Wynton Marsalis shreds!

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by blim

He's a competent, yet unadventurous and reactionary, musician.

The main problem if I have with him has more to do with the wool he pulled over the eyes of Ken Burns during the PBS "Jazz" documentary series. Burns, who admitted he knew next to nothing about jazz, basically turned over the reins to Marsalis. What we saw was "Jazz, According to Wynton," i.e., 80 percent focus on the least interesting part of the genre's history (pre-1940), about 15 percent on its most interesting part (1940-1965), and then basically nothing after that. (Didn't even mention the most gifted pianist of the last forty years -- Keith Jarrett.)

first, i absolutely disagree that pre 1940 was the least interesting part of jazz history. in many ways, it was the most interesting part.

the guys who came along from 1890-1940 WROTE the music which became the textbook examples which guys like jarrett learned from in the late 60's.

i can pretty much guarantee that there is no chord, no voicing, no combination of tones that ANY jazz musician has ever played that duke ellington didn't play first, sometime before 1945.

and don't take my word for it... listen to thelonious monk's landmark recording of ellington compositions and you will hear for yourself... then, compare it with ellington's own solo recording at the whitney theater or his composition "frere monk" and you can clearly hear that the monk owed MUCH to ellington, and he would have been the first to say it.

i mean really... once again... how can people complain that the history of jazz concentrated too much on armstrong and ellington, i.e., the number one improviser and the number one composer?

and why is keith jarrett held up as an icon of progressive musicianship? if anyone is a luddite, its keith jarrett, who ONLY played electric instruments for a short period in the late 60's early 70's when he agreed to play with miles davis to increase his profile.

i mean, who's more conservative, keith jarrett, who demands that people are thrown out of his concerts for whispering or rustling their programs, or duke ellington, who used to encourage his men to get sauced before recording sessions to loosen them up a little bit?

i agree that the burns video was flawed in many respects... but there was a lot of good information in that video, and in a country where 50 percent of the people who voted don't even know how many branches of government there are, why should we criticize burns for making more people aware of the one truly great and original composer this country has produced, i.e., ellington....

ps... when i was studying music in college, the donald jay grout "history of western music" text had chapters and chapters and chapters on berg, webern, schoenberg, etc. etc. etc. and about two sentences on rachmaninoff.

now, one recording of rachmaninoff's second piano concerto has probably sold more copies than ALL of the music of berg, webern, etc etc all put together.

so, the only thing worse than a guy who "knows nothing" about the subject trying to make a history of it is when a guy who "knows everything" about the subject trys to make a history of it.

at least burns went for the guys who moved the people, not just the music critics.

[ajcamlet]

Here's the guy who did the shred:

Delphian Jazz Orchestra

[NoisyNarrowBand]

wynton is all about taking the aggression out of jazz and putting glam in its place. he fears vision, he fears discontent with the status quo, he fears everything that jazz came from and was about.

his version of 'jazz' is all about affirmation; affirmation sounds boring and does not inspire anything than mediocracy. where are the interesting young black players/improvisers of today?! where is the fever, the fire, the boldness and the will to explore?!

[PlugHead]

Good points.

BTW - just to clarify - what was quoted from you didn't actually come from me, except for the top line.

You are pretty spot on, tho I still believe jazz needs to progress from where Ornette, fusion, and all else left off.

Sure it's easy to criticize - the most critical ones are usually the ones with the LEAST amount of talent...

As Leonard Bernstein was quoted - "I've traveled the world, and never seen a statue of a critic"...


