jazzgregg
Pioneer Member
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: