doubleM Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Which goes in a way to the point that Columbia in the 50s had a lot of "name brand" players under contract, including Blakey & Silver. But not all of them could deliver to the company the "total package" that I suspect the company was looking for, a package that surely included more than just good/great music. And that goes, I think, to the artists not only understanding what "the game" was/is, but also, again, to their willingness to play that game on its own terms. It involves, as I see it, a willingness to both create an image and also to simultaneously have one created for you, as well as a willingness to be "exploited" for the ends of then being able to exploit the system back, to turn the exploitation into power for yourself, all without turning into a helpless, disposable pawn. It's a game. It's defintely a game. Like I've said before, for most jazz musicians (hell, for most people) that's too much work, too much diversion from the real task at hand. But Miles seems to not only have been comfortable with it, he seemed to have actually thrived on it. People (most people anyway) are attracted to power. And power is definitely attracted to power, if only to see if one side can break the other. "Cruel" & "shallow" perhaps, but that's the way things seem to work in This World Of Ours. Miles had power, Miles enjoyed his power, and Miles enjoyed playing with his power. Ditto Columbia. It was a natural match, I think, and both sides got what they wanted/needed out of the other. A Business Love Affair, that's what I'd call it. Well then extending this definition into the modern internet peer-to-peer era, Charlie Hunter is the premier icon of modern jazz. At this point, clearly a proven jazz genius capable of communication on a sublime level, a self-taught pioneering innovator on his instrument at the level of a Rhasaan, one of the most distinctive stylists around, practically invented the modern "jazz plus" culture, self-taught, self-promoted, more-and-more self-marketed and self-distributed (music and merchandise), anti-corporate, extremely web-savvy, a shrewd businessman in both performance realms (live tours and studio sessions), ability and true love for multiple funk-rock-jam-band-whatever genres and unashamed if these are probably more profitable that serious acoustic jazz, a rock-solid bandleader, an emerging educator, a consumate associate and promoter of younger talent (most notably, John Ellis, the best 20-something tenor on the scene) ..... ... and, finally, easily the most well-known name in jazz in the under-40 set who have even a modicum of hipness (in other words, their knowledge of jazz extends outside the doors of Starbucks), And from what I can tell, he massively enjoys it all. Not just the music, but also running his own show in life. In reply to johnagrandy's post regarding Hunter; Minus the compositional success of your Monks or Brubecks, and I'd opine that the "innovation" w/ Hunter is more about the Kirk-ish approach than the "content". I'd rather see Hunter than Brubeck in concert, BTW. Edited February 1, 2006 by doubleM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Minus the compositional success of your Monks or Brubecks, and I'd opine that the innovation w/ Hunter is more about the Kirk-ish approach than the "content". Have you listened to Hunter on "Charlie Hunter"? , "Natty Dread" ? , "Right Now Move"? , "Friends Seen And Unseen"?, Stanton Moore's "All Kooked Out" , Garage A Trois "Empathizer" , T.J. Kirk ... Well, it doesn't even matter 'cause Hunter's one of those guys who is so much more astounding in person than on recordings that you gotta see him live to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md655321 Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I have heard all of those. I dig Hunter, but his popularity is based on shtick more than anything, imo. There are many WAY better players than him. Plus, I think MMW has him beat on the whole popularity/jazz cred/intrumental skill thing, and im not even a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) I have heard all of those. I dig Hunter, but his popularity is based on shtick more than anything, imo. There are many WAY better players than him. Plus, I think MMW has him beat on the whole popularity/jazz cred/intrumental skill thing, and im not even a fan. No man ! You're stabbing a knife in my back ! Trust me, Hunter knows his shit. All that B3 comping has serious historical origins that go way back. Hunter knows his jazz, his blues, his R&B, his funk, his soul, his reggae, his rock ... I don't got time to write it all down right now. Would Sco be giggin' with him if he weren't the real thing ? MMW is kool by me but they're a one-act-circus. Edited February 1, 2006 by johnagrandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.