Wynton Marsalis

for a jazzman to talk down other view points is quite.. how should I put it..unjazzy?
...

Any time these sorts of topics come up, that thought comes to mind.

I'm not really familiar enough with Wynton's music catalog to comment one way or another on his him per se.

But what I've noticed, or at least my perception, is back when I was young, and I'd picked up Modern Drummer magazine and read interviews with Elvin, Tony or whomever, a constant theme was innovation, and doing something different. Respect the music, drive the band, and do something different.

These days when I picked a magazine, and read an interview with a more modern jazz artists, I see more comments along the lines of "respecting history" "honoring the past" "attempt to do what so-and-so did."

Which always strikes me as a bit odd. I'm going back to the earliest days of jazz, the art form has been based on new ground. from dixie land to swing to be-bop and post-bop, the idea was to not repeat the previous generation and do something different. But it seems others these days would rather take what's been done and lock it up in a neat box and not let it breathe. Which, you know, it's nice that some people are willing to be the historians, but at the same time, I though the lessons from the greats was to take what's been done and move forward.

But as I said, maybe that's just my perception of being a 40 and having read Modern Drummer for 23 years as opposed to when I was 17 and was reading such interviews for the 1st time. And the fact I rarely spend much time listening to jazz compared to back when I was younger.
 
I don't think that Wynton Marsalis matters much, really. I don't think he's all that much of a jazz trumpet player and he's surely no innovator but that doesn't bother me. I don't understand why jazz musicians hate him so much. I just see him as a very savvy businessman. He's definitely shown his skill at playing the game. And he's always dressed very well.

Who cares? He's really more of a curator than a down-in-the-trenches jazz musician. Sure, he's paid his dues and he's earned his stripes but his primary and everlasting achievement was creating "Wynton Marsalis."

He's the Campbell's Soup of jazz, the family-friendly 42nd Street of jazz.

And he's always dressed very well.
 
... but I know that I enjoy listening to a lot of what he makes, original or not, I enjoy it.

If that's the case then why not check out the original guys he's imitating. You'll probably love that because a guy like yourself will be able to hear the difference.

I think drum forum guys could understand the issue if I used this analogy. You know how so many complain about drummers who make well produced youtube covers, where the guy plays the original song note for note and the lesser informed think its equal or superior to the original?

There's no difference here.

Wynton Marsalis is the Cobus of jazz, except he's not as original.

Now imagine if Cobus or the best imitator of the Moby Dick solo were the leader of the entire drumming world, controlled most of the available funding for your art form and was powerful enough to insert himself into the very history of the music via can't win political assertions based on racial divisions and a willing journalist base.

You think people would object to that?
 
I like a lot of his "influences" as well, I don't feel the need to dislike one thing because it sounds like something else, it isn't like he plays solo, you can't discredit the musicians he plays with simply because they're playing a Wynton "composition".

I never claimed he was here to save jazz, he is conservative and traditional (in a sense similar to a classical musician), he doesn't tear down boundaries, he reinforces them if anything and funnily enough, that is what a lot of people like about him.

If that's the case then why not check out the original guys he's imitating. You'll probably love that because a guy like yourself will be able to hear the difference.

I think drum forum guys could understand the issue if I used this analogy. You know how so many complain about drummers who make well produced youtube covers, where the guy plays the original song note for note and the lesser informed think its equal or superior to the original?

There's no difference here.

Wynton Marsalis is the Cobus of jazz, except he's not as original.

Now imagine if Cobus or the best imitator of the Moby Dick solo were the leader of the entire drumming world, controlled most of the available funding for your art form and was powerful enough to insert himself into the very history of the music via can't win political assertions based on racial divisions and a willing journalist base.

You think people would object to that?
 
Last edited:
Now imagine if Cobus or the best imitator of the Moby Dick solo were the leader of the entire drumming world, controlled most of the available funding for your art form and was powerful enough to insert himself into the very history of the music via can't win political assertions based on racial divisions and a willing journalist base.

