jazz that sucks--kurt goes off on jazz

[sonnymax]

"Wait a minute. Kurt Rosenwinkel is a "modern jazz icon" and a "leading light of jazz"? Okay, now that sucks!

[.:.impossible]

I've never knowingly heard him, and now probably won't take the time to check him out. So take that Rosie.

[papsrus]

Jazz sucks again?

Damn.

[Tom Storer]

Most musicians who courageously stand up to say "most jazz sucks" are careful not to offend any of their peers by naming the ones they think suck. This way all their peers can potentially agree by mentally placing themselves in the "don't suck" minority, even if they themselves were actually among those secretly targeted by the vague "it sucks" denunciation.

I suspect the real aim of these "most jazz sucks" declarations is usually to indicate that "me and my friends are among the very best, unlike our rivals, who all suck." This can be either a bitter rant, like Burno's, which sounds like "I don't get no respect! I'm better than those other guys but nobody has given me a medal! It's not fair!", or a smug tweet like Rosenwinkel's, which sounds like "I am just the greatest and everyone knows it, so I can shit on everyone else from a great height."

That said, I like both Burno and Rosenwinkel as musicians. Neither of them suck, except perhaps as commentators on the state of jazz.

[colinmce]

Am I missing something here? Seems to me this conversation is taking place in a very particular circle of mainstream, middle-aged jazz players with similar dispositions. Seems to me in fact that creative jazz is thriving like hell. Or does that not count? This is some nouveau moldy fig bullshit to me. These guys can cry all they want about how no one plays bebop anymore. But no respect for the tradition? Give me a motherfucking break. I could go all day listing off vibrant and creative young musicians, or the continuing advacements of the 1970s masters but what's the point.

Jazz has been an expanding music from the very first note, and yet some people have never stopped deciding that the path is somehow finite. If all jazz had to offer me was more Kurt Rosenwinkles I'd give up. These guys depress me

[Tom Storer]

I like your attitude!

But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

[fasstrack]

I like your attitude!

But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

[ep1str0phy]

Rosenwinkel does make one really crucial point, and it reminds me of this:

Ten Things Jazz Musicians Can Learn from Pub Rock Bands

I can definitely relate to the notion that jazz benefits from rehearsal, practice, and craftsmanship (attention to orchestration, arrangement, solo order, album/set programming, etc.). A lot of music doesn't happen this way, and I think it's important that, whatever one does, he/she attempts to uphold the standards of his/her own craft. I've definitely considered walking off stage for a well paying gig once or twice (my respect for the bandleader and a desire to recoup my ridiculous gas expenses preventing me from doing so)... when the music isn't happening--and when you could have clearly done something about it ahead of time--it's disrespectful to everyone and everything involved.

Rosenwinkel's music isn't my flavor, but I do admire the attention he pays to his own craft. Granted this, "creative music" requires a balance of craft and, well, creativity. I find it interesting that a great number of the major league commentators on this topic (not here--I'm talking about the de facto mainstream) insist on upholding historical standards of excellence while simultaneously creating music that is often debilitatingly beholden to other peoples' concepts. There's a difference (though, obviously, an overlap) between music that is proficient and music that is worthwhile, and I'm not convinced of the value of "non-sucky" music when said music is (in general terms) a retread of the lost Miles Quintet--or the Jazz Messengers--or Tony Williams Lifetime, etc. That subject has been drilled elsewhere...

[ep1str0phy]

I like your attitude!

But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

Tired in terms of jazz neoclassicism--that is, only jazz that uses swing and blues in a traditional sense can be considered "real." Moldy figism. Even the discographies of many of the proponents of neoclassicism contravene this notion, but Burno's assessment hews dangerously close to "play nice hard bop" (rather than the interpretation I'd favor, which is "do your homework first and foremost").

On another note, Rashied Ali stresses (in one of his final interviews) the value of going back and learning stuff like "Scrapple from the Apple." This can be read in one way as just another instance of a classic avant-gardist turning conservative in his older age, in another as a man who has been to the moon and back stressing the importance of fundamentals. Again, there's something to be said for craftsmanship in any vocation.

[colinmce]

I like your attitude!

