Jump to content

Big NY Times piece about Wynton and JLC


Recommended Posts

Some of you should get a part time job telemarketing for an Arts organization, either fundraising or subscriptions, then you'd appreciate what Wynton has done.

But that is only a small part...Arts organizations depend on government funding, federal, state, or local...as well as corporate sponsorship...that's why there was such a panic especially in the dance world when Philip Morris, a huge supporter had to suspend their donations when the tobacco laws hit. Wealthy patrons help too, but ticket sales and 25 dollars from someone you call on the phone don't really cut it.

There are xceptions to every rule, and paintings hanging in a museum is not the same as putting on 135 perfomances of symphonic pieces in a huge building in Manhattan or what JOLC has to contend with what with Rose room and Allen room underutilzed because of the insane rent they want (need).

All I'm saying is give Wynton credit. HE DID IT! Nobody else did! So he sucks as a musician. He puts butts in seats! Like it or not, that is only criteria when you're running a joint with someone else's money!

To me, the question is whether a more creative jazz artist could have accomplished the same thing, or done better, with the backing and position that Wynton has enjoyed. I don't know the answer. Is Wynton some kind of marketing, fundraising, managerial genius, so that it could fairly be said that if another musician had been given his opportunities that the JOLC complex and programs would not have happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me, the question is whether a more creative jazz artist could have accomplished the same thing, or done better, with the backing and position that Wynton has enjoyed. I don't know the answer. Is Wynton some kind of marketing, fundraising, managerial genius, so that it could fairly be said that if another musician had been given his opportunities that the JOLC complex and programs would not have happened?

I don't think we can know, because Wynton the "face of jazz" was quite a creation on the part of many people over the years, a feat of social engineering the likes of which I haven't seen otherwise in my lifetime. For one thing, the backing aspect, which I think was many-sided and complex, would be repeatable only if you began with similar human interest/status factors that wqould be difficult if not impossible to repeat -- well-spoken, polite youthfulness; jazz plus classical credibility or the like; the sense of an art that was artistically

worthy/noble but commercially beleagured and thus in need of a young Lochinvar, etc. For another, once Wynton "the face" attained that position, while the game was not over (it could still have blown via scandal, gross inepitude, you name it), the whole structure that had placed the face there now had a deep vested interest in supproting him in that position, if only to verify the good judgment of the important people and the process in which all had participated/were participating. Which, again, is not to say that Wynton isn't doing a whizbang, hands-job as JLC's CEO, as far as that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the "type" of people who support JLC wouldn't have much of an interest in supporting something better anyways.

So fuck all of'em, let them have their museum. Let the rest of us have some living music the way we've always had it - through word of mouth, throught the underground, through anything but institutionalized musical taxidermy.

Problem is, nobody except the JLC "type" goes out & spends the buckage too much any more (or so it seems). So that one's on us, even if there are a lot of mitigating circumstances. But there's always been money in preserving an image of the past. It's an easy way to get glory w/o having to earn it. Just claim it for your own once it's already been created and left available thru death. There's a huge market for that, always has been, always will be. So let them have it.

Ours is not to be feted by the powers that be, for we oppose the powers that be. You want the jizz, you gotta hang around the tip, prime the pump, and be ready to catch it when it spurts. To think otherwise is nonsense.

Now, somebody tell me this - is there anybody, anybody, who could make truly creative contemporary jazz and get the same deal that Wynton's got? Hell no. Because truly creative contemporary jazz doesn't hang around the tip unless it's to bite it. Otherwise, it's all about going after god and/or pussy. Ain't no "cultural institutions" gonna subsidize somebody going after their god or their pussy, much less both.

Eunuchs are not to be feared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, jazz, "real" jazz, is all but dead. Plenty of great music ha escaped from the body and is out there keeping the gene pool active, but it's not "real" jazz any more. And thank god for that!

