THE "BIG" JAZZ THREAD

murphinelli said:
jazzgregg,

Norah Jones was one of a kind in terms of her cross-over into the jazz arena and she did it with more sales/popularity than anyone I can think of. But, she's not a jazz singer. She's a cross-over singer that appealed to the jazz and pop audience. There may be others, but they are not nearly on the same level and are not really cross-overs. Diana Krall is not a cross-over, she's a jazz singer. My main point is that what Norah did is not going to result in a bunch of other cross-over types into the jazz arena. There's not enough of a cross-over audience for this. There may be one or two in the future, but not tons.

Sure, but that's not what I was saying. She was a cross-over, yes, but a good cunck of those on 'the other side' saw her a a Jazz singer (which, as I said earlier as well, she is not, and she also said that). Once again, here we are at perception and how it effects the genre. We talked about this earlier in the thread. I was merely saying that, to the public as a whole in America, she is a 'Jazz singer' and gets lumped in with Krall, Monheit et all, all the time.

murphinelli said:
A scene is not equivalent to a movement. There are a hundreds of scenes around the world. A movement is when those multiple scenes go in the same direction. If for example, the Chicago, New York, and LA jazz scenes started to head in the same direction in terms of the style being played (& a new similar style), then we'd have a movement. This is what happened with be-bop and most of the other movements. They started as a scene in one place and moved to the others. This created a movement and a new style. Be-bop started in New York City and moved. Then multiple cities including New York moved on to the Cool Jazz movement, and then Hard-Bop, and so on. There were other scenes going on at the same time that were different, but they didn't move anywhere into something big. So, if Zorn and company in New York can gain enough of a following and spread their ideas to other cities, then you may have movement. I think this is very difficult in this day and age. This age of the internet and downloading music and marketing craziness makes it very difficult for a local scene to make movement. There is just so much out there all over the world now, that any single scene gets lost in the noise so to speak. Plus what is different about any one scene to result in a movement to a new style. How much more different can you be in the jazz genre? Neo-classical is not even really a new style, it's the bringing back of old styles. Now a indie-jazz mix would be a new jazz style. And I could see a movement in that direction. If that happened you'd have a new one for the history books.

True, a scene is not a movemnt, so replace my usage of 'scene' with movement. Both the Downotwn NYC scene and the Chicago scene are much further reaching that their birthplaces. Man, the Chicago 'movement' reaches all the way to OSLO and the rest of Scandinavia because of Vandermark's constant use of Scandinavian musicians and their sharing of idea with each other. The Downtown NYC scene is felt ALL OVER America and the rest of the world in some manner as well, it's come to represent a large part of the modernist movement in Jazz. To see this, look around, see Tim Berne play with French guysand hear the influences on each other, and so forth. The idea and concepts that both of these groups posess are distinct from one another and are shared by many outside of their cities. This is a movemnet. I'm not going to play 'connect that Jazz musicians' but man, trust me, these are movements.

murphinelli said:
When the jazz history books are updated in 20 years, we'll see what additional movements have been added. But, the last one that I know of was Neo-Classical. This movement is still going on obviously. There are still musicians out there doing the be-bop/hard-bop/swing music. That's some of the best stuff out there today in my opinion. But, in terms of a new big movement that resulted in a new style, it has yet to happen and yet to be defined.

As I said, you've been brainwashed, sadly, by the Wyntonites. Now you know of at least 2 more and I'd be more than happy to fill you in on what I haven't covered here. There are also hundreds of reccomendations in this very thread that can point you toward the movements I'm talking about. The Neo-Cons were in no way the last movement, no matter what Wynton wants you to think.
murphinelli said:
Wynton Marsalis does what he does because he's super intelligent, a great spokesman, good looking, and above all a tremendous musician. I don't think any other of the key players (leaders) in jazz movement history had that mixture. He has it all. That's why he is the key jazz spokesperson today. I don't know about him being political and not caring about other scenes or styles. He plays all the jazz styles and is also incredible at classical.

You don't know about him being political and not caring about other styles? Wow, surely you are joking.

