quote was Branford's and when taken in context it read like sarcasm to me. That's one of the problems with written word.

Later,
Kevin

[clinthopson]

Whynnie has brought it on himself, see above.

I think my first post on any jazz bulletin board several years ago was that WM was overhyped and not worth of the attention he received. I still stand by that.

But, that being said, I kinda like the new disc with Ellis and his kids.

[Noj]

Ahh, my mistake. I haven't heard any music from the Marsalis family, I've only occasionally read the interviews people post. That was a comment that sent me sideways, seeing as I love jazz guitar--good to hear it was most likely sarcasm.

[sal]

Wynton might be "narrow-minded" or a "relic", but I'm glad that there are some musicians out there who still place such a high emphasis on the tradition, and want to see it preserved and maintained. It gives a good balance to jazz. When you have guys like Wynton, and then guys across the spectrum like Cecil Taylor or Matthew Shipp, it gives balance to the jazz world and gives people like us a diverse selection of options when we go to our CD shelves and decide what we want to listen to.

[Muskrat Ramble]

Should he not have strongly held opinions?

Not if they're wrong :)

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Regarding the "guitar has no place in Jazz" quote, I did some research on the web and it would appear that it was Wynton who said it. All I could find was this indirect quote from http://www.iht.com/IHT/SOUND/97/mz041097.html :

Recently, I interviewed Marsalis during the Jazz in Marciac festival. We chatted afterward and spoke about how positive it was to bring the music to the nice folks from the French countryside down there. After he contrasted it to the poverty, violence and ugliness in American cities, I mentioned in passing that Miles Davis's album ''Tutu'' is the perfect reflection of today's urban environment.

Oops! It had slipped my mind, how virulent he was in his dislike of Miles's rock period. He had been going on and on about it for years. There was a baleful look and he said: ''I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.''

More illustrations of that mindset. Conservatives hate the bass guitar. Duke Ellington never used a bass guitar. Ergo, the bass guitar has no business in jazz. Period. Some musicians in the tradition are so conservative that they do not believe in amplifying an acoustic bass. A bassist who needs the help of artificial amplification is a wimp.

>>>>>>

So, no direct quote in this interview.

However, in looking for an anti-guitar quote from Branford, I tripped this great interview with Branford (Branford Marsalis Interview (http://jazzusa.com/default.cfm?FILE=http://jazzusa.com/stories/branfordmarsalisinterview.asp) ) which has this very interesting view on what Branford thinks of Wynton's current stature in the Jazz world:

"White America is essentially comfortable with black people like me. I speak well. I ain't like Allen Iverson. I don't have any tattoos on. Even as an unfamiliar face, I speak the language like they speak the language. I don't speak the language the way Allen speak the language. They just can't deal with Allen. Even though, it's historically American society that begot that mentality. That's the great irony of it. That's just some shit you have to make some peace with. Like I said, there are cats, the Ken Burns people, standing on the side bitching and complaining, when the average person who watched Ken Burns was not a jazz fan, first of all, which was the whole point of the documentary, not to make a documentary for jazz fans. That's shit. That's a fingernail in the population.

The whole point was to get people who had never heard of jazz and would have never had an interest in it, to watch it. And if you got all these jazz musicians bitching about it on the Internet, and dogging my brother, if you got any of them to talk about jazz 80 per cent of the people who watched it, wouldn't watch it. They would turn that shit off. That's the reality of the situation. All of these guys talking about who should've been the spokesperson, who shouldn't have been a spokesperson, anybody they name as a spokesperson would not have appealed to the audience that Ken Burns was looking for more than my brother would. Because my brother not only can play the fuck out the trumpet, he can talk about it too. I had a lady talking to me about this on the plane, she just brought it up. The thing I loved about your brother was that he could actually play the shit. He could say one guy plays this way and plays, and that Louis Armstrong play that way. And she said and I'm not musical and I could hear the difference. Now please give me the name of the trumpet player that we have today that is going to do that besides him. All of these people complaining about who it should've been. My brother has the talent for making complex shit very simple. He tells it in a very folksy kind of way, and people who don't care shit about music can relate to that. He's perfect for the job. A lot more perfect for the job than me."

