[DeedPatmeda]

Funny that after talking about Curtis, Bill mentioned that sometimes Wynton floored him, and other times left him cold. That's a way a lot of trombone players feel about Curtis. I think Curtis is highly regarded because of who he played with and the albums he played on (Blakey, Coltrane etc) He sounds great on a lot of those albums and he is deserving of a lot of praise, but in my books Fontana, Rosolino, JJ and a few other unheralded players are more accomplished soloists.

Wynton and Harry Connick Jr. kind of fall into the same pits. Accomplished jazz artists who have "crossed over" and brought their music to a larger audience. What both of those guys do is fantastic but they are often regarded as sell outs. I don't like everything Wynton plays, I don't agree with everything he says, but I can say that about most musicians. He has done a huge amount for jazz through his education (Essentially Ellington) and has given jazz a universally recognizable voice. Funnily enough, (some) classical musicians also have the same opinion of Wynton that jazz musicians do.

[Unoloknovagog]

I'm right on top of things! Weeks later, here's my response to various posts:

The writer of the article proved my point. The fact that he was sitting in the cozy Village Vanguard and heard this trumpet player, yet still didn't know if it was Wynton or not shows that Wynton doesn't have this immediately recognizable sound. Some of the posts to this thread have mentioned his *band's* sound. I was talking just about the sound he gets on his horn.

Campbell was right about me valuing swing perhaps more than other aspects. And to me, Wynton doesn't swing. But Campbell, you didn't tell us if you thought he swings! You say you always want to hear people who do, but didn't mention whether Wynton is one of them.

Any criticism I may have of Wynton is not based on anybody else's criticisms of him. It's based on my ears. My dad -- the swinger! - gave me my first Marsalis album. I just didn't take to it like I took to many other trumpet players.

But to repeat, I think he's great for the music. I love what he says and he's an eloquent spokesman. Plus, I love opinionated people whether I agree with them or not!

[Jourgenz]

The author discredits himself in the second paragraph, when he writes "What was Wynton Marsalis, perhaps the most famous jazz musician alive, doing as a sideman in a band led by a little-known saxophonist in the slowest week of the year?"... This is someone who would be unfamiliar with the concept that sharing the stage with a Mingus alumnus (however "little known"... can you believe that?) would be, quite possibly, one of the greatest honours possible in the jazz world. This is obviously not a musician, as he apparently can't concieve that somebody of Wynton's stature and fame would condascend to share the stage with the lowly Charles McPherson.... ay yi yi...

[NeroASERCH]

Thanks for your suggestions, Morgan. The only one that our local A&B Sound had in stock on the weekend was The Marciac Suite, which I bought. While there's a few tracks I don't care for, it's got a lot of glorious music on it -- stuff like Loose Duck, Mademoiselle D'Gascony, Guy Lafitte and Sunflowers (my favourite), for example. Imagine what it must have been like for the people gathered at the Jazz in Marciac festival to hear the suite performed for the first time...

The Wynton Marsalis debate has been going on for years and must by now seem pretty tedious, but that doesn't stop fans and critics alike from rehashing it. For anyone who missed it, The Atlantic Monthly published a long, but well-written article by David Hajdu on the state of Wynton Marsalis and jazz in general in March 2003. You can read it online for free at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/hajdu.htm

[Unoloknovagog]

Thanks for the history lesson, young Morgan, but I'm hip to the scene, daddy-o! I think you misunderstood me. If you check out an earlier post by me (months and months ago), you'll find that I hate it when people's idea of history in jazz begins with Miles Davis (or those of that era).

When I say that Wynton doesn't swing, that's all I meant. His playing is stiff and kind of generic (to my ears, anyway). I have two Wynton albums. I thought maybe his playing just didn't translate to recordings, so I went and saw him live. I just about fell asleep. I've also sampled in the record stores most of his other albums to give him a chance. And I hear him lots on the radio. At no time have I ever thought, "Wow, this guy swings."

That being said, I agree completely with you on his role in education. I think he's great for jazz (or should I say "music"?). I love the fact that he trumpets Louis Armstrong (nice pun, eh?) and Duke Ellington and many other masters. He is an eloquent spokesman for the music and I give him his props. As for his playing, though... it's dull. There is no sense of joy in it, as there was with so many of the greats he tries to emulate. He doesn't have a recognizable sound, as do Louis, Bix, Roy, Red Allen, Clark Terry, et al. One note from any of those guys and you know who it is. Wynton sounds just like any other school-taught anonymous trumpet player. Don't you think?

[NeroASERCH]

Just want to add my two cents' worth to the Wynton debate.

Does he swing? I don't know -- I'm still trying to figure the "swing" thing out. I think he swings, but I'd agree with Guy that, at times, he does sound kind of "stiff."

Does he sound "generic?" No way. He is instantly identifiable by his traditional, New Orleans style of playing and total command of his instrument.

Is his playing "dull?" I thought so until I heard him play live (for the first and only time so far) at the Monterey Jazz Festival in 2001. He performed with the Lincoln Centre Jazz Orchestra and with a small, core group of the orchestra's musicians, and he was electrifying. His playing was expressive and his technique was dazzling.

Until that time, I had three of Wynton's recordings from his "Standard Time" series -- Vols. 1, 3 and 5. -- and I didn't understand what was the big deal about Wynton Marsalis. His music mostly left me cold.

After hearing him live, I bought his Selections from The Village Vanguard Box and Marsalis Plays Monk. The Village Vanguard CD captures the excitement of a live performance by his great septet, and the Plays Monk CD is fantastic, containing the most interesting and creative re-interpretations of Monk tunes that I've heard so far.

If anyone can recommend other great Marsalis recordings, I'd like to hear about them (I'll have to check out Black Codes).

[Jourgenz]

I just read it again (not a skim this time) and I think it's a little better than I originally gave it credit. I stand by my assertation though, that Wynton was onstage with Charles McPherson likely because he would consider it a great honour to share the stage with one of the great alto saxophonists of the post-Parker era. And I would say that, to me anyway, that would mean more than all the Grammy awards and Pulitzer prizes and articles in Downbeat ever could.

[Jourgenz]

Sorry Guy, but that's pretty laughable. What Wynton records do you own? I find it interesting that people began damning Wynton as the anti-christ of "jazz" (or "the music", whatever you want to call it) at the moment he began to reflect influences of pre 1940's jazz in his music and in his sound. Why is it considered innovative for people to imitate Miles Davis' mid 70's period or late 60's period, but for Wynton to reflect Duke Ellington or Jelly Roll Morton or Pops in his music is considered retro or (worse) revisionist or reactionary?

Well, no matter, David, your post didn't exactly give any evidence as to how Mr. Marsalis has had a negative impact on the music, it simply stated, de facto, that he had and left it at that. Here is a short list of the people that Wynton is directly responsible for mentoring or fostering into the jazz world: Jeff Watts (no swing? c'mon Guy), Robert Hurst, Lewis Nash, Reginald Veal, Ben Wolfe, Russell Malone, Christian McBride, Eric Reed, Marcus Roberts, Wycliffe Gordon, Wes Anderson, Ryan Kisor, Gregg Hutchinson... hmm... whether or not this is a negative thing, I don't think is really up for debate. A lot of those cats now play with guys that you would probably say are the future of the music, or who's music is "innovative". Wynton has simply done more for music education and the dissemination of acoustic jazz music than any single person from his generation. He is prolific without sacrificing the quality or artistic integrity of his projects. He is responsible for a return to balance and listening in the music that comes from playing acoustically. This can only be described as a positive thing, as people from my generation rarely put the time in to learn how to get a big sound from their instrument-- the amp or mic does it for them, who needs to work hard to get a sound? I must point out that this attitude is at odds with what would have been the accepted norm among the greats of the music, and therfore the jazz tradition. Some people have a problem dealing with the fact that learning the jazz tradition involves dealing with SWING, first and foremost, and a great and rich history of the music that goes back further than John Coltrane and Miles Davis. Among the young players that I know accross the country, the ones that play the best (that means communicate the best, and have a depth in their sound) are the guys (and girls) who are coming from a broad historical perspective, not just one narrow set of influences. This too, is something that Wynton brought back to the popular interest among young musicians. After so many Brecker clones, it's kind of nice to hear some one play the saxophone as nicely as Wess Anderson, isn't it? This attitude too, is congruent with what jazz musicians consider the jazz tradition. Sonny Rollins had to sound like Bean and Hawk before he could sound like Sonny Rollins. People of my generation often try to skip that step, in the hopes of finding their "original" sound (where? under a rock?).

