GREAT post, David, I could not have said it better myself!!! I DESPISE
Wynton for all of the reasons that you and your buddy so eloquently outline
in your post. Basically, who died and left this asshole king? Jazz IS
improvisation! Experimentation is what led to guys like Satch, Bird, Diz,
Monk, Miles, and all the others he admires and champions. Yet, in his
infinite arrogance, Wynton has taken it upon himself to decide what the
boundaries of jazz should be and what does or does not constitute legitimate
jazz music. Your buddy's pointing to the exceptional contributions of an
artist like Henry Threadgill as being music that Wynton would not even
bother to recognize is right on point.
This type of person can be found in every aspect of society. That is to
say, the type of person who tries to call upon a vast amount of knowledge,
research and influence to support his own closemindedness. Fuck him, Wynton
can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. If I want a jazz retrospective,
I'll listen to the masters whos shoes he tries to fill and leave his 4
volumes of Marsalis Standard time in the record store to gather dust.
Stimp
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Spear" <troll95@home.com>
To: <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: the latest jazz episode
> This just in from another list:
>
> About five or six years ago there was a coffee table type book published
> of photos of Wynton on tour with his band, with text written by Wynton.
( I
> can't remember who the photographer is, and I really can't be bothered to
> look it up either.) The Boston Public Library had Wynton in as a speaker
> along with the photographer to promote the book. The setting was pretty
> much a lecture in the main exhibition hall at the library. Wynton was
going
> to make some comments, play a little bit, open it up for Q&A, and then
sign
> books.
>
> In his opening comments he said something about there being a long
> history of photographs and jazz. "...There are so many great black and
> white photos of jazz musicians that are almost as famous as the music
> itself....." blah, blah, blah.... He then said, "When you play at Tivoli
> Gardens in Copenhagen, there's a photo of Coltrane behind the bandstand.
> You're up there on the stand taking your solo, and you might blow five or
> six choruses or something, thinking you're playing better than anybody has
> ever played. Then when you finish your solo, step away from the mic, and
> return to the back of the bandstand you're faced with that picture of
> Coltrane down on his knees blowing, and it's a very humbling thing. You
> realize what you're really up against, in the tradition of this music."
> This is pretty much the opening that I was waiting for, more or less, for
> about ten years.
>
> Marsalis goes on to talk for a long time about the tradition of "this
> great music" etc, the usual bullshit that you'll get to hear a lot of out
> of him on PBS over the next week or so. Then he asks if there are any
piano
> players in the audience. An older gentleman gets up, and Wynton confers
> with him for a moment, and then he calls for Stardust. I don't know what
> the situation was, or where the confusion lay, but for some reason it
> didn't work. Wynton, rather than being gracious, and trying to save the
man
> some face, proceeds to humiliate him for not knowing the changes. It was
> one of the most seat squirming things I've ever seen.
>
> Finally, Wynton opens up the floor for Q & A. There are a lot of
> questions about where jazz is going, and Wynton holds to his usual garbage
> about how we need to look back to the past before we can move forward. The
> audience is tremendously supportive of the speaker. There is one question
> from someone questioning his programming of Jazz at Lincoln Center, and
> Marsalis' reply is that "I'm the director, and I'm going to program what I
> want. If someone else is the director, they can program what they want."
He
> receives a damn-near standing ovation for this response. Then he calls on
> me;
>
> "Mr Marsalis, I know that you began your comments by mentioning the
picture
> of 'Trane on his knees blowing in Tivoli Gardens. I find that an
> interesting point for you to make, given the way that you have tried to
> marginalize the advancements of Coltrane, probably of the sort he was
> making on his knees in that picture, in your directorship of Lincoln
> Center. My question is only this; If it were 1963, and you were the
> director of Lincoln Center, would you have allowed Coltrane to take the
> stage?"
>
> "If he was playing Lush Life or Giant Steps, yes I would. It would depend
> on the program he was interested in presenting."
>
> "No, I'm referring to the type of music that John Coltrane was probably
> playing when that picture of him was taken of him on his knees. Would you
> have allowed that? The 1963 version of the quartet, with Eric Dolphy,
say?"
>
> "Well, if he was playing all that squawkety squawk racket, no. But if he
> were....."
>
> " I simply want to know , yes or no, would you have allowed the John
> Coltrane quartet to perform at Lincoln Center, had you been the director
in
> 1963?"
>
> "Well, like I said...."
>
> "Yes or no, sir."
>
> "No I would not."
>
> "Thank you very much."
