I think Chris Potter is an amazing player, with a unique voice and a lot of original ideas--in fact, a seemingly bottomless well of ideas.
I think Chris Potter is an amazing player, with a unique voice and a lot of original ideas--in fact, a seemingly bottomless well of ideas.
You're probably right, Cone. I don't know why I never fell in love with him? I have a jazz guitar CD he's on playing some bass clarinet, and I like that. John Hart is the guitarist.
Wynton Marsalis has always been very "smug" when interviewed about the state of jazz...very narrow as to what he feels is "acceptable" as far as what jazz is and isn't. That's why I love Miles Davis so much...he changed the direction of modern jazz several times and didn't worry about what people thought.
I did an interview with the 'jazz'guitarist Jean Paul Bourelly in the 90'ties who said
jpb - At this point jazz is a term used by the industry to categories music that either can't be categorized by industry standards or where there is improvisation as a fundemental activity within the music.
I have no personal opinion on what "jazz" is. But I know all of the music that can be found in the jazz section of a record store is not same type of music. So obviously there are huge inaccuraces that I hope music buyers will be aware of in the future.
For me people like Muhal Richard Abrams (who would be considered jazz) have more in common with people like Frank Zappa (considered rock) or Hindemith (classical modern) than they do with people like Wynton Marsalis (considered jazz). I think even these people who would like to convince the world that "pure" jazz was a certain style that started with people like Jellyroll Morton and continued along the lines of Coleman Hawkins, Parker, Coltrane and stop the development during this era, are totally off base.
To me the purist is the artist who continues to experiment with the popular elements of the time, because that has been the history of the development of that line of people. If you don't continue to do that then you are more a disciple of those contributers which is also cool and one can produce good music from this as well, but the so-called "purist" people are not following any "pure" form other than the "pure" form of copying.
The term"jazz" works better as a verb.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
I probably have music mixed together in my "jazz" mix that might make eyes roll but who cares? Your playlist need only reflect your tastes and interpretations and needn't be an essay on the matter of what qualifies as jazz.
Confirmed Bachelors: the dramedy hit of 1883...
I've listened to samples of the Marsalis brothers. what they do I would call pleasant background or napping music.
Just remember that Welk and his orchestra played a key part in the early chapters of the Mellotron story. Course, Chamberlin probably could have gotten other musicians to record the tapes for his instruments, but given that Chamberlin seemed to actually like the type of stuff Welk did (and was totally turned off by rock music, which is part of why his later instruments didn't gain the notoriety that the Mellotron knock offs got).
Branford sat in with the Dead on two or three different occasions, so I'm not sure which one was issued recently. But, I would guess it's probably the March 29, 1990 show, where Branford played with during Bird Song in the first set, and then sat in for the entire second set, which included an Estimated Prophet/Eyes Of The World/Dark Star suite. From the second the house lights came on at the end of the night, that immediately became of the "essential" shows every 'head must own. You don't know how many "favorite shows" lists I saw in Relix that included that in the top 10. And I believe Bob Bralove used a bit of the Dark Star jam on the Infrared Roses release that he put together a year or two later.
Wynton notorious as a jazz snob. He doesn't consider electric Miles, Sun Ra, Impulse era Trane, etc to be "real jazz". I've read he also criticized Branford for "selling out", ie playing with Sting and the Dead.
As far Wynton's ability, he makes good records, within a certain style. He's also one of the few musicians I know of who is equally adept at playing his instrument in both jazz and classical idioms.
But that doesn't change the fact he's a snob.
Actually, he's lightened up a bit over the years whereas Branford - who played with all kinds of non-jazz guys in his youth, has become an even bigger advocate of "real jazz," whatever the heck that is (and hey, I write about it!).
It surprised me...it's as if he's written out about 10 years of his life.
But he's still a great player and I'd hardly call a lot of what he has done background music. His quartet with Kenny Kirkland was pretty damn smokin'
I prefer to ask "What isn't prog?"
I know you're making an attempt to be witty, but in my experience prog fans are much more caught up these days in labels and "Big P/little p" than jazz fans are. For as often as I've read people slamming jazz fans and artists for their attitudes about what is/not Jazz, in the forums I have frequented this semantics discussion takes a back seat.
From my perspective, it's an old argument, more pertinent in the 50s through the 70s than it is today. Most of what got criticized for "not being jazz" back then is now widely considered to be not just jazz, but often jazz milestones or canon.
And because of what I would call a very open jazz community, I have had the pleasure of learning about and exploring artists with styles ranging from be-bop to free-jazz to third-stream to jazz-fusion to what often gets branded as "the ECM sound" (John's head explodes.)
What I would say that you see though still today that mirrors prog sites to some degree is the assertion that "classic jazz" from the 50s and 60s is superior to today's jazz. And like here, it's all subjective.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
Bookmarks