Jump to content

Blue Note signs WM


sonnyhill

Recommended Posts

Sorry Kevin, I guess I overestimated your intelligence, but I was right about your, shall we say, less than mature attitude.

Calm down, send Michael Cuscuna a greeting card (give him my regards), and try to find Dale Carnegie's celebrated "How to" book--you know the one I mean. :g

I don't send Michael greeting cards, I give him a call. You should talk to him yourself sometime. Of course, the first time he said "fuck", you'd probably assume he's not intelligent. If you equate lack of swearing with intelligence, GWBII should be a Rhodes Scholar. Equating my use of profanity with my intelligence level is a mistake on your part. I'm smart enough to know that my usage of this language can be used by you and your intellect to somehow "prove" your point.

I know this. What you should know is that I just finally got sick of saying it in my head while typing something else.

Later,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I join the chorus here: "settle down, you two."

I consider you both valuable posters and hate to see discussion get down and dirty like this.

I don't care for Wynton, and I also don't see it as any big deal that BN signs him. They must have some strategy behind it all. Will I buy the new cd? No! But then I just buy reissues.

BTW, Hans Christian Anderssen (sp?) wrote fairy tales that are literature. I haven't read any of them for a long time, but they are beautiful adult stories. They are definitely worthy of being quoted.

Peace! :rlol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody want to respond to this post of mine (which I used to have up above, before the fight broke out. :rolleyes: )

==========

Next we'll hear that for the money spent on Wynton, a good half dozen of these artists could have been signed, and rescued from obscurity.

Well, I think there is a grain of truth to this notion, depending of course on how much they spent on Wynton. (And yes, if they didn't spend much at all on Wynton, then the rest of this post is pointless.)

But let's assume that they had to pay Wynton 6-times what they had to pay any of their "nobody's ever heard of them" newbie artists, who have never recorded for Blue Note before, and probably never recorded as a leader on any other label either. Wynton does have incredible name recognition, so he's gotta pull down more than a complete unknown. Some examples...

Look at Jason Moran. He might have found his place on some tiny label (probably), but was lucky enough to hook up with Osby, and he got a Blue Note contract of his own too, probably for very little investment on BN's part. Now he's the darling of quite a few critics (rightfully so, IMHO), and probably has decent sales - in jazz terms. Not 'spectacular' sales, but I doubt BN is loosing money on Moran. Similar story (somewhat) with Stefon Harris, who also recorded with Osby, and got a BN contract. Probably not great sales, but probably decent sales (though I wouldn't think as good as Moran, but who knows?).

Now you all are probably right in bringing up Mark Shim (so I'll bring him up myself), who recorded two BN albums that I think are both top drawer - really strong and promising albums that should have sold reasonably well (in jazz terms), but I guess they didn't. I was very disappointed when he was dropped from the label, but I guess he didn't sell enough to keep on the roster. Still, if it weren't for his two BN albums, I might not have ever heard about the guy - and isn't there value in that?? (I don't know if BN actually lost money on Shim, or if they only broke even.) Still, those Shim albums are both outstanding, and I was really sorry to see him go. To my mind, Shim seemed like exactly the kind of "Joe Henderson"-ish tenor player that Blue Note needed right about now, but that's just me.

In any case, I think that investing in half-a-dozen upcoming artists, with the prospects of only one or two of them actually making it decently (like Moran and Harris) - would be a better use of the money than putting out one Wynton album, which has it's risks too.

Because, for the same investment - in the end - you either have one Wynton album, or half-a-dozen other albums, three (or even four?) of which are pretty darn good (probably). As a jazz consumer, I'd much rather have the later, than the former.

Edited by Rooster_Ties
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, for the same investment - in the end - you either have one Wynton album, or half-a-dozen other albums, three (or even four?) of which are pretty darn good (probably). As a jazz consumer, I'd much rather have the later, than the former.

I think assuming that Blue Note's bean counters would allow them to release a bunch of lower cost dates if they don't sign Wynton Marsalis is wrong. They don't seem to allow Blue Note to work that way. They obviously have some "magic number" they use that made Jason Moran stick & Mark Shim fall to the wayside. What this number is, I don't know but it has to be based on some kind of "return on investment".