Quite an interesting spin. I noticed that the "Internet" was mentioned as well. It makes me wonder who posts on this board... maybe Wynton is among us?:) And NO, it is not hardbop! I've met hardbop and he ain't Wynton.:D

Later,
Kevin

[3pointdeli]

i've never heard anybody say that wynton couldn't play or has bad tone.

people have a problem with him because he's stuck in tradition. that is not what jazz was, is or ever will be about. he probably got some people to buy some reissues or greatest hits albums. how does that help jazz today?


being stuck in tradition, and wanting jazz to stay stuck, is not a problem if you're some guy playing standards at a restaurant. but wynton is the face of jazz, like it or not. that's a big problem.

[David]

Thanks for the posts, Kevin. It is my opinion that the criticisms and praises of Wynton often get way too out of hand and way too disconnected with reality. For me, I enjoy some of Marsalis' music immensely (Black Codes, Village Vanguard, Marciac Suite, Citi Movement) and dislike some of it (In this House, self-titled album, Hot House Flowers). I feel that the most important part of any discussion of him -- the music is often left behind in the vitriols of both sides. I have seen him live (although I went specifically to see Brad Mehldau, who played an UNBELIEVABLE set) and was really impressed. His verbal fluency helped get audience members much more involved with the music and he played quite a rollicking set that left me with a large smile on my face. Incidentally, my parents, who are not well-versed in jazz, were also at the concert and they professed to enjoy WM much more than Brad Mehldau. Just my two cents...

Stanley Crouch is another story however. :rolleyes:

[David]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
i've never heard anybody say that wynton couldn't play or has bad tone.

people have a problem with him because he's stuck in tradition. that is not what jazz was, is or ever will be about. he probably got some people to buy some reissues or greatest hits albums. how does that help jazz today?


being stuck in tradition, and wanting jazz to stay stuck, is not a problem if you're some guy playing standards at a restaurant. but wynton is the face of jazz, like it or not. that's a big problem.

I think there is nothing wrong with tradition, and it is refreshing (to me) to see musicians exploring it and keeping it alive. The problem is when people like the sycophant Crouch come along and assert that it is the 'new thing.'

[3pointdeli]

no, there is nothing wrong with tradition. however, wynton is active and outspoken in his disdain for just about everything outside of that tradition. who cares, though? let's face it, 99% of people who are relatively young and become jazz fans do it through "wynton approved" artists like miles (circa "kind of blue") or coltrane (circa "giant steps.") ask any jazz fan under 30 what the first two jazz cds they bought were and nine times out of 10 they'll name "giant steps" and "kind of blue."

crouch deserves his own thread. that guy is a real piece of work.

[Muskrat Ramble]

And NO, it is not hardbop! I've met hardbop and he ain't Wynton.

I was beginning to suspect hardbop was actually Stanley Crouch :)

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli


he was featued in the ken burns film FAR more than anyone else (with the possible exception of louis armstrong...how fucked up is that?)...

Honestly, I don’t begrudge Marsalis his Ken Burns’ Jazz screen time.

As I understand it, Wynton was instrumental in getting Burns thinking about doing a series on Jazz. The man seems to have been the catalyst for the series, and I wonder if it would have gotten off the ground if his name wasn’t attached to the project. Ever notice the long list of financial contributors at the end of the credits? I can’t imagine that securing grants for any project dealing with jazz is an easy matter. And while I would love to see, say, Sam Rivers’ opinions given wide birth on-screen, what foundation, what corporate board, what government agency has heard of him?

