[LONG POST WARNING]

I think that (Brian O.'s buddy) Mr. Ratliff hasn't been listening to the right people lately. Do any of you here agree that the jazz solo has recently flown south?

March 28, 2000
The Solo Retreats From the Spotlight in Jazz
By BEN RATLIFF

REMEMBER a time, learning about jazz, when I was thrilled by a musician stepping up to take a solo. It struck me then that the solo was a vector of musical truth and insight, and all the other stuff around it was just set-up, material that could be learned quickly.

"Improvisation is the ultimate human endowment," wrote the scholar Albert Murray, concluding "The Hero and the Blues," an essay on American literature that showed how the best art came directly from a people's survival tactics. Mr. Murray adeptly connected jazz to great fiction, and this line of thinking excited me back then: I felt that one had to be all ears at the threshold of each solo -- for this was where a musician could be "read," where native genius would spring out of him and be ready for measurement.

I think that I, like many other people, came to understand soloing roughly to be the same thing as "improvisation," as Mr. Murray intended it. In fact, the former is a subset of the latter.

Improvisation is the mindset, the impulse; the solo is one product of that impulse. You can be a very improvisatory musician, especially rhythmically, without taking a lot of big, spotlighted solos.

Now, more often than not, I brace myself at that moment when all members of a group simmer down to accompany a solo from a frontline musician. Because it often means that I'm going to hear not just one solo, but a bunch of them. They may be long, far longer than they need to be. They may seem like place-fillers for what could be stronger, shorter, more memorable music. By the end of the tune, I'm often left wondering how it is that solos -- and especially that theme-solos-theme format -- became such a necessary part of jazz. Not everybody solos particularly well, after all, and the number of bona fide stars whom you'd always want to hear solo, because you identify with them, is at an all-time low. Sometimes -- too often -- solos make listening to jazz drudgework yet are nevertheless applauded, when the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it.

The solo is certainly the primary symbol of jazz to the outside world -- a rail-splitting statement made within a rail-splitting music. In the history of jazz scholarship, solos have been taken as the highest mode of assertion; there are more analyses of solos than those of rhythm sections, for example, and they're much better-known pieces of criticism. And most of the great heroes of the music have been powerhouse soloists. Jazz solos first grew into special moments, things of art, in the early 1920's, and they may have reached their peak in the 1960's when John Coltrane's 15-minute performance on "Chasin' the Trane" made him an icon. Now, some of the best jazz has pressed the solo back into the context of written music or made it an ongoing collective endeavor throughout a piece of music, thereby lessening its iconic stature. In the huge volume of jazz to be presented in New York during next month's jazz festivals, we will be sure to see both an effusion of the old style, for nostalgia's sake, as well a good dose of the new.

I started to think about this shift a few years ago when I noticed that some of the great performances of current jazz that I saw didn't seem to be about solos anymore. One of two things generally happened to make the music sound fresh: either the entire band seemed to be improvising all together, with emphases on one musician or another, controlled by the bandleader, or the music had become heavily arranged. Those arrangements were new to bandstands; that arranging impulse had largely dropped out of small-group jazz from the 1960's to the 1980's, and via the influence of composers ranging from Wynton Marsalis to Henry Threadgill, it was coming back.

Improvisation is always a relative term. The jazz ensemble retains the spirit of improvisation, even if much of the material is notated or known by heart; and in the realm of rhythmic improvisation, there is much that the jazz musician can do by making small free-hand inscriptions on the walls of a predetermined tune. In early jazz, the solo began as a deeply woven part of the ensemble -- little variations that amounted to embellishments of the written line. By the 1920's, the notion was expanded, but the best solos were still worked out in advance; there's a reason why King Oliver's 32-bar solo in his 1923 "Dipper Mouth Blues," with its stubborn variations on a handful of blues phrases, sounds so authoritative and why Bubber Miley's solo on the 1927 RCA Victor version of Ellington's "Black and Tan Fantasy" holds your attention from the first sly, four-bar long-tone to the last bouquet of wahs and growls. But you can't charge these performances with sounding canned: they are mirrors of the best creative acts, and even though they are no doubt shaped by practice, the urgency within them isn't faked. They're beautiful diversions: they take the listener away from the piece, then return him to it.

Jazz reached a high point in the 50's: it was widely understood both as art music and as entertainment. The jazz musician loomed larger -- in popular movies and novels, on the cover of Time magazine and, thanks to Norman Granz's Jazz at the Philharmonic tours, concert halls. Jazz at the Philharmonic enshrined the jam session, the loose-limbed aggregation of players running through well-known tunes, for a large audience. Naturally, when the jazz musician's casual hours turned official, solos got longer.

In some instances, they got even better -- more rattling, more immediate. The blues form helped musicians find themselves in three memorable solos: Sonny Rollins's "Blue Seven," Paul Gonsalves's "Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue" and Coltrane's "Chasin' the Trane." "Chasin the Trane," in 1961, proved a solo could sound gloriously unplanned, as if the musician were actually leaving the present tense and going into the subconscious, where the narrative of time didn't matter; Coltrane's only preserved remarks about the tune's recorded version are to the effect that he was surprised by how long it was. In the early 1970's, musicians like Roscoe Mitchell and Lester Bowie took the process one step further, lampooning well-worn gestures of the blues and bebop language and sometimes even the very idea of solos; Mr. Mitchell has played solos of nothing but one pitch or one phrase, repeated over and over.

Of course, that wasn't the end of the jazz solo. But it was around that time that the myth of the jazz musician started to be deflated. Now, the figure of the jazz musician is even more modest. Instead of some sort of tortured, celebrated loner, he's frequently merely a scholar, and in an age when the cause of jazz education has been hotly taken up, he's understood for what he is: a hard-working artist whose parents encouraged a rather esoteric desire through years of private lessons and music school. The myth is leaving, and the audience credulity it takes to absorb endless solos from the bandstand is leaving too.

When Herbie Hancock played material from his "Gershwin's World" album at the Blue Note last month, it was a performance not about solos, not even about melodies, but about rhythm and interplay. Dave Holland, performing at Birdland in early May, presided over intricate bursts of form, often anchored by persistent vamps; when a musician did take a solo, it was big and commanding and statuesque, and not simply one in a series of rote pirouettes. The pianist Jason Moran's forthcoming record, "Facing Left," presents a rattling set of pieces in which all three musicians seem to be soloing simultaneously, and improvisation largely hangs off the repeated melody. The wilder side of jazz has been making adjustments, too: groups like Tim Berne's Bloodcount and Peter Brötzmann's Tentet use arrangements that continually recombine members of the group, keeping the emphasis away from strings of solos and leaning toward shifting duets or three-way improvisations.

There are exceptions, of course -- musicians whose lengthy improvisations are to be savored: Keith Jarrett, Joe Lovano, Dewey Redman, Lee Konitz, Marcus Roberts and Wynton Marsalis, for instance, all have superior senses of improvised form.

But Mr. Roberts's last album, "In Honor of Duke," is jazz trio music so schematically worked out that it leaves little to chance. Jazz records in general are turning toward more closely arranged projects; the 50's notion of the "blowing date" record is more passé than ever, replaced by recordings like Mr. Lovano's new "52nd Street Themes," featuring meticulous arrangements for a 10-piece band, or Greg Osby's "Invisible Hand," which manages by clever forethought to corral Jim Hall and Andrew Hill, two musicians whom you'd never think of putting together on the bandstand for a few ad-libbed choruses. Such albums are not only easier to market -- there's often a story and something of an aesthetic argument behind them -- but they're often more engaging to listen to than informal affairs.

Mr. Marsalis, recently asked in Jazz Times magazine what he thought the future of jazz held, said: "I think there's going to be an end to the old style of jamming on the bandstand that was really initiated during Charlie Parker's time. Historically, that was never a part of jazz music, not in the beginning . . . solos didn't come into fashion until Louis Armstrong and didn't become ingrained into jazz until the bebop thing came along. So I think there will be more emphasis put on presentation and composition as opposed to just soloing, which is really a boring and predictable way of presenting music."

If Mr. Marsalis, who spends a great deal of time concerned with jazz education, is thinking along the lines of building something that will last -- a jazz literature for the future, rather than just a few exploding minutes of genius in a B-flat blues -- he's not the only one. It only takes a look at the schedules of the Bell Atlantic and JVC festivals this year to know that the music, across the board, is deep in its compositional phase. But this time composition doesn't just mean old repertory; it means new music that can survive, as written, into the future.

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

hard to write this article without mentioning everything that the Hemingway band has recorded and played over the last 10 years.

also hard to imagine that Wynton and his cronies would get any credit for the movement in jazz that began with Threadgill, Braxton, Hemphill, Abrams and all the rest over 30 years ago.

Seems to me Ratliff(and Wynton) are catching up to what has been happeing for a very long time in jazz.

Did anyone read this?


and then did anyone read it again?

<Not everybody solos particularly well, after all, and the number of bona fide stars whom you'd always want to hear solo, because you identify with them, is at an all-time low. Sometimes -- too often -- solos make listening to jazz drudgework yet are nevertheless applauded, when the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it.>


Is at an all-time low?

Who the fuck has he been listenin' to over the past 20 years?


ceratinly not Paul Dunmall

and the fact he's not a star has nothing to do with the fact that he's an awesome saxophonist that only a deaf mute wouldn't find something to like in his soloing.

and most people, if they ever heard him, would be astounded.


and obviously Mr. Ratliff hasn't listened to "2 days in april" yet. I would like see if he would deem this soloing(by all four musicians) worthy of his applause.

and *even* Fred C would like the drums solos-:)




Southern Extreme, baby

Walter, this is just more bull from Ratliff, who--it seems--has become an extension of the three blind (deaf?) mice team of Wynton/Murray/Crouch.

I wouldn't take this seriously--his argument is too full of holes and it is obvious to me that he looked for something provokative, threw reality to the wind, and came up with another Ratliff piece that cannot stand even superficial scrutiny.

Ratliff seems to be saying:

a) he can't find soloists he really likes any more
b) lots of interesting work is being done in composition and arrangement

Point b) is certainly true.

As for point a), it sounds like it's his problem, not a general one.

I can't really get with his semi-nostalgic thing about the solo once being the crux of it all and now falling out of favor.

I think many listeners dig solos most when they start listening to jazz because the subtle work of the improvising rhythm section is not so immediately visible; also, there are lots of strategies and devices common to much jazz soloing - the bricks and mortar, as it were, on which a soloist sprays his or her graffiti. Eventually you are aware of much of these underlying aspects instead of assuming them to be the soloist's inner soul expressing itself spontaneously. Solos lose some of their glamor then.

Also, when he says "the number of bona fide stars whom you'd always want to hear solo, because you identify with them, is at an all-time low," what does he mean "because you identify with them"? All that means is that he, Ratliffe, doesn't "identify" with many players anymore. What does that have to do with anything? Steve R, for example, identifies with more and more soloists every week, perhaps even every day.

As for the music being "in its compositional stage," let us not forget that jazz already has seen Ellington, Monk, Shorter, Hill and many, many other composers of lasting merit, not to mention its rich tradition of arrangement going from Jelly Roll Morton up through the great big band arrangers etc. Nor, despite his despair, do we lack fine soloists.

Thank you, Tom!

I'll say this: I have no particular love anymore for pick-up bands, no matter how star-studded, that play the head, let everybody solo at length, play the head again, and go out. In that sense, I'd agree that bands for whom soloing is the ONLY point are not nearly as interesting as bands that play ensemble work--that is, bands that do what only bands can.

Preacher: Down boy! I think Ratliff actually likes a lot of what you like: Free improvisers who have their ears open wide to each other.

Good Doctor:

I know all about Ratliff, and that's exactly what pissed me off about this article. It's almost like he's trying to gain favor with whoever he thinks is important in the music.


believe it or not, he is the author of the liner notes to one of the *greatest* albums of spontaneously improvised music of the twentieth century, a recording that is somewhat (in)famous around here, my personal favorite recording of the great ol' round man himself, "Coming Down The Mountain"

and I gave it a spin tonight, and it's power conitnues to grow.

Can't wait for June 11th, when Papa Joe brings Barre Phillips into the revolving bass chair to join the original and long time members of what will remembered many years from now as one of the 2 or 3 seminal working/recording bands of the 1990's.



and without question, love him or hate him, or even if your somewhere in that ambivalent zone, Joe Maneri is the most original saxophonist & clarinetist of the last 35 years.



doesn't mean he's the greatest(although a few of us lean towards that opinion from time to time), it just means he's the most striking and unique of all the current reed players.

Not a value judgement, I don't think, just a commentary on what I hear.








Swing High, Swing Higher

It's certainly true that in the context of all the different styles that there is a lot of professional-sounding, and bloodless playing, but here's some news: There always has been! Lots of those 50's records aren't that happening, either. There's also lots of free playing that totally sucks, and how about that fusion stuff, with vamps until the pot gets all smoked?

But there are some incredible players today, in all the different bags. Sometimes you can't tell from records; you have to get out there and hear it. But it's there, and probably more of it than ever. I'm not sure what Ratliff is getting at. I think a lot of cats are trying to get to something on the bandstand and feel the need to play long and let the chips fall where they may. But predictability and mediocrity haver always been around in this music. It's part of the tradition!:-) The difference is that today you have some big shoes to fill- everyone thinks that jazz back in the day was always incredible, from listening to the great records by Monk, Trane and Miles, and all the Blue Note classics. But those guys stood out because they were so good, and that's why their records are still listened to.
And even those cats made some not-so-happening music.

There are a lot of cliches that people play. To play in the moment you have to prepare, but then play by ear, in a way, to get to the real stuff. Sonny, Trane and Miles valued that, but not everyone did or does. As far as strings of solos, man, it depends on who is soloing! People have to LISTEN and respond, creating as you go. No amount of composition is going to change the fact that improvisation of any substance will govern the direction of your music- in my view.

Ben Ratliff gets paid to write these bullshit articles; he needs to write about something. But he doesn't really know what's happening; he doesn't play OR write, so I take it with a grain of salt.

has anybody heard Butch Morris conduction ensembles ?

the article didn't mention him but his approach is one performance option for jazz seems to be an alternative to what Ratliff is complaining about

listen to "Homeing" or "Dust to Dust" all collective orchestrations - seamless marriage of compostion and improvisation not a blowing format.

another conduction#70 the only "soloist" seems to be Butch himself with a baton acting as a conductor with the ensemble as his instrumental palette generating spontaneous events in response to his cues - i think its better than Zorn's game improv with cue cards

awesome post, Mr. G

In slight defense of Ratliff (despite Walt's generous designation, I've only hung out with him a few times and don't know his deepest convictions, but he's an exceedlingly nice fellow with very, metaphorically, big ears), my read on the article was his frustration with a static *structure* that one hears all too often in jazz, both in the mainstream and avant communities. While we can all come up with examples to the contrary, it has also struck me that the great majority of performances fall into the "head-solos-head" format Dr. Dave mentions, however gussied up or disguised that structure may be. I happened to find myself at the Vanguard for Wycliffe Gordon the other evening (!); Gordon's a fine and enjoyable enough player but the band went through the usual solo rituals, trading fours with the drummer etc. that, for me, no matter how well executed, have an underlying sense of tiredness, of going through the motions. Only on their final piece, 'Straight, No Chaser' did they mess with the tune, strike a spark and create some real excitement. Now, many here might agree when we're talking about Marsalis acolytes, but I've had the same sense when hearing much of, say, William Parker (pause to adjust defense screens for incoming phasers) and many other Vision fest favorites. I think any honest appraiser of the scene would agree that this is all too common, even among supposedly adventurous bands.

It's especially frustrating when masters like Braxton, Cecil or Threadgill have been making enormous strides in revolutionizing the structure of jazz throughout their careers, only to hear scant few availing themselves of these innovations, much less coming up with ideas of their own (or is that unfair to ask? Are musicians of that calibre so few and far between? Maybe so). Again, their are surely examples to the contrary (Steve mentioned several), but then we're, I think, talking about a tiny (if extremely valuable) minority of performers within the jazz community.

It's one reason that, over the last five or so years, I've found myself listening more and more to the purely free improv or "microvising" end of the spectrum of the music where, like a good conversation, the beautiful structure is only apparent in retrospect. Whereas I might prize a Mingus, Ornette or Ellington recording over anything else, when it comes to my contemporaries, there are few in the head-solos-head world that continue to pique my interest.

But that's just me and my two cents.

and what is "You Forget to Answer"?

great post, Brian-and I am very curious as to what you think about the above CD.

and I don't think the bands I have been really gettin' into in the area of the vision fest crowd are too much inot the theme-solos-theme...save for the set by "Kidd" Jordan-but that's a horse of another garage.

and if Ware's quartet follows this form on some(or most?) of their tunes, are they not being interesting while they are doing it?

maybe not all the time-and maybe why I continually talk about the greatness of the Hemingway Quintet(and the current quartet) of The Tiny Bell Trio or Clusone 3 or Gianluigi Trovesi's ensembles-or the Italian Instabile Orchestra themselves.


and also why a band like Mujician, though spontaneously improvised, is so exciting compared to the majority of jazz we hear.

Steve--I've yet to hear "You Forget to Answer" (still catching up on my Gustaffson--though very eager to), but I'm going to hazard a guess that it doesn't fall within the head-solos-head format, at least not as blatantly (I caught Mats with O'Rourke and Mori last week, a superb concert that, I'm pretty sure, Ben would've loved and could've served as a fine example of what he's talking about--nary a solo to be found). In fact, I share much of your fascination with the British and European improv scene. Many there (generalizing), along with the Chicago crowd, have been opening up the territory. Even when, as in, say, Mujician, there's a semi-standard format, I find that the solos emerge more...organically (must be a better word), less as a showpiece for the instrumentalist, more as a structural "block" of the composition. To the extent that the word still has meaning, though, somewhere along the line (imho) we begin to get into something which might not properly be labelled "jazz" (that's a whole 'nuther argument and it's too early in the morning). Personally, I think Guy's work is about the finest of the last decade (especially with the LJCO) and, though he incorporates solos (and duos and trios and quartets...), I think we'd agree that it's not in anything approaching the "typical" jazz fashion.

It's a complex matter though. As you point out with Ware, the trad format can still produce great rewards. And though one can cite any number of fine musicians working in this style, that number is, I think, getting smaller and smaller over time, one reason being, I imagine, that younger musicians with vision find themselves increasingly stifled by it.

There's also (another old argument rearing its head) something to be said for the much maligned "newness" factor providing a spark. There's a reason Ornette in 1960 sounds so much more alive than Moondoc in 2000 (insert your own comparisons, Miles/Wynton, Ayler/Gayle) and part of it, I feel, is the thrill at stepping into unknown territory as opposed to the (perhaps subconscious, perhaps not) knowledge that one is treading a well-worn path.

Does the NYT have ANY jazz writers who aren't held prisoners in the Whynnie/Crouch camp?

Even though I respectfully differ from our friends in the Out world, I hear a lot of fine soloing from Joe Lovano, Bennie Wallace, Eric Alexander, John Hicks, Jessica Williams and a multitude of others to wonder what the hell this yutz is listening to.

He probably hangs with John McDonough.

Hmmm, I just heard Hilario Duran take a great piano solo on Jane Bunnett's new record. I hear dozens of truly great jazz solos every day, most of them of fairly recent vintage.

I'm not familiar with Ben Ratliff since, outside of NY, the NY Times is not considered too relevant. But if he is as ignorant of the current jazz scene as the reprinted article makes him sound, why do New Yorkers put up with such garbage?

