Free lecture by Wynton on Fri. -- should I go?????

[Simon Weil]

I think the key to discussing anything with Wynton would be to get past his semantics – since he's got such a bug up his ass about what is and what isn't "jazz" (in his mind).

I tend to see the semantics as an outgrowth of his relationship to the public. He essentially sees as it as his role to stand up for Jazz as conceived by him. It's not like he's looking, really, to give you straight answers - rather he's looking to proseletyze his view of Jazz, and use whatever questions may be thrown at him towards that end. He is a deeply agenda-driven guy.

Fine - then for the sake of discussion, let's not call anything Miles did after he went electric... ...let's not call any of  it "jazz".  But the central question, whatever the fuck you call it, is this:  is it important and vital music??  Or (as Wynton has so often implied) is everything Miles did under the influence of electricity... ...is it all crap, and if so - is it all equally 'sub-standard' (in his opinion).

Maybe that's where I could go with this...

There's no question that the value of Miles playing "Time after Time" and "Human Nature" is open to debate.  What I would like to hear from Wynton is whether he really thinks that Bitches Brew, or Jack Johnson is as much of as artistic 'dead end' as the most (arguably) 'noodling' and/or 'smooth' of Miles' output from the 80's.

You can actually find his attitude to Miles' electric period in the pdf of the interview he gave to Burns which is on the pbs Burns site. He does, now, seem to have some respect for the 70s period - but complete contempt for the 80s Miles.

And my question isn't really centered around Miles in particular -- but it's just that he provides such a clear example of electric music that was incredibly vital at one time, and clearly less vital at a later time (in a different form).

Basically he hates fusion and considers it an invalid form. Always has. Even going back to pre public persona, there's an anectdote about him saying he ain't going to play fusion ca late 70s. You'll never get him to go along with the conception of it as at all vital. The whole fusion thing is mixed up with his desire to be "top" and thus replace Miles.

But theoretically I could posit the same question about Ornette's value in the late 50's and early 60's, as opposed to his electric output since 1975 or so.

He likes (even loves) Ornette's soloing. Can't stand his conception of group interaction/free Jazz which he considers chaos. His main problems come with the avant-garde except for Ornette's playing. E.G. late Coltrane, Art Ensemble, Braxton, WSQ, Cecil T. etc etc.

Are there any other good examples I could use (besides Miles) to make this point???

Julius Hemphill (rooted in blues but not Jazz according to WM; too Euro).

Or maybe another way to approach this would be to ask what Wynton thinks are the most important developments in jazz since 1980??? And maybe specifically mention M-BASE as what I think is one of the key movements that has gone on to influence an entire generation of players, who are beginning to integrate M-BASE concepts (or similar ideas, anyway) into hybrids of M-BASE and other (slightly more 'traditional' - though not at all 'traditional' to Wynton) forms of jazz. I'm thinking of Greg Osby's output of the last 5+ years, in particular.

He's on record as saying M-BASE ain't Jazz (I don't know Osby's recent stuff.) . Wynton would probably run a mile from what Steve Coleman's been doing lately.

( All this – and yet I'm not 100% sure I'm even gonna be free to go to Wynton's lecture this afternoon. I may have a conflict that just came up this morning, drat! ) 

All you'll probably miss, if you don't go, is getting frustrated.

Simon Weil

Edited October 24, 2003 by Simon Weil

[bertrand]

Just print out this thread and give him a copy!

Bertrand.

[Dan Gould]

Say: "As the public face of Jazz for ca the last 20 years, how do you reconcile that with the drop in Jazz audiences?

Sorry, but isn't this analagous to saying to Ernie Banks, "You're known as Mr. Cub. Considering that the Cubs still haven't gotten to the World Series, and blew it this year in heartbreaking fashion, isn't it time you step aside? Heck, why don't you just die already? You're obviously everything that's wrong with the Cubs."

(I realize you'll miss the baseball reference, Simon, but others here know what I am saying).

And I do not at all understand this comment:

He must surely have some awareness that his credibility in the Jazz world has suffered a dramatic fall since Burns. In that series we learnt that, essentially, Jazz since 1960 was questionable - unless it was of the neo-trad sort that Wynton proseletyses. Or, any rate, we were supposed (or newbies were supposed) to learn that. But, being the boneheads that we undoubtedly are, we declined to take it at Burns/Wynton's say-so. Instead Jazz, as a whole, stuck to the view that there was something worthwhile in this music. Indeed, as so many threads here demonstrate, the post 1960s period in Jazz is central to what Jazz fans today listen to.

