Wynton is live right now...

[Larry Kart]

I don't know about "great players." That LCJO performance is just terrible IMO, especially rhythmically (so darn stiff) but timbrally as well. OTOH, I can imagine a "relevant" contemporary performance of "D&C in Blue" with players other than those LCJO zombies. Paying reasonable attention to/understanding how the music ought to go would help a bunch.

[JSngry]

I don't know about "great players."

Speaking in terms of instrumental proficiency, yes, great players. I will respect that if I don't anything else (which I pretty much don't...).

[Larry Kart]

I don't know about "great players."

Speaking in terms of instrumental proficiency, yes, great players. I will respect that if I don't anything else (which I pretty much don't...).

Instrumental proficiency? At what? Saint-Saens? Guy Lombardo? And how can you tell based on this IMO f---ed up performance? I mean, if they can't play this score decently, it's kind of like saying of a baseball player that he's athletically proficient because he's in great physical shape, has excellent bat speed, oodles of quick-twitch muscles, and can run like a deer, even though he still can't catch a fly or put his bat on the ball.

[JSngry]

I don't know about "great players."

Speaking in terms of instrumental proficiency, yes, great players. I will respect that if I don't anything else (which I pretty much don't...).

Instrumental proficiency? At what?

At playing their instruments.

Instrumental proficiency is not musical proficiency, just as you can be a good carpenter and not be shit as an architect/designer/whatever. With Ellington, you obviously had both, but with LCO, you just get guys who can play clean and in-tune and not not swing (sic). Beyond that is a black hole of the deepest degradation of music, but you do have that much.

I've played an instrument and attempted to be somewhat serious at doing so, so for me not to acknowledge what accomplishment is there while pointing out what is so abominably not there just doesn't seem personally honest to me. You don't have that baggage, so by all means, feel; free to call a turd a turd!

I mean, it took a lot of dedicated effort and genuinely hard work to play that badly so well.

[CJ Shearn]

The tenor solo (Walter Blanding maybe?) made me pull out the Newport '56 album off the shelf and I'm listening to that version, the LCJO solo comes nowhere near either the album or video versions of D&C. The LCJO is a contradiction to what Wynton says about swing and improvisation, even that, he sounds like a mouthpiece.

Edited October 9, 2012 by CJ Shearn

[Larry Kart]

[

I mean, it took a lot of dedicated effort and genuinely hard work to play that badly so well.

I get that, but I still don't hear a lot of "good carpenter" instrumental proficiency from these guys -- e.g. that drummer? Though he does sound a fair bit like a carpenter.

[JSngry]

You spend your time listening to players for whom a certain amount of basic instrumental proficiency is a given. There are other players out there - many of whom gig regularly - for whom that basic level has not yet been met.

I'm appreciative of the work it takes to get there, that's all I'm saying.

I mean it, that's all I'm saying. Everything else speaks for itself.

[JSngry]

Oh, but let's consider this, just for grins...

We can rightly give the LC crew shit for perverting Ellington, and for being on a path to institutionalizing their perversions, aided and abetted by "the powers that be", powers that have many interests, preserving the "essence" of Ellington as Ellington realized instead of how they want to think that he realized it most obviously not among them. We can tell this because we have proof of Ellington's actual life and music - many of us were alive when the great thing that was "Ellington" walked our earth, played our dances, appeared on our tvs, and made records that could be bought relatives as soon as recorded. And those of us who weren't have a treasure trove of archival AV materials that pretty much lay it out for us how this thing sounded and felt in and relative to its time and place. Not a lot of speculation is involved.

So...

Why do we just "accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion? Surely human nature hasn't changed, and we have next to none of the type of documentation we do to make a valid Ellington/LCJO comparison. How are we knowing that so-and-so's interpretation of this-and-that that's making us so gooey isn't just as corrupted/perverted as LCJO's interpretation of Ellington? Where's the proof that it's not, and where's the proof that there's been no similar types of influence by the various "powers that be" who have influenced to ongoing perpetration of that music?

And consider this - if the possibility exists that our positive reaction to 200-300 year old music is based on at least some interpretive practices imposed by factors other than Original Meaning (whatever that is...), and we accept that as ok, because bottom line, we are moved, then if people are being moved in 200-300 years by performances of Ellington that are even more fucked up than LCJO's, will they be wrong?