There are a larger number of masterful soloists around today than ever before. This is partly true because there are more jazz musicians than ever before, and certainly more recordings are being made. Of course if one only listens to major label releases, and only to music endorsed by Wynton, then it appears that jazz is declining. And if listeners feel that jazz is directionless because there is no one dominant giant as in the days of Bird, Diz, Miles and 'Trane, then they need to be re-educated. This may seem like an overstatement to some, but jazz is currently in a golden age, one that started around 1915!

Perhaps it's time for the New York Times to make some major changes.

Radcliff sed that?

Just to correct what seems to be a widely held impression here, Ratliff (as near as I can judge) is hardly a captive of the Marsalis/Crouch camp, viz. his article on microvising a couple of weeks back ( a "school" about as un-mainstream as you can get). He may well enjoy a wider range of jazz than many of us here (he's also manic about Brazilian and Cuban music), including Marsalis, but he's by no means exclusive.

wow, somebody says something positive in print about Marsalis, and the knives come out...

Scott Yanow says "I'm not familiar with Ben Ratliff since, outside of NY, the NY Times is not considered too relevant. But if he is as ignorant of the current jazz scene as the reprinted article makes him sound, why do New Yorkers put up with such garbage?"

Scott, how many gigs do you go to each week? My guess is that Ratliff attends at least three, from the major clubs to the Knitting Factory to Tonic to Smalls. He has very broad tastes, and writes about a broad range of music. I doubt there are too many people MORE in touch with a wide cross-section of the NY jazz scene than him.

Preacher Reynolds remarks
"I know all about Ratliff, and that's exactly what pissed me off about this article. It's almost like he's trying to gain favor with whoever he thinks is important in the music."

Steve, you have no basis for this at all. He disagrees with you, so he's somehow corrupted himself? But he was full of integrity and honesty when he praised Joe Maneri? He was paid to write those liner notes - how do you know he wasn't corrupting himself then? In fact, you have no idea - but that doesn't stop you from impugning his integrity.

Chris A says
"this is just more bull from Ratliff, who--it seems--has become an extension of the three blind (deaf?) mice team of Wynton/Murray/Crouch."

and clint hopson says
"Does the NYT have ANY jazz writers who aren't held prisoners in the Whynnie/Crouch camp?"

Chris and Clint, Ratliff has written a number of pans of LCJO-Wynton concerts (no, I can't give you citations off the top of my head), as well as some praise. As hard as it is to believe for some of you out there, it is possible to like some of the LCJO-Wynton music and dislike some of it; to enjoy and appreciate some of what they do and not others. It would be nice (not that I'm holding my breath) if a writer (or poster) could say something positive about Marsalis et al without being accused of corruption or stupidity or being a yutz or whatever.

It would also be nice if Steve R could - just for once - refrain from turning every thread into a soapbox for his opinions about everything.

Now, as for the substance of the article....oh, never mind.

well after jh, is done trashing everyone on this thread that disagrees with ratliff, one cant wonder and raise the issue that ratliff is harkening for a past & pandering to the corporates:

if u want to hear great solos there are a lot out there. but to fashion this group as leading solo players of the day.

<<There are exceptions, of course -- musicians whose lengthy improvisations are to be savored: Keith Jarrett, Joe Lovano, Dewey Redman, Lee Konitz, Marcus Roberts and Wynton Marsalis, for instance, all have superior senses
of improvised form. >>

brian o points out,
<< It's especially frustrating when masters like Braxton, Cecil or Threadgill have been making enormous strides in revolutionizing the structure of jazz ... only to hear scant few availing themselves of these innovations, >>

i will agree to that,

but i find most around here & elsewhere prefer solos largely. fact is that there is a plenthora of music with or without a lot of solos being played over the last 10 yrs. ratliff's bitch seems to be about a lack of commercial conformity to his taste at least, even though solos still rule the day. example, cecil releases 'nailed' (ala ct unit) and everyone is enthralled, yak yak yak. yet 'qu'a yuba' an extension of his talent gets no discussion.

'qua' is a much more intricately organized & masterfully structured performance that doesnt lend itself to lengthy out front solo space. despite the sound boosting necessary on my stereo, once u are there, it's a fiercely biting masterpiece. compare 'momentum space' where the musicians seem lost, but if dewey just blows a hard, everybody raves. reminds me of the jarret 4tets with dewey, dewey solos were all that were good, but the music itself was an utter failure. kind of mozart piano meets the ornette coleman group. saved by the solo. few listen to brax ghost music, what hardly any solos?

The personal attacks on Ben Ratlif in this thread are absurd. He has wide ranging tastes, is not a captive of any single viewpoint, his musical opinions are not highly correlated with John McDonough's. It must be difficult to write a thoughtful article for both an audience that is mostly unimformed about jazz and a small segment of that audience that is fanatical about jazz and ready to dissect every word. Reading between the lines, I would say that he is bored by head/solo/head. He believes that some of the best newly recorded jazz is compositionally oriented as opposed to soloing over familiar chord changes. He tends too hedge too much when he writes, but too many people at the JC see everything in black and white, never with shades of gray.

wow, somebody says something not quite positive in print about Marsalis, and Harrigan's knife comes out...

This is hilarious. Really fuckin prime stuff.

I'm afraid I must sound the "can't we all just.." bell here, and point out Ratliff's cover article, entitled "Nights of Jazz, Sweet and Hot" in the Weekend section of the Times on Friday, the 26th (this last one). He does a run down of what to see in the next month, complete with descriptions of what in particular to look forward to. As a matter of fact, Mr. Reynolds, for Friday night, the FIRST thing he mentions is the Vision Festival lineup, making a point of mentioning the Brown-Maneri-Hamid Drake trio. (isn't that the set you've been posting about on every jazz site on the internet?)

But from there, he continues to suggest seeing everything from the Peter Brotzmann Tentet to Aretha Franklin, Elvin Jones and Cecil Taylor to the Pat Martino Hip-Bop Trio. In probably his greatest juxtaposition, he suggests starting the 8th with the Matthew Shipp String Trio at the Knit, and then heading up to the Blue Note for the late set by James Carter's new electric band. This hardly sounds like someone "blinded" by Wynton Marsalis and whatever revisionist tendencies he might have.

As a number of people have tried to point out, Mr. Ratliff has broad-ranging tastes (see above), and makes it his job to get a broader audience excited about anything worthwhile that is going on the music loosely termed "jazz". As far as I can tell, he is the type of jazz fan that the world (and particularly the jazz fanatic world) needs more of - somebody who stops spending so much energy formulating arguments about what qualifies as avant-garde, post-bop, neo-bop, etc., and spends it on getting excited about good music whenever he thinks he hears it. How many people on this board can honestly say they do that?

As to the above article, minus the exceptions that are noted endlessly here, the majority of the "jazz" world is dominated - whether entirely free or 12 bars in the pocket - by a lack of innovation and/or spontaneity. Now don't get me wrong, a place like the Vision Festival has treated me to a full week plus of the opposite, as do many other shows I've been to over the past couple of years - but this is not the MAJORITY of the jazz world. It's not exactly like he said there's nothing happening in improvised music...

Well, as I said on a different thread, I was long a Ratliff fan and still am to a lesser extent. Lately, though, he's been dropping in my estimations. And, yes, in this article at least, he is hewing to Wynton and Grouch's latest line, as he quotes Wynton, presumably because he agrees with him, to buttress his point re soloing and its "recent" entry into jazz, ie, to hew to Wynton's line, in the day of Charlie Parker. This harks back to the JT interview with Marsalis a few months back (which is where the WM quote in Ratliff's article appeared).

At the time, I wrote a lengthy response to WM's interview here, where I took him to task for ahistoricizing history to make his ideological point about how he thinks jazz is supposed to be played. Let's examine this quite strange notion of history, again.

First, Charlie Parker and Dizzy and those guys, one would think, would count as "historical" by now, in any reasonable argument. I mean, the mid-to-late 40s is hardly yesterday. More to the point, there is more jazz history *since* those days than there was from its beginnings to them. So what exactly is WM -- and now Ratliff -- trying to say when they imply that soloing has "only" been a major aspect of jazz since the dawn of bebop. I mean, really. It's "only" been half a century or more.

The second thing that is ahistorical about this line of "reasoning" is that it is simply wrong, as anyone versed in jazz history knows who isn't trying to make ideological points. Long before the dawn of bebop, the cats were participating in all-night-long jam sessions and cutting sessions wherein soloing was *exactly* the point. I mean, what else is a cutting session after all? So one can hardly say that soloing didn't become a major focus of jazz until Charlie Parker made it one. This is simply inaccurate to anyone who cares about historical accuracy or even authenticity which seems to be WM's main concern.

Third, how far back in jazz's history do we have to go to meet this strange concept of authenticity? Ratliff quotes WM favorably to make a point, that it was "only" with Louis Armstrong (!) that the solo player became prominent (as opposed to collective improv, which is to say, collective soloing). Again, how long ago are talking here? We're close to the very dawn of jazz itself and yet it still isn't "historical" enough to be "authentic" in WM's view. How far back do we have to go? Buddy Bolden? Pre-Buddy Bolden? Shit, talking Armstrong we're in the early years of recording technology so far as jazz goes. In the same interview in JT WM was going off about Souza marches and how Americans used to listen to them. So what? Should we all start playing and listening to them again? What's next, a night at Lincoln Center dedicated to Stephen Foster songs? Minstrel shows? What is "historical" enough in this wacky world?

Four, the head-solo-head "blowing session," as has already been pointed out above, was abandoned by the much-maligned "avant-garde" forty years ago and more, for other, more imaginative ways of improvising. So what is new here? I mean, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman, Miles Davis (esp from his 2nd quintet onward), John Coltrane, Pharoah Sanders, Braxton, all the Chi-town cats -- do we have to name them all? -- left all that behind before WM or Ratliff were even born. And if we're going to talk about collective improv and improvised structure, who was doing that more than Miles in his much-maligned electric years of the 60s and 70s? The very period of Miles that WM and his ilk most object to?

Five, we have to love the delicious irony here of WM, of all people, now mocking the golden age of the 40s and 50s and early 60s, when he cut his teeth while trying his best to imitate exactly those years, and has spent many a year trying to convince everyone of the golden age's validity as the fruit of "tradition."

Of course that was before he decided that he was Ellington incarnate and now, apparently, perhaps, Bolden, too. So now we must go all the way back to the earliest dawn of jazz to find anything that his "historically" authentic. That is, we have to go back to a time *prior to* the existence of "the tradition" itself. Absurd! As if one's life is not what one becomes but what one was at birth, or perhaps even, given the latest illogic, what one was pre-natally. Why stop there? Perhaps the only "historical" music that is "authentic" enough is field hollers or other pre-blues phenomena.

Finally, this fetishization of the past, wherein older is necessarily more "authentic," denies evolution itself. Musics do change and evolve over time. They do not roll backwards like a film in reverse. Indeed, WM's vaunted "tradition" is an example of this forward-moving *evolution.* It is not some static worship of an imaginary golden age prior to bebop. In fact, it would be hard to develop tradition itself without some sort of evolution. Something that never changes can hardly develop a "tradition." It would simply be. As I say, in this view, the only "authentic" jazz is pre-recording technology. In short, a jazz none of us has ever heard, including WM. So if we really want to get "authentic" about it we will admit that we don't even know what it sounded like and be done with it.

WM and Grouch et al (I do not include Murray here, as Murray is much more nuanced and interesting than either of his epigones, as is normally the case) twist history or make it up out of wholecloth, as needed, to buttress their ideological stances. In this, they are no different than any other ideologues. And certainly no more interesting, either.

What is astonishing to me is that editors let such things go by so easily. I'd have been asking Ratliff re his remarks about Parker: How long ago are you talking about? Isn't the dawn of bebop at least two-thirds of the way back to the beginnings of jazz history? How can this be considered a recent and not sufficiently "historical" period?
Duh.

ratliff writes there is a lack of solo space out there & then he writes that marsalis,

--gotta mention marsalis-couldnt let it go without a mention of marsalis - can jazz journalist write an article without mentioning marsalis and if not, then how many fuckin' times do u have to mention a marsalis in your article --

marsalis' lengthy improvisations are one of the few to be 'savored.' ok gb, then u can take issue with the marsalis issue & where the hell did this lack of solo space idea come from anyway. last time i listened, jazz solos were not on the endangered species list.

great post, Gary


and my point is that Ratliff, with his broad tastes in music, is capable of writing a much better article than the tripe he laid down on paper here.

Based on his knowledge and taste in jazz, wouldn't anyone question the motives of someone who wrote what we all just read?

And maybe I have no right in questioning his motives, but most of what he said about Marsalis, et al, IMO, is balderdash & poppeycock.

fact is, it's hilarious to mention Marsalis & Roberts as soloists in the same sentence as those other people.


or many other superior soloists that he knows about-but wouldn't even think about bringing up-because, IMO, it would destroy the faulty premises of his article.


think about it-he's bemoaning the lack of great soloists-yet he mentions Marsalis & Roberts!!!

certainly he doesn't think these are two of the great current soloists-two of the lessening few?


Sorry, James, Gordon , etc - just the way it strikes me.

I will read this thread Later... BUT we muct keep this in mind.. This is only one man's opinion.. and whether you agree with him or not... It's ONLY an opinion by someone who know about as much as you.

Now, now, Bruce K--you wouldn't say the same of McDonough, would you? :)

Good to see you back, BTW

BRUCE!

Gary, you put it all nicely into perspective. Like you, I have found that Ratliff seems to be moving closer to the partially blocked view of Wynton's vantagepoint.

I think you are absolutely right when you say that Ratliff's editor ought to have questioned his statement re Parker, just as Ratliff ought to have questioned Wynton's original statement. It is patently absurd to claim that improvisation did not become important to jazz until the Parker era. I still haven't figured out why Wynton said that, because I cannot believe that he is THAT ignorant of the music's history.

Excellent post, Gary. I think the Times should run it.

(And fp, I rave about "Nailed" only because it's fabulous. I don't think Cecil's supporting cast is as strong on "Qu'a". They're good, but it's tough to match Oxley, Guy, and the *GREAT* Evan Parker. I can't believe this nearly miraculous performance wasn't released until now. By comparison, I think the first Qu'a disk was released the week after the gig.)

Nice post Gary.
Where does a soloist begin if he/she can't cut her teeth in front of a live audience? I hear so-so solos all the time and I enjoy a lot of them. I saw the Brian Blade Fellowship last week and really enjoyed the head/solo/head tunes they did. I didn't find Myron Walden's solo's to be outstanding but he left an impression on me. He is definately someone I will keep an ear and eye on.

And fp, I rave about "Nailed" only because it's fabulous... >>

i agree 'nailed' is great but . & most fans here seem to gravitate towards that music. however, i doubt if the euro's oxley, guy or parker have the willingness or discipline to tackle the intricate patterns of 'qua yuba' that make it magnificent progression & less of a retrospective in ct's 40 yr evolution & cadence mag cd of the yr! i look to an example of interplaying v a more solo oriented free fall.

one is not maybe better than the other, but fans here DO respond to solo's moreso, & there are plenty of great solos out there today. so one can take issue there with ratliff. tho too often a hard solo gives a rag a pass. but i am just pointing out that great soloing IS alive & well - 'nailed' - if u look for it. i suppose one can use coltrane as the benchmark, but that's a pretty high mark & i dont think ratliff examples are as strong as what ive heard.

James Harrigan:

To answer your question, I see 1-5 performances a week, either in major clubs (Catalina's and the Jazz Bakery), lesser-known venues or at concerts. In addition, I listen to jazz CDs 6-10 hours a day (no exaggeration). I am not overly familiar with Ben Ratliff's opinions. But all I can say is that the article that has been printed on this thread is pure garbage, quite inaccurate, and must have some kind of secret agenda. At least I hope so, because I would hate to think that a NY Times writer actually believes this fantasy. Wynton claims in an article that jazz is not about soloing and did not emphasize solos until the bebop era, and Ben Ratliff seconds that absurdity. Has Wynton ever heard of Coleman Hawkins, Art Tatum or Roy Eldridge, all of whom took quite a few major solos in the 1930s?

I repeat what I said. There are many major solos on recent records, just not necessarily on major label releases. Anyone writing about jazz for the NY Times must know that.

Let's get some things straight:

. Ratliff does not say there are fewer solos. He says there are fewer solos that are as good as he would like them to be.

. frankiepop: "ratliff is harkening for a past & pandering to the corporates" - he isn't harkening for the past; the head-solo-head format that bores him so much now is a relic of the past, and that's what he's complaining about; he is voting *for* what he sees as a current, modernizing emphasis on other approaches. "Pandering to the corporates," come off it. Did you see this article as just a plug for Wynton? Read more carefully.

. Ratliff does not kiss Wynton's ass in this article. For one thing, believing Wynton to be a superior soloist is a judgment many would contest, but many would not; it is hardly beyond the pale. The same is true of Marcus Roberts. (Steve R, you say you enjoy the Vanguard box - listen to Roberts' solos ("Cherokee" for example) - they are are superior solos.) Ratliff should be allowed to treat Wynton respectfully without being accused of selling his soul to the devil.

. The idea that composition and arrangement are a fertile ground for development in jazz and should be/will be/are being developed more so than the art of soloing over changes is one that has been in the air for quite some time; like most ideas Wynton promotes, it did not originate with Wynton. Which is one reason I found this article less than thrilling: it's old news.


Somebody (Brian, maybe) talked about solos being organic parts of a piece of music, not just exercises on top of chord changes. I agree that this has a lot to do with whether a solo is gripping or a bore. When there's a sense of a group's common intent, a group interpretation of a composition, and the solo is part of that and shows the soloist's expression of something compositional that goes beyond just leaping through harmonic hoops or hitting an easy groove for the gallery, that's when things get interesting. I was thinking of this last night as I listened to Paul Gonsalves with Duke - he's a great soloist, but a big part of his greatness is that he's soloing in a larger context, that of Ellington's unique aesthetic, that he knows intimately; it's hard to draw a line between Ellington's soloists and his compositions.

Sounds like a commie that gets pissed if you don't share his point of view. CRITICS--GOTTA LOVE 'EM


REMEMBER;

"A PASSAGE TO INDIA" WON BEST PICTURE OVER "E.T."

LONG LIVE THE PROFESSIONAL CRITICs THAT HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY.

--Get the hell out of the office and go listen man--

GaryD

If Wynton had not been promoted to high heaven, we (including Ratliff) would not bring up his name when speaking of soloists. So why does his name constantly crop up? Because he is controversial. Why is he controversial? One reason is that he is a promise unfulfilled, yet one that is treated by many as having been fulfilled.

In my opinion, we cannot come up with an honest evaluation of Wynton's performances and writing unless we measure him against all of jazz. When we do that, when we put his trumpet work up against even such performers as Cootie Williams, Rex Stewart, George Mitchell, Roy Eldridge, and Clifford Brown (as opposed to the Armstrongs and Gillespies), he simply does not come close to any of them in terms of musicianship, creativity, and swing.

I'm afraid that many people subconsciously take Wynton out of the broader perspective and measure him against his own performances. Thus there is a tendency to praise his work when it is better than expected. Yes, he has played well on some of the Vanguard recordings, but are we not basing that assessment upon a contrast to his many unfortunate performances? Wynton's many lackluster performances do make his work at the Vanguard stand out, but where are the Wynton performances that will stand out as we view the broad spectrum, as we look/listen back to Oliver and Armstrong?

