Wynton Marsalis & Eric Clapton Play The Blues

[Larry Kart]

My favorite (maybe) is Sleepy John Estes:

[Larry Kart]

IMO Sleepy John tends to support Chuck's point that '"the blues" [is] a vocal music with instrumental "commentary."' Or that if it isn't always, it was at one time.

[thedwork]

I think that Clapton, on his acoustic duet with Duane Allman on "Mean Old World", achieved more in the blues than Stevie Ray Vaughan did in his whole career. I always found Vaughan to be a hard rocker with close to no subtlety. I find the blues content of Vaughan's music to be very limited.

couldn't disagree w/ that more. if one had only heard the few tunes that Stevie Ray got on the radio (Pride And Joy, Love Struck Baby, Testify, etc...) then i could understand having that thought. but for anyone to thoroughly listen to his entire output, let alone see him live (i had the good fortune to see him 3 times), and still find Stevie's 'blues content' to be 'limited' is not a conclusion i can understand (phrasing that as politely as possible). listen to, for starters, the studio versions of Dirty Pool, Ain't Gone 'N Give Up On Love, Lenny, and Riviera Paradise thoroughly a few times then see what you think.

sure, Stevie had the blues/rock goin' on. no doubt about it. he was burning on that stuff. so what? dismissing his 'blues content' 'cuz he tore up "Third Stone From The Sun" and wrote "Couldn't Stand The Weather" is like dismissing Coltrane's ability to play straight-ahead 'cuz o' Interstellar Space.

don't take my mini-rant personal hotptah. i've been reading your posts for years and totally respect you. but i hear Stevie get dissed a lot and it bothers me...

SRV, however, was a goddamn terrific musician. Genius? Probably not but as po' white who absolutely & arduously identified, paid every possible due and then some, he was the best since Bloomfield, and a pretty good singer. That he died just as he was reaching delayed maturity is a shame.

The thing with SRV, however-- and not a small thing, true-- is his band was not up to his level, or even fucking close, really

i obviously agree about Stevie being a great player, but i don't agree at all about his band (Double Trouble) not being up to his level. they may not have been as technically great on their instruments or as ferociously motivated, but to me they came as a unit and sounded perfect. they may or may not have been on the same plane in terms of pure musical ability, but they were totally in sync personally and as human beings and friends. and because of that, and all the time they spent playing and living w/ each other, they were the perfect compliments to each other on stage. besides that, i really do think that Layton and Shannon are excellent players as well. it's impossible to get a guitar, bass and drums trio to sound as big as they did with a weak link. they didn't have one.

Love me some Ronnie Earl, by the way.

me too, Jim R. me too. i was very lucky to study w/ Ronnie for 4-5 months back around '95. he's an unbelievable player. scary. for me, he's the best instrumental electric blues guitar player ever. his recorded output is not that consistent, but his best stuff, imo, is untouchable. the record to have is Blues Guitar Virtuoso Live In Europe.

since you're a fan, maybe you'd be interested in a write-up of mine on one of his more recent recordings

i felt bad writing that, but i guess that's how it goes sometimes...

and re: Clapton again - someone earlier mentioned his being instantly recognizable seemingly as a way to kind of immunize him from criticism. i agree that i can also recognize Clapton within a few notes. i can also recognize Brittney Spears instantly. i'm certainly not putting Clapton on a par w/ Spears. just saying that being able to recognize a player doesn't necessarily mean they've got it goin' on on a really high level.

[marcello]

Wynton...

As an arranger he makes Van Alexander seem like Bob Graettinger.

This made the whole thread worth reading.

Edited September 13, 2011 by marcello

[ep1str0phy]

Chiming in with an opinion, since I went through a period of extreme Clapton hero worship in my first couple years of playing electric guitar--a period succeeded by a feeling of distaste at even the slightest echo of blues rock histrionics in own playing (followed by the subsequent/current period of aesthetic consolidation in which I had to, whether by want or by force, come to terms with the genetics of my own coding). It's now difficult for me to listen to Clapton of any vintage, but I can apprehend why his most original work is at all instructive. I actually got into jazz via Cream, since Jack Bruce's own hero worship of Ornette Coleman carved a number of inroads to free jazz.

Not speaking to the current project, per se, but I've found that it's a pretty common thing ("out in the world" and not just here) to bash Clapton wholesale for the sort of excess and tastelessness that other folks (both less celebrated 60's blues people and especially any number of blues-informed acts of subsequent years--from Zeppelin and Sabbath on down to Guns N'Roses and Joe Bonamassa, for heaven's sake) seem to get off easy for. Not a criticism--more an observation. I fell out with Clapton after catching him live... he's in the past few decades codified his sensibilities and substituted what adventure there was for a level of professionalism that doesn't really serve the roughhewn-ness of his source material.

That being said, it's absolute bullshit to call out Clapton on total unoriginality. It's plain that he was never a sui generis player, and laaaaarge swathes of his discography from the early days on down are endlessly indebted to the usual suspects. IIRC, the solos from "Strange Brew" are basically note-for-note paraphrases of Albert King (I think the solo "proper" might be ripped from "Crosscut Saw"--it's been a while). Clapton picked up the Les Paul because of Freddie King. There are a long list of more specific phrasing debts Clapton owes (owed) to Otis Rush, BB, and what have you--yes.

But--Clapton's chief period of experimentation was a consolidation of and extrapolation on things the black American bluesmen had pioneered. It was a matter of pairing these ideas up with velocity and intense volume--in a way dissimilar to, say, Buddy Guy or even Hendrix--that made Clapton's old idiom really recognizable. There's a reason that the Cream version of "Crossroads" is deified, and that's because it is cutting shit--fast and deadly precise. It's an objective truth that it's as technically challenging as the heaviest work of Bloomfield and Hendrix. This is not "aping"--it's synthesis and metamorphosis, in a way analogous to Trane with Pres but, naturally, not as liberating or aesthetically effective.

The biggest "mistake" Clapton made in his career was to frame his abilities in terms of his forebears. Clapton would not and will not ever cut Buddy Guy, the Kings, Hubert Sumlin--to say nothing of Robert Johnson, Skip James, etc.) (all amazing players who I ultimately find more satisfying than Clapton)--because he's second to that party. IClearly, this is something Clapton wanted to do--and he's been amply rewarded, financially, several times over for it--but the self-inflicted comparison is extremely unflattering and has done extreme retroactive disservice to the things Clapton did interestingly. I think that SRV was more capable of meeting the masters on their own terms, but I don't think he was any better at doing what he did than Clapton was at doing "his thing" when his thing was something that existed and was nourished.

By the way--Jack Bruce's first couple of proper solo albums--Songs for A Tailor and Harmony Row--are only marginally informed by the UK blues rock hoopla and easily the match of/better of, IMO, any other left leaning rock of the era. These are absolute classics with amazingly subtle, intelligent songwriting and musicianship that get lost in the endless Cream bashing.

[Teasing the Korean]

Wynton...

As an arranger he makes Van Alexander seem like Bob Graettinger.

This made the whole thread worth reading.

Don't insult Van Alexander by comparing him to Winston. He made at least one good album.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Teasing the Korean

[Jim R]

It is true that Clapton doesn't play much like Albert King any more, although he used to sometimes. His "celebrated" solo on Strange Brew is at least 90% Albert.

I'll admit- Clapton is such a prolific recording artist that there are things I've either never heard or haven't heard in ages. I'll take your word for this, but I would still argue that there is extremely little mimicking of Albert in the vast majority of Clapton's blues recordings.

I side with Hot Ptah on Son Seals. Yea, what he did was limited, but it was distinctive, original, and had deep roots. He was limited in the same sense that Muddy Waters was. The fact that 1000s of guitar virtuosi can play rings around them takes nothing away from what they did. Son Seals was a voice.

Oh, I understand the idea that a limited player can still be important and have a unique voice. There's a great deal of that phenomenon in the blues. Although I never saw him live, I've heard plenty of recordings, and I can definitely recognize him when I hear him. That's a good thing, of course, just as it is in jazz. The problem for me is, there was never enough going on with him. Too much repetition in his soloing. I respect your opinions, though. Different strokes.

SRV came out of Albert King, for sure, as did most post-Albert blues guitar players...

But most post-Albert blues guitar players didn't spend so much time literally mimicking Albert's favorite licks. Repeatedly.

...but he still built something profound and original on it (IMO).

I do agree with this. He took some Albert, mixed in some Hendrix and a few other various influences, and put his own personal finish on things (especially rhythmically, and in terms of showing off his considerable bag of tricks), and he did end up being pretty distinctive. The constant presence of the Albert King licks is what turns a lot of people (including me, to a degree) away, though. Btw, I saw Stevie at the SFBF in '79, and I don't recall hearing any Albert King or Hendrix licks (his look was different then, too... jeans, sleeveless t-shirt, and a tweed cap). He definitely went through some changes as his career evolved.

[Jim R]

Good god, this thread has exploded since I last checked in. Trying to catch up now...

Really not trying to be snotty, but it is interesting to digest the opinions of folks who were possibly introduced to the blues by Butterfield, Bloomfield, Clapton, Mayall, SRV, etc. As I indicated earlier, my personal interest/standards were established before these guys were on the scene. In my earlier post (#43 for the interested) I neglected to mention Luther Tucker, Hubert Sumlin, Louis Myers, Jimmy Rogers, and a host of other sidemen.

In an odd way, I approached things in a very similar way, even though I didn't get into it until the mid-70's. I was never into the Butterfield band, Cream, Mayall, the Yardbirds, etc. I started with LP's, 45's, 78's (flea market addiction), the SFBF (saw Louis Myers and Luther Tucker perform there with Rogers), and Tom Mazzolini's "Blues By The Bay" show on KPFA. Started out with T-Bone, Gatemouth Brown, B.B, Freddy and Albert, and within a short period of time I was listening to any and all of the great urban-style electric players. Robert Jr. Lockwood (although obviously he was multi-dimensional), Albert Collins, Otis Rush, Fenton Robinson, Magic Sam, Jody Williams, Phillip Walker, and on and on. R&B stuff too, with Bill Jennings, Billy Butler, Ike Turner's Kings of Rhythm, etc. After listening to all that for years, trying to go back and listen to british blues is just not a pleasant experience at all (to put it politely), and frankly, trying to go back to the Butterfield band doesn't really do it for me either. Here on the west coast, I was getting a healthy dose of some great live acts like The Robert Cray Band (back when he had Curtis Salgado with him), Rod Piazza & the Mighty Flyers, Little Charlie and the Nightcats, and a number of bay area bands (Chris Cain was just starting out then, for example). I caught Roomful of Blues a few times when they came out here, which was my first exposure to Ronnie Earl...

Edited September 13, 2011 by Jim R

[Jim R]

Love me some Ronnie Earl, by the way.

me too, Jim R. me too. i was very lucky to study w/ Ronnie for 4-5 months back around '95. he's an unbelievable player. scary. for me, he's the best instrumental electric blues guitar player ever. his recorded output is not that consistent, but his best stuff, imo, is untouchable. the record to have is Blues Guitar Virtuoso Live In Europe.

You know, that's a bold statement (and not just because I made the text bold), but it's not at all a crazy statement, imo. I've asked myself on more than one occasion over the past several years whether anybody has ever put more feeling into a blues solo (especially a slow blues). The thing I really like about Robillard- and love about Charlie Baty- is that on a good night they are just about on that same level with Earl when it comes to knocking you out with a slow blues, but they can both do so many other things... especially jazz-influenced blues playing... like T-Bone and Charlie Christian in one body. On steroids. I like Ronnie's jazz-influenced playing too, but it's less about jump style, which was always a favorite of mine.

[Hot Ptah]

Because I agree that blues is mostly vocal music, based on songs, Super Chikan's "Blues Come Home To Roost" is my favorite new blues album of the past 15 years. And Henry Townsend sang the best live blues I have witnessed in the past 15 years.

I envy anyone who saw Big Joe Williams live, in any location. I was born 10-15 years too late to see many of my favorites.

Can you imagine Wynton sitting down to play with Big Joe Williams?

Edited September 13, 2011 by Hot Ptah

[cih]

me too about Big Joe Williams -

and Sleepy John Estes aswell - amazing, subtle vocals

(There was such a rich variety of voices - how about Joe Pullum?, or Alice Moore, two of my faves who had that kind of creeping menace about their sound.)

[Larry Kart]

Feel like a Puritan in saying this, but for me the blues and guitar virtuosity are virtually contra-indicated.

[marcello]

Here's a related story that that was prompted by a friend, after he heard about this recording:

Did I ever tell you my Wynton story ? ( not that it's much )

When Wynton went on the road with Art I was in high school. Of

course, they would hit KK and I went every time, sometimes multiple

nights.

I played trumpet back then, and although I really was not any good at

jazz ( because my teacher was pushing me to go pro legit horn ) , I

think I had much more of an appreciation for jazz than most jazz

players in high school. I think I "got" jazz from a really early age

and I probably should have tried to learn to play seriously

Anyways, one night we went with some guys from Berkeley High School

who were good players and serious about the music. This was around

the time of Craig Handy. A couple of the trumpet players brought

their horns.

So, we stayed till the end and these trumpet guys were trying to ask

Wynton questions as he got off the stage. So a little later he came

out and invited us to his hotel room ( he wasn't that much older than

us actually, so maybe he felt like he could relate to us ).

At the hotel he kind of gave a masters class with the harmon mute on.

But here's the thing that struck me : I don't know if you know

trumpet literature much, but probably the most famous trumpet studies

book is Arbans. Arban was this celebrated cornet player in the mid

19th century who liked to write really tough exercises in the

classical or fantasia or popular music style of the day. I still

remember hurting my lip over a lot of them.

Now, Arbans is great if you are giving a classical masters class, or

maybe doing a brass concert in high school. I mean it's technical

trumpet stuff, and it's from over a hundred years ago.

But what Wynton was doing is he was taking patterns out of etudes and

rearranging them a bit harmonically and rhythmically and playing them

in his solos.

Well I was totally blown away. I started realizing that a some of the

really complex fast lines he played were actually out of that book.