[quote=soultrane;3672311]

Originally Posted by ektia

so much wrong with this.

first, jazz, ostensibly, was already "dead" when wynton came on the scene nationally in the mid 80's...; miles, if you recall, had quit playing and when he came back, he was playing tunes like "human nature" and "time after time" and was, technically speaking, a shadow of the man who played "freedom jazz dance" and "nefrititi" etc. etc..

second, it was miles davis himself who blamed the death of jazz SQUARELY on ornette coleman, don cherry, eric dolphy, and the free jazz movement of the late 60's which turned off many listeners right at the time rock was making major inroads.

third, its hard to imagine ANYONE more forward looking than armstrong and ellington, since they more or less invented jazz...

i mean, its like saying a history of rock video concentrated too much on elvis and the beatles and not enough on joe satriani.

fourth, the fact that you couldn't tell it WASN'T really wynton playing, and that the guy who spoofed it still made you think it was "mediocre" improvising shows that you really don't know what you're talking about.

i love all these "progressive" musicians, like the cats at the new england conservatory, who talk "wynton sucks because of this... wynton sucks because of that" and then, when they are invited to get up and play with him at a master class, they forget the chords to "stella by starlight" and make fools of themselves.

[blim]

Originally Posted by soultrane

first, i absolutely disagree that pre 1940 was the least interesting part of jazz history. in many ways, it was the most interesting part.

the guys who came along from 1890-1940 WROTE the music which became the textbook examples which guys like jarrett learned from in the late 60's.

i can pretty much guarantee that there is no chord, no voicing, no combination of tones that ANY jazz musician has ever played that duke ellington didn't play first, sometime before 1945.

i mean really... once again... how can people complain that the history of jazz concentrated too much on armstrong and ellington, i.e., the number one improviser and the number one composer?

and why is keith jarrett held up as an icon of progressive musicianship? if anyone is a luddite, its keith jarrett, who ONLY played electric instruments for a short period in the late 60's early 70's when he agreed to play with miles davis to increase his profile.

i mean, who's more conservative, keith jarrett, who demands that people are thrown out of his concerts for whispering or rustling their programs, or duke ellington, who used to encourage his men to get sauced before recording sessions to loosen them up a little bit?

i agree that the burns video was flawed in many respects... but there was a lot of good information in that video, and in a country where 50 percent of the people who voted don't even know how many branches of government there are, why should we criticize burns for making more people aware of the one truly great and original composer this country has produced, i.e., ellington....

ps... when i was studying music in college, the donald jay grout "history of western music" text had chapters and chapters and chapters on berg, webern, schoenberg, etc. etc. etc. and about two sentences on rachmaninoff.

now, one recording of rachmaninoff's second piano concerto has probably sold more copies than ALL of the music of berg, webern, etc etc all put together.

OK, I certainly agree with you on some of your points. I probably shouldn't have written that the pre-1940 history was the "least interesting," because, as you said, the origins and pioneers of a genre are always interesting. What I should have written was that I find the music from that period to be the least interesting. With the occasional exception of Ellington, it sounds stiff and predictable. It's like early European classicial music: There's an unyielding internal logic to it. At some point, you just want it to give a little, to break loose, but it doesn't. At least not until Parker and Monk and the others finally loosened the chokehold starting around the forties.

I have to disagree with your assertion that Ellington is the most important American composer. He never produced anything close to Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue, and his music isn't as interesting or subtle, at least to my ears, as that of, say, Adams, Barber, or Copland. I also don't agree that he produced all the "combinations of tones" later produced by people like Cecil Taylor and Ornette Coleman.

As far as Jarrett goes, I never said he was "progressive." I said he was "gifted." The fact that he eschewed amplified instruments, I count as a mark in his favor. Anybody who turned his back on the "fusion" craze of the seventies (the lowest point in the history of jazz) is to be applauded. The fact that he is a cranky misanthrope -- and Miles Davis wasn't? -- doesn't take away from the immensity of his gifts.

As for Rachmaninoff -- of course his music is more popular than that of Webern's and Schoenberg's. For the same reason that Mariah Carey or Britney Spears or Nickleback outsell Sufjan Stevens or the Roots or TV On The Radio. Because it conforms to a more familiar and less challenging melodic formula, and therefore has wider appeal. (Actually, I hate Webern, but that's another story.)

