Scott,
I agree with you 100%!
Wynton = "the anti Miles"
------------------------------------------------------
Bob Davis
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.soul-patrol.com/ - Click Here For SOUL PATROL
------------------------------------------------------
http://music.bb.prodigy.net/ - Click Here for PRODIGY MUSIC
------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott A Hunt <scott@kendev.com>
To: Leslie N. Shill <icehouse@redshift.com>; Paul S Westney
<pwestney@jhu.edu>
Cc: acid <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:32 PM
Subject: 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 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 03:07:55 CET