Wynton Marsalis & Eric Clapton Play The Blues

[Hot Ptah]

Pt 1 Not to mince word, you guys are so full of shit with these threads. Great, stay jealous and take easy swipes at them you're jealous of. Real fucking mature and helpful. This is about where you're coming from, at least the way I see it.--NOT the music, good, bad, or indifferent. It's pussy reactions from the safe perch of a forum where more and more people speak with the same pussx voices rathe than get off your asses and DO something, ANYTHING, that might also be subject to public scrutiny/criticism. I held my tongue for a long long time b/c we're basically on the same team and you are good people, jazz people. But: Chuck, fuck your 'drive-bys' You drop a snarky one-liner then get out of Dodge. Have the balls to stay and debate, or at least SAY something of substance. You did this when I put something up about making jazz popular again. To keep the peace, and b'c you're a mensch who produces good jazz I didn't answer, but I didn't appreciate it and, again, it took no balls. Jim, you're also a good guy.

This raises an interesting point. I know that on AllAboutJazz for instance, that in the "Musician to Musician" section of the board, only musicians are allowed to post. Perhaps there should be a rule like that here, that only working musicians should be allowed to post opinions about musicians.

There is certainly a huge element of amateur speculation in my posts, for example, and I have questioned in the past whether I had anything to offer. I fell into just posting anyway, because I enjoy it. But perhaps we should be much more self-regulating about who can post in which types of threads.

[fasstrack]

Pt. 2: ...Where's YOUR record? Maybe if you spent a little less time on the Web, especially on bullshit threads like these. At least Allen Lowe writes books, composes, makes recordings he believes in. I'll get them and support him just like I'd order Nessa CDs, despite his pain-in-the-ass kvetching. Swiping at Wynton is like swiping at Obama. If you didn't vote for him (or like his music) it's bigger to wish him godspeed and get past petty jealousy and the feeling that what YOU do or say is more worthy. The man is using fame to work overtime to make jazz popular again AND discover and train players. Oh, he doesn't promote what YOU like? Boo fucking hoo. News flash: LIFE AIN'T FAIR!! Go out and do it yourself. I myself am guilty as anyone and hope to have the discipline talking less and playing/doing more. If I'm around here too much call MY sorry ass out. You'll be doing me a favor. I'm outta here. PM If you care to. 'Write if you get work'.

[Larry Kart]

Great story, Marcello. It is interesting to consider what Wynton was like when he was young, compared to what happened later. I interviewed him at some length for a university newspaper in April, 1982, after what Wynton said was the fourth performance of his first quintet (Branford Marsalis, Kenny Kirkland, Lonnie Plaxico, Jeff Watts).

He told me he was 19. He was agitated throughout the interview, filled with angst of the type that would be familiar to any parents of teenagers. He talked about how terrible his new band was, and how they couldn't play. He said that there were no good young drummers in New York. He said that Watts was the best he could find. He had played "Eighty One" by Miles Davis in the first set, and was shocked that I knew the name of the song and that it was from the "ESP" Miles Davis album. He thought that no one knew anything about jazz. He said nothing about any jazz older than Miles Davis. He expressed great doubt about whether to explore the jazz of the past, or not. He seemed so negative that I finally said that I thought that the performance of "Eighty One" had been fine, just to break the gloom. He said that he had to think about whether to just move ahead with new music, or go back to revisit Miles Davis. He couldn't decide.

He became very forceful in speaking against the Art Ensemble of Chicago. He said that they were bringing European 20th century classical influences into jazz, and that it was the worst thing that could happen to jazz. He said he knew that from his studies at Julliard.

He said that he did not like playing on Chico Freeman's "Destiny's Dance" album, because Chico Freeman did not know the changes to his own compositions.

The rest of the time was spent with Wynton rambling about how he did not know what kind of music to play, and did not know where he was going to find better musicians to play with.

I quoted Wynton on the Art Ensemble of Chicago in the university newspaper. A few days later, the paper ran a letter from music professor Joan Wildman. She wrote that she knew some of Wynton's professors at Julliard, and called them after reading my quote. She wrote that his professors said that he had started one class in 20th century classical music but dropped it after a few weeks, and that he had no other class work in that era of classical music.

Very interesting, Hot Ptah. I did an interview with Wynton at about the same time, and while he seemed less nervous to me, he did go on about the supposed weaknesses of own band (this in a rather confidential tone, because bassist Lonnie Plaixco, for one, was standing nearby) and about the AEC and "Destiny's Dance." That anti-AEC polemic was, I would guess, a direct transplant from Stanley Crouch, because a while later on, in a conversation I had with Crouch, he made the same points and cited the same examples, e.g. Lester Bowie's "failure" to play the correct changes on "Well, You Needn't" -- when of course the changes Lester played were a simplification that Miles had introduced decades before and that many players had adopted since then.