Aside from that, would Jazz have benefited from a less controversial key advisor? Jazz may have been designed for the general population, but I sometimes wonder if Burns shrewdly featured Wynton to ensure spirited talk among jazz enthusiasts.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by Spiman
In a less charitible moods, I often wonder if some of this vitriol is directed against two Black men (Marsalis and Crouch) for daring to delve into intellectual pursuits on the nature of jazz. Too many times I see or heard the comment "Why doesn't he just shut up and play?" Should he not have strongly held opinions? I for like what Wynton's doing and playing and see no nefarious plot behind his statements and music.

Spiman
But you see "nefarious plots" behind the statements of people who dare to criticize Wynton?

Bringing race into this (as you have done before) is patently ridiculous. Do most of us poo-poo Kenny G's music because he is white, Jewis, has long hair? Of course not, it's because we have heard it. It might come as a surprise to you, but every black person does not feel obligated to praise Wynton and Crouch. In fact, I think I know more African-Americans than I do whites who dislike Wynton's music (not to mention his dumb remarks and arrogance).

Face it, Wynton's work is an acquired taste that many find difficult to acquire. :rolleyes:

[Muskrat Ramble]

I met Wynton and Branford in 1981

Comparing their styles, projects (and side-projects), and interviews makes for a fascinating study in its own right. I'd only say to people, don't let Wynton's proclamations or style turn you away from checking out Branford's work.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by hadi·blues


Honestly, I don’t begrudge Marsalis his Ken Burns’ Jazz screen time.

As I understand it, Wynton was instrumental in getting Burns thinking about doing a series on Jazz. The man seems to have been the catalyst for the series, and I wonder if it would have gotten off the ground if his name wasn’t attached to the project. Ever notice the long list of financial contributors at the end of the credits? I can’t imagine that securing grants for any project dealing with jazz is an easy matter. And while I would love to see, say, Sam Rivers’ opinions given wide birth on-screen, what foundation, what corporate board, what government agency has heard of him?

Aside from that, would Jazz have benefited from a less controversial key advisor? Jazz may have been designed for the general population, but I sometimes wonder if Burns shrewdly featured Wynton to ensure spirited talk among jazz enthusiasts.

ken burns is the most respected documentary filmaker alive today. he could have made a film about yodeling and would have secured plenty of financial contributions. i think you totally discredit the value of jazz by insinuating that jazz needs a spokesman and can't survive on its own merits, even when being supported by "the world's most beloved documantarian." plus, ken burns has admitted that he knew almost nothing about jazz going in to this project. that makes me believe that he was not aware of how controversial wynton is and how much "spirited debate" it may or may not have caused. one last thing, i don't think wynton, based on his colossal ego, would have stood for burns claiming that was trying to do an "american trilogy" (baseball, civil war, jazz) if the truth was that he had no intention of making a jazz film until wynton came knocking on his door.

[Spiman]

ChrisA But you see "nefarious plots" behind the statements of people who dare to criticize Wynton?

I didn't think long enough before I posted, my uncharitable remarks I should have kept to myself. I apologize to anyone offended including Chris and deli.

Spiman

[Chris A.]

Apology accepted, Spiman.

Most of us have posted impulsively and come to regret it, but not all of us will admit it, as you have. I respect you for that.

[3pointdeli]

no problem, spiman.

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli


ken burns is the most respected documentary filmaker alive today. he could have made a film about yodeling and would have secured plenty of financial contributions. i think you totally discredit the value of jazz by insinuating that jazz needs a spokesman and can't survive on its own merits, even when being supported by "the world's most beloved documantarian." plus, ken burns has admitted that he knew almost nothing about jazz going in to this project. that makes me believe that he was not aware of how controversial wynton is and how much "spirited debate" it may or may not have caused. one last thing, i don't think wynton, based on his colossal ego, would have stood for burns claiming that was trying to do an "american trilogy" (baseball, civil war, jazz) if the truth was that he had no intention of making a jazz film until wynton came knocking on his door.