Man that blew me away. But the other guys there thought it was great,

so I of course kept my mouth shut.

Now when you're coming up there's nothing wrong with taking material

from wherever so you can make it on the stage. But remember that at

this time Wynton was being billed as the heir apparent on jazz

trumpet. Even as Freddie and Woody were still in their prime.

If you listen to Miles in the 40s he was playing technically very

simple stuff, but it all had a musical purpose, and it all fit with

what came before him, and it built and linked together and told a

story. Dizzy, Clifford, Lee .. much more advanced technically at an

early age, but still any prowess they amassed was fully steeped in

jazz tradition and you could listen to their solos repetitively and

amaze at the ideas, and construction, and connectedness, and context,

and emotion, and style. But most importantly, these cats had

*something to say* and they had to get it out - that was very clear !

And of course it applies equally to Freddie and Woody in the next

generation.

I don't think Wynton understood that. And I think a lot of players

today -- even professional players who are the product of jazz

pedagogy in the high schools and colleges across the country -- also

don't get it.

Anyways, I didn't sour on Wynton because of that, I was still a fan.

but some years later when I realized what a charlatan he is, I

remembered Arbans, and that's actually how I will always think of him

!

Heh ...

[Hot Ptah]

Great story, Marcello. It is interesting to consider what Wynton was like when he was young, compared to what happened later. I interviewed him at some length for a university newspaper in April, 1982, after what Wynton said was the fourth performance of his first quintet (Branford Marsalis, Kenny Kirkland, Lonnie Plaxico, Jeff Watts).

He told me he was 19. He was agitated throughout the interview, filled with angst of the type that would be familiar to any parents of teenagers. He talked about how terrible his new band was, and how they couldn't play. He said that there were no good young drummers in New York. He said that Watts was the best he could find. He had played "Eighty One" by Miles Davis in the first set, and was shocked that I knew the name of the song and that it was from the "ESP" Miles Davis album. He thought that no one knew anything about jazz. He said nothing about any jazz older than Miles Davis. He expressed great doubt about whether to explore the jazz of the past, or not. He seemed so negative that I finally said that I thought that the performance of "Eighty One" had been fine, just to break the gloom. He said that he had to think about whether to just move ahead with new music, or go back to revisit Miles Davis. He couldn't decide.

He became very forceful in speaking against the Art Ensemble of Chicago. He said that they were bringing European 20th century classical influences into jazz, and that it was the worst thing that could happen to jazz. He said he knew that from his studies at Julliard.

He said that he did not like playing on Chico Freeman's "Destiny's Dance" album, because Chico Freeman did not know the changes to his own compositions.

The rest of the time was spent with Wynton rambling about how he did not know what kind of music to play, and did not know where he was going to find better musicians to play with.

I quoted Wynton on the Art Ensemble of Chicago in the university newspaper. A few days later, the paper ran a letter from music professor Joan Wildman. She wrote that she knew some of Wynton's professors at Julliard, and called them after reading my quote. She wrote that his professors said that he had started one class in 20th century classical music but dropped it after a few weeks, and that he had no other class work in that era of classical music.

[AllenLowe]

so much to say here, where to start?

1) I love Estes, but the blues literature is so full, that it's pointless to try to name favorites - but I would not isolate the vocal from the instrumental as a more "natural" aspect of the blues - listen to BL Jefferson accompany self and basically create the entire modern school of blues guitar, followed by Lonnie Johnson in the '20s doing same; listen to Leecan and Cooksey, on the cusp of early jazz AND blues; listen to Lightning Hopkins pay guitar figures that are virtually impossible to transcribe, so rhythmically complex as they are (as a matter of fact I once heard him play a line that sounded like Sonny Rollins). Listen to Al Bernard, extraordinary blues/mintrel man of the 1910s-20s. Completely idiomatic, a white man from the stage and medicine show world. Listen to Bird play any little phrase. Or Lightning Slim; or Junior Bernard who, on 1945 transcriptions with Bob Wills is playing heavy and distorted guitar - or Cal Smith, the first to play any real guitar solos (with Clifford Hayes).

2) the two masters of blues guitar from the post-60s scene are Bloomfield and Peter Green. For Green, you have to listen pre-nervous breakdown (I suggest the Fleetwood Mac BBC sessions, which have some astounding blues playing). As for Bloomfield, I am a fanatic - and one has to hear a lot of the bootlegs to get a deep taste, not to mention one cut on a private tape of AMAZING Merle Travis guitar (Al Kooper told me that Columbia/Sony has a ton of this stuff in the vaults, but has continually delayed a reissue project). Listen to Bloodwyn Pig, also, to hear a great British Blues band, Chocolate Watch Band to hear a great American one. And as BB King said, "Clapton is great, but Peter Green scares me."

3) Butterfield - everything is good from Elektra, but check out his later bands which are incredible syntheses of soul/blues/rhythm and blues/60s rock. For a time he had Buzzy Feiten, who was amazing on guitar, and he had Phil Wilson (when I saw him), Gene Dinwiddle, David Sanborn (when he was not so slick). And he was a harmonica player only a cut below Little Walter.

and I say all this as one who has listened to virtually all the Delta/Chicago/Detroit players and singers. I was lucky enough to hear Bloomfield, Butterfield, and Muddy Waters in person (in separate bands) and can say that each was equally powerful.

[Larry Kart]

Great story, Marcello. It is interesting to consider what Wynton was like when he was young, compared to what happened later. I interviewed him at some length for a university newspaper in April, 1982, after what Wynton said was the fourth performance of his first quintet (Branford Marsalis, Kenny Kirkland, Lonnie Plaxico, Jeff Watts).

He told me he was 19. He was agitated throughout the interview, filled with angst of the type that would be familiar to any parents of teenagers. He talked about how terrible his new band was, and how they couldn't play. He said that there were no good young drummers in New York. He said that Watts was the best he could find. He had played "Eighty One" by Miles Davis in the first set, and was shocked that I knew the name of the song and that it was from the "ESP" Miles Davis album. He thought that no one knew anything about jazz. He said nothing about any jazz older than Miles Davis. He expressed great doubt about whether to explore the jazz of the past, or not. He seemed so negative that I finally said that I thought that the performance of "Eighty One" had been fine, just to break the gloom. He said that he had to think about whether to just move ahead with new music, or go back to revisit Miles Davis. He couldn't decide.

He became very forceful in speaking against the Art Ensemble of Chicago. He said that they were bringing European 20th century classical influences into jazz, and that it was the worst thing that could happen to jazz. He said he knew that from his studies at Julliard.

He said that he did not like playing on Chico Freeman's "Destiny's Dance" album, because Chico Freeman did not know the changes to his own compositions.

The rest of the time was spent with Wynton rambling about how he did not know what kind of music to play, and did not know where he was going to find better musicians to play with.

I quoted Wynton on the Art Ensemble of Chicago in the university newspaper. A few days later, the paper ran a letter from music professor Joan Wildman. She wrote that she knew some of Wynton's professors at Julliard, and called them after reading my quote. She wrote that his professors said that he had started one class in 20th century classical music but dropped it after a few weeks, and that he had no other class work in that era of classical music.

Very interesting, Hot Ptah. I did an interview with Wynton at about the same time, and while he seemed less nervous to me, he did go on about the supposed weaknesses of own band (this in a rather confidential tone, because bassist Lonnie Plaixco, for one, was standing nearby) and about the AEC and "Destiny's Dance." That anti-AEC polemic was, I would guess, a direct transplant from Stanley Crouch, because a while later on, in a conversation I had with Crouch, he made the same points and cited the same examples, e.g. Lester Bowie's "failure" to play the correct changes on "Well, You Needn't" -- when of course the changes Lester played were a simplification that Miles had introduced decades before and that many players had adopted since then.

The only bit of angst came when I played for Wynton a cassette tape I'd made of the title track of Coleman Hawkins' "Hawk Eyes," because I thought that Charlie Shavers' brilliant solo there, and the staggering exchanges between Shavers and Hawkins, might be of interest to him. I played it without first saying who it was, in Blindfold Test fashion, but without intending it as such a test at all, but Wynton took it that way and got very uptight/upset, as though I were trying to trick him in some way. We smoothed things over IIRC, but in light of your encounter with him, it fits.

[MomsMobley]

You can think that Larry but it's NOT at all true. Some blues musicians could sing, some could play, some could do both-- NEITHER is primary.

You can break it down either/or only by applying false distinctions about what is/isn't "blues"-- which is fine but

Don't pretend 78 rpm records = 'blues" because people did different things on record and live.

In ** FACT **, I'd be more inclined to argue the predominance of vocal blues distorts the importance of unique instrumental voice inc. timbre & rhythm.

Ronnie Earl et al are nice musicians but their records are hard to take

Jimmie Vaughan is OK too but in MUCH more limited way than SRV-- I'd not really call him a blues dude anyway (& certainly not if you hear his horrible fucking songs, that's why Kim Wilson wore the hat) but more blues-influenced rocker.

Yes, Danny Kalb but even moreso Luke Faust-- look him up.

***

Buddy Miles once mistook Allen Lowe for Mick Abrahams (Blodwyn Pig) at Logan airport in Boston (true story)

***

TEN GREATEST ELECTRIC AUNT JEMIMAS

1. Freddie King

2. T-Bone Walker

3. John Lee Hooker

4. Elmore James

5. Pee Wee Crayton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MIcM2xTog4

6. B.B. King

7. Earl Hooker

8. Magic Sam

9. Lightnin Hopkins

10. Albert King

Honorable Mention

* Jimmie Rogers, Hubert Sumlin, Robert Nighthawk, J.B. Lenoir, Wayne Bennett, Bloomfield, pre-breakdown Peter Green, COBRA-era Otis Rush, Buddy Guy live in 1960s

Feel like a Puritan in saying this, but for me the blues and guitar virtuosity are virtually contra-indicated.

[AllenLowe]

one thing that would call for further research, re: Moms and Larry - I have a hunch, based on some accounts I've read, that the first use of the vocal/instrumental obligatto/call and response was in early (1830s-1840s) minstrelsy - there are some accounts that seem to imply this, and if true it is quite significant for both blues and jazz. Some day when I have time, I hope to get some sense of how accurate this is (lately I've been reading every text on minstrelsy I can find for a new musical project).

Edited September 13, 2011 by AllenLowe

[ep1str0phy]

Feel like a Puritan in saying this, but for me the blues and guitar virtuosity are virtually contra-indicated.

According to what standards, though? For one thing, it's hard to gauge where individual expressivity ends and the articulation of an accumulated lexicon of techniques, ideas, etc. begins. Even if the "truest" blues prioritizes any number of elements above virtuosity--and maybe we are talking traditional Western virtuosity, which emphasizes control, precision, and tonal/timbral cleanness (none mutually exclusive)--the most well developed music that gets categorized under the blues genre is extremely technically advanced on its own terms--or, at least, music of that ilk requires the development of some serious physical and intellectual muscles to replicate.

Obviously, "replication" is not the point--unless you're a re-creationist, which even guys like Green, Bloomfield, and SRV are, to various extents (which would explain why any number of Bluesbreakers guitarists could be considered virtuosic in a "classic" sense, since they've mastered things that have already existed). So even if virtuosity is not necessarily the aim in creating something as unheralded and intrinsically expressive as Blind Willie Johnson, that music becomes virtuosic after the fact by virtue of defining the idiom. I mean, it's all really occidental, but it's true.

[ep1str0phy]

Here's a related story that that was prompted by a friend, after he heard about this recording:

Did I ever tell you my Wynton story ? ( not that it's much )

When Wynton went on the road with Art I was in high school. Of

course, they would hit KK and I went every time, sometimes multiple

nights.

I played trumpet back then, and although I really was not any good at

jazz ( because my teacher was pushing me to go pro legit horn ) , I

think I had much more of an appreciation for jazz than most jazz

players in high school. I think I "got" jazz from a really early age

and I probably should have tried to learn to play seriously

Anyways, one night we went with some guys from Berkeley High School

who were good players and serious about the music. This was around

the time of Craig Handy. A couple of the trumpet players brought

their horns.

So, we stayed till the end and these trumpet guys were trying to ask

Wynton questions as he got off the stage. So a little later he came

out and invited us to his hotel room ( he wasn't that much older than

us actually, so maybe he felt like he could relate to us ).

At the hotel he kind of gave a masters class with the harmon mute on.

But here's the thing that struck me : I don't know if you know

trumpet literature much, but probably the most famous trumpet studies

book is Arbans. Arban was this celebrated cornet player in the mid

19th century who liked to write really tough exercises in the

classical or fantasia or popular music style of the day. I still

remember hurting my lip over a lot of them.

Now, Arbans is great if you are giving a classical masters class, or

maybe doing a brass concert in high school. I mean it's technical

trumpet stuff, and it's from over a hundred years ago.

But what Wynton was doing is he was taking patterns out of etudes and

rearranging them a bit harmonically and rhythmically and playing them

in his solos.

Well I was totally blown away. I started realizing that a some of the

really complex fast lines he played were actually out of that book.

Man that blew me away. But the other guys there thought it was great,

so I of course kept my mouth shut.

Now when you're coming up there's nothing wrong with taking material

from wherever so you can make it on the stage. But remember that at

this time Wynton was being billed as the heir apparent on jazz

trumpet. Even as Freddie and Woody were still in their prime.

If you listen to Miles in the 40s he was playing technically very

simple stuff, but it all had a musical purpose, and it all fit with

what came before him, and it built and linked together and told a

story. Dizzy, Clifford, Lee .. much more advanced technically at an

early age, but still any prowess they amassed was fully steeped in

jazz tradition and you could listen to their solos repetitively and

amaze at the ideas, and construction, and connectedness, and context,

and emotion, and style. But most importantly, these cats had

*something to say* and they had to get it out - that was very clear !

And of course it applies equally to Freddie and Woody in the next

generation.

I don't think Wynton understood that. And I think a lot of players

today -- even professional players who are the product of jazz

pedagogy in the high schools and colleges across the country -- also

don't get it.

Anyways, I didn't sour on Wynton because of that, I was still a fan.

but some years later when I realized what a charlatan he is, I

remembered Arbans, and that's actually how I will always think of him

!

