swiftyweb said:

well, maybe Prince wasn't trying to be "jazz" with madhouse, etc...maybe he was trying to something else...what, we don't know LOL In other words, it could've been bad "jazz" but an excellent "something else" (whatever that something else is)

pennylover said:

yeah but it wasn't a jazz grammy, it was an instrumental grammy, I think.

SquarePeg said:

If you use a Grammy nomination as a reason for a piece of music's greatness, then you really need to wake up. Grammy's don't mean shit. I go to jazz school, and people do the same thing with Downbeat Critics polls. It's bullshit. Means nothing. Shit, man. Christina Aguilera won a Grammy. She must be great, right? The Grammys are an entertaining evening of music, some great (eg, Prince), some shit (eg, most everything else). Nothing more.

I don't care what you call it... but the first track on NEWS kicks ass! I think it's 'North'.
When it builds momentum and Prince kicks in with his guitar part - I LOVE IT!!
Yes, I think it's more rock/funk than Jazz but, um, whatever..!


Another thing about NEWS is the superb quality of the recording. I play it on my NAD and ANGSTROM system and it sounds powerful! I do wish he had turned the volume up on his guitar during WEST however. It's typical of him to understate his awsome playing.

I think he starts of thinking he'll make a jazzish album but when he turns on the guitar, he can't resist! He goes nuts.. and I love it:))

What I wish he would do is unleash a over heavy guitar album. YES!

Another thing about the Grammy's, I know a guy that works at a record company, and was at one point, part of the academy that votes for the Grammys. He told me that the president of his label basically ordered him and everyone else on the academy that was part of the label, to vote only for people on their label.

Dauphin said:

Thank you. It's completely silly to even hold a non-jazz musician to the same standards of any Mount Rushmore jazzmen. Just as it would be silly to hold them to the standards that Prince has set for himself outside of the jazz genre. The guy has never been a jazz artist or claimed to be one. He's a fusion artist, no I'm not talking about jazz fusion, I'm talking about fusing disparate elements of many to make for a different whole, sometimes within a few bars of a single song. He refuses to color within the lines of the palette some narrow minds want to confine him to. But NEWS IS a Fusion album, whether one likes it or not is irrelavent to that fact.

He'll try things he's not supposed to because he has the balls, talent and vision to do it whereas most don't, and surely very few who ever had as much success in the confines of the popular music market. When Branford Marsalis takes his non jazz excursions is he expected to do what Prince has done as well as he's done it?

Jazz fans, and I am one, have a (sometimes well-earned) reputation for being elitist snobs. Thank God people like Miles Davis had the balls and ability to give the silent up yours gesture to the elitist contingent, or jazz would be very, very different without his contribution. It's not about stagnation, it's supposed to grow like any other genre.

Fortunately not being a newbie I've learned to never depend upon Prince fans to help me to determine what I should buy next if I don't already have it. Prince fans here have never agreed on much of anything, and had I thrown away my own curiosity to give NEWS a reasonable chance simply because it's not a typical album full of lyrics and verse, chorus, verse, chorus song structure, it would have been my loss.

Bluesnswing said:

Bluesnswing, you made some very nice points. Based on what you said however, I have decided that I hate jazz. What do you mean by innovation finding an artist? I do agree that those who have dedicated their lives to the art form will have a better understanding of it, and thus be better able to innovate, but I still believe they find innovation, and not vice versa.

See, I used the flecktones specifically as an example because I would have never classified them as jazz, and yet every music reviewer and every music store I have gone to has. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that jazz, not by me, but by others, has accepted artists who are more liberal with the rules, at least on occasion.

I don't mean to say jazz innovation stopped in the 60s, I guess what I was trying to say is a lot have people decided not to pay attention to some directions that were taken, and paid more attention to other directions. That's what I've observed anyway.

