Oh know its that Jamie Cullum again!

Andy D · December 9th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Ok there I was on my way back from University and I am reading this interview with Jamie Cullum, and I know that we have discussed him before and people have mixed views on him, but here is a little of what he said on how you get people interested in jazz:

" Just don't put it in a museum and treat it in a retro way, and be scholarly about it. You're supposed to do it because you feel it in your gut. Don't over-inttellectualise things. Don't think about what the critics are going to say . Do it because it moves you."

Now he feels people are turned off jazz for some of the reasons above.

Any thoughts on what he thinks, rather than his music

Regards

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton · December 9th, 2003, 01:30 PM

I think he hits the nail right on the head.

You can enjoy William Parker and Stacey Kent following those guidelines.

Andy D · December 9th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Yep I also feel he has a point as well, and one that various people that do not consider themselves jazz fans have made to me.

What he feels he is doing is bringing 'jazz' to the masses, as he points out in the interview:

Believe it or not, I got into jazz through listening to hip hop. And I got into songwriting through Kurt Cobain. Because I'm young , and I don't feel I've got to be one thing, I'm excited by different possibilities. It's nice to be able to communicate that through the music that I play. And I'm not trying to save it. I'm just trying to move this music forward.

Any thoughts?

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton · December 9th, 2003, 02:24 PM

If this is the Jazzwise article from last month (and even if it's not it'll say the same things...see the magazine thread!) I found I identified very much with what he was saying.

I came to jazz through King Crimson, Chicago, Mahavishnu, Soft Machine etc. Each generation needs its own way in.

I think those who criticise the likes of Cullum forget how important it is for each generation to have live performers of roughly their own age range. It might matter to a 40 year old that Cullum is just copying a Sinatra-like style. It means not a jot to your average 20 year old. The interest in music outside of the current is something that develops when you become more obsessed.

Andy D · December 9th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Well it may or may not be the jazzwise article, I actually read it in the 'HMV Choice' Mag that I picked up today in Leciester on my way back fro University.

I agree that Jamie appeals to many of his age, he is again on the front cover of the HMV Mag, and was all over the store in Leciester advertising his latest album. The record company have spent a great deal on him, and I guess they need to get their 'pound of flesh'

Whether he moves jazz music forward is open to some debate, on the back of 'Pop Idol' and 'Fame Academy', is he a victim of hype and spin or the 'real deal'?

Regards.

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton · December 9th, 2003, 02:47 PM

I can see no indication whatsoever that he will move jazz forward - he strikes me as being highly derivative in style but with a distinctive voice of his own and a highly marketable persona. Now over time that might change totally - but there's nothing to suggest it yet.

He's successful now because he seems contemporary yet is singing songs and in a style that people half-know from the movies or hearing in their parents record collections. They find it attractive and are drawn in.

In the sense of being a genuine performer with considerable talent I'd say he is the 'real deal.' But he's likely to be of only marginal interest to the hardcore jazz fan who has heard it all before.

I've enjoyed what I've heard but not felt any desire to buy his records. But there's no way I'd join in with the more doctrinaire jazz fan who immediately sees someone like Callum as the anti-Christ.

Andy D · December 9th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Well we have seen his like before, and already there are people like Lizz Wright, Stacey Kent, Peter Cincotti etc and the list goes on, that have great voices and in a broad sense sing 'jazz'.

We are living in an age, well at least here in the UK, in which looks, sound, dress sense and 'presence' matter, and seem to sell, and Sony realised that they had potential way before most of the media did. Add to this mix certain people of the
'establishment' seem to like him and you can see his appeal.

No he is not the future of jazz, nor do I feel he is moving jazz forward, but when has this ever mattered in the world that we are interested in?

Regards

Andy D.

maygar · December 10th, 2003, 12:59 AM

I think 'moving things forward' is important if we want to avoid the retro, museum, approach that Callum mentions. The music needs people both to consolidate, and others to advance, for it to continue to grow. Bev's mentioning William parker is one exmple of a mover.