But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

It's tired because it's almost always applied incorrectly. It's often argued that these traits need to be foregrounded. I subscribe to the radical notion that swing and blues qualities can be implicit. Does George E. Lewis always "swing"? No. Is he "swinging"? Always. To jump to the present: does Taylor Ho Bynum always play the blues? No. But the blues is the root of his craft and I know this. What use would either of these players be to me or to the music if they just rehashed JJ Johnson and Kenny Dorham? But do they know and appreciate the music of these forebears? Again, I have no doubt. This is not a game of absolutes. If no one learned that from Bird or from Cecil or from Braxton or from John Zorn then I don't know what to say.

And you're right who knows if KR was talking about the avant garde or not. But their very existence disproved his point, scant and incoherent as it is. So does, you know, the equally great mainstream jazz being made too.

[fasstrack]

I like your attitude!

But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

It's tired because it's almost always applied incorrectly. It's often argued that these traits need to be foregrounded. I subscribe to the radical notion that swing and blues qualities can be implicit. Does George E. Lewis always "swing"? No. Is he "swinging"? Always. To jump to the present: does Taylor Ho Bynum always play the blues? No. But the blues is the root of his craft and I know this. What use would either of these players be to me or to the music if they just rehashed JJ Johnson and Kenny Dorham? But do they know and appreciate the music of these forebears? Again, I have no doubt. This is not a game of absolutes. If no one learned that from Bird or from Cecil or from Braxton or from John Zorn then I don't know what to say.

And you're right who knows if KR was talking about the avant garde or not. But their very existence disproved his point, scant and incoherent as it is. So does, you know, the equally great mainstream jazz being made too.

With all due respect those are a lot of nice words. If music makes me pat my foot and want to move, whether I'm in the band or listening, it swings. If not, it doesn't. Not that there aren't other worthy qualities in a musician. Of course there are. But a musician, informed listener, and most of all average person call tell right away. They just have to stop reading and listening to 'experts' and trust their hearts and ears.

As far as Rosenwinkel, he's still a little green to be making sweeping statements. I say green b/c his ego is so enormous in his attitude toward music, and I've seen it again and again with him, and I'll stop there. I don't think he knows nearly as much as he or his acolytes think. Egotistic infantilism is hurting jazz more than anything else ever could. I'm not slamming his talent, BTW. He's plenty talented and plays and writes well. I like a lot of his stuff, though it's all about Kurt. I still hear the creativity.

I guess I was lucky and learned the value of community and other things early in the game from very generous jazz musicians, generous in art and spirit. So I can only take guys like that so seriously, and he should be called on his bullshit attitude. People would be doing him a favor, and he'd realize it in some years, after he grows up a little. Best to shut up and play. Show me you care about more than your solo and I'll listen.

[JSngry]

If music makes me pat my foot and want to move, whether I'm in the band or listening, it swings. If not, it doesn't.

Certainly can't argue that, but the other side of that coin is that you can't expect everybody's foot to pat and everybody's movilator buttons to be pushed by the same thing (or for the results to be manifested in exactly the same way), so with that in mind, there's more than one "swing" to be considered at any given time, at least objectively. But then again, such reactions are intrinsically anti-subjective, so...there you go!

[fasstrack]

If music makes me pat my foot and want to move, whether I'm in the band or listening, it swings. If not, it doesn't.

Certainly can't argue that, but the other side of that coin is that you can't expect everybody's foot to pat and everybody's movilator buttons to be pushed by the same thing (or for the results to be manifested in exactly the same way), so with that in mind, there's more than one "swing" to be considered at any given time, at least objectively. But then again, such reactions are intrinsically anti-subjective, so...there you go!

Never said I did expect that. Everyone functions in their own rhythm and at their own pace. But it's sort of magical when the performers and audience reach that plane where they feel it together. It happens a lot in professional jazz, but musicians don't talk about it b/c it's mother's milk. It used to be to audiences too. I guess trends change and people bow to them. Again, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater b/c something's not up my particular alley. Better to listen, try to understand, find the good. If it's good it'll last anyway.