BUT, to conclude, I think the difference of opinion rests in how we define jazz. You said "I'm not going to slap a classification on it that will give it more respect, if it's not the case", which I think shows how we label music. I wasn't putting a "jazz" label on those albums to give them more respect, that's just what I thought I heard. It almost sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're saying there's no such thing as bad jazz, or jazz that shouldn't be respected. I labelled his albums as jazz because, trying to subjectively categorize all the music I've ever heard, NEWS and Madhouse and Xpectation fit best in the jazz category, better than in R&B, Soul, Rock, Funk or whatever. But classification has never stopped me from embracing music, and it's virtually meaningless except as a way of grouping like-sounds in my mind. So, I'm not really saying that because I like Prince's "jazz" he is therefore a jazz master. I was more saying I like Prince's jazz, and it sounds most like jazz, so I consider it to fit in the jazz genre. But, I've always had a thing against segregating music into strict categories, which may be why I have a thing against the idea of jazz being an art-from that doesn't encourage innovation. I try to ignore music that does that, though I still have a great love of many jazz artists who are innovative.

I don't know, I'm rambling now, but point blank, It's jazz to me because it sounds like jazz, for better or for worse, and is labelled as such not for purposes of respect or to elevate Prince onto some sort of higher plane. The same way Dr. Phil isn't really a psychiatrist , and might be the last person I'd go to for counselling. But, as I already admitted, my jazz knowledge is very limited compared to yours, my definitions have more to do with what I think ALL music should be like, and not just one particular type.

JazZ!!!!!

Supernova said:

the both of youz
[Edited 9/5/04 19:35pm]

Bluesnswing said:

You make some decent points, but the above one is the stupidest comment about musical creativity I have witnessed anyone put across in a long time. Sorry, that's just completely unfounded. You can make terribly innovative music with just cranking a plug into a preamp in a very innovative way, producing larger than life harmonies and rhythms - there is no reason why using such a way to produce music couldn't be jazz if it will resemble jazz enough. Ornette Coleman knew shit about "mastering the masters" before he completely changed the face of jazz in the 60s. Of course, a certain brand of people just refused to accept that as jazz altogether, and that's pretty lousy elitism if you ask me. It really doesn't help the situation at all.

This is a great thread. Perhaps the best thread on the .org for years. However, all this quasi-semiotic crap about "NEWS" et al. not being jazz albums, or even applicable to being classified as "jazz/fusion" albums has got to stop here. They are obviously jazz fusion, plain and simple. Just use your ears. It's really not that hard.

That doesn't mean that musical genres always get their boundaries from their distinctive sound exlusively .There is also referential modern music - many genres from the restricted cultural production field operate in such manners (Bela Fleck being an example of such a thing). Sometimes classifying music is a complex matter, sometimes it's dead on easy. The easiest giveaway however is that if it sounds like something then there is a pretty big chance it is just that.

Electronic music, in overall, is one notorious example of genres intercrossing in an absurd manner - for instance "breakcore" is a subgenre of industrial music even though in many cases it sounds like just conventional d'n'b to most ears. This is not the case with Prince's jazz music, because jazz fusion is jazz. Get out from the 70s already.
[Edited 9/6/04 3:15am]

Bluesnswing said:

none of these industry award things are really worth the paper the nominations are written on. Elliot Gould said the he and everyone he knows votes for there friends at the Oscars, if one of his friends films are mentioned in all catorgories he votes for them throuout, and the same pretty much goes for everyone else. Some people have never heard or seen the art they are voting for.

NEWS is good though, but not as good as Heavy Weather.

Novabreaker said:

It's an American way of thinking to believe that the easy way out can produce great art. The easy way out, in this case, would be to make music devoid of study and an understanding of the tradition, and consider it innovative. There's also covert racist connotations to that belief. People think that an artform created by dark-skinned people is too abstract and foreign to warrant serious study.

Nova, I've done a shitload of intense study on the music, and have had many great talks with some of the most important musicians, so (while I know this sounds incredibly conceited), I think I know what I'm talking about. The statement I made has been proven by history. Charlie Parker didn't become Charlie Parker until he had learned a slew of Lester Young solos. Ornette Coleman didn't change the face of jazz. His music was an extension, not a rebellion. Even he says so. And it's not just jazz. Do you think Picasso just started his career with cubism? Did Einstein just fall out of bed one morning and invent the theory of relativity? Hell no. How about this: You show me one example of an innovative jazz musician whose sound has come about without the influence of the masters that came before him/her. I'm giving you your chance to prove me wrong. I'm just asking for one name. If you can give me that name, I'll eat my copy of "N.E.W.S." smothered in hot sauce, with a side of potato salad. Deal?

