keith jarrett's letter to the editor
lyle
to the nytimes blasting the ken burns docu?
thanks,
-lyle
Max Leggett
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
Tom Lippincott
>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
go, Keith!
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Jack A. Zucker
another example of why jazz will never be a mainstream music again. Folks
are so petty and jealous about the music that when something wonderful like
Ken Burns' documentary comes along, folks feel the need to pick it apart. Of
course it wasn't perfect but then again, neither is a single solitary jazz
performance. Instead of picking on Burns, why doesn't Keith use his own
resources to put together his own documentary. It's ironic because musically
Keith is my hero. His trio is one of the best examples of jazz interplay in
history. Yet, I can't help but feel that his differences with Wynton have
played some role in his rebuttal of Burns' documentary.
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010202023650...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Mark Kleinhaut
While avoiding the issue of whose side any of us take, let me challenge
your assertion that "It's another example of why jazz will never be a
mainstream music again. Folks are so petty and jealous about the
music...." I would counter that this sort of fighting, backbiting,
namecalling and granstanding is EXACTLY the thing that might expand the
jazz audience (for all the wrong reasons, of course). Look at how much
people enjoy the brawls at a hockey game, or what makes headlines on
the tabloids re: sex-drugs-rock'n'roll. Or how about the grandmaster
himself, Jerry Springer. People just love to watch gladiators and auto-
wrecks. It's absolutely sick.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kleinhaut
Follow URL's for info and soundclips about:
my debut album "Amphora"
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
my newest album "Secrets of Three"
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/SO3.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <TCye6.95538$lV5.2...@news2.giganews.com> :
>How can you guys be on Keith's side? This whole debacle saddens me. It's
>another example of why jazz will never be a mainstream music again. Folks
>are so petty and jealous about the music that when something wonderful like
>Ken Burns' documentary comes along, folks feel the need to pick it apart. Of
>course it wasn't perfect but then again, neither is a single solitary jazz
>performance. Instead of picking on Burns, why doesn't Keith use his own
>resources to put together his own documentary. It's ironic because musically
>Keith is my hero. His trio is one of the best examples of jazz interplay in
>history. Yet, I can't help but feel that his differences with Wynton have
>played some role in his rebuttal of Burns' documentary.
I'm glad to hear you say that Jack, and I totally agree. Burns'
made a mistake relying too much on Wynton to be sure, a mistake that
was due to a lack of any personal jazz history more than any kind of
agenda, IMO. Because of his jazz *greenness* I'm sure he was more
susceptible to Wynton's influence, Burns probably felt he needed a
jazz guide, and Wynton was clearly happy to fill that role. But
still, I really enjoyed the series for what it was. I saw some
things I already knew, and I learned a lot of things I didn't. Sure,
I agree with everyone about the omissions, but that doesn't take away
from the inclusions. Much of the criticism has been really vehement
and harsh and, it seems to me, driven by an *agenda* more than Burns'
film.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.onestopjazz.com/kvansant
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
http://www.onestopjazz.com
for a comprehensive index of internet jazz resources
Tom Walls
>
>How can you guys be on Keith's side? This whole debacle saddens me. It's
>another example of why jazz will never be a mainstream music again. Folks
>are so petty and jealous about the music that when something wonderful like
>Ken Burns' documentary comes along, folks feel the need to pick it apart. Of
>course it wasn't perfect but then again, neither is a single solitary jazz
>performance. Instead of picking on Burns, why doesn't Keith use his own
>resources to put together his own documentary. It's ironic because musically
>Keith is my hero. His trio is one of the best examples of jazz interplay in
>history. Yet, I can't help but feel that his differences with Wynton have
>played some role in his rebuttal of Burns' documentary.
>
>--
>Jack A. Zucker
>E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
>Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
>
I thought Keith was dead on. I watched the entire series and dug a lot of the
clips and music, but it was rife with misinformation and IMHO not even well
constructed. Although I think it has brought jazz some new exposure it could
have done a *far* better job. Why wouldn't the jazz community be upset by an
inaccurate, biased portrayal of its' history?
To ask Keith to make a better documentary because he didn't like "Ken Burns'
Jazz", is like asking Ken Burns to play better jazz because he doesn't like
Cecil Taylor. Utterly beside the point.
--
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!
Jack A. Zucker
news:95elnq$47j$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> To ask Keith to make a better documentary because he didn't like "Ken
Burns'
> Jazz", is like asking Ken Burns to play better jazz because he doesn't
like
> Cecil Taylor. Utterly beside the point.
No, it's like listening to Keith play and saying it's invalid because it's
not an accurate portrayal of the role of the jazz piano. Ken's documentary
is a performance. Take it for what it is and not for what it isn't.
I'd hate it when guys listen to someone play and complain because it doesn't
sound like Wes or Benson or Pass. Don't do the same to Burns.
--
-Jaz
Email: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Site: http://www.jackzucker.com
Jonathan Byrd
>
> While avoiding the issue of whose side any of us take, let me challenge
> your assertion that "It's another example of why jazz will never be a
> mainstream music again. Folks are so petty and jealous about the
> music...." I would counter that this sort of fighting, backbiting,
> namecalling and granstanding is EXACTLY the thing that might expand the
> jazz audience (for all the wrong reasons, of course). Look at how much
> people enjoy the brawls at a hockey game, or what makes headlines on
> the tabloids re: sex-drugs-rock'n'roll. Or how about the grandmaster
> himself, Jerry Springer. People just love to watch gladiators and auto-
> wrecks. It's absolutely sick.
I can see it now: A smackdown between Kenny G and Pat Metheny. A Sally
Jesse show on "GAS drove me to bankruptcy." Oprah helping guitar
players with self-esteem issues due to poor reading skills.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Jonathan Byrd
>
> How can you guys be on Keith's side? This whole debacle saddens me. It's
> another example of why jazz will never be a mainstream music again. Folks
> are so petty and jealous about the music that when something wonderful like
> Ken Burns' documentary comes along, folks feel the need to pick it apart.
A lot of people obviously strongly disagree with your assessment that
the series is wonderful. And many people have taken the time to justify
their opinions in clear language. It dismissive for you to say they are
all just jealous and petty.
> Of
> course it wasn't perfect but then again, neither is a single solitary jazz
> performance.
A lot of people cannot accept the "beggars can't be choosers" argument.
Just because there is currently no alternative history of jazz on film,
that's no reason why people must unquestioningly accept one they feel is
seriously flawed.
Also, the analogy between the series and a jazz performance is a poor
one. A jazz performance is a personal statement that cannot be assessed
in terms of accuracy or balance. A performance is a one-shot deal, with
no chance to go back and fix any problems that might have occurred.