I think it’s important to distinguish between the survival of a music and the survival of a television series, but it’s not my intention to discredit either. Nor do I think you’re suggesting investors were jumping to fund Ken Burns’ Jazz (although some may have). Regardless of Burns’ reputation, funding a 10-part, 19-hour project over six years could be a tough go. Especially if something like 3% of the music-buying public indicates the level of interest in the subject matter. The inclusion of an advisor that has some degree of “name recognition” with the general public will make a relatively esoteric project more attractive to investors… I guess we see the implications differently.

Burns may not have been aware of the controversy surrounding Wynton initially, but I find it difficult to believe he was in the dark for long. In fact, Burns stated he had to keep advisors in separate rooms to prevent fighting.

As to “American Trilogy,” this classification can easily be applied after the fact. Even so, Wynton appears to have something to do with the inception of Jazz as evidenced by the clip of Wynton saying he suggested Burns produce a series on jazz after the release of Civil War. I doubt Burns would have let this stand if there wasn’t an element of truth.

[montg]

I saw Wynton live this week with LCJO and he sounded good to me. One thing I've always wondered was how genuine his interest in the older styles was. It seemed more pedantic than heartfelt sometimes. But after seeing him in person, I have no question that he defends and speaks out for the tradition because he genuinely loves it. He opened the concert with about 40 minutes of Jelly Roll tunes, just the septet, before even bringing on the orchestra. His playing was intense and full of fire. Made me pull out his Jelly Roll Morton CD when I got home and I've been listenting to it with new ears since then.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by montg
Made me pull out his Jelly Roll Morton CD when I got home and I've been listenting to it with new ears since then.

Have you listened to the real thing? If so, do you really think Wynton's Morton captures the essence of Morton? Does it not sound stiff and insincere to you?

Just curious.

[montg]

Oh yes, I listen to the real thing. In fact I've just been listening to the Jim Robinson Spirituals and Blues album you produced for Riverside. It's lovely and I think the deep blues feeling from the original masters is probably something that can't be fully recaptured. I guess all I was saying is that the Jelly Roll album sounds different to me now because I believe WM is sincere when he's playing in that idiom. I had a block in the past because I suspected that somehow WM was being a touch patronizing and insincere when talking about the old New Orleans greats.

[Brian the Hornman]

Isn't it just a coincidence that I am currently listening to the LCJO as I write this. I personally really like Wynton. I like his jazz, but I also have a recording of his entitled "Carnaval" with the Eastman Wind Ensemble and I will tell you this: I sure wish I could play "Carnival of Venice" that well!

P.S. In response to an earlier reply, I am 16 and my first 2 jazz cd's were not Kind of Blue and Giant Steps.

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by montg
Oh yes, I listen to the real thing. In fact I've just been listening to the Jim Robinson Spirituals and Blues album you produced for Riverside. It's lovely and I think the deep blues feeling from the original masters is probably something that can't be fully recaptured.

I'm glad you like the Robinson album. Most of the musicians I recorded for that Riverside series were up in age and unable to dazzle with technique, but there was such a wonderful spirit in their playing. I would rather hear a technically flawed group play with true emotion than sit through a performance with every note in place and little or no feeling.

[Mnytime]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli


ken burns is the most respected documentary filmaker alive today. he could have made a film about yodeling and would have secured plenty of financial contributions. i think you totally discredit the value of jazz by insinuating that jazz needs a spokesman and can't survive on its own merits, even when being supported by "the world's most beloved documantarian." plus, ken burns has admitted that he knew almost nothing about jazz going in to this project. that makes me believe that he was not aware of how controversial wynton is and how much "spirited debate" it may or may not have caused. one last thing, i don't think wynton, based on his colossal ego, would have stood for burns claiming that was trying to do an "american trilogy" (baseball, civil war, jazz) if the truth was that he had no intention of making a jazz film until wynton came knocking on his door.