He doesn't play 'all the Jazz styles' at all, he plays 2 at most. Ok, so you're one of the Wynton defenders, I can see that, but man, don't turn this into a 'Travis Barker can do anything' thread, what say?=)

He is the PERCIEVED key Jazz spokesperson today only for those who listen and believe him, which sadly is all too many. Matt, can you ask your Dad what Europe thinks of Wynton? As I say, Wynton is a self proclaimed prophet, Zorn is held as one by his followers. Consider that difference and what exactly that difference means.

Matt, shouldn't you be in school?(though I shouldn't ask as I much prefer for you to post here so I can read them!=)
G
 
Last edited:
Here it is, a 1000+ posts into this thread and it is only now I venture to post. This is very telling because I believe I am not the only member lurking here on this thread who may be too intimidated to post here because of the perception that "true jazz" is being defined solely by those with the strong ability to intellectualize and debate the concept while members like me do not have the ability to go toe to toe with these intellectuals. This is one of the most entertaining threads on any drumming site, in my opinion, and regardless of any flak I may take for actually posting this will not deter me from being entertained. Will this post be dissed because I haven't been part of the 'intellectual' conversation going on here for all these posts? So be it.

Because this is my first post in this thread I will qualify this post with some due respect and admiration for finnhiggins, jazzgregg, OZjazzer, mattsmith and murphinelli. All of these members have demonstrated both the knowledge base (intellectual) and ability to communicate their opinions (debate) in superior fashion. I am reminded of a couple quotes here: "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is knowledge in the making." John Milton. And, also, this to reflect; "He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still." Samuel Butler

My opinion, like others here, is of value only when given due credibility. Since I have yet to earn credibility I can either enter the debate and display my credibility ( of which I have conceded my ability to go toe to toe) or I can question others credibility because I have not yet been convinced to concede to their opinion. Herewith, my question to others on this thread concerning their credibility, most specifically to jazzgregg and to a lesser degree mattsmith.

To jazzgregg I ask ( after reviewing your posts and opinions about various artists whom represent 'Jazz' but not to your liking) where do you feel your own music has met your definitions of 'Jazz'? After reviewing your website and listening to your recordings, it is my opinion that nothing you have recorded has met your own standard for the definition of 'Jazz'. ( I must say, here, that I truly enjoy your playing and your compositions.) It is nothing new, nothing innovative and nothing unique. If you were put in a line-up of a half dozen drummers, I hear nothing that would set you apart or be identifiable about you.

To mattsmith I ask ( for credibility purposes); Where are your greatest affinities in music? In this thread you have a great ability to intellectualize 'Jazz' that is beyond most here of any age ( given your young age) yet your actual playing ability, in my opinion, is not on a par with your intelectual ability. Given your age, I see great upside potential for you that I do not see in jazzgregg. I reference your submitted recordings on your website. It is my opinion that, though you have technical ability, you do not yet have the ability to swing. You do not yet have the groove.

As such, with the two of you, your credibility is lacking. Highly entertaining and thought provoking but, not yet, opinion changing. And if you both were 'salesmen' for JAZZ, it is no wonder why it is not as popular as you would like. By inference, anyone who does not hold the opinion of you is not a real 'jazzer' and doesn't really understand what true jazz is all about. Arrogance is not a trait of an excellent salesman. An excellent salesman will not tell you that you are wrong, he will teach you what is right through influence, persuasion and example.
Steve
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To Oneyellowdrum: it is not the purpose of this, or any other thread on the DrummerWorld forum, to pass judgment on other forum members. You seem to feel that someone needs to pass a certain test of personal ability before they should be given "credibility" to discuss this subject. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And even if it did, that would mean that you yourself would need to pass the same test in order to have the credibility to pass judgment on others.

As always: stick to the topic (in this case Jazz), don't get personal, and don't talk about Fight Club. I mean, don't bash Ringo. Er... you know what I mean.
 
DogBreath said:
To Oneyellowdrum: it is not the purpose of this, or any other thread on the DrummerWorld forum, to pass judgment on other forum members. You seem to feel that someone needs to pass a certain test of personal ability before they should be given "credibility" to discuss this subject. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And even if it did, that would mean that you yourself would need to pass the same test in order to have the credibility to pass judgment on others.