The same goes for his compositions, which, frankly, lack originality. Too many people single out "Blood in the Fields," because it was awarded a Pulizer. That is not necessarily a measure of high art--not any more than the Grammy is (and we all know how often that has misfired). Heard without the ear plugs, Wynton's compositions are not begin to approach the scraps from Duke's waste basket. Here, again, nothing Wynton has written can stand the scrutiny of experienced ears if it is considered in the broad context that we call jazz history.

Ratliff is clearly either pandering to the Lincoln Center power brokers or he needs to listen more honestly to the music. Yes, I have read less than glowing words by him regarding Wynton, but when he praises him (as he seems to be doing with greater frequency), I don't think he is being objective--not because I am a "Wynton basher," as some people have labeled me, but because I look for honesty in critique. I find less and less of that in Ratliff's writing.

None of us is wholly objective, though we might try to be, but here we have tangible "evidence," if you will. We can listen to the man's work carefully before we make judgement. I have done so. Hell, I have--in his early years on the scene--lavished praise on Wynton and expressed high expectations. Why did I change my opinion? Because I listened carefully, because I based my opinion on what I heard, not what other people said. If that makes me a Wynton basher, why was I not called a Wynton lover twenty years ago?

oh geez tom, rat just happens to name a bunch of signed big label artists? any objective listen would find some alternatives such as kisor, smoker, wadada smith, robertson's solos long tremendous solos on sound implosions, or eskelin, perelman, blythe, tabackin... marsalis and roberts recordings & solos are little more than jokes, jazz jokes. soon to be forgotten.

rat doesnt harken for the past -- rat says that jazz reached a high point in the 50s --- huh? is that the future? what about the radical 60s. the exploding avant garde scene in the 90s. it's a dumb article and he deserves his spankin.' long live the times

"In my opinion, we cannot come up with an honest evaluation of Wynton's performances and writing unless we measure him against all of jazz."

This is an attitude Wynton himself has - that everything must be judged comparatively against everything else and given its proper ranking and categorization - jazz or not jazz; immortal, merely great, humdrum, or delinquent.

When I listen to musicians, I never think, "Let's see, how does this measure up to what every musician has ever done in the past and present?" I simply listen and decide how well I like it and how good I think it is.

And yes, I realize Wynton invites these comparisons himself, so it's tough on him if he ends up losing at the game.

"Ratliff is clearly either pandering to the Lincoln Center power brokers "

I wonder if, by pandering to the "Lincoln Center power brokers," Ratliff stands to gain a great deal. Free tickets to Lincoln Center concerts? Surely the Times would pay if he didn't get invitations. Free copies of Wynton's records? Like the New York Times jazz critic doesn't get more freebies than he can handle. In practice, major critics are usually the *object* of pandering - good reviews in the New York Times are money in the bank.

It would make more sense to surmise that Ratliff had been pandered *to* and gives Wynton props from time to time in gratitude. But unless anyone has any evidence of such a relationship I would not indulge in such speculation myself.

"or he needs to listen more honestly to the music. [...] when he praises him (as he seems to be doing with greater frequency), I don't think he is being objective--[...] because I look for honesty in critique. I find less and less of that in Ratliff's writing."

I can only conclude that you simply cannot conceive of anyone honestly finding anything to praise in Wynton's work. Therefore he is being dishonest. What else do you see as manifestations of Ratliff's supposed lack of honesty?

>>I can only conclude that you simply cannot conceive of anyone honestly finding anything to praise in Wynton's work.
Therefore he is being dishonest. What else do you see as manifestations of Ratliff's supposed lack of honesty?<<

Wrong conclusion, Tom. As I said: I, myself, used to find something to praise in Wynton's work. My problem with Ratliff is that he does not seem to see/hear things in proper perspective. Ok, so Wynton sounds great, but compared to what?

As for the pandering, having been a member of the jazz press for about half a century, I know full well how all of that works. Of course it isn't concert tickets or free CDs that panderers are after--not when they write for a major publication. There are other incentives. One being the inherent advantage of association with people of high visibility. There are many venues that a jazz writer can have opened to him/her, and they have nothing to do with such material things as tickets or CDs. Do you think Crouch grabbed Wynton's coattails to get free tickets or CDs? Of course not.

I am not saying that Ratliff is being dishonest, only suggesting that as a posibility. If I'm not mistaken, I also suggested that what I see as his lack of objectivity could simply be a lack of perspective--or perhaps nothing more than thoughtless writing. The question in my mind is still: how can Ratliff (in re Parker being some sort of wellspring for improvisation) not raise a huge questionmark in response to Wynton's obvious lack of historical accuracy?

>>In practice, major critics are usually the *object* of pandering - good reviews in the New York Times are money in the bank.<<

True, but a critic who responds favorably to pandering--whether it be from an artist or his/her promoters--is just as guilty as he would be if the pandering were coming from him/her. Don't you agree?

Roberts' solo on cherokee is nice-and he's always impressive, what he isn't is a great jazz soloist.

never has been, would doubt that he ever would be.


as far as Wynton, I think that is fairly obvious except to the most ardent Wynton supporter. He is not a world class jazz improvisor.

Chris - I see your points.

"a critic who responds favorably to pandering--whether it be from an artist or his/her promoters--is just as guilty as he would be if the pandering were coming from him/her. Don't you agree?"

As guilty, yes - but of a different crime! (And arguably a worse one.)

Steve - no soloist takes a great solo every time, and Roberts is no exception. But Roberts is capable of great solos, great accompaniment, great trio playing. This regardless of the fact that most of his albums don't succeed for me all that well. That "Cherokee" solo certainly does; I'll also mention, as I have before, his extraordinary playing, hooking up with Elvin Jones, on the "Elvin Jones Special Quartet" album with Wynton.

But this is a vain polemic.

After rereading the article, I have come to the conclusion that the guy had a deadline and had to write something! So he pounded out this drivel. I can identify, I've been there myself, hack is as hack does.

I wish Whitney Balliet would write more.

After rereading the article, I have come to the conclusion that the guy had a deadline and had to write something! So he pounded out this drivel.

I can identify, I've been there myself, hack is as hack does.

I wish Whitney Balliet would write more.

I think the real problem is; there is too much good soloing!
People now a days are used too hearing so many various sonds, that good soloing goes unnoticed, we are all a little spoiled and tend to keep looking for something ground breaking. A good solo doesn't need to be ground breaking. It only need be unique, because thats what jazz is about; each player having their own individual solo sounds.

Nothing to add except to state that
THIS is the Jazz Corner at its best.
Interesting, provocative, opinionated but civil chat.
I hereby bestow yet one more CRANE Silver Thread Award.
Thanks guys and gals. Nice to see a thread that is not one more "best of," "favorites," and such. /Rog

Hey! You guys did good! I'm working my butt off here but I have some questions/comments regarding stuff.

Since I stopped reading the major pubs JazzTimes and Downbeat, I have been out of the critical flow, but I must say...the postings on this Thread was Just as imformative
just as well written ...and proved MY point ...That you guys have just as much knowledge as Mr Ratiff.

Now my real question... Why does all jazz or most jazz HAVE to have staright Soloing... If appears that He's saying that other "ideas" such as collective improvisations, are weakening Jazz... If that the case ...he's crazy.

I felt Mr Marsalis made a good (but obvious) point about soloing... and the lack of it Pre-Armstrong. Well I gotta go... I'll be back....

And...it's just an opinion... If it was McDonut... it would have been a blatant lie! peace

>...and the lack of it Pre-Armstrong<<<

Let' see...pre-Armstrong would be WWI, roughly. That's quite a ways back beyond Bird. It i also a period from which there is very little recorded material. What little there is (the Ory Sunhine recordings) is hardly enough for anyone to form an opinion. Does Wynton think that Joe Oliver started soloing in Chicago? That's absurd. When I was in New Orleans making a series of recordings for Riverside, I interviewed numerous musicians who were active around the first part of this century. Some (including Peter Bocage) spoke of Bolden's solos.
SOLOS
SOLOS
SOLOS
SOLOS
SOLOS.....!

I finally got around to reading the original post. The only statement I had a problem with was the following: "Not everybody solos particularly well, after all, and the number of bona fide stars whom you'd always want to hear solo, because you identify with them, is at an all-time low. Sometimes -- too often -- solos make listening to jazz drudgework yet are nevertheless applauded, when the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it." I took exception to the bit about the number of good soloists being at an all time low. That may be true for Ratliff, but he shouldn't attempt to speak for all.

Other than that, I have no problem with the article. I don't see Ratliff coming across as a reactionary on the the level of McDoughnah (or however you spell the cat's name) - he seems to be the opposite. If anything he's stating the obvious, jazz seems to be deemphasizing the solo and concentrating on group play. Didn't Zawinul once say (talking about Weather Report) "no one solos, we all solo"?

It seems to me that Ratliff's biggest mistake was mentioning the dreaded "M" word (Marsalis). Marsalis just had major interview (that Ratliff quotes) discussing just the same thing. And "M"'s recent recordings seem to reflect that attitude. He didn't say "M" invented the trend, just that he was a major adherent to it. It seems "M", the avant-gardists, and Weather Report have more in common than what meets the eye.

Stray thoughts:

As a non-musician, I have the idea that soloing and improvising is more difficult to master than playing written music. Quite conceivably, I'm correct. This also leads me to believe that it is a skill that musicians get better at as they mature and play for years and decades; over time, they have more of an "idea warehouse" from which to draw. So nobody solos well anymore? Well, whoever these nobodys are will probably be better when they're older, and then people will complain that the new young guys don't solo well either.

We see the past through rose-colored glasses, and we hear that way, too. The great soloists of the past evolved just as the artists of today will. Coltrane wasn't astoundingly brilliant right out of the gate. He learned from his bandleaders and at the right time was able to access the full extent of his God-given genius.

How many solos are there that are worth transcribing and learning anyway? And how much weight should soloing have in assessing a player's ability?

in jazz, the ability to solo is the crux of what the musician does, no matter what else they might be invloved with.

the exceptions to this rule-as far as great jazz musicians-are limited-much more limited than the number of great soloists(young & old-more older, I think) playing jazz today.

not being a musician, it's hard to say, but I believe the most difficult thing to do is to organically include and develop the soloing within written or spontaneously composed or developed music -and do it effectively.

1. I too prefer "Passage to India" to "ET"

2. Whitney Balliett (whom I adore) is pretty old. He started writing for the NYer in 1957.

It is my understanding that New Yorker dropped Whitney. I cannot figure out why they would do that. My ears occasionally disagreed with his, but jazz has not fostered a better writer, IMO.

I have always been impressed by his prose, but he really awed me in 1961 when he covered a session of mine (Ida Cox). Jo Jones and Roy Eldridge got into a friendly argument regarding Jabbo Smith. When I edited the session, the dialogue was on the tape and when I compared it to Whitney's account, he hadn't missed a comma!

Whitney's the BEST! Chris A., what's the deal? Is Mr. Balliet writing for ANYONE these days???

As far as this article: since when was the NYTimes a REAL jazzrag anyway???

I take ANYTHING i read with a grain of salt. This cat just had a deadline or somethin'.

Steve R -

"in jazz, the ability to solo is the crux of what the musician does, no matter what else they might be involved with. "

What about the rhythm section? Basie, Walter Page, Freddie Green and Jo Jones have a place in Jazz Heaven and it's not because of their soloing.

What about bandleaders? Basie and Duke could play the piano, but their piano playing is a footnote to their bandleading, and in Duke's case, of course, composing and arranging.

What about section players in big bands? All those who are so essential to creating a band's sound but rarely solo?

Are they second-class jazz citizens? I'd be willing to picket on their behalf.

Beef stew without beef just isn't beef stew, is it? And if we remove the vegetables...

Darryl -- It isn't only that he mentioned WM. I have to disagree. He mentioned WM very specifically by way of a highly questionable, ideological quote from a specific and controversial interview given by WM to Jazz Times. And he used the quote favorably to buttress the main point of his article, which was, for all practical purposes, a paraphrase of WM's most recent pronouncements on jazz history, the state of jazz today, and where WM thinks it ought to be going. As I've already stated, WM's position has no actual basis in musical or historical fact; he uses it for strictly ideological reasons. Given the actual recorded record of the music and the many interviews that exist of musicians who were players in the early years of jazz, there isn't any way to accept the validity of WM's "historical" understanding of jazz, without placing the same ideological blinders on one's brain that WM has.

That's what I objected to about Ratliff's article. As I also said, I happen to be a fan of Ratliff's writing, for the most part, and often share his tastes in music (including nonjazz forms). But you can't paraphrase someone like WM's pronouncements and then quote him directly in service of your point, without at least implying that you share these positions. And when the subject matter is this arguable or questionable -- not to mention simply factually inaccurate -- you have to also expect people to vehemently disagree with you and say so.

What often amazes me in these discussions is that people respond to WM's critics almost entirely with ad hominem remarks that rarely deal with the actual subject matter. They list all the reasons why people don't like WM or his music but don't deal with the actual arguments at hand -- or even with what WM himself had to say that started the arguments in the first place.

Frankly, I don't care one way or another about WM's music or his success. I wish more jazz musicians had the same level of success, not that WM had less like the others. And like I say, I'm indifferent to his music. Sure, the cat can play a trumpet, but so can many others, including trumpeters past and present that leave him way behind. In recent years, since he began presenting himself as a "composer," I've become even more indifferent to his music *because it simply doesn't interest my ears.* Period. I don't think he's a particularly good composer or bandleader. To me, he shines most in sideman situations, for examples: He sounded excellent on Tain's debut and he sounds good, too, on Ted Nash's CD. That's about all I have to say about his music.

His historical revisionism, however, is another matter. He's made himself a public figure, for better or worse, and presents himself as the mouthpiece of what jazz is, was, and ought to be. In doing that, he has opened himself to legimitate critique of his pronouncements. This has nothing to do with whether one likes the guy or not, or likes his music or not. I've already commented on his music. I can't say whether I like the guy or not because I've never hung with him. Nor do I necessarily dislike people I disagree with, or like those I do agree with. These things are irrelevant.

I also happen to agree that composition, arrangement, and experiments with structure and rhythmic content are legit -- not to mention, obvious, because they've been used for 40 years and more -- avenues out of the 50s-style head-solo-trade fours-head morass, which is used up already, I agree. (Unless it is being done by the remaining real masters of the style. The Tommy Flanagans and the like who are still playing and can still present that form of jazz on a very high level, as they have since the day.) I mean, ok, if I check into a hotel and there's a competent quartet playing this style, I won't object. It would definitely be better than having to suffer through a singer-songwriter or something while having a cocktail. But, the style is used up, no doubt. It's almost impossible to do anything original or even interesting in that vein at this late date.

What's astonishing is how long it's taken people like WM to say so! And apparently, he hasn't communicated these sentiments to the guys in his band, yet, judging from their records and performances. :-)

But the fact remains that nearly all of the musicians who've moved the music forward since the late 50s have long known these things and have already done what WM is talking about in recent times.

The difference lies in what people *mean* when they use words like composition or structure. Clearly, if what WM plays and writes is any indication of how he understands these words -- and what other indication would mean anything in this context? -- he understands them to mean a return, at least, to a sort of barely modernized Ellingtonia of some sort, and perhaps a return to even earlier forms, perhaps ragtime, who knows.

This is obviously not what many others would think is the way out of the head-solo-head morass. And there are many ways out of it. Recent, modern ways, that take into account both musican and social changes, not to mention present musical and social conditions, have been shown, to use only a few, relatively well-known examples, by Greg Osby, Steve Coleman, Ted Nash, DD Jackson, Ben Allison, David Murray, Roscoe Mitchell and that whole crew, Oliver Lake, Abdullah Ibrahim, Bill Frisell, Ray Anderson, Dave Holland, Joe Lovano, Ron Miles, Marty Erlich, Andrew Hill, Jason Moran, Stefon Harris, Ellery Eskelin, Don Byron and many others. Too many to name here.

These cats aren't going around just soloing over "I've Got Rhythm Changes," for Jah sake. Nor are they trying to return us, musically speaking, to some imaginary Edenic time when all the good folks would turn out for picnics and socials on the banks of the old Mississippi.

More to the point, neither are they trying to turn jazz into a form of composed chamber music that can be taken as "seriously" as euroclassical music. Jazz already is serious music and it doesn't become more so if played with a tight ass and neck all bound up in a tux. Nor do I wish the fate on jazz of having it be "respected" as much as euroclassical. Has anyone noticed how entirely irrelevant euroclassical music is to most people, indeed, almost everyone? Is this the kind of "respect" that we want jazz to have? Is this the way we want it to be taken "seriously"?

I for one, do not. I want it to remain a living, vital, evolving, revolutionary music that continually recreates itself in myriad ways. I don't want it fossilized for the hoighty toighty who put up millions to see their names attached to some brick at Lincoln Center. They alread have a whole genre to themselves and they're welcome to it.

Excellent, Gary!

Gary,

The point I was trying to make (poorly) is that this thread turned into another referendum on Marsalis. Marsalis' interview backed up his point. He quoted it. Simple enough. He used a prominent jazz musician's opinion. Parts of Marsalis' statement were debatable. So what? It's just the same old same old. The air the cat breathes has become controversial. But does that make Ratliff's core premise more or less true? In a nutshell Ratliff seems to be saying the old style of soloing is disapearing. Instead of the band being just a foil for the soloist, there's more going on under surface.

Getting back to the esteemed Balliett, I notice that the New Yorker rarely runs anything on jazz except the blurbs in the front of the book. I, among many, miss Balliett's literate, witty and insightful articles about the music and the musicians.

I think the first time I was aware of Dave McKenna (happy birthday!) was in one of Balliett's NYer articles.

I have all of his books and am saddened that that there probably won't be more forthcoming.


He never "ground it out" as I think the topic of this thread did with the referenced article.

Darryl
Once again you nailed it as you often do. I was not familiar with Ratliff, so knew none of the history or controversiality of the man. I found the article to be interesting and provocative and containing some truths, primarily the one you noted - "the old style of soloing is disappearing." That seems obvious to me. Of course, his declaration that the "bona fide stars that you want to hear soloing are at an all time low" is certainly argumentative and questionable. /Roger

There is no easy way to say what makes jazz, jazz as opposed to anyother form of music.
I have heard music that people would call jazz with no improvisational(soloing) elements.
I have also heard music that people wouldn't call jazz with a good amount of Improvisation.
But what links jazz to improvisation more than any other aspect of music, or in any other kind of music, is the fact that in any other idiom no one has experimented to the level that Jazz musicians have with improv.
nevertheless I still think catagories are stupid. Music is Music and there is good music and bad music.
And YES THERE IS BAD JAZZ MUSIC TOO! it's no secret.

Reading comprehension time:

I was as put-off as the next guy (unless the next guy is Reynolds) that he finished off the article by both quoting Wynton and using him as an example of a exemplary soloist, but that's no reason to get so embittered that one has to misconstrue the point of the piece.

The apparently controversial quote from the article says:

"Not everybody solos particularly well, after all, and the number of bona fide stars whom you'd always want to hear solo, because you identify with them, is at an all-time low. Sometimes -- too often -- solos make listening to jazz drudgework yet are nevertheless applauded, when the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it."

This DOES NOT say that:
1)nobody solos well anymore.
2)The number of capable soloists is at an all time low.

It says something more specific: "Not EVERYBODY solos PARTICULARLY WELL...the number of BONA FIDE STARS who you ALWAYS want to hear solo, because YOU IDENTIFY with them, is at an all-time low."