Bluesnswing said:

Okay. You just unfortunately managed to make your point a lot more idiotic than it originally was. There are absolutely no "American" or "racial" connotations to whatever any of us have said. The fact that you don't personally appreciate artists who don't possess outstanding technical skills doesn't mean their art would be substandard.

And once more, bringing that racial bullshit into this discussion is a very cheap shot and completely unfounded as well for that matter.



You are contradicting yourself. If this is your rationale it would also mean you don't believe that Prince has ever listened to jazz himself or studied one single jazz phrase before attempting to create his jazz music. You are talking about two different things in your earlier post and this one: first your claim is that only intense/formal study of a past master can produce great aesthetic works, now you are merely referring to the common route of getting to know the trade before attempting it. Well - that is just natural, but it has nothing to do with your original statement.

Picasso's cubism wasn't terribly influenced by anyone - his formal painting skills were, but he chose to drop them in favour of almost naive exploration. Ornette Coleman's trumpet and violin playing was very amateurish to say the least, he had never really spent much time on those instruments before using them in his music - let alone studied the past masters intensively.

Hell, Prince worked with Miles Davis. I think he might have some credentials in jazz music just by that merit alone.



Deal. Otomo Yoshihide.

How does it taste? Is the sauce any good?

Once again, as someone has already mentioned:

Who says that Prince is attempting to play jazz, or fusion, or anything else for that matter?

This is what happens: You make a certain association, based on your experiences (for example: "hm...this sounds like jazz to me"), and just assume that's what he's trying to do. You judge his music from that viewpoint, with your own expectations as well as general criteria for that specific genre...and then perhaps come to the conclusion that it's no good, that he shouldn't be doing it, or whatever.

I don't think that's fair. It's like if I would paint an abstract picture, and you decide for yourself that it's a picture of a horse, then you're disappointed when it doesn't look like one... "Why is he trying to paint horse pictures, he doesn't know how it's supposed to be done!"

Or if I just made the assumption that Prince is a country & western artist, and listened to all his albums with that kind of expectations...then I wouldn't really like them, would I?

Oh c'mon. Are you seriously trying to say Prince didn't intend to create jazz with N.E.W.S.? Sure it ventures into other areas as well, but primarily the vehicle is definitely jazz. Jazz fusion / whatever.

Uhm, weren't these kind of albums labeled "New Directions in Music" by Prince?

Or did he actually go out and call these proper jazz or jazz/fusion albums?

It's like someone else said, it's jazz Prince's style. There's bound to be abundant
elements of rock and funk it there.

If he'd given his bandmembers some more input on the albums Xpectation & News
I think they would have come out better in the process.

Why the hell is Renato pushed to the side on studio records? His solo on "North"
is probably the best moment on "NEWS". Well, the most beautiful anyway.

But hey, I enjoy these albums a lot. Especially C-Note, which is my fav of the lot.

Novabreaker said:

I'm not gonna say anything about what Prince intended to create, because I really don't know and it would only be speculation.

If you really feel that you can - and must - place the music and its intentions in a specific genre, go right ahead! But as far as I can see, there's really nothing you can gain from doing that... you can only lose, as there might be qualities in the music that you just won't see, when you've chosen to look at it from a certain angle.

It's like a sculpture - if you don't see what it's supposed to be, maybe you're looking at it the wrong way...
[Edited 9/7/04 8:32am]

Bluesnswing said:

fuck you, I was just clarifying what kind of grammy it was....don't get huffy with me

RealMusician said:

What would I lose by that exactly? Placing a musical piece within a genre tradition doesn't take away anything from it. Instead it can also offer very useful reference points. I think it's pretty apparent that some moments on N.E.W.S. (being the one from the bunch that I have found myself listening to most) are strongly reminiscent of the music by The Headhunters and Weather Report. Are you really trying to suggest that I shouldn't listen to it as a jazz album because it's restricitng? Oh well...