Andy D · December 10th, 2003, 05:08 AM

Cullum sees his music as bringing people not that interested in jazz, closer to becoming interested and he sees the exposure to vocal jazz as the meduim for this.

How you get from Cullum to Coltrane, if indeed that is what the goal is, is a little hard to figure out.

Regards

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton · December 10th, 2003, 08:43 AM

"We are living in an age, well at least here in the UK, in which looks, sound, dress sense and 'presence' matter, and seem to sell"

I don't think that is particular about our age. Cab Calloway could teach Cullum a thing or two about looks, signature sound, dress and 'presence'.

From what I've read Cullum seems pretty modest about his 'jazz' talent. I don't get the impression that he sees himself as a jazz 'missionary', just someone who loves the jazz he's heard and wants to play it. If it makes others curious, all the better.

Personally I'm not all that concerned about 'moving the music forward' - one person's forward is another's backward (60s free jazz for example!).

What interests me most is musicians aiming to diversify the music, keep it alive through constant variation. Now Cullum shows little indication of contributing to that; but then nor do a large number of more accepted 'jazz' musicians who happily play within the limits of previous styles.

The jazz world is wide enough to encompass nostalgic revival jazz and jazz that goes places not explored before. I don't see that either threatens the other.

Andy D · December 10th, 2003, 09:28 AM

Well in Cab's day there was no mass media, no 'pop idol' on TV etc and whilst he was a 'smart dresser' etc, the sheer size of the media machine makes it difficult to compare. Also in Cab's day jazz had a profile, today this is questionable and from what I have read about Jamie, heard on the radio etc he does appear to have a mission.

It is interesting to look at what he may mean by moving things forward, most jazz that sells is older stuff, which saturates the markets. Back catalogues of Miles, John Coltrane etc etc, this is reflected in the various lists on 'Top 100' jazz records etc. They contain the same records as all the other lists.

For example the latest issues of GQ magazine has '100 best jazz albums of all time'. The top five are:

Miles Davis - A Kind of Blue'

Stan Getz/Joao Gilberto - 'GetzlGilberto'

Miles Davis - 'Sketches of Spain'

Charlie Parker - ' Yardbird Suite' Charlie Parker - 'Yardbird Suite'

Clifford Brown -'Clifford Brown With Strings'

It is not until number 26 when you get something more recent with St Germain's 'Tourist' album. Now there is nothing wrong with listening to Miles or any type of jazz for that matter, but for jazz to have a wider profile I think that sometimes we may need to encourage people to look beyond what we take for granted.

Regards

Andy D.

fent99 · December 22nd, 2003, 02:15 AM

Small point to add but I'm pretty sure Cab Calloway did have access to pretty much the whole of the the mass media at that time, doing radio that reached an enormous amount of people even if it was only broadcast in NYC as well as discs.

That said I agree with you're saying Andy, and that top 5 you've quoted has nothing more recent that 40 odd years ago.

Here's a thought though:
Couldn't Getz/Gilberto be considered not too different to Jamie Cullum in that pop/jazz crossover area?
While I'm on the subject Sketches of Spain is a bit of a classical/jazz crossover and the strings albums mix the popular light music of the day plus jazz.

Not as much jazz in that top 5 as I thought...

Andy D · December 22nd, 2003, 02:20 AM

fent.

Yep my thoughts as well.

It is the narrow definition of jazz that concerns me, which excludes so much more that people never get to hear. This is not because it is not worthy, but because it is not reflected in the various 'lists' of the Top 100 etc, and because it dose not have all the hype that Jamie Cullum has.

Regards

Andy D.