I'm not knowledgeable to boldly state that this is absolutely correct, but it is not as *obviously* incorrect as those who have simplified it have offerred.

Additionally, Ratliff follows this sentence with a qualifying point: "Sometimes -- too often -- solos make listening to jazz drudgework yet are nevertheless applauded, when the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it."

This seems true to me. Whether or not I sometimes get to hear GREAT soloing, it is true that TOO OFTEN (not "usually" or "always") the band will feature everybody soloing on every fucking piece, and this will get boring. And it is also true that the "solos will get applauded whether or not the real strength of the piece lay in some other part of it". How can you even argue with that?

Also, I would note, Ratliff's main thrust is NOT that there are no good soloists out there, but that there is a trend towards collective improvisiation (rather than soloing) and
arranged pieces.

Don't throw the baby out with Wynton's bathwater, baby.

Very true, Appleby, but I would venture that the percentage of bad music in jazz is smaller than the percentage in other musical forms.

The reason: jazz (especially bop-based jazz)is surely the most demanding virtuoso music ever to take root. If a person is able to play jazz effectively, he/she is probably more than adequate.
I M HO as always /Roger

yeah-thelil-I'm always hearing people appaud even when the solo is a piece of junk-a pet peeve of mine.

I heard what I would thought was an intelligent crowd on the past two shows I attended applaud a couple of lackluster efforts-one by one of your favorite bassists.

and of course blocking out the interesting shit that happens as the solo ends and something else starts.

so I admit that Ratliff has some precient points-but the endless quoting and referencing Wynton did make me black-out to the stronger parts of the article.

Tom S-I guess I'm more referring to hornplayers & pianists-:)

Some more thoughts.
I think most of us would agree that ensemble playing has increased during the past generation or so. That fact takes some focus away from the soloist. I see this trend as a part of the continual renewal that starts with innovative musicians and eventually filters down to the rank-and-file. Much of the credit might go to Ornette Coleman, starting in the late 50s. He went back to the New Orleans concept and away from the the bebop string of solos on blues or show-tune changes. Original composition became more completeley realized, more than a one-more-set-of changes on Lady Be Good or a clever tune with a hook. Rhythmic motifs became especially important -- Monk set the standard here. The composition drove a performance.
Regarding the "all time low" reference. I think Ratliff refers to "bona-fide star" soloists. I can't imagine that he really means all-time low in quality. In the 1920s there were maybe nine soloists worth hearing. Thre are many more than that today. Ralph Peterson, Tom Harrell, Jim McNeely, Oliver Lake -- all these and many more I consider perfectly capable of taking extended solos of great interest. Artistically speaking I think the jazz scene is as healthy now as ever. Thankfully. IMO as always, /Roger

I'll go for the least applause award with this one, because I think this debate needs it.

Early warning, long post alert.

To Sisco:

If I'm reading your post correctly, you basically agree with Marsalis' quote, and subsequently Ratliff's contention, that the head-and-solos format is an out-moded idea, which is a different point than discussing when solos supposedly did or did not start in jazz. Granted, Wynton's point is an obvious one and he's not the only person to have said that. Knowing that, don't we therefore say 'fine' and basically move on? I just think many are pissed because Wynton was the one who said it and many would like him to be quiet as often as possible, even if he does make a valid point.

Now, addressing your thoughts on WM's music, I've never come across anyone who leveled criticisms at his music that wasn't also critical of him philosophically on some basic issue. What you feel about a person, whether one wants to own up to it or not, or whether one has met that person or not, directly effects how you see their work. Please, let's save the false noblese of 'I only judge things based on the music.' To me, that's a basic denial of human nature. When someone insults you in some way, you will find the means to dismiss them, that's how it goes on planet Earth.

And I don't buy the notion that "Blood on the Fields" (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) is some slicked up version of Duke Ellington, and I didn't have a problem with the Pulitzer. I've never had a problem telling them a part as there are devices within Marsalis' music that clearly distinguish him from Ellington and are consistent throughout all of Marsalis' long-form pieces. Given that this isn't generally picked up on, it leads me to believe the criticism of Wynton's music lies in elsewhere.

Furthermore, what difference does it make whether Marsalis draws from Ellington or not? So he doesn't follow the same ideas of the musicians you cited. That's the point of music, to go your own way. If you think about it, what you're saying is hypocritical as you're suggesting he must follow some sort of fashion to be relevant. It's just exchanging one mantra for another. Many of you are critical of Marsalis for going back and doing older forms or being clearly out of other people's music, but many of the musicians you mentioned, whom I also like, are doing the same things in their careers and producing some mediocrity as well, but don't generate the same heat.

Those include, using Sisco's list, Greg Osby (Art Forum, Further Ado were straight ahead), Steve Coleman (maybe our most "innovative" musician, but all his albums sound precisely the same. By the way, if want to hear it done best, go see the guy Osby and Coleman came out of, Bunky Green), Ted Nash (Out of this World is very conservative), DD Jackson (Don Pullen or Cecil Taylor, anyone?), Ben Allison (I'll give you him, but the Nichols record was pretty straight forward), David Murray (best with his octet and much preferred in WSQ. He's OK outside of that. He's no Coltrane, though), Roscoe Mitchell (sound has not changed tremendously over the years), Oliver Lake (better with Hemphill), Abdullah Ibrahim (second), Bill Frisell (OK), Ray Anderson (fine player, but is he's really all that different from Rudd, Mangelsdorf, Lewis?), Dave Holland (the current band is cool but not a major advancement), Joe Lovano (he's done plenty of straight ahead stuff but doesn't get called on it), Ron Miles (Good musician who borrows very liberally from Don Cherry and Miles Davis, but no one says so), Marty Erlich (solid journeyman, at best), Andrew Hill (an all-time great), Jason Moran (Andrew Hill, anyone?), Stefon Harris (OK), Ellery Eskelin (Sun Died didn't stray from basic blues all that much) and Don Byron (Bug Music. Need I say more).

Additionally, it seems you've made a rather pat dismissal of classical music in some of the later parts of your last post that ironically raises the specter of so-called "anachronism" in your own basic argument. You say that "euro" classical music (damn those Coplands and Takemitsus, if they had only moved ...) is an irrelevant exercise these days, yet you fail to note many of the musicians whom we've often discussed on this board are, in fact, very deeply influenced by classical music, and in particular, of the 20th century designation. Cecil Taylor, Muhal Richard Abrams, Anthony Braxton, Dave Douglas, Gerry Hemingway, Jimmy Giuffre, Joe Maneri, Bob Brookmeyer et al, in many respects, wouldn't have existed in their present forms without it. The structural ideas and phraseology of many of these people are derivative of early and mid 20th century classical music. I hate to tell you this, Sisco, but you already have stiff, euroclassical chamber music ringing from your CD player, and it ain't only coming from Marsalis.

I'll always like these folks, Marsalis included, I just don't need to romanticize the living daylights out of these people and make them out to be more than what they are.

Cheers,

Rob

Least applause granted, Rob.

So many people wondering what Ratliff meant to say. That alone does not speak well for his piece, which I still think he dashed off without much thought.

I love how people who downplay Ehrlich's signifigance and sheer compositional and improvisational brilliance can rarely even spell his name correctly.

Rob-if Ehrlich is a solid journeyman(at best!!!!), then Ratliff is correct about lack of great soloists, as Ehrlich is one of them!!! And one that you and Ben arn't listening very well to.

I had quite a bit of respect for you taste and comments on music-but I guess his brilliant performances on those John Carter records just don't cut it-and what about Can You Hear a Motion?, New York Child & Relativity?

You've got to kidding me if you only hear a solid journeyman.

well sometimes subtlety and tasteful playing and writing and band interplay flies past those looking to hear something more direct.

Those three albums are flat-out brilliant-and Ehrlich's playing is that of a consumate individual who has a clear and unique voice on all of his horns-playing that only grows throught repeated listens-the exact opposite of what one would expect from a mere journeyman.

and have you heard him play on Melford's Even The Sounds Shine?

apparently not - or you had your receptors turned off whil the first and last tracks were playing....

May you be in need of an ear trumpet?

and if you are considering Eskelin someone who plays by the supposed rules based on a tribute recording to Gene Ammons, then I really don't understand your critiques of all the players Gary mentioned.

and if Ray Anderson is not that much different than the other 3 trombonists you listed, then I guess, along with Lewis, Mangelsdorf & Rudd, he's among the greatest currently performing on the instrument.

What other company do you want him to keep?

and as far as Murray being OK outside of the WSQ or his quartet-so what if some of his quartet recordings are pretty straight-ahead-some of them are pretty dame great-heard Tenors, Deep River or For Aunt Louise any time recently?

He may not be John Coltrane-but he never pretended to be-and neither has any of the other truly great tenors of our time...

I would make a list to build on what Gary has already said, but I can only imagine the criticism that would follow-if Oliver Lake is merely "better with Julius"


I can only wonder what you would say about *the* great British saxophonist










Poem About The Hero, baby

I think the solid journeyman comment is dead wrong. And the Murray comment is really Out to Lunch. and who cares if the Holland Quintet is a major advancement or not? They put on one of the best shows I have ever seen. And the music is outstanding.

I'm beginning to believe the lil's comment that reading comprehension is a fundamental problem around here.

Hello, please pick up the phone and answer: In no spot did I say they were bad musicians. In fact, I said I like all of these players.

I enjoy Ehrlich's playing (I lifted the misspelling of his name from Sisco's post which doens't make it any better for me to continue the mistake. Noticeably, you didn't correct him. Hmmm. Still, my fault though.) He has his moments where I truly enjoy him. As for his great significance, I must ask who else has he influenced as a player? What lasting compositions has he written that are standards in jazz?

This is the same qualification I requested of Brookmeyer several months back and is the same I'll make for all the people in that post, including Marsalis. Few, if any, of these musicians, are absolute geniuses in my mind. None of them are major figures in the history of jazz - yet - which is fine by me for now. They don't have to be for me to enjoy them. I simply don't need the hype one way or another.

"and have you heard him play on Melford's Even The Sounds Shine? apparently not - or you had your receptors turned off whil the first and last tracks were playing.... May you be in need of an ear trumpet?"

I don't know why you persist in being so childish?

I liked the John Carter series and Melford's "Sounds." If I recall, you were looking for one part of the Carter series a while back. May I suggest looking at gemm if you haven't found that missing part yet.

And let's face it, "The Sun Died" was not mind blowing. Nonetheless, I didn't say everything he did was sub-standard. Got to read, dude.

I like Murray, but if we're going to say Marsalis isn't as good as Ellington, then let's be fair and say Murray ain't no Coltrane or Rollins. You didn't exactly disagree with my contention, by the way.

"and who cares if the Holland Quintet is a major advancement or not? They put on one of the best shows I have ever seen. And the music is outstanding."

That was my point exactly shrugs. But please, re-read the post.

Cheers,

Rob

I dug Rob's post. (I hope I read it correctly)

Rob, I read your post but maybe your intentions were not as clear the first time. Your quick comments on the musicians were easily misconstrued as being completely negative. I see where you are going with your thoughts. When you question whether Ehrlich has written anything worthy of a standard, do you mean something memorable? I can think of a few Don Pullen and Sam Rivers tunes that should be standards IMO but that doesn't mean anyone plays them.
I think Ehlich's own work has been lumped into a category of jazz that for a lot of listeners is associated with free or avant-garde.

I'm going to take a chance and try to interpret Rob's comments. In my mind an influential instrumentalist inspires others to follow in his/her path. An influential composer is one whose compositions are recorded and performed by a wide variety and large number of artists. Let's use Monk as an example (or Ellington). Their compositions are performed by jazz musicians of all stripes. Their music has become "standards". As much as one likes Eskelin (just using him as an example), who else plays his compositions?

Come to think of it, the trend (especially with the avant-gardists) is to play their tunes only, with an occassional nod to a standard. At best, musicians may play the music of guys in their own circle.

The only new things anybody covers these days originated in a Disney movie. I think there's a law requiring that somewhere. Maybe Eskelin could write to his Congressman about an amendment.

The way I understand Rob's post, I dig it too. People's preferences for theories baffles me too.

thank you shrugs & Walter

Sugar Water is one Ehrlich composition that can stand next to anything I've heard.

period.

as far as Ellery's tunes, few have even figured out what he's doing - if they've listened - and I can't imagine many who have even thought about how the hell they would cover this stuff.

and if we're talking about new language, look no further than *his* music or *his* playing.

or the trio itself.


and "The Sun Died" may not be mindblowing, but it is one helluva an album-and the interpretations are quite original-and the substandard reference is quite out of place.

what the fuck does the fact that no one plays Ellery Eskelin or Marty Ehrlich's tunes have to do with their greatness?

Most jazz musicians are still thoroughly busy with the well-worn standarsd and the blue note tunes of 35-45 years ago.

Most don't listen to the contemporary masters-cause maybe they think they, themselves, are the people who deserve to be listened to.



most of you have never listened to Eskelin's trio recordings-and your spoutin' off in agreement with Rob's comments(which have a basis in logic-but veer quickly off into the absurd comments I documented above), is almost hilarious-it's fun to agree with someone who disagrees witrh me, isn't it?

not everything Eskelin has done is substandard?


please

Rob -- Have you read the Jazz Times interview with WM that is in question, and which Ratliff's article essentially paraphrases? I am not the one who dragged the history of jazz into the discussion, WM did. So what, WM can say whatever he wants and no one can respond, even if what he has to say is absurd?

And where have I said that any of the alternate musicians I listed were super geniuses or better than anyone else or completely original (a fiction to begin with, as no one is)? Your own reading skills are in question as much anyone else's here, except perhaps for thelil, who is, in any case, a fucking saint. All I did was offer them as examples of musicians who have found *modern* ways out of the head-solo-head morass. Period. Whether you like them or not, or anyone likes them or not, is irrelevant in that regard because the fact remains that they did find these ways of doing things. It seems like any musician on the planet can be curtly dismissed ("Don Pullen or Cecil Taylor, anyone?") except Marsalis, who must be beyond question even.

(By the way, I have to say that dismissing Steve Coleman because all of his records are supposedly identical sounding merely reveals how little you've listened to his records. Do you mean to tell me that "The Tao of Mad Phat" sounds identical to "The Sonic Language of Myth" or etc.? For heaven's sake, they even use different bands and instrumentation and reference different material entirely. And do you really think that there is nothing to DD Jackson but Pullen and Taylor references? Do you actually want me to agree that Cecil Taylor could have put out "Anthem"? And Don Byron, obviously, was dealing with postmodernist irony in releases like "Bug Music"; he wasn't proclaiming a manifesto for the future of jazz. All musicians stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. No one is sui generis. Even Monk took much from the Harlem stride players, and he was probably the closest to sui generis of anyone in jazz. The question is whether people find ways of moving the music forward. Or backward.)

I also disagree with the sentiment that there are fewer good soloists, or solos, today than there were in the past. If anything, I think there are as many or more. Jazz, on the whole, is a more variegated music today than ever before in its history, and its musicians reflect this. True enough that there are many solos that don't make the grade -- maybe even most -- and many that go on too long. But that has always been the case. Witness any score of Prestige blowing sessions from the fifties. Hell, Miles told Coltrane himself to try taking the horn out of his mouth once in a while.

But composition is not itself an answer to that problem as compositions, too, can go on for far too long. Wynton Marsalis, anyone?

Let me say it straight: I have not put words into WM's mouth or Ratliff's. Read both articles. I do however disagree with both of their takes on jazz history, and what they take that to mean for its possible future. They are wrong on the face of it. Tom, I think it was, brought up the big band players. True enough people who played in big bands most time disciplined themselves so far as soloing went and played in the context of the composition and arrangements. Whoever said otherwise? But these same musicians did not *always* play in that context. They also played in small groups and in nearly daily all-night jam sessions, during which soloing and improvisation (both individual and collective) were the major point of the music. This was as much the case in the 30s as it is today. To deny this as a way of buttressing your manifesto is just absurd.

Again, no one is arguing for head-solo-head. And no one is arguing against composition and arrangement, or against collective improvisation. What is important is what is meant when one says these things, as obviously a man like Threadgill would not understand them the same way Marsalis would. So just using words like composition and arrangement doesn't answer anything unless one goes on to offer meanings for these words.

Re euroclassical, or, ok then, euroamericanclassical or whatever the f you want to call it. Again, all I asked was do we really want jazz to be dealt with in this country the way that music is? I don't care if anyone likes it or not. I like some of it and don't like some of it. Again, I spend little time listening to it at all because I barely have enought time to check the jazz I want to check. Like it or not, though, if jazz ever becomes treated in that fashion, it will be a dead music in this country, a museum piece.

As I've said. It seems to be impossible to criticize WM's proclamations without descending into ad hominem arguments. And yes, it is possible to admire someone's music while not admiring the person. There are several major figures in jazz whom I don't admire on a personal level but whose music still gets regular play on my stereo. There are many others about whom I know nothing on that level, in fact that is the case with most. And finally, like I said, I don't know whether I like WM or not on that level, as I don't know the man and never will. I don't agree with his views on these things, though, and I don't have to. I have the right to disagree and to criticize, as does he. Someone said something earlier about people wanting WM to shut up. Well, I've never required that of anyone. I will disagree when I disagree, though. And if that riles anyone, ask youself who wants who to shut up, and why?

Just because the emperor has a fine taylor doesn't mean he's wearing clothes.

Apropos there being fewer/same/more solos these days, let's bear in mind that the number of musicians playing jazz is not the same as it was in past periods, and--mainly--that there are many more outlets these days--more recordings, TV, festivals, internet, etc. So it is difficult to ascertain whether the number of "acceptable" solos has risen or declined. We probably missed more great and awful solos in the past, because there was no microphone to capture them. Now, there are microphones everywhere and very little that is played escapes our ears.

Just a thought.

Sisco made some good points above. I'd say that there is definitely a great amount of "soloing" these days. But the best of it won't be found in retro head-solo-head formats. It will be found in groups that have created different ways for the individual voice to be heard within the larger group. This comes about through looking at composition, arrangement and improvisation in new ways, all of which had some roots in the advances of the 60s, and which have been used differently by a host of players.

As for Rob's comments, I essentially don't have any problem putting a guy like David Murray in the same league with Rollins and Coltrane, since I'm not into hero worship in this music. I'd also put Giuffre, Lacy, Braxton, Maneri, and Evan Parker (among others) in that league. All carved out niches and made developments that were as interesting as those of Rollins or Trane. WM, whatever his strengths, is not even in the same league. Hell, a "journeyman" like Ehrlich has done far more interesting work than WM. And believe it or not, one can (as Sisco says) critique music without getting into the personality of the musician.

Critics will always lament the demise and stagnation of the music, but in my mind jazz/improvised music is as alive and well as it has ever been. Ratliff made some good points, but he clearly hasn't thought this through deeply enough, or else simply isn't capable of doing so.

Oh, someone said above that "jazz (especially bop-based jazz)is surely the most demanding virtuoso music ever to take root," which will surely seem ridiculous to anyone who has ever tried to play a late Beethoven sonata, for example, or any number of post-Romantic classical pieces (not to mention Bach). Great classical artists are every bit a match for jazz musicians, and that music takes as much talent, skill and vision as jazz does.

Bye-ya.

When we consider memorable solos from the past, we should not forget that the great ones often played variations on their past solos. Of course the treally great ones could do so without losing the freshness of the original.

Yes, as Paul B suggests, to say that jazz is "the most demanding virtuoso music ever to take root," is to reveal some ignorance of other musical idioms.