As always: stick to the topic (in this case Jazz), don't get personal, and don't talk about Fight Club. I mean, don't bash Ringo. Er... you know what I mean.
My apologies, DB, to you and others on this thread. I will not get personal again, I have no test and I value all opinions here. Some just carry more weight than others. The credibility factor is not a gauge for discussion only for its power to change my opinion. Sort of a catch 22. I have already conceded my credibility so I can't talk. ;) As for Jazz, what kind are we talking about?
I haven't figured that one out yet.
 
0neyellowdrum said:
To mattsmith I ask ( for credibility purposes); Where are your greatest affinities in music? In this thread you have a great ability to intellectualize 'Jazz' that is beyond most here of any age ( given your young age) yet your actual playing ability, in my opinion, is not on a par with your intelectual ability. Given your age, I see great upside potential for you that I do not see in jazzgregg. I reference your submitted recordings on your website. It is my opinion that, though you have technical ability, you do not yet have the ability to swing. You do not yet have the groove.
Actually much of what you say, I take in a complimentary way.

You regard my insights and/or intellectual acumen highly, and my playing in possession of some potential... and at age 16 that is fine.

In jazz, I see the thinking proccess as the integral element of synthesis that will hopefully get me there sooner than later. It is a well known fact that most really fine jazz musicians don't mature until at least their 30s. So even using your standard as a measuring stick, I'm in good shape. And sure we can dig up the younger analogy stuff like Tony Williams again and again, but those are such rare exceptions.

But before you become too dismissive of those jazz cuts, you might want to check the Expressions track that actually was good on all fronts, which is also the reason that you see that pic with me and Rashied Ali. BTW, that track had nothing at all to do with groove.

Now to get to the gist of your credibility concerns. Much of my insights come from an affiliation with a blessed family that has put me in close proximity with either the people themselves or people who can translate for me in a way that is hard to explain. Now admitedly none of that has anything to do with anything I've done personally, but I don't apologize for it.

My father and grandfather have either played with, toured with or led themselves something like 30 of the drummers in the Drummerworld gallery. You can hear stories about how things actually are, all your life, but it will never compare with going up to the person yourself and asking them...not as a fan at a drum clinic, but while they are drinking champagne at your uncle's wedding, or at an I-Hop after they're comin' off a gig with your dad. You don't just guess the insights...you see them...you know them, and hopefully they become part of intelligent realizations that allows you to feel them.

Again, is that because of my own talent?... No. And why should it have to be? I don't have to be an egg to understand an egg anyway. But I do play better than most of the hacks who try to explain for people in magazines. As we all know, most of those guys can't play at all.

For example, does it make me a better judge or intellectualizer than say a Ken Burns? I think so. And for those reasons I believe I am very credible on this or any other thread on this site, regardless of what others perceive of my abilities, or how put off they are by the number of syllables I use in my correctly spoken words. Moreover, if I were 50 years old we would be hearing a lot less of that. Don't you think?

BTW, I think Gregg is an excellent player, and a devoted spokesperson for jazz.
 
DogBreath said:
To Oneyellowdrum: it is not the purpose of this, or any other thread on the DrummerWorld forum, to pass judgment on other forum members. You seem to feel that someone needs to pass a certain test of personal ability before they should be given "credibility" to discuss this subject. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And even if it did, that would mean that you yourself would need to pass the same test in order to have the credibility to pass judgment on others.

As always: stick to the topic (in this case Jazz), don't get personal, and don't talk about Fight Club. I mean, don't bash Ringo. Er... you know what I mean.


Absolutely Dog! Glad you said that 'cause some of us DO this passing judgement stuff by thinking and expressing that they are of a higher ability to do so. I agree totally. It doesn't AND shouldn't work that way on a "discussion" forum. Pass a test? What is that! Can't we all just have a mature discussion which is educational, informative, and entertaining? I think this is possible and has been, as what I've seen going back on this specific thread. But in defense of Oneyellowdrum, he DID say he was new to this thread, so we should cut him some slack, huh?
Thanks DogBreath. Play On! ;-)
 
rendezvous_drummer said:
I'm just going to say I really enjoy Norah Jones. I think she's an amazing musician along with Krall and Botti.
I don't disagree with you. The point is that annoys some of us is that this music becomes to mean 'real jazz' to many people simply because it is marketed that way. It should be called 'commercial jazz' or 'popular jazz' or 'smooth jazz' or whatever. Meantime the innovative players, who are doing the hard yards are ignored in favour of these more easily digestable options. Too many people think that this, is all there is. In real jazz there's so much more.

