Robert Glasper

[JSngry]

I think we just need to let people be and make whatever music they feel like making, for whatever reason, to which end, the more I see how...upset things like this Glasper record & Nicholas Payton's thing make some people, the more sense Payton's whole "jazz is death" and "BAM" thing is making. It's like, there's no reason why you have to play a certain thing, or a certain way, other than to appease your "owners". But if Robert Glasper can make a good contemporary R& B record and bring some "jazz sensibility" to it (and I hear it, just like I heard it back in the days of The Great Sellouts", and just as I stopped hearing it when people started playing that type of music who didn't have it), hell why shouldn't he? I mean, did he make a compact with God to not ever do something like this?

I dog that a lot of "a certain type of people" can' get with hip-hop on even the most pbasic principle, and I get how there are other "certain types of people" who don't ever want to hear non never pop/R&B/commercial/whatever music. But isthis their world to determine what everybody/anybody should or shouldn't play, what kind of musics, for what motivations, to what ends? I think not!

Tell you what - I've been reading "jazz criticism" of some form or ilk for a little over 40 years now, and I don't know that I've yet to read one, not one, critic or pundip or punjab who can deal with any ongoing "commercial jazz" scene from about the mid-1960s onward in the sense of displaying genuine musical discernment. Like what Grover Washington records are better than others, and why? Herbie w/Vocoder, what happens if you don't reflexively run in horror? Ramsey Lewis, what's up with those tempos, jack? Why so just-so? CTI, when do the base track drive the post-production, and when does the post-production come to the rescue, these are all very real questions about how these type musics get made, and a quick "commerical" brushoff is dishonest and inaccurate.. Whereas lots of...words get written about not so much of nothing more than the same changing back into itself.

Confound expectations - make music that carries with it no other expectation that it is by-god going to get made, and let all of "those types of people" free to just leave you the hell alone.

[david weiss]

Exactly Jim.....

I'm all for Glasper making intelligent well made pop/hip hop CDs. I just get sick of hearing how it is the future of jazz. To me, the older critics jumping on this bandwagon are the equivalent of a 50 something year old male buying a Corvette, trying to show how young and hip they still are......

I'm all for the BAM thing too, take this shit over, call your music what you want it to be called (I probably would try to ban the phrase hard-bop, that's the one that seems to keep me down and oppress me), take charge of your music and try to get it called what you think it should be called (though all labels are probably a dead end in the long run).

You are right about there being a lack of intelligent writing for all the fusion music (and it's offshoots) for most of it's life (I think there are probably good reviews of Miles' electric period and the Mahavishnu Orchestra and the like). I think this part is changing though. Like I said, the "jazz" artists today going electric or delving into more popular forms are not demonized as selling out but lauded as taking bold new directions so one would think that there could be intelligent reviews about artists taking bold new directions, it just might not work for you since you know better.......

The article I wrote (the part I kept that is) at the end essentially says/asks/ begs that at this point if we are going to write about music, can we just write about the music. Nothing is going to change the world that drastically at this point so can we just get an idea about what is well done, fresh, exciting, has a pulse or whatever.....I mean ultimately isn't that we are looking for.....good music.

Edited April 10, 2012 by david weiss

[JSngry]

Like I said, the "jazz" artists today going electric or delving into more popular forms are not demonized as selling out but lauded as taking bold new directions so one would think that there could be intelligent reviews about artists taking bold new directions, it just might not work for you since you know better.......

People be getting dazzled by the gesture without having a clue as to the mechanincs, what's actually happening. "Mixing jazz and hip-hop", well cool, but what...does..that MEAN? What is being done, exactly? Where is the jazz, where is the hip-hop, and how is this all being fit together...or is it really fitting together at all? I mean, I've heard great shit and I've hear shitty shit, and I'll be damned if I know who to go to who's regularly displayed a modicum of non-hype, non-jargonical ability to break it down to me in a way tha makes real sense. I'm not asking for Mister Peabody, hell just be able to tell me maybe waht samples are being used - and how -, and why record X is lubed like a room of recreational porn starts after-party and why record C is like a pile of dead mashed potatoes that kill lab rats.

In other words, display some knowledge of the music that matches what you proclaim of the sociological, and then we'll know who's got meat in the freezer and who's trying to hustle an invite for lunch.

But this music is going to keep happening. There's every reason why it should, and hardly none why it shouldn't. And me, I'd prefer it be good, because when it's good, I really do like it.

[AllenLowe]

well, hip hop continues to disappoint, at least for me. Spent the weekend listening to MF doom. Gimmicky, some interesting stuff, but really an amateur aesthetic that does not really have the same interest as certain other avocational works. Easy for the home recordist, but that's a limited advantage. I like the lo-fi aspects, but it runs its course pretty quickly.