Novabreaker said:

For example: I went to the Prince concert in Stockholm two years ago (the ONA tour). Several people in that audience - as well as the critics in the papers, the next day - thought there was way too much solos and long instrumental segments. It was obvious to me that the show simply didn't coincide with their expectations, which perhaps was for a more hit-oriented pop performance. They listened to it as a pop concert, and didn't like it since it contained elements and qualities that are considered "negative" in that particular context.

Now, suppose the papers had sent their jazz critics instead, thinking they were gonna see a jazz concert. They might have noticed the very same elements, but as being something positive! On the other hand, they probably would have found other things to complain about, from their point of view. Both ways, I think you would have missed the point!

If an artist himself clearly states that his music belongs to a specific genre, then I think it's only fair to listen to it as such. I would say that - for instance - B.B. King, Alan Jackson, and 50 Cent are examples of artists that are very obvious in that sense.

But a lot of versatile, wide-ranged artists - like Prince - don't really talk about their music in such terms. I think it's probably because they feel their music has many different sides, and they don't want to lead their audience in any particular direction. When you put labels on your own music, you're basically saying "Ok, now you know the criteria for rating this music...what do you think?"

It's like if you describe water as "something you can drink for dinner". Then it's really not that impressive, compared to wine or champagne. But if you also mention that you can wash yourself in it, you can cook with it, you can swim in it, you can ride a boat in it, you can skate on it when it's frozen etc - then you can really understand its greatness!

IMO, as a fan of different types of jazz, it seems that, so far, Prince's music is more adventurous when he's putting out his usual albums, and he's at his least imaginative when he's purposely trying to do "adventurous instrumental music" like Xpectation or the others..." I certainly don't blame him for trying; I love that he's always expanding his horizons, always growing and should continue...But that doesn't make what he's doing really jazz (and it's true that Prince himself has never claimed that any of these albums were jazz-- even if that was what inspired them...He just refers to it as " new directions" in music ) - just because he plays instrumental music, that doesn't mean that he's necessarily playing jazz( though it can arguably be called a type of "fusion")... for example, even though he's often lumped in with jazz players, David Sanborn considers himself "an R&B musician... That's my background." I play instrumental music, which sometimes might have some elements of Jazz, but it's really Instrumental R&B"...
groups like Yes and Genesis made albums of insrumental music ,but were Certainly never called jazz...and although Jeff Beck played with Stanley Clarke and Narada Michael Walden, he never called his own albums jazz albums, even though there were elements of "fusion" there...Donald Fagen and Walter Becker never called Steely Dan a jazz group, even though they are heavily influenced by Jazz and regularly use jazz musicians....Sting never called 'Dream of the Blue Turtles ' a jazz album just because Branford, Omar Hakim and Daryl Joneswere there. Joni Mitchell regularly uses jazz musicians on her albums ,Frank Zappa, has legions of great instrumental music but they aren't called Jazz albums, etc....

I think the problem is the term "Jazz" itself... In its formal sense, it connotates musicians who have spent years playing and digesting a tradition that extends from early blues to the more structured improvisation of W. C. Handy and Louis Armstrong, all the way up through to Miles Davis, Coltrane, Wayne Shorter and beyond...you couldn't just start playing Bebop ... you had to start from the beginning and learn all those forms... even with fusion , there was still a tradition you had to learn...Now, if you listen to the radio,the term "Jazz" seems to have become a convenient shorthand for anybody playing instrumental music...

BTW, Just because players Like Miles Davis, John Mclaughlin and Herbie Hancock learned the jazz tradition, that doesn't mean they were bound by it... they became influenced by(and wanted to play with) people like Hendrix, Sly Stone, and James Brown(and Prince)...they considered them great artists, and they always wanted to expand their boundaries, as well as learning from the past...

the common denominator is that none of the true innovators in music -- Miles, Herbie, Prince, Sly, Zappa etc.--want to be bound by labels ...Herbie and Miles did not want to be labeled as just Jazz players, any more than Hendrix wanted to be labeled as a Rock star...they want to be great Musicians ultimately, open to all experiences...
[Edited 9/8/04 12:17pm]