Bev Stapleton · December 22nd, 2003, 02:46 AM

Here's another example of 'narrowness' in the portrayal of jazz. The Downbeat readers' Jazz Album of the Year nominations:

1. Wayne Shorter - Footprints Live (Verve)
2. Wayne Shorter - Alegria (Verve)
3. Keith Jarrett - Always Let Me Go (ECM)
4. Dave Holland - What Goes Around (ECM)
5. Kenny Garrett - Standard of Language (Warners)
6. Diana Krall - Live in Paris (Verve)
7. Brandford Marsalis - Footsteps of Our Fathers (Marsalis Music)
8. ScoLoHoFo - Oh! (Blue Note)
9. Joe Lovano -On this Day (Blue Note)
10. Joe Locke - 4 Walls of Freedom (Sirroco)
11. Norah Jones - Come Away With Me (Blue Note)
12. Cassandra Wilson - Belly of the Sun (Blue Note)

Now, I'm not criticising the albums themselves but is this list anything like representative of the range of music available under the jazz umbrella? It's certainly reflective of the big companies marketing campaigns!

Maybe its just reflective of those jazz fans who vote in magazine polls!

***********

It's almost as if we are thought to only be able to focus on a narrow concentration of things at any one time. The media over-obsess on this 'celebrity' or actor or musician or sports personality at the expense of anyone else; and then discard them! We're told that this or that person is this year's thing...or the way to the future.

And such narrow-mindedness is not exclusive to mass-culture. You're just as likely to read champions of marginalised musicians claiming that we shouldn't be listening to Cullum or Marsalis or Lovano because William Parker or Vandermark or Berne are the ones who are really saying it.

Maybe acknowledging and celebrating the diversity of jazz (and other areas of music, film, sport etc) is considered just too much for the human brain to encompass.

Andy D · December 22nd, 2003, 03:35 AM

Bev.

Yep and this is a concern to me there is so much more out there, that never gets a hearing and so remains unknow to many people. The list you mention is another example of this, I am as much against ECM promoting their stars as I am Verve or Blue Note etc, because it soon becomes the one with the largest budget, the most hype etc.

As good as the Wayne Shorter albums are, there is so much more that is missed of not even acknowledged, I also wonder just how many jazz fans do vote in such polls, or it is the people in the industry who always have a vested interest?

I think the human brain can encompass much more, but I wonder if the 'industry' ever will?

Regards

Andy D.

December 9th, 2003, 12:51 PM	#1
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Oh know its that Jamie Cullum again! Ok there I was on my way back from University and I am reading this interview with Jamie Cullum, and I know that we have discussed him before and people have mixed views on him, but here is a little of what he said on how you get people interested in jazz: " Just don't put it in a museum and treat it in a retro way, and be scholarly about it. You're supposed to do it because you feel it in your gut. Don't over-inttellectualise things. Don't think about what the critics are going to say . Do it because it moves you." Now he feels people are turned off jazz for some of the reasons above. Any thoughts on what he thinks, rather than his music Regards Andy D.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 9th, 2003, 01:30 PM	#2
Bev Stapleton Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,317	I think he hits the nail right on the head. You can enjoy William Parker and Stacey Kent following those guidelines.

December 9th, 2003, 01:42 PM	#3
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Yep I also feel he has a point as well, and one that various people that do not consider themselves jazz fans have made to me. What he feels he is doing is bringing 'jazz' to the masses, as he points out in the interview: Believe it or not, I got into jazz through listening to hip hop. And I got into songwriting through Kurt Cobain. Because I'm young , and I don't feel I've got to be one thing, I'm excited by different possibilities. It's nice to be able to communicate that through the music that I play. And I'm not trying to save it. I'm just trying to move this music forward. Any thoughts? Andy D.

December 9th, 2003, 02:24 PM	#4
Bev Stapleton Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,317	If this is the Jazzwise article from last month (and even if it's not it'll say the same things...see the magazine thread!) I found I identified very much with what he was saying. I came to jazz through King Crimson, Chicago, Mahavishnu, Soft Machine etc. Each generation needs its own way in. I think those who criticise the likes of Cullum forget how important it is for each generation to have live performers of roughly their own age range. It might matter to a 40 year old that Cullum is just copying a Sinatra-like style. It means not a jot to your average 20 year old. The interest in music outside of the current is something that develops when you become more obsessed.