You think people would object to that?

It's really stretching it, though, to say that Wynton Marsalis is the leader of the entire jazz world, no?

And as for his control of most of the funding for jazz, I'd have to see some concrete evidence to back that up.
 
Wow. What a heated discussion. I'm almost afraid to say anything. But that's never stopped me....

Would it be ironic to note that Tony Williams was the guy who said, if jazz made alot of money, then it wouldn't be jazz?. I find it a little strange that jazz is this heritage that needs nurturing and protection of its history and all that. There's such a huge institutional rage over jazz-as-educational-goal that I think alot of people are tired of that. Not necessarily playing jazz.

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?
 
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.

... 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?



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.
 
Matt,

I've been through all those discussions about Marsalis at JazzCorner, and before that at JazzCentralStation. So, I've been going at it for about 15 years now and I haven't had much to say about any of it for a long time now. Let it suffice to say that I'm generally in alignment with you on Marsalis and his place in the music, with the minor caveat that I believe he has at least turned some people onto jazz through his visibility and I consider that a good thing.

But here's the question I want to ask you: Where do you see the innovation coming from in the jazz world today?
 
You have the boppers in the 50s, the politicians and political activists of the 60s, the rock stars in the 70s and the software innovators of the 80s and early 90s. What is captivating the idealism of young people today? I love this clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrgzpPvJxmQ&feature=player_embedded

great speech! Wow,they didnt make 15 year olds like this in my day!

I dont know where it's going to go, Ken but it is reassuring to know the good stuff is out there. Hardly heard, unsupported, completely unmarketed, not easyily accessible, but its there. It exists and people are playing it.
Like Matt said, people will create this music unconditionally so it will exist, and develop, and mutate. And no single person can be a puppeteer and guide its destiny.

Also, you make a very significant point about the political need for some to put jazz music on the same mantle as Western Classical and to accord it the same respectability. Ellington certainly did and Wynton perhaps sees himself as his torch bearer. That this music has a political dimension connected to the Civil Rights Movement might have a lot to do with the sharpness of Wynton's position.

All music at some level has a political dimension I suppose, but it clouds issues because eventually music gets past all of that and reaches for a unversal acceptance that is beyond any kind of boundaries designed by man.

( perhaps we can exclude Wagner ? ; )

...
 
Last edited:
Matt, But here's the question I want to ask you: Where do you see the innovation coming from in the jazz world today?

I think the most creative jazz artists right now are in Europe, and that irritates me because I think that the best jazz musicians as a group are still Americans. It's our music and that's the way it should be. Interesting though how Wynton M, Stanley Crouch and Albert Murray are unimpressed with Europe although I strongly believe they've heard little of it. On that front I think there's also probably a little race politicking going on.

Still there is no truly ground breaking genre in Europe that follows along the lines of those famous 10 year transitions that used to happen with US jazz in the 20th century, and yeah I think the whole Wyntonization of jazz is largely responsible for that. In fact I strongly believe that a large number of cutting edge young African American hip hop artists would embrace jazz if the current American jazz establishment were more accepting of them. I have no doubt that 50-70 years ago guys like JayZ and Lil Wayne would have been jazz musicians.

With that said I firmly believe that hip hop culture will be responsible for the next significant jazz movement and yes, that one has a chance of actually becoming popular.

But interesting again how the Wyntonians have talking points already out there about how all the hip hop guys are also crap.

I'm just not wrong about this.
 
There's a place on the corner of 52nd and Lexington, or maybe it's 51st, anyway it's a little sandwich/coffee shop place. I went in there and asked for a tuna salad sandwich on whole wheat with lettuce and mayo. I was told that they don't make sandwiches, they only have sandwiches that are already made.

That's Wynton Marsalis. Sandwiches that are already made.
 
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.

I'm cool. I dig your passion about it. It sorta' reminds me of a single pane cartoon I saw years ago: in the future, an archeologist finds books by Madonna, Danielle Steele, and Michael Crichton and declares, "Behold! The Masters!"
 
