Tom Storer

I would say that culture (in the sense of the cultural experiences and references that shape us as individuals) is an unavoidable frame of reference. Much of our cultural conditioning is invisible to us, a kind of unconscious. That's not to say it isn't there. Trying to consider art without acknowledging the impact of the culture of both the artist and the audience is like considering fish without water. I mean, does it really matter if it's a fresh-water fish or a saltwater fish? If you only see it on your plate, no. But it matters to the fish, and the fisherman.

I have to disagree. The controversy has involved Payton, Marcus Strickland, Jeremy Pelt, and George Colligan (as an observer). These are not "musicians that barely anyone knows anything about," but accomplished professionals. Payton has won a Grammy for his album with Doc Cheatham, and has performed with lots of big names as well as releasing well-received albums of his own. Strickland's new album got some buzz and he was in Roy Haynes's band for years. Jeremy Pelt also gets rave reviews. All of them play with top contemporary straight-ahead jazz players. Colligan does all kinds of work, including a recent tour with Jack DeJohnette. These are musicians well within the mainstream and hardly obscure (at least not in jazz terms). And the whole tempest in a teapot is being discussed all over the jazz Internet. Some mention of it, and often discussion, has shown up in most of the jazz blogs I hit. But I have to agree, it's mostly "attitudes and egos."

Payton's rhetoric is clever. He just released a record that is certainly not "jazz" but that could fit under the label "Black American Music" or even the rather meaningless "post-modern New Orleans music" label. He doesn't want the reaction to be "Nicholas Payton has stopped playing jazz, now he sings R&B." Instead, he is pitching it as "Nicholas Payton courageously speaks the truth about the racist label 'jazz' and goes beyond the boundaries that colonialists try to impose on him. Truly, he embodies 'Black American Music'." This guy is playing the media, especially the social media, expertly. Controversy sells and setting the agenda about yourself helps you control your public image. The samples don't sound bad to me, but it's not a style of music that particularly interests me. It's not surprising that it doesn't grab too many of us middle-aged colonialists, pardon me, "jazz" fans. I mean, he calls it "post-Dilla" and I've never even heard of Dilla, that's how far I am from his expected audience. Any opinion I had of the album would be clueless anyway. But this thing about referring to women generically as "bitches"... I don't know, maybe in some circles it's so common that it's no longer insulting, but the women I know would be offended, there is no doubt whatsoever. In real life, they wouldn't stand for it. If a woman made a record about "a love story, that musically chronicles the joys and heartbreak of relationship," as Payton describes his, and she titled it "Pricks" or "Bastards," I think there would be a fair amount of commentary about man-hating feminists, ball-breakers, etc.

Thanks!

Payton finds himself in hopeless self-contradiction, IMO, in that he protests vigorously about the use of the word "jazz" to describe certain musical styles, and goes to the trouble of inventing a few more names for styles, to finely categorize "New Orleans music," while at the same time saying this: "When you’re truly creating you don’t have time to think about what to call it. "Who thinks of what they’ll name the baby while they’re fucking?"

When sound quality does bother me, it's rarely the hiss or murk of older material--I can sort of squint by ear, if you see what I mean, and that's fine. It's more often sound that is bright and in-your-face but lacking warmth and atmosphere. This I often find in major-label releases. I recall being put off by CDs by Michael Brecker and Charlie Haden because of that. The only flaw was a lack of flaws, and it just sounded unnatural. I remember once, decades ago, I was visiting a young friend who had gotten a great job and was making lots of money for the first time. He had bought a very expensive stereo system and was delighted with it. He put on Pink Floyd and listened, mesmerized, as the bells went from one speaker to the next. Later I put on a tape I had made of some Charlie Parker recordings. He looked puzzled. "Is that a big band?" "No, you idiot, it's a quintet. That means there are five of them." "Really? It sounds so bad, how can you tell?"

I don't know the later three (although I must have heard some of that stuff performed live in the 80's), but "Native Dancer" is a GREAT album. I wore out the original vinyl, replaced it on CD, and still play it and enjoy it -- my God -- thirty-seven years later. Beauty and the Beast Ponta de Areia

Tonight, at the New Morning in Paris, the Steve Swallow Quintet, with Carla Bley, Steve Cardenas, Chris Cheek, Jorge Rossi.

I like that album a lot, too. Do you know Burton's 70's albums on ECM? He had a great run with Swallow and Moses, and depending on the albums, Mick Goodrick and/or Pat Metheny, and Eberhard Weber.

Not to mention some great duo records and tours with Sheila Jordan.

So basically, they're saying that Kevin Shea et al. reneged on their agreement to pony up 50 bucks, were loud, insulting, chaotic and threatening, and the "executive director" was just trying to protect himself when the unfortunate injury occurred. Not having been there, and not knowing any of the people involved, I don't know how likely this is. But I take it with large grains of salt.