The funny part of it is, as much as I like Wynton's music, I also like a lot of the music that came as a "revolution" to Wynton's "reactionary" tendancies (Downton New York etc...). So I win either way, no? Ironic that people would laud certain music as innovative when it's simply a backlash against music they find reactionary. I like being able to draw influences from both camps. Funny that Jim Black and Joey Barron can BURNOUT and SWING in a serious way, when the music calls for it, yet the myriad of Barron and Black clones that I have heard are unable to play on a simple, slow blues. Ari Hoenig, considered a favorite among drummers in New York for his fearless and "innovative" forays into the art of manipulating time polymetrically and so forth... lists as his number one influence in this respect Jeff "Tain" Watts. Dave Douglas, considered by many the most "innovative" of today's jazz musicians uses in his working band both James Genus and Clarence Penn, two cats who mentored under... Ellis, Wynton and Branford Marsalis. Those are just a few examples of how Wynton's music and musicians' ideas have disseminated into the modern jazz scene.

I'll end this little essay by saying I was a huge Wynton hater (ironically, a Jeff Watts lover, but a Wynton hater) until Dave Robbins layed "Black Codes" on me, and I did a little research and bought a bunch of Wynton's records. By the time I'd made it to "Live at Blues Alley", I was pretty convinced of his greatness. The proof, after all, is in the music. I think often times people have a tendancy to criticize what they haven't really checked out, so I always encourage people to keep an open mind when dealing with music that they don't like.

[enencephoth]

It would take more than this for Hajdu to discredit himslef. He wrote one of the best jazz biographies in print on Billy Strayhorn ("Lush Life") and another, equally excellent book on Dylan, Baez, and the Fariñas ("Positively Fourth Street'). I think his question is valid. And, relatively speaking, McPherson is little known outside the core of bop cognescenti.

Morgan, I think this may be the frist time I've disagreed with you about anything.

[Jourgenz]

First off: wasn't trying to give you or anybody else a history lesson. Just trying to put a view out there that was researched with some facts behind it, unlike David's "Wynton's affect on jazz has been negative" statement, which is a statement of opinion that was offered with nothing to suggest WHY he might be bad for the music. My main bone of contention with you was your assertation that Wynton's music doesn't swing. Although I can't comment on what your criteria for "swing" is, it must be very different than mine, as I hear a great deal of swing coming out of his music. In fact, I find it to be one of the primary reasons I like his music. But we can agree to disagree on that point, if you truly find nothing in those two records you own that swings.

As for Wynton's sound and style (or lack therof) I completely disagree with you. I, too held this commonly disseminated myth until I really started checking his music out, and I totally reject it now. I can recognize his sound as easily as any of the guys you name, because (and I really believe this) Wynton has his own sound. It not simply a rehashing of everything that has come before him. He has added things to the trumpet vocabulary (I think most trumpet players would agree with me there) and is part of an elite group that has absorbed expressive devices from the history of jazz (the entire history of jazz) into his own sound.

I have seen some ridiculous shit printed about Wynton in so called "jazz history" textbooks. I remember one quote was something along the lines of "Wynton is basically a composite of Kenny Dorham, Miles Davis and Freddie Hubbard." I have even seen analysis of Wynton solos where guys are going "he starts out in a kind of Miles Davis thing, then switches to Freddie Hubbard type ideas in the fifth bar, then a little Woody Shaw, then back to Miles Davis in bar 7." Which is totally ridiculous. Why is Wynton the only player in the world who takes this kind of flack and is subjected to this level of scruitiny? Is it because he's black? Outspoken? Famous? Revered and celebrated by (among others) jazz legends like Joe Henderson and Clark Terry himself? Is it because he's said some ridiculous and some insightful things about the music (as has everyone, see Keith Jarrett)? Is it because he's quite simply the most technically gifted trumpet player of all time? I don't know. But I know that it's not really fair, and a lot of these Wynton-hating myths have been diseminated by people that refuse to just deal with his music. You don't see anyone saying "Brad Meldhau is basically just a composite of Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett and several other white piano players." or "Bob Mintzer starts his solo with a Breckerish permutation of a pentatonic scale, then switches to a Sonny Rollins sort of thing in bar five...." you get the idea. That level of scrutiny is not fair and not neccecary to enjoy the music.