I'm cool. I dig your passion about it. It sorta' reminds me of a single pane cartoon I saw years ago: in the future, an archeologist finds books by Madonna, Danielle Steele, and Michael Crichton and declares, "Behold! The Masters!"

Funny you would reference that cartoon, because here is what my old man said during his Jazz Ambassador acceptance speech in Toronto three years ago.

Ten thousand years from now when humanity digs through the strata to make sense of these confusing times, they will not be concerned with supply side economics, artificial social networking or the mental condition of underaged pop stars. They will instead marvel at what's left of the Eiffel tower, the Chrysler Building and that giant needle thing outside. At the apex of their journey they will stop dead in their tracks when they discover a definitive mother load of awe inspiring culture. It will have names attached to it like Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane, Bix Beiderbecke, and Miles Davis. They will find this magnificent treasure because a loyal cadre of meticulous educators protected it when the conventional wisdom was to trivialize.

I believe that with all my heart.


Does that sound like someone interested in a contrary viewpoint?
 
great speech! Wow,they didnt make 15 year olds like this in my day!

( perhaps we can exclude Wagner ? ; )

...

I was thinking Wagner too. Wagner thought that he was forging a new musical theater and launched a Music Festival and opera house in Bayreuth to cater exclusively to his music. A cult statue grew around Wagner as people saw him as Supreme Artist, prophet, visionary. I don't remember if he believed others would follow; but the festival is a annual homage to the man himself. Such is not the same with Wynton; but one would have to ask where will it all be in 50 or 100 years.

I don't really know the history of the movement to found a Jazz Center in Lincoln Center. I remember Wynton started talking about the baroque and how in the 18th century there was an improvisational musical culture. This culture diminished in the early 19 century when composers decided that they could write in the cadenza's, coloratura and trills better than the performers. I think he though that jazz could refuel that improvisational element of the western tradition. He also felt that the brothels, and drug and mafia infested clubs of jazz's past were not the best place to develop a tradition. I really think that culturally he was right, and I am sure he got that from someone at Julliard.This was a long road coming in which Wynton was the public face. But it wasn't all done through him and I am sure someone else had that idea.

It's kind of funny to hear someone like Jarrett disparage Wynton because Jarrett was a free jazzer. Now he is an interpreter of standards. He was doing all that classical cross over like Wynton and getting good reviews Chick was also doing some of that but with less critical acclaim. Then you had that whole groups of New Schoolers that came out of Mannes. Now a lot jazzers are conservatory trained.

The point I was alluding too was the idea of the imperative of innovation. The later 18th early 19the century was a time of conflict and struggle. It saw the American and French Revolutions and the Napoleonic Wars. There was a lot of innovation and the birth of democracy and Republicanism, and you had musical innovation in Mozart and Beethoven. The nineteenth century was more tame in Europe although you did have uprisings. The music was more conservative. They really lived in the shadow of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

By the early 20th century people were ready for some political upheaval. You had these two world wars and the music and artistic worlds had a time of great innovation with Picasso, the Impressionists and Expressionists. You had modernism, then the invention of jazz, rock and roll, the suburbs, the A bomb, the computer and internet. So my question was, will the 21st century be a time of intense innovation and does it have to be? And are we living in a post-ideological world?

Here's a brilliant parody by Orson Welles from The Third Man, the famous cuckoo clock speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i47-QBL4Qo
 
In fact I strongly believe that a large number of cutting edge young African American hip hop artists would embrace jazz if the current American jazz establishment were more accepting of them. I have no doubt that 50-70 years ago guys like JayZ and Lil Wayne would have been jazz musicians.

With that said I firmly believe that hip hop culture will be responsible for the next significant jazz movement and yes, that one has a chance of actually becoming popular.

This was Max Roach's opinion as well. He drew parallels between hip-hop in today's music (I guess it's been 10 or 15 years since he said it, but the point stands, I think) and jazz 60 years ago.

