Wow... that was deep. I feel him.

Who thinks of what they’ll name the baby while they’re fucking?

too deep..

HuMpThAnG said:

Who thinks of what they’ll name the baby while they’re fucking?

too deep..

Somebody had to keep it real! Hahaha

Could this apply other genre of music as well?

funkpill said:

Could this apply other genre of music as well?

Based on how you interpret it.

theAudience said:

Jazz died in 1959.

Wynton Marsalis probably agrees with this, but for a totally different reason.

MickyDolenz said:

theAudience said:

Jazz died in 1959.

Wynton Marsalis probably agrees with this, but for a totally different reason.

Wynton's a bore anyway. He helped "kill" it dissing Miles and shit. Fuck him.

Interesting...

steam....

I agree.

If jazz died in '59, for what reason should I care about his rambling gobbledygook and CDs?

I randomly discovered his new album "Bitches" on Spotify a few weeks ago and he's quite a cackle over on twitter.

Bird felt the same way about categorizing music.

Theoretically, he's right. But, to paraphrase Rama-Kandra in The Matrix Revolutions, jazz is but a word. The importance is the concept associated with or impled by the word.

I spent the better part of a decade delving into the jazz catalogue. I developed my likes and dislikes. As with any new, anxious student, I segregated "jazz" from "not jazz," be it called fusion, smooth jazz, etc. I still feel some so-called jazz does not move or explore like jazz does. But I've come to realize that jazz comes from all corners, in many ways, expected and unexpected.

But what has happened with jazz is not all that different from what has happened with all forms of music. It is expended, co-opted, and fossilized in the name of "preservation." Eventually, it is self-contained. And tastes change with the times, so it becomes part of the same establishment it sought to energize. It happened with so-called classical music, blues, soul, rock, and to a certain degree, hip-hop.

I agree with a lot of what he's said.

Timmy84 said:

funkpill said:

Could this apply other genre of music as well?

Based on how you interpret it.

I say yes.

hey....jazz IS cool.

how else is a white guy like me meant to be cool.beret on.cigarette hanging out.clicking my gingers to the cats on the trumpet

i jest.thats a cool piece

1916-1959? So, according to the writer the first jazz song was in 1916. Maybe I am stupid for not knowing this but which song is credited with being the first jazz song?

I get what he's saying.

But I think his argument falls apart when he categorizes himself by a region (which can be home to a number of different styles, as New Orleans is).

Throwing around a postmodern New Orleans label is silly.

If labels are inherently bad, just call yourself a musician or an artist.

ThreadBare said:

I get what he's saying.

But I think his argument falls apart when he categorizes himself by a region (which can be home to a number of different styles, as New Orleans is).

Throwing around a postmodern New Orleans label is silly.

If labels are inherently bad, just call yourself a musician or an artist.

TB, you're right . . . I agree with much of what he said but that is a huge self-contradiction.

ThreadBare said:

I get what he's saying.

But I think his argument falls apart when he categorizes himself by a region (which can be home to a number of different styles, as New Orleans is).

Throwing around a postmodern New Orleans label is silly.

If labels are inherently bad, just call yourself a musician or an artist.

That's true...

it would be interesting to see what he feels constitutes a "jazz" festival these days.

where i live in NZ the local jazz festival borders on parody

I agree 110% with this. I played jazz semi-professionally for several years and while I was in college and it seemed like all anyone ever wanted to do was play out of the Real Book. I love Gershwin but how many times can you play "Love Is Here To Stay" before it's enough? Try calling something not in the Real Book and see how many blank looks you get.

Once academia co=opted it, it was over.

But I've been listening to a lot of jazz influenced electronic musicians and groups like Jazzanova, Jaga Jazzist, and the like, and to me there's a really great direction going on there. Jaga is more like a jazz/electronic art band, and Jazzanova uses a lot of jazz samples and combines them with live instrumentation.

His "label" of himself is totally okay because he gave it to himself. That's his point. Self-naming, not the "establishment" doing it for u.

datdude said:

His "label" of himself is totally okay because he gave it to himself. That's his point. Self-naming, not the "establishment" doing it for u.

But, he gives it to other people, too. A label is a label. He's still trying to assign a context to someone else. Same thing.

MickyDolenz said:

theAudience said:

Jazz died in 1959.

Wynton Marsalis probably agrees with this, but for a totally different reason.

Yes, he's ^ the professor of necrophiliacs.

I like Nicholas Payton's post - I totally get what he's saying.

Recently I saw that famous b&w photo of many jazz musicians gathered together on the steps - I saw it in the lobby of Enterprise car rental. It didn't have to do with anything else in the room. It's like it's a piece of decoration - here's a landscape photo, here's a geometric design picture, and here's a picture of "jazz." I shook my head at that.

MickyDolenz said:

theAudience said:

Jazz died in 1959.

Wynton Marsalis probably agrees with this, but for a totally different reason.

Yes, he's ^ the professor of necrophiliacs.

I like Nicholas Payton's post - I totally get what he's saying.

Recently I saw that famous b&w photo of many jazz musicians gathered together on the steps - I saw it in the lobby of Enterprise car rental. It didn't have to do with anything else in the room. It's like it's a piece of decoration - here's a landscape photo, here's a geometric design picture, and here's a picture of "jazz." I shook my head at that.

ThreadBare said:

datdude said:

His "label" of himself is totally okay because he gave it to himself. That's his point. Self-naming, not the "establishment" doing it for u.

But, he gives it to other people, too. A label is a label. He's still trying to assign a context to someone else. Same thing.

but Nicholas is one person, not "the establishment," thus he can't cause the labels he applied to the others to "stick" or brand them accordingly. they could reject them also based on how they see themselves. kind of like "neo soul" artists; some like the label, some don't. self generating or even artist generating is better than industry generating labels

not sure if nicholas was aiming for this ..but thats on my fridge now!

Recently I saw that famous b&w photo of many jazz musicians gathered together on the steps - I saw it in the lobby of Enterprise car rental. It didn't have to do with anything else in the room. It's like it's a piece of decoration - here's a landscape photo, here's a geometric design picture, and here's a picture of "jazz." I shook my head at that.

Im not trying to be snarky but, do you not know the name of "that famous photo" or its well known photog? You seem to be looking down upon someone's lack of knowlege about an item you didn't even address appropritely.

And since when does one have to create a whole design scheme to hang "that famous photo of many jazz musicians"?

[Edited 12/5/11 18:26pm]

Timmy84 said:

ThreadBare said:

I get what he's saying.

But I think his argument falls apart when he categorizes himself by a region (which can be home to a number of different styles, as New Orleans is).

Throwing around a postmodern New Orleans label is silly.

If labels are inherently bad, just call yourself a musician or an artist.

That's true...

I think he talks about his hometown because it's such a vibrant music community, but you have a point. Detroit is the birthplace of the Motown R&B/soul sound, but would Iggy Pop, KISS, Madonna, Bob Seger, Kid Rock, and Eminem call themselves Motown artists? I doubt it.