Heh ...

Now I'll be the last person to defend Marsalis in and of himself, as I'm a fan of neither his music nor his ethos. I mean, I've at times had a violent, violent aversion to his shit.

But isn't this lambasting the dude on false premises? At the very least, I'm a little wonky on the specifics of the criticism. If it's merely to say that Wynton had/has nothing to say with all his bluster and technique, then I get that--and if it's a matter of calling him out on hypocrisy (especially in light of the Art Ensemble deal, with Wynton weakly decrying the AECO for bringing in 20th century Western influences even while trumpeting all these straight up Eurocentrisms), I get that, too.

But if its a matter of taking issue with how Wynton's playing comes down to a sourcing of elements of the Western virtuosic repertoire/lexicon, isn't this the case with tons of stuff? Or rather, aren't the boundaries elided in even the greatest players? Coltrane is the obvious counterexample, what with his study and application of Hanon and Slonimsky and harmonic dedication (to the end) to sequences and specific harmonic patterns. Trane obviously found a non-Western (hell, non-Eastern--maybe "pan" or "cosmic") method of rationalizing all of these elements into his ethos, and all of that technique was married to tone, adventure, and an element of timbral tightrope walking, but you can't abstract all that from his thing--that was a crucial element of what made him "him."

[ep1str0phy]

And not to harp on this too much--and this isn't necessarily addressing what Larry said above, just a more general thing--but I really don't think there's as clean a disconnect between virtuosity and any sort of primitivist, expressivist, or intuitive ethos--in practice, at least--as there may seem. Studying under Roscoe Mitchell turned my brain upside down on this. That man is all about technique. Obviously I don't know if he was always so single-minded, but I'm frankly astonished by his knowledge of and pursuance of Western method. He also knows he has to keep his shit up, and he's an early riser who practices for hours on end to get himself straight (some of this is of course playing--beautiful playing, as I'm sure many at Mills are currently privy to in the wee hours of the morning--but there's plenty of time spent on playing Western repertoire, etudes, etc.). Again, this isn't the whole story and there are tons of non-techincal things that make Roscoe special, but classical virtuosity is definitely in the picture.

[Larry Kart]

Feel like a Puritan in saying this, but for me the blues and guitar virtuosity are virtually contra-indicated.

According to what standards, though? For one thing, it's hard to gauge where individual expressivity ends and the articulation of an accumulated lexicon of techniques, ideas, etc. begins. Even if the "truest" blues prioritizes any number of elements above virtuosity--and maybe we are talking traditional Western virtuosity, which emphasizes control, precision, and tonal/timbral cleanness (none mutually exclusive)--the most well developed music that gets categorized under the blues genre is extremely technically advanced on its own terms--or, at least, music of that ilk requires the development of some serious physical and intellectual muscles to replicate.

Obviously, "replication" is not the point--unless you're a re-creationist, which even guys like Green, Bloomfield, and SRV are, to various extents (which would explain why any number of Bluesbreakers guitarists could be considered virtuosic in a "classic" sense, since they've mastered things that have already existed). So even if virtuosity is not necessarily the aim in creating something as unheralded and intrinsically expressive as Blind Willie Johnson, that music becomes virtuosic after the fact by virtue of defining the idiom. I mean, it's all really occidental, but it's true.

Not sure I follow all of the above -- and I certainly don't have, merely because of lack of interest on my part, a great deal of experience with latter-day blues-guitar virtuosity, regardless of the race or background of the players -- but by my empirical standard, the last notable blues guitarist who really worked for me was T-Bone Walker. In addition to all the other factors that might be brought to bear, it's kind of a foreground-background thing. In all music, but in the blues in particular IMO, foreground and background should be knitted together. When foreground virtuosity becomes paramount in the blues, when foreground and background aren't actively "talking" to each other -- and this is hard to avoid once virtuosity comes to the fore because the literal musical "background" material of the blues is perforce fairly simple, however complex/subtle the interactions between foreground and background might be -- then for me the whole shebang threatens to break down.

BTW, oddly enough (or not so oddly), Allen Lowe is among the few modern blues guitarists who don't give me the feeling that the language of the blues is splitting apart in front of me. I think that's because a strong useful sense of antagonism/questioning (plus love of and even combat about) the blues has long been at work in Allen, and that the actual musical results embody this. It's like it's already split apart inside him, and this then emerges as an active musical-emotional whole.

[fasstrack]

Pt 1 Not to mince word, you guys are so full of shit with these threads. Great, stay jealous and take easy swipes at them you're jealous of. Real fucking mature and helpful. This is about where you're coming from, at least the way I see it.--NOT the music, good, bad, or indifferent. It's pussy reactions from the safe perch of a forum where more and more people speak with the same pussx voices rathe than get off your asses and DO something, ANYTHING, that might also be subject to public scrutiny/criticism. I held my tongue for a long long time b/c we're basically on the same team and you are good people, jazz people. But: Chuck, fuck your 'drive-bys' You drop a snarky one-liner then get out of Dodge. Have the balls to stay and debate, or at least SAY something of substance. You did this when I put something up about making jazz popular again. To keep the peace, and b'c you're a mensch who produces good jazz I didn't answer, but I didn't appreciate it and, again, it took no balls. Jim, you're also a good guy.

[medjuck]

Wynton...

As an arranger he makes Van Alexander seem like Bob Graettinger.

This made the whole thread worth reading.

For me too. I don't care one way or the other about Clapton or Wynton (though I have enjoyed the LCJO a couple of times and saw the first ever performance of Derek and the Dominoes which featured Dave Mason not Duane Allman. I may also have seen him with the Yardbirds in 1964-- I thought they'd be a jazz band.)

However I just learned about Van Alexander in a new documentary about Chick Webb made by a friend. There's an interview with Van where he tells about writing for Chick as a teenager and how Ella nagged him to arrange A Tiskit A Taskit. (Sp?) He says he owes everything to Chick. It's a great interview.

And on the topic of Blues guitarists: I used to go dancing to the Buddy Guy-Jr Wells band at the El Mocambo in Toronto. They were good.

Also heard Peter Goralnick (sp?) say he thought Geoff Muldar was they most interesting blues singer around today. It got me into Geoff who I really like, though I'm not sure he's a blues singer. (He does have a great Tommy Johnson falsetto.)

[Hot Ptah]

Great story, Marcello. It is interesting to consider what Wynton was like when he was young, compared to what happened later. I interviewed him at some length for a university newspaper in April, 1982, after what Wynton said was the fourth performance of his first quintet (Branford Marsalis, Kenny Kirkland, Lonnie Plaxico, Jeff Watts).

He told me he was 19. He was agitated throughout the interview, filled with angst of the type that would be familiar to any parents of teenagers. He talked about how terrible his new band was, and how they couldn't play. He said that there were no good young drummers in New York. He said that Watts was the best he could find. He had played "Eighty One" by Miles Davis in the first set, and was shocked that I knew the name of the song and that it was from the "ESP" Miles Davis album. He thought that no one knew anything about jazz. He said nothing about any jazz older than Miles Davis. He expressed great doubt about whether to explore the jazz of the past, or not. He seemed so negative that I finally said that I thought that the performance of "Eighty One" had been fine, just to break the gloom. He said that he had to think about whether to just move ahead with new music, or go back to revisit Miles Davis. He couldn't decide.

He became very forceful in speaking against the Art Ensemble of Chicago. He said that they were bringing European 20th century classical influences into jazz, and that it was the worst thing that could happen to jazz. He said he knew that from his studies at Julliard.

He said that he did not like playing on Chico Freeman's "Destiny's Dance" album, because Chico Freeman did not know the changes to his own compositions.

The rest of the time was spent with Wynton rambling about how he did not know what kind of music to play, and did not know where he was going to find better musicians to play with.

I quoted Wynton on the Art Ensemble of Chicago in the university newspaper. A few days later, the paper ran a letter from music professor Joan Wildman. She wrote that she knew some of Wynton's professors at Julliard, and called them after reading my quote. She wrote that his professors said that he had started one class in 20th century classical music but dropped it after a few weeks, and that he had no other class work in that era of classical music.

Very interesting, Hot Ptah. I did an interview with Wynton at about the same time, and while he seemed less nervous to me, he did go on about the supposed weaknesses of own band (this in a rather confidential tone, because bassist Lonnie Plaixco, for one, was standing nearby) and about the AEC and "Destiny's Dance." That anti-AEC polemic was, I would guess, a direct transplant from Stanley Crouch, because a while later on, in a conversation I had with Crouch, he made the same points and cited the same examples, e.g. Lester Bowie's "failure" to play the correct changes on "Well, You Needn't" -- when of course the changes Lester played were a simplification that Miles had introduced decades before and that many players had adopted since then.

The only bit of angst came when I played for Wynton a cassette tape I'd made of the title track of Coleman Hawkins' "Hawk Eyes," because I thought that Charlie Shavers' brilliant solo there, and the staggering exchanges between Shavers and Hawkins, might be of interest to him. I played it without first saying who it was, in Blindfold Test fashion, but without intending it as such a test at all, but Wynton took it that way and got very uptight/upset, as though I were trying to trick him in some way. We smoothed things over IIRC, but in light of your encounter with him, it fits.

Larry, I find this fascinating that he said basically the same things to you, down to the details of the Art Ensemble of Chicago and "Destiny's Dance." Were these things that meant a great deal to him and were part of all of his conversations, or was he already being dominated by Crouch and others and merely repeating what they had told him?