Blue Note signs Marsalis!

[Uli]

Details of press release see on th BN website

This is not one of them threads but if you guys can't helpyouself, flame away!

[stonemonkts]

My initial reaction is that it could be good for both parties, especially if W.M. can explore new territory (not that BN is known for that, but anything besides some bigass label would be a better fit for him, IMO).

I predict he ends up issuing some interesting stuff.

Wynton Marsalis on any label is Wynton Marsalis.

When you think of all the real jazz players out there!

I think Bruce Lundvall has been Norah Jonesed.

[Joe Milazzo]

Hmmm, Marsalis' new labelmates are:

Norah Jones
Medeski, Martin, and Wood
Soulive
EriK Truffaz
Greg Osby
Madlib

Does the man's Boswell come with him too?

[Other Steve]

Blue Note signed Terence Blanchard first. I don't think Bruce Lundvall has been "Norah Jones"-ed; I think he's trying to bolster an eclectic roster with a couple of mainstream artists with serious recognition and sales history, thus diversifying it in a most unexpected way. (And Joe, you omitted Bobby McFerrin, Kurt Elling and Cassandra Wilson, markedly different and marginally commercial artists.)

When I first heard rumors of this signing some months ago, I wondered if Blue Note was on the pipe, too. But the more I think of it, the more I see some really interesting potential to get out from under the expectations of being Wynton Marsalis and try some new things on for size. He wouldn't be the first: Greg Osby's new record prominently features Nicholas Payton (the saxophonist wanted to "make the trumpeter stretch," according to the press release), and Osby and Marsalis recently appeared side by side in a local club as frontmen for drummer Ali Jackson.

The Blue Note relationship will also cater to Marsalis's "classical" bug, since it's got such a tightly knit relationship with EMI Classics and crossover imprint Angel. (I don't particularly care for any of Marsalis's efforts in that area, but I understand that he's serious about them.)

Much to my surprise, I find I'm watching this development with great interest.

[Joe Milazzo]

Steve -- I just find it funny that Marsalis would sign with a label like Blue Note that specializes in music that his pocket critic Crouch so often villifies.

Originally posted by Other Steve
Blue Note signed Terence Blanchard first. I don't think Bruce Lundvall has been "Norah Jones"-ed; I think he's trying to bolster an eclectic roster with a couple of mainstream artists with serious recognition and sales history, thus diversifying it in a most unexpected way. [/B]

• Serious recognition, yes, but not for his musical talent; why not sign someone who has the respect of the jazz community, someone who has made his/her mark artistically?
  
  Sales history? Do you realize how dismal his sales have been? Columbia did not rid itself of a cash cow, you know!

[Other Steve]

Originally posted by Chris A

• Serious recognition, yes, but not for his musical talent; why not sign someone who has the respect of the jazz community, someone who has made his/her mark artistically?
  
  Sales history? Do you realize how dismal his sales have been? Columbia did not rid itself of a cash cow, you know!

Chris, I'm not going to try to refute your points, because I respect where you're coming from as a critical voice of reason. However, I do think that in the first case, many music fans -- as opposed to critics -- still think of Marsalis in fairly lofty aesthetic terms. Posterity may well judge differently, but in the short run, it's those fans' votes that count most, and many of them view Marsalis to be the serious icon his PR machine has made him out to be.

And in the latter case, yes, thanks to my penultimate PR position, I was privvy to SoundScan figures on most of Marsalis's releases between 1997 and 2000. You're right, most of the records issued during the final contract-killing barrage sold relatively poorly. But some of them sold extraordinarily well, with a few in the hundreds of thousands (particularly the ballad records with strings)... enough to credibly argue that if Columbia had just said "no" to Marsalis a little more often, a steady stream of fewer but better releases might have performed quite admirably. I'm certain that Bruce Lundvall must certainly be aware of that; I can't imagine him bowing to pressure to issue yet another superfluous Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra disc, for example, nor a Monk tribute as laughably bad as Marsalis's was.

