Scott Dolan

Well let's just go ahead and agree that Stravinsky's Rite Of Spring is just as complex and difficult to play as Queen's Another One Bites the dust. It also takes the same amount of musical training, talent, and ability to play both. On a related note, waitressing at a Waffle House is just as complex and intensive as being a surgeon performing open-heart surgery. Hey, why argue any differently? Feel free to throw in any other false equivalency of your choosing. Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go listen to my copy of the Sex Pistols cover of Zappa's Don't You Ever Wash That Thing... BTW, on a serious note my favorite album last year, no genre excepted, was Lorde's Pure Heroine. So let's drop the "superior" nonsense.

Since self-glorifying stupidity drives each and every post you've ever made here, I hardly think you have any room to stand aghast. If you don't agree with my take, good, don't agree with it. But enough of your dime store intellectualism.

Did you never hear something randomly on the radio and go 'Wow!'? Or in a pub or a friend's house? Or read a description of something in a magazine or book or internet site which just piqued your curiosity even though you had no experience? I recognise totally what you mean by the 'Kind of Blue' generation thing - lots of my exploration has worked that way. But being blindsided out of left-field is just as exciting. Absolutely. I lived through the "Tull rool, Sabbath are crap" era. Oh, of course. There have been random occurences like that. Although I don't consider hearing a tune on the radio that strikes me as random. There's obviously a reason why I'm listening to that particular station. But, at the end of the day, those occurences are relatively few and far between. I usually research music quite heavily. Happy accidents do occur, but not as often as with MG.

Elitism; the reason why so many jazz fans come off like pretentious assholes to outsiders. Sorry, but considering most Jazz to be a cut above manufactured and mass marketed boy bands and teenage starlets is anything but elitist. It's not like I go around evangelizing, and if someone likes that plastic prepackaged music, then good for them. I like some of it myself. I'm also a huge Jimmy Buffett fan, and have received my fair share of abuse for that from lots of different music fans. Doesn't bother me one bit. And yes, Jazz is a huge cut above Jimmy Buffett. So what? So figure out who you're talking about before tossing out labels.

Robert Johnson made records to give enjoyment, hopefully make some money, maybe even get rich. But it didn't happen (of course the Robert Johnson industry tells the story somewhat differently). If he had been a commercial success - quite possible, he recorded a few popular tunes and, by all reports, performed a lot more - would the music have lost its value? Is it only worthy of the 'discerning' listener because it was not a commercial success? When I were a lad we listened to our prog-rock records convinced that a new 'art' form was being born and sneered at those who skipped away to commercial dross like Tamla Motown. But look what history has done to those two genres! We are taught to believe that that which is uncommercial has greater 'depth'. This has the advantage of placing us in a small, discriminating elite who have the good taste to recognise the value of that which everyone else seems to dislike. It's how the middle and upper classes in western societies have distanced themselves from the 'riff-raff' for centuries. Those sort of attitudes are a major stumbling block to new audiences coming to jazz and classical music (apart from those looking for some social/cultural capital). They are nowhere near as prevalent as they were 40 years ago. I'm always amazed that they are still there at all. Which is exactly why I offered that caveat at the end of my post. But, no matter how one wishes to spin it, the John Coltrane Quartet is a hell of a lot more complex, and emotionally and intellectually engaging than Britney Spears.

So why bring the word "progress" into the conversation? That's essentially saying discovering new artists/genres by way of other artists is essentially meaningless. Or at the very least, fruitless.And I simply cannot agree with that.Explained the thing with progress above. But in every kind of music there are thousands or tens of thousands of practitioners and no one can get into them all. So you get into what you find, however you find it, but there's no particular validity to any one trail of artists any more than to another trail. We're all people to whom things happen (even if sometimes we make things happen ourselves) and those things are essentially random, whether they're opportunities knocking or hints about a musician or a reliable and competent plumber. To attribute 'meaningfulness' to a random series of events that happen to one seems rather self-centred to me.As far as I can see, there's no meaning to life. If you can enjoy it, that's good. But don't kid yourself that there's something meaningful about it. And don't try kidding the kids that some path is better than another. They'll soon come to realise that, seven days a week, they're assailed by random events and also realise that 'THE PATH' is a con.MG Well, all I can tell you is that throughout my life I have often been introduced to new artists and genres by ones I was listening to at the time. Or, by a mutual fan of an artist that said, "then you'll probably this as well." Nothing random about that at all. Matter of fact, off the top of my head I can't think of a single artist or genre that I just randomly fell back asswards into appreciating.

All great points, Paul. I think anything popular/mass marketed only holds its appeal until you discover finer quality in the same vein. For example, popular music sounds just fine until your discover more artistic and intellectually engaging forms like Jazz and Orchestral music. Same as fast food being alright until you start getting into finer cuisine which exposes how nasty the fast food stuff is. Yes, those are very broad, bordering on unfair, statements but I think you get my meaning.

*edit* This post is meant as a reply to Jim. Again, I wasn't the one who introduced the term "progress" into this conversation. But, listening to Zappa introduced me to a lot of Jazz elements that I had been completely unfamiliar with. And having read about Thelonious Monk in Ben Watson's entertaining Zappa bio, The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play, I decided to purchase some Monk. Didn't "get" it at first, but it eventually lead to Jazz being my first love musically. Which eventually led to my son being named after two Jazz musicians. I don't give two shits whether that is progress, or not. But it's damn sure good. Yes, you're quite right, Scott. I seemed to me from what you wrote that this was what you meant. And because you didn't say anything like 'Hey, that's not what I meant', I thought it WAS what you meant. And so...MG At the time it seemed a rather innocuous term, so it didn't bother me. But it has since seemed to have taken on a life of its own.