Paul B sayeth:

"Critics will always lament the demise and stagnation of the music, but in my mind jazz/improvised music is as alive and well as it has ever been. Ratliff made some good points, but he clearly hasn't thought this through deeply enough, or else simply isn't capable of doing so."

I don't really think the point of Ratliff's article was to lament the demise and stagnation of jazz. I do think, however, a major "point" of the article because he really didn't have one.

Chris has an excellent point in the huge amount of recorded material available today as compared to the past. I might add as well that we are exposed to much more of the recorded material of the past as well, in the form of "previously unissued tracks" and unissued sessions etc, by the ton. But still, as he points out, nearly everything gets documented today, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Just today I visited my favorite barber for a pre-hang trim, cat from New York who's 72 and a jazz nut. And, of course, him being a barber, once he found out I was going to New York on a jazz trip, he began to hold forth about the many nights he spent on 52nd Str in his youth, hearing "all of the greats." And one of the things he lamented several times was how much music got played every night that was never recorded, or heard by most people who would have loved to hear it. (Of course, the flip side is the number of bad or tired nights that no one can hear now, either.) Still, it's mindboggling to think about it. It also reminds us how much more music is now a recorded form than a live one.

In a way, the recorded record gives us a distorted view of the music's history, as it is necessarily an arbitrary sampling of what people were actually doing in their careers. For example, I would hazard a guess that the blowing-session phenomenon was mainly driven by financial concerns, as it was much cheaper to just record a jam on the spot than to pay for rehearsal time, never mind significant studio time. So cats necessarily played solo after solo over changes familiar to all concerned. Which doesn't mean that that's what they might have preferred to do under different circumstances. As I recall, one of the things that made Blue Note (slightly) different in those days was that Lion often paid for rehearsal time in advance of a session. Sure, it was probably minimal but it still allowed for a greater degree of familiarity with original material and between the particular session personell. Who knows? The recorded history of jazz might have been completely different had there been more financial resources available for its documentation.

In response to posts 71-80.

To Sisco:

I'm not even debating the point about when solos began or didn't begin as it regards Wynton because it was really not the main issue in Ratliff's piece. If I recall the JT article had been spoken of elsewhere on this board, so I let it stay at that. As I said, they are two separate issues. The issue in Ratliff's article - and what Wynton was quoted on - regarded the head-solo-head format and the sense that it is out-moded. You agreed with the point, and subsequently, Wynton on that specific issue. There's this thing we stumble over here that is essential to debate - context.

"And where have I said that any of the alternate musicians I listed were super geniuses or better than anyone else or completely original (a fiction to begin with, as no one is)?"

I didn't say the musicians you were listing were meant to be taken as super geniuses or completely original, however, you said directly, with a less than subtle contempt, that your listed musicians were on a path superior to Marsalis, who I think qualifies as the aforementioned "anyone else". Observe your quote below:

"The difference lies in what people *mean* when they use words like composition or structure. Clearly, if what WM plays and writes is any indication of how he understands these words -- and what other indication would mean anything in this context? -- he understands them to mean a return, at least, to a sort of barely modernized Ellingtonia of some sort, and perhaps a return to even earlier forms, perhaps ragtime, who knows. This is obviously not what many others would think is the way out of the head-solo-head morass. And there are many ways out of it. Recent, modern ways, that take into account both musician and social changes, not to mention present musical and social conditions, have been shown, to use only a few, relatively well-known examples."

It's pretty clear to me you put these others past Marsalis.

As it regards Coleman, you're forgetting I stated he might be our most innovative musician right now. Hardly a diss. Perhaps I should not have said "all" his recordings as "Tao" is different, but for the past four or five years, his recorded output hasn't budged much with the same funk rhythms, in the same tempo, with very similar sounding arrangements floating over top of the proceedings. His long-form pieces have continually used the same technique to vary his themes from piece to piece. I could be more technical about what he does, but that's another thread we'll have to begin later. D.D. Jackson's "Anthem" could have been done by Pullen, if he wanted to. There's not much Jackson does that's beyond either of the players you mentioned.

My point about "Bug Music" is that I could criticize that album's recapitulations of the works involved as much as I could Marsalis for "Live in Swing City." Let's face it, it didn't push the envelope. My question is, why isn't he criticized for doing the same thing Marsalis is accused of? And let me tie that to your "sui generis" point as it goes to one of my contentions: There's nothing new under the sun. (Of course, that depends on your sunscreen.) Knowing that brings up this question: What determines who we call on it, and who we don't? Usually, it's dictated by the same old, tired music politics I see being applied here. What you'll allow for one, you won't another, and yet, they are committing the same crime. Therefore we are dealing with a double-standard. Because you're not applying that standard evenly, then the issue of bias must come forth. And frankly, your analysis of Marsalis' music has not convinced me otherwise as you're leaving out quite a bit.

And the question of music is not whether it moves things forward or backward, it's whether it's identifiable to a certain composer or performer in some way, regardless of whether it subscribes to an era or not or whether one uses ragtime, post-punk, the GAS, hip-hop, death metal or fusion as a basis. And naturally, if you like it.

"Again, all I asked was do we really want jazz to be dealt with in this country the way that (classical) music is? ... Like it or not, though, if jazz ever becomes treated in that fashion, it will be a dead music in this country, a museum piece."

There are many fine composers in classical music today who don't get the recognition that they should, and many of them are 60 and older. ... Hmmm, sound familiar. (Jazz, anyone?) Sisco, shake hands with your brothers across the street and give them a cup of coffee and a kiss every now and then. Don't be so hard on them.

To Darryl G. Thomas and shrugs:

Applause, applause and more applause. That was one of my points to the letter. Obviously, I didn't sum it up as well as you did.

Reynolds and Paul B:

Like it or not, all the musicians you mentioned: Ellery Eskelin, Marty Ehrlich, Jimmy Giuffre, Steve Lacy, David Murray, Anthony Braxton, Joe Maneri, Evan Parker, and I'll add Marsalis, do not own a single standard among them. Therefore, true greatness must be withheld at some level. Your arguments strike me as being from the because-I-say-so variety which is good in matters of personal taste and charming when we want to be rebellious, but it's not as effective when we bring other considerations and people into the fold, like Rollins and Coltrane, who have written standards and have far many more people coming out of what they do than the above group. However, saying you're not Coltrane or Rollins means you're like 99 percent of the music population who can say the very same thing. No shame there. And for that reason, I have no problem putting Marsalis with your folks because they all have the same comparative problem, regardless of approach.

In the privacy of my own home, superiority is relative to what I want to hear at a given moment and time. Not unlike what I said on the GAS thread: Sometimes I want to hear Giuffre, other times I want to hear Marsalis. Sometimes I want Bach, other times, Boulez. Sometimes Bob Wills, other times Berio, XTC or Outkast. Yeah, I could argue that Cecil Taylor would wax a pianist like rag-timer Reginald Robinson. But sometimes, "Dream Natasha" (my personal pick as one of the great recent compositions that isn't a standard and one that I prefer to most of Joplin) just means more to me than "Indent." This is a long-winded way of saying that I have mood swings, and I'm sure most of you do, too.

Cheers,

Rob

Rob -- I'll just say that as far as classical goes, I wasn't talking about composers or the musicians who play the music but the way the music is treated and perceived in this country. I don't want jazz to be that far below the radar screen -- or that far away from the street.

As for the rest, this is just going to turn into a back and forth, without resolution, like an abortion or gun control argument. So, I guess it's east is east and west is west. Jazz in every period has had its equivalent of the moldy figs, and if Marsalis, Grouch et al wish to be their equivalents in 2000, that's up to them. Two years ago on JCS I joked, using what I thought was hyperbole, that if they continued their logic to its conclusion, the only jazz they would finally embrace as the real thing would be from the time of Louis Armstrong. I didn't realize at the time that it wasn't a joke and that they actually would carry their logic through without realizing how reactionary and even ridiculous its conclusions could be.

But, I, for one, don't genuflect. Jazz doesn't need a pope, self-appointed or otherwise, to inform us of the one true way. If people appoint themselves as Spokesmen Of Jazz, they simultaneously open themselves up to criticism from those who disagree. If anyone dislikes the criticism, that's too bad, but it ain't my problem.

I'm out.

<<Like it or not, all the musicians you mentioned: Ellery Eskelin, Marty Ehrlich, Jimmy Giuffre, Steve Lacy, David Murray, Anthony Braxton, Joe Maneri, Evan Parker, and I'll add Marsalis, do not own a single standard among them. Therefore, true greatness must be withheld at some level.>>

So "owning a standard" is the sign of greatness in music?

That's a new one. The herd mentality (number of followers and imitators) as dictator of greatness. And I guess that would make a guy like Gershwin the greatest jazz musician of all time, because he "owns" so many more standards than Jimmy Giuffre. And what "standards" does Coleman Hawkins own? Does Albert Ayler own any?

Bye-ya.

Chris A
Paul B
I stand by my assertion that jazz (especially bop) is the most demanding virtuosic music to take root. I listen to as much classical as I do jazz but, since it is a composer's music, the intent is to perform the music as written. (No half valve effects and such, please.) Since jazz is a performer's music, the intent is to show off your musical knowledge and your knowledge of your instrument.
I also listen to some country but I do not hear virtuosity in this music (except in some bluegrass).
But my mind is not made up. Talk to me please.
Respectfully,
Roger, whose ears are open.

I understand where Roger's coming from. I'm not a musician, but it seems to me that classical music requires a virtuoso ability while jazz requires the same as well as on the spot creation. A jazz performance, even when playing standards or written material, requires improvisation, or composing in the moment. Now I understand that jazz did not invent improvisation, but isn't improvisation a bigger part of jazz than classical?

<<but isn't improvisation a bigger part of jazz than classical?>>

Improvisation is certainly a bigger part of jazz than of classical, but improvisation is not the definition of virtuosity.

To go back to my earlier example, a piece like Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" sonata can be played to perfection by only a handful of pianists. The technique and INSIGHT required to play classical music well is equal (but different) from the technique and insight needed to play jazz.

Classical pianists like Maurizio Pollini or Martha Argerich are every bit the equal of players like Herbie or McCoy. Their technique is astouding: the are virtuosos of the highest order.

And it takes every bit as much skill to play off the written page as it does to improvise. Both are demanding things to master and require different mindsets, but improvisation is not any more "difficult" or "virtuosic" than playing a written score.

Bye-ya.

Paul
Agreed but I know MANY jazz musicians who can play excellent classical music. I know only a handful of classical musicians who can play excellent jazz. Wouldn't you agree that the better jazz players can do what a classical musician can do, but that the vice versa is rare?
(I understand that this is getting somewhat afield from "viruosity.") /Roger

Many jazz musicians can play classical music, but none can play it at the level of a Pollini, Argerich, Yo Yo Ma, Heifitz, etc. You'll of course think of Jarrett, but he is not the equal of the pianists I have mentioned in the classical realm.

And though I don't have proof for this, I'd wager the most great classical musicians can and do improvise well. The problem is that this is not what they record, and so we won't hear it.

I'll still maintain my "different but equal" stance on this.

Bye-ya.

Jimmy Giuffre wrote no standards? Ever hear of "Four Brothers?"

Writing standards is only one measure of greatness, one way to be talented. Art Tatum didn't write any. So that allows one to say that, at least in that area, Wynton Marsalis can be compared to Tatum!

There are of course some jazz musicians who can't play classical.
I saw bobby shew and arturo sandoval try and play trumpet concertos, seriously. It was awful! I couldn't understand why they would want to screw up students in the audience who don't know any better, I mean is it that hard to say, "no"?
I also had the privilage of speaking with Conrad Herwig on a similar matter. I love Conrad's playing, but when I spoke to him of symphonic playing Vs. jazz, He thought the only difference was; you play less notes in a concert orchestra, than in a jazz setting. I couldn't believe his ignorance, and refused to listen to any of his playing for several months.
Besides all this , I still think Catagorizing music (art music) is stupid!

Paul B,

Kudos for defending classical music in a jazz forum! I have occasionally tried to make the same points you did, but you did it far better when you said "it takes every bit as much skill to play off the written page as it does to improvise. Both are demanding things to master and require different mindsets, but improvisation is not any more 'difficult' or 'virtuosic' than playing a written score."

I'm pretty pig-ignorant when it comes to classical music, but I've always been disturbed by the tendency of jazz fans to dismiss it as "only" playing written music - this strikes me as the photo negative of classical fans saying jazz improvisation is merely "playing any old thing that goes through your head." As if either one of those things - doing justice to a great score, or being able to execute spontaneous inventions in real time - is not a fantastic accomplishment.

They are two different kinds of virtuosities, it seems to me, and, from what I've heard, it's best that either sticks to its normal genre, with rare exceptions. The musics, done well, require different approaches both to playing and to instruments.

Of course, I obviously prefer jazz and that musical approach. The other I respect but it doesn't do much for me on an emotional level. I'd rather hear jazz anyday as it interests my ear a thousand times more. But on that level we're just talking about subjective preference. I can intellectually understand why people like classical but, for the most part, it remains on the intellectual level. (There are certain pieces and performances that are exceptions but very few.) Partly of course this is probably lack of education or time spent with the music on my part, but there is only so much time, after all. So I devote it to jazz.

Regarding several posts since the last time:

To Sisco:

While I find your passion admirable and some of your writing to be good, it seems to me you engage mostly in superficial archetypes, where one ignores broad inconsistencies to make things more palpable in a very politicized fashion, particularly when one's feeling are merely hurt and the desire is to lash out. Things are labeled in nice bottles with "moldy figs", "revolutionary music", "alternate musicians", "spokesman of jazz", "popes" and such. I'd rather hear the Beach Boys sing about "Heroes and Villains" than live by the code of such simplicity. My problem with jazz writing is there's no greater unlocking of what these things mean and how relevant they truly are. Music is a much more wonderful and confusing place than I see being dealt with by you and others. Sure, you're fine to criticize WM if you like, as I am allowed to criticize you or anyone else when I think there's 2 feet of water splashing around in a pool's 15-foot end. I feel no need to reestablish the First Amendment's existence (if you think I'm calling for you to cool out) but I would like to see it applied with a bit more depth.

To Paul B and Scott Yanow:

I shall reprint this line from my post numbered 83, and please, follow carefully with the capitalized emphasis: " ... when we bring other considerations and people into the fold, like Rollins and Coltrane, who have written standards "AND" HAVE FAR MANY MORE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF WHAT THEY DO THAN THE ABOVE GROUP. ..." Well, how about that, Mr. Yanow, I actually answered you pre-stab. Funny how that happens around here. So yes, you can be influential without writing a standard. Gee, I believe I've read that somewhere before VERY recently, have you?

Well, Paul B, I hate to tell you this, but judging composers and musicians significance relative to their influence on others and the degree to which they are performed is a rather old and sound process, but I'm sure you know that. The problem is that it hurts the standing of your guys, some of whom I also like quite a bit. It's a nice move: When you can't meet the basic criteria, swear up and down that it bears false witness to what everyone else sees clearly. Look, some people are performed more than others; that's a fact of life. It's hard to believe that all those musicians, critics and the public are wrong all of the time or even most of the time. But you're welcome to call all of us fools any time you like. Although, I think you're arguments on classical music on this thread are right on point, so I'll give you that.

As for "Four Brothers," I'll say that it was a "hit" in its day, but you don't see it as much now, making it perhaps a minor standard that kind of proves my point: The cavalry of Paul B and Yanow seem to have only one bullet in the gun, and it's a .22 caliber one at that. Besides, I much prefer "The Train and the River" and even, "Pickin' 'Em Up and Layin' 'Em Down" much more. I particularly enjoy the album "Free Fall." Frankly, more people should do his compositions, but I can't tell you why they don't. So yeah, I do know of Giuffre's music and he is a favorite of mine. (Surprise!) Once again, like most people mentioned here, I just don't need to blow him, or them, out of proportion.

I don't genuflect, either, Mr. Sisco.

Cheers,

Rob

Judging a musician by his influence is a standard way for some people to look at music, you're right. I don't think that it's "everyone else." And if a simplistic approach like that makes it easier for you to gauge and categorize musicians, more power to you. You've got to use whatever approach works best for you. But it's hardly a "basic criteria." And I don't abide by it, because ultimately it's illogical, despite what the "masses" say.

Bye-ya.

Rob Damen,

I appreciate your in-your-face, uncompromising stance and your concern to be honest in your judgments. Now if you could only tone down your condescension you could be great fun to argue with.

You say, "My problem with jazz writing is there's no greater unlocking of what these things mean and how relevant they truly are. Music is a much more wonderful and confusing place than I see being dealt with by you and others."

That's all very well. I agree with you about jazz writing by and large. But carping about how other people aren't dealing with the wonder and confusion of music isn't half as good as revealing your own insights into it. Why don't you enlighten us with your own original thoughts?

I was just marvelling at all the well reasoned, well developed and well written ideas and sentiments posted on this thread.

And I thought I'd interrupt them with this post.

Gary's post #56 was one of the best I've read here. (The exhange by a lot of other people have been great too.) I really wish Wynton Marsalis or Stanley Crouch would respond to the points Gary raised.

I do have one disagreement however. While I think his criticisms are appropriate for WM/Crouch, I'm not so sure it applies to Ratliff. I don't necessarily believe that Ratliff's use of the quote means that he ascribes to everything Crouch/WM believes. If you were to remove the quote, it wouldn't be clear what Ratliff's point of view was. Other than the association with WM/Crouch, his tone is ambiguous imo.

I think one of the reasons why there doesn't seem to be good solos has to do with the dominance of a conservative approach to jazz. In the past fifteen years, the big record labels have concentrated their efforts on recording bop and post-bop styles of jazz. Not only that, but they went after the current generation of musician to record this kind of music. Is it any surprise that a lot of bland solos have come out of this approach? How can it not?

Because of the marketing from these record labels and influential musicians like WM, this kind of jazz and approach to playing jazz dominated the jazz landscape. These recordings got the most attention; they were the easiest to acquire; they were the recordings many people wanted to hear; and they received the most critical acclaim. People like Wynton Marsalis not only advocated this approach, but they basically said, If you wanted to play "real" jazz, this is the approach you had to take. For the past fifteen years, hard-bop (including the head-solo-head format) was the "officially sanctioned" style. When someone said, "jazz" most i bet most jazz fans would think of some bop based style of jazz.

It's the prevalance of this approach that has lead to the perception that there aren't many good solos. If people primarily associate jazz with hard-bop, then I think it's not surprising that they think solos are not as good as they were in the past. If these recordings dominate the landscape, of course it's going to seem like the quality of solos has gone down. If people want to hear jazz played with the same tunes and the same head-solo-head format, of course, the music is not going to sound as fresh. It's very, very difficult for original and fresh voices to emerge from this approach.

Now, I think if you look outside of that approach. If you don't confine your expectations and definition to hardbop, there's a lot of interesting things going on. Jazz that's not just in a head-solo-head format is out there. There are musicians that are taking a different approach. There are musicians who have been taking another approach for a long time. They're not content to confine their playing to older styles. Musicians that ascribed to a neo-conservative approach are getting away from that, and the musicians that would have go down that path don't seem to be doing so as frequently.

Paul B,

HAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You're argument is beyond ridiculous.

Look man, I don't want to injure my ankle from rolling on the floor all day, but you're like the biggest avant-garde or non-mainstream cliche I've seen in a while and most people gave up this style a long time ago. Plus, their arguments were much better constructed. These days, I don't think even Charles Wuorinen or Milton Babbitt would give you the time of day for repeating their arguments from the 60's to 70's. You know, I recall that people around here have consistently said you lack humor, but I'll be the first defend you 'cause you are killing me.