I think the key element that's missing from jazz today is the political context. Those huge transitions you speak of, the major evolutions the music went through in its heyday, were as much about social politics as music. New schools came in and challenged older schools. I mean, today, it's easy to lump all the jazz greats from years gone by together as if they were all part of the same musical culture. But Louis Armstrong trashed bebop at the time and Miles said he thought Cecil Taylor played like someone with psychological problems, etc. Those seismic shifts in the evolution of jazz were passionate, controversial affairs.

With Wynton, all this music is presented like museum pieces, and I think that's the greatest disservice he does to it. Jazz is a rebellious music at heart, and trying to dress it up and make it all proper misses the point completely. Taking what came before and turning it upside down is what made a jazz musician great. A jazz musician needs to be irreverent if he wants to be a historical figure.

What I wonder is, if jazz evolves, who will listen to it? Will the jazz fans of today get on board, or will it need a brand new audience? I know a lot of jazz fans who claim they want to hear the music advance but when the slightest non-traditional element rears its head, they tune out. They don't want to hear anything electric beyond a guitar or organ. I agree that the Crouch/Wynton movement has influenced this trend, but it's heavily entrenched in the jazz culture now.
 
By the early 20th century people were ready for some political upheaval. You had these two world wars and the music and artistic worlds had a time of great innovation with Picasso, the Impressionists and Expressionists. You had modernism, then the invention of jazz, rock and roll, the suburbs, the A bomb, the computer and internet. So my question was, will the 21st century be a time of intense innovation and does it have to be? And are we living in a post-ideological world?

Agree, those were times of accelerated change, Actually begining with the Renaissance in the 14th century ( ? ), the first major cultural upheaval, to the post industrial revolution period, to America growing up the 60s , all the the wars etc..landmark times.

But I also believe that those of us living in our time are often ill equipped to pass judgment on the present. It always looks insipid by comparision to the past upon which we had had time for reflection, analysis and nostalgic glorification.

Also I think every generation since the Birth of Man has used the phrase " Back in my day it was all sunshine ....". Something funny about that though...Maybe its just the way our egos are built, us humans.

I think we havent even begun to scrape the surface or fully comprehend the power and capability of the babes of the 21st century, the internet, mobile telephony, artifical intelligence, stem cell technology and cracking the genome code. The 21st century will be a time for intense innovation for sure, and the musical arts will be a mirror to all of it.

We might not like it, you and me, but hey, we aint going to around to smell that cuppa coffee! ; )

...
 
Last edited:
Sorry to butt into an interesting conversation with my relatively prosaic inanities, but would I be right in guessing that Wynton M draws the line at hard bop? I take it Bitches Brew would be too modern for him? :) I take it A Love Supreme would have had some worrying developments for him ...

8 Mile mentioned that "Louis Armstrong trashed bebop at the time and Miles said he thought Cecil Taylor played like someone with psychological problems" ... and was it Miles who accused Monk of playing the wrong notes?
 
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?

I was just attempting to clarify the point about listening to him; you made a reference to it and I was just reaffirming that by listening to him I'm not exactly listening to him in person, I am listening to a whole collaboration of brilliant musicians, that was all. I probably shouldn't have used the word "you", by "you" I meant the universal "you" as in everyone but me. I didn't accuse you particularly of slandering the people that play with him, maybe that came across wrong, internet posts often do with little sleep and rushed words. I am also Australian, we use a lot of grammatically incorrect figure of speeches.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being passionate. Frost and I are cool and have already said as much.

I agree, there is certainly no issue and never was.

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.

Metal has survived and evolved over the past three - four decades depending on your definition of when it actually started. While popular, more so then most people believe, it is a complete anathema of commercial music and has gained little to no acceptance within the academia, despite certain artists making incredible leaps forward stylistically and creatively.

Regardless of the fact that many people still have the opinion that metal is loud noise and that the people that listen to it are troubled teenagers and Satanists, I doubt it will disappear any time soon, regardless of who writes what about it.
 
Back
Top