there is no questioning the incredible ability of Wynton Marsalis nor can
anyone doubt the his musical talents, but i do fear that he is a little
stuck on HIS own idea of what jazz is and i find his ideas more than a
little stilted and wooden. It is far more intriguing for me to listen to
people who are open and ready to accept new movements and ideas in the field
they are deeply involved in but these do not often seem to be the people
being interviewed in a broader sense.
After watching the Charlie Rose show with Burns and Marsalis (which i
enjoyed, by the way) i was left with the feeling that there is too much of
an inclination to define things in a politically correct sense. I am going
to be very interested to now see the rest of the series and, having seen
where it started, being able to see where and with which artists it ends. I
have to wonder out loud if Burns and Marsalis knew about the clip shown that
found Ron Carter, a jazz stalwart if there ever was one, along with people
like MC Solaar who probably would barely rate a mention in a series like
this.
I also liked the passion that was in clear evidence on the Rose show, even
if it was cultivated and even if it adhered to certain standards, these men
obviously truly love the art form and i for one would rather have some good
exposure for things that i love than none at all, especially when the
airwaves are not exactly filled with prime slices of jazz for the most part!
leslie/The Power of Sound/www.kazu.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S Westney <pwestney@jhu.edu>
To: <GlesneM@aol.com>
Cc: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: JAZZ
> i agree, matt. it's hard to put such a definitive tag on certain parts of
> history that are primarily word-of-mouth ... but to burns' credit, most of
> what i heard (as far as these extremes are concerned ... ie buddy bolden,
> etc.) had been already accepted as truth in the jazz community.
>
> i was impressed with the filmmaking on the first part. i think it was
> informative and well-put together, although listening to wynton marsalis
> makes my hair turn gray, but i'm still not convinced about the historical
> lopsidedness of the series. what went on in the 60s and 70s, ie 'new
> thing,' avant-garde, even coltrane, is, in my opinion, extremely important
> history for understanding the direction of the music.
>
> i also know that wynton marsalis doesn't even consider musicians like
> anthony braxton to be jazz musicians, so if he's going to be pointman for
> this series i think things like that need to taken into consideration. i
> really don't want to criticize this series from a biased point of view, i
> just don't necessarily think it's complete, and i'm really not convinced
> with burns' defense of the historical scope.
>
> what i've seen already, though, is excellent, and i'm taping the whole
> damned thing for sure ...
>
> we'll see how the rest turns out ..
> p.
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 GlesneM@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 1/9/01 12:36:39 AM Central Standard Time,
> > elson@westworld.com writes:
> >
> >
> > am i the only one appalled every time they say stuff like "the first..."
or
> > the "most important/greatest....?" etc, etc. their eagerness to put
their
> > necks out on the line is astounding. i'm sure there are more than a few
> > scholars out there who would question some of their supposed
certainties.
> >
> > I mean in this age of information, it is still a very impossible thing
to say
> > that this artist did this particular thing first - and that it was
completely
> > neccessary and/or important. i mean look at the difficulty in putting
> > together any sort of year end lists. half the stuff out there is lost
by
> > anyone who claims to be a critic - espescially a critic relying on
previously
> > written history (which is dubious in early jazz).
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 21:21:35 CET