This "investment", as Chuck Nessa once graciously pointed out on the ol' BN board, is pretty fixed on the "hardware" end. All CDs Blue Note puts out probably have pretty much the same basic budget. Artwork is artwork I imagine. Initial pressing costs are probably the same. The only possible difference is likely to be what they pay the musicians on the date and any marketing money they budget. We don't know how much Wynton is getting and we won't know what the marketing budget will be so we'll just have to wait on that.

BTW, if big budgets at Blue Note is a cause for concern, Bob Belden's "Black Dahlia" should move ahead of Wynton Marsalis. This was a costly big band date with lots of extras like multi-track, DSD recording, a "who's who" roster of artists and extra studio time. But if the results are worth it and it sells enough to keep the bean counters happy, who cares?

Later,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Belden must have done some incredibly creative things to keep costs down on that date. I don't know how that one got recorded, but thankfully it did!! I imagine that Belden pulled some favors in too, with the label, in order to get it done and released. It's not like very many other BN artists could pull of something like that.

By the way, I remember reading somewhere recently about how Joe Lovano too a much smaller cut on one of his recordings, in order to do it with a small orchestra or some much-larger-than-normal group. Probably "Rush Hour" was what he was talking about, but I really can't remember.

Damn bean counters!! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Blue Note has recently put out several unhearalded Jazzers efforts and they haven't been selling very well. Just recently, Stefano Di Battista's second album was released. Has anyone here ever bought it? I've never heard it mentioned. I've never bought it. I don't know anyone who has. Does this make it a bad CD? No. But it isn't selling. That is due to the name "Stefano Di Battista" more than the music contained. Unknowns rarely bust into the Jazz market and sell well.

FWIW, and to take the thread on a bit of a sidetrack, I have the Stefano di Battista disc - Round About Roma. I think it's terrific. Some nice orchestral arrangements accompany the band creating a sensual, sultry sound and feel. There's a palpable emotion and lushness to the music that I've found to be very enjoyable.

I contemplated starting a thread in the new releases about this, but decided against it. I think I'm in the minority in thinking that Blue Note is releasing some good material from its current stable of artists. While I don't think that most boardmembers would like this album, I think Round About Roma is an excellent piece of music. It's not harb bop, doesn't swing or push the envelope. I find it entertaining, interesting and in places intriguing and beautifully arranged and executed.

I'm sorry to hear that it's not selling, though I'm not surprised. It deserves a better fate IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't send Michael greeting cards, I give him a call. You should talk to him yourself sometime.

I do...let's see, the last Michael and I had a telephone conversation, he called me. Does that count? :g

BTW Your gutter language is not the basis for my intelligence estimate--it's you failure to grasp--again and aagain--the most simple analogy. Of course, a bit of civility would not hurt your image. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Your gutter language is not the basis for my intelligence estimate--it's you failure to grasp--again and aagain--the most simple analogy. Of course, a bit of civility would not hurt your image. B)

A most simple analogy? Ok, let's summarize: you posted this statement:

"Will Wynton produce something meatier than Everette Harp, Najee, or Norah Jones? Very likely, but I think good water is preferable to bad wine."

Several subsequent posters followed up and agreed with you.

I asked if you meant this quote to mean that you would prefer to hear Evertte Harp, Najee or Norah Jones over Wynton Marsalis' unrecorded Blue Note date.

There is nothing in your analogy saying which of the two things being compared in "good" and which is "bad". This is a simple question... one that I think you won't answer because it will expose you for what you are: someone who is willing to judge an unrecorded record date as "bad" just because apparently you have an agenda against Wynton Marsalis. That's how it's looked to me for years. Yeah, I know what you'll post next... something about my delusions. Maybe you should re-read that Hans Christian Andersen fable. You ever think maybe some of us are the crowd and you might be the emporer?

BTW, re-read this a show me where I "(took your) critique of WM as a personal affront" (your words over on the Jazz Corner board)? You don't "critique" WM, you crucify him any chance you get. Personally, I could care less if Wynton ever recorded again, I don't even dig much of his music. However, I am sick of you coming onto this board, a board I've come to like, and sprinkle your lousy attitude about "all things Wynton" around. These are Jazz boards. Wynton plays Jazz. People should be able to say good things about him because they like his music. You don't seem to care about the music, only the man behind the music. If you don't like the guy, his attitude or his music so much, then stop posting about him.

I gotta laugh at your closing quote over on that JC thread where you say, "Who knows, if he comes up with something even slightly above the ordinary, if he limbers up and puts some feeling into it, I'll be among the first to applaud." That's something I'd love to see... and I'll believe it when I see it.

Later,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mnytime

Next we'll hear that for the money spent on Wynton, a good half dozen of these artists could have been signed, and rescued from obscurity.

Give me a break.

Actually if you want to know a week or two's worth of marketing by Sony for WM could most likely get 10 jazz recordings made. ;) The amount spent in a year you can only imagine how many excellent recordings could have been made. And this is only the marketing we are talking about never mind his advances, which he never covered. Technically he owes Sony a good deal of money.

I know the actual numbers but I can't say for fear of angering a normally calm small woman. ;)

Kevin

Not wanting to start an argument but in Chris's analogy Everette Harp, Najee, or Norah Jones are the Water (as in Watered Down Jazz or Music) and WM is the Bad Wine. At least that is how I understand it.

Edited by Mnytime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually if you want to know a week or two's worth of marketing by Sony for WM could most likely get 10 jazz recordings made. ;) The amount spent in a year you can only imagine how many excellent recordings could have been made. And this is only the marketing we are talking about never mind his advances, which he never covered. Technically he owes Sony a good deal of money.

I know the actual numbers but I can't say for fear of angering a normally calm small woman. ;)

Mnytime, sounds like Sony really srewed up in their dealings with Wynton. Why on earth would they have done what they did then? I mean, they spent all that money paying him, spent more money hyping him and then they flooded the market and diluted the hell out of his catalog? That's just dumb planning on their part. Why wouldn't they have at least released the later stuff in dribs & drabs? They might have recouped some of their investment. As others have posted elsewhere, Wynton's numbers declined in recent years but they were still OK from a Jazz perspective. If Sony had held back a couple of releases, maybe the sales would have improved.

You know, maybe it's not such a bad thing that Blue Note's bean counters seem more fiscally responsible. As I said, from my conversations with Michael & Tom, it did not sound to me like they were breaking the bank.

BTW, mnytime, as much as you know about Wynton Marsalis and as much as I imagine you would (probably) like to see him fall flat on his face (since he sounds partly responsible for that calm, small woman's departure from Sony), you still don't come across as negatively as Chris A does. I pretty much figured I had the analogy right.

Later,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody know the details of Wynton's contract with Sony?

I always assumed that something was up having to do (maybe) with Sony being locked into an unfortunate long-term contractual commitment that was based on the intitial assumption that Wynton would be the next Miles (commercially speaking, that is). Having realized their mistake, they might have decided to minimize losses by taking measures to get out of their commitments to Wynton as quickly as possible. If one of the conditions was a certain minimum number of releases, then it might make sense.

Otherwise, as you say, it just doesn't make sense. Not only did Sony flood the market, but they did it at a very bad time.

Of course, if this is true, it probably would have made more sense to follow the Mariah Carey route and just pay Wynton a big sum as severance pay from the contract.

I have a strong feeling that Blue Note is more aware of what time it is than Sony was back in day.

Edited by John L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mnytime

Kevin:

I went into all of this back when the events took place on the Bluet Note BBS but to make a long story short it was not Sony that wanted to dump all those recordings on the market at the same time. With 9-10 in one year alone. That was all WM. It was one of the reasons they finally gave up on him.

WM wanted to cash in on the Burns doc and it ended up screwing him at Sony and all the other majors.

Sony wanted nothing to do with releasing that many CDS from a musician who couldn't give away a record never mind sell one. But as part of the parting ways with WM and to get out of their contract they agreed to it.

John

I could answer your specific question but for reasons already given I can't get into details. Hey I am not a Monk or Priest that is into Celibacy. ;)

But as I said before Sony would not have minded getting rid of WM at least 5-10 years earlier. They kept him on because those in charge wanted the prestige of having Jazz just like they had from Classical music. And WM for all his faults was the Marquee name, even though they where the ones that made that Marquee name for him.

From what I understand dealing with WM changed a lot from when he first started. He really bought into all the hype that Sony built up around him and he started acting like a diva for lack of a better word. When he first got there he was easy to get along with and worked with the label. By the end he was acting like the second coming of Satchmo, Dizzy and Miles combined who was selling like Britney.

But Sony was willing to live with it until his demanding they release all those recordings and all the negative feedback that came from his work on the Burns Jazz Documentary.

Not only they they purge themselves of WM they had such a bad taste in their mouths that they dumped the entire New Jazz Dept. The prestige was no longer worth all the red ink and bad pub. On top of that Sony Music has been on a Stalinist purge in terms of cutting Jobs and musicians. Tommy Motta (sp) left a major mess behind him after being forced out at Sony. But that is later after WM left.

Edited by Mnytime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mnytime

Kevin

Sorry didn't see the last part of your post. No the calm short lady in question left Sony for a better job and more money a couple months before the Sony purge started. WM had been gone for awhile by that time. WM had nothing to do with the Sony purge he wasn't that important. ;) They got rid of a level of postions company wise throughout the world in the first part. Than it got messy. ;)

The only thing my fiancée had to do with WM, Jazz or any other genre of Music in general was handling the National marketing in Canada.

Also, I could care less either way if WM suceeds or fails. Personally he is not my cup of tea and wish the money spent on him could go to many others more deserving. While I don't care either way I wouldn't wish failure on anyone.

Just to give you an idea the level of importance Jazz had at Sony towards the end. The had a single person who only came to work 3 times a week to handle the Jazz Divison for Canada.

Edited by Mnytime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris "Widescreen" Albertson is at it again.

Chris, I would love to read those two reviews of WM you posted, but I get tired scrolling left to right; left to right, etc for every line.

Let's hope we get back to the normal screen on the next page.

Why don't you just copy the text and paste it elsewhere using your favorite word processing program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this is better, I re-posted in a narrow window.

You don't "critique" WM, you crucify him any chance you get. Personally, I could care less if Wynton ever recorded again, I don't even dig much of his music. However, I am sick of you coming onto this board, a board I've come to like, and sprinkle your lousy attitude about "all things Wynton" around. These are Jazz boards. Wynton plays Jazz. People should be able to say good things about him because they like his music. You don't seem to care about the music, only the man behind the music. If you don't like the guy, his attitude or his music so much, then stop posting about him.

  • Dear me, Kevin, as I said, you really need to calm down. Worry about you own opinions not mine. I am truly sorry to learn that you are "sick" of me soiling this board by "sprinkling" my "lousy attitude" re Wynton. Well, Mr. I-wanna-get-in-with-Blue-Note (yes, I'm afraid that's quite apparent), I don't think any of us post here to please or displease you (I'll have to re-read the rules), so I really don't think it's up to you to sanction or not who may post or what they may post. That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Well, anyway, I hope you are ready for further crucifixions. Take something to calm your nerves and peruse the following two evil, evil pieces that appeared in Stereo Review.:

Wynton Marsalis: Impressive Debut Album Promises Well for the Future of Jazz

  • WYNTON MARSALIS: If you have not heard the name before, be prepared to hear it many times again, and for a long time to come. Columbia's new "Wynton Marsalis" is one of the most impressive debut albums I have ever heard, a grand entrance that will undoubtedly give jazz a healthy boost at a time when some of its best practitioners have strayed from the field. What makes the advent of Wynton Marsalis even more impressive is the fact that he is a mere twenty years old, yet he plays with the assurance, articulation, and self-possessed originality of someone who has been performing for at least that many years. Ironically, Herbie Hancock, one of the first and most prominent of the jazz defectors, played a major role in bringing Marsalis to this stage of his career, including acting as producer of this album. But rest assured that a talent as big as this would soon have emerged without anybody's help. Prior to Hancock's involvement, Marsalis (then a Juilliard student) worked in the pit band for the Sondheim musical Sweeney Todd, and he spent the summer of 1980 with Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers, which is a school in itself. From Blakey, Marsalis moved on to tour with the Hancock quartet. He was in fast company with Hancock, Ron Carter, and Tony Williams, but he held his own. Soon there was a great deal of talk about Wynton Marsalis, just as sixty years before there had been talk about another young New Orleans trumpeter named Louis Armstrong.

    Will Marsalis be the force Armstrong was? Probably not, but only because the times are different; it is not likely that any jazz musician can ever again make the kind of impact Armstrong--or, for that matter, Parker and Coltrane--did, Nevertheless, "Wynton Marsalis" is an extraordinary album about which much will be written, and I predict that Marsalis's contribution to jazz will go far beyond his own music, for he will surely inspire other young players to consider the jazz route. And who knows? He might even inspire some integrity in older defectors.

    As for the album itself, there is not a blemish on it. Four of the seven selections were made in a Tokyo studio, with the Hancock group and Marsalis' twenty-one-year-old brother Branford in various combinations. The other three feature a quartet, again with Branford, who plays the saxophone with an eloquence to match that of his younger brother. It promises well for the future of jazz that this breath of fresh air comes from the cradle. --Chris Albertson

___________________

WYNTON MARSALIS

  • Few young jazz musicians are afforded the opportunity to record as prolifically as Wynton Marsalis. Indeed, there are veteran musicians with international reputations who have been on the scene decades longer than Marsalis without making half as many albums under their own name. Is it extraordinary talent that brings about this imbalance? Not really. Marsalis is unquestionably a gifted trumpeter, and he improves with age, but it took more than his music to gain him his present status. Recognizing Marsalis's talent, Art Blakey brought him into his fold a few years back, but it was Columbia Records that took him the giant step; looking beyond the music, the label?s decision-makers saw in Marsalis an urbane young man whose dressy looks and smooth, informed articulation made him eminently marketable. Miles was history at Columbia, and--what with a measurable yuppie market for jazz--the time was right for this young man from New Orleans, the cradle of jazz. We all know how well the label did its job, and it is clear that those who have been critical of Wynton Marsalis sometimes paid less attention to his performances than to the way in which he suddenly seemed to dominate a scene already crowded with unsung giants. Understandably, some deserving jazz veterans, and their followers, have mumbled complaints of inequity, but who can blame Marsalis for taking advantage of the opportunities offered him?

    True, Wynton Marsalis is an uneven performer, and he is but one of many young players who today keep the post-war jazz tradition alive; the fact is that he has become an eloquent spokesman for the music, and that we who love jazz all are beneficiaries of the encouragement he gives to new generations of players. Marsalis's most significant contribution to jazz is probably not found on any of his records, but rather in his capacity as role model to youthful talent that might otherwise have gone for the green that pop has to offer.

    Wynton Marsalis's latest record release is a somewhat enigmatic one. No, there is nothing mysterious or inexplicable about the music, but I question the logic behind simultaneously releasing three albums by the same artist--these discs/tapes are sold separately, which means that they will compete with each other in the bins. Granted, we are told that this is a three-volume "blues cycle," entitled "Soul Gestures In Southern Blue," and we are presumably expected to regard the three as a whole, but I submit that few people will purchase all three, and even fewer will listen to them in one sitting. I, of course, did listen to the whole set in the designated order, but what I heard was three Wynton Marsalis albums--not a contiguous work that begged to be bundled.

    It all begins with "Thick In the South," a quintet set that also boasts the presence of two jazz elders, tenor saxophonist Joe Henderson and, on two tracks, drummer Elvin Jones. Musically, this is the most eventful volume, mostly due to Henderson's well-seasoned input. The pianist for all three releases is Marsalis's regular sidekick, Marcus Roberts, who just keeps sounding better. Marsalis calls the title tune "a condition, a location, an attitude, a pulchritudinous proposition, and an occurrence." I call it an easy-flowing instrumental.

    "Uptown Ruler," the middle set, consists of eight tracks, six of which are quintet performances with saxophonist Todd Williams, pianist Marcus Roberts, bassist Reginald Veal, and drummer Herlin Riley. The opening and closing selection is an unimpressive air called Psalm 26, which is heard in two melancholic minute-and-a-half snippets: in trio form with Roberts and bassist Reginald Veal, and in a dirge-like quintet version with Veal switching to trombone, Roberts on alto sax, Williams on tenor, and Riley on bass. What happens in between is of greater musical consequence; a set of shifting moods with the leader's trumpet, at times, sounding almost feeble, but in a strangely effective way. One track, Harmonique, is downright somniferous, but things come together on Down Home With Homey, which bops effortlessly for twelve minutes, and features a wonderful--at times, slightly Dukish--piano solo by Roberts.

    The final volume is "Levee Low Moan," a sextet date with alto saxophonist Wessell Anderson taking his place beside Todd Williams. The rhythm section again consists of Roberts, Veal and Riley. There are five selections, all but one--Todd Williams's "In the House Of Williams"--written by Marsalis, who, remarkably, has yet to find a style of his own. Here he sounds like the mellow Miles Davis of thirty years ago, stretching plaintive notes over a comping rhythm section, gently blasting a trail for the rest of the group. Everybody sparkles on this burnished, laid-back set, but pay particular attention to tenor saxophonist Todd Williams, whose potent tone and well-constructed solos are an asset to any session and a godsend to this one.