>
> And I sat down. I think it was at that point that Wynton realized that he
> had just banned John Coltrane from the stage in Lincoln Center ( even
> before A Love Supreme had been made), and he started to squirm. He didn't
> take another question, but tried to elaborate on why he would not have
> allowed that version of the Coltrane band on the stage. Then he took
> another question, all the while watching me, sitting there grinning, out
of
> the corner of his eye. He answered the next question, and tried to tie it
> in with my question. Then he just returned to responding to my question,
> very flustered. I don't remember him taking more than one or two questions
> after mine, but he did spend the rest of his time trying to defend that
> position. (At least that's what it seemed like to me.) He did approach me
> as I was leaving, and said something about me trying to play "gotcha" with
> him.
>
> I was dying to hear him say this kind of thing. I had been waiting for it
> for ten years. The man actually nullified John Coltrane as a jazz
musician.
> How could I, or anyone who really cares about this music, ever take
> anything the man ever says about Jazz seriously? If I had read in an
> interview that he said he would never allow Coltrane on stage at Lincoln
> Center, I would have written him off as someone to take seriously on the
> subject of jazz. The fact that I got to hear it out if his mouth, in
> response to a question I asked of him, only makes it all that much sweeter
> for me.
>
> I say fuck Wynton Marsalis. And I do believe that he is a dangerous
entity
> in American art, only because of the way he has commandeered the stage,
and
> most of the mainstream funding, of this music that had moved forward
> without any regard for a prefabricated set of rules, institutional or
> otherwise, for almost eighty five years before some loud mouth derivative
> trumpet player, can't write shit, started telling the world that he was
> "saving" jazz.
>
> Watch the PBS series carefully, because the man who was given the reins,
> has a very dangerous agenda. I am speaking mostly based on my prejudices
> here, and what I've seen and read about the series already, but I already
> feel like I'm watching some sort of "Birth of a Nation" type version of
the
> history of jazz. We may be able to admire it for it's art, but I don't
know
> how far we'll be able to throw it's history after we are without the loud
> voice of Mr Marsalis reminding us of how important his views are. I can't
> imagine what we're missing out on, in the way of commentary in this
series,
> because of the fact that Wynton Marsalis had to be king shit. This
> probably insured that we would never hear the stories of some very
> important artists, or the commentary of some people that don't fit
Wynton's
> narrow view of what jazz is. And if there's one thing that I know about
> jazz, it's that it is not a narrow music.
>
> There ends the initial letter. I forwarded it on to a friend in Seattle.
> Here's his response:
>
> Great letter. Thanks for sharing it, Tom.
>
> I'm pretty annoyed at the Marsalis-Murray-Crouch monopolitization of the
> "Jazz" series, too, but, like you, appreciate the exposure the series is
> giving the music. I'm actually warming up to the thing. All those clips of
> Armstrong and Ellington certainly help. The long sequence on Ethel Waters
> Wednesday night was great and made me want to go out and buy a bunch of
her
> records. And, in the same episode, they had some very brief comments from
> the late Lester Bowie, who was no friend of Wynton's and never hesitated
to
> criticize the Wyntonians' dead-end, narrow-minded philosophy on jazz.
>
> As the note you shared demonstrates, Wynton is doing nothing more than
> imposing his tastes and point-of-view on the music. He tries to tell us
that
> avant garde musicians don't know how to play and don't have an
understanding
> of the roots of the music. When you look at Coltrane, you see how
ridiculous
> that is. The same thing applies when you look at most of the other great
> jazz innovators since "A Love Supreme." Miles Davis played alongside
Charlie
> Parker. He not only understood the roots of jazz, he was one of them. Yet,
> Marsalis denies him permission to experiment and move ahead. You think
> Lester Bowie didn't know about the roots of jazz? He had much more in
common
> with Louis Armstrong--as showman, humorist and innovator-than Wynton could
> ever hope to. And Bowie was a hell of a trumpet player. How about Henry
> Threadgill, one of the most imaginative players/composers working today?
He
> certainly doesn't need Wynton lecturing him about jazz roots. Ever heard
> "Air Lore"? It's a trio album Threadgill recorded back in the 1970s
> (probably around the time Wynton was grooving to Herbie Hancock's
> "Headhunter") that paid homage to ragtime and early jazz. It even includes
a
> cover of "King Porter Stomp." But Threadgill managed to look ahead at the
> same time he looked back.
>
> If you play by Wynton's rules, jazz doesn't grow. You try to play the best
> you can within the confines of the past, which denies the things that make
> jazz so unique: innovation and individuality. None of the people Wynton
> reveres adhered to the rules of the past, yet he tries to impose a cutoff
> point on changes in the music. There's no room in his world for someone to
> come in and shake things up and make the music new again. So, not only
would
> he have denied Coltrane of '63 the Lincoln Center stage, he's denying it
> now to the next Coltrane, Armstrong, Ellington, etc.