Again -fear not the dead nor the necromancers. Unless you yourself are dead (or on the way), they can't hurt you unless you let them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry Kart:
"I don't think we can know, because Wynton the "face of jazz" was quite a creation on the part of many people over the years, a feat of social engineering the likes of which I haven't seen otherwise in my lifetime. For one thing, the backing aspect, which I think was many-sided and complex, would be repeatable only if you began with similar human interest/status factors that wqould be difficult if not impossible to repeat -- well-spoken, polite youthfulness; jazz plus classical credibility or the like; the sense of an art that was artistically worthy/noble but commercially beleagured and thus in need of a young Lochinvar, etc. For another, once Wynton "the face" attained that position, while the game was not over (it could still have blown via scandal, gross inepitude, you name it), the whole structure that had placed the face there now had a deep vested interest in supproting him in that position, if only to verify the good judgment of the important people and the process in which all had participated/were participating. Which, again, is not to say that Wynton isn't doing a whizbang, hands-job as JLC's CEO, as far as that goes."

I had a near ringside seat for this and you are right on the money, as it were. It was amazing to see the star sculptors at work. The fact that Wynton showed much promise in the Blakey days played a role in that success. The main culprit at Columbia was "Dr." George Butler, a man who was basically as clueless when it came to jazz as he was inept when it came to producing it. Butler was the man who nearly destroyed Blue Note by downgrading the label beyond recognition (signing on such lightweights as Bobbi Humphrey and diluting the works of more substantial artists). As he fumbled through his new job, suspicions were confirmed: Butler had been hired by Columbia because he was black and this was the 1970s, a time when that mattered to many white corporations. The "Dr." title became a sad, sometimes cruel joke.

Incidentally, the scam that involved purchases of masters from the BYG crooks, which I have detailed in a long ago thread, also came about because the company relied on an employee who was hired for the wrong reasons (I don't recall his name now, but he played bass and formed a well-financed record label upon his early departure from Columbia. The label failed spectacularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest youmustbe

Wynton has statues being erected to him all over the world...while a select few of us argue about his merits on this board...know what I mean?

Talent often morphs into personality, and sometimes a Cult Of Personality, which is what has happened to Wynton. . Just the way it is. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this whole equation between celebrity and artistic value....celebrity is a fickle, unfair bitch, while artistic value establishes timeless standards....Well, they're building McDonald's all over the world, so those sandwiches must be good for you....Yes, it's the People Magazine era, but don't ask people in the arts to just throw up the arms and give in to that shit. If "playing the game is so noble" then why doesn't Wynton understand that is exactly what the fusion era jazz musicians were doing? You want to play for huge crowds, get on a Fillmore extravaganza. That's where the money was and musicians went for it. Same game, different era.

That said, it was astounding to see the crowds he drew for his sextet in Europe featured in clips on his web site. Looked like a European football match replete with banners.

Edited by Lazaro Vega
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talent often morphs into personality, and sometimes a Cult Of Personality, which is what has happened to Wynton. . Just the way it is. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

You were around then and saw or sensed what I did and what Chris saw close up, right? "Morphs ... what has happened to ... Just the way it is"" suggests a relatively organic development, but all this was pretty much calculated/calibrated, no? If so, that makes a difference. I think back to Brubeck on the cover of Time magazine, which certainly frosted some people's butts because it bore some of the hallmarks of a PR operation. But not only could Paul Desmond really play, and, it could be argued, Brubeck too, their music did speak intensely to the audience it spoke to -- if the Brubeck was during its heyday finally as much a sociological phenomenon as a musical one, it was a phenomenon. But the Wynton thing was about as organic as the "This is your brain on drugs" campaign, though I'd guess you could say it was more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So fuck all of'em, let them have their museum. Let the rest of us have some living music the way we've always had it - through word of mouth, throught the underground, through anything but institutionalized musical taxidermy.

What he said.

Wynton has statues being erected to him all over the world...while a select few of us argue about his merits on this board...know what I mean?

If you mean to infer that popularity has anything to do with quality... well then good luck to you.

I have always assumed that the "faces" were just that, the facades that the masses came to stare at while the foundations on which they sat were appreciated by the handful that knew better.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest youmustbe

GEEZ! How many times and how many ways do I have to say that I don't care for his playing or his person? Or better yet, I wasn't that interested in him. I spent a lot of time with George Butler and had to listen to 'Wynton that, Wynton this'...even worse telling me that Delfayo was 'good'.

