Jazz for aficionados

When I went to the clips of Marsalis and Clapton, off to the side I saw these:

Wynton playing in dubai, an islamic country. A line of children waiting to talk and get pointers on playing / music from him. He was showing a girl how to place the mouthpiece and explaining the embouchure

Wynton driving a crowd crazy in Chile

Wynto playing, with Marcus Roberts, for little children for a kids tv show

Wynton playing baroque music

Wynton on the Charlie Rose show speaking to the country on Jazz

Wynton at Lincoln Center, leading the best, and most important Jazz Band on the planet.

He could be considered the Ellington of this era.

How dare you people criticize him, while you praise freakish looking wannabes, making obnoxious, non-sensical noises.

Cheers

As far as the solo sounding repetative, I was mainly talking about Mr. Clapton, who was said to be god in the 60's, but now it seems Wynton is.

How can Wynton be the Alpha and Omega, when he is the 2nd or possibly 3rd best Marsalis in his family?

I like Wynton Marsalis's writing, but did you compare him to Ellington in any way? Really?

I salute and give all respect due for the good he does in the world.

Which freakish wannabe's are we talking about, I have played a lot of those?

Rokid, It is very hard to carry on a conversation with you. You are a bully to anyone in disagreement with you. Heck your a bully when people are mostly in agreement with you, and you take it wrong. If I wanted abuse I would go talk to my wife.

O-10, I have enjoyed your company. You are a gentleman. I listen to mostly the same music as all of you, but because you all had the straight ahead taken care of I chose to bring out the different side of Jazz. I hope it wasn't to much of a distraction.

Frogman and Learfool, Thanks, and see you around.

Acman3:

Well if you and The Frogman and O-10 and Learsfool are kindred spirits, it would be more appropiate for me to go. I admit to having a mental block when it comes to Free, Avant-garde and Fusion music. So being the disruptive force, and I admit to that, you stay. You have more to offer this thread than I do.

Apologies to our OP.

Cheers

To the extent that affection for someone can be experienced via dialogue (?) on a forum such as this, Rok, I admit to a sense of it towards your passion for music; I have said so on several occasions. I have "met" few individuals on these forums with the passion that you demonstrate for an admittedly fairly narrow slice of the musical landscape. That would be perfectly fine, but the main obstacle to having reasonable dialogue, debate, whatever we want to call it is that you don't let that very passion for that music stand on it's own. It's like the old saying: "let her go, if it was meant to be, she'll be back (or something like that)". The music that you so love does not need so much of your "protection". Not only does it not need it (as if your "protection" mattered one iota, anyway) it narrows your own horizons and, ironically, violates some of the important tenets of that very music: open mindedness, creativity, forward-looking attitude, evolution, growth, honor the past but always look to the future; THAT is what jazz is. It has been pointed out to you on several occasions that the very musicians that you idolize would look down at the attitude that you demonstrate sometimes. Doesn't that say something to you? Why the arrogance of opinion that you demonstrate? Time and time again you make proclamations about this or that being "better" or "worse", or at worse making comments like those you just made to Acman3 that are totally uncalled for and insulting. He has made some really great contributions to this thread and and deserves better than that. I would respectfully suggest that an apology is in order.

I remember a comment that you made early on in this thread that has always stuck with me; something to the effect that somehow it was inconceivable that someone with a different opinion from yours might "have some insight into music that you don't". Why is that so inconceivable to you? You are severely limiting yourself by not being open to the idea that some may, in fact, have certain insights that you don't. Again, those very musicians that you revere will be the first to tell you that the very reason they got to the point of being worthy of reverence is that they were humble in their knowledge that there is always a lot to learn, and that there are many that do have insights that they didn't. So, I encourage you to take a deep breath, calm down and don't blow an opportunity to grow as a music lover and there is a great deal to learn; a little humility is always a good thing.

Having said all that, Wynton is not God, and I will dare to criticize him. He is a great instrumentalist and a great ambassador for jazz; but he has added little to the evolution of jazz. His undeniable and great contribution is of the "museum" type. "Layla" with Clapton? Please, are you serious? I would respectfully suggest that you are letting your admiration for the man and everything that he represents influence your perception of his musical relevance.

So, I would suggest that everyone take a deep breath, understand that it is the very passion that we feel for music that causes us to act irrationally (I include myself), and get back to the business of sharing great music and hopefully growing in the process.

In the hope that we will be able to do that, I will post what was going to be my next post before I read some of the above.

Now, now, Rok, you promised to "never again". Well, this is one of those times when I have to ask myself: "Do I let that comment go by in the interest of not getting Rok riled up? Or, do I respond to the comment in a way that promotes healthy debate, and take my chances; after all he DID open the door. Hell, we know the answer..... :-) Two issues:

****This reminded me of the Hancock piece****

Huh!? I don't get it, but one's REACTION to music is personal and subjective; good enough for me.
Similarities: instrumental, electric instruments, Latin percussion, same era.
That's where the similarities end and says nothing about style, and overall vibe. Still, it made you think of it; can't argue with that and to think of good music is always a good thing.

****this is better than the Hancock piece****

Is an apple better than a banana?

Not trying to be provocative, Rok; but, that comment demands a comparison of the two. Like you, I love that stuff; but, it is nothing like Herbie's music. Santana's band was very exciting (dynamic range?) like few others, but was clearly coming, first and foremost, out of a rock bag with Latin and funk elements. Herbie's Headhunters were jazz players bringing that sensibility to a funk bag. It's not a question of perfection, the level of improvisation, nuance, and command of harmony is not even in the same ballpark; or, should I say, fruit bowl. So, you like apples more than bananas; no problem there. But, better? Not in my kitchen :-)

BTW, this is THE live version of that Santana tune; amazing time in music history:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZceAQSJvc