Like Gen (and probably Ryan), I thought the Columbia rep's remark about
"making the leap to Branford and Wynton Marsalis" was pretty damned funny.
Obviously he's just trying to sell more records for his Columbia artists.
But the "leap" he's talking about seems to be backward, not forward!
Artistically speaking, that is.
I also find it ironic that, at the conclusion of this mammoth documentary
where jazz innovators are paraded out for us one after the other, the
spotlighted musicians of today were almost exclusively ones who are "in the
tradition," as opposed to those who are trying to expand the boundaries. How
could they NOT mention John Zorn, or the enormous influence that the
Knitting Factory has had on nurturing new and adventurous musicians? Or even
the acid jazz and swing movements, which have re-popularized jazz-based
music for a new audience?
If I were a novice to jazz, I'm pretty sure the message I would've gotten
from this series was that jazz became too "difficult" for the average
listener and thus crawled up its own asshole and died many years ago. It is
this same kind of reasoning that explains why you don't hear Stockhausen or
John Cage on "classical" radio stations.
As much as I admire Ken Burns' dedication in producing this history of jazz,
I honestly DO think he did the music a terrible disservice by not portraying
it as a living, vibrant art form. :-(
Grrr!
_____________________
Mark Turner
nugroove@pacbell.net
www.jazzadelica.com
_____________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 05:40:03 CET