I don't care how or why he rose to the top, but he did. And as I've said, knowing how the funding went from the start of JOLC, it was pretty amazing! In 2001 I think it was, I worked briefly for a friend that runs one of the calling centers for Arts organizations. They had just gotten the JOLC account after it had started to grow and had to leave in-house. It is more cost effective and also necessary for non profits like that to use outside call centers, tax purposes, Government funding, etc. etc.

Anyway, I listened as callers who knew nothing about Jazz whatsoever would read from the brochure over the phone to someone in the 'burbs who would take out subscriptions because it was Wynton Marsalis. The name is MAGIC!

I'll leave you to argue about the merits, but ALL I'm pointing out is that his accomplishmnet in so short a time in getting his own venue(s)...well as someone in that line of 'biz'... I'm running out of superlatives!

BTW At the NY PHIL, we sold out in 2 days 3 concerts by Bocelli, 195 dollar top! CULT OF PERSONALITY not only works in Politics but sells tickets in Showbiz!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Wynton's name does not work when it comes to fundraising, it does, and for the reasons Larry and I have stated. But Wynton did not create that name recognition on his own--that was done for him. Notice that this same name recognition did not move the general public (not even the average jazz fan) to buy his albums in quantities that satisfied Columbia. Had he not been handed the job at LC, his name would not be "magic." In other words, musical talent/creativity did not give him recognition, business, and the promotional opportunities that go with large corporate support, did.

If you are in the PR business, you should be familiar with the name of Marilyn Laverty. She was a VP at Columbia who went on to form her own PR company, Shore Fire Media. Among her first clients were two Columbia artists, Bruce Springsteen and Wynton--she is very good at what she does. I give her more credit for establishing Wynton's name than is due Butler. She worked Butler skillfully.

So, I hope you understand that some of us are more impressed by musical talent than we are by the PR that puffs it up. Wynton is a favorite subject when talent and hype are placed on the scale--that, too, is the result of Laverty's well-crafted image building.

She might also have had a hand in his receiving the Pulitzer (when Ellington had not been so honored), but when I asked one of the judges how such an inferior work could garner such a prestigious award, he told me that it had been a "political" decision.

I mention this only because it always pops up in discussions of Wynton's merits (or lack thereof). His admirers and shills like to regard the Pulitzer as proof of talent and that was probably so in earlier years, but listen to "Blood on the Fields" and you, too, will wonder.

Finally, please tell me where, "all over the world," I can find statues of Wynton. :g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The myth of this article is nothing "succeeds like success". AKA, you need success to keep going. If that were true there'd be no Jazz, product of rejects of society. Therefore Wynton is antithetical to the spirit that both created Jazz and ensured its continuing vitality.

I really dig the management speak.

Simon Weil

Edited by Simon Weil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, please tell me where, "all over the world," I can find statues of Wynton. :g

One I know (dont't know of any other) is right next to the main square of the southern France village of Marciac where a jazz festival is held every summer. WM is an invited participant there every year.

Did a quick google and could not find an image!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, please tell me where, "all over the world," I can find statues of Wynton. :g

One I know (dont't know of any other) is right next to the main square of the southern France village of Marciac where a jazz festival is held every summer. WM is an invited participant there every year.

Did a quick google and could not find an image!

Since July 2006, there´s a statue of Wynton in the Spanish town of Vitoria, where he has played plenty of times.

vitoria028.jpg

http://www.elpais.es/articulo/agenda/homen...lpepiage_3/Tes/

Those crazy Spaniards!

:g

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy either extreme argument. The Wynton "cult" came about not entirely because of Wynton's talent, and not entirely because of the machine that marketed him. When Wynton first came on the jazz scene, he generated a lot of excitement, including rather broad excitement within the critical and jazz community. Jazz was hurting at the time. Rapidly declining employment opportunities for jazz musicians didn't bode well for the future. Many people WANTED to believe in a savior: the second coming of Louis Armstrong from New Orleans. The fact that all the necessary musical substance for such a conclusion was not yet there was dismissed (deliberately by people who wanted to be believers) as the result of youth and inexperience. Objectively speaking, his mastery of the trumpet was very impressive, and the kind of jazz that he favored appealed to a nostalgic jazz-loving generation. That set the stage for the marketing machine to be set in motion.

