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