But seriously, you are soooo boring.

All right, all right, just for fun, let's carry this out: Corelli is of the substance and significance of Bach; Gluck of Mozart; Field of Chopin; Piston of Stravinsky; Trumbauer of Morton; Freeman of Young; Thornhill of Ellington; Hope of Monk and Mitchell of Coleman. If I brought this kind of foolishness in front of anyone who had even a remote knowledge of music, it would just be a matter of picking the window I'd most like to be thrown out of. "Masses" - as you say - or specialists, the conclusion will be the same, broken windows and all.

Come on, Paul B, you can tell us: You still believe the world is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese that comes from Green Bay? Does chocolate milk come from a chocolate cow, after all, that's what the commercial says? How many feathers are there on a Perdue chicken? How many times did the Batmobile catch a flat? I'm waiting for your paper with arms outstretched and breath baited. It should be a good one.

I'm curious if you have anything beyond denial and merely calling things illogical? Let's see what's under the hood? Hey, I might learn something about the grand nature of ineptitude.

Tom, I've explained myself rather thoroughly in this thread, as others have indicated. I raised some questions and brought forth some points (as did you and quite well, I might add) but nobody answered them and I had to repeat myself a few times. Like most people in that situation, I turned sarcastic and cranky when the obvious became too much to grasp on the part of some others. What can I say? But I think you need Paul B to back up his points more than I need to back up mine!

And since you're in Paris, I hope you're enjoying the French Open.

Cheers with a glass of chocolate milk,

Rob

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Reid,

Did you think that up all on your own? WOW!

Gee, I've never heard that argument anywhere before!

Cheers,

Rob

Many outstanding jazz musicians never wrote a "standard," so I don't think we can criticize Wynton for that. However, many outstanding jazz musicians who never wrote a standard--or, perhaps, never went beyond putting their name to a blues--recorded extraordinary performances that assure their place in the history. Wynton, at 40, has recorded more sessions under his own name than most musicians of his age, yet not one of them contains a performance by which he will be remembered. The same goes for his compositions--"Blood in the Fields" will be remembered more for the Pulitzer awarded it than for the music itself.

Rob-you're a pompous ass

are *you* only allowed an original thought?

Reid said:

<Not only that, but they went after the current generation of musician to
record this kind of music. Is it any surprise that a lot of bland solos
have come out of this approach? How can it not?>


Reid-great post-and an opinion I completely agree with. Like I say about some recent bop or hard bop dates, they might be good if the had Hank Mobley on em'

Harldy worth continuing with the Conan-esque Damen, whose more fluid prose only masks a way of thinking on a par with the banished one.

While comparing Piston with Stravinsky or Field with Chopin would indeed be ridiculous, other comparisons (such as the ones I made earlier) are certeainly more valid, except, of course, for those like D(umb)en who still buy into the paradigm of "jazz heros" whose ascendancy over all others is a supreme truth.

The fact remains that I can still equate Giuffre, Murray, Braxton, Lacy, Taylor, Maneri, Nichols, Ayler and a number of others with Rollins, Coltrane, Monk and Miles, despite the fact that the former don't "own" a standard or have not been as widely imitated (and dogmatized by the likes of music schools and proselityzers like Marsalis). This doesn't seem like such a leap. Music is not about majority rule. There is a lot of great music that simply did not lead to a great body of imitators, but that in no way lessens the importance or validity of the music. In fact, the opposite case could be made (though I'm playing devil's advocate) that the ease with Coltrane and Rollins were copied might indicate that perhaps their approach was not as profound as one might think.

Either way, I don't think this discussion, on my part or that of the others, is boring. And if it is, you're welcome to take your ass off to whatever great work of art (I'm assuming a guy with your attitude must be extremely talented musically) you're working on and get to it.

Maybe your music will actually be something of worth to those of us on this board.

<< I don't want to injure my ankle from rolling on the floor all day.>> Well, pick yourself up then, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Bye-ya.

Ho hum!

Reynolds: Yeah, I was a pompous ass, guilty as charged. You can pick up on the tonality of what people say, but you still can't comprehend much. You forgot to quote a whole bunch of records I supposedly don't know about. You're slipping. After a few insults, I don't think you really have all that much to say. You can continue, however, as I'd like to see you prove that chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows, too. I think your input would be more valuable there. Hey man, I like you, just try not to take it all that personally. (Smile!)

Speaking of cows and their various mooing cycles, Mr. Paul B, how are you today? I've only heard of Conan, but if you've paid any attention to my tastes, as compared to his, you'll notice we milk entirely different kinds of cows. As you might have noticed, my tastes are a little broader. Dismissing me as some ignorant rouge will be harder.

Saying certain musicians have been influential and stating they've written certain compositions which have been consistently covered by others isn't akin to hero worship, it's merely a statement of fact that you seemingly keep tripping over. The hero worship-line is a fairly old practice, too. I'm sure Lacy doesn't worship Monk merely by playing his compositions as many times as he has over the years. He just heard something that he liked and stuck with it, as have plenty of others.

"The fact remains that I can still equate Giuffre, Murray, Braxton, Lacy, Taylor, Maneri, Nichols, Ayler and a number of others with Rollins, Coltrane, Monk and Miles, despite the fact that the former don't "own" a standard or have not been as widely imitated (and dogmatized by the likes of music schools and proselityzers like Marsalis)."

Forget about Marsalis and these schools you're talking about for a second, and let's deal with the scene of people who perform in, shall we say, a non-mainstream fashion. None of these gentlemen are new to the scene. If you know jazz, you know who these people are. The fact remains that in that crowd, just about no one performs their material consistently, and in many cases, these guys have been around for 25 or more years in jazz. If others of the so-called non-mainstream don't perform each other's material, then how can you turn around and expect Marsalis, or whomever else, to do the same?

You say that some people's conceptions don't lend themselves to greater interpretation, but you do realize, I hope, that these people need others to help them execute those ideas, and therefore makes their work interpretable by others. Yet, it has not happened much within or without these groups. Braxton doesn't play Lacy. Lacy doesn't play Murray. Giuffre doesn't do Ayler. But many of them keep going back and interpreting Monk, Miles, Coltrane and Rollins. I believe the recent Murray disc was a tribute to Coltrane, no? And it seems Murray found his material profound enough to be interpreted, but hasn't quite gotten to Giuffre. And Dave Douglas did a Wayne Shorter-based record, right? John Zorn does Ornette Coleman. I believe a Mingus tune was featured on a Braxton standards album some time ago, along with others you might recognize. I'm still looking for his Lacy record, however. And now, people are doing Nichols on both sides of the Atlantic, so I give you that, but it shows that his music can be done by others. Given that these stalwarts of the non-mainstream are interpreting these older composers, should I infer that these guys are hero worshippers, too? And save the bit about how much more advanced they are than the neo-boppers in their covers. These guys works are interpreted, one way or another.

Chris A:

"However, many outstanding jazz musicians who never wrote a standard--or, perhaps, never went beyond putting their name to a blues--recorded extraordinary performances that assure their place in the history."

Asked and answered.

"Wynton, at 40, has recorded more sessions under his own name than most musicians of his age, yet not one of them contains a performance by which he will be remembered. The same goes for his compositions--"Blood in the Fields" will be remembered more for the Pulitzer awarded it than for the music itself."

If I was remembered for winning a Pulitzer, I have to say that that's not too bad. Still, the rest of this statement is, at best, speculative. My contentions about Marsalis' music were much more modest: I think he's developed a style that is his, and differs from Ellington in crucial ways. Whether it will last or not is beyond your or my ability to say since reliable crystal balls have always been in such short supply. Plenty of folks have been labeled as conservative and derivative only to see their compositions become standard repertoire in the future and outlast those considered more radical. Sometimes both ideals survive the needless bickering.

You may fire when ready.

Cheers,

Rob

It is my experience that to argue with Marsalis apologists is to waste one's time, Rob.

>>If I was remembered for winning a Pulitzer, I have to say that that's not too bad<<

I would hope that I am not remembered for any of the prizes that have been awarded me. It is nice to be recognized for one's work, but awards and prizes--if deserved--are shallow accomplishments compared to the work for which they are given.

Having made that observation, let me just say that I find it interesting how often the Pulitzer and Grammys are brought up as evidence of Wynton's musical worth.

Finally, I am bothered by the tone of your posts. If you cannot present a counterargument without resorting to sophomoric personal insults, I have to conclude that you don't have much of an argument to begin with.

I happen to think that you don't, but I would have respected your opinion if you had put it forth in a civil manner.

The point isn't that others aren't "covering" Lacy or Braxton tunes or that Coltrane or Miles tunes aren't more popular. That's clear. The point is that judging a musician by how many people cover his/her tunes is a poor way to look at it. Lacy DOES do tons of Monk. But that's not why I think Monk is a great musician. Likewise, Trane doesn't need the dozens of tribute albums or re-hashed versions of Impressions or Naima to be validated. And Giuffre, whose torch has not really been passed on, does not need to be invalidated by these criteria.

Despite your seemingly eclectic taste, you bandy the names about with the smug assurance of a faux connoisseur. And your insistance on judging a musician by how much he is "covered" seems to lack the insight that your (at least on the surface) wide-ranging taste would imply.

And the comparison to Conan is apt. You have a wider horizon, but the same narrow approach to that horizon. So you're both in the same box in my book.

Bye-ya.

I could be wrong but I think the bone of contention here has very little to do with Ratliff's premise but with the old mainstream vs. avant-garde thing. I listen to both musics, but I get the impression that advocates of non-traditional jazz (fusion, avant, hip-hop, etc) are under the impression that anyone who plays in the mainstream fashion are less "legitimate". They're regurgitating old sounds and styles and not displaying originality, not finding "their own voices." So the efforts of mainstream jazzers are being dismissed not because of their performances but because of the context they're playing in. For instance, Reid suggests that there are more boring solos because of the style being played (he's a jazz rock fusion guy). Well maybe it's not the context, just the fact that more guys are being recorded. It's like baseball, you keep expanding the league and the pitching gets worse. Now if you're an advocate for a particular style of jazz there's a good chance you're going to downplay the positive aspects of the forms of jazz you're not interested in.

Rob: Why not simply address the opinions you disagree with (ridicule, actually) instead of insulting the person who offers them? You're alot more effective when you do.

Thank you, steve(thelil) for the support and advice, and I'll try to tone it down some since fun clearly isn't the objective any longer, as some people take themselves a little too seriously and engage in a high degree of hypocrisy. Many of the people who have argued with me here in the past few days have been brusque and insulting with others all over this board including Steve Reynolds, Paul B and Chris A, and it has been noted by others before. Forgive me if I don't buy into this sudden wellspring of self righteousness.

I actually did put forth a solid point in the last two paragraphs directed at Paul B's thoughts in my prior post. He skipped by my question, however.

Paul B, I never said any of the people that you touched upon were "invalidated" by any of the criteria, just that they are not the level of a Rollins or a Coltrane - and as you added, Monk and Miles - in the grand scheme of jazz. Although, your constant comparison to them (Monk, et al) acknowledges their greatness pretty much by default. This begs the question of why you need to say they're the level of these people at all, if these guys are so great on their own? While your point about standards-as-validation is good, it only works if you can completely throw out a rather large body of evidence to the contrary. Sure, some standards shouldn't be standards, but not all of them. Your leaving me to believe that you have a special knowledge no one else possess.

I must add that no one rises to the level of greatness or importance on their own, so ultimately, some acknowledgment from others is important. Ultimately, greatness is a comparative analysis to that which is not as great. I put forth several criteria that are used frequently in this vein, and your crew fell short of the mark. Now I would like to see you come up with why these gentlemen you spoke of are, in fact, the level of these aforementioned people beyond what strikes one as a man merely expressing his personal taste which is different than distinguishing greatness which is a more collective process. I don't find you profound or particularly insightful, regardless of how specialized you view your tastes as being, but as a person who's merely indifferent for the sake of it. And, in fact, it is that dogmatic indifference searching for acceptance that most reminds me of Conan, only with non-mainstream jazz substituted as the base element. I think that aforementioned box is big enough for the both of you.

Chris A:

You may expound anytime you like on the flaws in my arguments and tell me where you find that I don't have an argument because I honestly don't know which points you're referring to. Frankly, you're not knocking me out much with your argument, insight or perspective, either.

As far as the Pulitzer is concerned, as it relates to WM's talents as a musician, you might be forgetting that I also said, "I think he's developed a style that is his, and differs from Ellington in crucial ways." Having your own sound is one of the most important things any musician can hope for. Nonetheless, the Pulitzer's a little more respected than the Grammy. I tend to trust it a little more in this case as the acknowledgment came from those outside of the run-of-the-mill jazz politics who can counter most of the dreck with solid architectural judgments, Reich notwithstanding. Still, I feel the main reason the award became irrelevant to you was because it was won by WM, a man with whom you've had long-standing philosophical disagreements and who came to his current position without your approval and that has bothered you to no end. After all, I don't seem to remember your valiant protests of the awards during all those other years before and after WM. Where were you with these grand conclusions about the award then? Frankly, I respect your knowledge and opinion on most things jazz, but when it comes to Marsalis, we simply differ.

Cheers,

Rob

Hegemony rules with Damen. So there's no way I can rebut an argument that says, in effect, "the collective opinion is this, so it's true." You call it intelligent, I call it banal.

Bye-ya.

>>Nonetheless, the Pulitzer's a little more respected than the Grammy. I tend to trust it a little more in this case as the acknowledgment came from those outside of the run-of-the-mill jazz politics who can counter most of the dreck with solid architectural judgments, Reich notwithstanding.<<


The Pulitzer is indeed more respected than the Grammy. It has snob appeal, it is awarded more sparingly, and it is accompanied by money (at least I think so). Yes, it is an acknowledgement from the "outside," but that does not give it greater validity--what are they basing their decision on? I would say that the Wynton hype, Lincoln Center (more snob appeal), and other non-musical factors probably came into play. I cannot believe that judges with real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter) would consider "Blood in the Fields" worthy. Remember, this is the same organization that never gave Duke Ellington as much as a nod. How do you explain that?

>>Still, I feel the main reason the award became irrelevant to you was because it was won by WM, a man with whom you've had long-standing philosophical disagreements and who came to his current position without your approval and that has bothered you to no end.<<

I think I have just stated why I am less than awed by the Pulitzer committee's decisions. As for Wynton not having my "approval," that's pure conjecture on your part. He does not need my approval, but it so happens that I was an enthusiastic promoter of Wynton when he first came on the scene, as documented by some of my early reviews in Stereo Review.

>>After all, I don't seem to remember your valiant protests of the awards during all those other years before and after WM. Where were you with these grand conclusions about the award then?...<<

I made no comments on the Pulitzer in earlier years, because I did not see it as having any relevance to jazz, and jazz was what I mainly wrote about. The fact that no Pulitzer went to Ellington and other remarkable jazz creators did not escape me, however. When a uninteresting, pretentious composition like "Blood in the Fields" garnered the prize, I had to take a serious look at Pulitzer decisions, and wonder why. The conclusion I reached was not "grand," as you facetiously describe it, but rather that the Pulitzer committee is as popularity-conscious as the majority Grammy and American Music Awards voters.

when Blood received a Pulitzer-and The Far East Suite didn't, there is a problem with the Pulitzer when it comes to jazz.

We don't need all kinds of fancy language to explain why the Pulitzer prize that Wynton won is insignificant and UNIMPORTANT.

I can count on my right hand the number of people I know, who have a thorough knowledge of jazz, who deem Wynton's long form structures as anything more than tripe.

Johnny's Corner Song is more worthy of a Pulitzer-and by a wide margin. That is music that deserves comparison to Ellington, whether or not anyone besides his band ever plays it.

not an opinion, just the way it is, bud.

Darryl,

I like all kinds of style of jazz, including hard-bop. It's one of my favorite styles of jazz. My point is that if musicians *strictly confine* their playing to an older style (any older style, including avant-garde and jazz-rock), it's going to be very difficult to create fresh sounding solos. Now add to the mix young musicians just starting out their careers. It became a formula. Sure improvisation occured, but within that strict context. I think even you would agree it would be very difficult to creat fresh and original solos from this approach.

Now if the music coming out of this approach gets the most scrutiny, then yeah, I think it's going to seem like a lot of the solos don't seem fresh. Do you think that there were a lot of fresh and original solos that came out this approach? I don't mean technically competant solos, because there were a lot of those, but solos that made you feel like you were listening to something original and fresh.

I think if you don't confine your definition of jazz to some past style, then you will notice a lot more interesting and fresh solos out there, or at least that's where you'll see deviation from the past.

As for the "legitimate/illegitimate" issue, that's not a dichotomy I'd like to use. I don't think the neo-conservative approach is "illegitimate." My problem is that it's been over-emphasized; so much so, that a musician that deviates from that route would be stigmatized. I don't advocate ridicule or stigma towards any approach to playing jazz.

However, I do not feel that both approaches should be emphasized equally. I do believe that the up-and-coming musician should be encouraged to go beyond the styles of the past. In this approach, the past style are studied and learned as a means to create something original and fresh, vs. being a end in itself.

Reid,

"However, I do not feel that both approaches should be emphasized equally. I do believe that the up-and-coming musician should be encouraged to go beyond the styles of the past. In this approach, the past style are studied and learned as a means to create something original and fresh, vs. being a end in itself."

And I believe a musician should be free to be himself. If he has a love of a particular genre of jazz and wants to concentrate on it so be it. I think it would be presumptious of me, an outsider, telling him what he should play.

I remember reading a profile of Scott Hamilton back in the '70s. He actually had someone write him and tell him he should find his own style. Amazing. He was playing music that pleases him and his audience and someone had the audacity to do such a thing.

This needs repeating: I'm a big "free" jazz fan. Most of my purchases are "left of center". However, I do not feel that the music I prefer is any more "right" or "progressive" than bop, swing, fusion, etc. I get the feeling that some of us feel that if a musician chooses to play in a bop, or pre-bop style something's wrong. He's not "progressive" enough. That's a wrong way to go.

Haven't read all posts in this thread but it seems to me that, almost by definition, jazz is an individualistic music. If jazz artists were not strong individuals they would be making money playing a more commercial music. Therefore, most jazz players, I would venture, are playing what they want to play, not what is expected of them. Scott Hamilton plays what he does because he loves that music. Wilbur Ware plays what he does because he loves that music. Etc. So be it. It's ALL jazz which is our music! /Roger

this might bring out the knives, but I think any jazz musician who thinks of playing music in "a certain style" has already moved away from being what a jazz musician is really all about.

That's why the tribute band and the repretory bands all have that stale feel-and the solos lack a freshness that I hear in music that is not based on being played in or thought of as in a certain style.

Whether or not the tenor players or trumpet players are immensely talented(and many of them are!), what I don't hear is sound of creation.

*None* of the masters and legends in jazz thought of their music in this way.

It's never happened-they have all played in(or built upon) the prevalent) the manners of the music that they musically grew up with.

What happened(and is happening now) is an anomaly-and the results are there for all of us to hear.

Hi everyone,

I've been off the thread for a few months, but started lurking again recently (what was that about curiosity and the cat?). Well, at the risk of sounding too general- I think there is still the tendency to categorize players and put them in seperate stylistic "boxes" and then assume that those individuals and their peers are all one way. You know, the old "neo-cons are boring" argument or the "knitting factory guys only play noise" diatribe. When, in actuality, at least in my belief, almost all of these individuals have their own quirks and modes of expression that transcend the ever present debate on greatness or relevance to the current state of music, society, current affairs etc...