Your kidding when you call Burns the most respected and beloved documantarian alive today? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


The man is a hack at best. Anyone that actually knows anything about the subjects he has covered will tell you that. His butchering is not limited to just Jazz.

It's just as bad for the Civil War and Baseball and all his smaller documentaries. There was just as much outrage for the Civil War and Baseball documentaries by real historians as there was for the Jazz Butcher Job. But just like those of us that love Jazz only those that are really into the study of the Civil War and Baseball caught on. To those that don’t know any better they thought he did a great job. Just like those non-jazz fans think “Jazz” is a Masterpiece Documentary and not the Piece of Garbage Butcher Job we all know it really is being fans of Jazz.

That doesn't even bring up how all his documentaries are all similar looking. He is about as imaginative as a corpse. As a documantarian and historian he is a hack. What he is good at is self-promotion and the marketing of Ken Burns.

[bubber]

I think I understand what Chris means by spirit in music. IMHO that's what is missing when Wynton (and others) recreate Ellington, Morton etc. The original music had a certain rawness and give you a feeling the instruments are part of the personality of the musicians involved, as well as their body - and that's something - I believe - that can't be recreated by musicians from another era and actually another culture - whatever race. Just like a classically schooled violinist can't play the original folk hardanger fiddle music with the same guts and feeling an original folk musician did a hundred years ago.

Consequently I believe that most jazz up to WW II was so close to its folk music origins that musicians today with their academic background and different set of experiences, for natural reasons can't express the same feeling (spirit) musicians from that earlier era did.

[Mnytime]

Another thing, does anyone really believe that Burns did not know about the controversy around WM? So that would not only make him a hack but an even lazier researcher than I thought. How long would it have taken to find out about the controversy around WM and Crouch? 10 minutes at the most, is my guess.

You can be sure he knew what he was doing. With the use of WM & Crouch it caused debate about the Documentary and made sure it was in the public eye. We all know what happens anytime you have a controversy around something. The controversy will cause a lot more people than normally would have to watch or buy whatever is surrounded by controversy. Burns knew what he was doing.

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Mnytime
There was just as much outrage for the Civil War and Baseball documentaries by real historians as there was for the Jazz Butcher Job.

Well, after hearing Chris A’s story concerning the misrepresentation of a particular Armstrong photograph by Burns, it does throw the rest of Jazz’s presentation into question. As a result, I’m personally forced to regard Jazz as a fine piece of entertainment based on history, as opposed to an historically accurate documentary.

[Mnytime]

Originally posted by hadi·blues


Well, after hearing Chris A’s story concerning the misrepresentation of a particular Armstrong photograph by Burns, it does throw the rest of Jazz’s presentation into question. As a result, I’m personally forced to regard Jazz as a fine piece of entertainment based on history, as opposed to an historically accurate documentary.


I wouldn't even call it a fine piece of entertainment. If there was more music and musicians and less talking heads it would have been entertaining. Of course it was filled with a lot of funny moments. All of which where not meant to be in anyway funny. :D

[shawn·m]

Oh, I don’t know. Anecdotes are good entertainment, too. Say, I don’t recall, did Burns include the infamous Gillespie/Calloway/Webster/Ellington (pick your version) buttocks-knifing incident?

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.

But you see "nefarious plots" behind the statements of people who dare to criticize Wynton?

Bringing race into this (as you have done before) is patently ridiculous. Do most of us poo-poo Kenny G's music because he is white, Jewis, has long hair? Of course not, it's because we have heard it. It might come as a surprise to you, but every black person does not feel obligated to praise Wynton and Crouch. In fact, I think I know more African-Americans than I do whites who dislike Wynton's music (not to mention his dumb remarks and arrogance).

Face it, Wynton's work is an acquired taste that many find difficult to acquire. :rolleyes:

One

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.
Apology accepted, Spiman.

Most of us have posted impulsively and come to regret it, but not all of us will admit it, as you have. I respect you for that.

Two

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.