Now, I'm going to haul my "young" ass into the practice room. Sorry if I sound arrogant or condascending, that's not my intention. My intention is to deal with the music, and to back any claims I make with examples that come from the music. My main point was that David wrote a cheque that he couldn't cash, and I called him on it. I may be young, but I can still call you on your claims too, Guy, if you're willing to listen to some one younger than you. Sorry, but I have to say it was a little unneccecary to point out that I am younger than you... what difference does it make? I could have posted under an anonymous name and said all the same things, and what difference would it make? The only difference is that I'm willing to put my real name on everything I write (like you) and stand behind what I say. I know a lot of people read the stuff I write and some people probably think I'm full of shit, but at least I'm honest, and age should have nothing to do with it. One thing I notice is that it's hard to disagree in print without coming off as a condascending asshole. But I'm not a condascending asshole. Cheers.

[Jourgenz]

Yep, that's "it". First Art record I ever bought.

[Jourgenz]

Agreed... and, well put as always, Cam. "It" (Whatever "it" is) is definitly something that gets better with age (see PJ Perry, for example). Maybe it's a depth that people of my generation will never have, having missed the chance to actually see John Coltrane, Joe Henderson or Art Blakey in their heydey. My favorite Art Blakey record is "On Impulse" with a very young Wayne Shorter swinging his ever-loving tail off. At the ripe old age of about 32, Art was already considered something of an "elder statesman". And Lee and Wayne had pretty much mastered the vocabulary of swing by their early or mid twenties. That's pretty amazing, and is probably born out of the fact that they were playing all the time which is not an oppourtunity that is afforded those of us unlucky enough to be born in the 80s. Sigh.

[valiumcheapll]

Quote:

[PapsEdisa]

I thought it was a very good article. But it does seem to me that he shaded the episode at the Vanguard a little to fit in with the rest of the piece. Since he and his guitar player pal didn't realize it was Wynton at first, it seems likely that he'd just come down to sit in, hardly an indication of a career on the rocks.( Wow! The only gig the poor guy can get is as a sideman on an off night!) But if he'd just said," Gee . We went to see Charles Mcpherson and Wynton was sitting in," that wouldn't have fit in with the "noir" mood of the piece. It sounds like Marsalis was just keeping his chops up and having some fun. Jazz musicians HAVE been known to do that.

I haven't read the cat's book on Strayhorn, though I'd like to. It does seem to me that he used that scene in a slightly dishonest way, in order to make his point.

For what it's worth, the last time I saw Wynton was here in New Orleans at Vaughn's Lounge, a seedy little shack down in the 9th Ward. He was in town to visit his father, and came down to sit in with Kermit Ruffins. I doubt if Hadju even knows who Kermit is, since he appears to be solidly positioned in the New York-centric jazz critics cabal .These are the same people who couldn't figure out Louis Armstrong's birthdate. The guy who did, Tad Jones, just walked into the church and asked for the baptismal records (Doh!) Believe it or not, sometimes it's actually necessary to LEAVE NEW YORK to research these things.

I don't recall anybody in New Orleans going on about Wynton's career troubles after he sat in with Kermit.

[Plonnikas]

You know Morgan, I don't think this whole deal would be as much of an issue if we broached the debate about who swings and who doesn't in say 20 years time. One thing I've always admired about you is the fact that you've chosen to spend time with many of the seasoned players of our community which is truely admirable. Most younger players either don't do that because - they don't know of these people - or their imtimidated by these people and feel they're unapproachable. But Jazz is an artform built on tradition and you know that, I'm not entirely sure that many younger players do.