I know that when I listen to jazz, or anything else for that matter, if it knocks me out, great! If it doesn't- well- all I'm saying is that it has not much to do with whether it's "state of the art" or not- or if it's a 12 bar blues or a multi-thematic piece that avoids the dreaded "head solos head" (oh no! not that!), but whether or not it takes me for some kind of ride. I think if you can tell a compelling story as an improviser, many of these other stylistic concerns become simply the rind that holds the fruit.

What Steve said. /Roger (no knives here)

Interesting point, Steve's. You know, both the Zorn and Marsalis interviews sort of annoyed me. It seemed that both men seemed interested in polemicizing (that can't really be a word, can it?) their music. Ben Watson may enjoy that sort of stuff, but it rarely makes for meaty music. I think both men are very talented, but they shouldn't be turning their compositions into some sort of programme. For some reason--likely the one given by Steve--the passion their music seems to leave it for their politics.

It should be something like birds singing. You can't do it if you're trying to make a point.

Darryl,

A musician should be free to be himself, but you act as if a musician's musical preference and approach develops independently of any outside influence. Most jazz musicians (particularly the ones that didn't grow up listening to it) learn how to play jazz from someone else, or at least they're significantly influenced by teachers and other musicians at some point. Pat Metheny tells the story of how when playing jazz in Kansas City as a youngster, he tried to play like Wes Montgomery. The older musicians around him at the time said, "Hey, Wes already did that." According to him, that was good because it encouraged him to develop his own thing. Teachers and musicians influence the tastes and approach of aspiring musicians; these things don't develop in a vaccum.

The problem is that for a long time the approach that has been emphasized is playing jazz strictly in older styles. There was a time when musicians were encouraged to learn to play the older styles so that they could have the tools to create something new and original. This idea has been challenged and practically taken over by another message: learn the older styles because that's how "real" jazz is played. This ethos has dominated the jazz scene for the past fifteen years, and personally I don't think it should be held as the highest achievement for the aspiring jazz musician. So I'm not concerned with one or two musicians that have decided to strictly play in an older style. What I care about is if this is the dominant message sent to younger musicians.

Steve R,

"I think any jazz musician who thinks of playing music in 'a certain style' has already moved away from being what a jazz musician is really all about."

With all due respect, Steve, shouldn't that be phrased, "being what I think a jazz musician should really be all about"?

Because let's face it, lots of jazz musicians don't have any problem with playing in either a certain style or various certain styles, and still consider themselves, and are widely considered, "really" jazz musicians.

What you are doing is giving your approval to one of the many versions of the True Meaning of Jazz, which is fine. But there is no revealed truth in matters cultural - if you think otherwise, there is no more real dialogue, only proselytizing.

Reid,

"for a long time the approach that has been emphasized is playing jazz strictly in older styles. There was a time when musicians were encouraged to learn to play the older styles so that they could have the tools to create something new and original. This idea has been challenged and practically taken over by another message: learn the older styles because that's how "real" jazz is played. This ethos has dominated the jazz scene for the past fifteen years"

I don't see this as quite the threat you do. Institutions and major labels stick with the middle-of-the-road because it's safer and easier to market; jazz schools more or less necessarily fall back on systematic exploration of "jazz harmony" etc., because systems and methods are what are easiest to teach and to test. (And such education is far from being evil brainwashing, a plot by reactionaries.)

But let's give artists some credit for being able to find their way to creativity, and to understand the stakes. Wynton's fantasies of being Big Brother are a drag but he hardly has much in the way of means to enforce his orthodoxy. Music that flies gleefully in the face of Wyntonian correctness has not vanished from this earth - far from it. We're not exactly facing the Talebans here. Any interested listener can find more music that ignores Wynton's commandments than he or she could listen to in a month of Sundays, and musicians can and do manage to create music according to their own preoccupations. They might not get rich or even reach propertied, middle-class comfort, and I agree that's a shame. But plenty choose Art over Mammon and do not starve.

So I don't agree that the Wyntonian message has "practically taken over."

Paul B:

"Hegemony rules with Damen. So there's no way I can rebut an argument that says, in effect, "the collective opinion is this, so it's true." You call it intelligent, I call it banal."

You call this a response, I call this a cop out and a cliche.

Chris A:

Since you are a journalist on some level, I'm sure facts and research are essential to your job. Therefore, several blunders here have hurt your credibility on this issue.

"Remember, this is the same organization that never gave Duke Ellington as much as a nod. How do you explain that?"

Simple. The Pulitzer board awarded Duke Ellington a special prize in 1999 for his lifetime achievements. That is a fact. So let's just say that "never" isn't quite correct.

"Yes, it is an acknowledgement from the "outside," but that does not give it greater validity--what are they basing their decision on? I would say that the Wynton hype, Lincoln Center (more snob appeal), and other non-musical factors probably came into play. I cannot believe that judges with real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter) would consider "Blood in the Fields" worthy."

What are they basing their decision on? Well, ah, the music.

If we agree they're coming from "outside" of the jazz beltway, then, once again, hype probably played a minimal part. Furthermore, the complete awards list has ranged from the famous to the non-famous all throughout its history, and plenty of those composers are highly respected but are not well known. Yet, somehow, they managed to win without the Lincoln Center or Sony Music behind them. If you can establish that Roger Sessions and Elliott Carter are indeed popular, I'll e-mail the Pulitzer committee and various classical music magazines on your behalf, maybe even Rolling Stone. Needless to say, I'm searching that award list in vain for Madonna's name. The crowing about popularity seems reactionary at best and not founded on research.

Also, I'm sure John Lewis would love to be told by a self-righteous jazz critic that he doesn't have a "real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter)" as he was one of the five members on the panel that awarded Marsalis the prize. As for the other judges, one of them was noted earlier as Howard Reich, who is a long-standing member of the jazz journalist profession. The other three are not directly part of the jazz community, but they are, in fact, highly-respected musicians and past Pulitzer winners including Robert Ward, who won for the opera "The Crucible," which is still performed in this country and that I will be viewing this summer; John Harbison, professor of music at MIT and the composer of the recent MET opera "The Great Gatsby" and Joseph Schwantner, professor of music at the Eastman School of Music. These three, plus John Lewis, are more than adequately qualified to judge long-form composition, jazz or otherwise, as that has been the primary focus of study in their lives, especially in the case of the latter three classical composers. Furthermore, the composition's actual name is "Blood on the Fields", not "Blood in the Fields." Again, these are facts.

"As for Wynton not having my "approval," that's pure conjecture on your part. He does not need my approval, but it so happens that I was an enthusiastic promoter of Wynton when he first came on the scene, as documented by some of my early reviews in Stereo Review."

Noted. But I feel it's also no accident that your lower opinion of Marsalis began around the time he first began expressing his views in print on the forms of music he disliked, many of which you champion. It's not an implausible supposition - he pissed you off then and so his standing dropped in your eyes since. With each successful phase of his career, whether it was the Lincoln Center or the Pulitzer, he has continued to piss you off because he doesn't see things your way and nothing you've said here or elsewhere has made much of a dent. As I said earlier, what we think of people and their work is affected by what they say. That's just human nature.

Additionally, almost half of your posts on this BBS and at other places involve Marsalis in one way or another, saying that he does not belong where he is now. Questioning another's credentials means you ultimately don't "approve" of someone, hence you feel he needs to meet your "approval" to be where he is. Otherwise, you wouldn't be out here in BBS land stating that so clearly.

"I made no comments on the Pulitzer in earlier years, because I did not see it as having any relevance to jazz, and jazz was what I mainly wrote about."

Well, ignorance isn't always bliss, I guess. Still, that doesn't make everyone else who took home a prize unworthy simply because someone with whom you have philosophical differences happened to win one.

"When a uninteresting, pretentious composition like "Blood in the Fields" garnered the prize, I had to take a serious look at Pulitzer decisions, and wonder why."

Well, if this is what passes for jazz journalism these days, this is a shame. Speaking of Ellington, what I find ironic is that this is what many said initially about "Black, Brown and Beige" - that it was pretentious and uninteresting - and many of his other extended-form pieces at the time. Some still maintain that view, so therefore, it seems to me you're now in the great company of, ahem, James Lincoln Collier. Some have called these works unstructured and unworthy, and yet, studies have shown this to be false in several cases. People are now going back and doing "BB&B", "Tattooed Bride" and "The Far East Suite" in spite of what's been said. In fact, Chris, you'll find "Blood on the Fields" is quite well structured, too, but that would require engaging the composition to find that out, right? With simplistic retorts like these, it makes me believe that the professionals who made the choice might have been right as I don't see a compelling argument otherwise.

Reynolds:

"Johnny's Corner Song is more worthy of a Pulitzer-and by a wide margin. That is music that deserves comparison to Ellington, whether or not anyone besides his band ever plays it. not an opinion, just the way it is, bud."

No, actually that is an opinion as opposed to a fact. I can only hope you know the difference.

Cheers,

Rob

On the consensus requiem for the "head-solo-head" format:

It is interesting to go back and read what a lot of jazz critics were writing after the death of Bird in the 1950s. They already buried "head-solo-head" back then. It seemed obvious to many that the real future of jazz was coming from California in the form of complex, through-composed music (third stream) that rose above the "head-solo-head morass."

They were right on one account. The future of jazz did come from California. But it was delivered by Ornette and Cherry with quite a heavy dose of "head-solo-head!" Who would have known?

The future is hard to predict. I understand the negative comments about "head-solo-head" on this thread, but I am still reluctant to think of it only as a dead end.

In fact, I would even venture to say that there is something related to "head-solo-head" that is inherent to much of jazz. "Head-solo-head" is related to the song form itself. It is a bebop variant and simplication of the "song-solo" approach that came to prominence with Armstrong. I think that there will always be a part of jazz that is concerned with delivering songs. In that context, it is natural that the song first be played "straight" to put it in the listener's head before the variations and solos.

We might also recall that a number of 20th-century classical composers consciously moved away from repetition in adopting the 12-tone approach. But much of this music ended up not being user-friendly to the general public for this reason. Thus, the revival of the "theme-variations" approach in more recent times.

It ain't the form, it's the music inside of it.

Rob, I think Marsalis' ballet "Jazz" is a more interesting piece musically than "Blood on the Field". My sense is that the Pulitzer committee was swayed by the topic (and hype).

John L.--good points. There's always a possibility (probability, even) that folk will come around and wring yet more beauty from a seemingly impoverished form. I try to think of these things in a fractal sense: the more you "zoom in" on an apparently barren territory, the more wealth of wonderful detail you find. Braxton, for example, may be doing this with his Ghost Trance music. It's just the sense that there are a declining number of jazz musicians (including, most distressingly, younger ones) with the willingness (or capability?) to zoom in, rather than sit back in the well-worn, comfortable rut of head-solo-head, whether the model is Miles or Ayler. In this listener's ears, it creates at least a tinge of tiredness, no matter the strength of the rest of the work.

<<You call this a response, I call this a cop out and a cliche.>> No more a cliche than your "majority rules" approach to music appreciation. You clearly have no ability to think for yourself on these issues, but cull your opinions (and your taste) from opinions and ideas already expressed by others. This is clear in your inability to distinguish between the talents of an Ellington and a Marsalis (of course, since all you know about these musicians is based upon what critcs say, how could it be otherwise?)

Bye-ya.

Well, Rob, you seem incapable of posting for very long without including personal attacks. That's too bad, but is says a whole lot about you, as do your many conjectures. Let me address some of them.

You wrote:

>>... Since you are a journalist on some level, I'm sure facts and research are essential to your job. Therefore, several blunders here have hurt your credibility on this issue.<<

Let's look at my "blunders," Rob.

So the Pulitzer board awarded Duke a "special prize" in 1999. Fantastic! The man had been dead for years and 1999 was a year in which his centennial was widely celebrated. It only supports my contention that the Pulitzer people are as opportunistic as the next guy. So, I was right when I said this organization had never given Duke Ellington as much as a nod. I don't think a posthumous, opportunistically timed consolation prize makes up for their neglect.

So, I ask again: How do you explain that? Meaning why did they not recognize Duke's considerable achievements while he was living when they found Marsalis' anemic "Blood..." worthy?

Having raised that question, I wondered what the basis for the Pulitzer committee's choice was, and suggested that hype had a lot to do with it. Someone, Roger, I think, added the subject matter--I agree, it was politically correct for this white organization to honor a work that purports to be some kind of black protest against slavery. So first we have Wynton's pretentious attempt at creating a work of social significance, then we have the Pulitzer people making amends by awarding it a prize. I know that I am being cynical, but that's how it looks from my vantagepoint.

>>Also, I'm sure John Lewis would love to be told by a self-righteous jazz critic that he doesn't have a "real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter)" as he was one of the five members on the panel that awarded Marsalis the prize.<<

I admire John Lewis, whom I happen to know, personally, but I think he made a bad mistake when he participated in this decision. I should have said "I cannot believe that judges with real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter) would consider "Blood in the Fields" worthy UNLESS POLITICS WERE INVOLVED." I think they were, and I hope for their sake that I am not wrong.

>>What are they basing their decision on? Well, ah, the music.<<

I hardly think so--not that music. And, if you are correct in your assumption, why have the Pulitzer people so often closed their ears to music of far greater substance and importance?

>>Furthermore, the complete awards list has ranged from the famous to the non-famous all throughout its history, and plenty of those composers are highly respected but are not well known. Yet, somehow, they managed to win without the Lincoln Center or Sony Music behind them.<<

It is quite possible that the Pulitzer was at one time awarded with integrity, I haven't looked into it, so I can't dispute that.

>>If you can establish that Roger Sessions and Elliott Carter are indeed popular, I'll e-mail the Pulitzer committee and various classical music magazines on your behalf, maybe even Rolling Stone.<<

Sessions and Carter were trendy in certain circles. I am not speaking of pop music when I use the term "popular," that is your interpretation. By popular I mean politically correct, and I think you know that.

>>As for the other judges, one of them was noted earlier as Howard Reich, who is a long-standing member of the jazz journalist profession.<<

Howard Reich has a history of embarassing the jazz journalism profession by doing precisely what he did here--selling out.

>>The other three are not directly part of the jazz community, but they are, in fact, highly-respected musicians and past Pulitzer winners... These three, plus John Lewis, are more than adequately qualified to judge long-form composition, jazz or otherwise, as that has been the primary focus of study in their lives, especially in the case of the latter three classical composers.<<

So John Lewis was outnumbered by a jazz critic whose lack of integrity has long since obliterated any credibility he might once have had, and by composers who--although accomplished--work outside of jazz. You have sharpened the focus of the picture I have.

>>Furthermore, the composition's actual name is "Blood on the Fields", not "Blood in the Fields." Again, these are facts.<<

A true blunder on my part--how could I have made such a mistake?

I pointed out that I had been "an enthusiastic promoter of Wynton when he first came on the scene," to which you reply:

>>Noted. But I feel it's also no accident that your lower opinion of Marsalis began around the time he first began expressing his views in print on the forms of music he disliked, many of which you champion.<<

Wrong again. I was unaware of Wynton's myopia when I wrote my first negative review of his work. It might surprise you but that reviewbased solely upon what I heard coming out of my loudspeakers. I can't help it, that how I work. Stereo Review's music editor, somehow feeling beholden to Wynton's promoters often edited out critical observations, or simply chose not to print a review that did not speak of wonderboy in glowing terms. When I wrote that I considered Branford to be the real jazz talent in that family, they edited it out. The Wynton promoters were hard at work pushing him into prominence and making it look as if he were getting there on his talent. It was well done and, obviously, successful, but it did not fool everybody. Wynton himself began to believe the hype, became quite arrogant, and, IMO, lost the spark that had ignited my original enthusiasm. By the time I realized how limited his vision of jazz was--that he had all but dismissed the last half of it's development--I had already voiced my disappointment in him.

>>It's not an implausible supposition - he pissed you off then and so his standing dropped in your eyes since.<<

Perhaps not implausible, but certainly contrary to the facts. You were crying out for facts, weren't you?

>>With each successful phase of his career, whether it was the Lincoln Center or the Pulitzer, he has continued to piss you off because he doesn't see things your way and nothing you've said here or elsewhere has made much of a dent.<<

You couldn't be more wrong, Rob. If I am upset by what I see as an unwarranted elevation, it is not Wynton I blame as much as it is the music establishment--including members of my own profession and, certainly, the media at large. Wynton is their creation. Duke, Louis, Bird, Trane, Lester...the list is endless, achieved their high status by being extraordinary crerative forces. They made it on their talent, and that is what has given them immortality. I think there will come a time when Wynton will rue the day he bought his own hype, a time when he will look back and see how adversely all of this unwarranted attention has affected his own creative process. Without all this, I really think Wynton would at this point warrant our admiration. Instead, he has become a living example of how artistry can be diluted by excessive publicity. Oh, he will have money and he will receive lots of invitations, plaques, and statuettes, but, deep inside, he will know that he belongs on a shelf far below that which true genius occupies. That is my supposition.

>>Additionally, almost half of your posts on this BBS and at other places involve Marsalis in one way or another, saying that he does not belong where he is now.<<

The fact that you find it necessary to resort to such exaggeration makes me believe that you are grasping for arguments against me. You know the above is not true, so why are you saying it?

>>Questioning another's credentials means you ultimately don't "approve" of someone, hence you feel he needs to meet your "approval" to be where he is. Otherwise, you wouldn't be out here in BBS land stating that so clearly.<<

What nonsense!

Getting back to my "blunders," I guess, in the final analysis, a "blunder" is any assertion with which Rob Damen disagrees.

Well, Chris it seems research and critical thinking are not at hand on this issue.

First, you're basically suggesting the Pulitzer people might have been looking to right past racial wrongs with awards to both Ellington and Marsalis, but a problem arises with your theory: George Walker, who is black and composes classically, won a Pulitzer award prior to both Marsalis and Ellington. Therefore, they could have claimed that the racial wrong had been exorcised then and simply bypassed the both of them. Still, George Gershwin also received such an award on his 100th anniversary in 1998, so it was not exactly a new idea when Ellington's time came.

True, Ellington was denied an award when he was alive because he was black and a jazz musician, and I'm sure you know the story that several people left that organization as a result. In spite of the current post-Civil Rights climate, we are still talking about jazz in a classical environment which you referred to as "snobbish." Given those grounds, and that the three other classical musicians on the panel know little of jazz, as you imply, they could have simply bypassed Marsalis - not to mention Ellington's special citation - on those biases alone and awarded it to a classical composition. Even with Wynton's backing, they could have said - as is often the case with the Grammys and other awards - 'he's young and he'll have plenty of other opportunities with all the money he has, so we'll award him one another year when he does something better'. Furthermore, doing a work on slavery does not guarantee a prize. Again, the panel could have still said no, but they did not.

"I admire John Lewis, whom I happen to know, personally, but I think he made a bad mistake when he participated in this decision. I should have said "I cannot believe that judges with real knowledge of jazz (or music, for that matter) would consider "Blood in the Fields" worthy UNLESS POLITICS WERE INVOLVED." I think they were, and I hope for their sake that I am not wrong."

Well, since you know him personally, why don't you call him and ask him? As I understand, however, judges aren't allowed to discuss their decisions, but with a beer between old friends, you never know what might pop out. I wonder if you'll engage him or the others, as I know some probably have e-mails. Frankly, I think you insulted Lewis by not doing your homework.