WARNING: PEDANT ALERT Shouldn't that be "wish I'd said that"? This is a relatively recent trend, I think: replacing "had" with an unnecessary "would have." A typical use is "If I would have known that, I would have done such-and-such." It should be "If I had known that...". Carry on.

Larry, thanks for re-opening the thread. What I think you're not seeing is this: you wanted the thread to remain open long enough to ask your own questions of David, but once you closed it you denied anyone else the right to find the post provocative and ask questions or make remarks. A thread does not belong only to those who have already participated in it, still less to a subset who are tired of the thread; others may be lurking, others may come along afterwards, and they might have legitimate contributions they will want to make. I agree with Dan that the only good reason to close down a thread is when it has escalated into a flame war. Not a frank and bracing exchange of strongly stated criticisms, either, but a real flame war, a pointless exchange of hostility and insult. If it's just become a little silly or boring or repetitious, it will die a natural death--and might be revived weeks, months, years later with more interesting posts.

Yeah, but they bring them into the house already dead, or else in order to finish killing them. The point is that if they find mice in the house, they will kill them; and mice, smelling cat, will avoid entering. But maybe you were being tongue-in-cheek?

What thread was closed, anyway?

I don't have the same number of CDs as some of you, but enough to make storage problematic. I've decided to favor purchasing in MP3 format when possible in order to keep the problem from burgeoning in the future, and I'm toying with the idea of just ripping my CDs to FLAC, scanning the booklets and virtualizing the whole shebang. Of course that would be a long-term project, but external hard drives are reasonably priced nowadays and there are ways to hook up music file servers with one's stereo system...

I saw Pedicin in concert once, in Pat Martino's quartet. I had never heard of him and couldn't understand why (still can't)--he was outstanding. He was passionate and inventive, playing imaginative lines without relying on clichés. But I have yet to hear any music by him as leader. I'll have to pick this one up.

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...

Tyshawn Sorey is one of those who angrily denounced the incident on Facebook. From the comments, it appears that many musicians are in agreement that they will not work at the place concerned. The word "boycott" was mentioned.

Why is that tired? What endeavor in art or life can get anywhere or be worth a damn without the basics? I read Burno's rant as meaning that anyone who doesn't play jazz the way he likes to hear it played is a fraud. That's what's tired. I personally love swing above all things. It has an almost mystical power, as far as I'm concerned, and it will always have a very special place in my heart, mind and body. But I really get fed up hearing jazz policemen like Mr. Burno sitting in judgment of a whole world of players who have different approaches. It isn't tired to emphasize the importance of the basics, but it's tired to be intolerant of artists trying new things. Are there jazz musicians who suck? Of course. But who is he--who is anyone, no matter how talented or accomplished--to make sweeping condemnations?

No, the board's rules as described were that members had to regularly upload "new" material, in the sense of material that had not yet been uploaded to the board. Those who produced their own were given greater access to this vile stuff. This, alas, is right, as is Leeway's post #212.

David, you posted the Facebook message in post #177. Bill requested a friend post on his Facebook account that he had fallen back into a child pornography addiction and subsequently been arrested for trafficking it. Don't you read that as Bill admitting guilt? Surely if it were not, he would have asked his friend not to post that, but an indignant refutation. No?

I like your attitude! But whereas Burno was definitely repeating the tired trope of "real jazz is swing and blues, etc.", it's hard to know, at least only from the quoted Facebook post, whether Rosenwinkel was sneering at non-mainstreamers or at mainstreamers who aren't good enough for his high standards.

Most musicians who courageously stand up to say "most jazz sucks" are careful not to offend any of their peers by naming the ones they think suck. This way all their peers can potentially agree by mentally placing themselves in the "don't suck" minority, even if they themselves were actually among those secretly targeted by the vague "it sucks" denunciation. I suspect the real aim of these "most jazz sucks" declarations is usually to indicate that "me and my friends are among the very best, unlike our rivals, who all suck." This can be either a bitter rant, like Burno's, which sounds like "I don't get no respect! I'm better than those other guys but nobody has given me a medal! It's not fair!", or a smug tweet like Rosenwinkel's, which sounds like "I am just the greatest and everyone knows it, so I can shit on everyone else from a great height." That said, I like both Burno and Rosenwinkel as musicians. Neither of them suck, except perhaps as commentators on the state of jazz.

I don't agree with either of those interpretations: neither 1) "It's because I didn't get my meds that I did a terrible thing," or 2) "In prison, because I have no meds, I want to molest children." The message said, on the one hand, that Bill is addicted to child porn, trafficked in it, and was arrested; and on the other, he suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by his Vietnam experience, can't get his meds for it in prison, and is suffering from that. Admitting to his crime is in itself commendable, although the crime is horrible. As for post-traumatic stress syndrome, it certainly exists and there is no reason I can think of to have limited compassion for it.