[JSngry]

I just say that because somewhere else there was a pretty summary dismissal of Lady Gaga. Now I don't get or get into her thing at all (probably the decline of Madonna was where that whole pop-music-as-relevant-sociology breathed it's last gasp of interest to me), but - you gotta believe that her music makes the feet and bodies of those who are touched by it both pat and move, so to those people, it most certainly does swing. You & I both know how good that is, as well as how all kinds of secret places get opened up when that happens. It's a good thing!

All I'm saying is that time has taught me the value of not looking a things like "swing" as being something that is quantifiable. It's just not, except within our ownselves, and, usually others of like persuasion. But othdr than, maybe, Joneses Jo & Elvin, I don't know that it is an absolute quality.

[fasstrack]

I just say that because somewhere else there was a pretty summary dismissal of Lady Gaga. Now I don't get or get into her thing at all (probably the decline of Madonna was where that whole pop-music-as-relevant-sociology breathed it's last gasp of interest to me), but - you gotta believe that her music makes the feet and bodies of those who are touched by it both pat and move, so to those people, it most certainly does swing. You & I both know how good that is, as well as how all kinds of secret places get opened up when that happens. It's a good thing!

All I'm saying is that time has taught me the value of not looking a things like "swing" as being something that is quantifiable. It's just not, except within our ownselves, and, usually others of like persuasion. But othdr than, maybe, Joneses Jo & Elvin, I don't know that it is an absolute quality.

I dismissed her b/c she's a marketing coup, not a musician. I shouldn't even waste energy noticing such idiocy, I might take it seriously and get depressed. Natalie Cole is a musician. Stevie Wonder, Donny Hathaway, on and on. When I see somebody dressed in lightbulbs it makes me think................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Liberace!

[JSngry]

Well, she's an "entertainer", that's for sure, "product" to the core, but...her product makes a lot of people's feet tap and bodies move, which isn't all the triumph of marketing, although it might well be, as was said, in the singular, of Clint Longley (look it up), the triumph of many uncluttered minds...

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[fasstrack]

Well, she's an "entertainer", that's for sure, "product" to the core, but...her product makes a lot of people's feet tap and bodies move, which isn't all the triumph of marketing, although it might well be, as was said, in the singular, of Clint Longley (look it up), the triumph of many uncluttered minds...

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Hey, didn't I hear that about her on 'Seinfeld'?

[JSngry]

[fasstrack]

Ralph Vaughan Williams might fill me with utterly bliss given my closeness to the English countryside but leave a Brooklyn uber-hipster quite unmoved.

That's because New Yorkers move too unhealthily fast to have time to notice beauty. Sad, but true.

Please, please take me to the English Countryside. I promise to be good.

OK, I'll settle for Woodstock.

Er, Poughkeepsie?................

[RDK]

I was only half-joking up above when I asked KR to name names. I seriously don't understand where he's coming from or what he's getting at. Does he really mean that many of the jazz cats out there are bad/sucky at what they do - and even then I don't know if he's referring to new recordings or some guy tickling the ivories in a super club - or is this another sweeping condemnation of Kenny G and his smooth jazz ilk who clutter up some radio stations' "jazz charts?" If he's referring to Dave Koz or Boney James - two guys that my brother-in-law, for example, would name if asked to name some modern jazz musicians - then yeah, I might agree with him.

[A Lark Ascending]

Ralph Vaughan Williams might fill me with utterly bliss given my closeness to the English countryside but leave a Brooklyn uber-hipster quite unmoved.

That's because New Yorkers move too unhealthily fast to have time to notice beauty. Sad, but true.

Please, please take me to the English Countryside. I promise to be good.

OK, I'll settle for Woodstock.

Er, Poughkeepsie?................

And I move too slowly, having to nudge those sheep along, to notice excitement and energy.

[ep1str0phy]

I was only half-joking up above when I asked KR to name names. I seriously don't understand where he's coming from or what he's getting at. Does he really mean that many of the jazz cats out there are bad/sucky at what they do - and even then I don't know if he's referring to new recordings or some guy tickling the ivories in a super club - or is this another sweeping condemnation of Kenny G and his smooth jazz ilk who clutter up some radio stations' "jazz charts?" If he's referring to Dave Koz or Boney James - two guys that my brother-in-law, for example, would name if asked to name some modern jazz musicians - then yeah, I might agree with him.