I would say that without exception, the people that I've met in my life that I've looked up to the most are the people who hold players that 'swing' above all else. This is the reason a man like Guys' father (the great Fraser MacPherson) admired Louis Armstrong so much, and he's clearly imparted that information in some way on his son. It's a feel for the music that I really don't think can be truely taught. But it's everything - and either a younger player does it, or they don't, it's much deeper than what can be touched upon here.

So, if we agree that the concept of swing can often be illusive to some younger players who may be very talented in other ways, then often what ends up happening is that these players become exeptional in other area's. Such a technically - as you've already touched upon. There's many well known players that I can think of that are younger, technically very well versed, yet not the kind that would draw me to the show just because of the swing factor which is a window into the maturity of the player, if it isn't there I don't get it.

But, it's a concept that is far more prevellant over all in mature jazz players and that's a fact. Now there's lots of examples of mature seasoned professionals that may not swing, and examples of much younger players that swing hard - but overall, if I'm looking to go out and hear tenor players locally that I know are going to make me smile - I'll listen to guys like Al Wold or Ross Taggart ect... I mean it's hard to even start a list when we have some truely great players on that instrument in this city but those two guys top my list. All the great local players like Al and Ross have something in common and it's that they swing. And to me at least, that's everything.

[Jourgenz]

Bill! How are ya, man? I guess I was just under the impression that Wynton was largely responsible for yet another expansion of what is possible on the horn... while still speaking the language of Freddie, Woody etc. I have heard other people sum up his sound as "trumpet tricks" too, but I think that his vocabulary of expressive devices is covering the history of the horn. I guess I don't really know, as I don't play trumpet myself. Some of the stuff on "Live at Blues Alley" and J Mood is some pretty ludicrous sounding trumpet shit...

[Unoloknovagog]

Wynton Marsalis... swinging music? Those two phrases should never be spoken in the same sentence. He tries, granted, but he sure don't swing.

[enencephoth]

Quote:

[Ndptbudd]

I'll use Amiri Baraka's term 'the music' here, as I personally reject the term 'jazz'. Words have meanings, and it's meaning that concerns me. 1. I reject the J-word because it's a category of music, and is both divisive and a complication. 2. As soon as you name something you own it, and music has no owners. Although Baraka's term 'the music' also implies identification with a set of sounds, it is a more general, less specific term than the J-word and thus more truthful. The word 'jazz' is good only as a business or marketing word, I find. Baraka's term really can't be used to sell, and since this text is about music and not salesmanship, I use 'the music' so as to have some language.

Historically, the blues-based, swinging music had, roughly every 20 years, figures who turned the scene around. First, in the 1920s, Louis Armstrong, who set up the soloist as chief figure as well as supplying syntax still used. In the 1940s Charlie Parker basically changed the approach melodically, rhythmically and harmonically--again right up to today. In the 1960s Ornette Coleman opened it right up, removing orthodoxies. In my view, the last figure to turn the scene around was Wynton Marsalis, in the 1980s. (before developing this, let me say I'm well aware of the major contributions of Lester Young, Basie, Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane. None of these brought change in the music as fundamentally as Armstrong, Parker, Coleman, and I'll assert, Marsalis.)

Marsalis brought back acoustic, blues-based, swinging music, and thus is a major historical figure. Now to my point; why I reject the term'jazz'. Marsalis showed that the form is USED UP. In fact, that's much of his contribution. It's a negative contribution. This demonstration, from the Reagan era, the era of corporate takeover and postmodernism, helped me in solidifying my departure, as a musician, from a depleted form, and Marsalis' and his followers' outputs put the seal on its death.

Since the 80s the word 'jazz' has been a trap. I call what I do music, and I call what I love to listen to on CD 'the music'. I mean Coleman Hawkins, Monk, Billie Holiday, Steve Coleman and about a thousand others.

[DeedPatmeda]

Sorry Morgan, but I'm going to have go with Brian on this one. Wynton is the most famous jazz artists today (not the best, not the most worthy of international recognition, not the most innovative) but he is the most famous... deffintally outside of serious jazz circles and even within some of the jazz circles as well. And I think there are far greater honours in "jazz" today then sharing the band stand with CMac (no disrespect intented!) I'm at yet work so I have to re-read this when I get home (at midnite tonite.... 3 hours of big band to go) but it looks like a good peice he wrote.