First of all, Wynton's "credibility" was damaged beyond repair among those who already disagree about post-60s jazz. So who are these presumed newbies who think Wynton is an idiot because Jazz didn't deal very well with the last forty years of the music? Wynton's credibility is exactly what it was pre-Jazz:

For those who don't find anything worthwhile in free and fusion, he's fighting the good fight.

For those who do, or are pushing the music into different areas, he's the anti-Christ. So what? Nothing has changed because of Jazz.

And finally, considering the popularity of the Conn threads and the two different RVG threads, I'd suggest that jazz of the "classical" period is very much a preoccupation of this board, with far less centrality of the post-60s period.

In fact, I think its time for a poll.

[Big Al]

A bit late, but here goes:

“Mr. Marsalis, if jazz is the great melting-pot of all races and cultures, how do you explain Stanley Crouch? You must know that Mr. Crouch’s writings are divisive and elitist, enough to get him fired from Jazz Times. Mr. Crouch forwards the notion that jazz music should be played and listened only by African-Americans; the implication being that there is no room for anyone of non-African (i.e. European, Latin, etc.) descent and, to a lesser degree, light skin pigment. It would seem to me that, given your stature as the face of jazz, connecting yourself—or at the very least, not publicly disagreeing—with Mr. Crouch’s public stance implies that you agree with him on some level. Is that so? Because to do so would ignore the contributions of Stan Getz, Dave Brubeck, Bill Evans, Lee Konitz, and Warne Marsh (not to mention the groundbreaking work of Antonio Carlos Jobim, Vince Guaraldi, Cal Tjader, and others who popularized Brazilian jazz) from the 50s and 60s; as well as the groundbreaking works of such players as Joe Zawinul, Miroslav Vitous, Chick Corea, Dave Holland, Keith Jarrett, and Dave Douglas (whom you must know Mr. Crouch blasted in his final Jazz Times piece, simply for having the audacity to attempt to play jazz while being white! How dare he!) from the 70’s up to today.

Don’t you think that, as someone whose educational stature is without question, attitudes like this are detrimental to future generations of jazzers, players and listeners, of all races and cultures?”

***********************

Given that he gets most of his jazz information from the likes of Crouch, you could come back to him like this:

“So then, does this make you the George W. Bush of jazz, and Stanley Crouch your Dick Cheney?”

Edited October 24, 2003 by Big Al

[Simon Weil]

Say: "As the public face of Jazz for ca the last 20 years, how do you reconcile that with the drop in Jazz audiences?

Sorry, but isn't this analagous to saying to Ernie Banks, "You're known as Mr. Cub. Considering that the Cubs still haven't gotten to the World Series, and blew it this year in heartbreaking fashion, isn't it time you step aside? Heck, why don't you just die already? You're obviously everything that's wrong with the Cubs."

(I realize you'll miss the baseball reference, Simon, but others here know what I am saying).

Well, I guess it's only fair that I get to reply to you kind of blindfold - I mean I do know a hell of a lot more about Wynton than you probably. Sort of evens things up.

My feeling is that Wynton does have a case to answer here. One of his big themes throughout his career has been how avant-garde Jazz has driven people off. That implicitly the sort of more straight-ahead forms he advocates would be more easily comprehensible - and would bring back the Jazz audience supposedly alienated by Late Coltrane etc.

So he's positioned himself as someone who will bring back Jazz's audience as well, as he sees it, recover its lost integrity. But he's failed in this. Even with Burns, he's failed. I think it's quite legitimate to say, "Well look, Wynton. You've had your innings. Now it's time for others to have a go."

And I do not at all understand this comment:

He must surely have some awareness that his credibility in the Jazz world has suffered a dramatic fall since Burns. In that series we learnt that, essentially, Jazz since 1960 was questionable - unless it was of the neo-trad sort that Wynton proseletyses. Or, any rate, we were supposed (or newbies were supposed) to learn that. But, being the boneheads that we undoubtedly are, we declined to take it at Burns/Wynton's say-so. Instead Jazz, as a whole, stuck to the view that there was something worthwhile in this music. Indeed, as so many threads here demonstrate, the post 1960s period in Jazz is central to what Jazz fans today listen to.

First of all, Wynton's "credibility" was damaged beyond repair among those who already disagree about post-60s jazz. So who are these presumed newbies who think Wynton is an idiot because Jazz didn't deal very well with the last forty years of the music? Wynton's credibility is exactly what it was pre-Jazz:

For those who don't find anything worthwhile in free and fusion, he's fighting the good fight.

