Scott Dolan

I meant it as neither a compliment or an insult, to be honest. I just find them to be very similar to each other, and most seem to like Kenny Garrett a lot. So the disconnect has to be a political one, no? It certainly doesn’t seem to me that it would be related to the music.

Ah, that makes sense. I thought they sent full trucks to individual locations.

Exactly. They mean nothing to him, but he gives them complete control over his emotions.

I think almost every big label “had a go” with a more avant garde artist at one point or another. And they quickly found out they weren’t going to make very much money from them. Damn those Marsalis boys!

Do you like Kenny Garrett? I find no real differences between he and Branford. At the end of the day, I just think people let what the Marsalis boys say color their perception way too much. Then again, I could listen to Wynton, Branford, and Ingrid Laubrock in one sitting and enjoy all of it. I’m not going to listen to Wynton and think, “now THIS is how Jazz is supposed to be played!” Nor will I listen to Ingrid and think, “THIS isn’t real Jazz!”, because I don’t let a couple of loudmouths dictate my reality or how I perceive the music I’m listening to.

But had they not been raking money in due to groups like Whitesnake and Guns ‘N Roses, they would have never started the DGC sub label that Sonic Youth signed to. And Sonic Youth never sold anywhere near the number of albums that the high profile groups did. It’s mainstream vs underground. And both come by those names honestly. And while mainstream popularity fades and changes usually every decade, the underground will never attain mainstream popularity.

The fact that so many of you keep lumping Branford and Wynton together proves that you’ve heard little, if any, of either of them. Wynton writes and play very straight ahead, while Branford’s quartet are more akin to 60’s Free Jazz. Educate thyselves, folks.

Four hours between scans from Ybor to Plant City? How did you arrive at that number? They’re about 45 minutes apart, IIRC.

But the point being missed here is that while trends in music come and go, every genre you mentioned there is catchy and accessible. Now, if 80’s Heavy Metal (the now renamed “Hair Metal”) had been knocked out of the top 40 charts by something like Progressive Death Metal, well then you’d have a viable comparison. Rap was exciting, new, and easily digestible. So was Grunge. So in essence, you’re continuing to make my point for me. Was Nirvana more marketable than Def Leppard? Absolutely. Grunge killed Hair Metal. Job offers, compensation, and everything else you mentioned is commensurate to ROI. You are only going to get what your benefactor deems worthy based on market appeal. I really have no idea, honestly, why that is somehow a radical or controversial opinion. Other than the fact that it tears down the “Marsalis killed all that is good and right” narrative. Investors (record companies, managers, venue owners, etc.) want to maximize profits. The “young lions” keep fat cats fat. European Free Improvisation and Free Jazz leaves you eating rats. If Wynton and Branford never spoke or wrote a word, that fact would still remain. People didn’t avoid those genres because Wynton told them to. That’s just silly.

Yep, that’s what being a complete asshole gets you. At least I’m aware enough to recognize it in myself. I’m assuming at your age it’s a lost cause.

You purposely refuse to explain anything, so you brought that sigh on yourself. Logic and common sense dictate that mass appeal can only germinate from something that was highly accessible to begin with.

If you think that Evan Parker and Barry Guy would have sold just as many albums as Wynton and Branford Marsalis just because they were marketed the same way, you are beyond delusional. I guess the next thing you’ll be telling us is that if only Frank Zappa had been signed to CBS or Sony he would have been as popular as Michael Jackson. Get out of here. That is weapons-grade nonsense.

Yes, but Jazz was still quite popular then. Record companies turned to the “young lions” in the 80’s in hopes of reviving the popularity of Jazz. Not to mention every artist you named is FAR more accessible to a mass audience than any of the artists supposedly held back by the mythical “Marsalis roadblock”.

Since CDs, in general, are being dumped, and the Marsalis circle of friends sold more of them than pretty much anyone else, the ratio makes perfect sense. As for Miles, he sounded perfectly comfortable playing with that quintet, but I think there is hardly any question that the youngsters played a huge role in the style change.

OK, while I do appreciate and understand what you’ve laid out, there is one enormous flaw that brings the whole thing crashing to the ground. Record companies, the big boys, sign who they know is the most marketable. Remember, even ECM, of all companies, once signed folks like Evan Parker, and the Maneri brothers to contracts. Was it the Marsalis’ fault that they didn’t sell well and ECM then decided to stick to the easier listening stuff? Is it a “Marsalis roadblock” that keeps Free Improvisation musicians from selling millions of albums and getting big time airplay? Absolutely, 100%, no fucking way. You could have someone like Sony or Columbia market the ever living shit out cats like Evan Parker, Barry Guy, Peter Evans, hell, even the William Parker circle if friends, and they’d likely not even make the money back that they spent on advertising. And that would have jack shit to do with the Marsalis family. No matter what level of advertising something gets, it still has to be marketable/accessible to the masses to begin with. Record sales from the smaller labels aren’t small because Wynton Marsalis is more popular. They are small because the market for their artists is small.

Yeah, I don’t really understand Chuck’s statement, and I doubt he will explain it any further. I guess I can kind of understand Wynton having a small impact on more creative musicians, but how Ellis and Branford have been road blocks for creative music is beyond me. Hell, Nate Wooley recently released an album of Wynton covers, and cites him as one of his influences. There aren’t many modern trumpet players more creative than Wooley.

That would be a relevent retort to an irrelevant comment if in fact said cardboard cutout were still making new music.

Live At The House Of Tribes is a really smoking set, too. You just have to get past the over-enthusiastic sycophants in the audience.

Years ago Steve Reynolds, who likely despises Wynton more than the rest of you combined, gave a thumbs up to the outstanding seven disc boxset, Live At The Village Vanguard. I’m not sure how anyone could listen to that, and Black Codes (From The Underground), and not hear fire. I get the disdain for Wynton, I honestly do. But I think it tends to color perception a little too much for some people. Glad you checked. I was worried that that comment was somehow relevant to the conversation. The Tony Williams piece, Sister Cheryl, from that album is one of my favorite Jazz tunes. Herbie is just dancing all over the place on that one!

Anyone who thinks Brandford is anything short of a stellar musician hasn’t listened to any of his quartet from the last couple of decades. They are the closest approximation to the classic Coltrane Quartet that I’ve ever heard. Hopefully, before Jim goes on his word salad rant response, everyone else will note that I clearly stated “approximation”.

From this forum, or from your computer/tablet/phone?

Brilliant!

I’ll be 49 in June. Why are you curious about that?

Does anyone else get any of this?