But again, Chris, I'm just speculating based on what I know of both sides of the equation, and you've certainly been much more privvy to the inside for a longer time than I was.

And Joe, I see your point. But maybe, just maybe, could Marsalis be quietly trying to emerge from Crouch's voluminous, baleful shadow? I freely admit that that's most likely wishful thinking. My greatest surprise, however, is that Marsalis did not simply follow his brother's example and start his own label with no outside supervision, complete artistic control and ownership of the masters, and a greater share of the profits, even if sales were lower. That's the course on which I would have bet money a year ago, especially with the establishment of the new Magic Kingdom on Columbus Circle. That Marsalis chose not to do so suggests to me that perhaps he still sees some value in interaction with a strong figure like Lundvall. But again, I could be pipe-dreaming; maybe he just needs a lucrative contract.

Ultimately, I'm not trying to defend Marsalis; I'm put off by most of his public statements and positions, as well as much of his recorded output (though far from all). But I have been pleasantly surprised on some occasions, and even blown away a few times, by the way Wynton plays in situations where he's removed from his PR and marketing juggernaut. That's what makes me hold out any hope whatsoever for the potential of a genuine creative rebirth under Lundvall's watch. But again, I won't stake the farm on it; for now, let's just say I'm curious.

I see your point, Steve. While there is some advantage to having one's own label, I think it may be outweighed by disadvantages. Distribution is often a problem, and it is easily regarded as a vanity move. Columbia released far too many albums by him--it's never good to be in competition with oneself.

Time will tell if Bruce is making a mistake--I think he is, both from a musical and a business point of view.

BTW I wonder why you think the move will put Crouch at a distance. I think he will maintain his firm grip until other coattails look more opportune to him.

[Other Steve]

Originally posted by Chris A
I wonder why you think the move will put Crouch at a distance. I think he will maintain his firm grip until other coattails look more opportune to him.

Are you suggesting that Marsalis is incapable of escaping Crouch's gravitational pull?

I can't really put my finger on it, and maybe I'm delusional. But it just seems like his low-profile sideman dates at places like Small's, the Jazz Gallery and the Jazz Standard, his downtown charity gigs and his willingness to play alongside Greg Osby (and vice versa) suggest that maybe Marsalis might want to grow, and to get away from the damaging, disfunctional rhetoric of his longtime benefactor. It would be especially unsurprising after the horrifying flap over Crouch's notorious "white man" column -- I don't think anyone has ever tried to put those kinds of sentiments in Marsalis's mouth, although I could be mistaken. But I do get a sense that Marsalis has been aware of and responsive to past criticism, such as the institutionalized sexism article that appeared in the Village Voice a few years back, and that he's taken baby-steps to correct them, which is more than can be expected from Crouch.

As Mulder says, "I want to believe." But then, how often was Mulder completely off his nut?

[Sergio Zamora]

Even though I'm not very interested in Marsalis, I think this will be a good move. I'm with Steve - I dunno what it is, but I feel that Marsalis, without much fanfare is trying to get a little more distance between Crouch and himself in some aspects. Maybe it's the fact that, you know, he's kinda grown up now.

Anyway, I'm hoping for the best because I think Marsalis might still have it in him to not be so boring.

I doubt if Marsalis will succeed in distancing himself from Crouch by changing his musical direction. Crouch made a u-turn to grab onto Marsalis' coattails and he will make another u-turn if that is what it takes to maintain his grip. Besides, is Marsalis going to run away from someone who calls him the greatest thing jazz has coughed up? I don't think so. These guys were made for each other--both have moved into the spotlight through heavy reliance on smoke and mirrors--Marsalis is more talented, but neither man would be where he is if talent was the determining factor. They feed on each other.

[Other Steve]

Originally posted by Chris A
Besides, is Marsalis going to run away from someone who calls him the greatest thing jazz has coughed up?

