Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
JaKe
40 Years Missing
To the Editor:
Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
(for
now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where
every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing
to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
American
treasures?
KEITH JARRETT
New York
Ira Chineson
Jarrett's angry letter appeared last week. This week there was a
letter in reply:
"After reading Keith Jarrett's acerbic evaluation of Ken Burn's "Jazz,"
I have to say I'm glad that Mr. Burns effectively ended his program at
1960. If he had gone on to describe the more recent history of the
music he might have been forced to deal with an unpleasant aspect of
contemporary jazz, namely the bitter frustration of many musicians who,
having devoted their lives to a discipline which grants them shrinking
accolades and work opportunities in the United States, have become
disgruntled.
I have met many regional jazz players who appear cranky, unhappy and
contemptuous of other musicians who approach jazz from a different
angle. They have taken on the mantle of orthodoxy, reviling all those
who don't worship at the same shrine, and they all seem to have
different reasons for detesting Wynton Marsalis.
It's time these musicians realized that Mr. Burns's wonderful program
is not about them. It's not even aimed at musicians — it's supposed to
enlighten and excite the public at large, not pander to the wishes of
those whose opinions of jazz history are already cast in very hard
cement."
DOUG ROBINSON
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
JaKe
-MIKE-
-MIKE-
r.m.bluenote. :-)
-MIKE-
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrums.com or hit 'reply'
Robert Schuh
I think Keith nailed it perfectly. I have contended from day one that
Wynton's presence here has been a HUGE deterrence to real information. The
entire glossing over from 1960 to today is close to being criminal. It is
nice to see a person like Keith making these comments. Seeing that he is one
of THE most important Jazz artists playing today, his comments hold even
more importance.
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa
Robert Schuh
Don't you just LOVE how a nobody like "DOUG ROBINSON" thinks that his
comments can hold the same weight as Keith Jarrett's?
sco...@mail.com
made a point of praising the series. "Very well researched",
he said.
uli_...@my-deja.com
Robert Schuh <rsc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Don't you just LOVE how a nobody like "DOUG ROBINSON" thinks that his
> comments can hold the same weight as Keith Jarrett's?
>
And don't we just follow the same star approach to the music that's
frequently critiziced in Burns'?
jmt
--
'the world is a bad joke; in very poor taste; created by the almighty on
a very bad day......i'm inclined to believe he had a hangover that
morning'
http://www.wworld.com/users/michael/
Joey Goldstein
I just wish Mr. Jarrett had been a little bit more verbose and detailed.
Perhaps this would not be allowed in a mere letter to the editor though.
I have to say though that there have been times when Jarrett's own
interviews have gotten me just as riled up as Marsalis'. I'd be
surprised if he still didn't feel that electric instruments, like the
one I happen to play, have no place in jazz or serious music.
It would be nice to hear them do that blues cutting contest that Jarrett
challenged Marsalis to a while back. Don't think it's gonna happen though.
--
Regards:
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Doug McKay
from Platoon. "Keep your pecker dry." Maybe that will be his final remark.
Doug McKay
George Lawrence
playing TODAY or the RECENT history of jazz, Rob, you stupid no playing
asshole! :-) Just goes to show that you have a one track mind.
Robert Schuh wrote:
The
> entire glossing over from 1960 to today is close to being criminal. It is
> nice to see a person like Keith making these comments. Seeing that he is one
> of THE most important Jazz artists playing today, his comments hold even
> more importance.
>
> --
> Robert Schuh
> "Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
> intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
> the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
> the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> "The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa
--
George Lawrence, Nashville TN
Drumset artist, teacher, author
http://www.drumguru.com
"Just play dumb" - Jeff Porcaro
Greg
"George Lawrence" <drum...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A75DEDA...@home.com...
> It was a document about the HISTORY of jazz, not the jazz artists
> playing TODAY or the RECENT history of jazz
I take it you mean documentary, not document.
If so, then I would argue that given the relatively short period of time
that jazz has been around - largely glossing over the past 40 years of it
does exclude much of the history. I agree that it would be somewhat
defendable not to include the immediate past (5 years or so, maybe) due to a
lack of perspective or distance, but there was much produced during and
since the 60s that has influenced many artists and shaped the music in
dramatic ways.
As someone in his forties, I sometimes like to think that anything that
happened during my life doesn't qualify as "historical", but then I speak
with my children and realize I'm wrong...
Greg
DD
old footage is fun to watch and the music is great. While I'm not getting my
panties in a bunch like Jarrett. et. al., I do feel that Burns & company
have gone a bit overboard with the racial analogies. Yes, the narration is a
bit hyperbolic (is that a word?) and who the fuck elected Marsalis
"jazz-god"? And as much as I love Satchmo and Duke, enough already! (When is
Woody Allen gonna be on to discuss jazz clarinet?)
But, I'd rather have it out there than not and anything that will shine a
little light on jazz music and musicians in general is alright by me.
"Doug McKay" <DNM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3A75C877...@bigfoot.com...
recordmaster
I've tried to keep out of this fray, as I'm mostly a lurker here, not a
contributor. This thread, however, is just begging for a reply.
I think that Keith is exactly correct! And, having read more than a
dozen responses (so far), it seems that the battle lines amongst the
group members is very strongly drawn in the sand (I'm in FL, sand is
all we have here).
What the hell does photos of blacks only entrances, groups of poor
children, videos of battlefields from both world wars and generic
pictures of city streets have to do with jazz? And don't tell me
they're of historical importance. They are not important to this
series!
An absence of music after the 60's is a huge mistake. He has spent
several hours talking about Duke and Louis, but to leave out the most
innovative period in most all of jazz history is just not right.
Anybody heard of the ECM label? To leave out 50-60 of the most
influential jazz musicians of the last 50 years places the entire
series in a questionable light.
Of course, let's be realistic here. Burns has used nothing that is not
part of the public domain. This means someone else has done the work.
And, he doesn't even have to pay for it! The fact that it has been
seen more times than any of us can count (and several hours of it have
no bearing on the series) should not be a deterent to Burns' making a
tremendous amount of money (and, again, from someone else's work). If
he would have done anything after 1960, he certainly would not have
gotten it for free!
Ken Burns: AUTHOR, FILMOGRAPHER, DIRECTOR, MUSICIAN, ASSHOLE (no, no,
no, no, yes).
Thank you, I feel much better now.
Regards,
Terry
Greg
"DD" <do...@ismi.net> wrote in message news:3a75...@news.ismi.net...
While I'm not getting my
> panties in a bunch like Jarrett. et. al., I do feel that Burns & company
> have gone a bit overboard with the racial analogies. Yes, the narration is
a
> bit hyperbolic (is that a word?) and who the fuck elected Marsalis
> "jazz-god"? And as much as I love Satchmo and Duke, enough already!
No offence, but it sounds as if your panties are at least a little in a
bunch ... I agree with your sentiments, by the way, but the points you
raised are at the core of most of the complaints here.
Greg
Erin Evans
playing. So, the guy is perpetually cranky (he once seemed really
annoyed by my sitting so close to his bench at the Vanguard, no matter
how hard I tried to scrunch back away from stage. Annoyances aside, God
bless the Vanguard and my luck in seats). It's been noted that Wynton is
portrayed as the savior of Jazz in episode 10. Throughout the 70s, 80s
and 90s, I never attended a Jarrett concert or club date that was not
sold out. The Koln Concert was one of the biggest selling "jazz" records
of the 70s, that decade that has been declared "dead" by the series. In
interviews, Jarrett has come across obviously perturbed by the Bill
Evans comparisons and constant reminders of his influence. Regardless of
my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
much as it does me and Evans' fans.
Erin
Richard Thurston
> comments can hold the same weight as Keith Jarrett's?
>
> --
entitled to hold opinions.
What a relief.
>
--
Richard Thurston
Youghal X. MacGregor
> What the hell does photos of blacks only entrances, groups of poor
> children, videos of battlefields from both world wars and generic
> pictures of city streets have to do with jazz? And don't tell me
> they're of historical importance. They are not important to this
> series!
A lurker here to point out to a fellow Floridian that the conditions in
which musicians live have a great deal to do with the music they produce.
Trying to understand jazz music while ignoring the segregation, bigotry,
and substance abuse endured by its composers and players is like trying to
understand New Deal legislation while ignoring the Great Depression.
...just another point of view...
jbd...@my-deja.com
Right on the money.
I've really been trying to like this series, and I do like it on many
levels. I love jazz so I'm gonna like it regardless and I'm glad it's
on...BUT...
I must say I'm sick of the conservative bias, and the bias towards
Wynton's heroes. Come on! Why are we still spending time on Louis
Armstrong in the 50's and 60's when many of the actual innovators of
that time are glossed over or neglected entirely because of "lack of
time"? Answer - because he's Wynton's hero.
I'm sick of how jazz the music, is constantly superceded by jazz
the "metaphor".
I'm also sick of the populist approach of the show. For one example,
why is Dave Brubeck given a big chunk of time and Bill Evans (or Bud
Powell) given virtually nothing. Who's the more influential pianist?
Does it matter? No. What does matter? Dave Brubeck had a commercial
hit with Take Five.
The show seems to duck all the difficult questions (the entire last 40
years being the most obvious example) that don't neatly fit into the
nostalgic "Jazz: metaphor for America" slant.
A lot of people think this is ok because it's supposed to be for
the "general public" and it's supposed to generate popularity and so
forth. I call it fraudulant and revisionist history. Jazz'
unpopularity in the last half of the century is just as much a part of
its' history, and its' nature, as is its' popularity in the first half
of the century. This is a difficult issue and a reality that the show
chooses to eschew in favor of hero worship and nostalgia.
The equivalent would be to say, let's do a "history" of 1900's America,
but let's just omit that whole "Vietnam thing" or those LA riots or any
other unpopular or difficult events because that doesn't make John Q.
Public feel warm and fuzzy about America.
So check one more on the "agree" side for Keith.
