Quote:

Pierre

I was talking about his lack of respect for people like Miles Davis (who's 'electric' jazz-rock output isn't to Wynton's liking) and his general disdain for any jazz-related music after 1965 that doesn't accord with his narrow criteria of what 'jazz' is supposed to be (irrespective of whether the actual music aspires to this aesthetic).

That's fine in a way, no one has to like every style, but Marsalis has a tendency to fundamentalize his opinions as if they were indisputable facts rather than aesthetic judgements. He doesn't simply express dislike for modernist music so much as he tries to make a very selective cultural case for seeing it as some kind of dereliction of duty in what he sees as the endless fight to preserve (in aspic no doubt)the essence of 'true' jazz from corrupting non-jazz influences. Ironically in attempting to see this issue in purely stylistic/technical terms his own music is often lacking in the exploratory spontaneity and openness to new approaches that characterises jazz at its best.

What is galling about this is the fact that his ubiquitous diatribes have allowed him to become an arbiter of taste for a great deal of the American jazz audience, recording industry, media and many aspiring musicians of the newer generation. This can only auger badly for the music's future as anything more than a museum piece stuck in a time warp.

Alan


Hey Alan

Just reread myself, hope I'm not too long and boring...

Now I get your point and I agree with you. I have to confess though, that my taste in jazz leans toward Marsalis's opinion. My ears are really "stuck" in responding to everything that's in between Ellington and Mingus. Even what I write in jazz his influenced by that period. I also play some H. Hancock and C. Corea, but these two are probably not a so good example, has they are not anymore, shall we say, in the younger generation… But, even then, I could never listen to Corea's electric band or Hancock's electronic ventures more than 5 minutes. Can't listen to free jazz anymore either.

But where I strongly differ from Marsalis's point of view, is that I don't think anybody should see themselves as the guardian of any sort of "purity" (whatever that word means). If someone starts defending that sort of thought, they end up in a closed world, only revolving around their navel. It's too easy to sit back and pass judgment. Everything is relative, depending from where you stand, as one amateur violinist once said.

In french, they say "les goûts, les couleurs". "Tastes and colors". Meaning, these are personal. Sure I can taste new foods and discover new colors, but I have to, at least, do it at my own pace. Explain it to me, but it doesn't amount to anything if someone force feeds it to me. We all have our own backgrounds, cultures and life paths, and all of these affect our musical sensibility. That's were I think people in Marsalis's position should be careful. If you want to start "educating" or "elevate" people, you're engaging yourself on a very bumpy and non-constructive road.

I keep my tenor to play jazz and in another genre, I also play classical clarinet. I need both worlds. I don't earn a living with it, but my main activity with music is to compose (jazz & classical contemporary). You were talking about 1965 in jazz, in classical music reactions are the same. The majority of classical music lovers think that after 1899, composers ceased to exist. I do play and listen to baroque, classical and romantic composers, but from the 1900 to 2011, contemporary music is a wonderful and amazing adventure ! Some appeal to me, some don't. But sometimes, I still have a hard time understanding how, nowadays, some contemporary music can still sound shocking or dismissed as noise. That being said, when I find myself in the world of jazz, I admit, I'm still a traditionalist. But my ears are always opened.

Last edited by Pierre Julien; 01/18/11 11:19 AM.
Best of all and hope your day is a nice one

Pierre

IMac OSX 10.6.5 / latest BIAB
vista BIAB 2008