If there hadn't been Anita O'Day, or Ella or Sarah there wouldn't be a Diana Krall. If there hadn't been Miles and Chet Baker and Clifford Brown there would be no Chris Botti. Somebody has to point out that these popular performers today, owe everything to the real innovators who did it the hard way.
 
Sonny Rollins. Charlie "Bird" Parker. I like listening to sax-based jazz on occasion. It's especially nice on a high resolution stereo system like electrostats. So much presence and realism makes it closer to live.
 
murphinelli said:
Someone (I think jazzgregg) mentioned Zorn in New York City. Well, I'll admit I never heard of the guy. So, I did some research. And I find what he is doing interesting and kind of all over the place, but perhaps even closer to an Indie-Jazz vain than you think. Have you ever listened to Bad Plus? I consider anything that combines a sort of weird Indie/Rock (and some other genres mixed) sound with a Jazz Improvizational sound to be Indie-Jazz. Could we not put Zorn in this category? Maybe he can't be put into a category since he's all over the place and so creative and innovative, but you need to put a box around it somewhere. Otherwise, it won't have legs and no marketing type is going to attach to it. And yes, you do need marketing types in this day and age to move anything forward.

Zorn is too big to lump him in with The Bad Plus and consider him neatly filed. Yes, he's been a genre-bending maniac. But he's also played a vast amount of great music that is quite clearly not rock related and quite obviously lives in the jazz section. Both electric and acoustic Masada groups are clearly not rock music - the only major Zorn band I can think of that I'd really consider more rock than jazz is Naked City. As for the Bad Plus, I hadn't heard of them until a year or so ago. I like them, but they're certainly not something I'd hold Zorn up against - he's a much, much larger figure in modern jazz from my perspective.

I'm quite surprised you'd claim to be a serious jazz listener and never have heard of Zorn previously though, he's pretty big. Back in the late 90s I lived in London and pretty much the entire "Avant Garde" section in the jazz part of Tower Records was either Zorn projects or Tzadik releases of some description. I don't think you need to worry about Zorn and marketing, the Tzadik stuff has it nailed - they have their own visual approach, they've pretty much cornered a chunk of the jazz market... Not only that, Zorn is a more regularly referenced musician than Wynton in my (non American) corner of the world.

I don't know where you're getting this "indie" concept from though. While they may operate on their own record labels I can't think of a single Zorn record I own that has any resemblance to the style of rock music you'd describe as "indie". Naked City is more like hardcore punk/death metal, Masada more like jazzified updated folk music. Then there's stuff like The Gift which is Les Baxter-esque exotica, or the more "out there" deliberately avant-garde stuff like Elegy, or things like Godard/Spillane and so forth. I can't associate any of those approaches with indie pop/rock.
 
Oh, and just quickly to weigh in on OneYellowDrum's post - Gregg was kind enough to send me a couple of his actual albums (i.e - not the stuff that he's got for free on his website, the stuff you'd normally have to stump up cash for) and I'm enjoying them greatly. I won't launch into a fanatical advertisment for Gregg at this point, but I'd just suggest that if you want to judge him you actually get hold of his music and give it a serious listen. I had a quick glance over some of the stuff on Gregg's site a while back when I first started going toe-to-toe with him on this thread, and I have to say that I don't think it does him justice in the way that his commercial material does.

I'd post a track here, but it's Gregg's stuff and if he wants to post it he can. So, there you go.
 
0neyellowdrum said:
Because this is my first post in this thread I will qualify this post with some due respect and admiration for finnhiggins, jazzgregg, OZjazzer, mattsmith and murphinelli. All of these members have demonstrated both the knowledge base (intellectual) and ability to communicate their opinions (debate) in superior fashion. I am reminded of a couple quotes here: "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinions in good men is knowledge in the making." John Milton. And, also, this to reflect; "He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still." Samuel Butler

And I too am reminded of a quote, from George Bernard Shaw: When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he will always declare that it is his duty.