>
> Like George W. Bush or any other good conservative, Wynton tells us that
if
> someone disagrees, they can start their own jazz program--it's America,
it's
> an equal playing field, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. But
> Wynton's high-profile soapbox was purchased for him long ago by a
publicity
> machine. From age 18 he received a marketing push that was unheard of in
> jazz, before or since, earning him a platform to spout off his opinions in
> magazines and newspapers and making his name synonymous with jazz. You
need
> to be a "name," to get interviewed by major publications, to get on TV, to
> get your own radio programs. Wynton is a great player and has considerable
> ability as an educator, but there are many players who are equally good,
> more innovative and imaginative and just as articulate and charismatic who
> don't get the attention they deserve because they don't have marketing
> dollars behind them. Marsalis could share the spotlight, introduce his
broad
> public to artists who are doing important work today, but he doesn't. Why?
I
> think it's because he's scared.
>
> >From his earliest albums, a common criticism of Wynton was that he was
very
> talented but hadn't found his own voice as a player and that his tunes
were
> derivative. If you remember, the Marsalis quartet of the early 80s was
> steeped in the music of Miles Davis' second great quintet (the one with
> Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams and Ron Carter). It's sad.
> Wynton was then very young. He could've moved on to refute his critics by
> developing his own sound and compositional style, but instead he's moved
> backward through jazz history to ape Ellington and Armstrong. All he talks
> about is the past, paying homage to it and mastering the innovations of
past
> masters. It's very much a retreat from the challenge imposed on him, not
> just by critics but by the artists he himself reveres: to do something
> original and new. His lectures are less about jazz history than about
Wynton
> Marsalis justifying himself. By focusing constantly on the past and on the
> fundamentals of the music as he sees it, and by downplaying the need for
> experimentation, innovation and individuality in the music, he diverts
> attention away from his shortfalls as a unique artist and puts the
spotlight
> on what he can do well: play a hell of a lot like Louis Armstrong or
> pre-electric Miles Davis and write a hell of lot like Blanton-Webster era
> Duke Ellington.
>
> And with the "Jazz" series, Wynton will again be presented as the
beginning
> and end of jazz, literally: the first voiceover in the film is his and I
> read that the series ends with a clip of the Lincoln Center Jazz Band
> playing Ellington.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "temi castro" <temicastro@yahoo.com>
> To: "Leslie N. Shill" <icehouse@redshift.com>; "acid" <acid-jazz@ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 4:26 AM
> Subject: Re: the latest jazz episode
>
>
> >
> >
> > Jazz.... strange term. I got into jazz when I moved to
> > Paris at the age of 15 and my best friend Luc Bellon
> > at the Lycee de Sevres, hipped me up to a Louis
> > Armstrong and Ella recording of Gershwin's Porgy and
> > Bess. I listened to it non-stop wallowing in the sheer
> > niceness. Then I checked out Grover Washington's
> > Winelight (he he he) that got me into Weather Report
> > esp. the Jaco years. After that was free jazz which
> > saved me from trouble in my late teens as I searched
> > for purpose and rhyme. I then had an ECM phase, a
> > Monk/Coltrane/Miles Davis period, a blue note phase
> > (blakey, sonny rollins, freddie rice), then a soul
> > jazz phase (blue note...), I was really into
> > soundtracks and CTI last year...
> >
> > Heavy influences
> >
> > John Coltrane Africa (Impulse)
> > Heavy jazz biznes!!! Still blows my mind everytime,
> > amazingly moving, totally evocative, total experience.
> > Also Crescent, Ballads, Chin chin cherry, The album
> > with Duke (someone should give Bob Thiele a nobel, a
> > hug or something... he could see beyond the surface).
> >
> > Archie Shepp - Mama Rossa with Niels van Hoft
> > CHeck out, Contracts if you can find this pearl,
> > trippy mind expanding stuff, infinity, infinity!
> >
> > Sonny Rollins - Live in Copenhagen (or stockholm???)
> > It has Pete La Roca on drums and Jimmy Grimes? on bass
> > bad kick ass bop!!!! tight boom baf! Lyrical and
> > witty.
> >
> > Keith Jarrett trio - Still Live (ECM) Goose pimples,
> > storytelling in a mesmerizing way. You feel he is
> > telling you about something abysmal in meaning, the
> > human condition is all in there every drop of it.
> >
> > Monk and Coltrane- Maaaaaad! nuff said. Misterioso!!!
> >
> > Miles- Agharta and Panghea .... I could go on and
> > on...
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 05:19:51 CET