"And, if you are correct in your assumption, why have the Pulitzer people so often closed their ears to music of far greater substance and importance? ... Sessions and Carter were trendy in certain circles. I am not speaking of pop music when I use the
term "popular," that is your interpretation. By popular I mean politically correct, and I think you know that."

Perhaps it's just me, but I never felt Ellington, Monk, Waller, Morton or Shorter were of "far" greater substance and importance than Copland, Barber, Menotti, Ives and Thomson in or out of their fields. In fact, it never really mattered to me. Maybe you don't listen to that much classical music, I really don't know? They are all different and distinctive musicians from whom I draw different things, and I'd prefer to have them all in my musical world. Perhaps it gives you a rush to thumb your nose at the establishment, but I'm curious if you can place Carter and Sessions within their musical times or if you even know much about what they sound like? And I'll repeat, the awards have shown quite a bit of variety throughout the years.

"I was unaware of Wynton's myopia when I wrote my first negative review of his work. It might surprise you but that reviewbased solely upon what I heard coming out of my loudspeakers. I can't help it, that how I work. Stereo Review's music editor, somehow feeling beholden to Wynton's promoters often edited out critical observations, or simply chose not to print a review that did not speak of wonderboy in glowing terms. When I wrote that I considered Branford to be the real jazz talent in that family, they edited it out. The Wynton promoters were hard at work pushing him into prominence and making it look as if he were getting there on his talent. It was well done and, obviously, successful, but it did not fool everybody. Wynton himself began to believe the hype, became quite arrogant, and, IMO, lost the spark that had ignited my original enthusiasm. By the time I realized how limited his vision of jazz was--that he had all but dismissed the last half of it's development--I had already voiced my disappointment in him"

Maybe you were aware of Marsalis' negative views on the so-called avant-garde or non-mainstream jazz or maybe you weren't, but Wynton was dismissing this music in print as back as far as 1982. This was around the time of his first record and he was all over the press then, making it literally impossible for those in the jazz world not to notice. So yes, that notion was in the air then, thus making it possible for you to have heard or read his views and be affected by them. Even if your views of him came after the fact, his views were still there anyhow and might have intensified your position as time has gone on. After all, your dismissals of his music are in very short order and your expounding on his personality and views are much more prominent - one never seems to be without the other. If two people have strongly opposing views of each other, it stands to reason that they will dismiss each other out of hand in matters of work, personality and views. It's funny how everyone else you don't care for is politically motivated on this issue, but you are not.

"If I am upset by what I see as an unwarranted elevation, it is not Wynton I blame as much as it is the music establishment--including members of my own profession and, certainly, the media at large. Wynton is their creation. Duke, Louis, Bird, Trane,
Lester...the list is endless, achieved their high status by being extraordinary crerative forces. They made it on their talent, and that is what has given them immortality."

All these people have been dismissed at one time or another, with the possible exception of Lester Young, which is common in jazz or any other art form. Your just following along in the footsteps of your critical forebearers. I could give you chapter and verse on that, so your comments here mean nothing to me. Furthermore, I'm not too concerned about whether he's the level of these people or not, unlike a certain poster. My point is that he is different musically and that's the foundation for being picked up in the future. What I do notice, however, is that you, again, don't want to deal with the composition at hand or any of his music in depth. That's part of why I see your views as being political in nature. Maybe you don't really have a true point here. Why is it pretentious and uninteresting? That could mean a lot of things. Your silence here speaks loudly. Again, you're doing the same thing people did years ago with Ellington's long-form works. The language really isn't different.

You dismissed the three classical judges in your write up as being incapable of truly grasping jazz, which doesn't make much sense to me. The fact is, jazz does not exist in a vacuum and things like melody, harmony, rhythm, form and thematic development are common in music. So is improvisation. I've rarely come across a musician who listens to one thing despite the erroneous notion that their field suggests their listening and performing tastes absolutely. Not to mention the piece has a dramatic written text, that if examined, is clearly not about "some kind of black protest against slavery," given that slavery ended a while ago making such a protest unnecessary. Not surprisingly, you're off base which shows that you really don't know the piece that well. Clearly, those three judges - who have some interesting things in their musical backgrounds you're clearly not aware of - know something about these things. I'm wondering if you'll do me the courtesy of giving me a true analysis and not petty and shallow write-offs.

Cheers,

Rob

Tom,

It would be ridiculous if I was criticizing the "Wyntonian message" because it eliminated all other ways of playing jazz. "Dominate" and "practically taken over" don't mean completely eliminate. You don't think that the Wyntonian message has dominated jazz for the past fifteen years (genuine question)?

As for record labels sticking to middle-of-the-road music, was be-bop considered middle-of-the-road during the early 80's? Didn't it become middle-of-the-road because of their marketing efforts?

Finally, my criticism is not directed at jazz schools for teaching harmony in a systematic way. What I'm concerned with is the rationale behind teaching such things. Is this to be learned so that you can expand and do your own thing with it, or is it to be learned because this is how "real" jazz is played? Obviously, I disagree with the latter and agree with the former.

Rob, I have wasted too much time with you already, so don't expect me to respond in length to your endless assumptions. Suffice it to say that you are way off the mark in your series of conjectures regarding me. You have no idea what I have heard or not heard, what I admire and don't admire. You don't even grasp what I have said in my posts or, if you do, you twist my words around to suit yourself. For example, I never as much as suggested that "Ellington, Monk, Waller, Morton or Shorter were of 'far' greater substance and importance than Copland, Barber, Menotti, Ives and Thomson," I did, however indicate my belief that Ellington (and we can add Monk and Waller) is a significant composer and that Wynton is not. And when I said that I was unaware of Wynton's revisionist view of jazz history, I meant that I was unaware of Wynton's revisionist view of jazz history. Odd, isn't it? But I guess truth is something that you are uncomfortable with--at least that is my impression after reading you input in this thread.

Well, here's another truth, Rob. I think you are--to put it mildly--an arrogant jerk in search of an argument. Name-calling is something I try to avoid, but there comes a time....

Reid,

I agree with your thought in the second paragraph of post #122.

Just a passing note:

Joseph Schwantner is in fact in addition to his duties at Eastman, a very good composer in his own right -and if I'm not mistaken, was a Pulitzer prize winner for composition a few years ago. I have several recordings of some of his orchestral work ( notably a piece called "Towards Light" ) and it's qite interesting and very accesible to those of you not ready for the Elliot Carter Quartets . . <g>

I think the Pulitzer is a lot like the Oscar. Occasionally it goes to a terrific piece: more often it goes to something like Del Tredici's "Alice", Harbison's "Flower Fed Buffaloes" or Marsalis' "Blood on the Field". Carter, Sessions, and, IMHO, Braxton, they ain't.

Oh, puhleeeeeeeze, Chris.

How can anybody accept the "truth" from a man who doesn't know the facts? If anybody pulled a twist, it was you once each and every wild supposition you kept dribbling off your feet got blasted by concrete information. And frankly, I don't think I misunderstood a damn thing you said. You're just trying to weasel out it instead of facing up to it.

One day, you're arguing the people who awarded Marsalis the prize didn't know anything about music, and the next we learn they are more than adequately qualified and one of them is a friend of yours who you didn't even know was a part of the process. Then you float this racial-tokenism ordeal blended with political opportunism on the part of the Pulitzer board, yet we learn other black people won before Marsalis and Ellington (and not just in music, I might add) and the 100th anniversary prize had a precedent the year before. You were undone by the fact that you didn't research and didn't know what the hell you were talking about. What's even worse is that all of this information is so easily obtainable, and you were too lazy to find it.

"For example, I never as much as suggested that "Ellington, Monk, Waller, Morton or Shorter were of 'far' greater substance and importance than Copland, Barber, Menotti, Ives and Thomson."

Total bull. You suggested it very directly when you questioned "why have the Pulitzer
people 'so often' closed their ears to music of far greater substance and importance?" 'So often' is what I perhaps should have added the first time, but I thought the point was pretty obvious without it. Now, you're twisting your own words. So, really, what else could you have meant? Surely not alternate classical works to those picked. You could have only meant jazz works in this context and were questioning their past decisions by their not including them. Do you not remember your Ellington barb about how he should have been recognized when he was alive?

All the people I listed in that sentence were winners of Pulitzers in the past, and undoubtedly, you didn't know that. Questioning their choices means you were begging for the comparison, so you got it. Once again, winning the bout with laziness could have cured this information gap.

"I did, however indicate my belief that Ellington (and we can add Monk and Waller) is a significant composer and that Wynton is not."

And like I said, all of these people have been dismissed at one time or another. Plus, I don't recall saying he was the level or significance of any of these people just that he was different from them. First, you may recall a while ago that I applied the standard evenly to all the other modern composers in comparison to those who had written standards in the past. I said that as composers, they all come up short when the comparison is made. Second, as I indicated, the comparison doesn't matter all that much to me as music is more about having your own sound, regardless of what you use to achieve that goal.

"And when I said that I was unaware of Wynton's revisionist view of jazz history, I meant that I was unaware of Wynton's revisionist view of jazz history. Odd, isn't it?"

No, not really. Basically, all you have to do is deny it and come up with an excuse that basically allows you to state you were ignorant of the major events of that time. Even people outside of jazz knew about the controversy then, and you're trying to tell me that you, Chris Albertson, a so-called top jazz journalist, didn't know about this in spite of it being plastered all over the press in the field you're supposed to cover? Yeah, right! You've given chapter and verse about his huge promotion and hype at an early age, and yet somehow, this controversy slipped by you? Denial was the only way out of this one.

Nonetheless, you're aware of this so-called revisionism now, and I still say it's had an effect, because while you say your criticism is based on the music, you couldn't even identify what "Blood on the Fields" is about, not to mention that you didn't even deal with the piece's construction in any detail. Your bailing out because a true examination of this work and several others by Wynton Marsalis would have exposed you for what I think you are when it comes to arguing about Marsalis - a fraud. Now, that's the impression that I've gathered from your posts.

As for me being, "in search of an argument," my initial post on this thread wasn't even addressed to you. So actually, you stepped up to me, not the other way around. You didn't have to come after me, but you chose to. Maybe you'll be a little more careful in arrogantly thinking that you can just run anybody down who doesn't agree with you with a whole bunch of unsubstantiated bluster.

Cheers,

Rob

Walter,

Actually, I agree with you. I wouldn't put Marsalis and Harbison in the same league with Sessions and Carter. I particularly enjoy Sessions' symphonies. I'm hoping some recording of his opera "Montezzuma" will emerge one of these days. "Concerto for Orchestra" shouldn't be missed. And Carter kind of goes without saying. The string quartets are paramount.

Although, Harbison is a better composer than I think you're giving him credit for. His string quartets are quite good and his clarinet concerto ain't too bad. Plus, I heard the "Great Gatsby" on the radio, and I think it has some potential with a little editing.

But, I wouldn't put Braxton in the same league with either Sessions or Carter. And if given a choice, I'd rather listen to Marsalis than Braxton. Braxton simply doesn't do much for me. And a lot of his ideas I find are just better done in classical music, though, not all.

And I liked Marsalis' "Jazz" as well as "Jump Start" too, just not as well as I did "Blood on the Fields."

GP,

I dug Schwantner's MLK piece. So I agree, he is a good composer.

Cheers,

Rob

Reid,

"You don't think that the Wyntonian message has dominated jazz for the past fifteen years (genuine question)?"

No. I think the Wyntonian *controversy* has dominated jazz for the past fifteen years. Not the same thing at all. (And it should be mentioned the Wynton wars are primarily an American obsession - Europeans are aware of it and also argue about it, but it's not the entire context, as it seems to be in the US.)

Neoboppers may have dominated major-label recording, but that is not the same thing as dominating jazz. How many of us rely primarily on the major labels for our sense of what jazz is and how it is evolving? Not many, I'd wager.

>>What I care about is if this is the dominant message sent to younger musicians.<<

Reid, I'm glad you said "if," for this is solely Wynton's message. Bear in mind that, while he certainly is dominant in terms of exposure (and geographical coverage), Wynton is by no means the only jazz educator out there. There are many truly dedicated musicians teaching today in schools around the country. Most, if not all, do not share Wynton's unenlightened view of jazz. So, it is clearly a dominant message as far as WM goes, but he is not powerful enough to change tyhe scene. Remember, too, that many of his "students" will eventually discover for themselves how short-sighted their teacher was.




And a final note to Damen...

Thank you for proving my point. I am so glad that someone at last exposed me for the fraud that I am. Your insight is simply amazing. Have you thought of further pursuing your obvious knack for fiction? Well, if you have, either try it somewhere else or invent a new character--this one has made the wise decision not to waste another pixel on you.

"No. I think the Wyntonian *controversy* has dominated jazz for the past fifteen years. Not the same thing at all. (And it should be mentioned the Wynton wars are primarily an American obsession - Europeans are aware of it and also argue about it, but it's not the entire context, as it
seems to be in the US.)"

Tom, I would go a step further and say it's mainly an issue for the New York jazz tabloids. We in chicago have heard about it but it certainly doe not dominate our minds. We laugh about it.

Uli, I don't think the Wynton controversy dominates our minds here in New York, either. It simply isn't that important in the grander scheme of things.

that's the way i feel too.

Rob, I too have long wished for a recording of "Montezuma". And I agree that Gatsby had some nice sections. I was let down though--too much pastiche.

Walter:

"too much pastiche."

Agreed, more or less.

Chris:

"Have you thought of further pursuing your obvious knack for fiction?"

No, but clearly, you have.

Out,

Rob

Too bad all that musical knowledge, insight and eloquence had to end in two reverberating "Nyah Nyahs."

Kind of a shame. But hell, think of Descartes/Arnauld, Leibniz/Clark, Darwin/Butler: they were smart guys who couldn't agree on a lot of stuff too. The rest of us still benefitted.

np: Fred Lerdahl's wonderful "Chords"

<<each and every wild supposition you kept dribbling off your feet got blasted by concrete information.>>

What a laugh.

I often wonder how and why some people are even interested in music. Take Conan. Bright guy in many ways, but his focus on the music is so off base that you just have to wonder if he's on the same planet. Damen proves himself more and more like this. He can name names, talk about the history, write well, but you have wonder if you're even listening to the same music. You have to wonder if this guy has any soul, if the music actually MOVES him. My guess is that it's just pure, raw data for Damen, and that he would be as excited by any other "hobby" as he would be by music. Because it's clear that though he has knowledge, he's just another rude automaton like Conan who, for some perverse reason, happens to have landed on music instead of model airplanes, motorcycles, or stamp collecting as his...well, I was going to say passion, but I don't suppose that word is in his vocabulary. Hobby pretty well sums it up.

Chris A. is as solid as they come in regard to facts and history, and his opinion and experience count for a lot.

I too will cease wasting pixels on Damen. Good riddance.

Bye-ya.

"I often wonder how and why some people are even interested in music." Good question Paul. I can only speak for myself but for me it's much more a practical personal experience rather than a theoretical one.

Chris A.,

I realize that there are educators with different viewpoints from Wynton, but as you pointed out, they don't have the exposure and visibility a WM, and exposure and visibility are a big component of being influential. Very few musician/educators can travel the world and spread their "gospel" like Wynton can. He was here in Hawaii in March doing a concert and visiting the local High School bands. I don't think any other educator has that kind of reach. In any event, I don't think WM's so influential that he'll ruin the future of jazz, but I don't think his influence is insignficant either.

Tom,

I will agree that Wynton's influence primarily occurs within the US, but here's why I think his approach vs. just the controversy he raised, has dominated the American jazz scene for the past fifteen years.

The greatest push has been towards the neo-bop style.
As you acknowledged, the major record labels primarily recorded neo-bop. This by itself doesn't indicate that the neo-conservative approach dominated the jazz scene, but it does, in part, because it's a significant influence on what kind of direction musicians take. Did you read the David Murray interview in the recent Jazztimes where he talks about wanting to hear the younger musicians, but they're too scared (his word not mine) of getting chastised and too concerned with putting on suits? Yet, you never hear about musicians being *scared* of getting chastised for playing neo-bop, etc.

The *majority* of critics and fans will accept that style without criticism. Certainly, no one would question the musicianship (not just based on playing neo-bop anyway) or the artistic integrity of a neo-bopper---not even critics of the neo-conservative movement! This is not true for the aspiring jazz musician who takes a different approach. If she goes in the avant-garde direction, she can look forward to accusations that she doesn't know how to play her instrument. She can also expect to hear her music described as "having no structure and sense" even if the music is structured. Or how about if she decides to go in the jazz rock direction? That lucky musician gets to look forward to being charged with "selling-out," pandering to the masses, etc., irregardless if the music has substance or not. With either approach, she will have a hard time getting recorded and having her music heard. She can also expect debates about whether the music is a legitimate form of jazz or not. These attitudes and stereo-types towards avant-garde and jazz-rock are big parts of Wynton's dogma.

Meanwhile the neo-boppers remain largely unscathed. Their critics are a minority and again, the criticism is never for poor musicianship or selling out based on the style they play. There is no prejudice against the style of music they play (while there is plenty against the avant-garde and jazz-rock).

To my knowledge, no one has criticized neo-boppers for selling out; yet, I think a reasonable case could be made against them. It seems to me the same kind of criticisms brought against fusion at the end of the 70's could be directed at the neo-conservative movement in the late 80's. Both started off promising, but soon turned into a commercial formula. Much of the music was made for commecial reasons more than artistic ones.

Why haven't the critics of the neo-conservative movement raised the issue? I'm not sure why, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that we think of hard-bop as quintessential jazz style. It's the style we most closely associate with jazz whether we disagree with Wynton or not. If that's true, it's further proof that of Wynton's views have had a dominant foothold in the American jazz scene.

Reid
hard-bop *IS* a quintessential jazz style. Do *we* most closely associate it with jazz? Not in my opinion. mot more than be bop, swing free and many other *styles*. at least, that's my impression from hanging in certain chi-town clubs a lot.

Paul B,

It's interesting how you keep coming back days after your portion of the argument ended. Your last few posts have been nothing but petty and lame at best, probably because you weren't left with much else to say. You're arrogance won't allow you to admit it, but you threw in the towel and have resorted to this. The sad truth is you're not much of a challenge or particularly profound.

You insult people all the time, bud. Plenty have noted that all throughout your stay on this board. You have a need to be right and can't take it when others disagree. You think you're more interesting than you really are because you listen to things few others do, yet, you apply it like a built-in plateau of pseudo hipness from which to call the rest of us philistines, while supposedly providing insight and passion that amounts to little more than poorly-constructed hyperbole.

I sense non-mainstream jazz or the avant-garde are, for you, more like a shirt you wear or a trend one kind of poses for as your examinations of it only consist of listing names and crying others are less profound when you can't get your way. It's like the whole world is supposed to stop at the drop of your personal taste, yet you can't account for it much beyond that. It makes me wonder if you know what a disservice you truly are to the people you claim to champion.

"Chris A. is as solid as they come in regard to facts and history, and his opinion and experience count for a lot."

Sure, just not when Marsalis is the issue.

Uli,

"(Music is) much more a practical personal experience rather than a theoretical one."

For me, it's all of those things and more.

Almost out,

Rob

"(Music is) much more a practical personal experience rather than a theoretical one."

For me, it's all of those things and more. "

No problema, Rob (to the exent that I can follow).

I only have an issue with dem theories when they are used to rub in a position.

Uli,

The music I think of when I hear the word "jazz" is hard-bop or some bop based music, not Swing, New Orleans, Free or Jazz Rock, although I consider all these styles part of jazz. I think this is true for anyone who got into jazz in the 80's and 90's.