0neyellowdrum said:
To jazzgregg I ask ( after reviewing your posts and opinions about various artists whom represent 'Jazz' but not to your liking) where do you feel your own music has met your definitions of 'Jazz'? After reviewing your website and listening to your recordings, it is my opinion that nothing you have recorded has met your own standard for the definition of 'Jazz'. ( I must say, here, that I truly enjoy your playing and your compositions.) It is nothing new, nothing innovative and nothing unique. If you were put in a line-up of a half dozen drummers, I hear nothing that would set you apart or be identifiable about you.
At what point did I concretely and definitively define Jazz? And then at what point did I claim I was making Jazz records? At the very least, one of my personal definition qulaifications was improvisation. I have nothing to 'meet' because it not only isn't my responsibility to you to meet it (for credibility purposes), it's not my responsibility, period. If you read my posts closer, you'd see that I prefer NO lables at all, not 'Jazz' or any other kind. Did you miss the post where I said that labels are the tools of the record labels for marketing purposes only? I assume you did. I am certainly not about to go into what I think about my own music because, (as you know if you've read the thread) I try and keep what I do separate from here, lest I come off as saying 'Here's what I do, let's talk about that and how modern I am in relation to what I'm saying' which is apprently what you want me to do.

Oh, I believe in lead by example, but I am not trying to lead anyone, not at all. It's awfully rash and ignorant of you to claim that based on a few examples of my stuff that nothing I have recorded is 'something' (not least because the 'something' is what you've imposed on it). If you are going to make that claim, be sure you know the whole story. I'd be more than happy to sell you my entire discography, get all the albums I've been on, have you listen to them THEN make that comment. How does that sound?

I'm not claiming to be innovative, but I am being myself, so if you could hip me to what you listen to to make that judgement you made about me, I would like to be in a line up of people that are individuals, expressing themselves how they want, it would be great to be associated with those kinds of people.


0neyellowdrum said:
As such, with the two of you, your credibility is lacking. Highly entertaining and thought provoking but, not yet, opinion changing. And if you both were 'salesmen' for JAZZ, it is no wonder why it is not as popular as you would like. By inference, anyone who does not hold the opinion of you is not a real 'jazzer' and doesn't really understand what true jazz is all about. Arrogance is not a trait of an excellent salesman. An excellent salesman will not tell you that you are wrong, he will teach you what is right through influence, persuasion and example.
Steve

You are not the first person to come on here and personally attack us. I'm sure you won't be the last, but it isn't my (or anyone elses) responsibility to change your mind. If you do not think what I do is original, or that it sounds like stuff you've heard, that's fine and I'm not going to specifically defend my career to you on a public forum, again, it isn't my responsibility no matter how much you may want it to be. I will defend my opinions, my idea, my beliefs, as you can see, but my art is not something I care to defend. Discuss, sure, but I don;t need to explain it to anyone. I will however say, wherever you live, why not come up to Toronto to see one of my groups play and see if you still hold the same opinion. You can stay at my house. Not because I care, but becuase (in so many ways) you are simply not correct and I don't like to see people making judgements while they don't have all the info.

On the other hand, if I could get a few bucks and a huge marketing campaign with all the best musicians I want, the directorship of the Lincoln Centre, I'm sure things would be different.

G
 
Last edited:
Just to answer some loose ends...

Just last week Zorn received a MacArthur Genius Grant for advancing the cause of American music into the next generation...not exactly a shrinking violet who swims under the radar. His Knitting Factory operation receives the second highest grant allocation of any organization. We know who is #1. He also has his own television network that's even seen in the American South.

A 2003 Harris survey claims that Boston is second to Denton Texas in the number of per capita jazz musicians residing there. The jazz scene there is massive, if not famous.

Not meaning to project a condescending attitude, but Gregg and others on this thread are also very deep into other kinds of music, that cover the widest spectrum, and don't use that as an intellectual disclaimer. If anyone for example would like to discuss Stravinsky or Mahler with me, I'm always available...and I don't have to possess the ability to re orchestrate The Rake's Progress to do that.

And yes, you do need marketing types in this day and age to move anything forward.
I agree with this.
 