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by blim

OK, I certainly agree with you on some of your points. I probably shouldn't have written that the pre-1940 history was the "least interesting," because, as you said, the origins and pioneers of a genre are always interesting. What I should have written was that I find the music from that period to be the least interesting. With the occasional exception of Ellington, it sounds stiff and predictable. It's like early European classicial music: There's an unyielding internal logic to it. At some point, you just want it to give a little, to break loose, but it doesn't. At least not until Parker and Monk and the others finally loosened the chokehold starting around the forties.

I have to disagree with your assertion that Ellington is the most important American composer. He never produced anything close to Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue, and his music isn't as interesting or subtle, at least to my ears, as that of, say, Adams, Barber, or Copland. I also don't agree that he produced all the "combinations of tones" later produced by people like Cecil Taylor and Ornette Coleman.

As far as Jarrett goes, I never said he was "progressive." I said he was "gifted." The fact that he eschewed amplified instruments, I count as a mark in his favor. Anybody who turned his back on the "fusion" craze of the seventies (the lowest point in the history of jazz) is to be applauded. The fact that he is a cranky misanthrope -- and Miles Davis wasn't? -- doesn't take away from the immensity of his gifts.

As for Rachmaninoff -- of course his music is more popular than that of Webern's and Schoenberg's. For the same reason that Mariah Carey or Britney Spears or Nickleback outsell Sufjan Stevens or the Roots or TV On The Radio. Because it conforms to a more familiar and less challenging melodic formula, and therefore has wider appeal. (Actually, I hate Webern, but that's another story.)

first, did you really just compare rachmaninoff to mariah carey and britney spears?

do you really think generations of music students will be studying mariah carey compositions 80 years after she's dead?

but i assure you right now in conservatory rehearsal rooms all over the world right at this very second, rachmaninoff is looming large and kicking butts and causing ulcers and much lost sleep among budding performers.

its ok to dislike something popular... but is it right to dislike something JUST because its popular?

second, every style becomes mannered, that's why its a style... bebop is every bit as mannered as swing... which is why miles davis quit playing it and shifted to modal... because, as he said, everything that could be done with the changes was already done...

i mean, what is more prefunctory than a bass solo in a bebop quintet? or trading 4's? yeah, that was hip 65 years ago.

third, "rhapsody in blue" is a great piece. i performed a solo version of it in college, and i know it inside and out...

BUT, gershwin borrowed heavily from afro-american techniques... he didn't invent those on his own...

i point you to "black brown and beige" especially the recording with mahalia jackson... to tell me that ellington isn't as interesting and subtle as gershwin.

i mean, ellington wrote many thousands and thousands more pages of music than gershwin, and ellington was, in the main, a true original, while gershwin was an appropriater...

not that there's anything wrong with it... brahms certainly appropriated beethoven, (his first symphony was called beethoven's tenth)...

but we must give credit where credit is due.

as oscar peterson said, "classical musicians, when they want to explore jazz, they start with gershwin... but they really should start with ellington."

because gerswhin wasn't really a jazz musician at all, but a more or less traditional composer / songwriter who was using the new language of jazz in his music.

and finally, i LIKE fusion... lots of it.... i especially like josef zawinul, cannonball adderly, miles... i certainly wouldn't call herbie hancock's "sly" a low point in jazz history.

[blim]

Originally Posted by soultrane

first, did you really just compare rachmaninoff to mariah carey and britney spears?

third, "rhapsody in blue" is a great piece. i performed a solo version of it in college, and i know it inside and out...

BUT, gershwin borrowed heavily from afro-american techniques... he didn't invent those on his own...

i point you to "black brown and beige" especially the recording with mahalia jackson... to tell me that ellington isn't as interesting and subtle as gershwin.

as oscar peterson said, "classical musicians, when they want to explore jazz, they start with gershwin... but they really should start with ellington."

because gerswhin wasn't really a jazz musician at all, but a more or less traditional composer / songwriter who was using the new language of jazz in his music.

Reread my post: I did not compare Ms. Spears to Rachmaninoff, and I never declared Gershwin to be subtle (but rather Adams and Barber).