[Larry Kart]

Oh, but let's consider this, just for grins...

We can rightly give the LC crew shit for perverting Ellington, and for being on a path to institutionalizing their perversions, aided and abetted by "the powers that be", powers that have many interests, preserving the "essence" of Ellington as Ellington realized instead of how they want to think that he realized it most obviously not among them. We can tell this because we have proof of Ellington's actual life and music - many of us were alive when the great thing that was "Ellington" walked our earth, played our dances, appeared on our tvs, and made records that could be bought relatives as soon as recorded. And those of us who weren't have a treasure trove of archival AV materials that pretty much lay it out for us how this thing sounded and felt in and relative to its time and place. Not a lot of speculation is involved.

So...

Why do we just "accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion? Surely human nature hasn't changed, and we have next to none of the type of documentation we do to make a valid Ellington/LCJO comparison. How are we knowing that so-and-so's interpretation of this-and-that that's making us so gooey isn't just as corrupted/perverted as LCJO's interpretation of Ellington? Where's the proof that it's not, and where's the proof that there's been no similar types of influence by the various "powers that be" who have influenced to ongoing perpetration of that music?

And consider this - if the possibility exists that our positive reaction to 200-300 year old music is based on at least some interpretive practices imposed by factors other than Original Meaning (whatever that is...), and we accept that as ok, because bottom line, we are moved, then if people are being moved in 200-300 years by performances of Ellington that are even more fucked up than LCJO's, will they be wrong?

We '"accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion' because that suspicion by and large isn't warranted -- certainly not as much as it is in jazz. For one thing, the relationship between jazz performance practices and classical performance practices (as varied as the latter have been over the course of however many centuries one wants to place under the umbrella) is nowhere near the same. In particular, jazz "works" (many of which were not created with repeated performances in mind, as many classical works significantly were after a certain point in musical history) tend to rely far more than most classical works on close-to-non-notable details of rhythmic articulation and timbre. Further, styles of jazz performance continually change, and at a far greater rate, than styles of classical performance do. For example, that LCJO drummer is separated from Sam Woodyard by only about 50 years, but I would bet that his normal style of drumming is far removed from Woodyard's; certainly, what he comes up with on that performance, which I assume amounts to an attempt on his part to modify his normal style and come up with something "older" that fits, is way off ... I was going to say "the mark," but it's also off any mark I could imagine, a beat expressive only of the man's lack of imagination/knowledge and (probably) his resulting sheer discomfort. Again, only 50 years, and the tree of knowledge/empathy/continuity/you name it has pretty much withered away -- perhaps inevitably so, given the nature of jazz, though there are some (a few?) re-creative-minded jazz people who do really know and care how, say, Morton's Red Hot Peppers played and how to bring that music to life again, to the degree that's possible. Safe to say, though, that they don't have anything to do with J@LC. . But about the classical comparison, I'm hear to tell you that, say, a mid-1950s Isaac Stern performance of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto would not be alien to a Szgeti or Huberman one from 1925 or a Midori one from today -- not the way those two "D&C in Blue" performances were.

P.S. Oddly, or not so oddly, the jazz re-creators today who really are doing it (and doing something more than that, at best) are not in the U.S. for the most part. Check out Jean-Pierre Morel's Les Petit Jazz Band and its bib band offshot, Les Rous Du Fox-Trot. Here are some videos of the superb IMO late '70s predecessor of Les Petit JB, Charquet & Co.:

Dig Michael Bescont's tenor solo, Marc Bresdin's bari solo, and Alain Marquet on clarinet!)

[Larry Kart]

A number of Les Rois du Fox-Trot videos can be found on YouTube, but they can't be linked to:

I particularly recommend "The Terror."