OZjazzer said:
I don't disagree with you. The point is that annoys some of us is that this music becomes to mean 'real jazz' to many people simply because it is marketed that way. It should be called 'commercial jazz' or 'popular jazz' or 'smooth jazz' or whatever. Meantime the innovative players, who are doing the hard yards are ignored in favour of these more easily digestable options. Too many people think that this, is all there is. In real jazz there's so much more.

If there hadn't been Anita O'Day, or Ella or Sarah there wouldn't be a Diana Krall. If there hadn't been Miles and Chet Baker and Clifford Brown there would be no Chris Botti. Somebody has to point out that these popular performers today, owe everything to the real innovators who did it the hard way.
Oh i'm not saying this is REAL Jazz. No way!! To me, real jazz was back in the 40's and 50's (stuff that I listen to) like Miles, Coltraine, Peterson. I would say Norah Jones and stuff like that are smoooooth jazz, not real jazz the kind you're talking about.
 
jazzgregg said:
At what point did I define Jazz?

I've come to the conclusion that 99% of internet arguing is arguing about labels and definitions vs core ideas.

I've only read 20% of the posts in this thread but the back-n-forth is virtually similar to the "what is music" debate or "what is art" or "what is the difference between amateur vs a professional". These words are so diluted that it's impossible to get 6 billion folks to come to a consensus. And there's always old standbys like "what are morals?" ... a million kids in a semester of college philosophy classes keep working that question.

Sorry not to add anything profound to this thread but I'm not sure these kinds of things can be resolved... regardless of eloquence from either side.

And I assume that people define X (e.g. "jazz") through inference... by the words they type and/or the output they produce (regardless of how small a sample that is). I didn't read every post but I'm guesisng nobody here literally recited something out of a dictionary as a definition of "jazz".
 
*climbs up on soap box*

If you will forgive yet another of my clumsy analogies, this thread is like a slightly more mature older sibling to the rest of the threads in this forum. We allow it more freedom because it shows more potential. However, as those of you who have been around long enough remember, I have locked this thread before and I only opened it again after members had been permanently removed from the community and tempers had a chance to cool down. The reason it was locked was because of personal attacks, both against forum members and against professional musicians who are not forum members.

Which brings me to two points I'd like to make now. First, I appreciate that on occasion there will be people who enjoy engaging in heated discussions who have no problem with things being said about them personally as long as they then get a chance to say something back. The place for that particular brand of conversation is outside of this forum, preferably in a PM, email, chat room, or the parking lot of the local Wal-Mart.

Secondly, I'd like to address the bashing of non-forum members, in particular Wynton Marsalis. My personal feelings about him aside (and yes I will admit that I disagree with almost everyone here about him, and I hope you believe that my motivation is not personal), some comments about him have crossed beyond merely rude too far and too often. We have discussed what I consider to be "bashing" often enough, and I realize that there will always be misunderstandings and disagreements on that concept. If you have said anything about him in this thread then your opinions can be considered duly noted. If you have a completely new point to make about him or his music, do so with the respect that he and his family deserve.

There are practical reasons beyond my limited perspective as a Moderator why these heated discussions can be counter-productive. Three days ago hotsauce3n asked if anyone could point him in the direction of a good timeline of jazz history. That's why we are here! To ask and answer questions like this. To help and to educate. I can think of at least four people here who could answer that question without batting an eye (or opening a search engine), and yet his question was lost in the back-and-forth sniping.

Any time I want to frustrate myself and a dozen other people, I come here and moderate this thread. And any time I want to further boost my respect for the fine members of this community I come here and read the latest posts in this thread. Kind of funny how those two go hand in hand.

*climbs down from soap box*
 
Last edited:
DogBreath said:
*climbs up on soap box*

If you will forgive yet another of my clumsy analogies, this thread is like a slightly more mature older sibling to the rest of the threads in this forum. We allow it more freedom because it shows more potential. However, as those of you who have been around long enough remember, I have locked this thread before and I only opened it again after members had been permanently removed from the community and tempers had a chance to cool down. The reason it was locked was because of personal attacks, both against forum members and against professional musicians who are not forum members.