I agree that Ellington is a more useful starting point than Gershwin for classical musicians interested in jazz -- which, of course, makes sense since Gershwin wasn't a jazz musician.

Of course, Gershwin, a European-American, borrowed from Afro-American techniques. But no more so than Ellington, an African-American, borrowed from European (and Euro-American) techniques and ideas. (Do you think an African living in Africa could have ever produced jazz? It could have only happened in America.) I don't think that limits either of their achievements.

[chrispick]

It's a really well-produced shred video, but they should've taken a page from the guitar shred videos and included more goofiness. Where are the "wake me up" cymbal crashes?

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by blim

Reread my post: I did not compare Ms. Spears to Rachmaninoff, and I never declared Gershwin to be subtle (but rather Adams and Barber).

I agree that Ellington is a more useful starting point than Gershwin for classical musicians interested in jazz -- which, of course, makes sense since Gershwin wasn't a jazz musician.

Of course, Gershwin, a European-American, borrowed from Afro-American techniques. But no more so than Ellington, an African-American, borrowed from European (and Euro-American) techniques and ideas. (Do you think an African living in Africa could have ever produced jazz? It could have only happened in America.) I don't think that limits either of their achievements.

well, it just goes to show that we have different opinions, as does ken burns...

all valid.

i would NEVER, for instance, consider adams to be a great composer, or a subtle composer, for that matter... and i have TRIED to like his music...

(reminds me of when i was in college and one old time composition professor said, "there is a minimalist composer in the office next to me. sometimes i hear him practicing his chord.")

i guess my point is people are too hard on wynton, just like they were too hard on brahms and rachmaninoff...

and btw, alot of wynton's music is pretty progressive stuff, imo... certainly further "out" than many of jarrett's pseudo-gospellish neo-windham hill 20 minute excursions.

[Greg Heimbecker]

Originally Posted by bcgood

I definitely prefer Miles.

Ron Miles? absolutely!!!


and he plays living, breathing music of the moment as well... go figure

[MarkRB]

I love these Shreds videos. They have literally had me uncontrollably crying with laughter on more than one occasion.

Absolute genius when it's done well. This one isn't bad, but doesn't have quite enough humour for my taste.

The "shreds" thing is weird though, non muso friends absolutely do not get it or see it as 'nerdy' humour.

[blaugruen7]

paco de lucia shreds is still my favourite.

[MarkRB]

Slash is my favourite.

The funniest thing is you know the guy playing them is a really good player but is totally ripping the piss out them.
There is a great "journey" (i think) one where the drummer points his stick at someone, farts and does a massive cheesy grin. Killed me for at least 5 minutes but I can't find it now.

[Chucho]

I had never even heard of shred videos.
You mean there are more like this ? <just seen the one above - I love it>
Where are those guys who were complaining about Wynton on the basis of this thing ? Gone to get their ears syringed?


I have just been watching 'weather report shreds'. I just peed my pants.

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by bigramp

i did those

Ah man, your Slipknot one is irresponsibly funny. Great work thumbsup

[ebot9000]

Delphian Jazz Orchestra has some great NYC jazz musicians in it - people who represent what's really been happening here since Wynton essentially put jazz into a wax museum (as far as the mainstream is concerned). If this mockery has helped redirect some attention to his own project, one of countless unsung examples of talented folks still pushing boundries in this town, then I spose that's a good side effect (besides it being friggin hilarious)

[MooWahmBah]

can`t beat this one !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMOCbvDeL-4



well maybe with this one ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_E6fJTCKC0

[Melgueil]

Funny, I was riding the train last night and happened to be listening to one of the Art Blakey albums on Concord from the early 80's. Wynton was very young but even then played well - and I was thinking (cause I'm not that young anymore) - not everyone is ever going to play on that level - let alone at that age.