[JSngry]

We '"accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion' because that suspicion by and large isn't warranted -- certainly not as much as it is in jazz. For one thing, the relationship between jazz performance practices and classical performance practices (as varied as the latter have been over the course of however many centuries one wants to place under the umbrella) is nowhere near the same. In particular, jazz "works" (many of which were not created with repeated performances in mind, as many classical works significantly were after a certain point in musical history) tend to rely far more than most classical works on close-to-non-notable details of rhythmic articulation and timbre. Further, styles of jazz performance continually change, and at a far greater rate, than styles of classical performance do. (SIDE COMMENT - Not any more they don't!!!)

So, you're saying that the relative consistency of "classical" performance practice over how-many-ever centuries has been a more-or-less naturally occurring phenomenon not particularly influenced by "outside considerations"?

Hmmm...not sure but that I'd not be suspicious about that...music created for (figuratively and literally) the court and/or church and/or patron and used to sustain same...and there's never been any times where people wanted to do it differently in either the composing or interpretation only to be smacked down by those powers, net/cumulative result being that don't even bother any more, this is "the way it is" now and forevermore? For every heroic defiant "rebel" we've heard about, how many not-quite-as-willful-beatdowns have there been that we haven't heard about? Or was that some sort of Golden Age where no outside influence was never imposed? The way they do it now is the way they did it then, and the way they did it then was because they wanted to do it that way, exactly?

From what I know of the courts and churches (and many patorns) of those times, I find that juuuuuussssst a little hard to accept, never mind believe. And from my experience in contemporary equivalents of same, I find it impossible to accept. And to believe. Them that pays the piper tend to buy the tobacco as well. Smoke it as offered or go get your own.

Truthfully, I think that LCJO is more or less a con. But I don't think it's any kind of a new con. Hardly! But I do think they're succeeding in turning jazz into "America's Classical Music", and more's the pity - and the con.

[Larry Kart]

We '"accept" the principles and practices of so much "classical" music without some similar suspicion' because that suspicion by and large isn't warranted -- certainly not as much as it is in jazz. For one thing, the relationship between jazz performance practices and classical performance practices (as varied as the latter have been over the course of however many centuries one wants to place under the umbrella) is nowhere near the same. In particular, jazz "works" (many of which were not created with repeated performances in mind, as many classical works significantly were after a certain point in musical history) tend to rely far more than most classical works on close-to-non-notable details of rhythmic articulation and timbre. Further, styles of jazz performance continually change, and at a far greater rate, than styles of classical performance do. (SIDE COMMENT - Not any more they don't!!!)

So, you're saying that the relative consistency of "classical" performance practice over how-many-ever centuries has been a more-or-less naturally occurring phenomenon not particularly influenced by "outside considerations"?

Hmmm...not sure but that I'd not be suspicious about that...music created for (figuratively and literally) the court and/or church and/or patron and used to sustain same...and there's never been any times where people wanted to do it differently in either the composing or interpretation only to be smacked down by those powers, net/cumulative result being that don't even bother any more, this is "the way it is" now and forevermore? For every heroic defiant "rebel" we've heard about, how many not-quite-as-willful-beatdowns have there been that we haven't heard about? Or was that some sort of Golden Age where no outside influence was never imposed? The way they do it now is the way they did it then, and the way they did it then was because they wanted to do it that way, exactly?

From what I know of the courts and churches (and many patorns) of those times, I find that juuuuuussssst a little hard to accept, never mind believe. And from my experience in contemporary equivalents of same, I find it impossible to accept. And to believe. Them that pays the piper tend to buy the tobacco as well. Smoke it as offered or go get your own.

Truthfully, I think that LCJO is more or less a con. But I don't think it's any kind of a new con. Hardly! But I do think they're succeeding in turning jazz into "America's Classical Music", and more's the pity - and the con.

Re: Side comment. OK -- not in some portions of the contemporary jazz world but certainly in others. My point was in particular that styles of jazz drumming had changed enough for that LCJO guy, assuming he could very well play in any style, to have virtually no clue as to how to play on "D&C in Blue."

As for your 'So, you're saying that the relative consistency of "classical" performance practice over how-many-ever centuries has been a more-or-less naturally occurring phenomenon not particularly influenced by "outside considerations"?' No -- I'm not necessarily saying that at all: I'm saying what I said: That 'the relative consistency of "classical" performance practice over how-many-ever centuries' is greater, for whatever reasons (and I mentioned some), than the relative consistency or continuity (or lack of continuity) of styles of jazz performance over the course of that music's very rapid (arguably up to a point) development. I mean, could any member of Morton's Red Hot Peppers have played on Bird's recording of "Klactoveedsedstene"? Or vice versa? Bird, maybe, if he was in the mood, because he was Bird -- but otherwise? And the gap there is only about 20 years.