Which brings me to two points I'd like to make now. First, I appreciate that on occasion there will be people who enjoy engaging in heated discussions who have no problem with things being said about them personally as long as they then get a chance to say something back. The place for that particular brand of conversation is outside of this forum, preferably in a PM, email, chat room, or the parking lot of the local Wal-Mart.

Secondly, I'd like to address the bashing of non-forum members, in particular Wynton Marsalis. My personal feelings about him aside (and yes I will admit that I disagree with almost everyone here about him, and I hope you believe that my motivation is not personal), some comments about him have crossed beyond merely rude too far and too often. We have discussed what I consider to be "bashing" often enough, and I realize that there will always be misunderstandings and disagreements on that concept. If you have said anything about him in this thread then your opinions can be considered duly noted. If you have a completely new point to make about him or his music, do so with the respect that he and his family deserve.

There are practical reasons beyond my limited perspective as a Moderator why these heated discussions can be counter-productive. Three days ago hotsauce3n asked if anyone could point him in the direction of a good timeline of jazz history. That's why we are here! To ask and answer questions like this. To help and to educate. I can think of at least four people here who could answer that question without batting an eye (or opening a search engine), and yet his question was lost in the back-and-forth sniping.

Any time I want to frustrate myself and a dozen other people, I come here and moderate this thread. And any time I want to further boost my respect for the fine members of this community I come here and read the latest posts in this thread. Kind of funny how those two go hand in hand.

*climbs down from soap box*

Thanks Dog! You really got a grasp on this administrative thing. I couldn't agree more about the counter-productivity that can "rear it's ugly head", by the bashing and personal attacks. All the "good" points are lost in the negative sniping. To tell you the truth, most of these members make sense and speak from the good part of the heart. It's just not portrayed in the most eloquent of ways, sometimes. Keep up the good work, DogBreath!
Play On!
 
murphinelli said:
Are you quoting me? Where did I claim to be a serious jazz listener? Clearly, I'm not as serious as you or Gregg or many other people here. My tastes vary across the spectrum. Way outside of the jazz realm. If I focused purely on jazz, then I may be at your level. No, I have not heard of Zorn. And you live in a place that has a more mature jazz audience.

The thing is, I'm not even a big jazz listener either. Jazz of all forms makes up maybe 20-25% of my music collection, tops. Admittedly I have a pretty big collection, but that's still nothing like the depth of knowledge you'll find from Gregg or Matt or OZJazzer. As for living in a place with a mature jazz audience, you have to be kidding. Auckland has absolutely zero dedicated jazz venues, and you can count the notable jazz drummers in the city on your fingers. You may not even need more than one hand.

But I think your point here is actually effectively making Gregg and Matt's argument for them. Essentially we have two points being made, which I'll attempt to summarise:

Yours: "What's wrong with Wynton? He was the figurehead of the last major movement in modern jazz that I'm aware of, he can play and he's one of the most visible spokespeople for the art form around today!?"

Theirs: "What's wrong with Wynton is that you think he was the figurehead of the last major movement in modern jazz, because that's not accidental or a failing on your part as a casual jazz listener. He's a very effective spokesperson for his own projects and associates, so effective that he's convinced America that he's the be-all and end-all of modern jazz and that his views represent an official history of the music."

Nobody's insulting you for your lack of jazz-listening prowess. I thought you were trying to argue from an educated position - you seemed to feel passionately about the issue, and generally people who argue well and write well (as you do) and argue passionately about an issue tend to have some background. I misjudged that and I'll apologise, I'm not trying to give you the jazz-superiority smack-down or anything. Hell, any number of people in this thread could do that to me. When they start talking about Vernel Fournier I just hide in the corner, because I'm an ignorant swine - need to deal with that.... But as Matt detailed previously on this thread, Zorn is a major figure in modern jazz, and it'd be a rare jazz musician who isn't at least aware of him, his work, his associates and his organisations.

The public on the other hand... well, you have a point there. But that, I think, is Matt and Gregg's point - that movements in actual jazz music are no longer being well-promoted to the general public by those who've found themselves in the position of figureheads and spokespeople for the music. If you assume that situation to be true (and your experience would reflect it) then you can maybe see why there'd be some emnity towards those people from jazz musicians, no?
 
Back
Top