RealMusician said:

Okay, sure. But placing a musical piece within a genre doesn't necessarily mean that you'll yourself have to view it in any negative light. Instead, just like an earlier post said it can be terribly exciting when Bela Fleck's "non-jazz jazz" gets perceived as jazz. I find it very fruitful and an opening experience when that happens. You don't have to inexorably rate everything according to some imaginary "standard of jazz". Stretching genre boundaries can be very exciting to me personally - instead copping out by saying "this music doesn't belong in any genre because it's just so goddamn adventurous and I am a genius, see?" isn't. Prince obviously used jazz music as the main vehicle on his instrumental albums so it's more than apt to say that they are indeed Prince's "jazz albums".

Novabreaker said:

How is that obvious?

RealMusician said:

Exactly! Now that's what i like about a Prince concert, all these different elements of music and styles. But then i'm always asking myself a question during the show:
damn isn't he compromising too much just because the audience only wants to hear 'his poppy side' and hits?
But then you realize, hey Prince is a popstar and that's what people expect him to be so he will never play adventurous at a big concert.
Maybe i expect too much of Prince! But on the other hand i'm sure he couldn't go on playing all the hits for the next ten years, over and over again.
So maybe in the future he will do more intimitate, soulful (not just those jukebox pop hits) sets, i'm looking forward to that.



Yes again! I don't care how you want to label N.E.W.S., i call it instrumental music hehe.
People shouldn't stop me from liking it because they think it should be judged by classic jazz standards or whatever.
I know my jazz classics and even though i do not judge N.E.W.S. by those standards, i can say it's not a great album.
Sometimes it's fine to listen to, Prince playing some tunes u know, that's all.

RealMusician said:

Ok. You are just stupid. I see.
[Edited 9/10/04 0:58am]

jacktheimprovident said:

K. I LOVE jazz. I love Prince. Prince is NOT good at jazz. Half the shit he writes sounds like a half-assed version of the Pink Panther theme.

Luv & Peace,
Alex
Clubbin' in Mpls/A Night w. Prince

Novabreaker said:

No, wait a minute... I'm just being a little provocative, because I'd like to hear your definition of "jazz music"...could you explain it?

RealMusician said:

good question!

RealMusician said:

Okay okay...

My definition of jazz music...

Sure you beat me to it. I could always quote a dictionary definition, but those things never cover anything. A musical genre is always a Wittgensteinian association circle / group that is bound loosely together by tradition and artists sharing a similiar tendency of expression. On an institutional level there is always the need for distinct jazz labels and publications (in whatever form both might exist) - even though this is not crucial to the existence of a musical expression it has proven out to be unavoidable in practice.

I know it's unfair to say so, but the closest thing to truth we could ever come to would be:
"Jazz music is
1) music that bears enough similarities with the tradition of jazz music."
1.1) tradition of jazz music is comprised of recordings and performances that have been "tagged" jazz in the past. For the sake of generalization or, even, commercial gain.
1.1.1) Both reasons can be equally valid, yet in the current tradition of viewing art forms as whole, the reference to commercial status is (still) seen as inferior.
1.2) These similarities can be only proven subjectively.
1.2.1) However a consensus of what jazz is, or what it might be, already (potentially) exists backing up the concept of the "tradition of jazz music".
2) made by jazz musicians."
2.1) a jazz musician is a person who has enough status to be viewed as such by the general public OR the group of experts (in this case other jazz musicians).
2.1.1) you can become a jazz musician by playing jazz.
2.1.2) Playing jazz means you can perform a musical piece that bears enough similarities with the other performances in the tradition of jazz music.
2.1.2.1) Similarities can only be viewed subjectively.
2.1.2.2) Yet there (potentially) exists a consensus. [we cannot be sure a consensus actually exists - however we do seem to act according to general rules (i.e. moral codes and such) so it's valid to assume a similiar, loose code for aesthetic classifications exists)
2.2) Validation happens quicker through the approval of experts rather than through the approval by commercial status.

Or something like that... blah blah. I already got bored with it... jeez. Man, do I really have to bother with this philosophical language game shit on my day-off...