The allaboutjazz thread on this mentions that Rosenwinkel made some followup posts (that I referenced above and didn't realize were missing from a lot of the conversation). The important one:

"Trane never sucked, because he always cared. period. anyone who really cares about his own music is gonna be fine. im not talking about odd meter players, etc. im talking about musicians who think its enough to just blow and not listen to the people they are playing with, people who think its enough to have one rehearsal or no rehearsals for a record date that includes complicated original music, or a gig for that matter. i mean sometimes you have to work within the framework of peoples schedules etc, and you get cats that can handle it.Im not saying be innovative, im saying just please make sure your own music doesnt suck, thats all. thats an admonishment to CARE MORE. and im saying: if you dont CARE, then do something else, because i see alot of musicians in Jazz who think that the littlest bit is enough, and they go in front of people and play in bands that sound like crap because people are trying to impress and arent listening, or people are writing music that makes no sense and doesnt sound good, etc. im sorry if i sounded negative, but i did get your attention and i agree with Mike Boone that sometimes you gotta call it like you see it and make a statement that might get people riled up but in the end people are talking about important stuff. im just saying to everyone, us all, myself included just a reminder: Care about your music and make sure it doesnt suck. I made an album on Criss-Cross that i did think sucked and guess what- i didnt put it out. i will never put out anything that i think is not the highest quality that i can do, and not only that but that i feel is actually worth putting out, to bring some good music into the world. im not trying to say you suck or this guy sucks, or that im better than this guy, bla bla bla. im saying to all of US: CARE MORE, and my tone was strong because i was thinking about how many times i see musicians who are representing jazz to audiences and "the world" who arent taking care of business, and sometimes these are even older very famous people too who dont seem to care enough anymore to even tune their instruments. its not just young people or students."

It makes the argument sound strikingly abstract and not at all artist specific, which is interesting. But then these charges can be leveled against basically any genre and style (which is what a lot of folks have been getting at).

[Tom Storer]

Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc."

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics?

I read Burno's rant as meaning that anyone who doesn't play jazz the way he likes to hear it played is a fraud. That's what's tired. I personally love swing above all things. It has an almost mystical power, as far as I'm concerned, and it will always have a very special place in my heart, mind and body. But I really get fed up hearing jazz policemen like Mr. Burno sitting in judgment of a whole world of players who have different approaches. It isn't tired to emphasize the importance of the basics, but it's tired to be intolerant of artists trying new things.

Are there jazz musicians who suck? Of course. But who is he--who is anyone, no matter how talented or accomplished--to make sweeping condemnations?

[David Ayers]

Here's the problem right here!

You might prefer to look up the individual clips - this is edited selections with clumsy cuts - search Fast Show Jazz Club.

[Noj]

The confusion between one's tastes and general categories is often an issue. The truth is there is room for every sort of expression, even those which don't suit the taste of an individual. Whether or not such expressions fit the category intended is open for debate. If it sucks to one's ears, that person knows why. There's not much need to examine it beyond changing the record.

For my own tastes, I have noticed that I do not care for jazz which strays too far from melody and rhythm, most of the time. Give me a jazz tune based on a really catchy melody with a toe-tapping rhythm and I'm hooked. I'm turned off by endless "workouts" and displays of endurance, and only want to hear something stretched out if I'm digging the theme from the jump.

Listening in the iPod era, the "album experience" often gets relegated to the back burner, at least for me. If there's one song that really stands out on an album, that just really hits my ears right, I'd rather just hear that, and tend to indulge in whole playlists of stand out tracks. When I can have moment after moment of "oh man I love this song," it's a fun experience. In having the entire history of music available, the knowledge of all that great music accessible through the internet, and the ability to possess peak performances in an instant makes the exploration of current music a chore by comparison, and makes the current musician's task even more daunting.

That said, I understand there are others whose ears are pleased by more "out" sounds, or those who are pleased by "smooth jazz" elevator musak noodling. I don't think any of them are "wrong" so long as they have an audience. They serve the purpose of contrast, in that one knows when it's good and has a reference point for when it sucks.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Noj