Joe M

Note, I said "new" releases. That said, Fantasy's previous strategy wasn't all that successful financially, so we'll see.

Overall, I think Concord is doing a pretty good job with new releases (Karrin Allyson, Taylor Eigsti, et al). Let em go release Bolton or whoever. As long as they don't tell us it's "jazz".

Um... didn't they broadcast jazz during the middle of the night? Anyone know where Chris Heim is going? She was a HUGE supporter of organissimo. Exaclty. People always say how jazz doesn't pull a large audience on most stations, but you've got to look at the daypart in question! I once had a longtime (public) radio veteran and current station manager of an NPR affiliate tell me that it really doesn't matter all that much what you air after 7:00pm. So why NOT run jazz?

Ok, true, no High Note releases have made the Top 40. But how many instrumental jazz artists on MAJOR labels have? One. Chris Botti. And that tells you something (not that I'm saying Chris is a bad musician, I'd rather see him on that chart than Kenny G). But you're living in fantasy land if you think that if Verve would only sign Dave Holland or Vijay Iyer that they would be in the Top 40, or even close! Also, for everyone lamenting that Verve isn't into doing "real" jazz anymore - please don't complain the next time a major label tells an artist that they have to change their sound, or record a certain tune, to be more commercially friendly, or screws over an artist financially. You want it both ways (record companies to spend big bucks, AND be totally hands off). It doesn't work that way. I hear young artists (kids) talking about how they want to "set signed by a major" and all they're really asking for is to get screwed.

This is a very broad generalization, but I feel that "society" today has lost most, if not all, of its sensitivity to music as a distinct medium that is best enjoyed with a distinct set of engagement skills. It's just become another "lifestyle accessory", and with things like access to "product" and portability at an all-time high, there's really no need for the average Joe to even be aware that he might want to be curious about something "different", or that he might actually "get something out of" what is traditionally refered to as "serious listening'. Such has always been the case to one degree or another, but I have noticed a marked increase in these tendencies among otherwise intellegent people over the last 5 years or so. How are things in your town? Ours has become a society of total portability and having everything "on demand". The technology itself is beautiful, but if you leave a 50 lb. bag of dog food open and available to a dog, it'll try to eat it as quickly as possible instead of rationing it out. I see lots of people doing the same thing with technology, and they're being relentlessly encouraged to do so. Myself, I think that it's a diversionary tactic to keep people from sitting still in one place for too long, because when you do that, you might actually slow down, sit still, and take stock. That's breeding grounds for upsetting the apple cart right there and we can't have that now, can we. I guess what I'm saying is that music (of all kinds) doesn't "matter" to as many people as it used to. The "functionality" of music in general is changing. Jazz, once, always, and forever being a type of music that has personal communication as/at its core, can't help but suffer as a result. The challenge is rapidly becoming not how to get people interested in listening to this music, it's becoming how to convince people that listening, really listening, to any kind of music as anything other than a soundtrack to their lifestyle might be worth their while. I'm not optimistic about the chances for success right now, not on a scale large enough to really matter to society as a whole, but the one potential outlet for subversiveness might be in the electronica/ambient (and related) field, where you can at least create the illusion of passivity and non-confrontationality. And we all know that the key to successful subversion is the creation of a successful illusion, a "front". Thing is, I'm at an age and of a background where playing music that way is kinda counter-intuitive. So that makes me sorta useless. Oh well. At least I can watch and cheer from the sidelines, and come out of my cave whenever asked. Things could be worse. Yeah, sure. I think I had fewer and lower expectations in the past, so I'm not terribly worried about what people think of music now. In my experience, few young people in the late '50s/early '60s were concerned about music as an experience; most were content for music to be the soundtrack of their lives. Were it not so, there would be no nostalgia market and, as we all know, nostalgia has been a huge force in people's "appreciation" of music (and many other things) for so long no one can tell how long. Of course, there are no comparative statistics to show what proportion of the population thinks of music as anything other than a background, and whether this changes over time, but I get a distinct impression from talking to young people when I was at work, and even younger ones now I'm retired, that things are no worse now than they were four decades ago; and probably at all times since the beginnings of the popularity of radio. That's as far as the people are concerned. As far as the record industry is concerned, the majors seem to have learned how to control the market a lot better than they could forty, fifty, sixty years ago. That leaves much less opportunity for small firms to break through with something new. And, since everything new for the past sixty odd years has been brought about by small firms, it seems to me that that is where the problem lies. Verve is important because it is a part of a major firm, but a semi-autonomous part, as are Blue Note and Atlantic. All are connected through their respective catalogues to a tradition of entrepreneurial experiment; and note that it's a tradition that made money - these are not catalogues of losers. If there were an opportunity for some serious attempt to change the market, it seems to me that it can really only come from them. MG Small firms have a much better chance of having success today than 40 years ago. Maybe not getting a Top 40 hit, but you mean to tell me it's tougher today, in this age of internet downloads, Myspace, ArtistShare, and the proliferation of artist run labels to get your music, in your vision out in front of people. The whole idea of a "record company" is obsolete, 20th century thinking. The major labels are dinosaurs, and that's why they're on their last legs. Verve and Blue Note are no more "semi-autonomous" than any other divisions of the majors, they all have to turn a profit. By in large their catalogs were bought, not home grown, so that entrepreneurial spirit is not alive and never was alive in these corporations when it comes to jazz. That's why today's small labels are the heirs to the throne of Granz and Lion and Wolff, not Golstein and co.

If you wanna go on Leno, and are a jazz musician, better pick a new line of work.

Will someone explain to me why I (or anyone) should be concerned about this? I mean, who cares if Verve isn't interested in jazz anymore? Does it matter? They are entitled to run the company any way they want, and if the goal is to get a return on investment for the stockholders, jazz isn't going to be the first thing on their list, and probably shouldn't be. They aren't a charity, let them do what they want. Why all the prestige about being on a "major label"? And then when a "major" does sign an artist, we whine and complain about how they aren't being treated right, etc. Well, that's the price you pay when you want to get signed to a "major" label! In today's era Verve and co are irrelevant for the most part. Check out what small labels like HighNote, Sunnyside, Greenleaf, and countless others are doing. That's where the music is at. And except for a few brief instances, jazz has never been a "major label" thing, and when it has been, it most often gets watered down. If anything jazz fans should be HAPPY that Verve doesn't want to play the jazz game. There's NO WAY they would have released McBride's new session (which is really good by the way).

I think Rudy was talking about more recent sessions. I seem to recall him talking about Joe Henderson's "Lush Life" album, and people who said it was good to hear a session like that which was just recorded "live" in the studio, and he said something to the effect of "if you only knew how many edits and overdubs there were on that album!"

One could make the argument that even the most disorganized sound, actually IS organized, by the listener. Whether it's free improv with no form, or the sound of a string quartet playing Mozart, or the roar of the motorcycle going down the street right now, or John Cage, if the person hearing it considers it music, it is. I'm not sure I agree with that theory, but it's interesting.

Maybe, but I don't think Blue Note is under the obligation to lose money. Lovano, Moran, Osby, Wynton, Charlap, Andrew Hill, Robert Glasper, Pat Martino, Stefon Harris, Don Byron, Terence Blanchard. That's a pretty strong JAZZ lineup in today's climate. Does another "corporate" (I hesitate to use the word MAJOR) label come even close to a roster like that. Even if you throw out Wynton, since I know Chris doesn't like him, it's still a strong lineup.

It's more like cross-pollination than anything else.

Ellington Uptown by far

Lou Donaldson?