[slide_advantage_redoux]

I am surprised that I am even commenting on anything Wynton related. I have no use for his music at all.

I do respect his technical prowess on the horn. He is a phenomenal instrumentalist.

But his improv? He has never reached me emotionally. (I make the same observation re: Bill Watrous (whom I idolized and tried to emulate as a player when I was in my younger years)

No emotional substance. That is my opinion, but there it is.

I also have harbored a long running grudge against him ever since his Jazz Times interview/feature circa 1981 0r '82. In it I remember him stating that - and I paraphrase - "this is the black man's music and I won't play with white musicians"

If that isn't the exactly how he stated it, it is pretty close to the sentiment I gathered.

And from that point I had him pegged. I told myself: "okay then, this white musician will never spend a dime on your music"

So far so good. I do however have many of Branford's releases. And he reaches me emotionally.

There, I went ahead and acknowledged the white elephant in the middle of the room; reverse racism in jazz.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Greg Waits

[JSngry]

I mean, could any member of Morton's Red Hot Peppers have played on Bird's recording of "Klactoveedsedstene"? Or vice versa? Bird, maybe, if he was in the mood, because he was Bird -- but otherwise? And the gap there is only about 20 years.

Factoring in the very real impact of technology on information dissemination, my point is that a natural evolution such as this is part and parcel of "the human spirit" - but so is an enforced conformity/anti-evolution (aka "consistency") in the service of interests other than those of the immediate participants, one that is put into place to ensure control of both input and output.

At some point, resistance becomes futile and volunteered slavery sets in, which is all well and good as long as we know it for what it is. It's when it reaches the point where we think it's something other than that that fucks people up. That's what I'm seeing in LCJO, and that's what I've experienced in waaaay to much "classical" music.

Too bad, because there's some "fine music" there. But it's over as far as being relevant as anything other than an "institution", and jazz is irrevocably headed the same way. Watch it happen and ask yourself does history repeat itself, and if so, what can we learn from watching it do so.

But don't worry - there will come a time when Wise People speak of Ellington as Wise People Today speak of Mozart. The Tale shall be told, and believed, for All The Same Reasons too!

I hope I'm dead by then. I know the music will be.

[JSngry]

reverse racism

Sorry, but putting pop culture buzzwords aside, true "reverse racism" is non-racism.

Racism either is or it isn't. The math of grammar tells me so, and even although grammar is a toy, math is gravity.

[slide_advantage_redoux]

reverse racism

Sorry, but putting pop culture buzzwords aside, true "reverse racism" is non-racism.

Racism either is or it isn't. The math of grammar tells me so, and even although grammar is a toy, math is gravity.

Point!

Discrimination, race based.

[Larry Kart]

I mean, could any member of Morton's Red Hot Peppers have played on Bird's recording of "Klactoveedsedstene"? Or vice versa? Bird, maybe, if he was in the mood, because he was Bird -- but otherwise? And the gap there is only about 20 years.

Factoring in the very real impact of technology on information dissemination, my point is that a natural evolution such as this is part and parcel of "the human spirit" - but so is an enforced conformity/anti-evolution (aka "consistency") in the service of interests other than those of the immediate participants, one that is put into place to ensure control of both input and output.

At some point, resistance becomes futile and volunteered slavery sets in, which is all well and good as long as we know it for what it is. It's when it reaches the point where we think it's something other than that that fucks people up. That's what I'm seeing in LCJO, and that's what I've experienced in waaaay to much "classical" music.

Too bad, because there's some "fine music" there. But it's over as far as being relevant as anything other than an "institution", and jazz is irrevocably headed the same way. Watch it happen and ask yourself does history repeat itself, and if so, what can we learn from watching it do so.

But don't worry - there will come a time when Wise People speak of Ellington as Wise People Today speak of Mozart. The Tale shall be told, and believed, for All The Same Reasons too!