For those who do, or are pushing the music into different areas, he's the anti-Christ. So what? Nothing has changed because of Jazz.

What's changed is the "floating voters" in Jazz. People like you and me, on opposite sides of the Wynton debate, are probably more or less where we always were. But there was always a good number of people who were prepared to give Wynton the benefit of the doubt. To say that, despite his inflammatory rhetoric, perhaps he was more bark than bite. What changed was that they saw Burns, which was a product largely of the Lincoln Center world-view, and understood that his bite was just exactly the same as his bark - and they were getting bitten (or would be in due course). Because, as I said above, Wynton and his mates were trying to marginalize - through this series - much of what very many Jazz fans listen to. He hoped to spin it that that series wasn't a product of his perception of Jazz - but nobody bought it, and now he's reaping what he has sown (though he denies it). He's radicalised the people who were unsure about him before.

And finally, considering the popularity of the Conn threads and the two different RVG threads, I'd suggest that jazz of the "classical" period is very much a preoccupation of this board, with far less centrality of the post-60s period.

In fact, I think its time for a poll.

Well, you're right and you're wrong. This is a place where people do concentrate a lot on the "classical" period (as you put it). But the fact is, this place is also so full up of knowledgeable and bright people, who take a view much wider than just, say, Art Blakey - that even with (perhaps) a kind of conservative POV - people are pissed off at what Marsalis has done through Burns.

It's like a kind of a grade A insult to one's intelligence, that series.

Simon Weil

[Dan Gould]

Simon, you've said a lot of stuff here, without a whit of evidence whatsoever, especially for your assertions about the "floating voters".

"He's radicalised the people who were unsure about him before."

WHO are these people? Your friends who didn't hate him quite as much as you do, but now they hate him passionately? This is ridiculous. I know plenty of people who found Wynton engaging in that series and have begun to investigate jazz because in between the talking heads, these people heard snatches of wonderful music that intrigued them.

The answer to the question of why jazz has declined again is this: When Wynton got all the attention, jazz became "cool" again, as it periodically does. The fact that people drifted back away has nothing to do with Wynton, the intrinsic value of his music, or the supposed "impact" of his beliefs about jazz.

It has everything to do with fads and the passing thereof.

[Simon Weil]

For evidence, you'll just have to wait for the fan(s) to hit the shit.

Simon Weil

Edited October 24, 2003 by Simon Weil

[Rooster_Ties]

Don't have time to give a full report now, but I did end up going to hear Wynton.

Overall, his lecture struck me as being much like his music. Not nearly as offensive as I might have expected it to be (or maybe 'wanted' it to be - which shows my biases). But he sure talked a lot, without really having much to say -- much like what he plays.

The audience was nearly all college kids, of all different kinds of majors (so it was a generally 'less-than-interested-in-jazz' kind of group -- or frankly, a group that really was necessarily all that fanatical about music, for that matter). The place was packed, so one got the sense that the lecture had been heavily promoted, perhaps even as one of many such lectures that students could attend - like for the Freshman 'general studies' courses. (You know the kind, which try to introduce incoming students to critical thinking -- since this was at a small Liberal Arts college.)

Most of his talk wasn't about music, although he did try to tie some things into his ideas about music, usually in long, rambling, and not-all-that-well-thought-out ways.

I took a bunch of notes, and I'll try to provide some quotes later.

Not sure I'm all that glad I went (either for good or bad reasons), but he did confirm my expectations of mediocrity.

He did say a number of things (most of which I jotted down as best I could), which seem antithetical to his otherwise conservative views about jazz. I'll type up some of the 'better' ones later.

He took questions at the end, but they had to be submitted in advance, and I was a couple minutes late getting to the lecture - and didn't get a program (which had the cards in it to submit questions). By the time I wrote out a question about his thoughts on Women in jazz (because he mentioned 'women' several times in his talk), they had already collected up all the cards and taken them on stage for the moderator to read. (Drat!!)

More later -- gotta run now...

Edited October 24, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Simon Weil]

I'm glad you went, Rooster - even if you're not quite sure about it. It's interesting to read your report - I find it does kind of fit with my perception of a more, let's say, user-friendly Wynton. He has definitely made an impression to tone down on the antagonism towards parts of Jazz he's previously slagged off (or perhaps simulate an interest in, even). In the interviews I have seen recently, he does tend to warble on. You get a lot of platudinous stuff. In general he seems less like the angry young man, than (as he is) in satisfied early middle age.