Have you listened to the real thing? If so, do you really think Wynton's Morton captures the essence of Morton? Does it not sound stiff and insincere to you?

Just curious.

Three

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.


I'm glad you like the Robinson album. Most of the musicians I recorded for that Riverside series were up in age and unable to dazzle with technique, but there was such a wonderful spirit in their playing. I would rather hear a technically flawed group play with true emotion than sit through a performance with every note in place and little or no feeling.

Four

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Mnytime








Your kidding when you call Burns the most respected and beloved documantarian alive today? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


The man is a hack at best. Anyone that actually knows anything about the subjects he has covered will tell you that. His butchering is not limited to just Jazz.

It's just as bad for the Civil War and Baseball and all his smaller documentaries. There was just as much outrage for the Civil War and Baseball documentaries by real historians as there was for the Jazz Butcher Job. But just like those of us that love Jazz only those that are really into the study of the Civil War and Baseball caught on. To those that don’t know any better they thought he did a great job. Just like those non-jazz fans think “Jazz” is a Masterpiece Documentary and not the Piece of Garbage Butcher Job we all know it really is being fans of Jazz.

That doesn't even bring up how all his documentaries are all similar looking. He is about as imaginative as a corpse. As a documantarian and historian he is a hack. What he is good at is self-promotion and the marketing of Ken Burns.

it's absolutely not my opinion that he is the best or most respected documentary filmmaker. what i meant was that is how he, and his work, is promoted to viewers and investors.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Mnytime
Another thing, does anyone really believe that Burns did not know about the controversy around WM? So that would not only make him a hack but an even lazier researcher than I thought. How long would it have taken to find out about the controversy around WM and Crouch? 10 minutes at the most, is my guess.

You can be sure he knew what he was doing. With the use of WM & Crouch it caused debate about the Documentary and made sure it was in the public eye. We all know what happens anytime you have a controversy around something. The controversy will cause a lot more people than normally would have to watch or buy whatever is surrounded by controversy. Burns knew what he was doing.

so i was right all along...ken burns *IS* a fucking prick.

[3pointdeli]

Originally posted by Brian the Hornman
Isn't it just a coincidence that I am currently listening to the LCJO as I write this. I personally really like Wynton. I like his jazz, but I also have a recording of his entitled "Carnaval" with the Eastman Wind Ensemble and I will tell you this: I sure wish I could play "Carnival of Venice" that well!

P.S. In response to an earlier reply, I am 16 and my first 2 jazz cd's were not Kind of Blue and Giant Steps.

good for you. so, what were they?

[3pointdeli]

hadi-blues said:

>>>Regardless of Burns’ reputation, funding a 10-part, 19-hour project over six years could be a tough go. Especially if something like 3% of the music-buying public indicates the level of interest in the subject matter.<<<


i don't believe you can accurately measure the number of viewers you'll get for a tv show based on the number of people who buy a style of music.

(sorry to steer this so much towards ken burns.)

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
i don't believe you can accurately measure the number of viewers you'll get for a tv show based on the number of people who buy a style of music.

Couldn’t agree more; it is speculation. Still, jazz has been a marginal art form for some time, what could Burns do if he encountered such a concern from, say, GM’s board of directors? More speculation: A fund seeking spin-meister might site a 3% figure to his benefit, “Just look at the untapped potential for this project!”

[3pointdeli]

well, in the case of jazz it'd be wise to stay away from the numbers. what american corporation doesn't want to appear interested in "the black community"?

[shawn·m]

Not a bad strategy, but I’d expect GM (again, for example) to do their homework and ask pointed questions.

[3pointdeli]

i see your point, but i think you're looking at this as if GM (for example) were buying ad time on a commercial network (i'll admit that the line between PBS and commercial networks gets thinner every year.) in the case of the jazz film, the corporations obviously wanted to promote themselves, but they were making a charitable contribution, which they could write off, making it a no-lose proposition. look at it this way: most, if not all, huge corporations make charitable contributions to *something*. can you think of anything that was higher profile in 2001 (10 nights of TV, a coffee table book, a series of cd releases, a dvd/vhs box-set release, a website, etc.) that they could attach their name to and still be making a tax-deductable contribution?

