Originally Posted by con struct
And as for his control of most of the funding for jazz, I'd have to see some concrete evidence to back that up.
I'm pretty sure you asked this identical question when I made this assertion on aaj three years ago. I then supplied the 2001 NEA appropriations where Ken Burns Jazz
(Wynton Marsalis artistic director) accounted for 68% of total jazz funding, meaning that every other jazz musician in the US was eligible for the remaining 32%. That was followed by the usual well buts
and you're an idiot
from the usual cast of aaj know it alls
...and that was followed by a flame on character slam deal that I'm pretty sure you also participated in. I then got a letter from the aaj forum owner asking me to refrain from incindiary posting. So I just erased it and stayed out of Wynton commentary on the JAZZ sight.
I always do my homework. I don't just post stuff.
Originally Posted by Frost
... it isn't like he plays solo, you can't discredit the musicians he plays with simply because they're playing a Wynton "composition".
Huh? Who said anything about the musicians he plays with? I ask again...are you truly reading the posts or are you merely replying with things you wanted to say in advance?
Originally Posted by Bo Eder
Wow. What a heated discussion. I'm almost afraid to say anything. But that's never stopped me....
I mean, nobody argues about what the guys in rock n' roll are doing. Nobody disputes any history there, I don't think anybody cares. Why should we care so much about jazz? Apparently they care more about it across the Atlantic than we do here in the States. But I think you either play jazz, or you don't. I think the world is smart enough to know if they're being hoodwinked by Wynton Marsalis, and if they still like him, what does it hurt?
Excuse my naivete, but in the long view, does it matter?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being passionate. Frost and I are cool and have already said as much. I'm not mad at anyone here. I love talking about this stuff and I'm having a great time.
I can't speak for what rock historians care about because I don't know any. I do feel that past a hall of fame induction ceremony that you're right in your assertion that the rock guys don't care so much about archival stuff. And ironically that's also the reason /fair or no/ that their music is considered second tier in the same academic circles that will ultimately decide what makes the history books and what doesn't. Again is that fair? I'm not a historian so I'm not qualified. But I do know that's the assertion. Personally if I were the greatest lover of rock music I would find it disconcerting to think that future cultures may not even know of an entire genre of music. That won't happen with jazz or classical music, nor do jazz historians care if the current general population is getting tired of their work. They merely keep working oblivious of all things except what gets in their way. As previously mentioned I've been around people like this all my life. I am also saying that I am not as hardcore as they are. So don't shoot me I'm just the messenger.
But I do have to say that of course people can be hoodwinked by Marsalis. On this very post I just mentioned an incident of once providing very concrete evidence only to be flamed like a blow torch, while the same guy comes back to ask the same question three years later as if the previous incident never occured. I honestly don't know the reasons for such things, but they obviously happen.
Does all this matter? Well that crowd making it happen certainly thinks so. Will it make a difference in 1000 years from now? I have no idea. But I know that a lot of people believe this.