The surest sign of a genuine onset of artistic maturity will be the day he does precisely that.

Good response!

[Joe Milazzo]

Originally posted by Other Steve
But maybe, just maybe, could Marsalis be quietly trying to emerge from Crouch's voluminous, baleful shadow?

Like you, I hope so. Underneath all the mud that's been slung and hard feelings, there still music to be discussed.

I posted this elsewhere, but it is as pertinent here, so...

• "But he has nothing on!" a little child cried out at last.
  
  "Just hear what the innocent says!" said the father; and one whispered to another what the child had said.
  
  "But he has nothing on!" said the whole people at length. That touched the Emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought within himself, "I must go through with the procession." And the chamberlains held on tighter than ever, and carried the train which did not exist at all. --Hans Christian Andersen
  
  It's all about promotion. Without the promotion (hype, if you will) accorded Wynton, he would today be regarded as just another player, possibly relegated to perennial sideman status. Conversely, given even a fraction of the promotion Wynton has enjoyed, many musicians who remain relatively unknown would be booked by those who base their hiring on name recognition rather than talent.
  
  As I have said before, this is not Wynton's fault--we cannot blame him for taking advantage of a system that pitches musicians in much the same manner as they might pitch a new gadget. The music industry used to be fueled by talent and headed by people who recognized and nurtured talent. It is no longer so. Now the lawyers, accountants, and other hucksters are in charge, singing has been reduced to monotonous melisma, and a performer who--after almost thirty years of inflated attention and performance opportunities--has yet to produce anything of enduring artistic worth, has been morphed, via media and PR, into the personification of jazz.
  
  To be frank, stripping off the hype leaves little that might justify the attention given Wynton.

[Joe Milazzo]

...a performer who--after almost thirty years of inflated attention and performance opportunities--has yet to produce anything of enduring artistic worth...

Chris -- I agree, but I can't quite close the book on him yet.

[Derek Taylor]

I’m not among the numbers who’ve engaged Chris A in the Wynton debate to date, but I agree with Other Steve’s well stated points. To blanketly claim that Wynton, as a performer, hasn’t made a mark artistically seems reactionary & wrong to me. I’m not a fan of most of the man’s music, but he can play & does occasionally have interesting things to say on his instrument. The LIVE AT THE VILLAGE VANGUARD box proves this conclusively by my estimation. His signing to BN makes sense to me & I hope it yields some enjoyable (& enduring) music.

[Other Steve]

Originally posted by Chris A
a performer who--after almost thirty years of inflated attention and performance opportunities--has yet to produce anything of enduring artistic worth.

Again, Chris, much respect for your position, and I know I'm verging on veering off-topic for this thread (just as Uli predicted might happen!). Nevertheless, perhaps it's a sign of my age or the ahistorical perspective from which I approached (and continue to approach) jazz, but Black Codes (from the Underground) is worthy to stand alongside much of what I've heard over the last 24 years since I first started listening. Sure, it's derivative of Miles and Wayne and Herbie and any number of other precursors, but so what? Musically and compositionally, it's a damn fine record, and one I go back to regularly.

Of course, Black Codes is also an early album, and only one example from Wynton's 763 or so releases. Still, that one record -- and maybe a couple of others that are in the same area code, if not exactly the same ballpark -- assures that I'll always take a sidelong glance at what he's up to, sooner or later.

Steve, if I gave the impression that I regarded all of Wynton's music as worthless, please allow me to correct that. As I have so often pointed out before, I not only liked what I heard from him in the early days (Blakey, etc.), I said so in writing. Wynton received more than one glowing, optimistic writeup from me in Stereo Review.

Having said that, I also have to reiterate that his subsequent performances, with few exceptions, have been a disappointment to me. I cannot prejudge his upcoming BN album, but I can say that--based on what I have heard him do for over twwo decades--I do not have high hopes. I should also add that nothing he has played has blown me away, as they say, and I find his extended compositions (Pulitzer notwithstanding) to be laborious and unimaginative.