To Wynton's credit, he always faced this huge stigma and pressure with energy, sincerity, and enormous ambition. And yes, he has worked very hard on jazz education and the promotion of that jazz and jazz history that he loves. From the very beginning, I have always wanted to like his music a lot more than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...callers who knew nothing about Jazz whatsoever would read from the brochure over the phone to someone in the 'burbs who would take out subscriptions because it was Wynton Marsalis. The name is MAGIC!

I would call it many things instead of "magic", but anyway, you made quite a point.

How many people would have noticed if Marsalis had stopped playing regularly 15 years ago and had devoted himself to all the other things he does?

F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to refer back to Larry's economic issue, about how the expense of the Lincoln Center band has managed to eat away the jazz budgets of local presenters everywhere - Marty Khan, who has been presenting and managing avant garde jazz acts for many years, actually mentioned this issue to me back in the 1990s, so it has been going on for some time. Marty told me that Marsalis et all had basically destroyed the economic middle of jazz presentation - everything was either super expensive or super cheap. Now you have to hold the presenters responsible for this as well, as, frankly, they are generally idiots who don't know better, and I tell you this from personal experience, having sat on too many rubber-stamping jazz panels (before I figured out what was really going on).

And we have to be honest and admit the same thing goes on at the other end - presenters who put on more progressive music often get stuck in presenting and re-presenting the same people over and over again. I'm way out of the loop know, but was a time that all we saw on the "left" were David Murray, Geri Allen, Don Byron, over and over and over again. Something like Spahn and Sain and two days of rain, than Spahn and Sain again.

the more things change...

Edited by AllenLowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... When Wynton first came on the jazz scene, he generated a lot of excitement, including rather broad excitement within the critical and jazz community. Jazz was hurting at the time. Rapidly declining employment opportunities for jazz musicians didn't bode well for the future.

I read in Stuart Nicholson's "Is Jazz Dead?" that the bebop scene at the time when Marsalis came into the scene was not as bad as it has been suggested. Any comments?

F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read "is jazz dead?" But my comment refers to the perceived dynamic trend in opportunities for jazz musicians as opposed to an assessment of the absolute level of the music. Certainly, there was a lot happening in jazz at the time. But this trend was causing concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read "is jazz dead?" But my comment refers to the perceived dynamic trend in opportunities for jazz musicians as opposed to an assessment of the absolute level of the music. Certainly, there was a lot happening in jazz at the time. But this trend was causing concerns.

Hi John,

Sorry I was not clear enough. I was referring precisely to the perception that gigs and work opportunities were scarce for bop-oriented musicians, not to the level of the music. Nicholson challenges that perception giving names and, IIRC, quoting well-known musicians. I'm pretty tied-up at the moment, but will try to look for an actual quote.

But it'd be still be great if any of the members involved in jazz in the late 70s/early 80s could comment.

F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is true that in the late 1970s in NYC things were in flux, but there was activity, the loft scene, a lot of new independent clubs. But I do remember Barry Harris, at the time, talking about the difficulties of what he called the "in between" generation - musicians who were born between Bird and the 1930s and 1940s jazz generation, beboppers like Barry, Jimmy Knepper, Al Haig, basically a lot of mainstreamer types who suffered from the middle 1960s and on, in the wake of rock and roll, and who were not progressives in the sense of people like Julius Hemphil or Arthur Blythe, etc etc. (not that those guys were making a million bucks either but they did seem to have some niche, small as it was). This was the time when Barry opened his own club, and I would say that guys of his style were probably ultimately pleased by the rise of Wynton and the so-called young lions, much as they might have been annoyed, particularly at first, by the out-of-proportion attention the youngsters were getting. It did, however, open up some ears to their playing. As to the ultimate economic impact, I would guess that it was positive, but that is based purely on outside observation, not real empirical analysys (ie looking at the tax returns of every bebopper).

Edited by AllenLowe
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...