The only bit of angst came when I played for Wynton a cassette tape I'd made of the title track of Coleman Hawkins' "Hawk Eyes," because I thought that Charlie Shavers' brilliant solo there, and the staggering exchanges between Shavers and Hawkins, might be of interest to him. I played it without first saying who it was, in Blindfold Test fashion, but without intending it as such a test at all, but Wynton took it that way and got very uptight/upset, as though I were trying to trick him in some way. We smoothed things over IIRC, but in light of your encounter with him, it fits.

Larry, I find this fascinating that he said basically the same things to you, down to the details of the Art Ensemble of Chicago and "Destiny's Dance." Were these things that meant a great deal to him and were part of all of his conversations, or was he already being dominated by Crouch and others and merely repeating what they had told him?

Whether or not Crouch was involved in the AEC stuff, as I'm pretty sure he was, I'm not that surprised that Wynton would say much the same things to both you and me. In any given stretch of time what I have on my mind in one week on a particular subject often is not too far from what I have in mind on that subject a week or a month later.

[jazzbo]

Joel. We need you here. We need your viewpoint, your sermons. Don't go anywhere.

[JSngry]

Perhaps there should be a rule like that here, that only working musicians should be allowed to post opinions about musicians.

Yeah, everybody else just shut the fuck up, buy everybody's records, and just be thankful for the opportunity to be on the same planet at the same time as everybody who plays a gig and makes a record.

HELL yeah!

[A Lark Ascending]

This raises an interesting point. I know that on AllAboutJazz for instance, that in the "Musician to Musician" section of the board, only musicians are allowed to post. Perhaps there should be a rule like that here, that only working musicians should be allowed to post opinions about musicians.

There is certainly a huge element of amateur speculation in my posts, for example, and I have questioned in the past whether I had anything to offer. I fell into just posting anyway, because I enjoy it. But perhaps we should be much more self-regulating about who can post in which types of threads.

I hope you are being tongue-in-cheek!

Otherwise we can have another rule that only politicians can post about other politicians.

I have no problem with your amateur speculations because they come across as reactions, stated with humility. You're talking about how the music reaches you and how it affects you, not standing on Olympus and declaiming how it is.

[Jim R]

This raises an interesting point. I know that on AllAboutJazz for instance, that in the "Musician to Musician" section of the board, only musicians are allowed to post. Perhaps there should be a rule like that here, that only working musicians should be allowed to post opinions about musicians.

There is certainly a huge element of amateur speculation in my posts, for example, and I have questioned in the past whether I had anything to offer. I fell into just posting anyway, because I enjoy it. But perhaps we should be much more self-regulating about who can post in which types of threads.

What in the world is going on here? It really appears that you might be serious.

Just for the sake of taking part of this seriously, what would be the difference between a professional musician being allowed to post opinions about musicians (I can't believe I'm taking this seriously ) vs. an amateur musician who is an experienced player, and who could conceivably be a more skilled and insightful musician than the professional in question? Just a hypothetical.

[JSngry]

Just for the sake of taking part of this seriously, what would be the difference between a professional musician being allowed to post opinions about musicians (I can't believe I'm taking this seriously ) vs. an amateur musician who is an experienced player, and who could conceivably be a more skilled and insightful musician than the professional in question? Just a hypothetical.

Hey you - just sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, go make a fucking record, and come back here to fucking sell it. That's the only way I'll ever take you seriously again.

EVER!!!

Unless maybe you can train some poodles players to carry on the great tradition that is jazz.

But even then, amke a record, bitch, make a record.

[A Lark Ascending]

Five pages on a record nobody here is going to buy.

Not bad.

Edited September 13, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[ep1str0phy]

I'm sure if we parsed things, we'd find that virtually all of the commentators on this board either are putting in their time or have put in their time--that's the real world, and that isn't this. I say this as someone who literally spends at least 15 or so of my 18 or so waking hours playing, gigging, recording, and teaching. I come here to deflate, knowing that I can learn plenty from the friendly and/or intensely opinionated (but always passionate) dialogue here.

[JSngry]

Five pages on a record nobody here is going to buy.

Not bad.

And crashing & burning in a spectacular fashion.

MOST impressive, even by O-board standards!

[jlhoots]

Joel. We need you here. We need your viewpoint, your sermons. Don't go anywhere.

I don't get what he's so mad about.

[Jim R]

Just for the sake of taking part of this seriously, what would be the difference between a professional musician being allowed to post opinions about musicians (I can't believe I'm taking this seriously ) vs. an amateur musician who is an experienced player, and who could conceivably be a more skilled and insightful musician than the professional in question? Just a hypothetical.