That's all I'm saying. If there had not been so much hype, so much for him to live up to, he would be far less known and he would have far fewer recordings out there. A performer who gets as much attention as Wynton has enjoyed for all this time should by now, logically, have come up with something extraordinary. After all, musicians who have produced memorable performances stand in his shadow. There is something wrong with that picture, IMO. And if I don't expect Wynton Marsalis to blow aanyone away with his new BN album, don't accuse me of bashing (I know you haven't)--just call me a realist. Who knows, if he comes up with something even slightly above the ordinary, if he limbers up and puts some feeling into it, I'll be among the first to applaud.

BTW, it's amazing how some people react to any criticism of Wynton--one particularly hysterical guy on Organissimo is downright paranoid. He takes my critique of WM as a personal affront and goes into a hissy fit when he reads my posts. Some people need to get a life, eh?

[Other Steve]

I'd say, then, that we're on precisely the same page -- much as I expected.

Chris, this could be exactly the kind of thing that Wynton needs. Having followed his career closely over the years(as I'm sure you have also), I think that it's pretty clear that too many voices were being raised around him, and too many people had their hands and their say in the direction that Wynton took. As you have clearly stated not only here but on old threads as well, he DID makes some nice albums early in his career(as well as the excellent Vanguard box). So obviously there is some talent lurking beneath there. I think he was just being led by the nose a wee bit too much at Columbia, plus think of the pressure he also must have felt being their flagship product. He ended up releasing far too many albums, some of which I will admit were quite bad. But even the bad ones often had flashes of great music within them. Point being, I think he simply lost his way while trying to be the main cog in a fast moving and powerful machine.

And now being on a label where he likely will not feel as much pressure as he did before(seeing that they already have multi-million sellers from other artists), I'm really thinking that maybe he'll get back to the type of music that actually did make him popular in Jazz circles. Just think about it, Black Codes as well as the Vanguard box aren't just decent, they're really, really good, if not great.

So I'm with the optimists here, I think that Wynton still has those types of albums in him. He got stuck in a serious rut after albums like In This House, On This Morning, and especially Blood On The Fields, but I really feel that a lot of that was Columbia's doing.

You'll feel how you want to Chris, but I think you should at least give him a fair shot and at least adopt a wait and see attitude.

I'm personally rooting for the guy to make the comeback of a lifetime.

Scott, you are right, one should not/can not prejudge this album, but there are still degrees of expectation. Mine is lower than yours, but I certainly am not ruling out a surprise.

You talk about pressures at Columbia--I was not aware of any. Wynton pretty much called the shots when it came to material and approach. Now, however, there are pressures, because--as indicated by this and other threads--a lot of people are expecting that surprise.

As you said, we'll have to wait and see.

Chris, what I meant by pressure at Columbia was the fact that he was their cash cow. They invested a great deal of money in him and expected monsterous returns. Which in all reality they never got. See what I'm saying? I can't imagine the pressure he must have felt knowing that this company was pouring money all over him expecting him to return the favor. If you ask me, that simply isn't a good formula for one to make any kind of creative music at all. I just think it would have been impossible for Wynton to perform in a relaxed atmosphere, whereas now, I think thats exactly what he will have around him.

A valid point, Scott.

[cbjazz]

Maybe it's the fact that, you know, he's kinda grown up now.

This is a valid point too, IMHO. The music actually seems like it has been changing and growing again for quite a while. As is most often the case historically, the most exciting developments are happening outside of the massive PR shadow that major labels typically have created using jazz artists in the mold of the old "Marsalis/Young Lion".

The future has been the past for so long that with all due respect, this might be good for everyone in the music now. Those Bebop and post-Bop generation of musicians are and were a creative and innovative lot. They defined this music and much of what the lifestyle is about, again IMHO. These are very strong "parental controls" that have regulated much in jazz for so long.