That is not the case with a documentary that took years to make and
edit, and purports to provide an accurate and balanced description of
actual people and historical events.
Joe Finn
>
> I'm glad to hear you say that Jack, and I totally agree. Burns'
> made a mistake relying too much on Wynton to be sure, a mistake that
> was due to a lack of any personal jazz history more than any kind of
> agenda, IMO. Because of his jazz *greenness* I'm sure he was more
> susceptible to Wynton's influence, Burns probably felt he needed a
> jazz guide, and Wynton was clearly happy to fill that role. But
> still, I really enjoyed the series for what it was. I saw some
> things I already knew, and I learned a lot of things I didn't. Sure,
> I agree with everyone about the omissions, but that doesn't take away
> from the inclusions. Much of the criticism has been really vehement
> and harsh and, it seems to me, driven by an *agenda* more than Burns'
> film.
>
After the initial episode aired Burns and Wynton were interviewed on the Charlie
Rose Show. Burns revealed that it was Wynton who originally approached him with
the idea of a jazz documentary along the lines of the Civil War series. Wynton
was in on the ground floor on this project. During the interview it was also
clear that the two were not in accord on every issue. Editorially speaking Wynton
seemed to be more interested in the actual music presented [obviously] and Burns
seemed to concern himself with the socio-historic context and with other
philosophical points.
....joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Andy
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote in message
news:A8Be6.306162$IP1.10...@news1.giganews.com...
> "Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:95elnq$47j$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> > To ask Keith to make a better documentary because he didn't like "Ken
> Burns'
> > Jazz", is like asking Ken Burns to play better jazz because he doesn't
> like
> > Cecil Taylor. Utterly beside the point.
>
> No, it's like listening to Keith play and saying it's invalid because it's
> not an accurate portrayal of the role of the jazz piano. Ken's documentary
> is a performance. Take it for what it is and not for what it isn't.
>
> I'd hate it when guys listen to someone play and complain because it
doesn't
> sound like Wes or Benson or Pass. Don't do the same to Burns.
> --
but...I felt he got lost in the
form, missed the bridge and then.....clam city. There were lovely moments
throughout but he clearly
rushed the beat at the end. Hats off to him for trying, though.
Andy
Jeff Gower
> A lot of people obviously strongly disagree with your assessment that
> the series is wonderful. And many people have taken the time to justify
> their opinions in clear language. It dismissive for you to say they are
> all just jealous and petty.
I gotta agree with Jonathan. It takes a pretty damned poorly-executed
documentary to take one of my favorite passions (jazz) and make me nod off
several times and actually be glad when the whole thing was over. And I
don't consider myself to be a jazz purist, either - not at all. I just
think it was, overall, a poor production. Even within the framework of
the fact that it was a social history rather than a musicological study,
it STILL was very clumsy. Yes, there were some moments of brilliance, but
hell, how can you NOT present anything about Charlie Parker and have it
turn out brilliant? The guy oozed brilliance. Same with several other of
geniuses portrayed. That is what amazes me most - how a presentation
about such amazing specimens of humanity can actually be made boring as
hell. Now THAT takes work! Haha!
> A lot of people cannot accept the "beggars can't be choosers" argument.
> Just because there is currently no alternative history of jazz on film,
> that's no reason why people must unquestioningly accept one they feel is
> seriously flawed.
Exactly. Burns is not above criticism, nor is anyone else. If I were to
watch a documentary about the history of classical music, and Mozart and
Beethoven dominated the presentation to the extent that Armstrong and
Ellington did the Jazz series, and especially if the documentary excluded
20th century music, similar to the way the Jazz series excluded the most
recent 1/3 of its temporal history, I would be just as critical. Sure, we
take what we can get, but that does not preclude us from expecting more.
> Also, the analogy between the series and a jazz performance is a poor
> one. A jazz performance is a personal statement that cannot be assessed
> in terms of accuracy or balance. A performance is a one-shot deal, with
> no chance to go back and fix any problems that might have occurred.
> That is not the case with a documentary that took years to make and
> edit, and purports to provide an accurate and balanced description of
> actual people and historical events.
Yep. One would think this would be obvious, but apparently it needed to
be said. Right on, Jonathan.
Jeff
--
www.jeffgower.com
Tom Walls
says...
I hear what you're saying; nevertheless the inaccuracies and biases were
numerous and profound. And although I can see how the numerous threads on
this subject can seem oppressive, I think that watching the series was a
disturbing experience for many people who care about jazz, and the newsgroup
forum is one of the major places we go to share our thoughts on this subject.
Personally I've about run dry [accompanied by a large sigh of relief all
around, I'm sure :<)).
Jack A. Zucker
it and exposed so many folks to a biased, inaccurate view of the history of
jazz. We'd be much better off if Jarrett and everyone else just grumbled
about the lack of jazz exposure to the general public.
--
-Jaz
Email: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Site: http://www.jackzucker.com
"Jeff Gower" <jgo...@gator.net> wrote in message
news:jgower-0202...@209.251.155.90...
Joe Finn
>
> 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 have always loved Keith's music. He is a great and transcendent
musician and
he has put together some wonderful and legendary trios. He is one of my
all
time favorites.
Unfortunately, this is not the first sour, negativistic thing I've seen
in
print attributed to him. There have been remarks and interviews in
Downbeat
over the years where this attitude reveals itself. I recall going out to
hear
his trio once years ago in a club where he stopped the show refusing to
proceed
because it was too noisy. He was clearly perturbed and very nasty and
unhappy.
Maybe that's just the way he is. Personally I think it's too bad that he
feels
the need to publicly rip into something like this but there it is. I
had heard
that he was out of music for a quite a while suffering with chronic
fatigue
syndrome. I hope his health and his attitude recover fully because he is
something of a treasure. If jazz had a Mount Rushmore, Keith would be on
it.
As for me I can't see the point of all this Burns bashing. It's just too
easy
to take shots at this guy without saying anything constructive. It's all
over
the newsgroups. What's the point? ...joe
Mark Garvin
>As for me I can't see the point of all this Burns bashing. It's just
>too easy to take shots at this guy without saying anything
>constructive. It's all over the newsgroups. What's the point? ...joe
It's easy for jazz fans to find fault with the KB documentary.
Everyone's favorite musician was left out; Least favorite musician got
lots of screen time; Historic inaccuracies, etc. I was starting to
post a positive comment in another newsgroup and found myself typing:
"But I wish he had...", and then realized that I was on the verge
myself.
There's no pleasing everyone, but it's a shame to find just a handful
of positive comments on the jazz groups.