Hey you - just sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, go make a fucking record, and come back here to fucking sell it. That's the only way I'll ever take you seriously again.

EVER!!!

Unless maybe you can train some poodles players to carry on the great tradition that is jazz.

But even then, amke a record, bitch, make a record.

Five pages on a record nobody here is going to buy.

Not bad.

[jazzbo]

I do.

[cih]

I really don't think there's as clean a disconnect between virtuosity and any sort of primitivist, expressivist, or intuitive ethos--in practice, at least--as there may seem..

Luckily for me I'm probably unable to recognise virtuosity anyway - that is, for me, the thing that affects me with blues is something about the repetition - and the subtle changes within that repetition which I daresay can be either simple or complicated but the thing that maybe is perceived as 'primitive' or 'intuitive' is just how hypnotic that repetition becomes to me - whether its junior Kimbrough or Peetie Wheatstraw or Dock Boggs... I suppose I might say that the more virtuosic it is, the more it departs from the repetition, maybe..?

Edited September 13, 2011 by cih

[Tom Storer]

I've been reading this thread and seeing some rehashing of long-standing opinionation (neologism back-constructed from "opinionated") along with interesting sharing of experiences, knowledge and speculation. To become indignant because highly successful professionals come in for some bashing seems exaggerated. Marsalis and Clapton are well aware they have their detractors and I doubt very much they lose any sleep over it.

Fans are fans. They don't just LIKE. They also DISLIKE and they have their own ideas about what is good and what isn't. And look what happens--there is debate and discussion. "Clapton is a copycat / That's too simple" ; "Wynton said such-and-such once / Interesting, was he thinking for himself or not?" All this helps interested readers learn more and entertain new notions--it makes us better fans, which can only serve the interests of musicians in the long run.

It's funny that reactions like Joel's here (they're putting themselves on the line, how can anyone who doesn't do the same criticize them?) never arise around sports. Sports fans don't hesitate to be strongly critical of various players, managers and so on, but has anyone ever said, "You're just jealous! Go make a touchdown and then come back and tell us about it!" ?

Another point for Joel: why is it OK for one musician to diss another musician? Because they're not "jealous" like fans? Debatable... in a sense they're in competition for attention, approval and cold hard cash, so their reactions might be even more suspect. Because they know what they're talking about and fans don't? Hard to see, then, why musicians would disagree among themselves if it's technical knowledge that is the arbiter of truth...

[JSngry]

Can't/don't want to speak for Larry, but I think he's maybe thinking of "virtuosity" in terms of being something aimed for at the onset, a goal to be achieved, a case of cause (dedicated applied & conscious practice at achieving full manual dexterity) and effect (being able to play damn near anything that can be played), in which case, I think I'll agree with him, at least relative to "blues" as we came to experience it before the "rock" element came to play. OTOH, there's Wayne Bennett, who was just an all round motherfucker, could play anything, but who also had the inherent taste and feel to not do so if it was not going to say what the music needed to have said.

But the other type of virtuosity is that which is the end result of a different cause & effect, the cause being having a need to shape sound in any possible way to express the way you feel, the effect being that you can make any sound you need to make. And that is a virtuosisty which sepaated the great blues peoples from the merely "colorful characters". Fluency in a language vs fluency on an instrument.

"Notes" vs "Sound". Intrinsically related, but only partially (at best) overlapping concerns.

Then again, once said "rock" element came to play, play they did, and they brought their audience$ with them, so of course the "ground rules" changed, which I guess was necessary if you needed it to be, important if to you it was, but...still somewhat of a basic, fundamental shift in both style and substance.

[thedwork]

there's been a lot of postings referring to 'virtuosity.' the first one was from larry seemingly in response to my post that mentioned Ronnie Earl's recording titled Blues Virtuoso Live In Europe. i read them all but they don't have a whole lot of meaning unless you define your terms. the word 'virtuosity' or virtuoso can mean different things to different people. seems in this thread most folks are assuming that everyone thinks, in this context, it means "flashy; ability to play fast technically difficult passages; 'chops'; etc..."

particularly in the blues, i don't think of that word having that meaning at all.

...but by my empirical standard, the last notable blues guitarist who really worked for me was T-Bone Walker.

T-Bone. now there's a definite virtuoso...

Edited September 13, 2011 by thedwork

[Noj]

so much to say here, where to start?