    Summing up, the meal was fine, but a smaller serving would have made it easier to savor. So, while I am not wild about any of this, I find it eminently listenable and sufficiently laced with palatable ingredients to merit attention. I still think there are more exciting young trumpet players out there, men like Roy Hargrove and Terence Blanchard, and I think we all would have been better served with just one of these albums--at least this month--but I suppose we ought not complain as long as major labels continue to issue jazz of this caliber. If you wonder which album to buy, I recommend starting with the last volume, "Levee Low Moan," and don't worry too much about picking only one--there is truly no need to regard these releases as a whole. --Chris Albertson

Edited by Christiern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Chris. I was able to read your reviews. Sounds very fair to me. If anything, your criticism bordered on the overly-gentle.

Thanks, but you know someone will find them positively crucifying! :g

BTW, I found that when I narrowed the window using mouse in lower left hand corner, the text followed. I have just all but removed the original post, but it, too, was adjustable.

The first thing I did was to shorten the red line--that did not do anything for the text.

Sorry about all this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, my main beef with Wynton is with his 'politics', not his music. True, most of his music doesn't do much for me, but I don't bag on it all that much either, or at least I try not to. I may not have a real high opinion of his music, but I don't go out of my way to tell everyone I know what I think of it.

People either like it or they don't. What I have discovered, though, is that the people I know personally (in Kansas City) with a fair number of Wynton CD's, all seem to be people who aren't nearly as open to jazz styles informed by the 'new' developments in the music since the 60's.

Wynton seems to be a line in the sand for many of us. I don't know anyone who loves Bitches Brew and Andrew Hill, who also loves Wynton. Most are either real positive on Wynton but hate electric Miles and Hill, or they love electric Miles and/or Hill, and hate Wynton. Not much middle ground.

At least what's what I've observed from people I've actually met, face to face. No great surprise either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, I also agree with yout "Soul Gestures" reviews, for the most part. Most of all, we both agree that the last one is the best. I have always really dug the tunes on that one, particularly the title track, which establishes a great bluesy atmosphere. I do like #2 a bit more than you did though (although the people who don't care much for WM generally go for volume 1 because of Henderson and Elvin). The only thing I would add in defense of the three volumes at a time release is that the albums are cohesive in exploring a blues-dominated atmosphere or vibe.

Was it necessary? Let's put it this way:

I'm glad they didn't stop with volume two or volume 1 cause I like volume 3 the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen those reviews before... I believe they were posted by Chris once before. To reiterate what I've said about them to Chris before: Even you have to admit that Wynton can play good Jazz.

Now, Chris, if you were to add a positive review of "Live At the Village Vanguard", maybe I'd believe you are capable of saying Wynton can still play good Jazz. Your problem is that you seem incapable of conceding that Wynton still plays good Jazz. You've spew forth nothing but backhanded remarks, snide references and generally try your damndest to put the guy down at all times. It's been all negative since these two ancient reviews. All negative. I just don't agree with that assessment. I might not dig a lot of what Wynton's been doing lately, but I do not fluff it all off as "bad"... especially without hearing it first!

Also Chris, as you have made abundantly clear, you are upset with the way the Ken Burns' Jazz people handled the material you gave them. I contend, and many have contacted me in agreement, that you are too bitter about all this. You have taken it too personal.

Besides, screw all the politics: the guy is playing good Jazz, godammit! I've heard it with my own ears. When was the last time you saw him live, Chris? I went with much skepticism, probably because of all the negativity I read here on the Internet, and I was amazed! It was a great show. I still disagree with nearly everything the man has to say about Jazz but it still can't change the fact that the man can play good Jazz!

BTW, I also happen to think that the Scientology religion is bogus. I laugh when I think people can be stupid enough to follow a religion that was started by a Science Fiction book writer as a bet between himself and other writers. Knowing that Chick Corea is a big follower of this religion and preaches it's "gospel" whenever he can, might have turned me against seeing him. After all, any money he gets from me attending one of his shows helps fund this lunacy. Did it stop me from going to see him? No. Did it stop me from enjoying the show? No. Does my belief that Chick's a loon make him a bad Jazz musician? Hell no!!

If people like Chris (and to a lesser extent, Rooster Ties) could separate the man from the music, you might find that the music can be pretty good.

Later,

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...