Josh
Erin Evans
And your post is also right on the money. I am trying to keep an open
mind and I actually enjoyed episode 8 (but, in all due respect, a 1st
year film student w/ a hand held camcorder could not manage to make Bird
appear bland). Beside the blatant Wynton/Crouch biases, I think
marketability (translation: $) was a contributing factor in who got
coronated and who got dethroned. "Take Five" will move more CDs off the
shelf than anything by Evans/Powell/Coltrane, etc. And probably once it
was determined which artists would maximize profits for CDs sales, it
would stand to reason (promotionally) that those artists would receive
ample coverage in the film (to the exclusion of those that may be deemed
too esoteric or "difficult" for mass market virgin ears). With a 10
million dollar budget alloted to Burns, I would find it hard to fathom
that this concept did not come into play when the series was first
formatted. And so we have, from a musical standpoint, Ken Burns Jazz
"light" (low in fat, w/ 1/3 less depth and substance).
Erin
Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
JaKe <jkdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
40 Years Missing
To the Editor:
Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
jazz-illiterate historian
and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to sophomoric generalizations and
ultraconservative politically correct (for now) utterances, not to
mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where every detail takes on
the importance of major revelation) and weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries,
can we have some films about jazz by people who actually know and
understand the music itself and are willing to deal comprehensively with
the last 40 years of this richest of American treasures?
KEITH JARRETT
New York
Thomas F Brown
Erin Evans <erin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
>controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
>much as it does me and Evans' fans.
I think I spotted Bill Evans in tonight's episode. Something
about him being white. Then my cat caused a huge crash in the
pantry by way of notifying me that the food bowl was empty,
and I was distracted from the rest of Evans's appearance, if
there actually was anymore to it other than him being white.
Erin Evans
I thought you shunned the mundane medium known as television. And
kudos to you for perpetuating the stereotype that the jazz community is
comprised of mostly pompous asses. I hear the cat meowing.
Erin
Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
Group: rec.music.bluenote Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2001, 5:55am (PST+8) From:
tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown)
In article <17800-3A...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Erin
Evans <erin...@webtv.net> wrote:
my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
much as it does me and Evans' fans.
Thomas sneered:
Gremlin
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Keith prooves that he - like so many others in this ng - has not got a clue
on what Burns wanted to tell/show.
He was not after the complete jazz history, he was aiming to show the
economical, sociological etc framework within jazz existed.
And to tell the history of anything you have to have some distance, so
stopping about 40 years ago is quite apropriate.
But so many in the ng do not want to understand that - you are just after
seeing your own favourites on the screen.
Ulf
Gremlin <ba...@airmail.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:F0C39E8FB44F44D0.2F687066913EED65.2C5AFCBD58A4F
B...@lp.airnews.net...
Simon Weil
<<>my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
>controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
>much as it does me and Evans' fans.>>
She can then characterised the following from Tom Brown as a sneer:
<<>I think I spotted Bill Evans in tonight's episode. Something about him
>being white. Then my cat caused a huge crash in the pantry by way of
>notifying me that the food bowl was empty, and I was distracted from the
>rest of Evans's appearance, if there actually was anymore to it other
>than him being white. >>
Erin went on to say:
>Thomas,
> I thought you shunned the mundane medium known as television. And
>kudos to you for perpetuating the stereotype that the jazz community is
>comprised of mostly pompous asses. I hear the cat meowing.
>Erin
Pardon me for butting in like this, but I read Tom's thing differently. He
seemed to be saying Evans had been presented by Burns as "white" - rather than
as a distinctive musician having his own influential style. This, implicitly,
would have been in line with Burns' interest in race, so often remarked here.
It would also have been in line with Burns tendency to present musicians as
cyphers - examples of some larger trend (e.g drug abuse) rather than, once
more, artists in their own right. The stuff about the cat I read as saying that
Tom was indeed distracted from the series, but that, if the rest of Burns
series is anything to go by, he probably wasn't missing anything very much on
Evans.
He was having a go at Burns in much the same way you are - but, because he has
a certain ability, quite often seen here, he was doing it obliquely, by
telling a story.
If he was sneering it was at Burns.
Simon Weil
recordmaster
used more than 25% of each episode with this material. It looks like
he was just taking up time and space that could have been more
constructively used. He also repeated the photo segments at the start
of each next episode. It would have been better to have used the time
to highlight the careers of otherwise ignored musicians.
Terry
--
http://www.recordmaster.com
the internet world-wide music price guide
http://www.coda-records.com
progressive/jazz/jazz-fusion record label
crig...@aol.com
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>
> Keith prooves that he - like so many others in this ng - has not
got a clue
>
> on what Burns wanted to tell/show.
>
> He was not after the complete jazz history, he was aiming to
show the
>
> economical, sociological etc framework within jazz existed.
>
> And to tell the history of anything you have to have some
distance, so
>
> stopping about 40 years ago is quite apropriate.
But the problem is he isn't stopping there - he is dismissing from
there forward - which is an entirely different thing. Quoting from
www.pbs.org - "Episode 10 - In the 1970s, jazz loses the
exuberant genius of Louis Armstrong and the transcendent artistry
of Duke Ellington, and for many their passing seems to mark the
end of the music itself. But in 1976, when Dexter Gordon returns
from Europe for a triumphant comeback, jazz has a homecoming,
too. Over the next two decades, a new generation of musicians
emerges, led by trumpeter Wynton Marsalis - schooled in the
music's traditions, skilled in the arts of improvisation, and aflame
with ideas only jazz can express. The musical journey that began
in the dance halls and street parades of New Orleans at the start
of the 20th century continues. As it enters its second century, jazz
is still brand new every night, still vibrant, still evolving, and still
swinging."
So what, except for Dexter, from 1970 (Bitches Brew incidentally)
till Wynton - it sucked????
This is nowhere close to not commenting on (or being objective
about) the last forty years. This is the personal points-of-view of a
powerful handful of Burn's consultants - Mr Marsalis in particular.
The fact that this ties the jazz is dead theory up with a little bow on
top, and is selling it to millions of people (and for years too come)
is what concerns me, and I'm sure many of the other lover's of jazz
and critic's of this series.
>
> But so many in the ng do not want to understand that - you are
just after
>
> seeing your own favourites on the screen.
I think there has been very, very little of that expressed in this
thread. Having just come back from big band gig tonight (not a
nostalgic, swing gig; small club, great band, and unique, modern
music witten by one of the most gifted orchestrators I've ever
worked with) - Trust me there was little talk of personal heroes, but
instead much concern about the future of the art, the appalling
squandering of an opportunity to reach millions (possibly unique
in our lifetime) and the damage this could cause for years to come
to living artists' ability to book concerts, receive grant money
("Sorry, we have no money for new music, but we'd love to support
your Louis Armstrong retrospective series") and successfully pull
the art of jazz through these tough times and into the future.
David Crigger
Greg
"Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:955u7r$5c3$1...@cubacola.tninet.se...
> He was not after the complete jazz history, he was aiming to show the
> economical, sociological etc framework within jazz existed.
>
>
> And to tell the history of anything you have to have some distance, so
>
> stopping about 40 years ago is quite apropriate.
>
Given the relatively short history of jazz, 40 years is a very significant
number of years to try to address in 2 hours. If his intention was to show a
limited, highly subjective view of the music up to 1960 - then the title of
the series is a poor choice.
As I mentioned before - if I made a 10 part, big budget series called "the
American Documentary" - and stopped 40 years ago, I bet that Mr. Burns would
be pissed....
Greg
Nils
>
> "Ulf Åbjörnsson" <aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
> > And to tell the history of anything you have to have some distance, so
> > stopping about 40 years ago is quite apropriate.
> >
> Given the relatively short history of jazz, 40 years is a very significant
> number of years to try to address in 2 hours. If his intention was to show a
> limited, highly subjective view of the music up to 1960 - then the title of
> the series is a poor choice.
ulf's argument is essentially what burns has said in
interviews. somehow it's a convenient excuse to
ignore four decades of the jazz tradition, the most
diverse and cross-fertilized portion. and just to
top it off, burns leaps in at the end with an
insider appeal to marsalis and his revivalist
comrades as some sort of way of showing jazz is not
dead. it strikes me as ironic that he use the
embalmers and not the innovators to strike home
such an obviously clear point.
n
Tom W. Ferguson
> embalmers and not the innovators to strike home
> such an obviously clear point.
Any chance of getting a moratorium on use of the word "innovators" for a
while? It does get to be a pain in the ass -- as if there are musicians out
there who go to work each night and "innovate."
I confess to being one of the embalmers. Back in my youth some four decades
ago, I would go listen to concerts featuring people as diverse as Ellington,
Basie, Ella, Jimmy Smith, Kenny Burrell, Armstrong, the Australian Jazz
Quintet, Oscar, Ramsey Lewis, Phineas Newborn, Sarah Vaughn, Stan Kenton,
Woody Herman . . . many of the usual suspects. I doubt that even in RMB
anyone would question that what I was listening to was jazz. But I don't
think I've ever in my life been present to hear anyone "innovate."
Sometimes in this endless RMB liturgy about "innovators" vs. fossils, I even
read references to "improvising musicians" as if that were something
contemporary and sacred. I do believe you could go listen tonight to the
oldest fossil among us and hear improvisation. And jazz.
How about you guys just start posting "innovation alerts"? As in, "Last
night I heard Soandso do Suchandsuch, innovating Thusly."
It would, among other things, make "an obviously clear point."
JC Martin
news:9541rs$s4b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A757B47...@yahoo.com>,
> JaKe <jkdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
> >
> > 40 Years Missing
> > To the Editor:
> >
> > Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> > we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> > jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> > sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> > (for
> > now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration
> (where
> > every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
> > weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
> > people who actually know and understand the music itself and are
> willing
> > to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
> > American
> > treasures?
> >
> > KEITH JARRETT
> > New York
> >
>
> letter in reply:
>
> "After reading Keith Jarrett's acerbic evaluation of Ken Burn's "Jazz,"
> I have to say I'm glad that Mr. Burns effectively ended his program at
> 1960. If he had gone on to describe the more recent history of the
> music he might have been forced to deal with an unpleasant aspect of
> contemporary jazz, namely the bitter frustration of many musicians who,
> having devoted their lives to a discipline which grants them shrinking
> accolades and work opportunities in the United States, have become
> disgruntled.
>
> I have met many regional jazz players who appear cranky, unhappy and
> contemptuous of other musicians who approach jazz from a different
> angle. They have taken on the mantle of orthodoxy, reviling all those
> who don't worship at the same shrine, and they all seem to have
> different reasons for detesting Wynton Marsalis.
>
> It's time these musicians realized that Mr. Burns's wonderful program
> is not about them. It's not even aimed at musicians - it's supposed to
> enlighten and excite the public at large, not pander to the wishes of
> those whose opinions of jazz history are already cast in very hard
> cement."
You mean like Bill Evans being an influential and relatively popular jazz
figure? The documentary clearly has a political bent. Given that Crouch
and Marsalis were the main inspirations for its direction, that's hardly
surprising.
-Jc
uli_...@my-deja.com
maybe a bit along a similar vein. Last nite's episode (9) featured the
time (early 60's)and the musicians (Trane, Ornette, Rollins etc) when
and with whom i got into the music. Both Ornette & Rollins have been
part of my listening pleasures of almost 40 years now. I don't feel
that they have stopped innovating with Free Jazz or Tenor Titan. I have
not seen the last episode yet but already feel that the alledged
ommission of 40 years is a bit over the top.
>
> How about you guys just start posting "innovation alerts"? As
in, "Last
> night I heard Soandso do Suchandsuch, innovating Thusly."
>
> It would, among other things, make "an obviously clear point."
>
>
Jerry Prather
Ferguson" <t...@pathwaynet.com> writes:
:>
:>Sometimes in this endless RMB liturgy about "innovators" vs. fossils, I even
:>read references to "improvising musicians" as if that were something
:>contemporary and sacred. I do believe you could go listen tonight to the
:>oldest fossil among us and hear improvisation. And jazz.
AMEN! If jazz is about improvisation - and that's the best
definition I've yet heard - then why can't you improvise on
anything and have it be jazz? ...and I've heard some very
good jazz improvisation on classical works.
Too many RMB contributors are hung up on avant garde / free
jazz. I (personally, IMHO, etc.) don't like it. Unless
I've heard an artist play standards, etc., how am I to judge
his worth? I (again, personally, IMHO, etc.) can't tell.
[Damn! At least you can detect a melody in Brubeck's work!]
Grrrr,
Jerry
sendt...@yahoo.com
crig...@aol.com wrote:
> to living artists' ability to book concerts, receive grant money
> ("Sorry, we have no money for new music, but we'd love to support
> your Louis Armstrong retrospective series") and successfully pull
> the art of jazz through these tough times and into the future.
Grant money? Ugh. Nothing kills like charity.
Phil Smith
>
> Josh,
> And your post is also right on the money. I am trying to keep an open
> mind and I actually enjoyed episode 8 (but, in all due respect, a 1st
> year film student w/ a hand held camcorder could not manage to make Bird
> appear bland). Beside the blatant Wynton/Crouch biases, I think
> marketability (translation: $) was a contributing factor in who got
> coronated and who got dethroned. "Take Five" will move more CDs off the
> shelf than anything by Evans/Powell/Coltrane, etc. And probably once it
> was determined which artists would maximize profits for CDs sales, it
> would stand to reason (promotionally) that those artists would receive
> ample coverage in the film (to the exclusion of those that may be deemed
> too esoteric or "difficult" for mass market virgin ears). With a 10
> million dollar budget alloted to Burns, I would find it hard to fathom
> that this concept did not come into play when the series was first
> formatted. And so we have, from a musical standpoint, Ken Burns Jazz
> "light" (low in fat, w/ 1/3 less depth and substance).
> Erin
Erin, rumors have it that Marsalis has some kind of grudge against your
uncle. I have no idea why that might be, and I've heard some pretty
unflattering things, which I won't repeat. I suspect though, that that's
why he's given short shrift. Still, his music was present. And there was
a great quote from Miles about sounding like water falling. The closing
credits were over his intro to So What. He was a giant.
Phil
Simon Weil
>I've heard an artist play standards, etc., how am I to judge
>his worth? I (again, personally, IMHO, etc.) can't tell.
>
Use a value-o-meter (tm).
Simon Weil
Richard Thurston
> Grant money? Ugh. Nothing kills like charity.
>
Nonsense. Many of the best festivals here in the US and Canada
and virtually all of the European ones are funded in large part by
grants from corporations, foundations and government arts
agencies. None of them exist merely on ticket sales. Far from it.
'Charity' is what makes them possible.
--
Richard Thurston
gibs...@my-deja.com
JaKe <jkdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
>
> 40 Years Missing
> To the Editor:
>
> Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> (for
> now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where
> every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
> weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
> people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing
> to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
> American
> treasures?
>
> KEITH JARRETT
> New York
>
Keith Jarrett is an obviously an ignorant asshole. This is a fabulous
series.
Nils
>
> > it strikes me as ironic that he use the
> > embalmers and not the innovators to strike home
> > such an obviously clear point.
>
> Any chance of getting a moratorium on use of the word "innovators" for a
> while? It does get to be a pain in the ass -- as if there are musicians out
> there who go to work each night and "innovate."
yes, fair enough. let it rest.
the idea behind the concept is the introduction of
new stylistic and compositional frameworks into
the improvisational spectrum.
within the period dismissed by the series as a
lost time, we have the invention of fusion (eg.
electric miles, john mclaughlin, weather report,
and their plethora of divergent offspring),
several different approaches to 'composed
improvising' (eg. braxton, morris, mengelberg,
etc.), a virtual swarm of instrumental stylists
who have coaxed new sounds from their 'axe'
(eg. sunny murray, milford graves, rashied ali,
han bennink, susie ibarra, etc. just from the
drummer's seat), a recent celebration/renaissance
of ethnic/jazz fusions (eg. pachora, masada, etc.),
and various approaches to postmodern improvisation
(eg. zorn, clusone 3, etc.).
so perhaps the idea behind that blanket label is
freshness, openmindedness, and individuality. in
a more progressive sense than, say, the keith
jarrett trio, which really has set the standard
(so to speak) for piano trio improvisation within
age-old parameters.
endless discussion and dispute of course will
follow.
n
Nils
uli_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> maybe a bit along a similar vein. Last nite's episode (9) featured the
> time (early 60's)and the musicians (Trane, Ornette, Rollins etc) when
> and with whom i got into the music. Both Ornette & Rollins have been
> part of my listening pleasures of almost 40 years now. I don't feel
> that they have stopped innovating with Free Jazz or Tenor Titan. I have
> not seen the last episode yet but already feel that the alledged
> ommission of 40 years is a bit over the top.
yes. we'll come back through the dead period marked
by the deaths of marsalis's two big heroes, and in
the end we'll be treated to a celebration of the
young jazz musicians reviving the tradition (of
course featuring w.m. at center stage). go looking
for sun ra or braxton or gayle or zorn and you'll
find yourself disappointed.
n
Nils
they are having a sale on these at lincoln center.
general motors has sponsored discount distribution.
however, it appears that the latest model requires
'tuning' by the j@lc staff.
Top_Catt
Nils <jaco...@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Too bad Daimler-Chrysler wasn't the sponsor--you could get one for free.
Of course, customer service might be a problem, later on. Erik Satie's
"phonometer" might be a good alternative:
"As a matter of fact it gives me more pleasure to measure a sound than
to hear it. With a phonometer in hand I work happily and surely. What is
there that I haven't weighed or measured? All Beethoven, all Verdi, etc.
It's most interesting. The first time I used the instrument I examined a
B flat of average dimensions. I can assure you that never in my life
have I seen anything quite so repulsive; I had to call my servant in to
come look at it. On my phono-weighing-machine an ordinary F sharp, of a
very common species, registered 93 kilograms. It came out of a very fat
tenor whom I also weighed. Do you know how to clean sounds? It is a
rather dirty process. As for indexing them, that is a very meticulous
job which calls for good eyesight. Here we are in the phono-technical
department; as regards sudden explosions of sound, which can be so
disagreeable, cotton-wool in the ears attenuates the shock quite
satisfactorily."
Unfortunately, Satie died before he had a chance to use his device on
any jazz.
T.C.
Erin Evans
The reply in question was a sarcastic retort to some of my previous
posts. I had heard in advance that my Uncle was given minimal coverage
and that coverage was mainly due to his contribution to Davis's Kind of
Blue. A while ago I posted that this was not all that surprising
considering that Crouch had once called my Uncle "a punk" and "a jazz
pretender" (see also Phils post on this thread). Wynton has also been
critical of him and has said "his playing lacks vitality" and "he can't
swing" (there's a new criticism). I wrote that I found this ironic since
the series uses racial overtones (both subtle and overt) as it's
underlying theme and it could be interpreted, based on Crouchs comments,
that his feelings may go beyond musical criticism and that may have been
a factor in the decision to ignore Evans (w/o Burns realizing it). Call
his playing what you will (he has more than his share of critics) but "a
punk"? I knew the man and he could hardly be described as "a punk". My
statements caused quite the lively thread on the race issue and I
believe my comments were misinterpreted (it was intended to be a
commentary on the bizarre contensiousness of Crouch towards Bill Evans,
not a charge of racism towards "Jazz"). So, the barbed reply to my
Jarrett post pointed out that my observation was shot down by the fact
that the film delved into the racial issue of Evans' being white (and
the flack it caused) in Miles's all black band and the irony of this in
relation to my original point. My uncle had a long friendship w/ Nat
Hentoff and I believe the comments in this segment were his. So, again,
based on Crouch vehement feelings toward my uncle, I stand by my
opinions on the motives of Crouch/Marsalis on the Evans subject,
(regardless of the coverage thats been afforded to artists of both
races). I do find it interesting that the series is being promoted as a
metaphor for Democracy and Freedom. I was pleased to see the segment on
Ornette Coleman, both the criticism and the praise (and I am not a
Coleman fan). I would have rather seen a debate on my uncles merit (and
Powell's and Mingus's, etc.) than to have seen him (them) dismissed.
That sounds like a more "democratic" approach than "there was not enough
time" (but, as has been pointed out, ample time for NY skyline shots,
bombs exploding, and Louie having another smoke). Burns has said "if
there was anyone that WE felt had made a major contribution, we would
have included them". Enough said (and, yes, there are parts of the
series I have immensely enjoyed).
Oh, and the cat remarks are a reference to a joke I made about feeding
the cat and missing the brief segment on Bud Powell. I guess Thomas
doesn't appreciate my sense of humor, or he misconstrued my prior
statements, or, perhaps, he is not a Bill Evans fan, or all of the
above. Oh well. So, while I'm on a roll of standing by statements, I"ll
stand by the pompous ass stereotype one.
I hope this clarifies my previous post. And I won't accuse you of
"sneering" or the like b/c you missed you all my brilliant, humorous
(and unbiased) observations that precipitated this. :-).
Erin
Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
simo...@aol.com (Simon Weil)
Gremlin
bunch of things, including rhythm, harmony, swing feel, style, melody,
etc... You cant really prove if something is jazz, but Mozarts 21st
symphony maybe isnt...
Gremlin
George Lawrence
three categories of JAZZ. If you're looking at it from that standpoint,
early dixieland and traditional jazz dance music, the pop music of the
country up until the fifties, is what the documentary was about. The
bebop era was included as the last major innovation period of jazz
musicians. If you were to include the last thirty or forty years, you
would need another 8 or 9 episodes. :-)
Greg wrote:
>
> "George Lawrence" <drum...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A75DEDA...@home.com...
> > It was a document about the HISTORY of jazz, not the jazz artists
> > playing TODAY or the RECENT history of jazz
>
> I take it you mean documentary, not document.
>
> If so, then I would argue that given the relatively short period of time
> that jazz has been around - largely glossing over the past 40 years of it
> does exclude much of the history. I agree that it would be somewhat
> defendable not to include the immediate past (5 years or so, maybe) due to a
> lack of perspective or distance, but there was much produced during and
> since the 60s that has influenced many artists and shaped the music in
> dramatic ways.
>
> As someone in his forties, I sometimes like to think that anything that
> happened during my life doesn't qualify as "historical", but then I speak
> with my children and realize I'm wrong...
>
> Greg
--
George Lawrence, Nashville TN
Drumset artist, teacher, author
http://www.drumguru.com
"Just play dumb" - Jeff Porcaro
George Lawrence
(listen to the "Standards" album). I enjoy his playing more than his
opinions. I went to a "seminar" that he gave at Michigan State with a
pianist friend of mine. He never played the piano that was provided but
talked intead about why one shouldn't have expectations of musicians or
music. A good point, for the first ten minutes. After droning on for
about forty five minutes about "expectations" and why we shouldn't
expect him to play, the crowd slowly filtered out and the seminar ended
earlier than planned. The chairman of the department was bitterly
disappointed and I was told later that he asked Mr. Jarrett what his
expectations of being paid were. Of course this was the seventies, which
was the era of psycho babble.
--
Thomas F Brown
>In article <B69C85C5.279A%t...@pathwaynet.com>,
> "Tom W. Ferguson" <t...@pathwaynet.com> wrote:
>> Any chance of getting a moratorium on use of the word "innovators"
>for a
>> while? It does get to be a pain in the ass -- as if there are
>musicians out
>> there who go to work each night and "innovate."
>> Sometimes in this endless RMB liturgy about "innovators" vs. fossils,
>I even
>> read references to "improvising musicians" as if that were something
>> contemporary and sacred. I do believe you could go listen tonight to
>the
>> oldest fossil among us and hear improvisation. And jazz.
I've gradually arrived at the conclusion that the only really
innovative thing a musician can do is to develop a personal,
identifiable style, to the point where you hear one or two
notes and it couldn't possibly be anyone else playing it.
The novelty aspect of innovation is a red herring, and
mostly meaningless.
Thomas F Brown
Erin Evans <erin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Thomas,
> I thought you shunned the mundane medium known as television. And
>kudos to you for perpetuating the stereotype that the jazz community is
>comprised of mostly pompous asses. I hear the cat meowing.
Did Burns ever say anything about Evans other than that he
was white and that it was an issue? Because that's all I heard
and all I reported. If you read something else into my post,
blame your imagination. Reread my post, acknowledge that you
misunderstood, and then apologize for indulging in ad hominem
and bringing down the tone of the ng.
>Erin
>
>Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
>
>Group: rec.music.bluenote Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2001, 5:55am (PST+8) From:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown)
>In article <17800-3A...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Erin
>Evans <erin...@webtv.net> wrote:
>my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
>controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
>much as it does me and Evans' fans.
>Thomas sneered:
Erin Evans
Trust me, I have heard every ugly comment. I have also heard every
beautiful one (yours included). I think the series became interesting
when the real controversy in the direction of the music started (#8). I
wish Burns had stayed w/ it (although he did w/ Coltrane and O.
Coleman). If an artist is revered/despised than explore that rather than
deny their status and contribution. The pettiness of the Jazz world
obviously found its way into the series. But, perhaps thats just another
part of the "lifestyle".
Miles, in all his gruffness, was very attuned to my Uncles
sensitivities, both musically and personally. Her never said an unkind
word about him and, from what I know, would fiercely defend him to the
harshest of critics. Some attribute this to "Kind of Blue" guilt. I'd
like to think otherwise.
My father (Bills brother) was instrumental in integrating the Louisiana
public school system in the 60s. He achieved this through jazz, creating
racially mixed high school bands in the time of segregation.
Irrespective of the younger member's diatribes against my Uncle, the
Marsalis family holds my late father in high esteem.
I also noticed the intro of So What in the closing credits. Another
irony.
Thank you for your post.
Erin
Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
m...@philsmith.com (Phil Smith)
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> In message <B69C85C5.279A%t...@pathwaynet.com> - "Tom W.
> Ferguson" <t...@pathwaynet.com> writes:
> If jazz is about improvisation - and that's the best
> definition I've yet heard - then why can't you improvise on
> anything and have it be jazz? ...and I've heard some very
> good jazz improvisation on classical works.
Jazz improvisation is not only improvisation, it's improvisation in a
certain way (swing feeling).
Even Bach and those cats used to improvise, but they never had any swing
feeling.
Ulf
>
Erin Evans
I don't think I'm reading anything into this that isn't obvious. I did
once post that I thought that race may have been a factor in my uncles
exclusion due to Crouchs fervent contempt towards him. (nothing to do w/
Burns). This started quite a thread on race in jazz and in society in
which I was challenged by you. My statements were misinterpreted. You
asked me for my explanation on the "history of jazz". In the convoluted
way that threads seem to evolve, my original point was lost.
Then, lo and behold, the only reason Evans is covered is that he is
white. Kinda debunked my said preconceived notions which you promptly
reminded me of.
Whatever your intentions, your post came across as mocking. Considering
my comments on the race thread and others, my response to your post is
not so far fetched and hysterical (albeit, a bit snide). And based on
some other posts I've read here, I don't think I've tainted the tone of
this ng.
Erin
Re: Keith Jarrett bashes Burns/Wynton
Shar832
Miles. So What, the albumn marks this period.
Greg
If you were to include the last thirty or forty years, you
> would need another 8 or 9 episodes. :-)
>
but given the overall time allotted to the series - they could easily have
used a rough measure of one episode per decade... the key is in the
editing... on some of the early episodes, the repetition and pacing really
dragged.
I get the feeling that if Burns and his team were musicians - each of their
tunes would be 15 minutes long...
Greg
Andrew Smith
My first thought when reading the original post was, [re: Keith Jarret] what
an asshole.
I've modified it to respond to the previous (not George) poster's assertion.
Keith Jarret isn't ignorant but he is an asshole.
Mind you, I've never met Keith Jarret and he might be the nicest guy in the
world. But, to disparage a wonderful work that attempted to document such a
nebulous topic as a genre of music, or anything else for that matter, is
pretty lame. If he has a bone to pick, he should call the producer. If he
wants his name in the paper, he should get a gig or make his own
documentary.
a.
uli_...@my-deja.com
Well, I do think it's a pitty that sun ra or braxton or gayle or zorn
are left out in the series. But similarly I think it's pitiful how the
scribers treat musicians like Ornette & Rollins. "They innovated 1958,
now let's move to the next innovator"
crig...@aol.com
public of forums to present their revisionist view of jazz history. One
that doesn't resist commenting on the last 40 years as Burns
asserts, but instead comments strongly on the period in both form
and tone (ie: that jazz of the greatness of Armstrong and Ellington
was dead by 1970 with the art floundering until Wynton and his ilk
raised it from the dead later in the century). This disservice to the
truth of the art's last 30 years needs to be protested in the loudest
of voices in the most public way possible.
Bravo to Mr. Jarrett for being the first of our generation's great living
jazz artists for speaking out. I hope others follow in his footsteps,
as I'm sure many of Burn's singled-out jazz heroes would be doing
if they were still with us. For Burns to be sucked into Wynton's (and
Crouch's and others) extremely narrow view of jazz's potential for
enriching the world musically, spiritually and racially is a crime that
disgraces the memories of those he has tried to single out and
pay tribute to.
David Crigger
Andrew Smith
Revisionist? Have you ever thought that maybe it's just their personal view
of jazz history?
Either that or you've decided you, better than they, know jazz history.
> One
> that doesn't resist commenting on the last 40 years as Burns
> asserts, but instead comments strongly on the period in both form
> and tone (ie: that jazz of the greatness of Armstrong and Ellington
> was dead by 1970 with the art floundering until Wynton and his ilk
> raised it from the dead later in the century). This disservice to the
> truth of the art's last 30 years needs to be protested in the loudest
> of voices in the most public way possible.
You and Keith Jarrett can continue to bitch and moan or you and Keith Jarret
could fill in the blanks.
> Bravo to Mr. Jarrett for being the first of our generation's great living
> jazz artists for speaking out. I hope others follow in his footsteps,
> as I'm sure many of Burn's singled-out jazz heroes would be doing
> if they were still with us.
Here's my stance in a nutshell:
If Jarrett really had something to say, he would say it in explicit detail.
The fact that he hasn't or won't put forth the effort that Burns and
Marsalis have leads me to believe that he has nothing of substance to say.
All he did was criticize. He didn't offer anything more. To paraphrase
William Faulkner, every SOB with a $.34 stamp can do this.
> For Burns to be sucked into Wynton's (and
> Crouch's and others) extremely narrow view of jazz's potential for
> enriching the world musically, spiritually and racially is a crime that
> disgraces the memories of those he has tried to single out and
> pay tribute to.
Why are Burn's and Marsalis' view the extremely narrow ones? Couldn't I
just as easily categorize your views as so? (not that I intend to).
In my opinion, criticizing this work for what's missing is like critizing
the space shuttle for not having cup holders. It's a very good discussion
of the history of jazz. It's not the absolute, complete history and
presumably was never advertised as so. In a similar vein my world history
textbooks in the past never really discussed the effects of music (jazz in
particular?) on history. They too must be lacking.
That's all I'm going to say here. I think Jarrett was grandstanding in
making this claim, ESPECIALLY,in a letter to the editor type situation.
That's too bad but not unexpected. After all, being a great musician
(Marsalis included) doesn't necessarily line you up for a Pulitzer prize.
a.
George Lawrence
be very influential. It has already stirred up copntroversy in the music
world. Traditional jazz (Armstrong. duke, etc.) is no more dead than the
music of Bach or Beethoven. It will stand the test of time. Should it be
performed? Yes. Is it today's jazz? No. It is now classic historic jazz.
Compositions to be played and annotated just like The Romantic and
Impressionistic classical music. Will there be myopic roponents of it?
Yes, Just like there are bebop nuts now who can't see past Coltrane and
Miles Davis and Bird. I do agree that Burns was hornsowggled by Wynton
into presenting just the view of a man whose musical family spanned most
of jazz history. But would a Keith Jarrett have presented a more
accurate view of jazz from its beginnings to the post war period? No.
Just a different one, jaded by his personal view. A popular trumpet
player from New Orleans was more ppropriate, however jive he is, because
the public demands familiar mouthpieces. But jazz is many things now,
neither the swing of yesteryear nor the freer improvisations of today,
but all that and everything in between (yes, even including the Koz and
G. far-right commercial leech end of the spectrum). I think it is
important to remember that this film was not made for musicians or by a
musician. It was made by a film maker about the history of an American
subject. All history is revisionist. There is no such thing as accurate
history.
(two cents, please)
--
jmt
"Tom W. Ferguson" wrote:
>
> > it strikes me as ironic that he use the
> > embalmers and not the innovators to strike home
> > such an obviously clear point.
>
> Any chance of getting a moratorium on use of the word "innovators" for a
> while? It does get to be a pain in the ass -- as if there are musicians out
> there who go to work each night and "innovate."
>
> I confess to being one of the embalmers. Back in my youth some four decades
> ago, I would go listen to concerts featuring people as diverse as Ellington,
> Basie, Ella, Jimmy Smith, Kenny Burrell, Armstrong, the Australian Jazz
> Quintet, Oscar, Ramsey Lewis, Phineas Newborn, Sarah Vaughn, Stan Kenton,
> Woody Herman . . . many of the usual suspects. I doubt that even in RMB
> anyone would question that what I was listening to was jazz. But I don't
> think I've ever in my life been present to hear anyone "innovate."
>
> Sometimes in this endless RMB liturgy about "innovators" vs. fossils, I even
> read references to "improvising musicians" as if that were something
> contemporary and sacred. I do believe you could go listen tonight to the
> oldest fossil among us and hear improvisation. And jazz.
>
> How about you guys just start posting "innovation alerts"? As in, "Last
> night I heard Soandso do Suchandsuch, innovating Thusly."
>
> It would, among other things, make "an obviously clear point."
--
'the world is a bad joke; in very poor taste; created by the almighty on
a very bad day......i'm inclined to believe he had a hangover that
morning'
http://www.wworld.com/users/michael/
Rev. Poindexter
<drum...@home.com> wrote:
> It was a document about the HISTORY of jazz, not the jazz artists
> playing TODAY or the RECENT history of jazz, Rob, you stupid no playing
> asshole! :-) Just goes to show that you have a one track mind.
>
> Robert Schuh wrote:
> The
> > entire glossing over from 1960 to today is close to being criminal. It is
> > nice to see a person like Keith making these comments. Seeing that he is one
> > of THE most important Jazz artists playing today, his comments hold even
> > more importance.
It's simple economics. Burns spent approximately 2 episodes on each
decade. If he were to give the same attention to the last 40 years he'd
have had to do another 8 episodes.
The retail video package would be $395. Nobody would buy it.
The companion coffee table book would be 36lbs, have 3762 pages and
cost $150. Nobody would buy it.
Can you really fill up another 16 hours with a bunch of names most
people have never heard of? How spellbinding to a wide audience will a
45 minute explanation of Tom Harrel's schitzophrenia be? Current jazz
artists are still rehashing 60 year old tunes. Is that something of
historical significance?
The thing the purists all seem to be missing is that this is a package
for non-jazz enthusiasts. He's not preaching to the choir, he's trying
to gain new converts.
RP
Simon Weil
>
>Revisionist? Have you ever thought that maybe it's just their personal view
>of jazz history?
>
>Either that or you've decided you, better than they, know jazz history.
If Burns had presented his series as:
1) A personal view
and
2) A Jazz History up to 1960
Much of criticism would have little basis. But he doesn't. The series is
apparently meant for newbies. They know Burns' name. They know he is a famous
documentarian. They are going to believe that what he says is true. Period.
Burns does nothing to tell these people that his is only one view. He should
have done.
<snip>
>
>Why are Burn's and Marsalis' view the extremely narrow ones?
Because as far as Marsalis is concerned it ain't jazz if it ain't got blues and
swing (as defined by him). This leaves out fusion (of all sorts) and the
avant-garde (of all sorts). In Marsalis' mind The Art Ensemble of Chicago
aren't jazz, nor is Braxton, nor is Cecil Taylor, nor is Electric Miles, nor
are the World Saxophone Quartet, etc. etc.. He is a deeply conservative guy.
I have removed your name-calling.
Simon Weil
JAZZCATT
S.F.).
Seeing him live really changed my opinion of him.
He really could swing, hard.
Yeah, KB should have mentioned that he was one of the most influential
pianists of the last 50 years He really defined a style of Trio Playing.
In article <26198-3A...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> simo...@aol.com (Simon=A0Weil)
> Erin Evans wrote:
> <<>my feelings about his reaction to this, I have to believe that the
> controversial omission of my Uncle in the series, disturbs Jarrett as
> much as it does me and Evans' fans.>>
> She can then characterised the following from Tom Brown as a sneer:
> <<>I think I spotted Bill Evans in tonight's episode. Something about
> him
> being white. Then my cat caused a huge crash in the pantry by way of
> notifying me that the food bowl was empty, and I was distracted from
the
> rest of Evans's appearance, if there actually was anymore to it other
> than him being white. >>
> Erin went on to say:
> Thomas,
> =A0=A0I thought you shunned the mundane medium known as television.
Rev. Poindexter
<drum...@home.com> wrote:
> All history is revisionist. There is no such thing as accurate
> history.
Bravo!!!
RP
JaKe
>
> Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
This is a FRANK ZAPPA Quote!
<big ass snip>
Bill
I like listening to fossils playing a fossilized style as long as
they can create a fresh melody while doing so. I don't have much
interest in listening to fossilized styles on say, the Concord jazz
label where every chorus is composed of licks that fossilized long
ago and have been chopped up and sewn back together by Berklee
grads.
To my way of thinking an innovator does a combination of things that
are so powerful that other musicians feel they need to copy him,not
for commercial reasons, but because the musical conception is superior.
I suppose that innovators could be classified as unique stylists, but
their styles are extremes relative to what is going on around them.
You could argue for example, that Parker simply had a unique style,
augmented by a technique and harmonic sophistication that were greater
than that of most of his contemporaries. Stan Getz, on the other
hand, had a unique style in some respects (one that I love to listen to)
but what he really did was to perfect a way of playing that came
before him (or two ways of playing: Lester Young's and Parker's). You
could also argue that Parker himself was just Lester Young with a little
more technique and the ability to play tunes that are more sophisticated
harmonically (to my ears, Lester played a swing style of bop on tunes
with simpler chord progressions than Parker typically did). Best example
of the transition from Lester to bop is Parker's recording of Cherokee
done in 1940 with just the guitar to go along. But when the entire
package of Parker's bag is considered, the overall effect was that
of an "innovator", and I don't see anything wrong with the word.
--
Bill
Greg
"Rev. Poindexter" <poind...@subgenius.com> wrote in message
news:310120011314002801%>
It's simple economics. Burns spent approximately 2 episodes on each
> decade. If he were to give the same attention to the last 40 years he'd
> have had to do another 8 episodes.
> The retail video package would be $395. Nobody would buy it.
> The companion coffee table book would be 36lbs, have 3762 pages and
> cost $150. Nobody would buy it.
No, it's simply bad writing and editing - to claim that a 10 - part
documentary did not provide enough space to address close to half a century
of its namesake - Jazz - is just foolish.
The only economic component might be that recent footage of living artists
would very likely be more expensive than stills from public archives, and
public domain music, etc....
>Current jazz artists are still rehashing 60 year old tunes. Is that
something of
> historical significance?
The artists who are rehashing 60 year old tunes could be neglected for the
ones who aren't. It seems that the producers have decided that anyone who
isn't rehashing the past isn't playing jazz...
> The thing the purists all seem to be missing is that this is a package
> for non-jazz enthusiasts.
Yeah right, non-enthusiasts are going to buy expensive books, DVDs, etc. -
and spend 10 nights/20 hours in front of Public Broadcast TV watching a
series about a subject they aren't interested in? I don't think so. Everyone
I know that has been watching had at least some interest in the music to
start with.
>He's not preaching to the choir, he's trying
> to gain new converts.
Well, it could certainly be argued that Burns himself is a new convert...
don't forget he had his editorial "vision" of the series before he even
started to research the project. He knew what he wanted to say before he
knew the history.... yikes!
It is pretty clear that he has bought into the philosophy of his advisors -
he didn't have much choice in buying into someone else's philosophy - since
he didn't have one of his own.
This makes it very difficult for him to be objective - it had to complete
his great Trilogy on America - anything that didn't fit that vision gets
left out. Also, it is far easier to have 3rd parties comment on the
motivations and thoughts of dead musicians than it is with actual living
ones who might take some offence with Burns' "experts'" opinions, comments
and agenda.
While he may have become very enthusiastic about jazz, he certainly does not
have much in the way of perspective on the subject (he claims to have owned
2 jazz albums 6 years ago).
Greg
Greg
"George Lawrence" <drum...@home.com> wrote in message
All history is revisionist. There is no such thing as accurate
> history.
>
But there is such a thing a bad film making....
Greg
Greg
"Greg" <abr...@nb.aibn.com> wrote in message
news:ttZd6.3818$TR6.1...@sodalite.nbnet.nb.ca...
and bad spelling....
Greg
Nils
"Rev. Poindexter" wrote:
>
> It's simple economics. Burns spent approximately 2 episodes on each
> decade. If he were to give the same attention to the last 40 years he'd
> have had to do another 8 episodes.
not at all. how about we compress things before
1960 and give all the parts of the history equal
time?
yes of course i's economics. gm gave burns money
to make the series and burns comps are making
cash at the register, no doubt.
crig...@aol.com
If you had gone on and actually read my next sentence before
commenting, you might see that my concern regarding this series
is quite specific. And I might add; a little subtler than the "I'm right,
their wrong" argument you seem to think I'm making.
>
> > One
> > that doesn't resist commenting on the last 40 years as Burns
> > asserts, but instead comments strongly on the period in both
form
> > and tone (ie: that jazz of the greatness of Armstrong and
Ellington
> > was dead by 1970 with the art floundering until Wynton and his
ilk
> > raised it from the dead later in the century). This disservice to
the
> > truth of the art's last 30 years needs to be protested in the
loudest
> > of voices in the most public way possible.
>
> You and Keith Jarrett can continue to bitch and moan or you and
Keith Jarret
> could fill in the blanks.
I think you might a few more than the two of us expressing these
concerns.
>
> > Bravo to Mr. Jarrett for being the first of our generation's great
living
> > jazz artists for speaking out. I hope others follow in his
footsteps,
> > as I'm sure many of Burn's singled-out jazz heroes would be
doing
> > if they were still with us.
>
> Here's my stance in a nutshell:
> If Jarrett really had something to say, he would say it in explicit
detail.
Actually, one can really have something to say and still be concise.
> The fact that he hasn't or won't put forth the effort that Burns and
> Marsalis have leads me to believe that he has nothing of
substance to say.
The effort at what? Making a documentary? Where is it written that
only the person who actually works on a piece of art can critique it.
Nonsense. As far as putting forth the effort of knowing about and
contributing to jazz, you're surely not going to put forth the
arguement that Keith Jarrett has not earned the right to speak
(actually, it seems like you are).
>
> All he did was criticize. He didn't offer anything more. To
paraphrase
> William Faulkner, every SOB with a $.34 stamp can do this.
I'd argue that Keith Jarrett _is not_ every SOB. You and I maybe
but not Keith Jarrett.
>
> > For Burns to be sucked into Wynton's (and
> > Crouch's and others) extremely narrow view of jazz's potential
for
> > enriching the world musically, spiritually and racially is a crime
that
> > disgraces the memories of those he has tried to single out
and
> > pay tribute to.
>
> Why are Burn's and Marsalis' view the extremely narrow ones?
Couldn't I
> just as easily categorize your views as so? (not that I intend to).
No, because my views, unlike Burn's and Marsalis', are not
exclusionary. Reread some of posts before this to get a sense for
the amount of jazz history not just being ommitted, but worse -
discounted. Read the episode 10 synopsis on the PBS website
and tell me that this is a historian's statement as neutral to the
current history of the music - as Burns has repeatedly stated. No,
this is as I stated above - a blatant subjective statement
discounting all jazz from the time of Bitches Brew till the
emergence of Wynton as a solo artist. (The synopsis is at
www.pbs.org)
And I don't feel the future of the art, particularly all those threads
that connect many current artists with the artists of the late sixties
and early seventies is served by stating such a falsehood to the
millions of people who are going to see this and think it is factual.
>
> In my opinion, criticizing this work for what's missing is like
critizing
> the space shuttle for not having cup holders. It's a very good
discussion
> of the history of jazz. It's not the absolute, complete history and
> presumably was never advertised as so. In a similar vein my
world history
> textbooks in the past never really discussed the effects of music
(jazz in
> particular?) on history. They too must be lacking.
>
> That's all I'm going to say here. I think Jarrett was grandstanding
in
> making this claim, ESPECIALLY,in a letter to the editor type
situation.
Well seeing that he does not have PBS, General Motors, Starbucks
and god knows how many foundations backing him like Burns and
Marsalis do, where would you have him voice his views. Thank
god for letters to the editor - or do you think everything you read,
see and hear from the media is the truth.....or even accurate.
> That's too bad but not unexpected. After all, being a great
musician
> (Marsalis included) doesn't necessarily line you up for a Pulitzer
prize.
>
What??? Sorry, I don't get that one at all.
David Crigger
> a.
Greg
<crig...@aol.com> wrote in message news:959om5$sda$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>Read the episode 10 synopsis on the PBS website
> and tell me that this is a historian's statement as neutral to the
> current history of the music - as Burns has repeatedly stated. No,
> this is as I stated above - a blatant subjective statement
> discounting all jazz from the time of Bitches Brew till the
> emergence of Wynton as a solo artist. (The synopsis is at
> www.pbs.org)
you're right - the synopsis says it all... scary, isn't it?
Greg
Tom W. Ferguson
> I like listening to fossils playing a fossilized style as long as
> they can create a fresh melody while doing so.
I'll buy that, being a fan of melody -- both pre-set melodies and melodic
improvisation. I am also enough of a fossil to demand that music swing
before I think of it as jazz.
> I don't have much
> interest in listening to fossilized styles on say, the Concord jazz
> label where every chorus is composed of licks that fossilized long
> ago and have been chopped up and sewn back together by Berklee
> grads.
Understood.
> To my way of thinking an innovator does a combination of things that
> are so powerful that other musicians feel they need to copy him,not
> for commercial reasons, but because the musical conception is superior.
That's a pretty good working definition.
(snip)
> But when the entire
> package of Parker's bag is considered, the overall effect was that
> of an "innovator", and I don't see anything wrong with the word.
I don't see anything wrong with the word, either. I do see something wrong
with the way it is often thrown around here, in the fossils-vs.-innovators
dogma . . . as if any contemporary creative musician of some ability is "an
innovator," who is "out there every night 'innovating'." Playing in the
conventions (or anti-conventions) of the day does not rise to the level of
"innovating" in my book. Back in the fossililzed eras, damned few players
were innovators. And in many, if not most cases, the exact source of the
innovation is not something that can readily be determined.
BTW, I also liked the post from someone else who zeroed in on creation of a
highly individualized, recognizable sound as "innovation" -- even though it
shoots my definition in the ass. By that definition, jazz has had far more
innovators than even RMB could cram into a 10-part documentary. But creating
an individual sound has always struck me as lying at the heart of jazz
playing, and I suppose if something is truly unique then it must by
definition be "innovative." Doesn't answer my complaint, though, because
that kind of "innovation" can be found among players of any stripe, and any
era, as long as they are able to sit up and take nourishment.
Fabio Rojas
>Can you really fill up another 16 hours with a bunch of names most
>people have never heard of? How spellbinding to a wide audience will a
>45 minute explanation of Tom Harrel's schitzophrenia be? Current jazz
>artists are still rehashing 60 year old tunes. Is that something of
>historical significance?
1) Wynton seems to advocate the rehashing of old tunes - he doesn't
seem to give any credit to many living musicians.
2) It's perfectly ok to be commercially oriented, and cut a lot of stuff -
but I think he went too far. The biggest ommission, for ex, seems
to be Mingus. Is any jazz history really complete without a discussion
of Mingus?
3) Have you considered that living musicians are making interesting music
and that people might appreciate this? No need to go into Harrell's
medical problems, but the recent history of jazz is really incomplete
without a discussion of fusion, neo-conservative music and the explosion
of hybrid/free jazz art forms (New YOrk downtown, AACM, etc),
I don't think that you need to be encyclopedic, but I think the last
episodes could have been done with a lot more care and in a way people
would like.
-fabio
David Gascon
Erin Evans wrote:
>
> Thomas,
(snip)
> Whatever your intentions, your post came across as mocking. Considering
> my comments on the race thread and others, my response to your post is
> not so far fetched and hysterical (albeit, a bit snide). And based on
> some other posts I've read here, I don't think I've tainted the tone of
> this ng.
> Erin
Right, but I had the impression he was mocking _Burns_.
crig...@aol.com
probably
> be very influential. It has already stirred up copntroversy in the
music
> world. Traditional jazz (Armstrong. duke, etc.) is no more dead
than the
> music of Bach or Beethoven. It will stand the test of time. Should
it be
> performed? Yes. Is it today's jazz? No. It is now classic historic
jazz.
> Compositions to be played and annotated just like The
Romantic and
> Impressionistic classical music.
And George, this is exactly what has so many present-day jazz
musicians concerned over this series. Do you have any idea how
little support (money, etc) for newly written classical music there is
in this country compared to the amount spent on performing and
re-performing the standard repretoire. It is almost. non-exsistant.
Classical music and musicians have over time allowed
themselves to become curators of a static art form. There is very
little respect paid for any music written past the 19th century - and
there certainly isn't going to be anymore authentic 19th century
music created so it is static - a museum exibition. Worthwhile,
certainly. But growing as an art form - certainly not.
Burns' Jazz (or Wynton's Jazz) paints an excellent argument for a
great American art form that needs to be similarly preserved. But
sadly, to really make its point stick, they deemed it necessary to
proclaim that real, true jazz (as defined by Wynton) died with the
1960's, leaving it to Wynton and his breathren to rediscover it ten
years ago and perserve it for us ala classical music - through
countless recreations, reinterpetations, etc...
Of course, (I hope) as most of us know, jazz didn't die with Bitches
Brew; jazz as an art form refuses to be put in such a confining box,
jazz wants to grow and live. And has...
It has grown beyond nation, race, rhythmic, harmonic and timbral
restraints (many of which the makers of Jazz truly don't want to
admit).
>Will there be myopic roponents of it?
> Yes, Just like there are bebop nuts now who can't see past
Coltrane and
> Miles Davis and Bird. I do agree that Burns was hornsowggled
by Wynton
> into presenting just the view of a man whose musical family
spanned most
> of jazz history. But would a Keith Jarrett have presented a more
> accurate view of jazz from its beginnings to the post war period?
No.
> Just a different one, jaded by his personal view.
I think this is about more than personal views. There are some
pretty serious agendas at work here. And these agendas are
more troubling because of the exposure this series is getting.
A popular trumpet
> player from New Orleans was more ppropriate, however jive he
is, because
> the public demands familiar mouthpieces. But jazz is many
things now,
> neither the swing of yesteryear nor the freer improvisations of
today,
> but all that and everything in between (yes, even including the
Koz and
> G. far-right commercial leech end of the spectrum). I think it is
> important to remember that this film was not made for
musicians or by a
> musician. It was made by a film maker about the history of an
American
> subject. All history is revisionist. There is no such thing as
accurate
> history.
All history is not revisionist. Certainly, it may not be accurate. But
my belief is that revisionism requires a desire to skew the
presentation of history in order to lend support to a more current
pursuit.
This would be the argument for not commenting on recent jazz
history, just because it is so hard to stay objective. If only Burns
had actually not commented on the last 30 years (like he claims
he's done) my complaints about the series would have been
minor, personal and not worth wasting time expressing them to
others. But he didn't.
Which is really too bad, because the art form could certainly have
used the exposure afforded this series. But not, I'm afraid, at the
risk of furthering Wynton's goal of turning jazz into a museum piece
with himself as the chief curator.
David Crigger
Tom Walls
>
>Bill wrote:
>
>> I like listening to fossils playing a fossilized style as long as
>> they can create a fresh melody while doing so.
>
>I'll buy that, being a fan of melody -- both pre-set melodies and melodic
>improvisation. I am also enough of a fossil to demand that music swing
>before I think of it as jazz.
Does this apply to the early music -- commonly reffered to as jazz -- that
predates the innovations of Louis Armstrong? Not really trying to play
"gotcha", I'm genuinely curious how someone who has taken your position
regards this dilemma.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
____________________________________________________________________
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Andy Evans
artists, artistically in a different league from Marsalis, who is worth
listening to. Like Hubbard, he's a bit of a speech maker on stand - I sat
through a long speech in Belgium in the 70s on the last gig he did with his
then trio of Motian/Haden about the economics of holding together a group
etc etc. But if anybody can talk for the last 40 years of jazz he can. He's
seen some changes and I respect his point of view.
--
Andy Evans: an...@artsandmedia.com
Visit our website: http://www.artsandmedia.com
Robert Schuh <rsc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A75AE1D...@yahoo.com...
> JaKe wrote:
>
> > The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
> >
> > 40 Years Missing
> > To the Editor:
> >
> > Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> > we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> > jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> > sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> > (for
> > now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where
> > every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
> > weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
> > people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing
> > to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
> > American
> > treasures?
> >
> > KEITH JARRETT
> > New York
>
> I think Keith nailed it perfectly. I have contended from day one that
> Wynton's presence here has been a HUGE deterrence to real information. The
> entire glossing over from 1960 to today is close to being criminal. It is
> nice to see a person like Keith making these comments. Seeing that he is
one
> of THE most important Jazz artists playing today, his comments hold even
> more importance.
>
>
> --
> Robert Schuh
> "Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
> intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
> the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
> the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> "The meek shall inherit nothing" - Zappa
>
>
Andy Evans
to grow and live. And has... It has grown beyond nation, race, rhythmic,
harmonic and timbral restraints (many of which the makers of Jazz truly
don't want to admit).>
Yep - and so is classical music growing. The 20th century was a fantastic
one in classical music - Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostokovich, Prokofiev, Falla,
Scriabin, Britten, Messiaen, Takamitsu, etc etc. You can't stop progress.
Draw a line in the sand and the tide comes in and covers it.....
King Canute was right - not even a king can stop the waves. And Marsalis is
no king.
George Lawrence
it would still be a very well made and entertaining film.
--
Gremlin
>No, it's simply bad writing and editing - to claim that a 10 - part
>documentary did not provide enough space to address close to half a century
>of its namesake - Jazz - is just foolish.
Amen brother. 19 hours is enough to address a century of history, if
done correctly.
Thomas F Brown
Well, so what? That's a trivial truism. There may be no such thing
as perfectly accurate history, but some histories are certainly
more accurate than others. The impossibility of perfection does
not excuse incompetency.
Bill
"Tom W. Ferguson" <t...@pathwaynet.com> wrote:
> I don't see anything wrong with the word, either. I do see something
wrong
> with the way it is often thrown around here, in the
fossils-vs.-innovators
> dogma . . . as if any contemporary creative musician of some ability
is "an
> innovator," who is "out there every night 'innovating'." Playing in
the
> conventions (or anti-conventions) of the day does not rise to the
level of
> "innovating" in my book.
Yes, we agree here. I thought you were defending the old but
it appears that you were attacking the "young rebel noisemakers"
people who want to think of themselves as musical artists but
can't really play.
>Back in the fossililzed eras, damned few players
> were innovators. And in many, if not most cases, the exact source of
the
> innovation is not something that can readily be determined.
>
> BTW, I also liked the post from someone else who zeroed in on creation
of a
> highly individualized, recognizable sound as "innovation" -- even
though it
> shoots my definition in the ass. By that definition, jazz has had far
more
> innovators than even RMB could cram into a 10-part documentary. But
creating
> an individual sound has always struck me as lying at the heart of jazz
> playing, and I suppose if something is truly unique then it must by
> definition be "innovative." Doesn't answer my complaint, though,
because
> that kind of "innovation" can be found among players of any stripe,
and any
> era, as long as they are able to sit up and take nourishment.
Right, a unique sound is a big part of it.
crig...@aol.com
that I'm saying. And as a professional jazz musician of 30 year+ I
can tell you the struggle has been hard enough.
Just as it has been been for the modern supporter/creator of
contemporary classical music. I see how little is programmed of
the composers you list above. But remember, those _are_ the big
names and most are from the first third of the 20th century; heaven
help the contemporary classical composer born in 1966 (who
would now be the age that Mozart was when he died). Now there
is a struggle.
As an example of what I'm talking about: I thought we had put the
bulk of arguement over whether "free jazz" should be considered
jazz behind us long ago. In the early 60's, Bernstein, for his
"Young People's Concert" series premiered a piece by Gunther
Schuller featuring Eric Dolphy, Benny Golson, Don Ellis and other
"third-stream" players on show with the NY Phil as an example of
what was currently possible by "fusing" modern jazz with classical
music. And this was on national TV in 1964!! For children!!! And
Wynton and Burns feel the need now 37 years later to re-adress
the question as to whether "free jazz" is really jazz or not?
This is not a battle I look forward to fighting again - not at a
national level. Or whether "fusion" is really jazz. Or whether jazz can
be played on electric instruments. Or whether jazz has to be in 4/4.
And on and on. At various points in time, these arguments have
been serious impediments to the exposure of new music. And this
series' raising of these and other issues, directly or indirectly, is
going to seriously effect concert opportunities, grant money,
university positions, etc. In other words, a lot of the practical path
to building a career based on creating new jazz music has now
been strewn with new pot holes as a result of this series.
Nils
to put it another way, there is most definitely such
a thing as inaccurate history (ie. factually wrong).
but the word you were looking for is perhaps
"objective." and here we can all agree that history
always represents a perspective. no way of getting
around that.
what most of the people complaining about burns's
version of history (the marsalis/crouch perspective)
is that it represents an exclusionary bias. certain
people or events do not qualify on the basis of
their race or musical content. burns (and his
creative advisers) draw the lines very narrowly,
compared to other jazz scholars. that point is
quite clear, whether or not you agree with it.
n
Lyle Caldwell
known then what I know now...
You guys woulda bailed me out, right? Right? Um, guys?....
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
<crig...@aol.com> wrote in message news:95akvg$m0p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Myron Bennett
>Jerry Prather skrev ...
>> In message <B69C85C5.279A%t...@pathwaynet.com> - "Tom W.
>> Ferguson" <t...@pathwaynet.com> writes:
>> If jazz is about improvisation - and that's the best
>> definition I've yet heard - then why can't you improvise on
>> anything and have it be jazz? ...and I've heard some very
>> good jazz improvisation on classical works.
>
>Jazz improvisation is not only improvisation, it's improvisation in a
>certain way (swing feeling).
>
>Even Bach and those cats used to improvise, but they never had any swing
>feeling.
>
>Ulf
Actually, most musicologists really familiar with the Baroque era will
tell you that they used uneven eighths with great regularity. Sounds
a bit like swing to me.
--
Myron Bennett mcbe...@fuse.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
<poind...@subgenius.com> wrote:
>It's simple economics. Burns spent approximately 2 episodes on each
>decade. If he were to give the same attention to the last 40 years he'd
>have had to do another 8 episodes.
>Can you really fill up another 16 hours with a bunch of names most
>people have never heard of?
Of course, this is not the only alternative. He could have spent
*less* than 2 episodes on some of the previous decades (or less than 3
episodes on the 30s). You don't say "I'm going to spend 2 episodes on
each decade -- oops, I guess I'll have to stop 40 years short!" It
makes more sense to say "Gee, I've got 10 episodes to cover
approximately 100 years -- how about one episode per decade?" And if
you're going to compress something, it makes more sense to compress
the first 20 years, for which there is almost nothing in the way of
recordings or video footage, than the last 40 (actually, he did both,
but the latter is unjustified).
As for people they've never heard of, the target audience you describe
below hasn't heard of *any* of these people, except maybe Louis
Armstrong and a few others. They're no more likely to have heard of
Buddy Bolden or Chick Webb or Bud Powell than someone from the last 40
years.
> ... Current jazz
>artists are still rehashing 60 year old tunes. Is that something of
>historical significance?
Some current jazz artists are doing this -- like, gee, the very ones
that the series claims are "saving" jazz. They ignored most of the
people who are currently creating original music. When they did
mention any of these people (Cecil Taylor, the Art Ensemble), they
gave the impression that their music was a dead end. But these people
do exist, and yes, I think they're of historical significance.
>The thing the purists all seem to be missing is that this is a package
>for non-jazz enthusiasts. He's not preaching to the choir, he's trying
>to gain new converts.
New converts to what? The music of dead people who can no longer
derive any benefit from its popularity? Why not convert them to the
music that's being played today, that they can actually go out and see
and hear being played?
Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy the series. I enjoyed it
immensely. But it's certainly not beyond criticism. And it certainly
didn't do justice to contemporary jazz.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Rev. Poindexter
<abr...@nb.aibn.com> wrote:
> "Rev. Poindexter" <poind...@subgenius.com> wrote in message
> news:310120011314002801%>
>
> It's simple economics. Burns spent approximately 2 episodes on each
> > decade. If he were to give the same attention to the last 40 years he'd
> > have had to do another 8 episodes.
> > The retail video package would be $395. Nobody would buy it.
> > The companion coffee table book would be 36lbs, have 3762 pages and
> > cost $150. Nobody would buy it.
>
> No, it's simply bad writing and editing - to claim that a 10 - part
> documentary did not provide enough space to address close to half a century
> of its namesake - Jazz - is just foolish.
I was being facetious.
However, in order to fill the wishes of every purist he'd have to
devote approximately 10-minutes to each artist. Is that sufficient time
to play more than 10 bars of a "landmark" tune they did and give the
names of their heroin connections? It would be a semi-complete listing
of every schmuck who ever transcribed to a Bird solo but not much else.
It's not MEANT to be an encyclopedia.
Methinks hardcores are pissed somebody had the audacity to even attempt
to catalogue the "art" and target it toward the undeserving masses who
don't get it anyway.
RP
Rev. Poindexter
You people sound like the bunch that were stranded in the Sahara for 3
weeks with no food or water but then stumbled upon a filled and chilled
beer truck - and then refused to drink because it wasn't the right
brand of beer.
RP
In article <3a78e626...@news.tds.net>, Dennis J. Kosterman
Robert Schuh
> In article <3A757B47...@yahoo.com>,
> JaKe <jkdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
> >
> > 40 Years Missing
> > To the Editor:
> >
> > Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> > we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> > jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> > sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> > (for
> > now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration (where
> > every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
> > weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
> > people who actually know and understand the music itself and are willing
> > to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
> > American
> > treasures?
> >
> > KEITH JARRETT
> > New York
> >
>
> Keith Jarrett is an obviously an ignorant asshole. This is a fabulous
> series.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Butch Gibson. You are not worthy to even look at Jarrett's cock, let alone
suck it!
Robert Schuh
> "George Lawrence" <drum...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A77B07C...@home.com...
> >
> > gibs...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3A757B47...@yahoo.com>,
> > > JaKe <jkdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The NY Times printed a letter written by Keith Jarrett:
> > > >
> > > > 40 Years Missing
> > > > To the Editor:
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Ken Burns's (or is it Wynton Marsalis's?) "Jazz": Now that
> > > > we've been put through the socioeconomic racial forensics of a
> > > > jazz-illiterate historian and a self- imposed jazz expert prone to
> > > > sophomoric generalizations and ultraconservative politically correct
> > > > (for
> > > > now) utterances, not to mention a terribly heavy-handed narration
> (where
> > > > every detail takes on the importance of major revelation) and
> > > > weepy-eyed nostalgic reveries, can we have some films about jazz by
> > > > people who actually know and understand the music itself and are
> willing
> > > > to deal comprehensively with the last 40 years of this richest of
> > > > American
> > > > treasures?
> > > >
> > > > KEITH JARRETT
> > > > New York
> > > >
> > >
> > > Keith Jarrett is an obviously an ignorant asshole. This is a fabulous
> > > series.
> > >
> > Kieth Jarrett isn't an ignorant asshole. He's actually a genius pianist
> > (listen to the "Standards" album). I enjoy his playing more than his
> > opinions. I went to a "seminar" that he gave at Michigan State with a
> > pianist friend of mine. He never played the piano that was provided but
> > talked intead about why one shouldn't have expectations of musicians or
> > music. A good point, for the first ten minutes. After droning on for
> > about forty five minutes about "expectations" and why we shouldn't
> > expect him to play, the crowd slowly filtered out and the seminar ended
> > earlier than planned. The chairman of the department was bitterly
> > disappointed and I was told later that he asked Mr. Jarrett what his
> > expectations of being paid were. Of course this was the seventies, which
> > was the era of psycho babble.
>
> My first thought when reading the original post was, [re: Keith Jarret] what
> an asshole.
>
> I've modified it to respond to the previous (not George) poster's assertion.
> Keith Jarret isn't ignorant but he is an asshole.
>
> Mind you, I've never met Keith Jarret and he might be the nicest guy in the
> world. But, to disparage a wonderful work that attempted to document such a
> nebulous topic as a genre of music, or anything else for that matter, is
> pretty lame. If he has a bone to pick, he should call the producer. If he
> wants his name in the paper, he should get a gig or make his own
> documentary.
>
> a.
Andrew,
You are fucking joker. Jarrett was correct in slamming this thing. 10 episodes
of Wynton's smug pie hole and Louis Armstrong dick sucking does not make art.
Jarrett is one of THE most vital Jazz artists today. Burns did EVERY Jazz
musician a disservice by so poorly visiting the 60's on. He ought to be ashamed
of his little Dutch boy hair self!! He REALLY needs to see a decent barber! :-)
He looks like Little Lord Fontorloy with a 12" vibrator up his ass!
Robert Schuh
> In article <9595en$pj0$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> I'm sorry but I disagree. Wynton and Burns are using the most
> public of forums to present their revisionist view of jazz history. One
> that doesn't resist commenting on the last 40 years as Burns
> asserts, but instead comments strongly on the period in both form
> and tone (ie: that jazz of the greatness of Armstrong and Ellington
> was dead by 1970 with the art floundering until Wynton and his ilk
> raised it from the dead later in the century). This disservice to the
> truth of the art's last 30 years needs to be protested in the loudest
> of voices in the most public way possible.
>
> Bravo to Mr. Jarrett for being the first of our generation's great living
> jazz artists for speaking out. I hope others follow in his footsteps,
> as I'm sure many of Burn's singled-out jazz heroes would be doing
> if they were still with us. For Burns to be sucked into Wynton's (and
> Crouch's and others) extremely narrow view of jazz's potential for
> enriching the world musically, spiritually and racially is a crime that
> disgraces the memories of those he has tried to single out and
> pay tribute to.
>
> David Crigger
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Nicely said David.
Top_Catt
Good thing our resident troll seems to be on sabbatical, or you'd be in
for it, for saying that. There was an earlier, Greek statement along
the same lines (Plato, I think): "You cannot step into the same river
twice."
Last year, I attended most of the concerts of the "American Mavericks"
festival presented by Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco
Symphony. This was all supposedly very "difficult" music, including
George Antheil's "Ballet Mecanique," scored for sixteen player pianos
and percussion. I was wondering, beforehand, whether the gamble would
pay off; would the series even sell any tickets to all but the most
hardcore avant-garde fans? Well, the hall was full for almost every
concert (not sold out, but close), and the audience was very
enthusiastic about practically everything they heard. The moral, I
think, is that it's not necessarily a good idea to "play down" to an
audience, or to underestimate people's adaptability and their openness
to new and unusual sounds. Jazz is no more of a "museum piece" than
classical music is, and it's not doing the music any favors to present
it that way.
T.C.
Richard Whitehouse
>> Butch Gibson. You are not worthy to even look at Jarrett's cock, let alone
>> suck it!
Oh, no, not you again.
Andy Evans
P-creativity: something new for the person, i.e. the person through
experimenting finds some new way of doing things
H-creativity: something new in history.
H-creativity starts as P-creativity for obvious reasons.
I think it's fair to say that many musicians aren't specially motivated to
constantly find P-creativity, since style interests them more. To achieve
H-creativity a musician would need to be not only motivated to innovate but
pretty special at it too.
--
Andy Evans: an...@artsandmedia.com
Visit our website: http://www.artsandmedia.com
Tom W. Ferguson <t...@pathwaynet.com> wrote in message
news:B69DD53A.2917%t...@pathwaynet.com...
Zapbailey
>to building a career based on creating new jazz music has now
>been strewn with new pot holes as a result of this series.
>
I now am left wondering if this series was intended to convince the record
buying public that no new music is being created, except at Lincoln Center, so
only buy records made by folks no longer around to ask for royalties.
Art
Hide my true feelings toward my online service to email me.
Andy Evans
There is no such thing as accurate history.>
Very true statement - all history is revisionist if we leave out the simple
stuff like dates. However, man is capable of high standards of analysis
given the right techniques. One is exactly what you refer to - judgement by
peers. Would a consensus of working jazz musicians skimp the last 40 years
of jazz? I think not.
Andy Evans
> the same lines (Plato, I think): "You cannot step into the same river
> twice."
It's that great guy Heraclitus, from whom regrettably little survives. He
also said "All is flow" - clearly a jazzer before his time.