Re: JAZZ

From: Scott A Hunt (scott@kendev.com)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 21:32:23 CET

  • Next message: Elson Trinidad: "Re: JAZZ"

    I agree with your thoughts on Wynton....

    I found it funny that Branford was aired once or twice because I think he
    more reflects the more open mind to music than his brother.

    Wynton simply put is a music traditionalist. There's nothing wrong with
    that but I would like to hear the thoughts of his brother more. Hopefully
    there is more to come from Branford.....

    Scotty....

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Leslie N. Shill" <icehouse@redshift.com>
    To: "Paul S Westney" <pwestney@jhu.edu>
    Cc: "acid" <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:35 PM
    Subject: Re: JAZZ

    > 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 - 21:47:33 CET