[shawn·m]

Interesting point. I guess GM didn’t reeeeally want a loss, otherwise network television would have been the route to go. Think of all the money that could have been squandered on inappropriate prime-time advertising!

[3pointdeli]

well, GM could (and will) make all that money back by hiring cheap mexican labor, but that's another can of worms. :) (actually, maybe :( is more appropriate)

[Chris A.]

Originally posted by hadi·blues
Think of all the money that could have been squandered on inappropriate prime-time advertising!

Think of all the money that was squandered through Burns' ineptitude. Yes, his stuff is often nice to look at and seemingly factual, but any real documentary film maker will tell you that Burns delivers fluff. If nothing else, a documentary should document, not distort history. That is a very basic rule, and it has been broken in every film Burns has made. We are particularly concerned about Jazz, but inaccuracies and omissions also sseriously flawed his baseball and Civil War efforts.

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by 3pointdeli
well, GM could (and will) make all that money back by hiring cheap mexican labor, but that's another can of worms. :) (actually, maybe :( is more appropriate)

Whew! That was a close one. I almost made a crack about Mexican jumping-bean counters (horribly inappropriate).

[Hardbop]

Originally posted by Chris A.


Think of all the money that was squandered through Burns' ineptitude. Yes, his stuff is often nice to look at and seemingly factual, but any real documentary film maker will tell you that Burns delivers fluff. If nothing else, a documentary should document, not distort history. That is a very basic rule, and it has been broken in every film Burns has made. We are particularly concerned about Jazz, but inaccuracies and omissions also sseriously flawed his baseball and Civil War efforts.

Five

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Chris A.


Think of all the money that was squandered through Burns' ineptitude.

Well, I don’t know if the money was wasted or not. Taken from the standpoint of entertainment based on jazz history, it’s not so bad. Still, and from this standpoint, I hope Burns wove the buttocks-knifing story into his tapestry (did he?). It’s a crowd pleaser.

[3pointdeli]

i taped all the episodes. i've been meaning to rewatch it. i'll be on the lookout for the knife in the butt story.

[ATR]

I haven't had time to read through all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating what's been said already. After his work in the Blakey band, Wynton had a brief flirtation with the so-called avant garde as a charter member of Lester Bowie's brass ensemble. Before they added drums and other brass it was a trumpet ensemble with among others Olu Dara, Wynton, Stanton Davis, Bowie, and I can't quite recall who else. I saw this band perform at a church here in Boston and they did blow. Likewise most of us know that before he hooked up with Wynton Stanley Crouch was a mainstay on the avant garde scene in NY, both as writer, presenter, and performer. The perception of most musicians who used to know either of these guys is that they have turned their back on contemporary music and are now sucking up to the establishment in order to selfishly further their own careers. My take on it is that for whatever reason Wynton prefers to concentrate on Jazz repertory and education rather than innovation, although he continues to dabble in the latter at times. Too bad, he has tremendous potential. But if you look at the career of let's say Dave Holland there's not that much difference. Both of them have made some musical compromises in order to reach a larger audience. My problem with Wynton is that for the public at large he embodies jazz, when he's only the tip of the iceberg. Jazz and improvised music is an incredibly diverse field, but somehow we continue to focus on just a few significant figures. And of course anyone who does achieve some success is instantly suspect for selling out. Let's see more attention for everybody, but especially for innovators like Ken Vandermark, Joe Morris, Dave Bryant, Ornette, Cecil, all the musicians of the AACM, BAG, and other organizations who have stayed true to their unique artistic vision while extending the language and tradition that came before.

[3pointdeli]

right on, ATR. i didn't know wynton was associated with lester bowie. that's interesting.