Edited April 9, 2012 by AllenLowe

[Pete C]

Enough with the trope of jazz being a sick patient, or the other one of jazz being an inviolable, sacred art form. Both are, essentially, irrelevant to most musicians and listeners. If somebody wants to mix jazz & hip hop it's neither the salvation of jazz nor its death knell, it's just another episode in a long and multifaceted history of the music in relationship to other genres.

This kind of stuff seems "important" to those of us who follow the scene, but I think it's meaningless to most listeners, as well as artists who will, for the most part, choose to follow what they think is right for their own careers, be it with a focus on artistic integrity, or commercial success, or both. I think it's like all those petty battles in academia that seemed important when I was in academia, and are essentially off my radar now.

[AllenLowe]

I've always thought of myself as the Jazz Savior - here's the cover to my next album:

Edited April 9, 2012 by AllenLowe

[robertoart]

I've always thought of myself as the Jazz Savior - here's the cover to my next album:

Happy Easter Allen Lowe. The White Man's Got A God Complex

[.:.impossible]

Allen, when you say MF DOOM is gimmicky and amateurish, what are you referring to? I should add, in case you don't know, that he wears a homemade metal mask on stage.

[AllenLowe]

I just find that, with this stuff - there's an idea - often a good one - as to mixing, for one example, different instrumentals together in a lo-fi sequence. The idea is good, but done in an uninteresting and basic fashion which appears to be making a statement that it really isn't making, in this case, I think, about re-working familiar materials and making them new. I don't find anything "put on" about it (in terms of the metal mask) - it's an idea, a good idea, with which little is done.

this is just my perspective. I like the idea, they just carry it out without any deeply imaginative construction.

[.:.impossible]

I can agree with you to a degree. I''m intrigued enough though to keep listening.

You do realized that MF DOOM is the rapper right? The music is supplied by other people.

Maybe you would be more interested in Flying Lotus? 1983 is a good start.

If you don't find it interesting, hey, you've tried!

[david weiss]

It seems that you, David, need a blog to write the things that a jazz pub won't allow.

Of course, there's no money in it, but it's a satisfying release and may attract people of like minds.

®ø∂

---

Now playing: Kenny Ball and His Jazzmen - Casablanca (Theme From "Crane")

I get my satisfying release here I guess......

You're right, I should blog but it is too time consuming for someone who has to do long tones and write arrangements and it will just get me into trouble.

To be clear though, the above passage is something I edited out of the piece myself. It was too long and instead of just fine tuning every little thing, I decided to just eliminate one theme.

I have to think that with everyone's love for jazz controversy these days, the publication would have preferred I kept that part in even though it is barely controversial. They didn't complain when I removed it though.

[david weiss]

Enough with the trope of jazz being a sick patient, or the other one of jazz being an inviolable, sacred art form. Both are, essentially, irrelevant to most musicians and listeners. If somebody wants to mix jazz & hip hop it's neither the salvation of jazz nor its death knell, it's just another episode in a long and multifaceted history of the music in relationship to other genres.

This kind of stuff seems "important" to those of us who follow the scene, but I think it's meaningless to most listeners, as well as artists who will, for the most part, choose to follow what they think is right for their own careers, be it with a focus on artistic integrity, or commercial success, or both. I think it's like all those petty battles in academia that seemed important when I was in academia, and are essentially off my radar now.

Agreed Pete...

Neither the sick patient nor the sacred art form model is going to attract anyone new to the music.

The first is too negative and might even convince some who have a passing interest in the music to not bother if they are actually paying attention.

The other just scares some people off and I get more of the inevitable "I want to like Jazz but I guess I need to know about it first" when I tell a person I meet that I'm a jazz musician. Then I have to go into the whole well the music should just appeal to you on a basic level like any music and then the beauty is if you want more detail and understanding of the music that's there for you to but it's just music like any other you can pat your feet, shake your ass and sing along with the melody shtick.

The piece I referred to above, the part I did keep was about how I was getting tired of the sick patient part and all the pieces about how jazz is dead or dying or why Americans can't comprehend it or it needs to be simpler etc etc. It's overkill and if people are paying attention even a little oppressive perhaps. I went on to say that I travel the world playing this music and I go a lot of places where things are done right, creative programmers, festivals, club owners who run a nice shop etc etc and these places thrive so if things are done right, the audience is there. Maybe we should focus on that and how to do that in more places and then maybe we can get somewhere. When I play with The Cookers, it is usually for an older audience and they couldn't care less about most of this. They just want to hear some good music (with ties to the stuff that first got them interested in this music apparently) in a nice surrounding and buy a CD and go home......I love them all......

[clifford_thornton]

Too bad you cut it. Yeah, some of it is disparaging, but you get it. I'm still surprised to read folks here comparing this to a jazz record.

Yeah, I regret it a little but you kind of have to walk on eggshells out here, everyone is a little touchy and it's easy to get in trouble and get a reputation for being...I don't know....a dick I guess.....

Well, the NYCJR edits more for length than for content, so had you submitted that part it probably would've stayed. Besides, I think more people would agree with you than not, though perhaps that is me being naive out in the hinterlands.

[Tom Storer]

When I play with The Cookers, it is usually for an older audience and they couldn't care less about most of this. They just want to hear some good music (with ties to the stuff that first got them interested in this music apparently) in a nice surrounding and buy a CD and go home

I resemble that remark!

[A Lark Ascending]

Me too.

[Pete C]

One reason I like Jack Kleinsinger's Highlights in Jazz concerts in NYC is because in that audience I feel young again. I think most of the subscribers were old 39 years ago when Jack started the series.

[David Ayers]

When I play with The Cookers, it is usually for an older audience and they couldn't care less about most of this. They just want to hear some good music (with ties to the stuff that first got them interested in this music apparently) in a nice surrounding and buy a CD and go home

I resemble that remark!

It's only music, after all. Almost as if people have got lives to lead.

[A Lark Ascending]

Brit listeners might want to keep Radio 4's 'Today' programme (BBC's flagship news programme) on over the next hour or so. We are promised Robert Glasper talking about how he intends to shake up the world of jazz.

Can't recall for sure, but I imagine they must have had Jamie Cullum on doing something similar a few years back.

Oh, the power of marketing.

(On at 8.45 - just a couple of minutes. Seems a nice chap.)

Edited April 12, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

Enough with the trope of jazz being a sick patient, or the other one of jazz being an inviolable, sacred art form. Both are, essentially, irrelevant to most musicians and listeners. If somebody wants to mix jazz & hip hop it's neither the salvation of jazz nor its death knell, it's just another episode in a long and multifaceted history of the music in relationship to other genres.

This kind of stuff seems "important" to those of us who follow the scene, but I think it's meaningless to most listeners, as well as artists who will, for the most part, choose to follow what they think is right for their own careers, be it with a focus on artistic integrity, or commercial success, or both. I think it's like all those petty battles in academia that seemed important when I was in academia, and are essentially off my radar now.

Agreed Pete...

Neither the sick patient nor the sacred art form model is going to attract anyone new to the music.

The first is too negative and might even convince some who have a passing interest in the music to not bother if they are actually paying attention.

The other just scares some people off and I get more of the inevitable "I want to like Jazz but I guess I need to know about it first" when I tell a person I meet that I'm a jazz musician. Then I have to go into the whole well the music should just appeal to you on a basic level like any music and then the beauty is if you want more detail and understanding of the music that's there for you to but it's just music like any other you can pat your feet, shake your ass and sing along with the melody shtick.

The piece I referred to above, the part I did keep was about how I was getting tired of the sick patient part and all the pieces about how jazz is dead or dying or why Americans can't comprehend it or it needs to be simpler etc etc. It's overkill and if people are paying attention even a little oppressive perhaps. I went on to say that I travel the world playing this music and I go a lot of places where things are done right, creative programmers, festivals, club owners who run a nice shop etc etc and these places thrive so if things are done right, the audience is there. Maybe we should focus on that and how to do that in more places and then maybe we can get somewhere. When I play with The Cookers, it is usually for an older audience and they couldn't care less about most of this. They just want to hear some good music (with ties to the stuff that first got them interested in this music apparently) in a nice surrounding and buy a CD and go home......I love them all......

Jazz has been mainly a lifestyle music - like most musics I suppose - but practitioners have to be a whole lot more into it than anyone else (um, like, say, golf). I have come to disagree with the idea that it is a music that requires a sophisticated listener - yes, it is basically (in its 'modern jazz' form) an expository music, but so much so in fact that lots of the records become quickly boring, they are so easy to take in, the tunes get boring *really* quickly, too few of the solos actaully catch fire, etc. So the question of venue is important, as you say, but also therefore of demographic, and then a question of what music. If you don't want to play to elderly toe-tappers, don't. Miles knew if you want to retain audience you have to change idiom, and he also saw ways to make that artistically engaging for himself. Jazz - if it wasn't good enough for Miles, why should it be good enough for anyone else? To my mind there is not 'the music'. Musicans have to train a lot and are invested in method - audiences can move on quickly. It's not 'education' though, I agree with you, and the more 'jazz fans' push it the more dire and uncompelling it seems (most discussion of jazz persuades me that I am not interested in it any more). Can it stay on, as a classical music? That's the model now - hm.