It reminded me that he did have the fire when he was young and was taking risks, at least then. Then again maybe it was Blakey who inspired and mentored him. His other stuff - hot and cold, but I can't say for sure because haven't listened to a whole lot of his efforts over the years. Yeah, the museum stuff, the suits ... all of that - so what (no pun there). Glass half empty / half full.

rgds

[blim]

The sad thing is, I think this is probably the most interesting thing Clapton has done in years. It's kind of like what you'd expect if some eleven year-old metalhead kid with three months of lessons suddenly started channeling James "Blood" Ulmer.

YouTube - Eric Clapton Shreds

[PlugHead]

Originally Posted by bigramp

i did those

OMG - you are currently my hero.

Hats off. that Slipknot = some funny shit!!!

I'm waiting for someone to lift Ornette/Anthony Braxton and place it over Lester Young with Billie. Now THAT would make my life complete...

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by Melgueil

Funny, I was riding the train last night and happened to be listening to one of the Art Blakey albums on Concord from the early 80's. Wynton was very young but even then played well - and I was thinking (cause I'm not that young anymore) - not everyone is ever going to play on that level - let alone at that age.

It reminded me that he did have the fire when he was young and was taking risks, at least then. Then again maybe it was Blakey who inspired and mentored him. His other stuff - hot and cold, but I can't say for sure because haven't listened to a whole lot of his efforts over the years. Yeah, the museum stuff, the suits ... all of that - so what (no pun there). Glass half empty / half full.

rgds

true that...

remember "black codes from the underground?"

that kicked some serious ass in the music schools back in the day...

as did his double live set, with jeff watts, marcus roberts, and robert hurst...

was it a copy of "live at the blackhawk..."

maybe, but remember, it was people like art blakey, orrin keepnews, etc. that really championed wynton (and branford...)

they knew something about jazz, presumably.

[soultrane]

ps....

funny wynton story...

wynton gets a group together and records, in the style of jelly roll morton, on an early direct to acetate recorder housed, i believe, at the smithsonian.

he takes the lacquer, in all its low fi glory, home and plays it for one of his friends... "check this out" says wynton, "its a vintage 1920's 78..."

his friend says to him, "you see, i don't know what it is, but you modern cats, you just can't swing like these old timers used to."

[H-Rezz]

Ha ha ha, To good ! He's at it again

[newyorker42]

Yes, Wynton can play. Seriously play. He is good. Damn good.

Yes, Wynton is totally overrated. He is about as original as the 1,000 Coltrane imitators out there playing tenor. Zero creativity.

No, Wynton did not save jazz. It was already undergoing a large scale revival when he showed up.

Yes, Wynton is helping to kill jazz today by his stout observance of jazz conservatism. Let's hear more Jason Moran and the like. The way forward, however great they were, is not covers of Duke and Satch.

[hughesmr]

I dig TOTO:

YouTube - TOTO shreds

[rumleymusic]

Yes, Wynton can play. Seriously play. He is good. Damn good.

Yes, Wynton is totally overrated. He is about as original as the 1,000 Coltrane imitators out there playing tenor. Zero creativity.

No, Wynton did not save jazz. It was already undergoing a large scale revival when he showed up.

Yes, Wynton is helping to kill jazz today by his stout observance of jazz conservatism. Let's hear more Jason Moran and the like. The way forward, however great they were, is not covers of Duke and Satch.

Well said. Wynton is one of the finest trumpet players in recorded history. His technique, especially in the non-jazz format is scary, I don't think there is anyone alive who can touch him. His compositions and improvisation skill is very good, but not up to the level of his predecessors. (Though lets face it fellas, Miles was only a so-so trumpet player as far as technique is concerned.)

And yes Wynton is an elitist who has a very narrow view of good music in general.

[PlugHead]

Originally Posted by hughesmr

I dig TOTO:

YouTube - TOTO shreds

Christ, that is THE best yet - total homage to StSanders.

I LOVE these clips, tho gotta admit, I get annoyed when I run across a 'shreds' title where the music/performance is 'real' - kinda spoils it for me!!!

[ambo]

These are great. I have 50gb or so of my own music that sounds more or less like this. now I have something to do with it.