I hope I'm dead by then. I know the music will be.

The "issues" involved in preserving/presenting just about any jazz work after its initial presentation/performance are different than those involved in presenting just about any classical work after its initial presentation/performance. Sure, politics and economic/social control stuff of various sorts play roles here, but I believe that they're less important than the inherently different natures of the two musics. Yes, both musics may be going to hell in a handbasket, but even then, I think they'll still be going to hell by different routes and for different reasons.

[JSngry]

Hell is still hell when you get there! Ain't but the one!

What needs to be asked is this - what need is there for live performances of repertory music (any music, really, but let's focus here on repertory music) these days other than ritual of some form or fashion? And then - in whose rituals are we being asked to participate?

I say that the further the music itself gets from the people who created it, the more institutionalized the ownership of it becomes (if it is going to "survive"...tricky word, that one...), and the more institutionalized the ownership, the more of the ownership the ritual becomes.

Even the best meal turns into shit eventually. But shit turns into fertilizer, and before you know it (or don't), here comes another fine meal.

Beware the people who don't want you to shit. Beware the people who don't want you to have that NEXT meal. Before long you'll just be eating your own shit (and/or theirs), and then shit just turns to shit.

That ain't the right math, that ain't.

[Larry Kart]

Hell is still hell when you get there! Ain't but the one!

What needs to be asked is this - what need is there for live performances of repertory music (any music, really, but let's focus here on repertory music) these days other than ritual of some form or fashion? And then - in whose rituals are we being asked to participate?

I say that the further the music itself gets from the people who created it, the more institutionalized the ownership of it becomes (if it is going to "survive"...tricky word, that one...), and the more institutionalized the ownership, the more of the ownership the ritual becomes.

Even the best meal turns into shit eventually. But shit turns into fertilizer, and before you know it (or don't), here comes another fine meal.

Beware the people who don't want you to shit. Beware the people who don't want you to have that NEXT meal. Before long you'll just be eating your own shit (and/or theirs), and then shit just turns to shit.

That ain't the right math, that ain't.

Again, jazz and classical music are different here. Classical repertory performances are worthwhile because otherwise one only has recordings or individuals reading scores to go by, and a good or better "live" performance of a worthwhile repertory classical work is a different animal than a good or better recording of that work. In jazz, the value of repertory performances is different and arguably less essential, in part because the distance (in a good many ways) between original performances and repertory ones tends to be so great in jazz -- much more so than is typically the case in classical music, where the rubric "original performance" denotes something that is again typically quite different than it does in jazz. Further, of course, the means of giving repertory jazz performances sufficient "life" are so much more chancy than is the case with classical music IMO.

[JSngry]

Classical repertory performances have almost always been about "supposed" to be. Audiences expect it. conductors strive for it, players don't have a gig if they don't do it. And it's not their "supposed to be", it's "the culture's", whatever the hell that is "supposed" to mean, although it's obvious what it does mean.

.

Jazz is rapidly in the process of becoming that. American jazz, anyway, which is what we both know as the "base" of all the others It only seems different because we've come to one music that was already what the other is now in the process of becoming. Those aren't signs of life you're hearing out of jazz, they're dieing gasps as "culture" keeps the chloroform-scented handkerchief loosely but securely in place. I mean, I guess it beats not having anything better to do, hoping for it to not be so, but...not really.

Dead, except as ritual. Both of them. Which is ok, all but unavoidable, and potentially quite wonderful, but again, whose ritual(s) and to whose ends?

Culture!

[robertoart]

I am surprised that I am even commenting on anything Wynton related. I have no use for his music at all.

I do respect his technical prowess on the horn. He is a phenomenal instrumentalist.

But his improv? He has never reached me emotionally. (I make the same observation re: Bill Watrous (whom I idolized and tried to emulate as a player when I was in my younger years)

No emotional substance. That is my opinion, but there it is.

I also have harbored a long running grudge against him ever since his Jazz Times interview/feature circa 1981 0r '82. In it I remember him stating that - and I paraphrase - "this is the black man's music and I won't play with white musicians"

If that isn't the exactly how he stated it, it is pretty close to the sentiment I gathered.