[Clunky]

Brit listeners might want to keep Radio 4's 'Today' programme (BBC's flagship news programme) on over the next hour or so. We are promised Robert Glasper talking about how he intends to shake up the world of jazz.

Can't recall for sure, but I imagine they must have had Jamie Cullum on doing something similar a few years back.

Oh, the power of marketing.

(On at 8.45 - just a couple of minutes. Seems a nice chap.)

His is a nice chap and came across very well, he also denied he was the future of jazz and didn't strike me as egotistical at all. I even started enjoying the music, .......... but it's not jazz.

[A Lark Ascending]

Brit listeners might want to keep Radio 4's 'Today' programme (BBC's flagship news programme) on over the next hour or so. We are promised Robert Glasper talking about how he intends to shake up the world of jazz.

Can't recall for sure, but I imagine they must have had Jamie Cullum on doing something similar a few years back.

Oh, the power of marketing.

(On at 8.45 - just a couple of minutes. Seems a nice chap.)

His is a nice chap and came across very well, he also denied he was the future of jazz and didn't strike me as egotistical at all. I even started enjoying the music, .......... but it's not jazz.

The snippets I heard aren't what appeals to me - in fact the sort of thing I run a mile from generally. Whether it's jazz or not doesn't really bother me. And, yes, he did deny his Messiah status (a bit like Brian! perhaps he's just a very naughty boy?).

But even in the humility you could hear the marketing at work.

I have some sympathy with the 'jazz snob' thing - the bit about the world of jazz being like a private golf club. There are jazz enthusiasts (like there are classical enthusiasts [and heavy metal enthusiasts, I suspect]) who love the fact that it is an esoteric, obscure music and would prefer to keep it that way. But, like most of these things, it's a stereotype that doesn't even begin to take in the diversity of people who listen to jazz. As well as the 'mental beret' brigade there are loads of people who just enjoy the music, often as part of a much broader musical interest.

It's the usual marketing thing of setting up a false premise in order to shoot it down. I don't imagine jazz will ever be at the cutting edge of popular culture again - but I suspect it will tick along quite nicely doing things in a variety of ways both verging on the popular and deliberately seeking something other.

And the industry will try and turn someone else - willingly or otherwise - into the 'sound of now' before too long.

Edited April 12, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[A Lark Ascending]

but so much so in fact that lots of the records become quickly boring, they are so easy to take in, the tunes get boring *really* quickly, too few of the solos actaully catch fire, etc.

I'm not sure why you assume your own reaction to jazz is a universal truth. This board would suggest otherwise.

Can it stay on, as a classical music?

Outside the world of the academic and professional critic I don't think listeners are all that bothered. They just want music they can enjoy, be absorbed and excited by. If Robert Glasper does that to some listeners, then that's what matters rather than if he 'shakes up' jazz or not.

Holds true of 'classical' too.

Edited April 12, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

but so much so in fact that lots of the records become quickly boring, they are so easy to take in, the tunes get boring *really* quickly, too few of the solos actaully catch fire, etc.

I'm not sure why you assume your own reaction to jazz is something universally felt. This board would suggest otherwise.

Can it stay on, as a classical music?

Outside the world of the academic and professional critic I don't think listeners are all that bothered. They just want music they can enjoy, be absorbed and excited by.

Holds true of 'classical' too.

I didn't say my reaction was universal, but equally one's own reactions are not unique and may help to understand the reactions of others. I like to try to understand why most people aren't interested in this music - which requires skilled musicians but struggles to locate itself between pure music and entertainment music.

As far as the comparison with the institutions of classical music goes, I am not referring at all to the reactions of listeners, but to the institutional position which jazz has come to occupy - this is an administrative question on a fairly large scale.

[A Lark Ascending]

As far as the comparison with the institutions of classical music goes, I am not referring at all to the reactions of listeners, but to the institutional position which jazz has come to occupy - this is an administrative question on a fairly large scale.

Not sure what you mean. Where jazz stands in the pecking order when the grants get handed out (or, perhaps, its order of priority in placement in the BBC (or other) schedule)?

Edited April 12, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

As far as the comparison with the institutions of classical music goes, I am not referring at all to the reactions of listeners, but to the institutional position which jazz has come to occupy - this is an administrative question on a fairly large scale.

Not sure what you mean. Where jazz stands in the pecking order when the grants get handed out (or, perhaps, its order of priority in placement in the BBC (or other) schedule)?

Modality - jazz schools, jazz institutes, extensive formalised training, classicization of repertoire, notion of being generally 'improving', recreative music more past than living, academic documentation, recorded legacy, access to funding mechanisms, and calling itself classical (since maybe Mingus, maybe before). As for 'handouts' - how English you are in your way of seeing the world!