JSngry

Not now!

That seems chronologically impossible. Wynton Marsalis was born in 1961. Oh, yeah, right. My bad. I was thinking of the other day that will forever live in infamy.

I had heard December 7, 1941, but that could be wrong.

You ARE new here, aren't you!

Insane, but day-long smart!

Day-long smartness!

Halledab'ldoya, it's Serendippitydoo!

Hey BbM7, didn't you used to post on Board Krypton?

...and dream of miminum wage, even Cambodian minimum wage. The best things in life are free. But I have very bad taste.

Now, the most inappropriate question by a newbie on this board might be, "When is Wynton going to have his own Mosaic?"

Life is my job, and I work double overtime.

Alleged question by a Sony/Columbia/Whatever publicist re:the Robert Johnson box: "Is Robert available for interviews?"

Weren't there two different versions of the Vee-Jay album, songwise? Seems like there were, but it's been a lonooooooong time since I was into that kind of thing. Now what I can't understand is that Tollie single. What the hell kind of label was Tollie? Agreed, FOR SALE is from the not the best period. They were tired, exhausted, even, and it shows in the music and on the cover. The decision to quit touring was the right one, at least at the time. But - John Lennon did Larry Williams better than anybody besides Larry Williams! GOTTA have it!

And a terrific Sonny Rollins thing.

That was Jimmy Forrest? Could have fooled me. Hell, DID fool me.

Yeah, he's off, but in a not-bad way.

Overheard this one on the Simpsons a few weeks ago: Bart and Milhouse were for some reason playing "Godchild" from BIRTH OF THE COOL, and Milhouse suddenly asks, "So, when do they start singing?"

Judging by the way some of us behave sometimes, we'd probably end up in a Talon-opening contest...

So somebody call Phil and get this straightened out.

Women will just paint their already long and sharp nails and laugh amongst themselves about how guys just don't get it, that if all they needed was a long talon, they'd do it themselves, with thier nails. The more things change...

I've got a beat-to-hell Coral comedy sampler 10" LP that has Allen reading one himself, so I assume he did a full album's worth.

Some of the used vinyl is overpriced, but when you come across sealed Bee Hives for $8.99 or so, what's the bitchabout THAT, huh? And that's not the only example of why Da' Bastids get summa my bizness. That and thier seemingly psychic abilitiy to have the exact funk compilation/reissue and/or nu-soul item that I didn't even know I wanted yet in stock right where I can see it at a price too good to say no to. A little discretion, a little restraint, a little dilligence, and a lot of patience can net you much goodness at good prices.

Here's what I saw, albeit from a young, inexperienced perspective - Very few "people who were either previously interested (or who would have been interested) in purely acoustic jazz, moved off into listening as much or more to fusion, jazz-rock, jazz-funk, and other related musics". The fans of fusion came mostly from "advanced" rock listeners, fans of "jazz-rock" horn bands, people into the rock-oriented big bands (which had been "gaining steam" since the late-1960's, remember), etc. In other words, very few people dropped Max Roach for Billy Cobham, Ray Brown for Max Roach, or Kenny Burrell for John McLaughlin. If anything, some of those fusion fans migrated towards accoustic jazz, but not in sufficient numbers to replace the fans who were either dying off or getting too old to be as actively interested in club-going and side buying as they had been. Which, when you think about it is natural. How many 20 year olds in 1950 would have gravitated to Johnny Hodges over Bird as their focal point? Or how many 20 year olds in 1964 would have gravitated towards Zoot Sims over Trane? No, the new trends didn't drive anybody away who would have gotten on board "if only". If anything, they brought people in who might have never known what was there, and in numbers big enough for the "corporate jazz world" to notice, and to attempt to attract in various ways. Again, it's a question of scale - Bebop, Hard Bop, and all that other stuff had (mostly) passed the point of being "now" music, so expecting new listeners to come to it in droves would have been purely a pipe dream, expectations of many fans and musicians alike to the contrary. Young folks don't usually go apeshit over thier dad's music. They just don't. But the Baby Boomers had BIG NUMBERS, and something, anything, that would attract them to something, anything, resembling "jazz" was both musically inevitable and commercially advantageous (for players and "owners" alike). This notion put forth by some that "if only Miles had stayed accoustic, if only Cannonball had not gone funky, ifonlyifonlyifonlyifonlyifonlyifonlyifonlyifonly" that the type of music that they loved would have remained a vital musical idiom and a viable commercial force is just so much bullshit, I think. Things change, and people change with them. Dexter Gordon got to be a "star" on Columbia because he came back to America, and had a legend that he could live up to. Woody Shaw did the same because he was a young-ish guy making fresh, non-cliched music that very much spoke to its time. McCoy Tyner did well because he too was making powerful music, and was coming out with about 25 albums a week on Milestone. A lot of other cats didn't do so well simply because they and their music appealed to a certain audience, and as that audience aged and got less active, there wasn't sufficient interest in "Dad's Jazz", so to speak to pick up the slack. Which, as I said earlier, is perfectly normal. These folks didn't lose thier music to electricity, they lost it to reality. If anything, electricity bought them a new lease on life, since a few people who started out in the newer forms worked thier way back. And the REALLY old guys, the Basies, etc, well, after you pass middle age, you enter into that realm where you're so old, and you've survived, that it's COOL for young folks to like you again. Alberta Hunter's late-life comeback is a good example. She could have sounded EXACTLY like she did in 1980 and been 45, and nobody would ahve given a rat's ass. Again, normal enough - who doesn't havee issues with thier parents, and who doesn't love thier grandparents to death? I'm speaking in generalities, obviously, but I hope you get my point. Why would any normal teenager buy a Dexter Gordon side on Prestige in 1968? But the same person gets into "jazz-rock" and such, explores a little more, and why wouldn't he buy a well-hyped Dexter Gordon side on Columbia in 1978? But would the same normal guy at any point in time have a real impetus to buy, say, a James Moody side on any label? Probably not, and that's not fusion's fault, or rock's fault, or anything else's "fault". That's just how shit works. We've not even touched on how "free jazz" (off all sorts) was or wasn't doing these years, and we should, because there were signs (and signs is about all they were) that this music, the other "enemy" music, but also the (mostly) other music besides electro/funk/etc that was dealing in totally contemporary language with totally contemporary issues was slowly surely going to find an audience big and young enought to be small but sufficient for long enough. Maybe. But the Reagan/Marsalis Big Chill nipped that shit before it had a chance to fully play out one way or the other. Arrested developement indeed. Many, many, MANY of the people pushing this "jazz was dead until you-know-who saved" it have agendas, and being truthful and realistic about life in general ain't one of them. Like I said - don't believe the hype.

He just can't help himself, can he... Otherwise, a decent "primer" for people who know nothing (or very little) about the matter. No insight whatsoever, but it's not that kind of piece, I suppose. However, he can take the revisionist/reactionary/self-serving dogma and stick it up his ass. And leave it there until the sun shines on it, or until I die, whichever comes first.