Compared to when WM first started out, jazz truly reaches a broader demographic now. There are junior high kids with the technique to play Coltrane and Parker solo transcriptions now. And, don't even try to count the college-level programs spewing out the clones by the thousands every semester...

This has all been good IMHO and it has been good to see jazz musicians get paid, hold prestigious positions, and the music itself gain respect at new levels of awareness.

The music isn't about WM or any other single artist - now or from the past. It is time for the next generation to step forward and do their own thing. We do have something valid to say as well... That's why artists like Greg Osby and John Zorn and Dave Douglas are so important to jazz...

Maybe this move will let WM get back to the essence of his art and allow room for other artists to be appreciated as well.

[BlueMiles]

A couple of nights ago I listened to Wynton's very first album, which I had not heard in a long time. It's a really, really fine album. I mostly wanted to hear "Sister Cheryl," the Tony Williams composition which became an iconic performance (IMO) for Wynton and for the 1980's, if not beyond. But the whole album is strong.

Like those who were first exploring jazz at that time (I bought my first jazz record, "Bitches Brew," in 1981), I sucked up a lot of the early work by Wynton. I'm very much agreed that "Black Codes" is a classic. But there's a lot of fine stuff from this period, including Herbie's "Quartet."

I don't know why Wynton seemed to lose it so much. I had begun to lose my interest in him several years before entering Jazz Corner and seeing the frequent dissing of the man. He could use something, and maybe the switch to Blue Note will bring a change.

I'm very much agreed that he could lose Crouch/Grouch.

[cbjazz]

Originally posted by BlueMiles
... I don't know why Wynton seemed to lose it so much. I had begun to lose my interest in him several years before entering Jazz Corner and seeing the frequent dissing of the man. He could use something, and maybe the switch to Blue Note will bring a change.

I'm very much agreed that he could lose Crouch/Grouch.

I never understood the constant "dissing" of WM either -- also, there were quite a number of young musicians coming up with him before he hit the big time.

I always wondered why didn't these other peer artists rise seemingly as far? Look at the other Art Blakey group members he played with for starters. None of them became any type of household jazz names really.

Even considering that each of those others among his peers do enjoy noteworthy and outstanding careers to the man, they are still just mainly known to those of us within the jazz community. However, I can mention WM and most non-musicians whom I know will actually know who he is!

I just think that WM was probably just as surprised as everyone else at how successful he became in such a short time too, at first. His father wasn't though... Then, being so young, he did make some really immature remarks during some early interviews... Ahhhh, but that's youth....

It is sort of like how "mad" Tiger Woods makes most other golfers (PGA players or duffers), because he is so gifted to begin with, and then adding insult to injury, a lot of big money jumped on his band wagon with a lot of PR/Marketing...

You also can't overlook the obvious P.J. ("professional" jealousy) in the mix of things where some of the "dissing" of WM remains most strident...

Most people would not keep making negative comments like a lot of those I've seen, if they realized how "bad" it only makes them look...

[stonemonkts]

I'm not sure I go along with the Tiger Woods comparison, which suggests that W.M. may be far superior to his contemporaries, as Woods certainly is to his in golf. This may seem like nitpicking, but I couldn't help but be struck by that particular reference.

I would rather say it is more like the ire someone such as Julia Roberts may inspire in acting circles, because let's face it, both may earn top dollar in their respective fields, but who would argue Roberts' salary is commensurate with her talent?

I can yank out 40-50 recordings made during W.M. tenure by other artists and say with absolute certainty that he hasn't achieved anything of similar value (IMHO of course).

As far as looking bad, who has made themselves look worse than W.M. and friends in terms of stating absurdities?

[Tanager]

If he puts out good music that I can enjoy and appreciate, I'll buy it. If he doesn't, I won't. Simple as that. I might just go spin Black Codes...