Jazz for aficionados

***** not trying to be a provocateur *****

Don't worry.   This thread is lousy with those.


*****  But is he "keeper of the flame" as it were?  *****

Yes.  For all practical purposes, he is.

*****  I'd be real interested knowing what criteria he's using to arrive at those judgements...which is just another way of asking, has he got a "definition" of jazz?  *****

The criteria is drawn from his background.  He Comes from a very distinguished and established musical family, in the birth place of jazz, New Orleans.   Knows the history of the music, from it's roots and beginnings.  Is a virtuoso on his instrument. Holds the most important position in the world of Jazz today,  leader at JALC.   Is the media's go to guy  for all things Jazz.   Very articulate.   Very personable. Educated. Can talk about, explain, and teach the young about the music.

As far as slamming Miles:  Coming out of New Orleans, with his pedigree, he was not / is not, intimidated by Miles  or anyone else.

He is so important, we have to think in terms of who will be his successor.
We don't think that way about any other player.

Knows how to dress.  Looks, talks and acts like a Jazz player.

He is Da man!!

Cheers

Jafant asks:

****Over what subject matter?****

Jazz; or, more specifically, the idea that the music that Metheny and (late) Miles played was not jazz.

****Why?****

Its actually quite simple.  In the case of Miles, because it was Miles who first criticized the young Wynton, who was being touted as the next big thing, because (and to quote Miles) "he ain't saying shit".  It is only human nature that there would be some resentment there on the part of Wynton.  Obviously, I can't get inside Wynton's head, but I do agree with the assessment of many in the jazz community that Wynton's rep as an important jazz PLAYER was seriously overstated.  This has been commented on many times here and certainly elsewhere.  Wynton is a force of nature as virtuoso trumpet player, champion of jazz and its roots, jazz educator, and more; all of that is undeniable and he deserves tremendous credit.  However, in my opinion and that of many, Miles was right; he just doesn't have "the thing".  His jazz is impressive for what he can do with a trumpet, not for his ability to tell a story when he improvises.  He has built an empire around the "preservation" of traditional jazz.  I believe he is totally sincere; but, as with the rare well meaning politician, the lines get blurred and it's only natural to fall into the trap of condemning what does not fit his formula.  

****Coming from Wynton, it cannot be ignored.****

Of course it can be.  It usually isn't ignored; however, not being ignored doesn't necessarily mean being correct. 

Rok - 
Not much time this AM.  Will write more later.  Great answer.  Knew of the man but not much more.  Have to say again, I enjoyed that video of his jazz band's performance that you posted.  Do you not think Wynton has any peers in today's jazz music world?  No other equally qualified authoritative voices?  If I were serious about pursuing this topic would have to read Marsalis...try to see if he wrote specifically about defining jazz.  "I know it when I hear it" doesn't do too much for me.  OK.  Later and Thanks.

Some further thoughts on the topic of Wynton:

Rok states:

****The criteria is drawn from his background. He Comes from a very distinguished and established musical family, in the birth place of jazz, New Orleans. Knows the history of the music, from it’s roots and beginnings. Is a virtuoso on his instrument. Holds the most important position in the world of Jazz today, leader at JALC. Is the media’s go to guy for all things Jazz. Very articulate. Very personable. Educated. Can talk about, explain, and teach the young about the music.****

Everything that Rok says is true. However, notice the conspicuous absence of a comment about his jazz playing. It would be an exaggeration to quote the old adage "those who can’t, teach", but I think it’s important to put Wynton’s sheer credibility as a jazz player as part of the backdrop before accepting everything that the guy says as gospel or that he has THE definition of jazz.  

There is an interesting irony in what Wynton has accomplished in all the ways already described. Here we have an art form that has been traditionally and staunchly resistant to the rules of "the establishment" and things like "jazz education"; a music which is deeply about self expression and soul. Yet, Wynton, himself, has become "the establishment". He holds, as Rok points out, the highest "position" in jazz. Who woulda thunk? A "position" in jazz? When and how did that happen?

What the purists don’t want to accept is that you can’t stop the evolution of the art form (any art form); it is always a reflection of the times. The purist thinks that he is "protecting" the art form by blanketly (?) rejecting the new. I think Wynton can take much credit for keeping the flame of tradition alive. However, one has to ask oneself the question? Ultimately, what does the most damage to art in the overall scheme of things? To try to keep the flame of tradition alive by rejecting the new directions that the art form takes; directions which are a natural part of its process. Or, to accept the new directions with the knowledge that accepting the new doesn’t have to mean forgetting about tradition, while holding the new up to the same standars for defining excellence. By doing the latter, what you end up doing is bringing a larger and younger audience to the art form who will end up discovering the traditional. There is always room for the new and the old, and excellence is not defined by whether it is new or whether it is old.

Ghosthouse, thanks for the Andy Summers clip; I enjoyed it.