All in all, I found the documentary inspiring. Great footage that
I may not have seen otherwise. Probably a huge promotion to the
non-jazz-listening public. But I wish he had.... (Just kidding.
I'll stop there.)
MG
Keith Ganz
>
>-Jaz
Amen Jack. If more people understood that concept we would be relieved
of so much of the self-motivated art criticism that clogs the
internet.
Sure, it was a little disappointing to modern musicians that the last
40 years were in ultra fast forward and that a lot of people were left
out and that they got a little carried away with Armstrong but that
didn't stop me from racing home from my gigs every night to watch it
with my girlfriend (not a musician) who was as completely enthralled
with it as I.
We loved the history, the mythology, the romance, the characters, the
enthusiam, and especially the varying and converging perspectives from
musicians who were there, musicians who weren't, fans, critics, etc.
My girlfriend commented on how illuminating the commentary on how the
music works was especially in comparison to a jazz history class she
had taken in college.
Ken Burns' "Jazz" is a movie- nothing more. It presents the drama of
jazz from the perspective of a group of passionate, dedicated and
knowledgable devotees of a hugely expansive artform. I don't have an
ego about my personal knowledge of jazz history and which musicians
are the most important so I am not offended by the fact that Pat
Metheny, Keith Jarrett, Bill Evans, Joe Henderson or Chet Baker were
neglected.
Quite the contrary, I am grateful that a group of people put in the
effort to make a 19 hour film about our negelcted artform that aired
for free on PBS at 2 different times per night, which I found
informative, fascinating and fabulously entertaining.
Keith Ganz
_____________________________________________________
Sound clips and info at http://www.mindspring.com/~mushmouth
Jeff Gower
<j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> You guys are right. Burn's documentary was a waste of time.
No one said that. We just said that it wasn't above criticism, merely
because of its rarity. To accept the "take what you can get" attitude
without criticism in this matter is akin to being sufficiently thankful
for our local "smooth-fujazz" radio stations because "at least we get SOME
jazz" with them.
> Too bad he made
> it and exposed so many folks to a biased, inaccurate view of the history of
> jazz.
"Biased, inaccurate" presentation of history is NEVER a good thing. No
matter how many people are entertained or moved by it.
> We'd be much better off if Jarrett and everyone else just grumbled
> about the lack of jazz exposure to the general public.
I will agree with your point here, Jack - if the people of great
influence, power and means like Jarrett and others won't do it, who will?
I agree completely.
Best regards,
Jeff
--
www.jeffgower.com
Guitarboy1733324
Eastwood do it. Bird was a great film and he knows and loves jazz and makes
better films than Burns with one hand tied behind his back.
Jack A. Zucker
news:20010202153956...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Ugh. You've got to be kidding. Bird was a horrible film. Eastwood failed to
capture the spirit of Bird's music, instead concentrating on his human
frailties. Even as devoted a Charlie Parker fan as I am, I can barely watch
the film. It's boring and Eastwood's decision to remaster Bird's music with
a modern rhythm section overdubbing was worse than anything that Burns did.
MtthwMtchll
>>too easy to take shots at this guy without saying anything
>>constructive. It's all over the newsgroups. What's the point? ...joe
the point for me is that the ken burns series reflects on all of us jazz
musicians whether we like it or not - and i don't like being related to some of
the concepts and lies of omission in the show. Don't get me wrong - i was moved
to tears around 2-3 times an episode but, with a title like JAZZ, so much
should not have been left out.
This show has a lot of power in the world of jazz - in my town, there has been
lots of print, radio and TV coverage of it - one good thing is that local
musicians are getting coverd in the same media sort of as a sidebar to the
show. It is sad that it takes a documentary to get media coverage for the
locals, though.
I can't think of an event that has created a stir like this one in th jazz in
the past 10-20 years, which i think is good.
I just support a more inclusive view of jazz than wynton.
John Zorn has a much more inclusive view of jazz - he takes it ALL in which is
a better attitude in that: who wants to sit around dissing everything - that's
negative. It's so much more fun to sample everything.
Jonathan Byrd
>
> You guys are right. Burn's documentary was a waste of time. Too bad he made
> it and exposed so many folks to a biased, inaccurate view of the history of
> jazz. We'd be much better off if Jarrett and everyone else just grumbled
> about the lack of jazz exposure to the general public.
I think that's taking it a bit far (though I suspect that's just what
you intended to do). My opinion is that it was better than nothing at
all. There were one or two episodes I actually enjoyed. But it was not
nearly what it could have been, considering the compelling subject
matter, and the time and money that went into making it.
To see it from another perspective, consider the many wonderful books
that were made (often at great expense) into bad movies. Nobody says,
"At least somebody made the book into a movie. People who get exposed
to this bad movie might be motivated to read the wonderful book."
Instead, they rightfully criticize the movie for its faults, and wonder
how the finished product somehow ended up being worth much less than the
raw materials.
Dave
Joe Finn <ttc1...@taconic.net> wrote:
> Max Leggett wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 have always loved Keith's music. He is a great and transcendent
> musician and
> his trio once years ago in a club where he stopped the show refusing
> to proceed
> because it was too noisy. He was clearly perturbed and very nasty and
> unhappy.
> Maybe that's just the way he is.
I can verify that Keith could/can be like that. I saw him in the 70's
in Seattle, where he scolded the crowd for people coughing. I don't
remember for sure if he scolded before or after it occurred, but I'm
thinking before. He said something about how Seattle was always bad
for that.
I felt like coughing on purpose after that. That ended any chance for
reverence toward the guy from me.
--
Dave
Max Leggett
>capture the spirit of Bird's music, instead concentrating on his human
>frailties.
Got to agree with Jack on this. I only just bought a VCR, and the
first video I rented was Bird. Had to turn it off after 15 minuites.
Max
Bob Russell
>John Zorn has a much more inclusive view of jazz - he takes it ALL in which
>is
>a better attitude in that: who wants to sit around dissing everything -
>that's
>negative. It's so much more fun to sample everything.
Good words there. There's so much good music in all kinds of genres- even rap
has its good stuff. Why close yourself off to anything? If you accidentally
hear something you don't like, hey, it's just notes! It's not gonna kill you...
--Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Richard
> No, it's like listening to Keith play and saying it's invalid because it's
> not an accurate portrayal of the role of the jazz piano. Ken's documentary
> is a performance. Take it for what it is and not for what it isn't.
Alright, then. What is is, is a documentary. What it is, is preceived
by an uninformed audience as being a comprehensive and complete history
of jazz, produced by a highly regarded creator of such histories, and
conveyed by a highly regarded medium (PBS).
It wouldn't be so bad if the series alluded to a large body of music that
was simply beyond its scope. It wouldn't be so bad if Charlie Parker
wasn't misrepresented as a transcendent genius who was equally adept at--
what was it? Quantum mechanics?--as he was with the saxophone. Parker
was a low-life human cockroach, for Pete's sake. It wouldn't be so bad
if Miles Davis (another, albeit lesser, cockroach) was granted his
rightful place as being at least as important as Louis Armstrong.
Finally, it wouldn't be so bad if the guitar was granted mention as the
important, expressive instrument is jazz that it truly was and is.
Wynton couldn't mention it without mentioning electricity, though, and
he'd stick needles in his eyes before he'd do that.
Beep-bop-bidda-bidda-bop, my ass.
--
No one dies wishing they'd spent more time at the office.
This post simply contains some of my personal opinions.
ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
Bob Russell
>It wouldn't be so bad if Charlie Parker
>wasn't misrepresented as a transcendent genius who was equally adept at--
>what was it? Quantum mechanics?--as he was with the saxophone. Parker
>
>was a low-life human cockroach, for Pete's sake. It wouldn't be so bad
>
>if Miles Davis (another, albeit lesser, cockroach) was granted his
>rightful place as being at least as important as Louis Armstrong.
When you call Parker and Davis "human cockroaches", you're grossly
misrepresenting them yourself! Anybody who could produce "Donna Lee" or "Kind
of Blue" has to have beauty in his soul. I don't care if they were drug
addicts, petty thieves, not-generally-nice people or whatever, they were not
"human cockroaches" and they contributed a wealth of incredible music for the
enjoyment of humankind. What an incredibly insulting knee-jerk dismissive
statement!
When you read the writings of people who were actually working and living with
Parker and Davis, it's true that you'll find stories of assorted squalid deeds
they committed. You'll also just as often hear people speak of how inspiring it
was to see them create music.
Thank God they were alive!
--Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Mike Ellenberger
stated the audience this documentary was geared for was a jazz neophyte
like a grandmother. One of his objectives was to get their feet tapping
and promote some interest in the art. He stated up front it was not
directed at jazz aficionados. So take that into consideration.
I haven't had a chance to sit down and view each episode from start to
end but I have enjoyed what I've seen. Episode 10 was depressing.
The only thing that struck me as odd was having Wynton profiled
and also being an advisor. Possibly Wynton had no part in this.
Mike
--
Mike Ellenberger
Listen to some soundclips at
http://home.att.net/~grumpmeister/MikesJazzPage.html
Mike Ellenberger
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> It's boring and Eastwood's decision to remaster Bird's music with
> a modern rhythm section overdubbing was worse than anything that Burns did.
>
> --
>
> -Jaz
There was at least one tune I really enjoyed (with the overdub). I can't
explaing it but the power of Bird with a modern sounding recording was
breath taking when I heard it. In no way bad as far as I'm concerned.
Joe Finn
> There's no pleasing everyone, but it's a shame to find just a handful
> of positive comments on the jazz groups.
I saw things that I know to be less than 100% accurate... [and]
Some of my personal favorites were left out... [and]
Some of the social history seemed superfluous... [and]
Guess what? I loved it. I thought it was great. Enjoyed every minute of it!
There, now I feel much better. ......joe
Richard
> Richard huddler wrote:
> >It wouldn't be so bad if Charlie Parker
> >wasn't misrepresented as a transcendent genius who was equally adept at--
> >what was it? Quantum mechanics?--as he was with the saxophone. Parker
> >was a low-life human cockroach, for Pete's sake. It wouldn't be so bad
> >if Miles Davis (another, albeit lesser, cockroach) was granted his
> >rightful place as being at least as important as Louis Armstrong.
>
> When you call Parker and Davis "human cockroaches", you're grossly
> misrepresenting them yourself! Anybody who could produce "Donna Lee" or "Kind
> of Blue" has to have beauty in his soul. I don't care if they were drug
> addicts, petty thieves, not-generally-nice people or whatever, they were not
> "human cockroaches" and they contributed a wealth of incredible music for the
> enjoyment of humankind. What an incredibly insulting knee-jerk dismissive
> statement!
I don't need the lecture about what they contributed to music, thanks. I
admire their music greatly--particulary Miles Davis' music. I personally
believe he's the single most important figure in all jazz music after the
bop era, to this day. I love his sound like no other, save for John
Coltrane's soprano saxophone voice circa 1964.
I'm as glad they were alive as I am glad I didn't have to suffer their
existence personally: Very greatly glad.
I've been around genius before. I usually prefer to admire it from a
safe distance.
It's just my opinion. You don't have to like it.
Joey Goldstein
>
> j...@jackzucker.com says...
>
> > No, it's like listening to Keith play and saying it's invalid because it's
> > not an accurate portrayal of the role of the jazz piano. Ken's documentary
> > is a performance. Take it for what it is and not for what it isn't.
>
> Alright, then. What is is, is a documentary. What it is, is preceived
> by an uninformed audience as being a comprehensive and complete history
> of jazz, produced by a highly regarded creator of such histories, and
> conveyed by a highly regarded medium (PBS).
>
> It wouldn't be so bad if the series alluded to a large body of music that
> was simply beyond its scope. It wouldn't be so bad if Charlie Parker
> wasn't misrepresented as a transcendent genius who was equally adept at--
> what was it? Quantum mechanics?--as he was with the saxophone. Parker
> was a low-life human cockroach, for Pete's sake. It wouldn't be so bad
> if Miles Davis (another, albeit lesser, cockroach) was granted his
> rightful place as being at least as important as Louis Armstrong.
>
> Finally, it wouldn't be so bad if the guitar was granted mention as the
> important, expressive instrument is jazz that it truly was and is.
> Wynton couldn't mention it without mentioning electricity, though, and
> he'd stick needles in his eyes before he'd do that.
>
> Beep-bop-bidda-bidda-bop, my ass.
IMO Taken as a whole this film was simply a propaganda for the purpose
of Marsalis, Crouch and Murray pushing their agenda/philosophy of what
jazz is and its role in race relations on an unsuspecting public so that
layman everywhere will think that that what's what. And it isn't. Shame
on Ken Burns for allowing these people to weight his film so much
towards their ends.
It had some charming moments but the overall philosophy behind the film
is corrupt and only serves to dissmiss whole genres of serious music
that have every right to be included under the umbrella of the word
"jazz" and even great jazz.
In the short run it will boost record sales of old records. In the short
run some current performers who fit the sanctioned styles may find a bit
more work. But in the long run this film will make it harder for everybody.
A bullwork against "chaos", my ass. Democracy in music, bullshit. A
foreshadowing of the civil rights movement, to be sure, but that's not
what the music was for or about. And anyways similar relaxations of
racial barriers were going on simultaneously in all walks of American
life. That's what his baseball film was about wasn't it? Jazz is just
music. It is either played well or it isn't and anybody who can play can
play whether Wynton likes it or not. They should have talked much more
about the process of jazz and what makes it so special compared all
other forms of pre-composed music.
That list of the "who's who" of people playing great jazz today was
especially gauling. Why did they show Cassandra Wilson singing a funk
tune when they had just spent 2 hours dissing everbody who plays funk?
Who was that woman with the electric violin and the electric bass
player? Why is she the representative of great new electric jazz when
John Scofield and Bill Frissell and Pat Metheny exist? What utter
bullshit. Why is Nicholas Payton doing an imitation of Wynton doing
Louis important to jazz's future? What bullshit. James Carter? Give me a
f...... break.
If they really had stopped at 1955 like I had heard they were going to
then that little piéce de la resistance of the Marsalis/Crouch agenda
would not have so effectively reared it's ugly head. If they had really
stopped at 1955 we could all make up our OWN minds about what's worth
listening to now.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://webhome.idirect.com/~joegold
Email: <joegold AT idirect DOT com>
Joey Goldstein
>
> The only thing that struck me as odd was having Wynton profiled
> and also being an advisor. Possibly Wynton had no part in this.
Not bloody likely.
Bob Russell
>It's just my opinion. You don't have to like it.
I didn't. That was my opinion. I'm done.
--Bob Russell
http://www.uncwil.edu/people/russellr
Joe Finn
> Mike Ellenberger wrote:
> >
>
> > The only thing that struck me as odd was having Wynton profiled
> > and also being an advisor. Possibly Wynton had no part in this.
>
> Not bloody likely.
>
Wynton Marsalis had everything to do with this documentary from it's
very inception. ....joe
Tom Lippincott
>another example of why jazz will never be a mainstream music again. Folks
>are so petty and jealous about the music that when something wonderful like
>Ken Burns' documentary comes along, folks feel the need to pick it apart. Of
>course it wasn't perfect but then again, neither is a single solitary jazz
>performance. Instead of picking on Burns, why doesn't Keith use his own
>resources to put together his own documentary. It's ironic because musically
>Keith is my hero. His trio is one of the best examples of jazz interplay in
>history. Yet, I can't help but feel that his differences with Wynton have
>played some role in his rebuttal of Burns' documentary.
>
>--
>Jack A. Zucker
for the record, my "go Keith" was meant somewhat tongue in cheek; it's no
secret to most jazz fans that Jarrett is bit of a petulant whiner (though he's
certainly one of my all time favorite musicians). On the other hand, I
certainly don't think his criticisms are unfounded. When the first few
documentaries started being shown, some of my friends and some of the folks
here on the newsgroup were grumbling about the shoddy coverage, and the fact
that the last 40 years of jazz history were being covered in only one episode
of 10. I read an interview with Burns where he said that he only was going up
to 1974, with the idea of leaving off the last 25 years due to lack of
historical perspective, and I thought everyone that was complaining was being
way too sensitive. I was pretty disappointed at the some of the omissions, but
I figured like I said before that at least there is a documentary about jazz on
network TV. Then, I saw the last episode, and thought the whole thing was
pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways, and so much for leaving off at 1974. Sorry
if my joining in the venting pissed off Jack or anyone else.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
Joe Finn
>
> for the record, my "go Keith" was meant somewhat tongue in cheek; it's no
> secret to most jazz fans that Jarrett is bit of a petulant whiner (though he's
> certainly one of my all time favorite musicians).
Keith is a complicated and passionate artist. I love him so much. To me his
negativity and over the top pronouncements are inexplicable. His music is
fantastic. ....joe
Jack A. Zucker
news:3A7B90F3...@taconic.net...
> Mark Garvin wrote:
>
> > There's no pleasing everyone, but it's a shame to find just a handful
> > of positive comments on the jazz groups.
>
> I saw things that I know to be less than 100% accurate... [and]
> Some of my personal favorites were left out...
[and]
> Some of the social history seemed superfluous... [and]
>
> Guess what? I loved it. I thought it was great. Enjoyed every minute of
it!
Here, here. It's like hearing a jazz performance. It doesn't have to be
Trane, Miles or Keith to enjoy it.
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
Thomas Stubbs
or editor to help him... his point had at least some merit as
his own personal opinion, but it wasn't very well expressed,
and probably not well received.
The series had a lot of good points, but of course was limited.
The title "Jazz", kind of implies it covers the subject in total.
A subtitle would have been appropriate to limit the scope of
the series, but it would detract from the title's dramatic sound.
Daniel Rheault
I had watched the civil war (even though I am canadian)
and watched it a second time when it was translated in french and shown in
Québec.
I even taped the whole Baseball serie (even though I cannot watch a whole
game on tv...)
I enjoyed immensly the first 9 episodes,
but No 10, like I have read,
was covering too many years,
leaving out many important musicians
and taking arguable stands on jazz.
I felt very unconfortable watching it...
I saw Cecil Taylor in concert (way back in 1977 or 78)
I recall being hit by a brick wall on that night:
I had rarely been hearing that many notes, without any "breathing" before
that...
SteveL
wrote:
<snip>
> I recall going out to
>hear
>his trio once years ago in a club where he stopped the show refusing to
>proceed
>because it was too noisy. He was clearly perturbed and very nasty and
>unhappy.
Same here. I saw him once in a concert hall and he stopped his solo
concert dead for about 5 minutes because someone took a (non-flash)
picture of him and he was disturbed by the click. I'm serious!
After berating and humiliating this guy for about two minutes he sat
down and started to play again. After a couple of bars he stopped and
weighed into the poor guy again.
After that I was afraid to unzip my jacket.....
SteveL
viewpoint.
He is on record many times bemoaning the "electrification" of jazz,
and taking (at least superficially) a similar view to Burns, Marsalis
etc al.
Dick Schneiders
>concert dead for about 5 minutes because someone took a (non-flash)
>picture of him and he was disturbed by the click. I'm serious!
>
>After berating and humiliating this guy for about two minutes he sat
>down and started to play again. After a couple of bars he stopped and
>weighed into the poor guy again.
>
>After that I was afraid to unzip my jacket.....
The only time I saw him there was sombody that kept groaning and grunting with
the music. It was terribly distracting and I was certain that Keith would stop
and call the jerk on it. He never did and acted as if he couldn't hear it.
It is interesting that the same person seems to be on most of Keith's solo
recordings.
Dick Schneiders
Jack A. Zucker
news:xOdf6.316209$IP1.10...@news1.giganews.com...
He and Wynton have gotton into some public shouting matches through letters
to the NY Times. Apparently they are not on the best of terms which might
explain some of the animosity.
Jaz
Jim Kangas
that I recall has ever attempted anything like this. I don't think
that he "tried to cover" that last 40 years in one episode. I really
thought that it might have been better if he had titled the series
something like "The Roots of Jazz", and called the last episode an
"Epilogue".
I'm hopeful that someone (maybe not Keith) will carry on and make a
documentary focussed on 1975-2000, or even better, focus totally on
the music itself. (By the way, I didn't notice that "jazz went away"
between 1965 and 1980).
-Jim
SteveL
wrote:
>
>The only time I saw him there was sombody that kept groaning and grunting with
>the music. It was terribly distracting and I was certain that Keith would stop
>and call the jerk on it. He never did and acted as if he couldn't hear it.
>
>It is interesting that the same person seems to be on most of Keith's solo
>recordings.
>
>Dick Schneiders
>
Yeah. Strange that. :-)
Pat Smith
I want to disagree with you, in all good humor. The Jazz series will
probably be the only thing of it's kind to ever happen. Name all the
documentary filmmakers with KB's clout. So, I feel that it really lacked
in many areas and got over done in others. I DID buy a DVD copy to
support the idea of Jazz film making...how many of you bought a copy?
Also a performance is a bit different that a 10 part
documentary...unless you count Keith's 70's solo outings..(little joke
hehe). Anyway, you can all send me nasty emails now telling me how you
can't afford to buy a copy.
Love to All
Pat
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> "Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:95elnq$47j$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> > To ask Keith to make a better documentary because he didn't like "Ken
> Burns'
> > Jazz", is like asking Ken Burns to play better jazz because he doesn't
> like
> > Cecil Taylor. Utterly beside the point.
>
> No, it's like listening to Keith play and saying it's invalid because it's
> not an accurate portrayal of the role of the jazz piano. Ken's documentary
> is a performance. Take it for what it is and not for what it isn't.
>
> I'd hate it when guys listen to someone play and complain because it doesn't
> sound like Wes or Benson or Pass. Don't do the same to Burns.
> --
>
> -Jaz
>
> Email: j...@jackzucker.com
> Jazz Guitar Site: http://www.jackzucker.com
Winston Castro
wrote:
>Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Mike Ellenberger wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > The only thing that struck me as odd was having Wynton profiled
>> > and also being an advisor. Possibly Wynton had no part in this.
>>
>> Not bloody likely.
>>
>
>Wynton Marsalis had everything to do with this documentary from it's
>very inception. ....joe
>
>
>
That's really the main problem and why it took such a myopic view.
They needed to present things from several people of divergent
opinions. A panal of sorts if you will, not Wynton or any other one
person calling the shots about what defines jazz.
The problem with that latter approach is you get "Wynton's History
Of Jazz" or "Insert name here_______'s History of Jazz".
PWatrous
>That's really the main problem and why it took such a myopic view.
>They needed to present things from several people of divergent
>opinions. A panal of sorts if you will, not Wynton or any other one
>person calling the shots about what defines jazz.
>
> The problem with that latter approach is you get "Wynton's History
>Of Jazz" or "Insert name here_______'s History of Jazz".
>
>
>
>
Not that I'm a big Burns defender, but that's what he did; there are very few
people in the world as anti-Wynton as Gary Giddins and John Lincoln Collier.
Burns could have been persuaded by their points of view, which I'm sure they
made clear, but wasn't. I get the impression that Burns sat back, listened to
everybody, then chose the points of veiw that convinced him the most. Wynton,
especially to people out of the jazz world, is amazingly persuasive, and really
charismatic, and perfect--from the point of somebody like Burns--for the job.
This isn't a challenge, but I'd be curious who one would field, if one were
Burns, that would be more adept and persuasive to the unwashed non-jazz
audience, than Wynton.
Peter Watrous
Jonathan Byrd
>
> Just for everyone's information, Burns came on after one episode and
> stated the audience this documentary was geared for was a jazz neophyte
> like a grandmother. One of his objectives was to get their feet tapping
> and promote some interest in the art. He stated up front it was not
> directed at jazz aficionados. So take that into consideration.
I understand that approach because I often teach to heterogeneous
audiences. But even if experienced people do not gain any new
knowledge, they shouldn't go away thinking I did the topic a
disservice. To put it another way, even if you're a neophyte who won't
know the difference, that still doesn't mean it's okay for me to feed
you inaccurate information. An experienced and conscientious person can
do justice to a topic at any level.
--
Jonathan Byrd Computer Software Engineering Technology
j...@isu.edu Idaho State University
(208) 282-4256 Pocatello, Idaho USA
Mike Ellenberger
on a spin (story) he wanted to give the whole thing. Call it Hollywood or
the third documentary effect. Thank God his Civil War series didn't air
around 1890! So he had his theme running through the presentation and
clips to support it and of course plenty gets left out and not all people
agree with his spin. I thought documentaries were supposed to be
objective? Again, I'm not a historian, however is the inaccurate information
truly inaccurate or is it a matter of opinion?
Mike
--
Daniel Rheault
> Not that I'm a big Burns defender, but that's what he did; there are very
few
> people in the world as anti-Wynton as Gary Giddins and John Lincoln
Collier.
> Burns could have been persuaded by their points of view, which I'm sure
they
> made clear, but wasn't. I get the impression that Burns sat back, listened
to
> everybody, then chose the points of veiw that convinced him the most.
Wynton,
> especially to people out of the jazz world, is amazingly persuasive, and
really
> charismatic, and perfect--from the point of somebody like Burns--for the
job.
> This isn't a challenge, but I'd be curious who one would field, if one
were
> Burns, that would be more adept and persuasive to the unwashed non-jazz
> audience, than Wynton.
> Peter Watrous
I agree.
I bought James Lincoln Collier's book, when it came out (1979)
I suppose there have been other editions since them. Right?
I was more interested in musical analysis such as Mark C. Gridley
provided in his book "Jazz styles" (Prentice-Hall)
Would anybody know if there are other good books that deal
with music rather history?
cl...@claymoore.com
<rheaul...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>I agree.
>I bought James Lincoln Collier's book, when it came out (1979)
>I suppose there have been other editions since them. Right?
>I was more interested in musical analysis such as Mark C. Gridley
>provided in his book "Jazz styles" (Prentice-Hall)
>Would anybody know if there are other good books that deal
>with music rather history?
I assume you mean that deal with music AND history perhaps? Frank
Tirro's "Jazz - a History" and Gunther Schuller's "Early Jazz" and
"The Swing Era" are all histories written by musicians, and contain
transcriptions and analysis of various musical elements.
Clay Moore --
jazz guitarist
cl...@claymoore.com
http://www.claymoore.com/
To find out where I'm performing each week, sign up on my mailing list. Send a blank e-mail to cmgigs-s...@topica.com
Sign up for my weekly practice tips newsletter at: practice_ti...@topica.com
Faizal Ali
there was not even a mention of the existence of any controversy surrounding
Wynton. This was quite out of character from the rest of the series, which
was not shy about documenting the crticism and hostility directed at other
pivotal figures in the music. It is (theoretically!) possible to argue that
Wynton Marsalis was the most significant figure in jazz of the past three
decades, but in doing so without acknowledging that Marsalis is widely
viewed as a reactionary, Burns failed to live up to his responsibility to
present the facts as they exist. It's as if someone were to claim that Bill
Clinton was the greatest president of the past three decades while failing
to mention Monica Lewinsky. What credibility would they have?
Joe Finn
Wynton Maralis is the mainstream itself: Grammies in jazz and
classical, Pulitzer Prize, Downbeat cover stories, honorary
doctorates, Lincoln Center Director, internationally syndicated
television jazz educator, top consultant to Ken Burns
etc. etc. ... The only controversy that I see is among certain
jazz musicians and certain music columnists. Your allusion to
President Clinton in this regard is telling: oral sex with an
intern in the oval office, obstruction and impeachment are
controversial. I say let's maintain a sense of proportion.
Wynton transcends music. People who don't know which end of a
trumpet you blow into know who he is and what he does. Now, if
certain writers and players don't like him, fine. Ignore him. Don't listen
to him. Write him a nasty letter if you like. He's well established and
is most assuredly here to stay. No need to take my word for it.
Take a look at his discography when you have a chance. He doesn't
have time for naysayers. This guy is beyond prolific. He is a
workaholic. He tours, composes and records constantly. He
appears on 50+ albums. He has not yet seen his 40th birthday.
Now let me agree with what you said regarding Wynton Marsalis being
a "reactionary". This widespread view is of course well founded. I heard
him for the first time on an LP entitled Fathers and Sons featuring Ellis,
Brandford, Wynton and Von and Chico Freeman. I knew he had the
gig with Blakey and I though he showed a lot of promise. He was
straight ahead. He did not embrace the Miles Davis funk Bitch's
Brew sound in the least. His whole presentation, demeanor and
persona seemed antithetical to that whole scene. I said Amen then
and I say Amen now. He reacted strongly against something that I felt
was a wrong turn in jazz. I also feel that this was inevitable. Miles
had taken things so far down "Jazz-Rock" Boulevard that somebody
someday was going to have to turn it around. The so-called neoclassical
trend would have happened sooner or later with or without Marsalis.
So he is saddled with being a reactionary, a conservative and a
traditionalist. So be it. I'll just bet he isn't losing any sleep over this
one. If he retires next week his place in history is safe. Wynton is indeed
[arguably] the most significant figure in music today. Why did Burns
use him? I think it was he who used Burns. The music is
the significant thing here. Burns' documentation is just the conduit
through which a greater and more widespread appreciation of the
art may eventually flow. And after hearing them interviewed together
I believe Marsalis' initiative was the force that set the wheels in motion
resulting in the series "Jazz". ...joe
Jack A. Zucker
audiences put him down. Even Elvin Jones complained that he was "playing
music for the Gods".
It's only in retrospect that it became so classic. People are always
resistant to new stuff.
Remember when people say, "I know what I like", they really mean "I like
what I know".
jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Jazz Guitar Page: http://www.jackzucker.com
"Tom Lippincott" <tomli...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010207021027...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >Just to be argumentative: Was Sonny Rollins and innovator at the level of
say
> >Armstrong, Parker etc. Probably not. But then why is he as satisfying?
For
> >me,
> >that's the question.
>
> I think there are few people who would try to argue that Sonny Rollins was
an
> innovator on the same level as Armstrong and Parker, but he was
nevertheless an
> innovator, and on no small scale, IMO. I love listening to his
recordings, but
> particularly those where he was "breaking new ground," like The Bridge, or
the
> live trio stuff with Wilbur Ware and Elvin Jones.
> I do understand the argument that there is more to life than innovation;
just
> because something is "new" and "unprecedented" doesn't automatically make
it
> great, but to me, it's still a big factor in whether something holds my
> interest, particularly over time.
Tom Walls
>
>Tom Walls wrote:
>
>
>
>I think by using the term conservative I meant traditional.
snip
>
>As to the "conflict" between conservative and mainstream, I see it in much
the
>same way as the issue confronting major symphony orchestras. They tend to
play it
>safe somewhat by scheduling lots of Mozart, Beethoven etc. because this is
what
>the mainstream audience seems to want to hear. They are oft criticized for
being
>less than adventurous when programming concert material. At the same time to
>remain solvent they need to play what audience will pay to hear again and
again
>and again. To me there is no conflict because of the conservative nature of
the
>mainstream. This is how you have it both ways. ....joe
>
So you're saying that the "mainstream" audience wants "conservative" music?
IMHO logic demands that by virtue of the fact that it's an audience for
conservative music, it must thereby be a conservative audience. Eh?
--
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!
PWatrous
culture is based on the idea that newness is goodness; Detroit exists because
of the idea, as does the pop music industry. Also, as much as I admittedly
hunger after new music, and have bought way to many recordings in my time,
Sonny Stitt still floors me, and I derive as much pleasure from him as I do,
well, whatever. I also think that an improvisatory music needs different set of
criteria applied to it than pop or other artforms that are a little less
mobile; go listen to a good Indian musician working over a 500 year old raga,
and the sublime comes through regardless of the age of the base material. The
same can be said about a musician working over the blues. If somebody is an
inspired improviser (admittedly subjective), the context, at least to me, isn't
so important. I guess I don't like determinism in judgment passing--i.e., if it
isn't this, then it can't be good. All sorts of things are good, new, old etc.
peter watrous
Joe Finn
> I guess I'm a little suspicious of innovation because so much of consumer
> culture is based on the idea that newness is goodness; Detroit exists because
> of the idea, as does the pop music industry.
You are so right. Just because they slap a new bumper on this year's Ford doesn't
make it an innovative product. Innovation is change. Have this year's pop tunes
changed from those of recent years? Not substantially so. I think the nature of
jazz improvisation is essentially innovative in the sense that the whole idea is
for the soloist to create a fresh, unique melody. The extemporaneous nature of the
process sets it apart from the other styles.
Jeff Gower
<ttc1...@taconic.net> wrote:
> PWatrous wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm a little suspicious of innovation because so much of consumer
> > culture is based on the idea that newness is goodness; Detroit exists
because
> > of the idea, as does the pop music industry.
>
> You are so right. Just because they slap a new bumper on this year's
Ford doesn't
> make it an innovative product. Innovation is change. Have this year's
pop tunes
> changed from those of recent years? Not substantially so. I think the
nature of
> jazz improvisation is essentially innovative in the sense that the
whole idea is
> for the soloist to create a fresh, unique melody. The extemporaneous
nature of the
> process sets it apart from the other styles.
I agree with your ideas of what is and isn't "innovation" in pop culture,
industry, etc.. But I disagree about the jazz part of your post, Joe - I
think that 99% of jazz "improvisation" is not "essentially innovative"
merely because of the soloist's intent of creating something unique. It
is the very rare individual who can produce spontaneous innovation. I
think genuine innovation comes from genius, and despite how often the term
gets used these days, I think genius is a very very rare thing. It is
most definitely not the "essence" of jazz merely because there is
spontaneous note-playing.
I believe that there is no more inherent genius/innovation in jazz than
any other genre of music.
Regards,
Jeff
--
www.jeffgower.com
joefi...@my-deja.com
> I believe that there is no more inherent genius/innovation in jazz
than
> any other genre of music.
>
You really have me thinking, now. Is jazz more innovative than the other
styles? I've heard it explained and taught thusly.... Jazz combines the
compositional function with the role of the instrumentalist in a certain
way within the perfomance setting. The jazz instumentalist must create
new melodies off the top of his head spontaneously. However,this sort of
innovation may exist in other styles more or less.
I'll have to give your point a little more time to sink in. My instinct
is to say yes, jazz is more innovative but this is my bias. Could I
perhaps ask you to expand a little on your point? ....joe
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Charles J. Masenas
|> I hear what you're saying; nevertheless the inaccuracies and biases were
|> numerous and profound. And although I can see how the numerous threads on
|> this subject can seem oppressive, I think that watching the series was a
|> disturbing experience for many people who care about jazz, and the newsgroup
|> forum is one of the major places we go to share our thoughts on this subject.
Change "inaccuracies and biases" to "contrary opinions" and you got it right.
--
-------
Regards,
CJ Masenas
Jeff Gower
Naah, just a matter of semantics. "Innovation" means the creation of
something NEW and unique, that's all - it does not refer to the time frame
within which such creation occurs. Jazz, merely because there is
spontaneous creation/improvisation, is not inherently more innovative than
any other genre. An uniquely-phrased melodic line or freshly-voiced
harmony is not in and of itself "innovative", merely because it was
thought up on the fly rather than written out on a sheet of staff-paper.
There are innovators in all genres, and this is seperate from the act of
spontaneous improvisation. Just a matter of semantics. No big deal.
Jeff
--
www.jeffgower.com
Mike Ellenberger
and was surprised to find out it was Kenny. I didn't recognize him.
I wonder if Pat Metheny or Jimmy Bruno will show up at the Pro Am?
Mike
Dick Schneiders wrote:
>
> >Many members of the public seem to avoid the jazz genre altogether
> >these days, save for a Kenny G album in the collection or whatever.
> >That is the truely sad part.
>
> Did any of you happen to see Kenny G playing golf last Sunday in the Pebble
> Beach Pro Am? He was paired with Phil Mickelson (I believe) and they tied with
> Tiger Woods and his partner for the pro am title. Kenny G is actually quite a
> good golfer and made some nice shots while the cameras were on him. He plays
> to a 6 handicap according to the announcers. However, I had to cringe when
> they described him as "the jazzy sax man". Ouch!! Based on what I saw on the
> links he is a much better golfer than he is a "jazzy sax man".
>
> Dick Schneiders
F.
"Joe Finn" <ttc1...@taconic.net> wrote in message
news:3A7F905B...@taconic.net...
major snip:
> Wynton is indeed
> [arguably] the most significant figure in music today. Why did Burns
> use him? I think it was he who used Burns. The music is
> the significant thing here. Burns' documentation is just the conduit
> through which a greater and more widespread appreciation of the
> art may eventually flow. And after hearing them interviewed together
> I believe Marsalis' initiative was the force that set the wheels in motion
> resulting in the series "Jazz". ...joe
That may well be (Wynton the driving force, Burns the bystander with the
connections, but passively awaiting the creative direction), I didn't get to
see that interview. What bugs me is this notion of Burns' being "just a
conduit."
In fact, the documentary itself seems to me actually a lesser part of the
problem, albeit still a major one. An additional, bigger problem it seems
to me is the incredible advertising push we see on Amazon and elsewhere:
"Ken Burns' Jazz", as in, "it's not definitive if it's not Ken Burns."
Especially if Ken Burns is as much a neophyte about jazz as this group has
led me to understand. This Ken Burns This, Ken Burns that, really is *the*
motive force in the general public's awareness of jazz right now, it seems
to me. Got to give credit where credit is due, they've succeeded very well
in getting the influential distributors like Amazon to play along and air
all their advertising, but it's scary.
Mix the documentary and this advertising push together and you get something
really powerful, very disturbing, IMO. That is, I'm arguing that this
advertising is a powerfully deployed tool to push a conception of what jazz
music is (well, all advertising does this, but this particular example is,
at minimum, annoying and even disturbing to me). They have incredible
leverage to determine what sub-genres are a) selected to a greater extent in
the music over others and b) how those genres are depicted with heavy slants
in favor of some or against others as linked to the documentary. This
really is a power trip, to use Joey G.'s words. All the more disturbing a
power trip, it seems to me, if, as you argue, Wynton is really the brains
behind the operation.
But I don't think Burns is so innocent in this, either, otherwise it would
be "Wynton's Jazz this, Wynton's Jazz that." There's a pretty strong agenda
with tangible personal rewards in money and power, behind their version of
the product, methinks. So I'd be very, very wary of presuming the
documentary to be "just" some kind of neutral conduit, when it's really part
and parcel of the larger advertising/net profit/personal gain picture. Yes,
the documentary spreads jazz awareness, all well and good, but at what cost,
what damage to parts of the music, and thus the music as a whole?? One
thing we can be sure of: Burns and Marsalis are laughing all the way to the
proverbial bank, or at least to the next cocktail party of industry
heavyweights.
Just some minor brainfarts that have probably raged on elsewhere.
Apologies if you've seen it before. :)
cheers,
Frank