December 9th, 2003, 02:33 PM	#5
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Well it may or may not be the jazzwise article, I actually read it in the 'HMV Choice' Mag that I picked up today in Leciester on my way back fro University. I agree that Jamie appeals to many of his age, he is again on the front cover of the HMV Mag, and was all over the store in Leciester advertising his latest album. The record company have spent a great deal on him, and I guess they need to get their 'pound of flesh' Whether he moves jazz music forward is open to some debate, on the back of 'Pop Idol' and 'Fame Academy', is he a victim of hype and spin or the 'real deal'? Regards. Andy D.

December 9th, 2003, 02:47 PM	#6
Bev Stapleton Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,317	I can see no indication whatsoever that he will move jazz forward - he strikes me as being highly derivative in style but with a distinctive voice of his own and a highly marketable persona. Now over time that might change totally - but there's nothing to suggest it yet. He's successful now because he seems contemporary yet is singing songs and in a style that people half-know from the movies or hearing in their parents record collections. They find it attractive and are drawn in. In the sense of being a genuine performer with considerable talent I'd say he is the 'real deal.' But he's likely to be of only marginal interest to the hardcore jazz fan who has heard it all before. I've enjoyed what I've heard but not felt any desire to buy his records. But there's no way I'd join in with the more doctrinaire jazz fan who immediately sees someone like Callum as the anti-Christ.

December 9th, 2003, 03:03 PM	#7
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Well we have seen his like before, and already there are people like Lizz Wright, Stacey Kent, Peter Cincotti etc and the list goes on, that have great voices and in a broad sense sing 'jazz'. We are living in an age, well at least here in the UK, in which looks, sound, dress sense and 'presence' matter, and seem to sell, and Sony realised that they had potential way before most of the media did. Add to this mix certain people of the 'establishment' seem to like him and you can see his appeal. No he is not the future of jazz, nor do I feel he is moving jazz forward, but when has this ever mattered in the world that we are interested in? Regards Andy D.

December 10th, 2003, 12:59 AM	#8
maygar Guest Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 515	I think 'moving things forward' is important if we want to avoid the retro, museum, approach that Callum mentions. The music needs people both to consolidate, and others to advance, for it to continue to grow. Bev's mentioning William parker is one exmple of a mover.

December 10th, 2003, 05:08 AM	#9
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Cullum sees his music as bringing people not that interested in jazz, closer to becoming interested and he sees the exposure to vocal jazz as the meduim for this. How you get from Cullum to Coltrane, if indeed that is what the goal is, is a little hard to figure out. Regards Andy D.

December 10th, 2003, 08:43 AM	#10
Bev Stapleton Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,317	"We are living in an age, well at least here in the UK, in which looks, sound, dress sense and 'presence' matter, and seem to sell" I don't think that is particular about our age. Cab Calloway could teach Cullum a thing or two about looks, signature sound, dress and 'presence'. From what I've read Cullum seems pretty modest about his 'jazz' talent. I don't get the impression that he sees himself as a jazz 'missionary', just someone who loves the jazz he's heard and wants to play it. If it makes others curious, all the better. Personally I'm not all that concerned about 'moving the music forward' - one person's forward is another's backward (60s free jazz for example!). What interests me most is musicians aiming to diversify the music, keep it alive through constant variation. Now Cullum shows little indication of contributing to that; but then nor do a large number of more accepted 'jazz' musicians who happily play within the limits of previous styles. The jazz world is wide enough to encompass nostalgic revival jazz and jazz that goes places not explored before. I don't see that either threatens the other.

December 10th, 2003, 09:28 AM	#11
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Well in Cab's day there was no mass media, no 'pop idol' on TV etc and whilst he was a 'smart dresser' etc, the sheer size of the media machine makes it difficult to compare. Also in Cab's day jazz had a profile, today this is questionable and from what I have read about Jamie, heard on the radio etc he does appear to have a mission. It is interesting to look at what he may mean by moving things forward, most jazz that sells is older stuff, which saturates the markets. Back catalogues of Miles, John Coltrane etc etc, this is reflected in the various lists on 'Top 100' jazz records etc. They contain the same records as all the other lists. For example the latest issues of GQ magazine has '100 best jazz albums of all time'. The top five are: Miles Davis - A Kind of Blue' Stan Getz/Joao Gilberto - 'GetzlGilberto' Miles Davis - 'Sketches of Spain' Charlie Parker - ' Yardbird Suite' Charlie Parker - 'Yardbird Suite' Clifford Brown -'Clifford Brown With Strings' It is not until number 26 when you get something more recent with St Germain's 'Tourist' album. Now there is nothing wrong with listening to Miles or any type of jazz for that matter, but for jazz to have a wider profile I think that sometimes we may need to encourage people to look beyond what we take for granted. Regards Andy D.