And from that point I had him pegged. I told myself: "okay then, this white musician will never spend a dime on your music"

So far so good. I do however have many of Branford's releases. And he reaches me emotionally.

There, I went ahead and acknowledged the white elephant in the middle of the room; reverse racism in jazz.

Then I suspect you would probably have to get rid of a lot of music from your collection (and collective listening experience). Because I'm sure the spirit of what Marsalis said - is/was -echoed publicly and privately by many Black American musicians.

The music is Wynton Marsalis's cultural heritage, how he chooses to respond and proceed with it is his business.

Nothing to do with the 'reverse racism' thing as you see it. Nothing whatsoever.

And obviously he has mediated that stance over the years. But it is obviously a cultural and political position Black American musicians keep returning too in one form or another.

I wonder why?

[Teasing the Korean]

Interesting discussion and great points by Larry and JSngry.

I agree with Larry that (paraphrasing) there are many more factors involved in attempts at jazz "recreations" than exist in "classical" music. While certain approaches have gone in and out of vogue, classical musicians and conductors have been dealing with the same written scores. Musical notation, of course, pre-dates audio recording, and that was the whole point of musical notation: So that something written by Bach could be played in different times and different places. Musical notation was the audio recording of its day. It is not perfect, but it offers a higher potential for precision in execution than does jazz or any other aural/oral tradition, where there are so many subtle stylistic nuances tied to era, location, culture and even recording techniques.

That said, I do not discount the fact that there are very talented musicians- I've known some of them - who, between their skill sets and musical interests, have an uncanny knack for recreating certain styles or periods of music broadly considered "jazz." If someone has the chops and knowledge to pull it off, and that's what moves them, who am I to tell them not to do so? It will never be a replacement for the real thing, but hey, I'll never get to see Django Reinhardt live, so it makes for a pleasant evening's entertainment. The end result may not be "jazz" by a purist's definition, but it can certainly be "music." To be clear, WM and the LCJO do not fall into this category.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Teasing the Korean

[JSngry]

While certain approaches have gone in and out of vogue, classical musicians and conductors have been dealing with the same written scores. Musical notation, of course, pre-dates audio recording, and that was the whole point of musical notation: So that something written by Bach could be played in different times and different places. Musical notation was the audio recording of its day. It is not perfect, but it offers a higher potential for precision in execution than does jazz or any other aural/oral tradition, where there are so many subtle stylistic nuances tied to era, location, culture and even recording techniques.

Notation was/is a means to an enc. There are other means to that end as well.

Once upon a time, notation was needed to impose the consistency. Today, not so much. There are other tools to be used, and they are being used.

[sonnymax]

When Fass does not agree with someone's post (as is often the case), he reaches into his bag of indignant reactions and pulls out the "mean-spirited" label.

Seems to fit - can't you guys get over this shit?

Q

I don't think there's anything for us to "get over". A lot of us don't like Wynton, what he's done, and what he stands for. Perhaps it's Wynton's fans who need to "get over" the fact that not everyone shares their adulation for the man.

[AllenLowe]

1) I should mention that the piece I was hearing on the radio that fateful night was not a JALC rendition of Ellington, but a Wynton piece in which he was attempting to use Ellingtonian techniques for his own work. The piece I heard makes that afformention JALC performance of Dimuendo and Crescndo look like a masterpiece - at least it has some semblance of Duke, if not much

2) this whole question - of whose cultural heritage is it - is one I deal with on a daily basis; my whole current 4 cd recording project is based on a belief that, black and white, it is also my cultural heritage, and as a matter of fact I wrote a whole essay on this topic.

3) but ultimately the question is how to do it - one of my favorite lines is that of Bob Dylan, at one of those Columbia sessions (Highway 61? maybe) saying to Mike Bloomfield - "don't give me any of that BB King shit" - because Dylan was not a "revivalist." I just went through 3-4 sessions telling the drummer not to swing; I like, for example, Vince Giordano, but I have no desire to do that sorta thing. There is a Brechtian principle called copien, in which he talks about using prior texts in oorder to re-do their meaning and form to create them new; for me THAT"s the way you do it -

Edited October 10, 2012 by AllenLowe