1) I love Estes, but the blues literature is so full, that it's pointless to try to name favorites - but I would not isolate the vocal from the instrumental as a more "natural" aspect of the blues - listen to BL Jefferson accompany self and basically create the entire modern school of blues guitar, followed by Lonnie Johnson in the '20s doing same; listen to Leecan and Cooksey, on the cusp of early jazz AND blues; listen to Lightning Hopkins pay guitar figures that are virtually impossible to transcribe, so rhythmically complex as they are (as a matter of fact I once heard him play a line that sounded like Sonny Rollins). Listen to Al Bernard, extraordinary blues/mintrel man of the 1910s-20s. Completely idiomatic, a white man from the stage and medicine show world. Listen to Bird play any little phrase. Or Lightning Slim; or Junior Bernard who, on 1945 transcriptions with Bob Wills is playing heavy and distorted guitar - or Cal Smith, the first to play any real guitar solos (with Clifford Hayes).

2) the two masters of blues guitar from the post-60s scene are Bloomfield and Peter Green. For Green, you have to listen pre-nervous breakdown (I suggest the Fleetwood Mac BBC sessions, which have some astounding blues playing). As for Bloomfield, I am a fanatic - and one has to hear a lot of the bootlegs to get a deep taste, not to mention one cut on a private tape of AMAZING Merle Travis guitar (Al Kooper told me that Columbia/Sony has a ton of this stuff in the vaults, but has continually delayed a reissue project). Listen to Bloodwyn Pig, also, to hear a great British Blues band, Chocolate Watch Band to hear a great American one. And as BB King said, "Clapton is great, but Peter Green scares me."

3) Butterfield - everything is good from Elektra, but check out his later bands which are incredible syntheses of soul/blues/rhythm and blues/60s rock. For a time he had Buzzy Feiten, who was amazing on guitar, and he had Phil Wilson (when I saw him), Gene Dinwiddle, David Sanborn (when he was not so slick). And he was a harmonica player only a cut below Little Walter.

and I say all this as one who has listened to virtually all the Delta/Chicago/Detroit players and singers. I was lucky enough to hear Bloomfield, Butterfield, and Muddy Waters in person (in separate bands) and can say that each was equally powerful.

Thanks for that post, Allen. I have a bunch of Bloomfield and Butterfield, and recently picked up some of the pre-nervous breakdown Peter Green Fleetwood Mac stuff--and will be delving into your other suggestions.

[Hot Ptah]

How did we get this far without mentioning Rev. Gary Davis?

[mikeweil]

On the drive home after work I turned on a local radio station, it happened to be jazz hour, and guess which new CD they presented?

Best thing the moderator said was that he thought any ideas about Wynton accepting pop from now were off point, as this was a traditional jazz context they collaborated in. But: He thought Clapton played excellent, which I don't get from the samples linked here and I heard on the radio - no spectacular guitar playing. The whole thing sounds so damn controlled, not a bit dirty, as all New Orleans music should sound. I think you can't play Ice Cream and sing and shout in a suit and tie ...

[Hot Ptah]

And not to harp on this too much--and this isn't necessarily addressing what Larry said above, just a more general thing--but I really don't think there's as clean a disconnect between virtuosity and any sort of primitivist, expressivist, or intuitive ethos--in practice, at least--as there may seem. Studying under Roscoe Mitchell turned my brain upside down on this. That man is all about technique. Obviously I don't know if he was always so single-minded, but I'm frankly astonished by his knowledge of and pursuance of Western method. He also knows he has to keep his shit up, and he's an early riser who practices for hours on end to get himself straight (some of this is of course playing--beautiful playing, as I'm sure many at Mills are currently privy to in the wee hours of the morning--but there's plenty of time spent on playing Western repertoire, etudes, etc.). Again, this isn't the whole story and there are tons of non-techincal things that make Roscoe special, but classical virtuosity is definitely in the picture.

This post is very interesting to me. I know that Roscoe Mitchell has taught at several universities. I had wondered how that went, because I wondered if his music would be so far advanced, beyond what undergrad students could be reasonably expected to be able to play or even conceive.

But if he is rigorous about classical technique, that would probably allow him to fit in well with any music department at a university, which would most likely be dominated by classical musicians.

[kenny weir]

Jimmie Vaughan is OK too but in MUCH more limited way than SRV

Different criteria for me, I guess

What Jimmie has that his brother didn't: A real sense of taste.

[JSngry]

Jimmie Vaughan is OK too but in MUCH more limited way than SRV

Different criteria for me, I guess

What Jimmie has that his brother didn't: A real sense of taste.

I think they both had taste, I just think Jimmy was/is more of a "band guy" by temperament, Stevie more a soloist.

Today's music sensibilities, most all of it, is so focused on the individual highlight(s) that it's hard to remember what being in a band means/meant. Whole 'other thing, that.

[J.A.W.]

I do.

You do what? Maybe you could quote the post you're responding to, that would be easier for dummies like me.