December 22nd, 2003, 02:15 AM	#12
fent99 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 102	Small point to add but I'm pretty sure Cab Calloway did have access to pretty much the whole of the the mass media at that time, doing radio that reached an enormous amount of people even if it was only broadcast in NYC as well as discs. That said I agree with you're saying Andy, and that top 5 you've quoted has nothing more recent that 40 odd years ago. Here's a thought though: Couldn't Getz/Gilberto be considered not too different to Jamie Cullum in that pop/jazz crossover area? While I'm on the subject Sketches of Spain is a bit of a classical/jazz crossover and the strings albums mix the popular light music of the day plus jazz. Not as much jazz in that top 5 as I thought...

December 22nd, 2003, 02:20 AM	#13
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	fent. Yep my thoughts as well. It is the narrow definition of jazz that concerns me, which excludes so much more that people never get to hear. This is not because it is not worthy, but because it is not reflected in the various 'lists' of the Top 100 etc, and because it dose not have all the hype that Jamie Cullum has. Regards Andy D.

December 22nd, 2003, 02:46 AM	#14
Bev Stapleton Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,317	Here's another example of 'narrowness' in the portrayal of jazz. The Downbeat readers' Jazz Album of the Year nominations: 1. Wayne Shorter - Footprints Live (Verve) 2. Wayne Shorter - Alegria (Verve) 3. Keith Jarrett - Always Let Me Go (ECM) 4. Dave Holland - What Goes Around (ECM) 5. Kenny Garrett - Standard of Language (Warners) 6. Diana Krall - Live in Paris (Verve) 7. Brandford Marsalis - Footsteps of Our Fathers (Marsalis Music) 8. ScoLoHoFo - Oh! (Blue Note) 9. Joe Lovano -On this Day (Blue Note) 10. Joe Locke - 4 Walls of Freedom (Sirroco) 11. Norah Jones - Come Away With Me (Blue Note) 12. Cassandra Wilson - Belly of the Sun (Blue Note) Now, I'm not criticising the albums themselves but is this list anything like representative of the range of music available under the jazz umbrella? It's certainly reflective of the big companies marketing campaigns! Maybe its just reflective of those jazz fans who vote in magazine polls! *********** It's almost as if we are thought to only be able to focus on a narrow concentration of things at any one time. The media over-obsess on this 'celebrity' or actor or musician or sports personality at the expense of anyone else; and then discard them! We're told that this or that person is this year's thing...or the way to the future. And such narrow-mindedness is not exclusive to mass-culture. You're just as likely to read champions of marginalised musicians claiming that we shouldn't be listening to Cullum or Marsalis or Lovano because William Parker or Vandermark or Berne are the ones who are really saying it. Maybe acknowledging and celebrating the diversity of jazz (and other areas of music, film, sport etc) is considered just too much for the human brain to encompass.

December 22nd, 2003, 03:35 AM	#15
Andy D Banned User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,294	Bev. Yep and this is a concern to me there is so much more out there, that never gets a hearing and so remains unknow to many people. The list you mention is another example of this, I am as much against ECM promoting their stars as I am Verve or Blue Note etc, because it soon becomes the one with the largest budget, the most hype etc. As good as the Wayne Shorter albums are, there is so much more that is missed of not even acknowledged, I also wonder just how many jazz fans do vote in such polls, or it is the people in the industry who always have a vested interest? I think the human brain can encompass much more, but I wonder if the 'industry' ever will? Regards Andy D.