So why bring the word "progress" into the conversation? That's essentially saying discovering new artists/genres by way of other artists is essentially meaningless. Or at the very least, fruitless. And I simply cannot agree with that.

Well, that's where it all breaks down for me. All I suggested was that hearing a tune like Minjor would appeal to a pretty diverse audience. So if they are attracted to that band because of it, they may explore them even more and hear them cover a Monk tune which may then lead them to explore a genre they were completely unfamiliar with. Again, THAT was all I said. Go back and read my post. So when MG replied poo pooing my point, he was indeed essentially saying exactly what you're saying nobody here is saying.

Guy, the oddest aspect of this conversatin is that MG first brought up the word progress. I could have taken it as a strawman argument, but decided to simply adopt the term just for the sake of the conversation. I just thought I should clarify that as it seems I'm the one being accused of calling it progress. Exploring other genres and artist because you were hipped to them by other artists is never, ever, EVER a bad thing. I really don't care what one refers to it as.

So no artist you ever listened to led you to another? Every artist and genre you got into just happened randomly? I find that incredibly difficult to believe. I guess it's all just a happy coincidence that I have hundreds of Jazz albums from hundreds of Jazz musicians after having purchased Kind Of Blue.

Explain to me how discovering music/musicians you'd never heard of before as not being progress? If you discover a new artist that you like, is that regression?No, it's just something different. I discovered Willis Jackson and John Coltrane in the sixties; Fela Kuti in the seventies; Youssou Ndour and The Florida Mass Choir in the eighties; Ouza and Sekouba Bambino in the nineties; Gnonnas Pedro and Concha Buika in the noughts; and Fred Anderson, Chief Stephen Osita Osadebe and The Original Super 5 of Africa in the tens. Sorry, regarding this as movement in ANY direction is beyond me :)MG Sorry, but any time you discover something new that also leads you into discovering something else that is always a good thing. Period. If it wasn't, why would you bother?

Happy B-Day, Kevin!!! Didn't realize you were a fellow Gemini!

Explain to me how discovering music/musicians you'd never heard of before as not being progress? If you discover a new artist that you like, is that regression?

But that's the kind of snottery that turns people off to genres like Jazz and Orchestral music. Besides, how do you expand the audience if you don't recruit from without? Snarky Puppy's tune, Minjor, would appeal to a rather diverse group of listeners. Many of which will then hear them cover Monk, and possibly move in that direction. You can sit around and bitch about it until the cows come home, but that's really the way it's done for musical forms outside of the mainstream.

Or maybe he's just playing the kind of music that he enjoys playing.

Hahahaha...fair enough, my friend. I've heard some of your stuff, so I know you have a wide range of likes and influences. Normally, there would be no way I'd get into stuff like Snarky Puppy, but their enthusiasm just sucked me in. I dig the whole board fed audience thing, and there's no question that they are all talented musicians.

I think Hot Ptah sums it up perfectly. Very thoughtful post, brother. Snarky Puppy is "tired", or they're a sellout because they don't sound like Albert Ayler. Jazz musicians who are having a lot of fun and making their audience smile are verboten.

Well, you're wrong.

Who cares about being ahead of the curve? And ersatz, or not, what's the matter with making people smile? Isn't that what music is supposed to do?

And with a smile on their face. This would have been incredibly cool to attend.

What about bands like Snarky Puppy?

Because the old folks will be dead folks fairly soon? Post of the week so far! Look, of course the Jazz audience is aging. Good lord, people, Jazz hasn't been a popular form of music for nearly 60 years. Nor will it ever be again. No big deal. Reminds me of when Kelly and I went to a jam session that our local Jazz society had every Sunday at a local lounge. There would usually be about 50-75 folks there to soak in some pretty darned good music. Our first trip there it was blue hair city. We were the youngest ones in the audience by no less than two decades. So, the President of the society came over to us about a half hour in and politely said, "you do know this is a Jazz jam session for blah, blah, blah? The lounge won't re-open for another few hours." I told him that of course we knew, and that was EXACTLY why we were there. I still recall the look of surprise and wonder on his face. He quickly shook our hands and gushed over how glad he was to see some young(er) faces in the crowd (we were in our late-20's at the time). And every Sunday after that he always made a point to come over and strike up conversation with us. He was a super nice, and highly interesting cat. He had grown up in Harlem and was blessed to witness the formulation of Be-Bop, and I used to love sitting around and talking with him about that. He had some immensely interesting stories. I'll confess that I don't remember any of them, but I still enjoyed every conversation we had. Interestingly enough, the lady that got us into this was a patient of mine. I administered her Visual Fields tests, and in my "office" I had the famous Jeff Sedlik Miles/Coltrane/Dizzy pics on the wall. She looked at them with surprise and exclaimed, "OH! You like Jazz!" Her and her husband were also really sweet cats that had grown up in Harlem during that same time. Jazz will find its audience, folks. I wouldn't sweat the details too much. Niche, or not, it has a very persuasive power. And there will always be fans.

The trend of putting three women on an album cover was obvious white hot in the 60's.