It's interesting that he said stuff about women. Definitely has some problems there. Would have been nice to get your question in - but seems like he was keeping things pretty well under control. So it's difficult to see him answering anything too aggressive.

The event comes across as Worthy - And him as Mr Worthy - or Mr Snooze-worthy, depending on your perceptions.

Can't say I'd disagree (if that's right).

Simon Weil

[Lazaro Vega]

For what it's worth regarding Ken Burns Jazz, when the Roscoe Mitchell Quintet with Fred Anderson came to Grand Rapids about a year and a half ago, there was a nice looking middle aged couple sitting near the front. At intermission the woman spoke to me, said her husband dragged her to this concert, gave her permission to leave at half time should the music drive her away. And she's wide eyed explaining how she's never heard/seen anything like it, but managed to deal with the music by remembeing Gary Giddins description of John Coltrane's playing in the Ken Burns series. She went with that and made it into Roscoe, which was a break through as far as I'm concerned. It's interesting that a non-jazz loving woman with open ears realized Roscoe was an extension of Coltrane without having to be told. I mean, she got it. 2.5 million people saw Burns, and a majority of them didn't know the stories of jazz before seeing the documentary, but found an emotional reaction to what they were being exposed to. We can complain about how wrong the ending was (I thought Wynton did a much better job with that period in his NPR program with Berger many years ago, but the last 50 years were still bunched into one episode, it's just they covered more in the episode). But rather than disqualify their experience, maybe give them, 'Well, that's a great start, and there's much more to learn,' one of the things they didn't talk about that's really cool/important/unlike anything else in music is....I know how it went down with many, many musicians...all I'm saying is, give the public a little more credit: they took what they wanted and are, hopefully, using it.

[Simon Weil]

2.5 million people saw Burns, and a majority of them didn't know the stories of jazz before seeing the documentary, but found an emotional reaction to what they were being exposed to.

Well look, Lazaro, 3 years ago on rmb (see the google archives) I had an argument with you about this same series (as then unreleased). I said there was something wrong with it. You talked about putting ..."some positive spin" on the series. And, to me that's what you're still trying to do.

If I have a religion it's to do with truth. Enough already with the spin.

Simon Weil

[Dan Gould]

What "spin"?

The man's given a perfect example of how Burns' film helped a woman who didn't like jazz to "get" a jazz performance.

Jeez, you can't even give a crumb to Burns, can you?

Talk about spin ...

[Rooster_Ties]

Speaking as someone who has railed against Wynton (especially), and a little against Burns too, somewhat (though his crime was not premeditated), I thing it would be good for everyone to remember a couple things...

Wynton and Burns are neither as bad (or 'evil') as some people make them out to be (which even I have done on occasion, with Wynton anyway), nor are they as good as some others (and Wynton himself, especially) make them out to be.

From what I saw of it, the Burns documentary was relatively good (or at worst "decent"), by and large. I didn't love it, and I could probably go on for pages about things that I personally found lacking in it. Still, warts and all, it was probably a good thing for jazz (especially in the long run), and a reasonable attempt to explain the music to a mainstream audience.

Was the glass half full, or half empty???

( And yes, I fully admit that I used the word "crime" in the first paragraph of this post, implying that what Wynton has done to jazz is "a crime". No, I really don't mean that literally. He's done some good things, and some bad things. But what I find most disappointing is that so much of what he's done for jazz (and/or against jazz), has been in service to promoting Wynton over promoting jazz. Not a crime against humanity, but something I certainly find lacking in the man. )

[Christiern]

• If Wynton has done any good--and he has--it has mostly been by default. Musically, he has taken jazz to the depths of mediocrity (Big Train, Blood, and the Morton disaster come to mind), with only flashes of noteworthy performances.
  
  Of course there will always be people who "discover" jazz through programs like the Burns series, but that, IMO, is lame justification for spending so much money and time on a "documentary" that ignores half of the music's history while pretending to be the music's history. As the series' chief advisors, Wynton and his sidekick, Crouch, played a large role in limiting Burn's vision. Hell will probably freeze over before there is another grant of this magnitude made to jazz, so Burns' work can rightly be regarded as a wasted opportunity. Thus he--and, in a way, Wynton--made jazz a victim.
  
  Lazaro, any extended exposure to jazz (or polkas, for that matter) will spark the interest of the occasional middle-aged man or woman from Grand Rapids, Weehauken, or wherever.